text
stringlengths 39
745k
|
|---|
---
abstract: 'The pivot algorithm is the most efficient known method for sampling polymer configurations for self-avoiding walks and related models. Here we introduce two recent improvements to an efficient binary tree implementation of the pivot algorithm: an extension to an off-lattice model, and a parallel implementation.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics, Swinburne University of Technology, P.O. Box 218, Hawthorn, Victoria 3122, Australia'
author:
- Nathan Clisby and Dac Thanh Chuong Ho
title: 'Off-lattice and parallel implementations of the pivot algorithm'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Self-avoiding walks are non-intersecting paths on lattices such as the two-dimensional square lattice or the three-dimensional simple cubic lattice. Due to universality, they exactly capture the essential physics of the excluded-volume effect for polymers in the good-solvent limit, and as such can be used to study features such as the value of the Flory exponent $\nu$ which relates the geometric size of a walk to the number of monomers in the chain.
The pivot algorithm is the most efficient known method for sampling self-avoiding walks of fixed length. It is a Markov chain Monte Carlo method, which was invented by Lal [@Lal1969MonteCarlocomputer], but first studied in depth by Madras and Sokal [@Madras1988PivotAlgorithmHighly], who also invented an efficient hash table implementation. Recent improvements to the implementation of the pivot algorithm [@Kennedy2002fasterimplementationpivot; @Clisby2010AccurateEstimateCritical; @Clisby2010Efficientimplementationpivot] have dramatically improved computational efficiency to the point where it is possible to rapidly sample polymer configurations with up to 1 billion monomers [@Clisby2018MonteCarlo4dSAWs].
In this paper, we will describe two recent improvements in algorithms to sample self-avoiding walks, focusing in particular on the pivot algorithm. In Sec. \[sec:offlattice\] we describe an off-lattice implementation of the SAW-tree data structure [@Clisby2010Efficientimplementationpivot]. In Sec. \[sec:parallel\] we describe a parallel implementation of the pivot algorithm which improves the sampling rate for very long walks. Finally, we have a brief discussion about prospects for further progress and conclude in Sec. \[sec:conclusion\].
Off-lattice implementation {#sec:offlattice}
==========================
The SAW-tree data structure [@Clisby2010Efficientimplementationpivot] is a binary tree that encodes information about the self-avoiding in an efficient way in nodes in the tree. In particular, the leaves of the tree consist of individual monomers, while the internal nodes store aggregate information about all of the monomers that are below that node within the tree, as well as “symmetry” information which encodes transformations that must be applied to sub-walks before they are concatenated together. The aggregate information that must be stored includes information about the extent of the sub-walk in the form of a “bounding volume”, which is taken to be a rectangle for square-lattice walks, and a rectangular prism for simple-cubic-lattice walks. For lattice self-avoiding walks, the symmetry elements are rotations and reflections that leave the lattice invariant. See [@Clisby2010Efficientimplementationpivot] for a full description of the implementation.
Although lattice self-avoiding walks capture the universal behaviour of polymers in the good-solvent limit, there are strong arguments for why off-lattice models of polymers may have advantages under certain circumstances. Firstly, they provide an opportunity to empirically model more realistic interactions for polymers, and thus to reproduce not only universal features but also make precise experimental predictions. Secondly, under some circumstances it may be the case that the effect of the lattice may have a non-negligible effect, for example when trying to understand the nature of the globule transition it may be the case that the restriction to the lattice significantly influences the nature of the transition. Finally, while lattices have discrete symmetry groups, the symmetry group corresponding to reflections and rotations of ${{\mathbb R}}^d$ is the continuous orthogonal group $O(d)$. This continuous group allows for more freedom for performing pivot moves, and it is conceivable that this additional freedom may enhance sampling efficiency under some circumstances.
We implement the SAW-tree for the bead-necklace, or tangent-hard-sphere, model, which consists of a fully flexible chain of hard spheres that just touch. A typical configuration for this model in ${{\mathbb R}}^2$ is shown in Fig. \[fig:ths\].
( 0.000000000000000e+00, 0.000000000000000e+00) circle (0.5); ( 9.786616592965383e-01, 2.054783604736682e-01) circle (0.5); ( 7.138507999451933e-01,-7.588220122160878e-01) circle (0.5); ( 1.652016368820576e+00,-1.105008905926305e+00) circle (0.5); ( 2.646246004809292e+00,-9.977362117224877e-01) circle (0.5); ( 2.489134802852920e+00,-1.985317130037450e+00) circle (0.5); ( 1.586240769818234e+00,-2.415180323519237e+00) circle (0.5); ( 1.247320086895478e+00,-3.355995273808173e+00) circle (0.5); ( 1.160688733842073e+00,-4.352235710985934e+00) circle (0.5); ( 7.015135092890352e-01,-5.240581428123505e+00) circle (0.5); ( 1.278387485331991e-01,-6.059664616128078e+00) circle (0.5); ( 9.829325913381517e-01,-6.578137874837782e+00) circle (0.5); ( 7.081814926340417e-01,-7.539653258885735e+00) circle (0.5); ( 1.695731958738442e+00,-7.696955760127714e+00) circle (0.5); ( 1.878679392456082e+00,-8.680078456690117e+00) circle (0.5); ( 1.728991642820777e+00,-9.668811776452891e+00) circle (0.5); ( 1.113220493093022e+00,-1.045673683073341e+01) circle (0.5); ( 3.795115065809678e-01,-9.777272980987558e+00) circle (0.5); (-2.104289417354798e-01,-1.058471973925722e+01) circle (0.5); (-5.009594578546239e-02,-1.157178272124454e+01) circle (0.5); (-1.042960620081759e+00,-1.145253617607652e+01) circle (0.5); (-1.745024251321964e+00,-1.074042195933189e+01) circle (0.5); (-2.285333890964720e+00,-1.158188823513212e+01) circle (0.5); (-3.279517601945027e+00,-1.168958572266747e+01) circle (0.5); (-3.014664949667944e+00,-1.072529682789485e+01) circle (0.5); (-3.886513092322947e+00,-1.023552053595228e+01) circle (0.5); (-4.882985538957040e+00,-1.015159995981588e+01) circle (0.5); (-5.158386379043892e+00,-1.111292944406124e+01) circle (0.5); (-6.156662931653451e+00,-1.105424448423360e+01) circle (0.5); (-6.375662239105125e+00,-1.202996949843365e+01) circle (0.5); (-7.032752317546095e+00,-1.278378156308533e+01) circle (0.5); (-6.934322713325797e+00,-1.377892557930260e+01) circle (0.5); (-6.990313442431963e+00,-1.477735686800211e+01) circle (0.5); (-7.486950105403038e+00,-1.564531540675437e+01) circle (0.5); (-7.455465187445388e+00,-1.664481963382957e+01) circle (0.5); (-7.664058957800536e+00,-1.762282200548775e+01) circle (0.5); (-8.591767582783518e+00,-1.799612711813984e+01) circle (0.5); (-9.548096314174508e+00,-1.770383384501146e+01) circle (0.5); (-1.042656985674248e+01,-1.722604284990159e+01) circle (0.5); (-1.106496930040173e+01,-1.645633761389526e+01) circle (0.5); (-1.171513371270300e+01,-1.569654406497756e+01) circle (0.5); (-1.259657486866839e+01,-1.522425020669611e+01) circle (0.5); (-1.283225528518851e+01,-1.619608082016170e+01) circle (0.5); (-1.382091634554016e+01,-1.604591655096177e+01) circle (0.5); (-1.455716917651184e+01,-1.672262311136013e+01) circle (0.5); (-1.523147064610889e+01,-1.746107929022200e+01) circle (0.5); (-1.621509248047241e+01,-1.764132381014795e+01) circle (0.5); (-1.721480257620690e+01,-1.761724634170690e+01) circle (0.5); (-1.741638639517049e+01,-1.859671760924467e+01) circle (0.5); (-1.833285653853490e+01,-1.819661452712505e+01) circle (0.5);
We will now describe the key features of our implementation, and will present evidence that the off-lattice SAW-tree implementation of the pivot algorithm has $O(\log N)$ performance in line with the performance of the original lattice SAW-tree implementation. The description will not be self-contained, and the interested reader is referred to [@Clisby2010Efficientimplementationpivot] for relevant details.
The orthogonal group $O(2)$ is used as the symmetry group for ${{\mathbb R}}^2$, and similarly $O(3)$ is used for ${{\mathbb R}}^3$. The orthogonal group includes rotations as the subgroups $SO(2)$ and $SO(3)$ respectively, but also includes reflection moves.
Symmetry group elements are sampled uniformly at random so as to preserve the Haar measure [@Stewart1980EfficientGenerationOfRandomOrthogonalMatrices] on the group. This automatically ensures that the Markov chain satisfies the detailed-balance condition, and so must be sampling configurations with uniform weights.
As for ergodicity, we feel that it is extremely likely that the algorithm is ergodic. For lattice models the pivot algorithm has been proved to be ergodic; this was first done for ${{\mathbb Z}}^2$ and ${{\mathbb Z}}^3$ in the seminal paper of Madras and Sokal [@Madras1988PivotAlgorithmHighly]. Interestingly, inclusion of reflections seem to be necessary for ergodicity for lattice models. In the continuum, it is our view that the additional freedom afforded as compared to the lattice should mean that pivot algorithm is ergodic in this case, too. We do not have sufficient insight into the problem to know whether the extra freedom would allow one to have an ergodic algorithm with only rotations (and not reflections). Some theoretical work has been done previously on the ergodicity of pivot moves for continuous models [@Plunkett2016OffLatticeSAWPivotAlgorithmVariant], but this is not directly relevant here as the proof relied on double-pivot moves.
The key decision for the SAW-tree implementation for the bead-necklace model is the choice of *bounding volume* to be used. The bounding volume is a shape which is stored in nodes in the SAW-tree, such that it is guaranteed that the entire sub-chain which is represented by the node is completely contained within the bounding volume. The use of a bounding volume is necessary for the rapid detection of self-intersections when a pivot move is attempted.
The natural choice of the bounding volume for ${{\mathbb Z}}^2$ is the rectangle, and for ${{\mathbb Z}}^3$ the natural choice is the rectangular prism. This is because these shapes snugly fit the sub-chains that they contain (in the sense that the sub-chains must touch each boundary or face of the shape), and the shapes are preserved under lattice symmetry operations.
The natural shape for the bounding volume for the bead-necklace model for ${{\mathbb R}}^2$ would seem to be the circle, and similarly for ${{\mathbb R}}^3$ the natural choice would be the sphere. This is because these are the only shapes that are invariant under the action of $O(2)$ and $O(3)$ respectively.
One of the operations that must be performed with bounding volumes [@Clisby2010Efficientimplementationpivot] is the merge operation, which involves combining two bounding volumes (which contain sub-chains) to create a bounding volume that contains both of the original bounding volumes (and hence contains both sub-chains). In contrast to the situation for lattice models, the bounding volumes which result from the merge operation do not necessarily form a snug fit for the polymer sub-chains. This is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:circle\] for an example in ${{\mathbb R}}^2$ where the snugly fitting bounding circles for two sub-chains are merged together so that they contain the concatenated walk. The concatenated walk *does not* touch the boundary of the larger circle.
(0.4,0.15) – (-0.61885,1.90211) ; (-0.61885,1.90211) – (-1.2,0.2); (-1.2,0.2) – (-0.85156,-1.809654) ; (-0.85156,-1.809654) – (0.7,-1.6); (0.7,-1.6) – (1.951834,0.436286);
(0,0) circle (2);
(-1.951834,0.4362868) – (-0.61885,1.90211); (-0.61885,1.90211) – (1.721484,1.01808) ; (1.721484,1.01808) – (0.7,-1.6); (0.7,-1.6)– (-0.85156,-1.809654); (-0.85156,-1.809654) – (-1.2,0.2); (-1.2,0.2)– (0.4,0.15);
(0,0) circle (2);
(0,0) circle (3.951834);
*A priori*, we had no expectation about whether the lack of snug fit for the bounding volumes would prove to be a significant problem. We considered it possible that the error from the fit would grow rapidly as one moved up the SAW-tree, and this would have worsened the performance of the intersection testing algorithm. But, we found that in fact this was not a problem at all. We estimated the mean ratio of the diameter of the bounding volume to the square root of the mean value of the squared end-to-end distance $\langle R_E^2 \rangle^{1/2}$. We found that as the length of the chains increased the ratio was approaching a constant for both ${{\mathbb R}}^2$ and ${{\mathbb R}}^3$, indicating that the error was becoming saturated. For chain lengths of $N=10^6$ this ratio was only 1.45 for ${{\mathbb R}}^2$, and 1.71 for ${{\mathbb R}}^3$. Thus, in the average case this suggests that the lack of a snug fit only results in a constant factor error in the diameter of the bounding volume for the off-lattice implementation. This means that the behaviour of the lattice and off-lattice implementations should be essentially the same, up to a constant factor.
We evaluated the mean CPU time per pivot move for a range of polymer lengths, for lattice and off-lattice SAW-tree implementations in two and three dimensions on Dell PowerEdge FC630 machines with Intel Xeon E5-2680 CPUs, and plot the results of these computer experiments in Figs \[fig:cpud2\] and \[fig:cpud3\].
We found that the time per pivot move attempt was somewhat worse for the off-lattice implementation as compared to the lattice implementation, which was to be expected due to the increased number of operations required for computations involving the symmetry elements and coordinate vectors. But, in absolute terms the performance is still impressive, and for polymers with $10^7$ monomers pivot attempts are performed in mean CPU time of less than 6$\mu$s for ${{\mathbb R}}^2$, and in less than 40$\mu$s for ${{\mathbb R}}^3$. We clearly observe $O(\log N)$ behaviour in each case, which is strong evidence that the off-lattice implementation behaves in fundamentally the same way as the original lattice implementation of the SAW-tree.
![CPU time per pivot move attempt for the bead-necklace model in ${{\mathbb R}}^2$, in comparison to SAWs in ${{\mathbb Z}}^2$, plotted against the number of monomers $N$.\[fig:cpud2\]](cpu_d2-crop){width="0.5\paperwidth"}
![CPU time per pivot move attempt for the bead-necklace model in ${{\mathbb R}}^3$, in comparison to SAWs in ${{\mathbb Z}}^3$, plotted against the number of monomers $N$.\[fig:cpud3\]](cpu_d3-crop){width="0.5\paperwidth"}
Parallel implementation of the pivot algorithm {#sec:parallel}
==============================================
The SAW-tree implementation of the pivot algorithm [@Clisby2010Efficientimplementationpivot] is remarkably efficient, but it suffers from one significant drawback: the intersection testing and SAW-tree update procedures are inherently serial operations. This makes it difficult to take advantage of additional cores to improve the rate at which polymer configurations are sampled. To some extent this issue is obviated by the fact that for number of monomers $N$ up to the order of tens of millions or even 100 million it is possible to run simulations in parallel on multicore machines, and still obtain results in a reasonable clock time.
But, in the regime where a large amount of memory is needed for truly large $N$, of the order of $10^8-10^9$, on the Dell PowerEdge FC630 machines with Intel Xeon E5-2680 CPUs on which computer experiments are being run this prevents all cores being simultaneously used due to memory constraints[^1]. Under these circumstances most cores must be left idle while data is being collected.
Here we will briefly sketch a method to improve the sampling rate by utilising additional cores in exactly this difficult regime.
The key insight is that as the number of monomers increases, the probability of a pivot move being successful decays as a power law of the form $N^{-p}$, with $p \approx 0.19$ for ${{\mathbb Z}}^2$, and $p \approx
0.11$ for ${{\mathbb Z}}^3$. For $N = 10^9$ on ${{\mathbb Z}}^2$, the probability of a pivot move being successful is 0.019, which means that on average roughly 50 unsuccessful pivot attempts are made for each success.
Given that most proposed pivot moves in this regime fail, and so do not result in any update being made for the self-avoiding walk, it is possible to perform many pivot attempts in parallel without this effort being wasted.
For example, imagine that we are sampling SAWs of $10^9$ steps via the pivot algorithm, and we may test for success or failure of up to ten pivot moves simultaneously. Note that a move consists of a proposed monomer location to act as the centre of the pivot move, and a proposed symmetry operation. Suppose for the first batch of ten proposed moves $\{M_1, M_2, \cdots, M_{10}\}$, that each of these moves were unsuccessful. Then, we can move on to another batch, and none of the work performed by any of the threads was wasted. Suppose for the second batch $\{M_{11}, M_{12}, \cdots,
M_{20}\}$ that the first 6 moves $M_{11},\cdots,M_{16}$ are unsuccessful, but $M_{17}$ is successful. Then we need to perform the update associated with the move $M_{17}$ which must happen as a serial operation performed by a single thread. It does not matter whether $M_{18}, M_{19}, M_{20}$ were successful or not: these tests will need to be performed again in case the update has altered the result of the test. The next batch will then consist of ten proposed moves $\{M_{18}, M_{19}, \cdots, M_{27}\}$.
The tests for success or failure will occur for each thread regardless of the outcome of the tests performed by other threads. But, provided the probability of multiple successful moves occurring in a batch is low, then most of this work will not be wasted. The lower the probability of success, the greater the potential for speed up to occur by exploiting parallelism.
We have implemented this idea in a prototype C program with OpenMP being used for managing the parallel pivot attempts. The SAW-tree is held in shared memory where all threads can access it for performing intersection tests. When a pivot move is found to be successful, then the update is performed by a single thread while all other threads remain idle.
We performed computer experiments to test this implementation on the aforementioned FC630 machines for SAWs of various lengths on the square lattice. We utilised 24 threads, with batches (or chunks) of 48 pivot attempts which meant that each thread made two attempted pivot moves on average. We collated the calendar time per pivot attempt in $\mu$s in Table \[tab:parallel\]. The value $t_1$ is the mean CPU time for a single thread, while $t_{24}$ is the mean CPU time for the 24 threads running in parallel. We see that as $N$ increases the probability of a move being successful decreases, and the relative performance of the parallel implementation to the serial implementation improves. For $N = 10^9$ there is roughly a four-fold improvement in performance.
Although it is suitable as a proof-of-concept, the implementation developed thus far is only a prototype, and more work remains to be done to improve its performance. In particular, it should be possible to re-use some information from intersection tests even if these moves are scheduled to occur after a move that is found to be successful. For example, if a move is found to cause a self-intersection between monomers labelled $l$ and $m$ along the chain, then if the prior succesful move involved a pivot site outside of the interval $l$ to $m$ then this would not have any effect on the self-intersection. Nonetheless, even in its current state the performance gain is sufficient to make it worthwhile for use in the large $N$, memory-limited regime.
[rlllll]{} $N$ & $\Pr(\text{success})$ & $1/\Pr(\text{success})$& $t_1$ ($\mu$s) & $t_{24}$ ($\mu$s) & $t_1/t_{24}$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$10^6$& 0.068& 15 & 1.58 & 1.35 & 1.17\
$10^7$& 0.044& 23 & 2.31 & 1.07 & 2.16\
$10^8$& 0.029& 34 & 2.90 & 0.903 & 3.21\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$10^9$& 0.019& 53 & 3.16 & 0.805 & 3.93\
Discussion and conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
=========================
Schnabel and Janke [@Schnabel2019] have very recently implemented a binary tree data structure which is similar to the SAW-tree for the bead-necklace model, as well as a model for which the Lennard-Jones interaction is implemented. The implementation for the bead-necklace model appears to have roughly the same computational efficiency as the implementation sketched here. The efficient implementation for the Lennard-Jones polymer model is very interesting, and a significant advance on the state of the art. It will be interesting to see if further progress in this direction can be made, for example in the evaluation of Coulomb interactions which would be necessary for efficient simulation of polyelectrolytes.
Full details for the off-lattice SAW-tree implementation of the pivot algorithm will be presented elsewhere in future.
More work needs to be done to test and improve the implementation of the parallel version of the pivot algorithm. In future, the parallel implementation of the pivot algorithm will allow for improved simulations of very long SAWs on the square lattice. The method will result in significant speed-ups for SAWs with hundreds of millions or even one billion steps, especially for the square lattice.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[1]{} url \#1[[\#1]{}]{}urlprefix\[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{} Lal M 1969 [*Mol. Phys.*]{} [**17**]{} 57–64
Madras N and Sokal A D 1988 [*J. Stat. Phys.*]{} [**50**]{} 109–186
Kennedy T 2002 [*J. Stat. Phys.*]{} [**106**]{} 407–429
Clisby N 2010 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**104**]{} 055702
Clisby N 2010 [*J. Stat. Phys.*]{} [**140**]{} 349–392
Clisby N 2018 [*J. Stat. Phys.*]{} [**172**]{} 477–492
Stewart G W 1980 [*SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis*]{} [**17**]{} 403–409 Plunkett L and Chapman K 2016 [*J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.*]{} [**49**]{} 135203 Schnabel S and Janke W (*Preprint* )
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
Thanks to Stefan Schnabel for communicating results regarding an alternative efficient off-lattice implementation of the pivot algorithm prior to publication. N.C. gratefully acknowledges support from the Australian Research Council under the Future Fellowship scheme (project number FT130100972).
[^1]: There are 24 cores, and total memory available is 128GB.
|
---
abstract: 'We prove that any metric space $X$ homeomorphic to $\mathbb{R}^2$ with locally finite Hausdorff 2-measure satisfies a reciprocal lower bound on modulus of curve families associated to a quadrilateral. More precisely, let $Q \subset X$ be a topological quadrilateral with boundary edges (in cyclic order) denoted by $\zeta_1, \zeta_2, \zeta_3, \zeta_4$ and let $\Gamma(\zeta_i, \zeta_j; Q)$ denote the family of curves in $Q$ connecting $\zeta_i$ and $\zeta_j$; then $\operatorname{mod}\Gamma(\zeta_1, \zeta_3; Q) \operatorname{mod}\Gamma(\zeta_2, \zeta_4; Q) \geq 1/\kappa$ for $\kappa = 2000^2\cdot (4/\pi)^2$. This answers a question in [@Raj:16] concerning minimal hypotheses under which a metric space admits a quasiconformal parametrization by a domain in $\mathbb{R}^2$.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Jyväskylä, P.O. Box 35 (MaD), FI-40014, University of Jyväskylä, Finland.'
author:
- Kai Rajala
- Matthew Romney
bibliography:
- 'ReciprocalLowerBoundBiblio.bib'
title: Reciprocal lower bound on modulus of curve families in metric surfaces
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
The classical uniformization theorem states that any simply connected Riemann surface can be mapped onto either the Euclidean plane $\mathbb{R}^2$, the sphere $\mathbb{S}^2$, or the unit disk $\mathbb{D}$ by a conformal mapping. For obtaining similar results in the setting of metric spaces, the class of conformal mappings is too restrictive and it is natural to consider instead some type of quasiconformal mapping. One such class is [*quasisymmetric mappings*]{}, and a large body of recent literature is dedicated to quasisymmetric uniformization of metric spaces. We mention specifically papers by Semmes [@Sem:96b] and Bonk–Kleiner [@BonkKle:02] as important references.
Another approach is to use the so-called [*geometric definition*]{} of quasiconformal mappings, based on the notion of modulus of a curve family. In the recent paper [@Raj:16], the first-named author proves a version of the uniformization theorem for metric spaces homeomorphic to $\mathbb{R}^2$ with locally finite Hausdorff 2-measure. In the present paper, we call such spaces [*metric surfaces*]{}.
In [@Raj:16] a condition on metric surfaces called [*reciprocality*]{} (see Definition \[defi:reciprocality\] below) is introduced and shown to be necessary and sufficient for the existence of a quasiconformal parametrization by a domain in $\mathbb{R}^2$. We refer the reader to the introduction of [@Raj:16] for a detailed overview of the problem and additional references to the literature.
In this paper, we show that one part of the definition of reciprocality is satisfied by all metric surfaces and therefore is unnecessary. This result gives a positive answer to Question 17.5 from [@Raj:16].
We first recall the relevant definitions and establish some notation. Let $(X,d,\mu)$ be a metric measure space. For a family $\Gamma$ of curves in $X$, the [*$p$-modulus*]{} of $\Gamma$ is defined as $$\operatorname{mod}_p \Gamma = \inf \int_X \rho^p\,d\mu ,$$ where the infimum is taken over all Borel functions $\rho: X \rightarrow [0,\infty]$ with the property that $\int_{\gamma} \rho\,ds \geq 1$ for all locally rectifiable curves $\gamma \in \Gamma$. Such a function $\rho$ is called [*admissible*]{}. If the exponent $p$ is understood, a homeomorphism $f: (X,d,\mu) \rightarrow (Y,d',\nu)$ between metric measure spaces is [*quasiconformal*]{} if there exists $K \geq 1$ such that $$K^{-1} \operatorname{mod}_p \Gamma \leq \operatorname{mod}_p f(\Gamma) \leq K \operatorname{mod}_p \Gamma$$ for all curve families $\Gamma$ in $X$. In this paper, we always take $p=2$ and assume that a metric space $(X,d)$ is equipped with the Hausdorff 2-measure $\mathcal{H}^2$, and we write $\operatorname{mod}\Gamma$ in place of $\operatorname{mod}_2 \Gamma$.
Throughout this paper, we assume that $(X,d)$ is a metric surface as defined above. A [*quadrilateral*]{} in $X$ is a subset $Q \subset X$ homeomorphic to $[0,1]^2$ with four designated non-overlapping boundary arcs, denoted in cyclic order by $\zeta_1$, $\zeta_2$, $\zeta_3$, $\zeta_4$, which are the images of $[0,1] \times\{0\}$, $\{1\} \times [0,1]$, $[0,1] \times \{1\}$ and $\{0\} \times [0,1]$, respectively, under the parametrizing homeomorphism from $[0,1]^2$. We write $\Gamma_1(Q)$ to denote the family $\Gamma(\zeta_1,\zeta_3; Q)$ of curves in $Q$ connecting $\zeta_1$ and $\zeta_3$, and $\Gamma_2(Q)$ to denote the family $\Gamma(\zeta_2,\zeta_4; Q)$ of curves in $Q$ connecting $\zeta_2$ and $\zeta_4$. More generally, for disjoint closed sets $E,F$ contained in the set $G \subset X$, the notation $\Gamma(E,F;G)$ is used to denote the family of curves in $G$ which intersect both $E$ and $F$.
\[defi:reciprocality\] The metric surface $(X, d)$ is [*reciprocal*]{} if there exists $\kappa \geq 1$ such that for all quadrilaterals $Q$ in $X$, $$\label{equ:reciprocality(1)}
\operatorname{mod}\Gamma_1(Q) \operatorname{mod}\Gamma_2(Q) \leq \kappa$$ and $$\label{equ:reciprocality(2)}
\operatorname{mod}\Gamma_1(Q) \operatorname{mod}\Gamma_2(Q) \geq 1/\kappa,$$ and for all $x \in X$ and $R>0$ such that $X \setminus B(x,R) \neq \emptyset$, $$\label{equ:reciprocality(3)}
\lim_{r \rightarrow 0} \operatorname{mod}\Gamma(B(x,r), X \setminus B(x,R); B(x,R)) = 0.$$
We then have the following result.
\[thm:uniformization\] There exists a domain $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^2$ and a quasiconformal mapping $f: (X,d) \rightarrow \Omega$ if and only if $X$ is reciprocal.
The necessity of each condition in Definition \[defi:reciprocality\] is immediate; standard computations show that $\mathbb{R}^2$ is reciprocal. The actual content of Theorem \[thm:uniformization\] is that these conditions are sufficient to construct “by hand” a mapping that can then be shown to be quasiconformal. However, the question of whether a weaker set of assumptions might still be sufficient to construct such a quasiconformal mapping is not fully settled in [@Raj:16].
It is not difficult to construct examples of metric surfaces for which conditions and fail. For instance, the quotient space $\mathbb{R}^2/ \sim$, where $x \sim y$ if $x=y$ or if both $x$ and $y$ belong to the closed unit disc, has a natural metric for which both conditions fail. On the other hand, it was conjectured in [@Raj:16] (Question 17.5) that in fact condition holds for all $(X,d)$. The main result of this paper shows that this is indeed the case.
\[thm:main\] Let $(X,d)$ be a metric space homeomorphic to $\mathbb{R}^2$ with locally finite Hausdorff 2-measure. There exists a constant $\kappa\geq 1$, independent of $X$, such that $\operatorname{mod}\Gamma_1(Q) \operatorname{mod}\Gamma_2(Q) \geq 1/\kappa$ for all quadrilaterals $Q \subset X$.
As a consequence of Theorem \[thm:main\], condition in Definition \[defi:reciprocality\] is unnecessary. Our proof as written gives a value of $\kappa = 2000^2\cdot (4/\pi)^2$, though optimizing each step would improve this to $\kappa = 216^2\cdot (4/\pi)^2$. It is a corollary of Theorem 1.5 in [@Raj:16], as improved in [@Rom:17], that if $X$ is reciprocal (and hence $X$ admits a quasiconformal parametrization), then Theorem \[thm:main\] holds with $\kappa = (4/\pi)^2$. For this reason, it is natural to conjecture that the best possible $\kappa$ for the general case is also $(4/\pi)^2$, though our techniques fall far short of this.
In Proposition 15.8 of [@Raj:16], Theorem \[thm:main\] (with a larger value of $\kappa$) is proved under the assumption that $X$ satisfies the mass upper bound $\mathcal{H}^2(B(x,r)) \leq Cr^2$ for some $C>0$ independent of $x$ and $r$. Our proof follows a similar outline; the difficulty is to avoid using the upper bound.
The basic approach is to construct an “energy-minimizing” or “harmonic” function $u: Q \rightarrow [0,\infty)$ which satisfies the boundary constraints $u|\zeta_1 = 0$ and $u|\zeta_3 = 1$. Working only from the assumptions at hand, one can establish relevant properties of $u$. The main property needed to prove Theorem \[thm:main\] is that a version of the coarea inequality holds for $u$. For the case when $X$ satisfies the mass upper bound $\mathcal{H}^2(B(x,r)) \leq Cr^2$, this is found in Proposition 15.7 of [@Raj:16]. The coarea inequality implies that, from the level sets of $u$, one may extract a large family of rectifiable curves contained in $\Gamma_2(Q)$. Since $u$ is defined by means of the curve family $\Gamma_1(Q)$, this provides the necessary link between $\Gamma_1(Q)$ and $\Gamma_2(Q)$. Roughly speaking, if there are few curves in $\Gamma_1(Q)$, as quantified by modulus, then these corresponding curves in $\Gamma_2(Q)$ must be short, which implies that the modulus of $\Gamma_2(Q)$ is large. The organization of the paper is the following. Section \[sec:preliminaries\] contains some basic notation and background, including an overview of the construction of the harmonic function $u$ described in the previous paragraph. In Section \[sec:level\_sets\], we prove several properties of the level sets of $u$ which are required for the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\]. This section expands on the material present in Section 4 of [@Raj:16]. Section \[sec:lower\_bound\] contains the main technical portion of our paper, the coarea inequality for $u$ described previously valid for all metric surfaces, as well as the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\]. Section \[sec:continuity\_u\] contains a final auxiliary result, namely that the harmonic function $u$ is continuous in general. The continuity of $u$ had previously been proved as Theorem 5.1. of [@Raj:16] using the reciprocality conditions and .
Preliminaries {#sec:preliminaries}
=============
In this section, we give a review of notation and auxiliary results from [@Raj:16] that will be needed. For the remainder of this paper, we let $X$ be a metric surface and $Q$ denote a fixed quadrilateral in $X$. We write $\Gamma_1$ for $\Gamma_1(Q)$. We assume throughout this paper that all curves are non-constant.
For $k \in \{1,2\}$ and $\varepsilon > 0$, the [*$k$-dimensional Hausdorff $\varepsilon$-content*]{} of a set $E \subset X$, denoted by $\mathcal{H}_\varepsilon^k(E)$, is defined as $$\mathcal{H}_\varepsilon^k(E) = \inf \left\{ \sum a_k \operatorname{diam}(A_j)^k: E \subset \bigcup_{j=1}^\infty A_j, \operatorname{diam}A_j < \varepsilon \right\},$$ with normalizing constants $a_1 = 1$ and $a_2 = \pi/4$. The [*Hausdorff $k$-measure*]{} of $E$ is defined as $\mathcal{H}^k(E) = \lim_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0} \mathcal{H}_\varepsilon^k(E)$.
We proceed with an overview of the construction of the harmonic function $u$ corresponding to the curve family $\Gamma_1$, as given in Section 4 of [@Raj:16]. By a standard argument using Mazur’s lemma, there exists a sequence of admissible functions $(\rho_k)$ for $\Gamma_1$ that converges strongly in $L^2$ to a function $\rho \in L^2(Q)$ satisfying $\int_Q \rho^2\,d\mathcal{H}^2 = \operatorname{mod}\Gamma_1$. By Fuglede’s lemma, $$\label{equ:fuglede}
\int_\gamma \rho_k\, ds \rightarrow \int_{\gamma} \rho\, ds < \infty$$ for all curves $\gamma$ in $Q$ except for a family of modulus zero. In particular, this implies that $\rho$ is weakly admissible for $\Gamma_1$ (that is, admissible after removing from $\Gamma_1$ a subfamily of modulus zero). We extend the definition of $\rho$ to the entire space $X$ by setting $\rho(x) = 0$ for all $x \in X \setminus Q$.
Let $\Gamma_0$ be the family of curves in $Q$ with a subcurve on which does not hold. Note that $\operatorname{mod}\Gamma_0 = 0$. We define the function $u$ as follows. Let $x \in Q$. If there exists a curve $\gamma \in \Gamma_1 \setminus \Gamma_0$ whose image contains $x$, then define $$\label{equ:u_definition}
u(x) = \inf \int_{\gamma_x} \rho\,ds,$$ where the infimum is taken over all such curves $\gamma$ and over all subcurves $\gamma_x$ of $\gamma$ joining $\zeta_1$ and $x$. Otherwise, define $u(x)$ by $$u(x) = \liminf_{y \in E, y \rightarrow x} u(y),$$ where $E$ is the set of those $y \in Q$ such that $u(y)$ is defined by . Lemma 4.1 of [@Raj:16] shows that $u$ is well-defined in $Q$.
We recall Lemma 4.3 of [@Raj:16], which states that $\rho$ is a weak upper gradient of $u$. More precisely, $$\label{equ:upper_gradient}
|u(x) - u(y)| \leq \int_{\gamma} \rho\,ds$$ for all curves $\gamma$ in $Q$ with $\gamma \notin \Gamma_0$. In particular, $u$ is absolutely continuous along any curve $\gamma \notin \Gamma_0$. We also recall Lemma 4.5 of [@Raj:16], where it is shown that $0 \leq u(x) \leq 1$ for all $x \in Q$. It follows from that if $x \in \zeta_3$ lies in the image of a curve $\gamma \in \Gamma_1 \setminus \Gamma_0$, then $u(x) \geq 1$ and thus $u(x) = 1$.
As final points of notation, for a set $A \subset Q$, let $\operatorname*{osc}_{A} u = \sup_{x,y \in A} |u(x) - u(y)|$. Let $|\gamma|$ denote the image of the curve $\gamma$ in $Q$.
To study the harmonic function $u$, there are three auxiliary results which are employed repeatedly in [@Raj:16] and which we state here for easy reference. The first concerns the existence of rectifiable curves and can be found as Proposition 15.1 of [@Sem:96c].
\[prop:existence\_paths\] Let $x,y \in X$ be given, $x \neq y$. Suppose that $E \subset X$ is a continuum with $\mathcal{H}^1(E) < \infty$ and $x, y \in E$. Then there is an $L>0$, $L \leq \mathcal{H}^1(E)$, and an injective 1-Lipschitz mapping $\gamma\colon [0,L] \rightarrow X$ such that $\gamma(t) \in E$ for all $t$, $\gamma(0) = x$, $\gamma(L) = y$ and $\mathcal{H}^1(\gamma(F)) = \mathcal{H}^1(F)$ for all measurable sets $F \subset [0,L]$.
The next is the standard coarea inequality for Lipschitz functions on metric spaces, found in [@AmbTil:04 Proposition 3.1.5].
\[prop:coarea\] Let $A \subset X$ be Borel measurable. If $m\colon X \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is $L$-Lipschitz and $g\colon A \rightarrow [0, \infty]$ is Borel measurable, then $$\int_{\mathbb{R}} \int_{A \cap m^{-1}(t)} g(s)\, d\mathcal{H}^1(s)\, dt \leq \frac{4L}{\pi} \int_A g(x)\, d\mathcal{H}^2(x).$$
We also need a topological lemma, cf. [@Moo:62 IV Theorem 26].
\[lemm:separating\_continuum\] Let $A,B \subset Q$ be non-empty sets, and let $K \subset Q$ be a compact set such that $A$ and $B$ belong to different components of $Q \setminus K$. Then there is a continuum $F \subset K$ such that $A$ and $B$ belong to different components of $Q \setminus F$. Moreover, if $\mathcal{H}^1(K) < \infty$ and the component of $Q \setminus K$ containing $A$ is contained in the interior of $Q$, then $F$ may be taken to be the image of an injective Lipschitz mapping $\gamma: \mathbb{S}^1 \rightarrow K$.
Level sets of $u$ {#sec:level_sets}
=================
In this section, we prove a number of topological properties for the level sets of the harmonic function $u$, or, more precisely, for the closure of these level sets. This section can be viewed as an extension of Section 4 in [@Raj:16], which also studies those properties of $u$ which can be proved without any use of the reciprocality conditions.
The primary technical difficulty we must deal with is that, without assuming the reciprocality conditions, we do not know [*a priori*]{} that the function $u$ is continuous. However, it is shown in Lemma 4.6 of [@Raj:16] that $u$ satisfies a maximum and a minimum principle. To state it, we use the following notation. For an open set $\Omega \subset X$, or a relatively open set $\Omega \subset Q$, let $$\partial_* \Omega = (\partial \Omega \cap Q) \cup (\overline{\Omega} \cap (\zeta_1 \cup \zeta_3)) .$$ Then we have the following.
\[lemm:maximum\_principle\] Let $\Omega \subset X$ be open. Then $\sup_{x \in \Omega \cap Q} u(x) \leq \sup_{y \in \partial_*\Omega} u(y)$ and $\inf_{x \in \Omega \cap Q} u(x) \geq \inf_{y \in \partial_*\Omega} u(y)$.
Lemma \[lemm:maximum\_principle\] allows us to establish topological properties for the closures of sets of the form $u^{-1}([s,t])$.
\[prop:connect\] For all $s, t \in [0,1]$, $s \leq t$, the set $\overline{u^{-1}([s,t])}$ is connected and intersects both $\zeta_2$ and $\zeta_4$.
Let $E = \overline{u^{-1}([s,t])}$. To prove the first claim, suppose that $E$ is not connected. Then there is an open set $U \subset X$ such that $$\label{sussa}
U \cap E \neq \emptyset, \quad (Q \setminus U) \cap E \neq \emptyset, \quad \partial U \cap E = \emptyset.$$ Let $E_1 = U \cap E$ and $E_2 = (Q \setminus U) \cap E$. By passing to a subset if needed, we may assume that $E_1$ and $E_2$ are each contained within a single component of $U$ and $Q \setminus \overline{U}$, respectively. We fix $\varepsilon >0$ such that $\operatorname{dist}(\partial U,E) > \varepsilon$. By Proposition \[prop:coarea\] applied to $h(x)=\operatorname{dist}(\partial U,x)$, there is $0<p<\varepsilon$ such that $\mathcal{H}^1(h^{-1}(p))< \infty$ and every rectifiable curve $\gamma$ for which $|\gamma| \subset h^{-1}(p)$ lies outside the exceptional set $\Gamma_0$. By and our choice of $p$, the sets $E_1$ and $E_2$ belong to different components of $Q \setminus h^{-1}(p)$. Lemma \[lemm:separating\_continuum\] then shows that $h^{-1}(p)$ has a connected subset $F \subset Q$ such that $E_1$ and $E_2$ belong to different components of $Q \setminus F$. Notice that, for every rectifiable curve $\gamma$ with $|\gamma| \subset F$, $u||\gamma|$ is continuous and either $u(x) < s$ or $u(x)>t$ for all $x \in |\gamma|$. We divide the rest of the proof into cases.
\[pring\] Suppose there is an open set $G \subset X$ such that $\partial G \subset F$ and $E_j \subset G$ for $j=1$ or $j=2$. By Lemma \[lemm:maximum\_principle\] there are $x_0,x_1 \in G$ such that $u(x_0)\leq s$ and $u(x_1)\geq t$. Moreover, by Proposition \[prop:existence\_paths\] there is a rectifiable curve $\gamma$ joining $x_0$ and $x_1$ in $F$. Since $u||\gamma|$ is continuous, we conclude that $u(x) \in E$ for some $x \in |\gamma|$. This is a contradiction, since $E \cap F = \emptyset$.
Suppose next that the set $G$ in Case \[pring\] does not exist. We then find a subcontinuum $F'$ of $F$ with the following properties: $F' \cap \partial Q$ consists of two distinct points $x_0$ and $x_1$, and $E_1$ and $E_2$ belong to different components, say $\Omega_1$ and $\Omega_2$, of $X \setminus (\partial Q \cup F')$. By Proposition \[prop:existence\_paths\] we may moreover assume that $F'=|\gamma|$, where $\gamma:[0,1]\to Q$ is simple and rectifiable, and $\gamma(0)=x_0$, $\gamma(1)=x_1$.
Suppose that both $x_0$ and $x_1$ belong to $\zeta_j$ for some $j=1,\ldots,4$. Then $\partial \Omega_k \subset |\gamma| \cup \zeta_j$ for $k=1$ or $k=2$. As in Case \[pring\], Lemma \[lemm:maximum\_principle\] and the continuity of $u||\gamma|$ show that there exists $x \in |\gamma|$ such that $u(x) \in [s,t]$. This contradicts the construction of $\gamma$. A similar argument can be applied when $x_0 \in \zeta_i$ and $x_1 \in \zeta_j$, where either $i \in \{1,3\}$ and $j \in \{2,4\}$, or $j \in \{1,3\}$ and $i \in \{2,4\}$.
Suppose that $x_0 \in \zeta_1$ and $x_1 \in \zeta_3$. Then, since $\gamma \notin \Gamma_0$, the construction of $u$ shows that $u||\gamma|$ takes all values between $0$ and $1$. In particular, $u(x) \in [s,t]$ for some $x \in |\gamma|$. This contradicts the fact that $|\gamma| \cap E = \emptyset$. The argument remains valid if the roles of $x_0$ and $x_1$ are reversed.
Suppose that $x_0 \in \zeta_2$ and $x_1 \in \zeta_4$. Without loss of generality, we may assume that $\Omega_1$ is the component containing $\zeta_1$. It then follows from Lemma \[lemm:maximum\_principle\] that $u(x) \geq s$ for some $x \in |\gamma|$. Moreover, since $u||\gamma|$ is continuous and $|\gamma| \cap E = \emptyset$, it follows that in fact $u(x) >t$ for every $x \in |\gamma|$. Similarly, applying Lemma \[lemm:maximum\_principle\] to $\Omega_2$ shows that $u(x) < s$ for every $x \in |\gamma|$. This is a contradiction. The argument remains valid if the roles of $x_0$ and $x_1$ are reversed.
We conclude that the set $E$ is connected. It remains to show that $E$ intersects both $\zeta_2$ and $\zeta_4$. Suppose towards contradiction that this is not the case. We may assume without loss of generality that $E$ does not intersect $\zeta_4$. Proposition \[prop:coarea\] applied to $g(x)=\operatorname{dist}(\zeta_4,x)$ shows that there exists a small $p>0$ such that $\mathcal{H}^1(g^{-1}(p))< \infty$. Moreover, by Lemma \[lemm:separating\_continuum\] there is a continuum $F \subset g^{-1}(p)$ joining $\zeta_1$ and $\zeta_3$ in $Q \setminus E$. Proposition \[prop:existence\_paths\] gives a simple curve $\gamma$ such that $|\gamma| \subset F$ also joins $\zeta_1$ and $\zeta_3$. As before, we may assume that $\gamma \notin \Gamma_0$ so that $u||\gamma|$ takes all values between $0$ and $1$. This is a contradiction since $|\gamma| \cap E = \emptyset$. The proof is complete.
Next, we give a generalization of Lemma 15.6 in [@Raj:16], with a corrected constant. The proof is essentially the same as the corresponding proof in [@Raj:16].
\[lemm:oscillation\] Let $x \in Q$ and $r \in (0, r_0)$, where $r_0 = \min\{\operatorname{diam}\zeta_1, \operatorname{diam}\zeta_3\}/4$. Then $$\label{equ:oscillation_bound}
r \mathcal{H}^1(u(B(x,r) \cap Q))\leq \frac{4}{\pi} \int_{B(x,2r)} \rho\, d\mathcal{H}^2.$$ Moreover, if $U(x,r)$ is the $x$-component of $B(x,r) \cap Q$, then $$\label{equ:oscillation_bound2}
r \operatorname*{osc}_{U(x,r)} u \leq \frac{4}{\pi} \int_{B(x,2r)} \rho\, d\mathcal{H}^2.$$
By applying Proposition \[prop:coarea\] to the function $d(\cdot,x)$ and arguing as in the first paragraph of the proof of Proposition \[prop:connect\], we see that for almost every $s \in (r,2r)$, the sphere $S(x,s)$ satisfies $\mathcal{H}^1(S(x,s)) < \infty$ and has the property that $\eta \notin \Gamma_0$ for every curve $\eta$ with $|\eta| \subset S(x,s) \cap Q$. Fix such an $s \in (r,2r)$.
Then $B(x,s) \cap Q$ consists of countably many relatively open components $V_j$. By Lemma \[lemm:separating\_continuum\], for such a component $V_j$ there is a simple curve $\gamma_j$ with $|\gamma_j| \subset S(x,s)$ that separates $Q$ into the relative components $U_j$ and $Q \setminus \overline{U}_j$, where $V_j \subset U_j$. Observe that either $\gamma_j$ is a closed curve, or the two endpoints of $\gamma_j$ are contained in $\partial Q$.
Since $B(x,r) \cap Q \subset \bigcup_j U_j$, we have $$\mathcal{H}^1(u(B(x,r) \cap Q)) \leq \sum_j \operatorname{diam}u(U_j).$$ By the maximum principle Lemma \[lemm:maximum\_principle\], $$\operatorname{diam}u(U_j) \leq \sup_{y,z \in \partial_* U_j} |u(y) - u(z)|.$$ By our assumption that $r \leq \min\{ \operatorname{diam}\zeta_1, \operatorname{diam}\zeta_3\}/4$, it follows that if $\zeta_1 \cap \partial_* U_j \neq \emptyset$, then there exists a point $z_1 \in |\gamma_j| \cap \zeta_1$. Indeed, if $y \in \zeta_1 \cap \partial_* U_j$, then $d(y,x) \leq 2r$. But by assumption, there exists $z \in \zeta_1$ such that $d(y,z) > 4r$. The triangle inequality gives $d(z,x) > 2r$, and in particular $z \notin \overline{U}_j$. Since $\gamma_j$ separates $Q$, we conclude there is a point $z_1 \in |\gamma_j| \cap \zeta_1$. In this case it follows that $0 = \inf_{z \in \partial_* U_j} u(z) = u(z_1) = \min_{z \in |\gamma_j|} u(z)$. On the other hand, if $\zeta_1 \cap \partial_* U_j = \emptyset$, then by Lemma \[lemm:maximum\_principle\] we again have $\inf_{z \in \partial_* U_j} u(z) = \min_{z \in |\gamma_j|} u(z)$.
The same argument shows that if $\zeta_3 \cap \partial_* U_j \neq \emptyset$, then there exists $y_1 \in |\gamma_j| \cap \zeta_3$ such that $1 = \sup_{y \in \partial_* U_j} u(y) = u(y_1) = \max_{y \in \gamma_j} u(y)$. In general, we likewise have $\sup_{y \in \partial_* U_j} u(y) = \max_{y \in |\gamma_j|} u(y)$. This establishes the equality $$\sup_{y,z \in \partial_* U_j} |u(y) - u(z)| = \max_{y,z \in |\gamma_j|} |u(y) - u(z)| .$$ By the upper gradient inequality , $$\max_{y,z \in |\gamma_j|} |u(y) - u(z)| \leq \int_{\gamma_j} \rho\,d\mathcal{H}^1.$$ Finally, combining the estimates gives $$\mathcal{H}^1(u(B(x,r) \cap Q)) \leq \sum_j \operatorname{diam}u(U_j) \leq \sum_j \int_{\gamma_j} \rho\, d\mathcal{H}^1 \leq \int_{S(x,s)} \rho\, d\mathcal{H}^1.$$ Observe that this estimate is the same independent of our choice of $s$. Inequality then follows from integrating over $s$ from $r$ to $2r$ and applying Proposition \[prop:coarea\].
The same argument also verifies inequality , since for each choice of $s \in (r,2r)$ it holds that $\operatorname*{osc}_{U(x,r)} u = \operatorname{diam}u(U(x,r)) \leq \sum_j \operatorname{diam}u(U_j)$.
Without assuming the reciprocality conditions, it is not clear that the function $u$ is continuous. Nevertheless, Lemma \[lemm:oscillation\] implies a certain amount of continuity for $u$, as we show in the following corollary.
\[cor:continuity\] The function $u$ is continuous at $\mathcal{H}^2$-almost every $x \in Q$.
Inequality implies that $$\limsup_{r \rightarrow 0} \operatorname*{osc}_{U(x,r)} u \leq \limsup_{r \rightarrow 0} \frac{4r}{\pi}\cdot \frac{1}{r^2} \int_{B(x,2r)} \rho\, d\mathcal{H}^2$$ for all $x \in Q \setminus \partial Q$. Here, $U(x,r)$ is as in Lemma \[lemm:oscillation\]. From basic properties of pointwise densities of measures (see [@Fed:69 Sec. 2.10.19(3)]), the integrability of $\rho$ and local finiteness of $\mathcal{H}^2$ imply that $$\limsup_{r \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{r^2} \int_{B(x,2r)} \rho\, d\mathcal{H}^2 < \infty$$ for $\mathcal{H}^2$-almost every $x \in Q$. The result follows by combining the estimates.
Reciprocal lower bound {#sec:lower_bound}
======================
This section is devoted to a proof of Theorem \[thm:main\]. We first state and prove the coarea inequality mentioned above which constitutes the main technical contribution of this paper. This corresponds to Proposition 15.7 in [@Raj:16], where a similar result is proved under the assumption that $X$ has the mass upper bound $\mathcal{H}^2(B(x,r)) \leq Cr^2$. The proof of Proposition \[prop:coarea\_u\], like Proposition 15.7 in [@Raj:16], is based on standard arguments such as that in [@AmbTil:04 Prop. 3.1.5].
\[prop:coarea\_u\] Let $u$ and $\rho$ be as above. For all Borel functions $g: Q \rightarrow [0,\infty]$, $$\int_{[0,1]}^* \int_{\overline{u^{-1}(t)}} g\,d\mathcal{H}^1\,dt \leq 2000 \int_Q g\rho\, d\mathcal{H}^2.$$ Here $\int^*_A a(t)\, dt $ is the upper Lebesgue integral of $a$ over $A$ (see [@Fed:69 Sec. 2.4.2]).
It suffices to consider the case where $g$ is a characteristic function, that is, $g = \chi_E$ for some Borel set $E \subset Q$. Moreover, we may assume that $E$ is open in $Q$. Indeed, for a Borel set $E$ we find open sets $U_j \supset E$, $U_{j+1} \subset U_j$, such that $\mathcal{H}^2(U_j) \to \mathcal{H}^2(E)$. Assuming the proposition for $g=\chi_{U_j}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{[0,1]}^* \int_{\overline{u^{-1}(t)}} \chi_E \,d\mathcal{H}^1\,dt &\leq &\int_{[0,1]}^* \int_{\overline{u^{-1}(t)}} \chi_{U_j} \,d\mathcal{H}^1\,dt \leq 2000 \int_Q \chi_{U_j}\rho\, d\mathcal{H}^2 \\
&\longrightarrow& 2000 \int_Q \chi_{E}\rho\, d\mathcal{H}^2.
\end{aligned}$$ So we want to show that $$\label{equ:set_E}
\int_{[0,1]}^* \mathcal{H}^1(\overline{u^{-1}(t)} \cap E) \,dt \leq 2000 \int_E \rho\,d\mathcal{H}^2$$ whenever $E$ is open in $Q$. The proof is divided into two steps, the first dealing with the subset of “good” points of $E$ and the second dealing with the subset of “bad” points. Throughout this proof, all metric balls are considered as subsets of $Q$.
Consider the set $$G = \left\{x \in E: \forall \varepsilon>0, \exists r<\varepsilon, \int_{B(x,10r)} \rho\,d\mathcal{H}^2 \leq 200 \int_{B(x,r)} \rho \,d\mathcal{H}^2\right\}.$$ Fix $\varepsilon>0$. We apply the basic covering theorem ([@Hei:01 Thm. 1.2]) to choose a countable collection of pairwise disjoint balls $B_j = B(x_j,r_j)$ such that $x_j \in G$ and $10r_j \leq \min\{\varepsilon, d(x_j, Q\setminus E)\}$ for each $j$, the collection $\{5B_j\}$ covers $G$, and $$\int_{10B_j} \rho\,d\mathcal{H}^2 \leq 200 \int_{B_j} \rho \,d\mathcal{H}^2$$ for each $j$. We also require that $20r_j < \min\{\operatorname{diam}\zeta_1, \operatorname{diam}\zeta_3\}$ for our application of Lemma \[lemm:oscillation\]. We have $$\sum_j \int_{10B_j} \rho\, d\mathcal{H}^2 \leq \sum_j 200\int_{B_j} \rho\, d\mathcal{H}^2 \leq 200\int_{E} \rho\,d\mathcal{H}^2,$$ where the last inequality follows since by our choice the balls $B_j$ are pairwise disjoint subsets of the open set $E$. For each $j$ fix a measurable set $A_j \supset u(5B_j)$ such that $\mathcal{H}^1(A_j)=\mathcal{H}^1(u(5B_j))$. Moreover, define $g_\varepsilon: [0,1] \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ by $$g_\varepsilon(t) = \sum_j r_j \chi_{A_j}(t).$$ Integrating and applying Lemma \[lemm:oscillation\] gives $$\int_0^1 g_\varepsilon(t)\,dt = \sum_j r_j \mathcal{H}^1(u(5B_j)) \leq \frac{4}{\pi}\sum_j \int_{10B_j} \rho\, d\mathcal{H}^2.$$ We observe that if $x \in \overline{u^{-1}(t)} \cap G$ for a given $t \in [0,1]$, with $j_x$ such that $x \in 5B_{j_x}$, then of necessity $t \in u(5B_{j_x})$. Hence $\mathcal{H}_\varepsilon^1(\overline{u^{-1}(t)} \cap G) \leq 10g_\varepsilon(t)$, by the definition of Hausdorff $\varepsilon$-content. Letting $\varepsilon \rightarrow 0$ and applying Fatou’s lemma gives $$\int_{[0,1]}^* \mathcal{H}^1(\overline{u^{-1}(t)} \cap G)\, dt \leq 10 \int_0^1 \liminf_{\varepsilon \to 0} g_\varepsilon(t)\, dt \\
\leq 10 \liminf_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0} \int_0^1 g_\varepsilon(t) \, dt.$$ Combining estimates, we obtain $$\int_{[0,1]}^*\mathcal{H}^1(\overline{u^{-1}(t)} \cap G)\, dt \leq \frac{4 \cdot 2000}{\pi} \int_E \rho\,d\mathcal{H}^2.$$
We turn our attention next to the set $F = E \setminus G$. We claim that $$\label{equ:bad_points}
\int_{[0,1]}^* \mathcal{H}^1(\overline{u^{-1}(t)} \cap F)\,dt = 0.$$ By the definition of $F$, for all $x \in F$ there exists $\varepsilon_x = 10^{-k_x}$ (for some integer $k_x \geq 1$) such that $$\label{equ:bad_iteration}
\int_{B(x,10^{-j})} \rho\,d\mathcal{H}^2 \leq 200^{-1} \int_{B(x,10^{-j+1})} \rho\,d\mathcal{H}^2 \leq \cdots \leq 200^{-(j-k_x)} \int_{B(x,\varepsilon_x)} \rho\,d\mathcal{H}^2$$ for all $j \geq k_x$. For all $k \in \mathbb{N}$, let $F_k = \{x \in F: k_x \leq k\}$. Observe that $F = \bigcup_k F_k$.
Now, fix $k \in \mathbb{N}$ and let $j \geq k$. By definition of the (spherical) Hausdorff measure, there exists a countable collection of balls $B_m=B(x_m, r_m)$ which cover $F_k$, such that $x_m \in F_k$, $r_m \leq \min\{10^{-j}, d(x_m,Q \setminus E),\operatorname{diam}\zeta_1/4, \operatorname{diam}\zeta_3/4\}$, and $\sum 4r_m^2 \leq 4\mathcal{H}^2(F_k)+4/j$. For the last requirement, recall that the spherical Hausdorff 2-measure is at most 4 times the usual Hausdorff 2-measure. For each $m$, let $j_m$ be the largest integer such that $2r_m \leq 10^{-j_m}$. Observe that $10^{-j_m} < 20r_m \leq 20 \cdot 10^{-j}$ and hence that $j_m \geq j-1$.
From Lemma \[lemm:oscillation\] and we deduce $$\begin{aligned}
r_m \mathcal{H}^1(u(B_m))& \leq \frac{4}{\pi} \int_{2B_m} \rho\,d\mathcal{H}^2 \leq \frac{4}{\pi} \int_{B(x,10^{-j_m})}\rho\,d\mathcal{H}^2 \\
& \leq \frac{4}{\pi} \cdot \frac{1}{200} \int_{B(x,10^{-j_m+1})}\rho\,d\mathcal{H}^2 \\
& \leq \cdots \leq \frac{4}{\pi} \cdot \frac{1}{200^{j_m-k}} \int_{B(x,10^{-k})} \rho\, d\mathcal{H}^2.
\end{aligned}$$ In particular, $$\label{eq:oscillation}
r_m \mathcal{H}^1(u(B_m)) \leq \frac{4}{\pi} \cdot \frac{200^k}{200^{j_m}} \int_Q \rho\,d\mathcal{H}^2.$$
Similar to the first step of the proof, for each $m$ fix a measurable $A_m \supset u(B_m)$ such that $\mathcal{H}^1(A_m)=\mathcal{H}^1(u(B_m))$ and define $g_j(t) = \sum_m r_m\chi_{A_m}(t)$. Then, as before, the definition of $\mathcal{H}_{1/j}^1$ gives $$\label{nakki}
\mathcal{H}_{1/j}^1(\overline{u^{-1}(t)} \cap F_k) \leq 2g_j(t)$$ for all $t \in [0,1]$. Integrating gives $$\int_0^1 g_j(t)\,dt \leq \sum_m r_m\mathcal{H}^1(u(B_m)).$$ Applying and using the relationships $1 < 20\cdot 10^{j_m} r_m$ and $j_m \geq j-1$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_m r_m\mathcal{H}^1(u(B_m)) & \leq \sum_m \frac{3200}{\pi}\cdot 200^k r_m^2 \left( \frac{100}{200} \right)^{j_m} \int_Q \rho\,d\mathcal{H}^2 \\
& \leq \frac{3200}{\pi}\cdot 200^k \left( \frac{100}{200} \right)^{j} \left(\int_Q \rho\,d\mathcal{H}^2 \right) \sum_m r_m^2 \\
& \leq \frac{3200}{\pi}\cdot 200^k \left( \frac{100}{200} \right)^{j} \left(\int_Q \rho\,d\mathcal{H}^2 \right)\left(\mathcal{H}^2(F_k)+1/j \right) .
\end{aligned}$$ From this we obtain $$\lim_{j \to \infty} \int_0^1 g_j(t) \, dt \leq \lim_{j \to \infty} \frac{3200}{\pi}\cdot 200^k \cdot2^{-j} \left(\int_Q \rho\,d\mathcal{H}^2 \right)\left(\mathcal{H}^2(F_k)+1/j \right)=0.$$ Combining with Fatou’s lemma and shows that $ \mathcal{H}^1(\overline{u^{-1}(t)} \cap F_k)=0$ for almost every $t$. Since this is true for all $k$, follows.
With Proposition \[prop:coarea\_u\] in hand, the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\] is now simple.
First, observe from Proposition \[prop:coarea\_u\] that $\mathcal{H}^1(\overline{u^{-1}(t)}) < \infty$ for almost every $t \in [0,1]$. Also, as shown in Proposition \[prop:connect\], $\overline{u^{-1}(t)}$ is connected for all $t$ and connects $\zeta_2$ and $\zeta_4$. By Proposition \[prop:existence\_paths\], for almost every $t \in [0,1]$, $\overline{u^{-1}(t)}$ contains a simple rectifiable curve $\gamma_t$ joining $\zeta_2$ and $\zeta_4$ in $Q$. Let $g: Q \rightarrow [0,\infty]$ be an admissible function for $\Gamma_2$. Then $$\label{nakka}
1 \leq \int_{\gamma_t} g \, ds \leq \int_{\overline{u^{-1}(t)}} g\,d\mathcal{H}^1$$ for almost every $0 \leq t \leq 1$. Combining with Proposition \[prop:coarea\_u\] yields $$1 \leq \int^*_{[0,1]}\int_{\overline{u^{-1}(t)}} g\,d\mathcal{H}^1\,dt \leq \frac{4 \cdot 2000}{\pi} \int_Q g\rho\, d\mathcal{H}^2.$$ By Hölder’s inequality, $$\int_Q g\rho\,d\mathcal{H}^2 \leq \left( \int_Q g^2\,d\mathcal{H}^2 \right)^{1/2} \left( \int_Q \rho^2\, d\mathcal{H}^2 \right)^{1/2} = \left( \int_Q g^2\,d\mathcal{H}^2 \right)^{1/2} (\operatorname{mod}\Gamma_1)^{1/2}.$$ Infimizing over all admissible $g$, we obtain $$\frac{1}{2000^2\cdot (4/\pi)^2} \leq \operatorname{mod}\Gamma_1 \cdot \operatorname{mod}\Gamma_2.$$
We can improve the value of $\kappa$ as follows. For $\delta>0$, a version of the basic covering theorem yields a family of balls $B_j$ with the property that $\{(3+\delta)B_j\}$ covers $G$, instead of $\{5B_j\}$. In the definition of the set $G$ in Proposition \[prop:coarea\_u\], we may then use $B(x,2(3+\delta)r)$ in place of $B(x,10r)$. We also replace the constant 200 with $4(3+\delta)^2 + \delta$. Following the remainder of the proof and letting $\delta \rightarrow 0$ yields the final value of $\kappa = 216^2\cdot (4/\pi)^2$.
Continuity of $u$ {#sec:continuity_u}
=================
In this section, we strengthen Corollary \[cor:continuity\] by showing that the harmonic function $u$ is continuous on the entire set $Q$. In Theorem 5.1 of [@Raj:16], the continuity of $u$ is proved employing reciprocality condition . In contrast, we do not assume any of the reciprocality conditions in this section.
First, we need a technical fact. This is proved using Proposition 3.1 in [@Raj:16] (which is a re-statement of Proposition 15.1 in [@Sem:96c]) and an induction and limiting argument.
\[prop:curve\_parametrization\] Let $X$ be a metric space and $E \subset X$ a continuum with $\mathcal{H}^1(E) < \infty$. For all $x, y \in E$, there is a 1-Lipschitz curve $\gamma: [0, 2\mathcal{H}^1(E)] \rightarrow E$ such that $|\gamma| = E$, $\gamma(0) = x$, $\gamma(2\mathcal{H}^1(E)) = y$, and $\gamma^{-1}(z)$ contains at most two points for $\mathcal{H}^1$-almost every $z \in E$.
For this proof, we will let $D$ denote the length metric on $E$ induced by $d$. We write $D_{zw}$ in place of $D(z,w)$. Observe that $D_{zw} < \infty$ for all $z,w \in E$ by Proposition 3.1 in [@Raj:16]. Also, for $z,w \in E$, we use $\gamma_{zw}$ to denote some fixed choice of injective 1-Lipschitz curve in $E$ from $z$ to $w$ whose length attains $D_{zw}$; the existence of at least one such curve is guaranteed by the Hopf-Rinow theorem. Let $L = 2\mathcal{H}^1(E)$.
We will inductively define a sequence of curves $\gamma_j: [0, L] \rightarrow E$. We define first $\gamma_1$ by $$\gamma_1(t) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \gamma_{xy}(t) & 0 \leq t \leq D_{xy} \\ y & D_{xy} \leq t \leq L \end{array} \right. .$$
For the inductive step, assume that $\gamma_j$ has been defined for some $j \in \mathbb{N}$. If $|\gamma_j| = E$, then stop and take $\gamma = \gamma_j$. Otherwise, define $\gamma_{j+1}$ as follows. Let $z_j$ be a point in $E$ maximizing $D$-distance from $|\gamma_j|$. Such a point exists by the compactness of $E$. Let $\gamma_{w_jz_j}$ be a shortest curve from $|\gamma_j|$ to $z_j$, with initial point $w_j \in |\gamma_j|$. Let $t_j$ denote the smallest point in $[0, L]$ for which $\gamma_j(t_j) = w_j$. Define now $\gamma_{j+1}$ by $$\gamma_{j+1}(t) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \gamma_j(t) & 0 \leq t \leq t_j \\ \gamma_{w_jz_j}(t-t_j) & t_j \leq t \leq t_j + D_{w_jz_j} \\ \gamma_{w_jz_j}(t_j+2D_{w_jz_j} - t) & t_j + D_{w_jz_j} \leq t \leq t_j + 2D_{w_jz_j} \\ \gamma_j(t-2D_{w_jz_j}) & t_j + 2D_{w_jz_j} \leq t \leq \ell(\gamma_j) + 2D_{w_jz_j} \\ y & \ell(\gamma_j) + 2D_{w_jz_j} \leq t \leq L \end{array} \right. .$$
Observe that the curve $\gamma_j$ has multiplicity at most 2, except possibly at the points $w_j$. Thus $\ell(\gamma_j) + 2D_{w_jz_j} \leq D_{xy} + \sum_{k=1}^{j} 2 D_{w_kz_k} < 2\mathcal{H}^1(|\gamma_j|) \leq L$. Hence the curve $\gamma_{j+1}$ is well-defined.
We also note that $D(\gamma_{j+1}(t),\gamma_j(t)) \leq 2D_{w_jz_j}$ for all $t \in [0,L]$ and $j \in \mathbb{N}$, and thus the curves $\gamma_j$ converge pointwise to a curve $\gamma: [0, L] \rightarrow E$. By construction, the curve $\gamma$ has multiplicity at most 2, except possibly on the countable set $\{w_j\}$. To see that $|\gamma| = E$, suppose there exists $z \in E \setminus |\gamma|$. But then $D(z,|\gamma|) > 0$. In particular, there exists $j \in \mathbb{N}$ with $D(w_j,z_j) < D(z, |\gamma_j|)$, contradicting the maximality of the choice of $z_j$.
We proceed now to the main result of this section.
\[thm:continuity\] The function $u$ is continuous in $Q$.
For all $t \in [0,1]$ such that $\mathcal{H}^1(\overline{u^{-1}(t)}) < \infty$, let $\gamma_t$ denote a curve connecting $\zeta_2$ to $\zeta_4$ whose image is $\overline{u^{-1}(t)}$ satisfying the conclusions of Proposition \[prop:curve\_parametrization\]. By Lemma 4.3 in [@Raj:16], $u$ is continuous on each $\gamma_t$ except on a curve family of modulus zero. Observe that $$\int_{\gamma_t} g\,ds \leq 2\int_{\overline{u^{-1}(t)}}g\, d\mathcal{H}^1$$ for each $t$ such that $\gamma_t$ is defined, for any Borel function $g:Q \rightarrow [0, \infty]$. From this fact and the coarea inequality Proposition \[prop:coarea\_u\], it follows that $u$ is continuous on $\gamma_t$ for every $t \in E$, where $E \subset [0,1]$ has full measure.
Suppose for contradiction that $u$ is not continuous at the point $x \in Q$. Let $s_1 = \liminf_{y \rightarrow x} u(y)$ and $s_2 = \limsup_{y \rightarrow x} u(y)$; then $0 \leq s_1 < s_2 \leq 1$. Take $\varepsilon$ satisfying $0 < \varepsilon < (s_2-s_1)/2$. Then $x \in A_1 \cap A_2$, where $A_1= \overline{u^{-1}([s_1-\varepsilon, s_1+\varepsilon])}$ and $A_2 = \overline{u^{-1}([s_2-\varepsilon,s_2+\varepsilon])}$. Pick $t_1,t_2 \in (s_1 + \varepsilon, s_2 - \varepsilon) \cap E$ with $t_1 < t_2$. Observe that $Q \setminus |\gamma_{t_1}|$ consists of two disjoint relatively open sets $U_1, U_2 \subset Q$, where each component of $U_1$ intersects $\zeta_1$ and each component of $U_2$ intersects $\zeta_3$. Lemma \[lemm:maximum\_principle\] implies that $A_1 \subset \overline{U}_1$ and that $A_2 \subset \overline{U}_2$. This shows that $x \in \overline{U}_1 \cap \overline{U}_2$ and hence that $x \in |\gamma_{t_1}|$. Since $u^{-1}(t_1)$ is a dense subset of $|\gamma_{t_1}|$, we see that $u(x) = t_1$. However, the same argument shows that $u(x) = t_2$, giving a contradiction.
[**Acknowledgement.**]{} We are grateful to Toni Ikonen, Atte Lohvansuu, Dimitrios Ntalampekos, Martti Rasimus and the referee for their comments and corrections.
[^1]: The first author was supported by the Academy of Finland, project number 308659. The second author was partially supported by the Academy of Finland grant 288501 and by the ERC Starting Grant 713998 GeoMeG. Primary 30L10, Secondary 30C65, 28A75.
|
---
abstract: 'As of today abuse is a pressing issue to participants and administrators of Online Social Networks (OSN). Abuse in Twitter can spawn from arguments generated for influencing outcomes of a political election, the use of bots to automatically spread misinformation, and generally speaking, activities that [*deny*]{}, [*disrupt*]{}, [*degrade*]{} or [*deceive*]{} other participants and, or the network. Given the difficulty in finding and accessing a large enough sample of abuse ground truth from the Twitter platform, we built and deployed a custom crawler that we use to judiciously collect a new dataset from the Twitter platform with the aim of characterizing the nature of abusive users, a.k.a abusive “birds”, in the wild. We provide a comprehensive set of features based on users’ attributes, as well as social-graph metadata. The former includes metadata about the account itself, while the latter is computed from the social graph among the sender and the receiver of each message. Attribute-based features are useful to characterize user’s accounts in OSN, while graph-based features can reveal the dynamics of information dissemination across the network. In particular, we derive the Jaccard index as a key feature to reveal the benign or malicious nature of directed messages in Twitter. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to propose such a similarity metric to characterize abuse in Twitter.'
author:
-
-
-
title: 'Trollslayer: Crowdsourcing and Characterization of Abusive Birds in Twitter'
---
Introduction
============
Users of OSN are exposed to abuse by other participants, who typically send their victims harmful messages designed to [*deny*]{}, [*disrupt*]{}, [*degrade*]{} and [*deceive*]{} among a few, as reported by top secret methods for online cyberwarfare in JTRIG [@JTRIGs]. In Twitter, these practices have a non-negligible impact in the manipulation of political elections [@Ferrara2015], fluctuation of stock markets [@Bollen2011] or even promoting terrorism [@twitter-suspension]. As of today, and in the current turmoil of fake news and hate speech, we require a global definition for “abuse”. We find the above definition from JTRIG to be able to cover all types of abuse we find in OSN as of today. Secondly, to identify abuse the Twitter platform often relies on participants reporting such incidents of abuse. In other OSN as Facebook this is also the case, as suggested by the large number of false positives encountered by [@boshmafbots2011] in the Facebook Immune System [@immune]. In addition, Twitter suspending abusive participants can be seen as censorship, as it effectively limits free speech of users in the Internet. Finally, user’s privacy is today an increasing concern for users of large OSN. Privacy often clashes with efforts for reducing abuse in these platforms [@FrenchCourt] because even disclosing metadata that holds individuals accountable in such cases violates the fundamental right to privacy according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [@UN]. In the same vein, and back to the Twitter platform, we observe a constant trading of individuals’ privacy for granting governments access to private metadata. This endangers citizens well-being and puts them into the spotlight for law enforcement to charge them with criminal offenses, even when no serious criminal offense has been committed [@caution:2012].
The main contribution of this paper is a large-scale study of the dynamics of abuse in a popular online social micro-blogging media platform, Twitter. For that, we collect a dataset where we annotate a subset of the messages received by potential victims of abuse in order to characterize and assess the prevalence of such malicious messages and participants. Also, we find it revealing to understand how humans agree or not in what represents abuse during the crowd sourcing. In summary, the aim of the study is to answer the following research questions (RQ):
**RQ.1:** Can we obtain relevant abuse ground truth from a large OSN such as Twitter using BFS (Bread-First-Search) sampling for data collection and crowd-sourcing for data annotation? We show statistics about the dataset collected and the annotated dataset respectively.
**RQ.2:** Does it make sense to characterize abuse from a victim’s point of view? We provide a list of user attributes (local) and graph-based (global) features that can characterize abusive behavior.
**RQ.3:** What are the dynamics of abusive behavior? Does it appear as an isolated incident or is it somehow organized? We show that the source of several messages comes from an automated social media scheduling platform that redirects Twitter users to a doubtful site about a fund-raising campaign for a charity (considered as deceive in the abuse definition we employ).
Victim-Centric Methodology
==========================
In order to collect data from Twitter we adapt the usual BFS for crawling social media and start crawling data from a sufficiently representative number of accounts for our measurement, which we we call the victims’ seed set. The first half of accounts are likely victims, chosen independently of any sign or trace of abuse in their public Twitter timeline in order to account for randomness in the measurements. The second half is selected based in their public timeline containing traces or likelihood of abuse, namely potential victims of abuse. Therefore, we define the seed set as made up of potential victims and likely victims. We then bootstrap our crawler, following the recursive procedure in Algorithm \[algo:bfs\], which collects messages directed towards each of the seeds. If a message is directed towards or mentioning two or more victims, we consider it several times for the same message sender but with different destinations. We also collect the subscription and subscriber accounts of sender and receiver in the Twitter social graph, namely follower and followee relationships.
Data model {#datamodel}
----------
Consider a seed set of nodes for forming a graph $\mathcal{G}_s$=$(\mathcal{V}_s, \mathcal{E}_s)$ containing the nodes in the seed set (victims) and their potential perpetrators as the two entities defining the edge relationships in $\mathcal{E}_s$. Given that $\mathcal{G}_s$ is a directed graph made of vertices $(\mathcal{V}_s)$ and edges $(\mathcal{E}_s)$ making up a connection or defining a message sent among a pair of nodes $(u,v)$, we derive two specialized directed graphs with their corresponding relationships, messaging or social follow in the network.
Firstly, let $\mathcal{G}_f$=$(\mathcal{V}_f, \mathcal{E}_f)$ be a directed graph of social relationships where the vertices $\mathcal{V}_f$ represent users and a set of directed edges $\mathcal{E}_f$ representing subscriptions:
$$\mathcal{E}_f \coloneqq \{ (u, v) \mid u \textrm{ publicly follows } v\}$$
Secondly, let $\mathcal{G}_m$=$(\mathcal{V}_m, \mathcal{E}_m)$ be a directed messaging multi-graph with a set of users as vertices $\mathcal{V}_m$, and a set of directed edges representing messages sent by user $u$ mentioning user $v$:
$$\mathcal{E}_m \coloneqq \{ (u, v) \mid u \textrm{ messages } v\ \textrm{with a public mention} \} $$
$\mathcal{E}_m$ models the tweets that are shown to users with or without explicit subscription by the recipient to the sender. Thus, these messages represent a vector for abusive behavior.
To bootstrap our crawler, we start with the mentioned *seed set* and run an adapted and recursive *bounded breath-first-search* (bBFS) procedure on the Twitter input seeds to cover up to a maximum depth [*maxdepth*]{} we pass as parameter to it. In Algorithm \[algo:bfs\] we summarize the operational mode of [*bBFS*]{}.
Boundaries of the data crawl
----------------------------
The configuration of the crawler controls from where the crawl starts and puts some restrictions on where it should stop. The first one of such restrictions during the graph traversal is collecting incoming edges a.k.a followers in Twitter when the number does not exceed an upper bound, depending on the chosen [*maxfollowers*]{} as node popularity. Secondly, the followers must be within a maximum depth we call [*maxdepth*]{} in order to collect the related metadata in the graph belonging to them.
For each node meeting the above constraints, we also collect user account metadata as well as their respective public timeline of messages metadata in Twitter; then we start crawling the followers of nodes at depth 1, and next depth 2 (followers of followers)and so on as set by the parameter mentioned. In our dataset, we never go any further than second degree followers to collect relationships among users in the social graph crawled.
Data annotation {#gt}
---------------
To annotate abuse we have developed an in-house crowd-sourcing platform, [*Trollslayer*]{} [^1], where we enlisted ourselves and various colleagues to assist with the tedious effort of annotating abuse. However, we decide to enlarge our annotations with the support of a commercial crowd-sourcing platform named [*Crowdflower*]{}, where we spent around \$30 in credit using a student data for everyone pack. In the crowd sourcing process we account for scores collected from 156 crowd workers in [*Crowdflower*]{} and 7 trusted crowd workers in [*Trollslayer*]{}, accounting to 163 crowd workers overall. In these two platforms we display the same tweets and the same guidelines to crowd workers that annotate messages. Therefore, we are able to compute the global scores from both platforms on the same tweets to end up with at least 3 annotations per tweet inthe worst case.
Dataset
=======
So far we have judiciously collected a dataset from Twitter to characterize abuse in Twitter. Using crowd workers we obtain abuse ground truth. Next we extract relatively simple features from the collected dataset. Given that the features are largely based on data that is available in the proximity of the potential victim, we aim to characterize the distribution of abuse in an online micro-blogging platform from the view of the victim. This also avoids the Big Data mining that can only be effectively performed by large micro-blogging service providers.
Statistics {#sub:dataset-stats}
----------
Table \[table:crawl\] shows statistics about the dataset collected such as the number of tweets directed toward the list of victims in our seed set. In total, we account for 1648 tweets directed to our seed set at depth 1. Then we show the same statistics organized by *depth* in the recursive crawl performed to obtain the dataset. Note that for the purpose of the statistical analysis of the dataset and findings presented here, we will only take into consideration nodes for which the social graph has been fully collected. Due to Twitter Terms and Conditions (TTC) we plan to make available and public only the identifiers of the messages annotated but not the rest of the information associated to the message, graph or private information that identifies the crowd-workers.
[max width=]{}
-------------------------------------------------------- ------ ------ ----- -----
$\mathcal{E}_s \in \mathcal{G}_s$ directed to seed set – –
$\mathcal{E}_m \in \mathcal{G}_m$
\# with mentions 567
\# with mentions & retweets 113 0
\# with mentions & replies 1183 1026 292 284
\# $\mathcal{E}_f \in \mathcal{G}_f$ 0
-------------------------------------------------------- ------ ------ ----- -----
: Basic statistics of the data crawled[]{data-label="table:crawl"}
### Ground Truth {#sub:agreement}
Following a voting scheme we explain here, we aggregate the votes received for each tweet into a consensus score. We take a pessimistic approach to ensure that a single vote is not decisive in the evaluation of a tweet as abusive (e.g., unlike in Brexit affairs). That is, if the aggregated score is between -1 and 1 the message is considered [*undecided*]{}. The sum of scores will render a tweet as [*abusive*]{} in the ground truth when >1 and for [*acceptable*]{} when <-1 . The final annotated dataset is comprised of labeled messages, out of which are marked as acceptable and as abusive and undecided.
![Agreement in ground truth by platform[]{data-label="fig:hb-scores"}](fig-new-converted/score_abuse_acceptable_boxplots-eps-converted-to){width="\columnwidth"}
Figure \[fig:hb-scores\] shows the result of crowdsourcing abuse annotation when asking crowd-workers to mark messages as either, abusive, acceptable or undecided. Agreement is high in both platforms, even so for abusive messages, but as expected lower than acceptable due to perfect disagreement in a number of tweets as the ones we show in Table \[table:disagreement\]. There are tweets with perfect disagreement in Trollslayer out of around annotated, in Crowdflower out of , and in the aggregate out of mentioned above accounting for aggregated voting of all annotations from both platforms. Generally speaking, we see an upper bound of about 3.75% disagreement for Crowdflower, 2% in Trollslayer and lower bound of 1.3% among both, which highlights the importance of employing a minimal set of trusted crowd workers in the annotations (as we did with Trollslayer).
### Agreement
To ensure agreement among crowd workers is valid, we calculate the inter-assessor agreement score of Randolph’s multi-rater kappa [@randolph2005free] among the crowd workers with common tweets annotated. Similarly to Cohen’s kappa or Fleiss’ Kappa, the Randolph’s kappa descriptive statistic is used to measure the nominal inter-rater agreement between two or more raters in collaborative science experiments. We choose Randolph’s kappa over the others by following Brennan and Predige suggestion from 1981 of using free-marginal kappa when crowd workers can assign a free number of cases to each category being evaluated (e.g., [*abusive*]{}, [*acceptable*]{}) and using fixed-marginal otherwise [@brennan1981coefficient]. Our case considers different crowd workers assigning a different number of annotations to each class or category, which satisfies Randolph’s kappa requirement.
Note that in contrast to simple agreement scores, descriptive statistics consider agreement on all three possibilities, [*abusive*]{}, [*acceptable*]{} and [*undecided*]{}, thus providing a more pessimistic measure of agreement among crowd workers. There are number of descriptive statistics [@Warrens2010] such as Light’s kappa and Hubert’s kappa, which are multi-rater versions of Cohen’s kappa. Fleiss’ kappa is a multi-rater extension of Scott’s pi, whereas Randolph’s kappa generalizes Bennett’ $S$ to multiple raters.
Given this setting, values of kappa can range from -1.0 to 1.0, with -1.0 meaning a complete disagreement below random, 0.0 meaning agreement equal to chance, and 1.0 indicating perfect agreement above chance. According to Randolph, usually a kappa above 0.60 indicates very good inter-rater agreement. Across all annotations we obtain overall agreement of 0.73 and a a Randolph’s free-marginal of 0.59 which is about the recommended value in Randolph’s kappa (0.60).
[|c|c|]{} Time & Text\
2015-11-26 20:51:49 &\
2015-11-23 20:41:52 &\
2015-11-29 11:59:25 &\
We inspect some of the annotations manually and discover that some scores are aggregated as undecided and not as abusive due to their crowd-workers annotating as undecided several of these tweets serially. That shows the cognitive difficulty in the task of annotating abuse or the tedious nature which we mention before (despite having rewarded the crowd-workers in both platforms). On the other hand, we noticed it is easy for crowd workers to spot offensive messages containing [*hate speech*]{} or similar (which in fact is abuse but only a subset according to the [*JTRIG*]{} definition) but not so for deceitful messages or content.
Characterization of Abuse
=========================
This section shows that our method can indeed capture all type of abusive behavior in Twitter and that while humans still have a hard time identifying as abuse deceitful activity, our latest findings suggest the use of network level features to identify some abuse automatically instead.
Incidents
---------
In several cases we find where there is perfect disagreement among crowd workers, see Table \[table:disagreement\]; while in others some of the actual abusive “birds” are just too difficult to spot for humans given just a tweet but more likely if we inspect an exhaustive list of similar messages from the potential perpetrators’ timeline as shown in Table \[table:deceitful\]. In that case the abusive “bird” is repeatedly mentioning the same users through the special character “@” that Twitter enables in order to direct public messages to other participants. Besides, he repeatedly adds a link to a doubtful fund-raising campaign.
[|c|c|c|c|]{} Time & Text & Mentions & Hashtags\
2015-12-11 23:16:25 & & &\
2015-12-11 23:16:27 & & &\
We investigate the owner of the Twitter public profile `@jrbny`: titled “Food Service 4 Rochester Schools”, which is also related to a presumed founder `@JohnLester` and both belonging to “Global Social Entrepreneurship”.
Firstly, we look into the JSON data of the tweet and check the value of the field [*source*]{} in the Twitter API just to confirm that it points to “https://unfollowers.com”, which in turn redirects to “https://statusbrew.com/”, a commercial site to engage online audiences through social media campaigns. This confirms our suspicions about the nature of the profile and its use for a public fundraising campaign. After a quick inspection at the products offered by this social media campaign management site, indeed we see that the site offers an option to automatically “schedule content” for publishing tweets online. In summary, this Twitter account is controlled by humans but uses an automatic scheduling service to post tweets and presumably follow/unfollow other accounts in the hope of obtaining financial donations through an online website. Secondly, expanding the shortened URL linked to tweets as the ones from Table \[table:deceitful\], we find out that indeed the user is redirected to a donation website [^2] from this organization. The site is hosted in Ontario and belongs to the Autonomous System AS62679, namely *Shopify, Inc.*, which reportedly serves several domains distributing malware. We also acknowledge the difficulty in automating crowdsourcing and characterization of the type of abuse [*deceive*]{}. Finally, in order to highlight the effect of automated campaign management tools as the ones used in the above case, we crawled the same profile again in 2016-01-10 23:02:59, and the account had only 16690 followers compared to the current 36531 as of January 2017, therefore showing a successful use of semi-automated agents on Twitter for fund-raising activities.
Features of Abusive Behavior
----------------------------
In order to characterize abuse we extract and build a set of novel features, categorized as [*Attribute*]{} or [*Graph*]{} based, which measure abuse in terms of the [*Message*]{}, [*User*]{}, [*Social*]{} and [*Similarity*]{}. We apply Extraction, Transformation and Loading (ETL) on the raw data in order to obtain the inputs to each of the features in those subcategories. The most readily available properties from the *tweet* are extracted. Then we also capture a number of raw inputs in the tweet that identify the features for a particular *user*. The next, and more complex subset of features involve [*Social*]{} graph metadata, which also enables the computation of the novel [*Similarity*]{} feature subset, namely the Jaccard index ($\mathcal{J}$). Table \[table:features\] summarizes the complete set of features we have developed to evaluate abusive behavior in Twitter.
[max width=0.8]{}
Metadata Feature Description
-- ---------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\# mentions mentions count in tweet
\# hashtags hashtag count in the tweet
\# retweets times a message has been reposted
is\_retweet (true/false) message is a repost
is\_reply (true/false) message is a reply
sensitive message links to external URL
\#badwords number of swear words from Google [@googlebadwords]
$\nicefrac{\text{\# replies}}{\text{\# tweets} of user}$ fraction of replies to tweets
verified (true/false) sender account is verified by Twitter
\# favorites \# tweets marked as favorites by sender
age of user account days since account creation
\# lists number of lists of sender
$\nicefrac{\text{\# messages}}{\text{age} of user}$ tweets per day
$\nicefrac{\text{\# mentions}}{\text{age} of user}$ mentions per day
$\nicefrac{\text{\# mentions}}{\text{\# tweets} of user}$ ratio of mentions to tweets
account recent check if account age is $<=$ 30 days
\# subscriptions$^s$ followee count from public feed of sender
\# subscribers$^s$ follower count to public feed of sender
$\nicefrac{\text{\# subscribers}}{\text{age}}$ ratio of subscribers count to age of sender
$\nicefrac{\text{\# subscriptions}}{\text{age}}$ ratio of subscriptions count to age of sender
$\nicefrac{\# \text{subscriptions}}{\# \text{subscribers}}$ ratio of subscriptions count to subscribers of sender
$\nicefrac{\# \text{subscribers}}{\# \text{subscriptions}}$ ratio of subscribers count to subscriptions of sender
reciprocity true if bi-directional relationship among sender and receiver in $\mathcal{G}_f$
$\mathcal{J}$ (subscriptions$^s$, subscriptions$^r$) $\mathcal{J}$ of sender & receiver subscriptions
$\mathcal{J}$ (subscribers$^s$, subscribers$^r$) $\mathcal{J}$ of sender & receiver subscribers
$\mathcal{J}$ (subscriptions$^s$, subscribers$^r$) $\mathcal{J}$ of subscriptions of sender & subscribers of receiver
$\mathcal{J}$ (subscribers$^s$, subscriptions$^r$) $\mathcal{J}$ of subscribers of sender & subscriptions of receiver
To visualize the data distribution of the most relevant features from Table \[table:features\] in detail we show the complementary cumulative distribution function (CCDF), which represents the probability $P$ that a feature having value of $\geq x$ in the x axis does not exceed $X$ in the y axis. We use the CCDF in log-log scale to be able to pack a large range of values within the axis of the plot.
In we compare the characteristic distribution among abuse and acceptable content in our annotated dataset. The dotted line here represents abusive while the continuous one acceptable.
For the [*Attribute*]{} based features we notice the most significant gap among acceptable and abusive is the [*Message*]{} category, in particular the number of replies that a sender user has authored, meaning that abusive “birds” reply more often and seek controversy as part of their public speech in Twitter. This makes sense from a “trolling” perspective if we consider that the definition of troll is a user that posts controversial, divisive and at times inflammatory content. Secondly, and to the contrary of what we expected, we observe that humans agree on abuse when there are fewer receivers or mentioned users, so the abuse is less likely to be directed to multiple victims according to this. Otherwise, Table \[table:disagreement\] shows that no agreement is reached with multiple targets if addressing users as a group, which can not be correlated into a personal attack to the potential victim. We see this as an indication of perpetrators sending disguising messages to their victims in order to decrease the visibility of their abusive behavior.
Finally, the distribution presented in the “badwords” feature shows that at least one “badword” exist for many of tweets annotated as abusive by our crowd workers, showing a light tailed distribution with smaller probabilities for a larger number of “badwords”. Firstly, this confirms that human crowd workers are notably good at flagging abusive content when it is related to the language itself and secondly, that abusive messages flagged as such by humans did not contain many “badwords”. That is also confirmed by the fact that “bad words” have a negligible value in the distribution of acceptable for such feature. On the contrary, with hashtags we mostly observe acceptable messages in the CCDF thus indicating that messages from our ground truth flagged as abusive barely contain any hashtags.
We observe that some of the similarity features in the [*graph-based*]{} category exhibit a distinguishable pattern among acceptable and abusive messages. In particular, this is the case for [*mutual subscribers*]{} and [*mutual subscriptions*]{}, where the feature is calculated using [*Social*]{} graph metadata from a pair of users, namely sender and receiver. The most interesting CCDF is perhaps the [*mutual subscriptions*]{} one, Figure \[fig:ccdf-followees-followees\], in which there is a significant initial gap between the social graph of acceptable and abusive messages in the log probability ($P(X>x)$) in the y axis for nearly about two-thirds of the distribution. Note that here the maximum value of the axis runs from zero to $10^0$ given that we compute similarity using Jaccard. Considering that we did not present crowd workers with information about the social graph, it is quite surprising that some of these the graph-based features show a characteristic pattern.
Related Work
============
The following section covers works similar to ours that fall in the categories of the included subsections.
Graph-based
-----------
To characterize abuse without considering the content of the communication, graph-based techniques have been proven useful for detecting and combating dishonest behavior [@Ortega2013] and cyberbullying [@Galan-Garcia2014], as well as to detect fake accounts in OSN [@Cao2012]. However, they suffer from the fact that real-world social graphs do not always conform to the key assumptions made about the system. Thus, it is not easy to prevent attackers from infiltrating the OSN or micro-blogging platform in order to deceive others into befriending them. Consequently, these Sybil accounts can still create the illusion of being strongly connected to a cluster of legitimate user accounts, which in turn would render such graph-based Sybil defenses useless. On the other hand and yet in the context of OSN, graph-based Sybil defenses can benefit from supervised machine learning techniques that consider a wider range of metadata as input into the feature set in order to predict potential victims of abuse [@boshmaf2015thwarting]. Facebook Immune System (FIS) uses information from user activity logs to automatically detect and act upon suspicious behaviors in the OSN. Such automated or semi-automated methods are not perfect. In relation to the FIS, [@boshmafbots2011] found that only about 20% of the deceitful profiles they deployed were actually detected, which shows that such methods result in a significant number of false negatives.
Victim-centric
--------------
The data collection in [@garcia2016discouraging] was partially inspired by the idea of analyzing the victims of abuse to eventually aid individual victims in the prevention and prediction of abusive incidents in online forums and micro-blogging sites as Twitter. One observation from previous research [@boshmaf2015integro] that we have embedded into some of our features is that abusive users can only befriend a fraction of real accounts. Therefore, in the case of Twitter that would mean having bidirectional links with legitimate users. We capture that intuition during data collection by scraping in real-time the messages containing mentions to other users ([@user]{}) and thus we are able to extract features such as ratio of follows sent/received, mutual subscribers/subscriptions, etc.
Natural Language Processing and text based
------------------------------------------
Firstly, previous datasets in this area are not yet released or in their infancy for verification of their applicability as abuse ground truth gold standard. The authors of [@nobata2016abusive] claim to outperform deep learning techniques to detect hate speech, derogatory language and profanity. They compare their results with a previous dataset from [@Djuric:2015] and assess the accuracy of detecting abusive language with distributional semantic features to find out that it does largely depends upon the evolution of the content that abusers post in the platform or else having to retrain the model.
Finally, it is worth mentioning we in our feature set do not include sentiment analysis inputs as [@slangsd] did; simply because we are interested in complex types of abuse that require more than just textual content analysis. Additionally, we have noticed that while some words or expressions may seem abusive at first (e.g., vulgar language), they are not when the conversation takes place between participants that know each other well or are mutually connected in the social graph (e.g., family relatives).
Other datasets
--------------
Following the above classifications, we compile a number of previous works [@de2010does; @cha2010measuring; @kwak2010twitter; @gabielkov2012] that collected a large portion of the Twitter graph for its characterization but not really meant for abusive behavior. Note some of these datasets can provide some utility from their social-graph for characterization of abusive behaviour but they are either anonymized or we are not able to get access to them. Naturally, social-graph metadata is not available due to restrictions imposed by Twitter Terms and Conditions (TTC) for data publishing. We also find the Impermium dataset, from a public Kaggle competition [@impermium-dataset] that provides the text of a number of tweets and labels for classifying such messages as an insult or not. This can be useful for textual analysis of abuse (only for non-subtle insults), which can be supported by application of NLP based techniques, but it does not contain any social graph related metadata that we use in our characterization of abuse. Besides, as the tweet identifiers from the Imperium dataset are anonymized, it is not possible to reproduce data collection.
Conclusion
==========
We concluded that identifying abuse is a hard cognitive task for crowd workers and that it requires employing specific guidelines to support them. It is also necessary to provide a platform as we created or questionnaires to ask crowd workers to flag a tweet as abusive if it falls within any of the categories of the guidelines, in our case the 4 D’s of JTRIG, [*deny*]{}, [*disrupt*]{}, [*degrade*]{}, [*deceive*]{}. As a crowd worker provides a non-binary input value from [*acceptable*]{}, [*abusive*]{}, [*undecided*]{} to annotate tweets from $\mathcal{E}_m$, the latter option is important; even with relatively clear guidelines, crowd workers are often unsure if a particular tweet is abusive. To further compensate for this uncertainty, each tweet has been annotated multiple times by independent crowd workers (at least 3). We highlight the reason for the disagreement we encountered by listing a few tweets in Table \[table:disagreement\]. Table \[table:deceitful\] contains metadata from a user that consistently tweets from a third-party tweet scheduling service.
Additionally, using the set of features presented here one could provide semi-automated abuse detection in order to help humans to act as judges of abuse. Filtering “badwords” is not quite enough to judge a user as abusive or not, so in order to provide a better context to human crowd workers one could imagine coupling the score of attribute based features with those graph-based features that can provide an implicit nature of the relationships between senders and receivers of the content, thus flagging messages or users as abusive “bird” (or not) in Twitter. This will also present an scenario where abuse is a less tedious and self-damaging tasks for human crowd workers reading abusive content during annotation.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
Thank you to the anonymous Trollslayer crowd workers.
[^1]: <https://github.com/algarecu/trollslayer>
[^2]: Campaign site: [www.pureheartsinternational.com](www.pureheartsinternational.com)
|
---
abstract: 'Preliminary results are presented from a simple, single-antenna experiment designed to measure the all-sky radio spectrum between 100 and 200 MHz. The system used an internal comparison-switching scheme to reduce non-smooth instrumental contaminants in the measured spectrum to 75 mK. From the observations, we place an initial upper limit of $450$ mK on the relative brightness temperature of the redshifted 21 cm contribution to the spectrum due to neutral hydrogen in the intergalactic medium (IGM) during the epoch of reionization, assuming a rapid transition to a fully ionized IGM at a redshift of 8. With refinement, this technique should be able to distinguish between slow and fast reionization scenarios. To constrain the duration of reionization to $\Delta z>2$, the systematic residuals in the measured spectrum must be reduced to 3 mK.'
author:
- 'Judd D. Bowman, Alan E. E. Rogers, and Jacqueline N. Hewitt'
title: Toward Empirical Constraints on the Global Redshifted 21 cm Brightness Temperature during the Epoch of Reionization
---
Introduction
============
The transition period at the end of the cosmic “Dark Ages” is known as the epoch of reionization (EOR). During this epoch, radiation from the very first luminous sources—early stars, galaxies, and quasars—succeeded in ionizing the neutral hydrogen gas that had filled the intergalactic medium (IGM) since the recombination event following the Big Bang. Reionization marks a significant shift in the evolution of the Universe. For the first time, gravitationally-collapsed objects exerted substantial feedback on their environments through electromagnetic radiation, initiating processes that have dominated the evolution of the visible baryonic Universe ever since. The epoch of reionization, therefore, can be considered a dividing line when the relatively simple evolution of the early Universe gave way to more complicated and more interconnected processes. Although the Dark Ages are known to end when the first luminous sources ionized the neutral hydrogen in the IGM, precisely when this transition occurred remains uncertain.
The best existing constraints on the timing of the reionization epoch come from two sources: the cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropy and absorption features in the spectra of high-redshift quasars. The amplitude of the observed temperature anisotropy in the CMB is affected by Thomson scattering due to electrons along the line of sight between the surface of last scattering and the detector, and thus, it is sensitive to the ionization history of the IGM through the electron column density. In addition, if there is sufficient optical depth to CMB photons due to free electrons in the IGM after reionization, some of the angular anisotropy in the unpolarized intensity can be converted to polarized anisotropy. This produces a peak in the polarization power spectrum at the angular scale size equivalent to the horizon at reionization with an amplitude proportional to the optical depth [@1997ApJ...488....1Z]. Measurements by the WMAP satellite of these effects indicate that the redshift of reionization is $z_r\approx11\pm4$ [@2007ApJS..170..377S], assuming an instantaneous transition.
Lyman-$\alpha$ absorption by neutral hydrogen is visible in the spectra of many high-redshift quasars and, thus, offers the second currently feasible probe of the ionization history of the IGM. Continuum emission from quasars is redshifted as it travels through the expanding Universe to the observer. Neutral hydrogen along the line of sight creates absorption features in the continuum at wavelengths corresponding to the local rest-frame wavelength of the Lyman-$\alpha$ line. Whereas CMB measurements place an integrated constraint on reionization, quasar absorption line studies are capable of probing the ionization history in detail along the sight-lines. There is a significant limitation to this approach, however. The Lyman-$\alpha$ absorption saturates at very low fractions of neutral hydrogen (of order $x_{HI} \approx 10^{-4}$). Nevertheless, results from these studies have been quite successful and show that, while the IGM is highly ionized below $z\lesssim6$ (with typical $x_{HI}\lesssim10^{-5}$), a significant amount of neutral hydrogen is present above, although precisely how much remains unclear [@2001ApJ...560L...5D; @2001AJ....122.2850B; @2002AJ....123.1247F; @2003AJ....125.1649F; @2004Natur.427..815W; @2006AJ....132..117F].
The existing CMB and quasar absorption measurements are somewhat contradictory. Prior to these studies, the reionization epoch was assumed generally to be quite brief, with the transition from an IGM filled with fully neutral hydrogen to an IGM filled with highly ionized hydrogen occurring very rapidly. These results, however, open the possibility that the ionization history of the IGM may be more complicated than previously believed [@2003ApJ...595....1H; @2003ApJ...591...12C; @2003MNRAS.344..607S; @2004ApJ...604..484M].
Direct observations of the 21 cm (1420 MHz) hyperfine transition line of neutral hydrogen in the IGM during the reionization epoch would resolve the existing uncertainties and reveal the evolving properties of the IGM. The redshifted 21 cm signal should appear as a faint, diffuse background in radio frequencies below $\nu<200$ MHz for redshifts above $z>6$ (according to $\nu=1420/[1+z]$ MHz). For diffuse gas in the high-redshift ($z\approx10$) IGM, the expected unpolarized differential brightness temperature of the redshifted 21 cm line relative to the pervasive CMB is readily calculable from basic principles and is given by [@2004ApJ...608..622Z their § 2] $$\begin{array}{rl}
\label{eqn_intro_temp} \delta T_{21}(\vec{\theta}, z) \approx~&
23~(1+\delta)~x_{HI} \left ( 1 - \frac{T_\gamma}{T_S} \right ) \\
& \times \left ( \frac{\Omega_b~h^2}{0.02} \right ) \left [ \left (
\frac{0.15}{\Omega_m~h^2} \right ) \left ( \frac{1+z}{10} \right )
\right ]^{1/2} \mbox{mK},
\end{array}$$ where $\delta(\vec{\theta},z)$ is the local matter over-density, $x_{HI}(\vec{\theta},z)$ is the neutral fraction of hydrogen in the IGM, $T_\gamma(z) = 2.73~(1+z)$ K is the temperature of CMB at the redshift of interest, $T_S(\vec{\theta},z)$ is the spin temperature that describes the relative population of the ground and excited states of the hyperfine transition, and $\Omega_b$ is the baryon density relative to the critical density, $\Omega_m$ is the total matter density, and $h$ specifies the Hubble constant according to $H_0=100~ h$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$. From Equation \[eqn\_intro\_temp\], we see that perturbations in the local density, spin temperature, and neutral fraction of hydrogen in the IGM would all be revealed as fluctuations in the brightness temperature of the observed redshifted 21 cm line.
The differential brightness temperature of the redshifted 21 cm line is very sensitive to the spin temperature. When the spin temperature is greater than the CMB temperature, the line is visible in emission. For $T_S \gg T_\gamma$, the magnitude of the emission saturates to a maximum (redshift-dependent) brightness temperature that is about 25 to 35 mK for a mean-density, fully neutral IGM between redshifts 6 and 15, assuming a $\Lambda$CDM cosmology with $\Omega_m=0.3$, $\Omega_\Lambda=0.7$, $\Omega_b=0.04$, and $h=0.7$. At the other extreme, when the spin temperature is very small and $T_S \ll T_\gamma$, the line is visible in absorption against the CMB with a potentially very large (and negative) relative brightness temperature.
A number of factors are involved in predicting the typical differential brightness temperature of the redshifted 21 cm line as a function of redshift. In particular, the spin temperature must be treated in detail, including collisional coupling between the spin and kinetic temperatures of the gas, absorption of CMB photons, and heating by ultra-violet radiation from the first luminous sources. We direct the reader to @2006PhR...433..181F for a good introduction to the topic. The results of several efforts to predict the evolution of the differential brightness temperature of the redshifted 21 cm line have yielded predictions that are generally consistent in overall behavior, but vary highly in specific details . These models tend to agree that, for a finite period at sufficiently high redshifts ($z\gtrsim20$), the hyperfine line should be seen in absorption against the CMB, with relative brightness temperatures of up to $|\delta
T_b|\lesssim100$ mK. This is because the IGM initially cools more rapidly than the CMB following recombination [@1994ApJ...427...25S; @1997ApJ...475..429M]. During this period, fluctuations in the differential brightness temperature of the redshifted 21 cm background should track the underlying baryonic matter density perturbations . Eventually, however, the models indicate that the radiation from the first generations of luminous sources will elevate the spin temperature of neutral hydrogen in the IGM above the CMB temperature and the redshifted 21 cm line should be detected in emission with relative brightness temperatures up to the expected maximum values (of order $25$ mK). Finally, during the reionization epoch, the neutral hydrogen becomes ionized, leaving little or no gas to produce the emission, and the apparent differential brightness temperature of the redshifted 21 cm line falls to zero as reionization progresses. As the gas is ionized, a unique pattern should be imprinted in the redshifted 21 cm signal that reflects the processes responsible for the ionizing photons and that evolves with redshift as reionization progresses [@1997ApJ...475..429M; @2000ApJ...528..597T; @2003ApJ...596....1C; @2004ApJ...608..622Z; @2004ApJ...613...16F]. The details of the specific timing, duration, and magnitude of these features remains highly variable between theoretical models due largely to uncertainties about the properties of the first luminous sources.
Measuring the brightness temperature of the redshifted 21 cm background could yield information about both the global and the local properties of the IGM. Determining the average brightness temperature over a large solid angle as a function of redshift would eliminate any dependence on local density and temperature perturbations and constrain the evolution of the product $\overline{x_{HI}(1-T_\gamma/T_S)}$, where we use the bar to denote a spatial average. During the reionization epoch, it is, in general, believed to be a good approximation to assume that $T_S\gg T_\gamma$ and, therefore, that the brightness temperature is proportional directly to $\bar{x}_{HI}$. Global constraints on the brightness temperature of the redshifted 21 cm line during the EOR, therefore, would directly constrain the neutral fraction of hydrogen in the IGM. Such constraints would provide a basic foundation for understanding the astrophysics of reionization by setting bounds on the duration of the epoch, as well as identifying unique features in the ionization history (for example if reionization occurred in two phases or all at once). They would also yield improvements in estimates of the optical depth to CMB photons and, thus, would help to break existing degeneracies in CMB measurements between the optical depth and properties of the primordial matter density power spectrum [@2006PhRvD..74l3507T].
![ \[f\_edges\_photos\] EDGES deployed at Mileura Station in Western Australia. The left panel shows the full antenna and ground screen in the foreground and the analog-to-digital conversion and data acquisition module in the background. The right panel is a close-up view of the amplifier and switching module connected directly to the antenna (through the balun).](f1_color.eps){width="20pc"}
For these reasons, several efforts are underway to make precise measurements of the radio spectrum below $\nu<200$ MHz ($z>6$). In this paper, we report on the initial results of the Experiment to Detect the Global EOR Signature (EDGES). In § \[s\_edges\_method\], we describe the specific approach used for EDGES to address the issue of separating the redshifted 21 signal from the foreground emission. We then give an overview of the EDGES system in § \[s\_edges\_system\], followed by the results of the first observing campaign with the system in § \[s\_edges\_results\], along with a discussion of the implications for future single-antenna measurements.
Method {#s_edges_method}
======
In principle, the global brightness temperature measurement is much less complicated to perform than the detection of local perturbations in the redshifted 21 cm background (which will be attempted in the near future by the Mileura Widefield Array \[MWA\], Low Frequency Array \[LOFAR\], Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope \[GMRT\], and Twenty-one Centimeter Array \[21CMA\]). Since the desired signal for the global measurement is the mean brightness temperature due to redshifted 21 cm emission (or absorption) over the entire sky, there is no need for high angular resolution or imaging. A single antenna tuned to the appropriate frequencies could reach the required sensitivity ($\sim25$ mK) within only one hour of integration time, assuming a reasonable spectral resolution of $\sim1$ MHz (equivalent to $\Delta
z\approx0.1$ at $z\approx8$). There is a fundamental complication with such an experiment, however, arising from the global nature of the signal. Since the expected redshifted 21 cm emission fills the entire sky, there is no ability to perform comparison switching between the target field and a blank field. The problem this causes is two-fold. First, it is difficult to separate the contribution to the measured spectrum due to the redshifted signal from that of any other all-sky emission, including Galactic synchrotron and free-free radiation, the integrated contribution of extragalactic continuum sources, or the CMB. Second, for similar reasons, it is difficult to avoid confusing any systematic effects in the measured spectrum due to the instrument or environment with received signal from the sky. The severity of these problems is exacerbated in single-antenna measurements by the intensity of the Galactic synchrotron emission. Unlike interferometric observations, a single antenna is sensitive to the large-scale emission from the Galaxy, providing a 200 to 10,000 K foreground in the measured spectrum.
Determining the $\sim25$ mK redshifted 21 cm contribution to the radio spectrum requires separating the signal from the foreground spectrum at better than 1 part in 10,000. This can be accomplished by taking advantage of the differences between the spectra of the Galactic and extragalactic foregrounds and the anticipated redshifted 21 cm contribution. As discussed by , Galactic synchrotron emission is the dominate component of the astrophysical foregrounds below $\nu<200$ MHz, accounting for all but approximately 30 to 70 K of the foregrounds at 178 MHz [@1967MNRAS.136..219B]. Its spectrum is very nearly a power-law given, in temperature units, by $T_{gal}(\nu) \sim \nu^{-\beta}$, where $\beta\approx2.5$ is the spectral index. The spectral index is generally constant over the frequencies of interest ($50 \lesssim \nu
\lesssim 200$ MHz), although it is known to flatten with decreasing frequency due to self-absorption. The intensity of the synchrotron emission and the exact value of the spectral index depend on Galactic coordinate. The amplitude varies over an order of magnitude, between about $200 < T_{gal} < 10,000$ K at 150 MHz (peaking toward the Galactic center and along the Galactic plane), while the spectral index has small variations of order $\sigma_\beta\approx0.1$ dependent largely on Galactic latitude, with the steepest regions occurring at high Galactic latitudes. Free-free emission in the Galaxy and discrete Galactic and extragalactic continuum sources also have spectra that can be reasonably described by power-laws. The integrated flux from extragalactic continuum sources is generally isotropic on large scales and accounts for the majority of the remaining power in the low-frequency radio spectrum, with free-free emission making up only about 1% of the total power. The combined spectrum due to the astrophysical foregrounds is smooth and remains similar to a power-law profile.
On the other hand, as the apparent differential brightness temperature of the redshifted 21 cm background transitions from $T_{21}=0$ mK at very high redshift to $T_{21}\approx-100$ mK before heating of the IGM by the first luminous sources, and then climbs to $T_{21}\approx25$ mK at the beginning of the reionization epoch before falling back to $T_{21}\approx0$ mK at the end of reionization, the global mean redshifted 21 cm spectrum may contain up to three relatively sharp features between $50\lesssim\nu\lesssim200$ MHz that would not be represented well by a power-law profile. For the large solid angles of a single antenna beam, the mean redshifted 21 cm signal should vary little from one location to another on the sky. @2006MNRAS.371..867F and [@2004ApJ...608..611G] have calculated example global mean redshifted 21 cm spectra for various assumptions of stellar formation histories.
The specific approach employed with EDGES to exploit these expected differences in spectral characteristics in order to overcome the difficulty in separating the foreground and signal contributions in the measured spectrum is to limit the scope of the experiment to test for discontinuous features in the spectrum, since these would necessarily be due to the rapid transitions in the redshifted 21 cm brightness temperature and not the spectrally smooth foregrounds. In particular, the frequency response of the system is designed to test for fast reionization only (and not the transitions that might arise at higher redshifts from cooling and heating of the IGM). In the extreme case that the transition from a fully neutral to a fully ionized IGM was virtually instantaneous, such that $\dot{\bar{x}}_{HI}(z_r)\rightarrow\infty$, where $z_r$ is the redshift of reionization, the contribution to the global spectrum at the frequencies corresponding to the reionization epoch would approach a step function. A sharp feature resembling a step function that is superimposed on the smooth power-law-like foreground spectrum should be relatively easy to identify. And if reionization were to progress more slowly, producing a smooth transition that spanned a large range of redshifts and many tens of MHz, a simple model could be used to set limits on the maximum rate of the transition.
In principle, a variety of such models could be devised to use in tests for the presence of a step feature in the radio spectrum due to a rapid reionization. A simple low-order polynomial fit to the measured spectrum would reveal such a discontinuous feature in the residual spectrum after subtracting the fit and, thus, would be able to determine the redshift range of a rapid reionization. Figure \[f\_edges\_model\] illustrates this approach by plotting a model (described in Section \[s\_edges\_limits\]) of the redshifted 21 cm contribution to the measured spectrum along with the residuals after a seventh-order polynomial fit is removed from a simulated sky spectrum. This is the method used for the preliminary EDGES measurements. An advantage of this approach for global reionization experiments is that, given sufficient sensitivity, even a null result could still constrain $\dot{\bar{x}}_{HI}(z)$ and, thereby, distinguish between slow and fast reionization scenarios.
Experiment Design {#s_edges_system}
=================
By focusing (at least initially) on confirming or ruling out a fast reionization scenario, the design of the EDGES system is able to be relatively simple. The primary need is to reduce any instrumental or systematic contributions to the measured power spectrum that vary rapidly with frequency, since these could be confused with a sharp feature in the spectrum due to a fast reionization of the IGM. Such contributions could be due to terrestrial transmitters, reflections of receiver noise or sky noise from nearby objects, undesirable resonances within the electronics or the radio-frequency interference (RFI) enclosures, or spurious signals introduced by the digital sampling system. In this section, we provide an overview of the experimental design and setup, highlighting aspects that are relevant to reducing the effects of both the external and internal sources of systematic errors. Additional details on the analysis of systematic contributions and the hardware design can be found in the EDGES memorandum series[^1].
![ \[f\_edges\_model\] Example of redshifted 21 cm contribution (solid) to $T_{sky}$ based on the model described in § \[s\_edges\_limits\] with $\Delta T_{21}=25$ mK, $z_r = 8$, and $\Delta z = 0.6$. The residuals are also shown for a seventh-order polynomial fit to a simulated spectrum between 130 and 190 MHz with (dash) and without (dot) the redshifted 21 cm contribution. The foreground contribution was modeled for the plot using $\beta=2.5$, and $T_{gal}(150$ MHz$) = 250$ K.](f2.eps){width="20pc"}
Site Selection
--------------
Some of the contributions to the systematic uncertainty listed above can be addressed by careful selection of the observing site. Avoiding terrestrial transmitters (primarily from FM radio and television stations) is the most serious problem. Even at distances of hundreds or thousands of kilometers, tropospheric ducting and scattering (troposcatter), sporadic E propagation in the ionosphere, and reflections from meteors are all capable of transferring a significant amount of power from Earth-based transmitters. The background produced by the integrated effect of many distant transmitters may have significant spectral structure above the expected redshifted 21 cm level. For example, a single, 100 kW FM radio station at 300 km from the observing site could produce up to a 100 K effective temperature in a 1 MHz channel due to troposcatter, or 100 mK due to meteor reflections. Fortunately, these mechanisms of atmospheric propagation exhibit diurnal or transient behavior (as is the case for sporadic E propagation, tropospheric ducting, and meteor reflections) or require specific geometries for peak efficiency (as is the case for troposcatter), making sensitive measurements possible at remote sites at least some of the time.
Another concern is that local objects in the environment will scatter both external noise and receiver noise, which will then be picked up by the system and correlate with the original noise, causing sinusoidal ripples in the measured spectrum. We have estimated the magnitude of the reflections of the Galactic foreground from objects like trees and mountains on the horizon where the antenna gain is reduced by a factor of 20 dB or more. As long as objects subtend solid angles under about 100 deg$^2$, the spectrum will only be affected by a few parts per million (*ppm*). We have also considered the magnitude of noise originating from the receiver that will be returned by a nearby scatterer. Even if we assume that this noise is perfectly correlated with the internal receiver noise, it will only produce ripples in the spectrum at the level of a few *ppm* provided that the object, like a tree subtending a few deg$^2$, is more than $\sim100$ m away or a larger object, subtending $\sim100$ deg$^2$ is more than $\sim1$ km away.
Reflections of signals from compact radio sources may also be correlated. In this case the scatterer and the receiving antenna act like an adding interferometer to produce ripples in the spectrum. However, these effects are extremely small since a 1 Jy source results in under 1 mK of antenna temperature for the dipole-based EDGES system and the reflected signal is much smaller still. The ground reflection has been eliminated by placing the antenna on the ground. A brief discussion on the impact of these effects in radio astronomy measurements can be found also in @rohlfs_wilson.
Hardware Configuration {#s_edges_config}
----------------------
Following a careful choice of the deployment site for the experiment, the remaining sources of systematic uncertainty result from the hardware design of the system. The EDGES system consists of three primary modules: 1) an antenna, 2) an amplifier and comparison switching module, and 3) an analog-to-digital conversion and storage unit. The antenna, shown in Figure \[f\_edges\_photos\], is a “fat” dipole-based design derived from the four-point antenna of [@fourpoint1; @fourpoint2]. The design was chosen for its simplicity and its relatively broad frequency response that spans approximately an octave. The response of the antenna was tuned to 100 to 200 MHz by careful selection of the dipole dimensions. In order to eliminate reflections from the ground and to reduce gain toward the horizon, the antenna is placed over a conducting mesh that rests directly on the ground. The mesh is constructed from thin, perforated metal sheets to reduce weight and is shaped to match an octagonal support structure below the ground screen. The diameter of this ground screen is approximately 2 m.
Although the antenna is constructed with perpendicular dipoles capable of receiving dual linear polarizations, only one polarization of the crossed-dipole is sampled by the receiver in order to reduce the cost of the system. This is acceptable since the spatially averaged all-sky spectrum is expected to have essentially no polarized component. The Galactic foreground does exhibit strong polarization in certain regions, such as the “fan region” around $\ell\approx140^\circ$, $b\approx8^\circ$, which has an extended polarized component of about 3 K [@1973MNRAS.163..147W]. Such a region could produce a ripple in the measured spectrum from a single linear polarization as the polarization angle rotates with frequency. Under the worst circumstances, if such a region were located at the peak of the EDGES beam, the magnitude of the ripple could reach $\sim50$ mK. Away from the Galactic plane, however, where EDGES observations are generally targeted in order to reduce the system temperature, it is more likely that the effects of polarization would be at least an order of magnitude lower. Furthermore, if the rotation measure (RM) is of order 10 rad m$^{-2}$, then the polarized component could be averaged out over $\sim1$ MHz. Nevertheless, in future versions of EDGES, both ports of the antenna will be sampled in order to check for polarization effects and other systematic effects that result from the non-uniformity of Galactic radiation.
A dipole antenna is naturally a balanced electrical system. To convert from the balanced antenna leads to the unbalanced receiver system (in which one lead is grounded), a short coaxial cable enclosed in a clamp-on split ferrite core with a high impedance is used as a common-mode choke balun[^2] and is connected directly to the terminals of the antenna with the central conductor fastened to one element and the braided shielding to the other.
The amplifier module consists of two stages that are contained in separate aluminum enclosures to reduce coupling between the low-noise amplifiers. Each stage provides 33 dB of gain for a total of 66 dB. Bandpass filtering of the signal is also performed in the second stage, and the resulting half-power bandwidth spans approximately 50 to 330 MHz. The amplifier chain can be connected through a voltage controlled three-position switch to one of three inputs: the antenna, an ambient load, or an ambient load plus a calibration noise source. Switching between the ambient load and the antenna provides a comparison to subtract spurious instrumental signals in the measured sky spectrum.
Impedance mismatch between the antenna and the amplifiers causes reflections of the sky noise within the electrical path of the instrument that produce an undesirable sinusoidal ripple in the measured spectrum due to the frequency-dependence of the phase of the reflections at the input to the amplifier. To reduce the effects of these reflections in EOR measurements, the input to the amplifier chain is connected directly to the balun on the antenna (with no intermediate transmission cable), as shown in Figure \[f\_edges\_photos\]. While absolute calibration is limited in this configuration by the effect of the unknown phases of the reflections on the measured spectrum, the compact size of the antenna and the small signal path delays result in a smooth spectral response.
The amplifier module is connected to the analog-to-digital conversion module by three low-loss coaxial transmission cables. The cables provide power, switching control, and signal transmission, respectively. Common-mode current on these cables (i.e. current that is on the outer surface of the shielding in the coaxial cable, or current that is unidirectional on both the central conductor and inner surface of the shielding) is also capable of producing reflections and additional sinusoidal ripples in the measured spectrum. The ferrite core balun used between the antenna and amplifiers allows common-mode current of approximately 10% of the differential mode. Although most of this current is transferred to the ground screen by direct contact between the amplifier module casing and the ground screen, some current persists and leaks through the casing of the amplifier module and onto the shielding of the three cables connecting the amplification module to the analog-to-digital conversion module. To reduce this current to less than 0.005% of the differential mode current, additional clamp-on ferrite cores are placed every meter on the transmission cables.
Finally, the analog-to-digital conversion is accomplished with an Acqiris AC240[^3] 8-bit digitizer with maximum dynamic range of 48 dB (although, in practice, the effective dynamic range was substantially lower due to coupling between the digital output of the converter and its input). The AC240 uses an embedded field programmable gate array (FPGA) to perform onboard Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) and integration of the power spectrum in realtime. The spectrometer is clocked at 1 GS/s and the Fourier transform processes 16,384 channels, giving a bandwidth of 500 MHz and a raw spectral resolution of about 30 kHz. The broadband spectrometer employs the FPGA code of and a Blackman-Harris window function is used to improve the isolation between neighboring frequency channels at the expense of reducing the effective spectral resolution to 122 kHz. The unit is contained on a CompactPCI card connected to a host computer. The digitizer and host computer, along with a power transformer and interface circuitry for controlling the amplifier module with the serial port of the computer, are enclosed in an aluminum box to prevent self interference.
The Measured Spectrum {#s_data_acquisition}
---------------------
![ \[f\_edges\_spectrum\] Integrated spectrum used for upper limit analysis of reionization signal. The sky temperature, $T_{sky}$, is an estimate based on modeled values for cable losses and no correction for antenna reflections. The spectrum represents the best 10% of the data from observations over two nights. It is selected by discarding individual observation cycles (see § \[s\_data\_acquisition\]) containing periods of particularly intense radio frequency interference. A total of approximately 1.5 h of integration is included (3.75 h including the ambient load and calibrator noise source measurements in each cycle). The black curve shows the spectrum after de-weighting the interferers (shown in gray) present in the retained observations.](f3.eps){width="22pc"}
The measured spectra from each of the three switch positions can be combined to produce a calibrated estimate of the true sky spectrum. The three spectra are given by $$\begin{array}{ccl}
p_0 & = & g ~ (T_L + T_R) ~ (1 + n_0) \\
p_1 & = & g ~ (T_L + T_R + T_{cal}) ~ (1 + n_1) \\
p_2 & = & g ~ (T_A + T_R) ~ (1 + n_2)
\end{array}$$ where the explicit frequency dependence of each term has been dropped and $p_0$ is the spectrum for the ambient load, $p_1$ is the spectrum for the ambient load plus calibration noise, and $p_2$ is the spectrum for the antenna. In this terminology, $g$ is the gain, $T_L$ is the ambient load temperature, $T_R$ is the receiver noise temperature, $T_{cal}$ is the calibration noise temperature, and $T_A$ is the antenna temperature. Thermal uncertainty in the measurements is explicitly included in the Gaussian random variables $n_0$, $n_1$, and $n_2$, the magnitudes of which are given by $n_i =
(\epsilon~b~\tau_i)^{-1/2}$, where $\epsilon=0.5$ is the efficiency for the Blackman-Harris window function (which could be improved to 0.93 by processing two sets of overlapping windows), $b =
122\times10^3$ Hz is the resolution bandwidth, and $\tau_i$ is the integration time in seconds (for each switch position, $i$). Temporarily setting the noise terms to zero, $n_i\rightarrow0$, and solving for the antenna temperature yields $$T_A = T_{cal}\frac{p_2 - p_0}{p_1 - p_0} + T_L.\label{eqn_ta}$$ In practice, the impedance match between the antenna and receiver is not perfect and some of the incident sky noise may be reflected back out of the system. This produces deviations between the derived sky temperature found using Equation \[eqn\_ta\] and the true sky spectrum. Independent measurements of the impedance mismatch can be used to correct these deviations by applying a frequency-dependent multiplicative factor to $T_A$ that is proportional to the inverse of the reflection coefficient. For the EDGES system, this correction was measured by two methods: we used a network analyzer in the laboratory to determine the impedance of the antenna, and we reconfigured the system in the field with a long cable inserted between the antenna and amplifier module so that reflections between the two elements were visible in the measured spectrum and could be used to calibrate the reflection coefficient. In both sets of measurements, the corrections were found to be small (of order 1%) and smooth (able to be fit by a low-order polynomial in frequency) over the band of interest. For the remainder of this paper, we will ignore this correction since its effects are easily absorbed by the polynomial fit technique used to constrain the redshifted 21 cm contribution to the spectrum.
Adding the noise terms back in and solving in the limit that $T_{cal}
\gg (T_L \approx T_A) > T_R$ results in an estimate of the thermal uncertainty per frequency channel of approximately $$\Delta T_{A,rms} \approx \sqrt{ n^2_0 (T_L + T_R)^2 + n^2_1 (T_L)^2 +
n_2^2(T_A+T_R)^2}.$$ For optimal efficiency, the three terms contributing to $\Delta
T_{A,rms}$ should be comparable in magnitude. Substituting $T_L=300$ K, $T_A=250$ K and $T_R=20$ K, we find that the terms are comparable as long as approximately equal time is spent in each switch position. In addition, a 1 hour integration in each switch position (3 hours total) will result in a thermal uncertainty in the estimate of the antenna temperature of $\Delta T_{A,rms} \approx
35$ mK within each 122 kHz frequency channel.
To acquire a series of estimates of the true sky spectrum using this technique, software on the host computer cycles the amplifier module between the three switch positions and triggers the digitizer to acquire, Fourier transform, and accumulate data for a predefined duration at each of the switch positions. The integration durations per switch position are $\tau_{\{0,1,2\}}=\{10, 5, 10\}$ seconds for the ambient load, ambient load plus calibration noise source, and antenna, respectively, giving a duty cycle of about 40% on the antenna. This loop is repeated approximately every 25 seconds for the duration of the observations and the resulting measurements are recorded to disk.
Initial Results {#s_edges_results}
===============
![ \[f\_edges\_residuals\] Residuals after subtraction of seventh-order polynomial fit to measured spectrum shown in Figure \[f\_edges\_spectrum\]. The gray line is the raw spectrum with 122 kHz resolution. The black line is after smoothing to 2.5 MHz resolution to reduce the thermal noise to below the systematic noise. The *rms* of the smoothed fluctuations is approximately 75 mK (see Figure \[f\_edges\_rms\_vs\_time\]).](f4.eps){width="22pc"}
The EDGES system was deployed at the radio-quiet Mileura Station in Western Australia from 29 November through 8 December 2006. These dates were chosen such that the Galactic center would be below the horizon during most of the night, keeping the system temperature as low as possible for the measurements. The system was located approximately 100 m from the nearest buildings in a clearing with no nearby objects and no obstructions above $\sim5^{\circ}$ on the horizon, and the antenna was aligned in an approximately north-south/east-west configuration. The system was operated on 8 consecutive nights during the deployment, with 5 of the nights dedicated to EOR observing. In total, over 30 h of relevant drift scans were obtained, but strong, intermittent interference from satellites complicated the measurements and only approximately 8 h of high-quality observations were retained as the primary data set. Although the satellite interferers that complicated the measurements were narrow-band and, in many cases, were easily removed through excision of the effected spectral channels, the limited dynamic range of the EDGES system resulted in clipping of the analog-to-digital converter and corruption of the full band during especially strong transmissions. This required all channels to be omitted from the data set in those instances. In particular, it was found that the low Earth orbiting satellites of Orbcomm (transmitting between approximately 136 and 138 MHz), as well as satellite beacons (at 150 MHz) from discarded spacecraft were particularly troublesome. The Orbcomm activity was somewhat variable and usually decreased during the night. The typical duration of a pass was approximately 15 minutes, during which time the power in the satellite signal could easily reach an order of magnitude greater than the integrated sky noise over the band. While previous observations at the site with prototype MWA equipment [@2007AJ....133.1505B] have demonstrated (in a subset of the full target band) that it is possible to reach the sensitivities required for EDGES despite the satellites and other sources of interference, improvements to the EDGES digitizing system, such as an upgrade of the analog-to-digital converter to 10 or 12 bits, would certainly help to alleviate the difficulties encountered during this observing campaign and increase the usable fraction of measurements.
From the primary data set remaining after transient RFI exclusion, a stringent filter was applied to select the best 1.5 h of sky-time when transient interference signals were weakest. The final cut of data included measurements from multiple nights and spanned a range of local apparent sidereal time (LST) between 0 and 5 h. The sky temperature at 150 MHz derived from the system during this period was found to have a minimum of $\sim240$ K at about 3 h LST and a maximum of $\sim280$ K at 5 h LST. The integrated spectrum generated from these measurements is shown in Figure \[f\_edges\_spectrum\]. Frequency channels containing RFI were identified in the integrated spectrum by an algorithm that employs a sliding local second-order polynomial fit and iteratively removes channels with large errors until the fit converges. The affected channels were then weighted to zero in subsequent analysis steps. To look for small deviations from the smooth foreground spectrum, a seventh-order polynomial was fit to the measured spectrum between 130 and 190 MHz (where the impedance match between the antenna and receiver was nearly ideal) and subtracted.
The residual deviations in the measured sky spectrum after the polynomial fit and subtraction are shown in Figure \[f\_edges\_residuals\]. The *rms* level of systematic contributions to the measured spectrum was found to be $\Delta
T_{rms} \approx 75$ mK, a factor of $\sim3$ larger than the maximum expected redshifted 21 cm feature that would result from a rapid reionization. Although it is not obvious in Figure \[f\_edges\_residuals\], the variations in the residuals are due to instrumental contributions and not thermal noise. The large variations between 163 and 170 MHz are due to the 166 MHz PCI-bus clock of the AC240 and computer, while the gap centered at approximately 137 MHz is due to RFI excision of the Orbcomm satellite transmissions over a region spanning more than 2.5 MHz. Analysis of the dependence of $\Delta T_{rms}$ on integration duration is shown in Figure \[f\_edges\_rms\_vs\_time\] and illustrates that the *rms* of the residuals follows a thermal profile $\sim(b
\tau)^{-1/2}$ initially and then saturates to a constant value. After smoothing to 2.5 MHz resolution ($\Delta z\approx0.2$), the instrumentally dominated 75 mK threshold is reached in approximately 20 minutes (1200 s) of integration on the sky (50 minutes of total integration in all three switch positions). Reordering the individual 25-second observation cycles used in the full integration does not change the behavior in Figure \[f\_edges\_rms\_vs\_time\], and longer integrations (up to approximately 3 h of sky time), using observation cycles with more intense interference, continued to decrease the thermal noise, but leave the spurious signals and systematic effects unchanged.
![ \[f\_edges\_rms\_vs\_time\] Characteristic amplitude of the residuals to the polynomial fit as a function of integration time on the sky. The *rms* follows a thermal $(b \tau)^{-1/2}$ dependency until saturating at a constant 75 mK noise level due to the instrumental errors introduced into the measured spectrum. The dotted lines are guides for the eye showing a $(b \tau)^{-1/2}$ profile and a constant 75 mK contribution.](f5.eps){width="22pc"}
Limits on Reionization History {#s_edges_limits}
------------------------------
Although the sensitivity level of the initial observations with the EDGES system was limited by instrumental effects in the measured spectrum at a level greater than the expected maximum contribution due to redshifted 21 cm emission, weak constraints can still be placed on the reionization history. In addition, it is possible to make a quantitative assessment of how much improvement must be made before significant constraints are possible, as well as to characterize the best-case outcome of future efforts using similar approaches. To begin, we introduce a model for the sky spectrum such that $$\label{eqn_sky_temp} T_{sky}(\nu) = T_{gal}(\nu) + T_{cmb} +
T_{21}(\nu)$$ where $T_{gal}$ represents the contribution of all the foregrounds (and is dominated by the Galactic synchrotron radiation), $T_{cmb}=2.73$ K is the CMB contribution, and $T_{21}$ is the specific form for the frequency-dependence of the redshifted 21 cm emission during the transition from the fully neutral to fully ionized IGM. This model neglects any directional or temporal variation in $T_{sky}$ and, therefore, implicitly assumes an angular average over the antenna beam and a time average over the drift scan measurements performed for the experiment. Since $T_{cmb}$ and $T_{21}$ are taken to be constant over the sky, only the $T_{gal}$ contribution is affected by this simplification. This does not impact the result, however, as long as the foreground emission varies slowly on the sky and the antenna pattern changes slowly with frequency—conditions that are presumed to be met in the high Galactic latitude region sampled by the dipole-based EDGES system. As a test of this assumption, we calculated the residuals after the polynomial fit for a bright source with flux comparable to Cas A (1400 Jy at 100 MHz) and spectral index $\beta=2.77$ at various positions in the antenna beam using simulated beam patterns to determine the frequency-dependence. We found, in all cases, less than a $\sim50$ $\mu$K residual.
During the reionization epoch, we define $T_{21}$ to be given by $$T_{21}(z) = \Delta T_{21} \frac{1}{2} \left \{ 1 + cos \left [ \frac{
\pi (z_r - z - \Delta z / 2)} { \Delta z} \right ] \right \},$$ where $\Delta T_{21}$ is constant and is the maximum amplitude of the redshifted 21 cm contribution, $z_r$ is the redshift when $\bar{x}_{HI}(z_r)=0.5$, $\Delta z$ is the total duration of the reionization epoch, and we use $\nu = 1420 / (1+z)$ MHz to convert back to frequency units. Before the reionization epoch ($z>z_r+\Delta
z/2$), $T_{21} \equiv \Delta T_{21}$, while after reionization ($z<z_r-\Delta z/2$), $T_{21}\equiv0$. The exact form of the transition used for $T_{21}$ has little influence on the outcome of the constraints as long as it is reasonably smooth. Figure \[f\_edges\_model\] illustrates the modelled redshifted 21 cm spectrum. The free parameters in the model are $z_r$, $\Delta z$, and $\Delta T_{21}$.
For the EDGES best-response frequency range, a center redshift around $z_r=8$ allows the largest range of $\Delta z$ to be explored. By simulating the combined sky spectrum, $T_{sky}$, for a range of the two remaining free parameters, we can determine the *rms* of the residuals that would remain following the polynomial fit used in the EDGES data analysis. Comparing the *rms* of the residuals in the models to the 75 mK *rms* of the initial measurements gives a good estimate of the region of parameter space ruled out so far. Figure \[f\_edges\_constraint\] illustrates the results of this process. The line defining the ruled-out region is computed by finding the locus of parameters that make the *rms* residuals in the model equal to 75 mK. While a more statistically robust analysis is clearly possible, little benefit would be gained for the initial measurements presented here due to the severe systematic effects present in the spectrum.
From Figure \[f\_edges\_constraint\], it is clear that the initial results constrain only a small portion of parameter space that is well outside the expected region for both the intensity of the redshifted 21 cm signal and the duration of reionization. The best constraint, in the case of a nearly instantaneous reionization, is that the redshifted 21 cm contribution to the spectrum is not greater than about $\Delta T_{21} \lesssim 450$ mK before the transition. Reducing the systematic contributions in the measured spectrum by more than an order of magnitude to $\Delta T_{rms}<7.5$ mK would begin to allow meaningful constraints, while an improvement of a factor of 25 to $\Delta T_{rms} \approx 3$ mK would be able to rule out a significant portion of the viable parameter range and constrain $\Delta z > 2$. In principle, such an improvement is possible with minor modifications to the EDGES system. Reaching a systematic uncertainty below $\sim3$ mK, however, is likely to be infeasible without a redesign of the experimental approach because errors in the polynomial fit to the overall power-law-like shape of the sky spectrum, $T_{sky}(\nu)$, are the dominant source of uncertainty below that level in the current approach. The sharp cut-off at $\Delta z\approx2$ in parameter space is the result of using a seventh-order polynomial to fit a 60 MHz bandwidth, thus yielding a maximum residual scale size of order 10 MHz, which corresponds to $\Delta z\approx2$ at $z\approx8$. If the same polynomial could be reasonably fit to a larger bandwidth (or a lower-order polynomial fit to the existing bandwidth), then $\Delta z$ could be probed to larger values.
![ \[f\_edges\_constraint\] Constraints placed by EDGES on the redshifted 21 cm contribution to the sky spectrum. The dark-gray region at the top-left is the portion of the parameter space ruled out by the initial EDGES results with $\Delta T_{rms}=75$ mK (solid line). The dashed lined labelled $\Delta T_{rms}=7.5$ mK and the dotted line labelled $\Delta T_{rms}=3$ mK indicated the constraints that could be placed on reionization if the experimental systematics were lowered to the respective values. The light-gray region along the bottom is the general range of parameters believed to be viable. The redshifted 21 cm contribution to the spectrum is modelled according to the description in § \[s\_edges\_limits\] with $z_r =
8$.](f6.eps){width="20pc"}
Conclusion
==========
In principle, useful measurements of the redshifted 21 cm background can be carried out with a small radio telescope. These measurements would be fundamental to understanding the evolution of the IGM and the EOR. In particular, the global evolution of the mean spin temperature and mean ionization fraction of neutral hydrogen in the high redshift IGM could be constrained by very compact instruments employing individual radio antennas. We have reported preliminary results to probe the reionization epoch based on this approach from the first observing campaign with the EDGES system. These observations were limited by systematic effects that were an order of magnitude larger than the anticipated signal and, thus, ruled out only an already unlikely range of parameter space for the differential amplitude of the redshifted 21 cm brightness temperature and for the duration of reionization. Nevertheless, the results of this experiment indicate the viability of the simple global spectrum approach.
Building on the experiences of these initial efforts, modifications to the EDGES system are underway to reduce the residual systematic contribution in the measured spectrum and to expand the frequency coverage of the system down to 50 MHz or lower in order to place constraints on the anticipated transition of the hyperfine line from absorption to emission as the IGM warms before the EOR. Constraining the redshift and intensity of this feature would be very valuable for understanding the heating history of the IGM and, since the transition has the potential to produce a step-like feature in the redshifted 21 cm spectrum with a magnitude over 100 mK (up to a factor of 4 larger than the amplitude of the step during the reionization epoch), it may be easier to identify than the transition from reionization—although the sky noise temperature due to the Galactic synchrotron foreground increases significantly at the lower frequencies, as well. Through these and other global spectrum efforts, the first contribution to cosmic reionization science from measurements of the redshifted 21 cm background will hopefully be achieved in the near future.
This work was supported by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, School of Science, and by the NSF through grant AST-0457585.
[^1]: http://www.haystack.mit.edu/ast/arrays/Edges/
[^2]: This balun provides a 1:1 impedance transition and operates on the same principle as the quarter wavelength sleeve balun described by @KrausAntennas [page 742]. The ferrite provides a high impedance over a wide frequency range to reduce the common-mode currents, whereas the sleeve balun provides a high impedance over only a limited frequency range close to the quarter wavelength resonance.
[^3]: http://www.acqiris.com/products/analyzers/cpci-signal-analyzers/ac240-platform.html
|
---
abstract: 'While cavity cooling of a single trapped emitter was demonstrated, cooling of many particles in an array of harmonic traps needs investigation and poses a question of scalability. This work investigates the cooling of a one dimensional atomic array to the ground state of motion via the interaction with the single mode field of a high-finesse cavity. The key factor ensuring the cooling is found to be the mechanical inhomogeneity of the traps. Furthermore it is shown that the pumped cavity mode does not only mediate the cooling but also provides the necessary inhomogeneity if its periodicity differs from the one of the array. This configuration results in the ground state cooling of several tens of atoms within a few milliseconds, a timescale compatible with current experimental conditions. Moreover, the cooling rate scaling with the atom number reveals a drastic change of the dynamics with the size of the array: atoms are either cooled independently, or via collective modes. In the latter case the cavity mediated atom interaction destructively slows down the cooling as well as increases the mean occupation number, quadratically with the atom number. Finally, an order of magnitude speed up of the cooling is predicted as an outcome the optimization scheme based on the adjustment of the array versus the cavity mode periodicity.'
address: 'Theoretische Physik, Universität des Saarlandes, D-66041 Saarbrücken, Germany'
author:
- 'O.S. Mishina'
title: Cavity cooling of an atomic array
---
Introduction
============
The possibility of trapping chains of atoms [@Gupta2007; @Schleier-Smith2011; @Brandt2010] and Wigner crystals [@Herskind2009] in an optical cavity provides a new platform to study quantum optomechanics [@Stamper-Kurn2012; @Ritsch2013]. The advantage of this system compared to other optomechanical platforms (i.e., micro- and nanometer scale mechanical oscillators) is the access to internal atomic degrees of freedom that can be used to tune the coupling and to manipulate the mechanical modes. The cavity does not only provide tailored photonic modes to interact with the atomic mechanical modes, it also alters the radiative properties of atoms giving rise to cavity mediated atom-atom interactions and collective effects. The combination of these ingredients results in a high degree of control of the optomechanical interface which has allowed, for example, the experimental observation of cavity nonlinear dynamics at a single photon level [@Gupta2007] and ponderomotive squeezing of light [@Brooks2012]. Such a platform, in which the optomechanical system includes multiple mechanical oscillators in the quantum regime globally coupled to the cavity field, shall eventually allow multipartite entanglement of distant atom motion [@Peng2002; @Li2006], hybrid light-motion entanglement [@Peng2002], [@Cormick2013] and also engineering of spin-phonon coupling mediated by light when considering the atomic internal degrees of freedom.
An important problem on the way to reach the quantum optomechanical regime, is the cooling of the atomic mechanical modes to the ground state. Several techniques can be envisaged to prepare an atomic chain in the ground state of motion. One way is to prepare the atoms in the ground state of an optical lattice prior to coupling them to the cavity field. Sidebandanalysed resolved laser cooling can be used in this case [@Hamann1998], but the implementation of Raman sideband cooling is restricted to atomic species with a suitable cycling transition. Another route, very powerful and experimentally convenient, is to use the cavity mode itself for cooling the atomic chain. It eliminates the need for additional preparation steps and allows reusing the same atoms multiple times. Moreover, it is not restricted to specific atomic species and can be potentially extended to the cooling of any polarizable object such as, for example, molecules [@Lev2008]. While the problem of cooling a single trapped particle in a cavity was explored theoretically [@Cirac1995a; @Vuletic2001; @Zippilli2005] and experimentally [@Leibrandt2009], the simultaneous cooling of many particles forming an array poses the question of scalability. Cooling of an atomic array using a cavity mode was experimentally demonstrated in Ref. [@Schleier-Smith2011] where a single mode of the collective atomic motion was cooled close to the ground stare. The cooling rate of this unique collective mode was found to be proportional to the number of atoms in the array. A similar scaling was reported in a theoretical work for the case when a homogeneous cloud is first organized by the cavity potential and than collectively cooled [@Elsasser2003].
A number of questions remain open on the protocol to cool down an array of atoms to the ground state inside a cavity. What is the role of the collective modes in the cooling dynamics of individual atoms? How do the cooling rates of individual atoms scale with the number of atoms in the array? What is the role of the lattice periodicity *vs* the cavity mode period? What is the most efficient cooling scheme? This work provides the answers to these questions. It shows that (i) cooling of a single collective mode is faster than the cooling of individual atoms, which is destructively suppresed due to collective effects, (ii) the cooling time for individual atoms increases non-linearly with the atom number, and (iii) the periodicity of the array plays a key role in the dynamics which can be used to optimize the cooling performance. Additionally it considers the limitations imposed by the spontaneous estimate outside of the cavity mode and shows the experimental feasibility of the cavity cooling of tens of atoms in the array.
In order to address these questions, a theoretical model is developed describing the general configuration in which the cavity potential and the atomic array have different periodicity as, for example, implemented in ref. [@Schleier-Smith2011]. The key factor insuring the ground state cooling of all atoms via global coupling to the single cavity mode is found to be the mechanical inhomogeneity of the traps. The cavity mode itself is demonstrated to provide the nesessary inhomogeneity due to the effect of the cavity potential on the individual traps. This controlability makes the configuration of an atomic array coupled to the cavity with different periodicity an attractive platform for further investigation of a multimode quantum optomethanical interface. Additionally, the proposed cavity cooling scheme can be extended to the case of an array of micro- or nanometer scale mechanical oscillators, where strong optomechanical coupling was recently predicted [@Xuereb2012].
The paper is organized as follows. Section \[sec\_model\] summarizes the theoretical model and describes the physical mechanisms governing the cooling dynamics. In section \[sec\_anal\_res\] we present the analytical results for the scaling of the cooling rates with the atom number. Section \[sec\_num\_res\] compares numerical and analytical results for the cooling rates and the steady state mean phonon number per atom. The transition between two distinct regimes, when atoms interact independently or collectively with the cavity field, is reported. Also the destructive suppression of the cooling due to collective effects is demonstrated. In section \[sec\_optimization\] the role of the lattice periodicity *vs* the cavity mode period is discussed and a possible way to speed up the cooling is suggested. Finally the effect of the spontaneous emission on the scaling of the steady state phonon number is analysed in section \[sec\_spont\_em\] together with the experimental feasibility of the proposed cooling scheme. The conclusions are drawn in section \[sec\_conclusion\].
Summary of the model {#sec_model}
====================
The system under investigation consists of two elements: (i) a one dimensional array of $N$ independently trapped atoms coupled to (ii) a quantum light field with wave number $k_c$ confined inside an optical cavity pumped by a monomode laser as presented in figure \[fig\_schema\]. The chain of two-level atoms is formed along the axis of the cavity where the atoms are confined in a deep optical lattice potential generated by an additional external classical field [@Gupta2007; @Schleier-Smith2011]. The case of hopping and tunnelling of atoms between the different sites will be neglected. The trap array holding the neutral atoms may be experimentally implemented in various ways. In the works [@Gupta2007; @Schleier-Smith2011] an extra cavity pump field resonant to the other cavity frequency was used to create a deep optical lattice. Alternatively, an optical lattice along the cavity can be created by two laser beams crossing each other at an angle inside the cavity or with the use of a spatial light modulator. Although the focus of this work is on the cooling of neutral atoms it is worth noticing that the generalization of the model for the case of of ions or other polarizable particles can be straightforwardly done.
![The schematic representation of the system. $N$ individually trapped atoms are placed inside a cavity with resonant frequency $\omega_{c}$ and decay rate $\kappa$. Atoms have identical two-level structure and a resonance frequency $\omega_{eg}$. The cavity is pumped by an external laser, detuned by $\Delta_{c}=\omega_{p}-\omega_c$ from the cavity resonance frequency and by $\Delta_a=\omega_p-\omega_{eg}$ from the atomic transition frequency.[]{data-label="fig_schema"}](figure1.eps){width="0.5\columnwidth"}
The main mechanism behind the cavity cooling is the scattering process taking place when an atom absorbs a photon with pump frequency $\omega_p$ and then emits a photon back into the cavity with frequency $\omega_c$. If the pump frequency is lower than the cavity resonance frequency ($\Delta_c=\omega_p-\omega_c < 0$) and the difference is equal to the atomic trap frequency $\nu$, the atom will lose one vibration quantum, and the photon, eventually leaving the cavity, will carry this energy away. Such a cooling mechanism essentially relies on the interaction of atoms with the cavity field and assumes that the spontaneous emission into free space is negligibly small. This requires the cavity-to-free space scattering ratio to be much larger than one, which is reached when the single atom cooperativity (Purcell number) $c_r=\frac{g^2}{\kappa\gamma}$ is larger than one, regardless of the pump filed detuning from the atomic transition $\Delta_a=\omega_p-\omega_{eg}$ [@Vuletic2001]. It is achieved when a light-atom coupling strength $g$ is larger than the geometric average of the atomic natural linewidth $\gamma$ and the cavity decay rate $\kappa$.
We will focus on the regime in which the cavity field is far off-resonance from the atomic transition $|g\rangle \leftrightarrow |e\rangle$, such that the probability of an atomic excitation is negligibly small. Under the conditions $|\Delta_a|\gg\gamma,\kappa,g\sqrt{N_{ph}}$, where $N_{ph}$ is the mean photon number in the cavity, the atomic internal degree of freedom can be adiabatically eliminated. In this case the coherent part of the optomechanical interaction between the cavity and atomic motion is described by the effective Hamiltonian [@Domokos2003; @Larson2008]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Hammiltonian_spin_phot_phon}
H=&-&\hbar \left(\Delta_c-U_0 \sum_{i=1}^{N}\cos^2(k_c x^{(0)}_i+k_c\hat{x}_i) \right)\hat{A}^\dag \hat{A}
+\sum_{i=1}^{N}\left(\frac{m \nu^2\hat{x}^2_i}{2}+\frac{\hat{p}^2_i}{2m}\right)
\nonumber
\\
&+&i\hbar\left(\frac{•}{•}\eta_p\hat{A}^\dag-\eta_p^*\hat{A}\frac{•}{•}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Here $\hat{A}^\dag$ and $\hat{A}$ stands for the creation and annihilation operators of the cavity field in the rotating frame at the pump frequency $\omega_p$, and $\eta_p$ is the cavity pumping strength. The motion of atoms with mass $m$ inside the traps with identical frequencies $\nu$ is described by the displacement operator $\hat{x}_i$ of the $i$-th atom from its trap center $x_i^{(0)}$. The single atom off-resonant coupling strength at the anti-node is $U_0=g^2/\Delta_a$. The first term in the Hamiltonian contains the optomechanical interaction between the cavity field and the atomic motion: $U_0 \sum_{i=1}^{N}\cos^2(k_c x^{(0)}_i+k_c\hat{x}_i)$ is the shift of the cavity frequency caused by the presence of the atoms and, conversely, the mechanical potential exerted on the atoms by a single cavity photon. Further on only the Lamb-Dicke regime will be considered, when the atoms are localized on a length scale $\Delta x=\sqrt{\hbar/(2\nu m)}$ much smaller than the cavity wavelength $\lambda=2\pi/k_c$ ($\eta=k_c \Delta x$ is much smaller than one). Thus only the contributions up to the second order in the Lamb-Dicke parameter will be considered and the approximation ${\cos^2(k_c x^{(0)}_i+k_c\hat{x}_i)=\cos^2(k_c x^{(0)}_i)-\sin(2k_c x^{(0)}_i) k_c \hat{x}_i-\cos(2k_c x^{(0)}_i) (k_c \hat{x}_i)^2}$ will be used.
The incoherent dynamic due to the cavity decay and the spontaneous emission (up to the second order in $1/\Delta_a$) is captured by the following Heisenberg-Langevin equations: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{H-L_equations}
\label{H-L_equations_sp_em}
\dot{\hat{A}}&=&\frac{i}{\hbar}\left[H,\hat{A}\right]
-(\kappa+\sum_{i=1}^ND_{ai}/2)\hat{A}
+\sqrt{2\kappa}\hat{S}_{a}
+i\sum_{i=1}^N\sqrt{D_{ai}}\hat{f}_{ai},
\nonumber
\\
\dot{\hat{p}}_i&=&\frac{i}{\hbar}\left[H,\hat{p}_i\right]
-2\Delta p\sqrt{D_{bi}}\hat{f}_{bi},\,\,\,\,\,\,
\dot{\hat{x}}_i=\frac{i}{\hbar}\left[H,\hat{x}_i\right].\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta p=\sqrt{\hbar\nu m/2}$. The above equations are derived in the appendix by taking in to account the coupling of the atom-cavity system to the external electromagnetic environment and using the markovian approximation to eliminate the external field modes from the equation [@Bienert2012] prio to the elimination of the atomic internal degree of freedom [@Vitali2008].
The noise operator $\hat{S}_a$ of the vacuum field entering the cavity through the mirror has the zero mean value and its correlation functions are: $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\hat{S}_{a}(t)\hat{S}^\dag_{a}(t')\rangle=\delta(t-t'),
\\
\nonumber
\langle\hat{S}^\dag_{a}(t)\hat{S}_{a}(t')\rangle=\langle\hat{S}_{a}(t)\hat{S}_{a}(t')\rangle=\langle\hat{S}^\dag_{a}(t)\hat{S}^\dag_{a}(t')\rangle=0.\end{aligned}$$
The scattering of the cavity photons by the atoms in to the outer modes causes the Langevin forces $\hat{f}_{ai}$ and $ \hat{f}_{bi}$ correspond to the loss of the cavity photons with rate $D_{ai}$, and the diffusion of an atomic motion with rates $D_{bi}$ respectively. They have the following non-zero correlation functions: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_cor_fun_sp_em}
D_{ai}=\gamma \frac{g^2}{\Delta_a ^2}\cos ^2(k_cx^{(0)}_i),\,\,\,\,\,
D_{bi}=\gamma \frac{g^2}{\Delta_a ^2}\eta ^2 \alpha ^2K_i ,
\nonumber
\\
\langle \hat{f}_{ai}(t) \hat{f}^\dag_{ai}(t') \rangle = \delta(t-t'),
\nonumber
\\
\langle \hat{f}_{bi}(t)\hat{f}_{bi}(t') \rangle = \delta(t-t'),\,\,\,\,\,\,
\hat{f}^\dag_{bi}(t)= \hat{f}_{bi}(t),
\nonumber
\\
\langle \sqrt{K_i}\hat{f}_{bi}(t)\hat{f}_{ai}^\dag(t') \rangle =
\langle \hat{f}_{ai}(t) \sqrt{K_i}\hat{f}_{bi}(t')\rangle=\sin(k_cx^{(0)}_i)\delta(t-t').\end{aligned}$$ Here $\alpha^2$ represents the mean cavity photon number in the zero order with respect to the Lamb-Dicke parameter $\eta$. An order of unity coefficient $K_i=\sin^2(k_cx^{(0)}_i)+C_{xi}\cos^2(k_cx^{(0)}_i)$ depends on the atomic position along the cavity axes and on $C_{xi}= \int_{-1}^1 d\cos(\theta) \cos^2(\theta)\mathcal{N}_i(\cos(\theta))$, which gives the angular dispersion of the atom momentum and accounts for the dipole emission pattern $\mathcal{N}_i(\cos(\theta))$ [@SteckDataWeb]. Equations (\[H-L\_equations\_sp\_em\]) and correlation functions (\[eq\_cor\_fun\_sp\_em\]) are derived under the assumption that the inter-atomic distance $d$ is much larger that the cavity wavelength $k_cd\gg1$ which allows one to consider atoms as independent scatterers.
In the case of a single atom, equations (\[H-L\_equations\_sp\_em\]) correspond to the result reported in [@Vitali2008] where the rates to raise and lower the vibration quanta also compensate each other up to the second order in $1/\Delta_a$ and only the diffusion effect remains. The difference with the result presented here accounts for the different pumping geometry - the atom is pumped from the side or the cavity is pumped through the mirror.
Next assumption on the way to solve equations (\[H-L\_equations\_sp\_em\]) is a large intracavity photon number with only small fluctuations around its steady state mean value: ${\langle\hat{A}^\dag\hat{A}\rangle\gg\langle\hat{a}^\dag\hat{a}\rangle}$, with ${\hat{a}=\hat{A}-\langle\hat{A}\rangle}$. The steady state mean values for the cavity field $\langle\hat{A}\rangle$, atom displacement $\langle\hat{x}_{i}\rangle$ and momentum $\langle\hat{p}_{i}\rangle$ are the solutions of the nonlinear algebraic equations constructed by taking the mean values on the left- and right-hand sides in equations (\[H-L\_equations\_sp\_em\]) and putting the derivatives to zero (assuming that the fluctuations are small) : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equations_mean_steady_state}
\langle\hat{A}\rangle=\frac{\eta_p}{(\kappa_\mathrm{eff}-i\Delta_c'-iU_0 \sum_{i=1}^{N}(s_ik_c\langle\hat{x}_{i}\rangle+
c_ik^2_c\langle\hat{x}_{i}^2\rangle)},
\nonumber
\\
k_c\langle\hat{x}_{i}\rangle=
\frac{2U_0 \eta |\langle\hat{A}\rangle|^2s_i}
{\nu-4U_0 \eta |\langle\hat{A}\rangle |^2c_i},\,\,\,\,\,
\langle\hat{p}_{i}\rangle=0.\end{aligned}$$ Here $\Delta'_c=\Delta_c-U_0\sum_{i=1}^N\cos^2(k_cx_i^{0})$, $\kappa_\mathrm{eff}=\kappa+\sum_{i=1}^ND_{ai}/2$, and $c_i=\cos(2k_c x^{(0)}_i)$ and $s_i=\sin(2k_c x^{(0)}_i)$. Without any loss of generality we assume $\langle\hat{A}\rangle$ to be real, which can be adjusted by choosing the phase of $\eta_p$. In the Lamb-Dicke regime the cavity mean field can be seen as a power series in the Lamb-Dicke parameter $\langle\hat{A}\rangle=\alpha+O(\eta)$ with the zero order term $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mean_cavity_field}
\alpha=\frac{\eta_p}{\kappa_\mathrm{eff}-i\Delta_c'}.\end{aligned}$$
The evolution of small fluctuations around the steady state mean values is well described by the linear system of equations.Substituting $\hat{A}=\langle\hat{A}\rangle+\hat{a}$, $\hat{x}_i=\langle\hat{x}_{i}\rangle+\tilde{\hat{x}}_i $ and $\hat{p}_i=\langle\hat{p}_{i}\rangle+\tilde{\hat{p}}_i $ in to equations (\[H-L\_equations\_sp\_em\]) and neglecting the nonlinear terms together with other terms of the same order of magnitude brings us to the following equations: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{H-L_equations_linearised}
\dot{\hat{a}}=\left(-\kappa_\mathrm{eff}+i\Delta_c'\right)\hat{a}+i\frac{U_0 \eta \alpha}{\Delta x}\sum_{i=1}^{N}s_i\tilde{\hat{x}}_i
+\sqrt{2\kappa}\hat{S}_{a}
+i\sum_{i=1}^N\sqrt{D_{ai}}\hat{f}_{ai},
\nonumber
\\
\dot{\tilde{\hat{p}}}_i=-m\nu_i^2\tilde{\hat{x}}_i+2\Delta p \,U_0 \eta \alpha\, s_i(\hat{a}^\dag+\hat{a})
-2\Delta p\sqrt{D_{bi}}\hat{f}_{bi},\,\,\,\,\,
\dot{\tilde{\hat{x}}}_i=\frac{\tilde{\hat{p}}_i}{m},\end{aligned}$$ where $\nu^2_i=\nu(\nu-4 U_0 (\eta \alpha)^2c_i)$ is a modified trap frequency. To be consistent with the Lamb-Dicke approximation and to ensure that $|k_c\langle\hat{x}_{i}\rangle|\ll1$ in equation (\[equations\_mean\_steady\_state\]), the following inequality should be fulfilled: $$\label{ineq_keep_LDL}
6 U_0 (\eta \alpha)^2\ll\nu.$$
Finally, linear equations (\[H-L\_equations\_linearised\]) allow to reconstruct the effective Hamiltonian governing the dynamics of the cavity field fluctuations and atomic motion in the traps: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Hammiltonian_effective}
H_\mathrm{eff}=-\hbar \Delta'_c \hat{a}^\dag \hat{a}
+\sum_{i=1}^{N}\left(\frac{m \nu_i^2 \hat{\tilde{x}}^2_i}{2}+\frac{\tilde{\hat{p}}^2_i}{2m}\right)
-\hbar \frac{U_0\eta \alpha}{\Delta x} (\hat{a}^\dag+\hat{a}) \sum_{i=1}^{N}s_i\hat{\tilde{x}}_i.\end{aligned}$$ This expression shows the two main effects captured by our model: the optomechanical coupling responsible for the cooling mechanism (last term) and the modification of the trap frequencies as a mean field effect of the cavity potential. The trap inhomogeneity is an essential ingredient for cooling atoms to the ground state of motion. As only one collective mode of motion $\hat{X}\sim \sum_{i=1}^{N}s_i\tilde{\hat{x}}_i$ couples to the cavity, the cooling mechanism takes place exclusively by removing the excitations from this mode [@Schleier-Smith2011]. If the frequencies of all the traps are identical, for example when the inter-atomic distance in the array is a multiple of the cavity wavelength, this collective mode is also an eigenmode of a free atomic system. Thus it will be decoupled from the remaining $N-1$ longitudinal modes of collective motion [@Genes2008], and these modes will stay excited. As the steady state energy of each atom is determined by the weights of all the collective modes, individual atoms will be only partially cooled. Alternatively, if the trap frequencies are different than the collective mode $\hat{X}$ is no longer an eigenmode of a free atomic subsystem and it will be coupled to other $N-1$ longitudinal modes of collective atomic motion. This will allow a sympathetic cooling of all the collective modes, and all the atoms. The same principle is the basis for the sideband cooling of a trapped ion in three dimensions with a single laser beam [@Eschner2003]. In that case the requirements for cooling in all three dimensions are: different oscillation frequencies along each axes and a non-zero projection of the light wave vector on all the axes. The case of a one-dimensional cooling of many particles appears analogous to the cooling of a single particle in multiple directions. Similarly, in the case of an atomic array the conditions are: different trap frequencies and non-zero coupling of light to each atom.
Analytical results: cooling rates {#sec_anal_res}
=================================
This section is devoted to the analyses of the atom-cavity evolution neglecting the effect of the spontaneous emission ($\hat{f}_{ai}=\hat{f}_{ai}=D_{ai}=D_{bi}=0$) and taking in to account only the cavity decay. Importantly, this simplification will not significantly effect the cooling rates in the far off-resonance regime, provided that the cavity decay is much faster than the spontaneous emission rate: $$\label{ineq_cavity_decay_vs_sp_em}
\kappa\gg \frac{\gamma g^2}{2\Delta_a^2}\sum_{i=1}^N\cos^2(k_cx^{(0)}_i),$$ and $\kappa_{\mathrm{eff}}\approx \kappa$. In this regime the spontaneous emission will mainly cause a diffusion, the process in which the rate of adding and subtracting of a motion quantum are identical, and the contributions of both in to the final cooling rate cancel each other. Contrary the steady state phonon number for the atoms will increase due to the diffusion process and section \[sec\_spont\_em\] will be devoted to this issue.
Direct cooling of collective mode $X$ and its exchange with the remaining collective modes may appear on different time scales and the slowest of them will correspond to the cooling time scale for individual atoms. This section presents the analytical limits for the cooling rates of different modes of motion and the scaling of the cooling dynamics with atom number $N$.
The cavity potential provides the trap inhomogeneity with a narrow distribution of the trap frequencies around $\nu$ in the Lamb-Dicke regime: ${\nu^2_i=\nu\left[\nu-4 U_0 (\eta \alpha)^2\cos(2k_cx^{(0)}_i)\right]}$. Distributing the atoms such that ${2k_cx^{(0)}_i=i\left(\frac{\pi}{N+1}+2n\pi\right)}$, $i=1,...N$, where $n$ is any integer will correspond to the following ratio between the inter-atomic distance $d$ and the cavity wavelength $\lambda$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equation_periodicity}
\frac{d}{\lambda}=\frac{n}{2}+\frac{1}{4(N+1)}.\end{aligned}$$ This configuration will simplify the calculation and will allow to find the analytical solutions for the cooling rates. More over, the results will capture the general properties of the cooling, regardless the atomic configuration.
It is convenient to introduce the collective modes in the following way: first mode $X$ coupled to the cavity and remaining modes $X_i$, $i=1,...N-1$, uncoupled from each other and coupled only to the first one. For the selected ratio $\frac{d}{\lambda}$ it can be done using the following transformation from the basis of individual atomic displacements: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equations_collective_mode transformation}
X=\sqrt{\frac{2}{N+1}}\sum_{i=1}^N\sin(\frac{\pi \cdot i}{N+1})\tilde{\hat{x}}_i,
\\
\nonumber
X_i=\sqrt{\frac{2}{N}}\sum_{k=1}^{N-1}\sin(\frac{\pi \cdot i\cdot k}{N})\sqrt{\frac{2}{N+1}}\sum_{j=1}^N\sin(\frac{\pi \cdot j \cdot (k+1)}{N+1})\tilde{\hat{x}}_j.\end{aligned}$$ Identical transformations relate the momenta of the collective modes $P$ and $P_i$ with the momenta of the individual atoms $\tilde{\hat{p}}_i$. Substituting this transformation into the effective Hamiltonian (\[Hammiltonian\_effective\]) and introducing the creation and anihilation operators $X=\sqrt{\frac{\hbar}{2m\nu}}(\hat{B}^\dag+\hat{B})$, $P=i\sqrt{\frac{\hbar m\nu}{2}}(\hat{B}^\dag-\hat{B})$, and $X_j=\sqrt{\frac{\hbar}{2m\omega_j}}(\hat{B}_j^\dag+\hat{B}_j)$, $P_j=i\sqrt{\frac{\hbar m\omega_j}{2}}(\hat{B}_j^\dag-\hat{B}_j)$ we get the Hamiltonian in the desired form: $$\begin{aligned}
H_\mathrm{eff}=&-&\hbar\Delta'_c\hat{a}^\dag \hat{a}
+\hbar\nu \hat{B}^\dag \hat{B}
+\sum_{j=1}^{N-1}\hbar\omega_j \,\hat{B}_j^\dag \hat{B}_j
\nonumber
\\
&-&\hbar\frac{\epsilon}{2}\left(\hat{a}+\hat{a}^\dag \right)(\hat{B}+\hat{B}^\dag)
-\hbar\sum_{j=1}^{N-1}\frac{\beta_j}{2}(\hat{B}+\hat{B}^\dag)(\hat{B}_j+\hat{B}_j^\dag).\end{aligned}$$ The coupling strengths $\epsilon$, between the cavity and collective mode $X$, and $\beta_i$, between collective modes $X$ and $X_i$, and the collective mode frequencies $\omega_i$ are: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_collective_couplings}
\epsilon=U_0\alpha\eta\sqrt{2(N+1)},
\nonumber
\\
\beta_j=2U_0(\alpha\eta)^2 \sqrt{\frac{2}{N}}\sqrt{\frac{\nu}{\omega_j}}\sin\left(\pi\frac{j}{N}\right),
\\
\nonumber
\omega^2_j=\nu\left[\nu-4U_0(\eta\alpha)^2\cos\left(\pi\frac{j}{N}\right)\right].\end{aligned}$$ Thus the cavity coupling to the $X$ mode increases with $N$ while the coupling between $X_i$ and $X$ modes decreases with $N$. Such an opposite dependence will lead to the emergence of separate time scales when the atom number is sufficiently large. In this case the dynamic will consist of a fast excitation subtraction from the $X$ mode via the exchange with the cavity followed by the cavity decay, and a slow exchange between the modes $X_i$ and $X$.
To find separately the asymptotic expressions of the collective mode decay rates for the fast and slow processes for $N\gg1$, at first only the interaction between cavity and $X$ mode is considered ($\beta_i=0$). This single mode case was considered in the work [@Schleier-Smith2011] and it is analogous to the cavity cooling of a single trapped particle [@Vuletic2001; @Zippilli2005] as well as of an eigenmode of a mechanical cantilever [@Marquardt2007]. It can be be described by the rate equations for a mean phonon number $N_X=\langle B^\dag B\rangle$ in the form: $\dot{N}_X=-\gamma_X\left(N_X-N_X(t\rightarrow\infty)\right)$ when the cavity mode is adiabatically eliminated [@Stenholm1986]. In this work the rate equation is derived by evaluating $\langle\dot{\hat{B}^\dag\hat{B}}\,\,\rangle=\langle\dot{\hat{B}}^\dag\hat{B}\rangle+\langle\hat{B}^\dag\dot{\hat{B}}\rangle$. The cooling rate and the steady state phonon number are found to be: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_colective_cooling_rate}
\gamma_X=\frac{\epsilon^2}{2\kappa}\left[S_-(\nu) -S_+(\nu)\right]=\kappa\, c_d^2\,(\eta\alpha)^2(N+1)\left[S_-(\nu) -S_+(\nu)\right],
\\
\label{eq_colective_cooling_occupation_number}
N_X(t\rightarrow\infty)=\frac{S_+(\nu)}{S_-(\nu)-S_+(\nu)}.\end{aligned}$$ Here ${c_d=\frac{U_0}{\kappa}=\frac{g^2}{\Delta_a\kappa}}$ is an off-resonance single atom cooperativity which is the key parameter characterizing cavity-atom interaction and representing both: the cavity frequency shift due to the interaction with one atom and the atom resonance shift due to the interaction with the cavity in the units of the cavity lightweight. Spectral parameters ${S_\pm(\nu)=(1+(\Delta_c'\mp\nu)^2/\kappa^2)^{-1}}$ stand for the subtraction ($S_-$)/addition ($S_+$) of an energy quantum from/to the collective mode of motion and refer to the cooling and heating processes respectively. This description is applicable in the weak interaction regime when $\epsilon\ll\kappa$ which imposes an upper limit for the atom number in the array, $N\ll(c_d\eta\alpha)^{-2}$.
Efficient cooling of collective mode $X$ will occur at the cooling side-band $\Delta_c'=-\nu$ and in the resolved side-band regime $\kappa\ll\nu$. In this case $S_-(\nu)=1$ and $S_+(\nu)\approx\frac{\kappa^2}{4\nu^2}$ and the contribution of the heating processes is negligible. The cooling rate is then $\gamma_X\approx\epsilon^2/(2\kappa)=\kappa(c_d\eta\alpha)^2(N+1)$ while the mean phonon number $N_X(t\rightarrow\infty)\approx S_+(\nu)$ is close to zero. Assuming this regime, we now consider the evolution of the remaining modes. If the exchange between modes $X$ and $X_i$ occurs at the time scale much slower than $\gamma_X^{-1}$, mode $X$ will serve as a decay channel for the remaining modes.
We will look for the cooling rate for each $X_i$ mode independently, assuming that the effect of the presence of modes $X_j$ ($j\neq i$), can be neglected for sufficiently large $N$. We shall note that the condition similar to the one providing the resolved side-band regime is automatically fulfilled: the decay rate of mode $X$ is much smaller that the frequency of the $i$-th mode $\gamma_X\ll\omega_i$. Also the condition similar to the cooling side-band condition is fulfilled for each mode, $|\nu-\omega_i|\ll\gamma_X$ for sufficiently large atom number $(N+1)\gg2/c_d$. The independent cooling rate for the $X_i$ mode in this resolved side-band regime is well approximated by the following expression: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_colling_rates_analitical}
\gamma_{X_i} = \frac{\beta_i^2}{\gamma_X}=
\kappa \frac{8(\alpha\eta)^2}{(N+1)N}\sin^2\left(\frac{\pi\cdot i}{N}\right)\frac{\nu}{\omega_i}.\end{aligned}$$ In the derivation of the rate equation for the mean phonon number in mode $X_i$, the counter-rotating terms $\hat{B}^\dag\hat{B}_i^\dag$ and $\hat{B}\hat{B}_i$ in the Hamiltonian were neglected (rotating wave approximation). Then, in the frame rotating with frequency $\nu$, the cavity mode $\hat{a}$ and collective mode $\hat{B}$ were subsequently eliminated to get the Heisenberg-Langevin equation for the $\hat{B}_i$ mode alone. The rate equation for the mean phonon number in each mode was again derived by calculating the mean value $\langle\dot{\hat{B}^\dag_i\hat{B}_i}\,\,\rangle=\langle\dot{\hat{B}}^\dag_i\hat{B}_i\rangle+\langle\hat{B}^\dag_i\dot{\hat{B}}_i\rangle$. The rotating wave approximation allows to reconstruct only the decay term but not the steady state mean phonon number in the rate equation because the heating side-band is neglected. Apart from this drawback it allows one to find the cooling rate with a good accuracy in the resolved sideband regime.
Expression (\[eq\_colling\_rates\_analitical\]) shows a non-linear decrease of the independent cooling rates with increasing atom number. The smallest rate which will determine the cooling rate of individual atoms is $\gamma_{X_1}\sim N^{-4}$ when the atom number is much bigger than one. Here we shall recall that while changing the atom number we keep the modified cavity detuning fixed to the cooling side-band $\Delta_c'=-\nu$ which means that the pump frequency is adjusted for each atom number such that $\Delta_c=-\nu+U_0\sum_{i=0}^Nc^2_i=-\nu+U_0(N-1)/2$. Also, the choice of the array periodicity (\[equation\_periodicity\]) made the ratio $d/\lambda$ dependent on $N$.
One should note that the cooling rates (\[eq\_colling\_rates\_analitical\]) in this collective cooling regime does not really depend on the interaction strength $U_0$, only weakly through $\omega_i$. It is at first surprising, but reasonable, since the cooling is a trade-off between two processes: the exchange among different collective modes and the decay of the collective mode coupled to the cavity. These two processes are initially governed by the interaction of the same origin with strength $U_0$. When the collective mode decay rate increases the cooling slows down because less exchange events appear on the decay time scale, this is compensated by the simultaneous growth of the exchange rate. Thus the single atom interaction strength cancels out in the resulting cooling rate. This fact will crucially change the influence of the spontaneous emission on the cooling process in comparison with the single atom case which we will discuss in section \[sec\_spont\_em\].
Numerical results: cooling rates and mean phonon numbers {#sec_num_res}
========================================================
The exact evolution of $N$ atoms coupled to the cavity mode described by Hamiltonian (\[Hammiltonian\_effective\]) cannot be found analytically and the cooling rates and mean phonon numbers are calculated numerically still neglecting the effect of the spontaneous emission ($\hat{f}_{ai}=\hat{f}_{ai}=D_{ai}=D_{bi}=0$).
Performing the transformations $\tilde{\hat{x}}_i=\sqrt{\frac{\hbar}{2m\nu_i}}(\hat{b}^\dag_i+\hat{b}_i)$, $\tilde{\hat{p}}_i=i\sqrt{\frac{\hbar m\nu_i}{2}}(\hat{b}^\dag_i-\hat{b}_i)$, where $\hat{b}^\dag$ and $\hat{b}$ are the creation and annihilation operators of a vibrational excitation for individual atoms, the system of equations (\[H-L\_equations\_linearised\]) can be rewritten in the matrix form $$\dot{Y}=MY+S.$$ Here we introduced the vectors of the system fluctuations and the noise operators: $$\begin{aligned}
Y=(\hat{a},\hat{b}^{}_1,\hat{b}^{}_2,...\hat{b}^{}_{N},\hat{a}^\dag,\hat{b}_1^\dag,\hat{b}_2^\dag,...\hat{b}_{N}^\dag)^T,
\\
\nonumber
S=(\sqrt{2\kappa}\hat{S}_{a},0,0,...0,\sqrt{2\kappa}\hat{S}^\dag_{a},0,0,...0)^T. \end{aligned}$$ The dynamical matrix $M$ is non-Hermitian and its non-zero elements are $M_{aa}=M^*_{a^\dag a^\dag}=-\kappa+i\Delta_c'$, $M_{b_ib_i}=M^*_{b^\dag_ib^\dag_i}=-i\nu_i$ and $M_{a b_i}=M_{a b_i^\dag}=M^*_{a^\dag b_i}=M^*_{a^\dag b_i^\dag}=M_{b_i a}=M_{b_i a^\dag}=M^*_{b^\dag_i a}=M^*_{b^\dag_i a^\dag}=iU_0\eta\alpha s_i$. The transformation diagonalizing this matrix will result in the new operators combining light and atomic variables. The decay rates of the population of these polaritonic modes, $\Gamma_i$, are given by the real part of the eigenvalues $\mu_i$ of matrix $M$. Since a steady state energy of individual atoms are determined by the weighted energies of all the polaritonic modes, the smallest of $\Gamma_i$ will set the decay rate for individual atoms.
![Scaling with the atom number. For each $N$ there are $N+1$ points representing polaritonic decay rates $\Gamma_i=-2Re[\mu_i]$ (a) and $N$ points representing the phonon numbers per atom (b). Dashed and solid lines correspond to the analytical results: collective cooling rates $\gamma_X$ (\[eq\_colective\_cooling\_rate\]) (blue, dashed-dotted line) and $\gamma_{X_1}$ (\[eq\_colling\_rates\_analitical\]) (red, dashed line) and independent decay rate $\gamma_{x1}$ (\[eq\_independent\_cooling\_rate\]) (green, solid line). Vertical dashed line marks the transition between independent and collective cooling regimes. In both regimes the steady state mean phonon number per atom is close to the limit of a single atom cavity cooling $\kappa^2/(4\nu^2)=0.0025$. The cavity detuning is adjusted to the cooling sideband $\Delta_c'=-\nu$ for each atom number and the $\nu=10\kappa$. Parameter values $\eta=0.02$, $c_d=0.05$, $\eta_p=150\kappa$ result into $c_d(\eta\alpha)^2=4.8\cdot 10^{-3}$.[]{data-label="fig_scaling_all_rates"}](figure2a_2b.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
The decay rates of the polaritonic modes $\Gamma_i=-2Re[\mu_i]$, $i=1,...N+1$, are plotted in figure \[fig\_scaling\_all\_rates\].a for different atom numbers in the array. The pump frequency was adjusted to keep the cooling sideband condition $\Delta_c'=-\nu$, and the atomic periodicity *vs* the cavity wavelength $d/\lambda$ was also modified according to (\[equation\_periodicity\]). Other parameters are selected such that $\epsilon\ll\kappa$ and the cavity decay happens much faster than the phonon decay. In this case we clearly see the dominating decay rate $\Gamma_1\approx2\kappa$ corresponding to the polaritonic modes mainly consisting of the cavity mode. Consequently the remaining polaritonic modes will mostly consist of atomic modes. For sufficiently large $N$ the decay rates are well approximated by the analytical expressions for the collective mode decay rates $\gamma_X$ (blue, dashed-dotted line) and $\gamma_{X_i}$ (red, dashed line for $\gamma_{X_1}$ of figure \[fig\_scaling\_all\_rates\].a) thus these modes are close to the collective modes introduced in the previous section.
When the atom number is small, analytical results (\[eq\_colective\_cooling\_rate\],\[eq\_colling\_rates\_analitical\]) are no longer valid because the collective mode $X$ cannot be treated independently from the remaining modes $X_i$. It turns out that for $N\ll 2/c_d$, the polaritonic decay rates $\Gamma_i$ for $i=2,...N+1$ are well approximated by the independent decay rates of each atom (green, solid line for $\gamma_{x1}$), found by putting $s_j=0$ for $j\neq i$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_independent_cooling_rate}
\gamma_{x_i}=\frac{\epsilon_i^2}{2\kappa}\left[S_-(\nu_i) -S_+(\nu_i)\right]
=2\kappa\,c_d^2(\alpha\eta_i)^2\left[S_-(\nu_i) -S_+(\nu_i)\right].\end{aligned}$$ Here we introduce an effective coupling strength $\epsilon_i=2U_0\eta_i\alpha s_i$ between the cavity mode and the motion of the $i$-th atom and a Lamb-Dicke parameter for each atom $\eta_i=k_c\sqrt{\hbar/(2m\nu_i)}$. From this we conclude that atoms do not feel the presence of each other and they are cooled down independently. This is due to the fact that the difference between the trap frequencies is larger than the mechanical damping rate of each atom $\gamma_{x_i}$ and there is no interference effect between the cooling of different atoms. On the contrary, for a large atom number the frequencies $\nu_i\approx\nu-2 U_0 (\eta \alpha)^2\cos(i\pi/(N+1))$ are close to each other and when the difference becomes smaller than $\gamma_{x_i}$ the light mediated interaction between the traps slows down the cooling. A similar interference effect was previously found for two mechanical modes of a micromirror in an optical cavity [@Genes2008]. In figure \[fig\_scaling\_all\_rates\].a the transition point between the two regimes in the atomic array when one collective decay rate splits from the others is clearly seen. Its position depends on the array geometry and is captured by $c_dN=\mathrm{const}$ where $\mathrm{const}=2$ in the present configuration.
The steady state mean occupation number of each atom, presented on \[fig\_scaling\_all\_rates\].b, practically does not depend on the total number of atoms if the spontaneous emission is neglected. It is approximately the same for all atoms and it is close to the lowest value achievable for a single atom resolved side-band cooling $\kappa^2/(4\nu^2)$ (0.0025 for the selected parameters) when the diffusion due to spontaneous emission is negligible [@Vuletic2001]. This is due to the fact that the shifts of the trap frequencies are much smaller than the cavity bandwidth and the cooling sideband conditions are still fulfilled for all the atoms.
Comparison of the numerical and analytical results allows us to associate the collective modes of the atomic motion presented in the previous section with the normal polaritonic modes of the full system. It also revealed the transition between two different regimes when atoms are cooled independently or collectively. Comparing the smallest collective decay rate $\gamma_{X_1}$ with the smallest independent decay rate $\gamma_{x_1}$ for $N\gg1$ we see the suppression by a factor $\gamma_{x_1}/\gamma_{X_1}=(c_dN/2)^2$. Thus, while the collective effects are favourable for the cooling of one mode shortening its cooling time linearly with $N$ [@Schleier-Smith2011], they destructively suppress the cooling of individual atoms and prolong their cooling time quadratically with N.
Optimal array periodicity *vs* the cavity wavelength {#sec_optimization}
====================================================
So far we analysed the configuration when the ratio between the lattice constant and the cavity wavelength was set by expression (\[equation\_periodicity\]), which corresponds to the spread of the trap frequencies over the whole available interval $\cos(i\pi/(N+1))\in(-1,1)$. This provides the largest frequency difference between the traps and supposedly fastest exchange between the collective modes. However, in this case, atoms on the edge of the chain are weakly coupled to the cavity due to the factor $\sin(i\pi/(N+1))$, which slows down the cooling. This section shows the existence of the optimal configuration of atoms in the cavity which maximizes the cooling rate due to the trade-off between the frequency separations and the coupling to the cavity.
![Optimization of the cooling procedure. (a): Coupling strength $s_i=\sin(2k_cx_i^{(0)})$ and frequency $c_i=\cos(2k_cx_i^{(0)})$ distributions for 9 atoms and the optimization parameter $l=0,2,5$ with steps number $L=10$ (marked by the vertical dotted lines of figure \[fig\_optimization\].b). (b): Minimal decay rate $\mathrm{Min}\{\Gamma_i\}$ *vs* optimization parameter $l$. Blue circles, magenta squares and yellow diamonds correspond to $N=20,40,60$ respectively. Reference dashed curve is a single atom cooling rate for $s_1=1$.[]{data-label="fig_optimization"}](figure3a_3b.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
Considering the frequency spread to be symmetric around $\nu$, the periodicity ratio $d/\lambda$ and the array location along the cavity axes will be varied to decrease the interval along which the trap frequencies are spread. This will automatically increase the minimal coupling to the cavity. Such a change can be parametrized as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
2k_cx^{(0)}_i=\frac{l}{L}\cdot\frac{\pi}{2}+ i\left(\frac{L-l}{L}\cdot\frac{\pi}{N+1}+2n\pi\right),\,\,\,\,\, l=0,...L-1;
\\
\nonumber
\frac{d}{\lambda}=\frac{n}{2}+\frac{1}{4(N+1)}\cdot\frac{L-l}{L}.\end{aligned}$$ Here $L$ is the number of steps in the search for the optimal configuration. By changing the value of the optimization parameter $l$ from $0$ to $L-1$ we go from the largest to the smallest frequency spread. As an example, figure \[fig\_optimization\].a shows the distribution of the frequencies $c_i=\cos(2k_c x_i^{(0)})$ and couplings $s_i=\sin(2k_c x_i^{(0)})$ for nine atoms and the optimization parameter $l=0,2,5$ with $L=10$.
Figure \[fig\_optimization\].b shows the change of the minimal cooling rate $\mathrm{Min\{\Gamma_i\}}$ with $l$ for three different atom numbers $N=20,40,60$. We find one order of magnitude improvement of the cooling rate as a result of the suggested optimization scheme. It is important to mention the role of the array location along the cavity axes. Displacement of the array away from the optimal location will be equivalent to the rotation of the selected segment shown on figure \[fig\_optimization\].a around the origin. This would lead to the reduction of the cooling rate fro some atoms due to the decrease of the coupling to the cavity. Additionally if some $c_i$ become identical, some collective mode of motion will decouple and consequently the steady state phonon number per atom will increase.
It is experimentally convenient that the trap frequency inhomogeneity is provided by the cavity potential itself because no extra arrangements are needed to lift the trap degeneracy. Additionally, the key role of the array *vs* cavity field periodicity may be used to speed up the cooling by a factor ${\sim N^2}$ by only displacing and stretching the array along the cavity. Alternatively additional external potentials can be considered to introduce an arbitrary trap inhomogeneity, however this is beyond the scope of this paper.
Effect of spontaneous emission {#sec_spont_em}
==============================
Up to now only the exchange between the atoms and the cavity mode was considered, and the spontaneous emission of the cavity photons by the atoms into the free space was neglected. Spontaneous emission on a single atom causes diffusion [@Vuletic2001; @Bienert2012; @Zippilli2005a] and, thus, heating. This leads to a higher steady state phonon number than predicted by the model neglecting the spontaneous emission. Now it will be take in to account by considering the additional Langevin sources and decay terms in equations (\[H-L\_equations\_linearised\]) which were omitted in the previous sections. In general, the many atom case is different from the single atom configuration. Nevertheless, we can already guess that in the individual cooling regime, when the atom number is sufficiently small, the many- and single-atom cases will be similar and here it will be proven analytically. More importantly, in this section I will also treat in detail the effect of the spontaneous emission in the collective cooling regime. We will see that the destructive suppression of the cooling rates discussed in the previous sections leads yet to another problem when accounting for the spontaneous emission: as the cooling slows down, the diffusion due to the spontaneous scattering into the free space accumulates during a longer time. This increases the steady state photon number in the traps setting an additional limitation for the proposed cooling scheme. This section presents both the numerical and analytical studies of the effect including the results derived for the first time for the considered configuration: many atoms in a pumped cavity. The results will be used to find the guidelines on how to set the parameters to avoid undesirable heating and to achieve the proposed cooling scheme experimentally feasible.
In the regime of the independent cooling, i.e. when the atom number is sufficiently small, we shall compare the exact solution with the analytical result for a single atom. The rate equation for the mean occupation number in $i$-th trap is derived by putting $\epsilon_ j$ ($j\neq i$) to zero and adiabatically eliminating the cavity mode assuming that $\kappa_\mathrm{eff}\gg\epsilon_i$. The cooling rate remains the same (\[eq\_independent\_cooling\_rate\]) and the steady state phonon number is found to be: $$\label{eq_phonon_number_sp_em}
n_{i}(t\rightarrow\infty)=
\frac{S_+(\nu_i)}{S_-(\nu_i)-S_+(\nu_i)}\left(1
+\frac{1}{2c_r}\frac{K_i}{s^2_i}\frac{1}{S_+(\nu_i)}\right).$$ In the expression for $S_\pm(\nu_i)$ the cavity decay rate $\kappa$ should be replaced by the modified rate $\kappa_\mathrm{eff}$, although under the condition (\[ineq\_cavity\_decay\_vs\_sp\_em\]) the dominating effects of the spontaneous emission will be captures if $\kappa_\mathrm{eff}\approx\kappa$, so will be assumed in the following. This expression clearly demonstrates the necessity of a large cooperativity $c_r$ to reach the ground state cooling. It is in agreement with the results reported in [@Vuletic2001; @Zippilli2005a] with the only difference being a numerical factor of the order of unity accounting for different pumping configuration. This result also coincides (up to the second order in $1/\Delta_p$) with the the result reported in [@Bienert2012], there the cavity pump configuration was also considered. It is interesting to note that the initial assumption on the intra-cavity mean photon number made in this work ($|\alpha|^2\gg\langle\hat{a}^\dag\hat{a}\rangle$) is essentially different to the one of [@Bienert2012] ($|\alpha|^2\ll1$). The exact agreement between the results underlines that the limit of a small intra-cavity photon number and the limit of a small fluctuation around a large inta-cavity photon number are two related approximations in the far off-resonance regime.
For the case of $N$ atoms inside a cavity the problem is now solved numerically and the results are compared with the a single atom case in figure \[fig\_occupation number\_decay\_rates\_sp\_em\]. The scaling of the steady state phonon number with $N$ is presented for two different atomic configurations: the optimized configuration (figure \[fig\_occupation number\_decay\_rates\_sp\_em\].a) and the one considered in figure \[fig\_scaling\_all\_rates\] (figure \[fig\_occupation number\_decay\_rates\_sp\_em\].b). In agreement with the cooling rate scaling presented on figure \[fig\_scaling\_all\_rates\] the steady state phonon number scaling confirms that up to a certain atom number atoms cool down independently according to (\[eq\_phonon\_number\_sp\_em\]). Above this atom number the cooling slows down which causes the increase of the phonon number as more spontaneous emission events occur during a longer cooling time. Thus the transition from the individual to the collective cooling accompanied by the suppression of the cooling rate and the increase of the mean phonon number quadratically with the atom number is present in both configuration. For the selected parameters $c_d=0.05$ and $c_r=10$ up to $20$ atoms can be cooled close to the ground state with the phonon number less than $0.1$.
![Steady state occupation numbers per atom vs the atom number N. (a): optimal configuration with $l=5$, $L=10$, (b): configuration corresponding to figure \[fig\_scaling\_all\_rates\] with $l=0$. A resonance cooperativity $\frac{g^2}{\kappa\gamma}=10$ and other parameters are identical to those of figure \[fig\_scaling\_all\_rates\]. Analytical result for a single atom (\[eq\_phonon\_number\_sp\_em\]) reproduces the numerical calculation for small $N$ ($N$-th trap (red, solid line) and first (a) or middle (b) trap of the array (blue, dot-dashed line)). For the large atom number the numerical results are reproduced by expressions (\[eq\_phonon\_number\_col\_sp\_em\]) found in the collective cooling regime (red and blue dashed lines in (b)). The geometric coefficient $C_{xi}$ is set to 2/5 (the case of a classical dipole parallel to $x$ axes).[]{data-label="fig_occupation number_decay_rates_sp_em"}](figure4a_4b.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
In the resolved side band limit $\kappa\ll\nu$ expression (\[eq\_phonon\_number\_sp\_em\]) simplifies towards ${n_{i}\approx
\frac{\kappa^2}{4\nu_i^2}
+\frac{1}{2c_r}\frac{K_i}{s_i^2}\left(1+\frac{\kappa^2}{4\nu_i^2}\right)}$ and it is possible to estimate the steady state phonon number in the regime of collective cooling by taking into account the ratio between the individual (\[eq\_independent\_cooling\_rate\]) and collective (\[eq\_colling\_rates\_analitical\]) cooling rates $\gamma_{x_1}/\gamma_{X_1}=(c_dN/2)^2$: $$\label{eq_phonon_number_col_sp_em}
n_{i}(N\gg 2/c_d)=
\frac{\kappa^2}{4\nu_i^2}
+\frac{(c_dN/2)^2}{2c_r}\frac{K_i}{s_i^2}\left(1+\frac{\kappa^2}{4\nu_i^2}\right).$$ As can be seen in figure \[fig\_occupation number\_decay\_rates\_sp\_em\].b, this expression reproduces the exact result for the atom number $N\gg 2/c_d$ . To suppress the spontaneous emission effect (the second term) the single atom cooperativity should obey the inequality: $$\label{ineq_cooperativity_sp_em}
c_r\gg c_d^2 N^2/(8 s_i^2).$$ This is fundamentally different from the condition in the case of a single atom $c_r \gg1$ where $c_d$ does not enter and consequently the detuning does not play a role. It is because the cooling rate (\[eq\_colling\_rates\_analitical\]) no longer depends on $c_d$ and thus on the detuning, while the spontaneous emission rate does. As we see from (\[ineq\_cooperativity\_sp\_em\]), in the case of collective cooling the cooperativity $c_r$ is required to be larger than in a single atom, i.e. the positive effect of the cavity is corrupted by the destructive interference in the cooling dynamic. But at the same time the detuning is becoming a knob to reduce the diffusion caused by the spontaneous emission.
Inequality (\[ineq\_cooperativity\_sp\_em\]) is equivalent to ${\kappa\gg\gamma \frac{g^2}{\Delta_a^2}N^2/(8 s_i^2)}$. The optimization decreases the phonon number for the hottest atom ($s_i\approx \pi/N$) and improves the scaling by a factor ${\sim N^2}$. In this case the condition sufficient to suppress the effect of spontaneous emission is found to be: $$\label{ineq_supression_sp_em}
{\kappa\gg\gamma \frac{g^2}{\Delta_a^2}N^2}.$$ This inequality should be compared to the condition (\[ineq\_cavity\_decay\_vs\_sp\_em\]) insuring that the spontaneous emission rate is much lower than the cavity decay rate, ${\kappa\gg\gamma \frac{g^2}{\Delta_a^2}N}$, assumed through the derivations. Condition (\[ineq\_cavity\_decay\_vs\_sp\_em\]) was also considered to be sufficient for neglect the spontaneous emission effect in the configuration different to the one presented here, i.e. homogeneour cold atomic cloud instead of the array [@Gangl1999; @Horak2000]. As we can see, an additional factor of $N$ makes condition (\[ineq\_supression\_sp\_em\]) more strict than (\[ineq\_cavity\_decay\_vs\_sp\_em\]). This is a special feature of the collective cooling regime, when the distructive interference suppresses the cooling effect.
Lets now estimate experimental accessibility of the proposed cooling scheme for a chain of $^{87}$Rb atoms using the limitation (\[ineq\_supression\_sp\_em\]) as a guideline. Given the recoil frequency $\omega_R=2\pi\cdot3.9$ kHz and demanding a Lamb-Dicke parameter of $\eta=0.04$, the trap frequencies shall be set to $\nu=2\pi\cdot 2.4$ MHz. The resolved side-band condition requires the cavity bandwidth to be at maximum $\kappa=2\pi\cdot240$ kHz. From figure \[fig\_optimization\].a the cooling rate for the array of 20 atoms is $10^{-4}\kappa$ which gives a cooling time of about $6.6$ ms. This is a realistic time comparable with the stability of an optical trap which will form the array, and it is close to the single atom cooling time experimentally achieved via Raman side-band cooling [@Reiserer2013]. This rate can be achieved with the single atom-cavity coupling strength $g=2\pi\cdot 3.8$ MHz leading to cooperativity $c_r=10$ and the detuning from the atomic resonance $\Delta_a=2\pi\cdot 1.2$ GHz. The diffusion due to the spontaneous emission will set the limit for the number of atoms which can be cooled to the ground state. The upper bound of this limit can be estimated form condition (\[ineq\_supression\_sp\_em\]), ${N^2\ll\kappa\left(\gamma\frac{g^2}{\Delta_a^2}\right)^{-1}}$, and it is about ten for the selected parameters. To push this limit without changing the cooling rate constant one could go further away from the atomic transition and simultaneously increase the coupling strength $g\sim \sqrt{\Delta_a}$.
The cavity cooling protocol for an atomic array proposed in this work is shown to be limited by the presence of spontaneous emission. The Heisenberg-Langevin equations derived for the first time in the considered configuration were used to quantify this limitations and shown that the proposed scheme is experimentally feasible. Moreover the predicted cooling times for an array of tens of atoms at the reachable experimental is comparable with the best achived up to date for a single atom case [@Reiserer2013].
Conclusion {#sec_conclusion}
==========
Cooling of the array of an atomic array via coupling to a single mode cavity is accessible when the inhomogeneity of the atomic trap frequencies is present. This work shows that the intra-cavity field with sufficiently large photon number is able to provide this inhomogeneity, simultaneously mediating the cooling of atoms to the ground state of the individual wells.
The cooling dynamics drastically changes with the size of the array from (i) the regime when atoms are cooled independently from each other to (ii) when the cooling happens via collective modes which increase the cooling time and the steady state mean phonon number by a factor $\sim(c_dN)^2$. The main reason for the suppression of the cooling at the large atom number is the destructive interference occurring because the separations between the trap frequencies become comparable with mechanical damping rate (an analog of the linewidth). It results into the destructive suppression of the cooling which is a signature of an enhancement of the cavity mediated atom-atom interaction. Consequently the detrimental spontaneous emission effect increases with the atom number and a larger single atom cooperativity $c_r\gg (c_dN)^2$ is necessary to suppress it.
Due to the periodic nature of the inhomogeneity induced by the cavity field the periodicity of the array *vs* the cavity mode plays a crucial role in the cooling dynamics. It allows an optimization of the cooling by adjusting the lattice constant and the array position along the cavity axes offering one order of magnitude gain in the cooling speed. Cooling of a few tens of atoms to the ground state of motion within a few milliseconds is experimantaly feasible with the use of the suggested scheme. This demonstrates a controlability of the array motion with a single mode cavity and sets the basis for the further exploration of the quantum optomechanical interface and, possibly, generation of novel non-classical states of collective atomic motion. Moreover, our cooling scheme can also be extended to the case of an array of micro- or manometer scale mechanical oscillators which makes it a useful tool for different systems.
I would like to thank Giovanna Morigi for the wise guidelines along the project and comments on the manuscript, Marc Bienert for the discussions, critical reading and comments on the manuscript, Cecilia Cormick, Endre Kajari, and Monika Schleier-Smith for the fruitful discussions of the work in progress, Thomas Fogarty for reading the manuscript and for the linguistic advising, and Pavel Bushev and Lars Madsen for the useful comments on the manuscript. The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under the FP7-ICT collaborative project AQUTE (grant number: 247687) and the individual Marie Curie IEF project AAPLQIC (grant number: 330004).
Heisenberg-Langevin equations: atom motion and cavity light
============================================================
The main ideas and the key steps of the derivation of equations (\[H-L\_equations\_sp\_em\]) and (\[eq\_cor\_fun\_sp\_em\]) are presented in this appendix. The starting point is the full Hamiltonian of the system, which includes the cavity field, the atoms with their spin and mechanical degrees of freedom, and the reservoir containing the field modes outside of the cavity which interact directly with the atoms: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{H}_\mathrm{tot}=\mathrm{H}_\mathrm{sys}
+\sum_{\vec{k},\epsilon}\hbar\omega_{k}\hat{a}^\dag_{\vec{k},\epsilon}\hat{a}_{\vec{k},\epsilon}
- \sum_{
{ i=1} \atop {\vec{k},\epsilon}
}
^{N}
\hbar g_{\vec{k},\epsilon}
\left(
\sigma^{(i)}_{eg}\hat{a}_{\vec{k},\epsilon} e^{i\vec{k}\vec{\hat{r}}_i}
+\sigma^{(i)}_{ge}\hat{a}^\dag_{\vec{k},\epsilon}e^{-i\vec{k}\vec{\hat{r}}_i}
\right).\end{aligned}$$ The creation $\hat{a}^\dag_{\vec{k},\epsilon}$ and annihilation $\hat{a}_{\vec{k},\epsilon}$ operators of the reservoir modes are labeled by the wave vector $\vec{k}$ and the polarization $\epsilon$ indexes and the summation goes over all the free space modes excluding those entering through the cavity mirrors. The last term in the Hamiltonian represents the interaction between the atoms and the reservoir field modes in the rotating wave approximation with the interaction constant $g_{\vec{k},\epsilon}=\sqrt{\frac{\omega_k}{2 \pi \hbar V \epsilon_0}}\,\,\,\vec{\varepsilon}_\epsilon\cdot\vec{d}_{eg}$. Here $\vec{d}_{eg}$ is an atomic dipole moment, $V$ is the quantization volume and $\epsilon_0$ the vacuum permittivity. The spin of the $i$-th atom is represented by the operators $\sigma^{(i)}_{ge}=|g\rangle_i\langle e|$, $\sigma^{(i)}_{eg}=|e\rangle_i\langle g|$ and $\sigma^{(i)}_{z}=|g\rangle_i\langle g|-|e\rangle_i\langle e|$. The atom-cavity Hamiltonian $\mathrm{H_{sys}}$ contains the non-interacting parts $H_\mathrm{0}$, the interaction part $H_\mathrm{int}$ and the cavity pumping $H_\mathrm{p}$ : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_system_Hamiltonian}
\mathrm{H}_\mathrm{sys}=H_\mathrm{0}+H_\mathrm{int}+H_\mathrm{p},
\nonumber
\\
H_\mathrm{0}=-\hbar\frac{\omega_{eg}}{2} \sum_{i=1}^{N}\sigma^{(i)}_z-\hbar \omega_c \hat{A}^\dag \hat{A}
+\sum_{i=1}^N \left( \frac{m \nu^2}{2}\hat{x}^2_i+\frac{1}{2m}\hat{p}^2_i\right),
\nonumber
\\
H_\mathrm{int}=-\hbar g\sum_{i=1}^{N} \cos(k_c x^{(0)}_i+k_c\hat{x}_i)\left(\sigma^{(i)}_{eg} \hat{A}+\hat{A}^\dag \sigma^{(i)}_{ge}\right)
\nonumber,
\\
H_\mathrm{p}=i\hbar\left(\eta_p\hat{A}^\dag e^{-i\omega_p t}-\eta_p^*\hat{A}e^{i\omega_p t}\right).\end{aligned}$$ The Heisenberg-Langevin equations for the atom-cavity system and reservoir are: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_HL_system+reservoir}
\dot{\hat{a}}_{\vec{k},\epsilon}=-i \omega_k \hat{a}_{\vec{k},\epsilon}
- g_{\vec{k},\epsilon}\sigma^{(i)}_{ge}
e^{-i\vec{k}\cdot\vec{\hat{r}}_i},
\\
\nonumber
\dot{\hat{A}}=\frac{i}{\hbar}\left[\mathrm{H_{sys}},\hat{A}\right]
-\kappa \hat{A}
+\sqrt{2\kappa}\hat{A}_{in},
\\
\nonumber
\dot{\sigma}^{(i)}_{ge}=\frac{i}{\hbar}\left[\mathrm{H_{sys}},\sigma^{(i)}_{ge}\right]
+i \sigma^{(i)}_{z}\sum_{\vec{k},\epsilon}
g_{\vec{k},\epsilon}\hat{a}_{\vec{k},\epsilon}
e^{i\vec{k}\cdot\vec{\hat{r}}_i},
\\
\nonumber
\dot{\sigma}^{(i)}_z=\frac{i}{\hbar}\left[\mathrm{H_{sys}},\sigma^{(i)}_{z}\right]
+2i\sum_{\vec{k},\epsilon}
\left(
g^*_{\vec{k},\epsilon}\sigma^{(i)}_{ge}\hat{a}^\dag_{\vec{k},\epsilon}
e^{-i\vec{k}\cdot\vec{\hat{r}}_i}
-g_{\vec{k},\epsilon}\sigma^{(i)}_{eg}\hat{a}_{\vec{k},\epsilon}
e^{i\vec{k}\cdot\vec{\hat{r}}_i}
\right),
\\
\nonumber
\dot{\hat{p}}_i=\frac{i}{\hbar}\left[\mathrm{H_{sys}},\hat{p}_i\right]
+i\sum_{\vec{k},\epsilon}
\hbar k_x
\left(
g^*_{\vec{k},\epsilon}\sigma^{(i)}_{ge}
\hat{a}^\dag_{\vec{k},\epsilon}
e^{-i\vec{k}\cdot\vec{\hat{r}}_i}
-g_{\vec{k},\epsilon}\sigma^{(i)}_{eg}
\hat{a}_{\vec{k},\epsilon}
e^{i\vec{k}\cdot\vec{\hat{r}}_i}
\right),
\\
\nonumber
\dot{\hat{x}}_i=\hat{p}_i/m.\end{aligned}$$ The first step on the way to the equation which contain only the atomic quantum motion and the cavity field is to eliminate the reservoir. It is done by formally solving the first equation of system (\[eq\_HL\_system+reservoir\]): $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{a}_{\vec{k},\epsilon}(t)=\hat{a}_{\vec{k},\epsilon}(0)e^{-i\omega_k t}
-ig^*_{\vec{k},\epsilon}
\int_0^t e^{-i\omega_k(t-\tau)}\sum_{i=1}^N \sigma^{(i)}_{ge}(\tau)
e^{-i\vec{k}\cdot\vec{\hat{r}}_i}d\tau,\end{aligned}$$ and plugging this solution into the remaining equation of system (\[eq\_HL\_system+reservoir\]). Assuming a markovian memoryless reservoir [@Cohen-Tannoudji1992; @Gardinner2004] the system of equations can be developed to the following form: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_HL_spin+motion+losses}
\dot{\sigma}^{(i)}_{ge}=\frac{i}{\hbar}\left[\mathrm{H_{sys}},\sigma^{(i)}_{ge}\right]
-\frac{\gamma}{2}\sigma^{(i)}_{ge}
+i \sigma^{(i)}_{z}\hat{F}_i(t),
\\
\nonumber
\dot{\sigma}^{(i)}_z=\frac{i}{\hbar}\left[\mathrm{H_{sys}},\sigma^{(i)}_{z}\right]
-\gamma \left(\sigma^{(i)}_z+\mathrm{I}\right)
+2i\left(
\hat{F}_i^\dag(t) \sigma^{(i)}_{ge}
-\sigma^{(i)}_{eg}\hat{F}_i(t)
\right),
\\
\nonumber
\dot{\hat{p}}_i=\frac{i}{\hbar}\left[\mathrm{H_{sys}},\hat{p}_i\right]
+i\left(
\hat{F}_{pi}^\dag(t) \sigma^{(i)}_{ge}
-\sigma^{(i)}_{eg}\hat{F}_{pi}(t)
\right),\end{aligned}$$ with $\mathrm{I}$ is the identity operator. Here the Langevin sources contain the operators ${\hat{F}_i(t)=\sum_{\vec{k},\epsilon}g_{\vec{k},\epsilon}
e^{i\left(\vec{k}\cdot\vec{\hat{r}}_i(t)-\omega_k t\right)}
\hat{a}_{\vec{k},\epsilon}(0)}$ and ${\hat{F}_{pi}(t)=\sum_{\vec{k},\epsilon}\hbar k_xg_{\vec{k},\epsilon}
e^{i\left(\vec{k}\cdot\vec{\hat{r}}_i(t)-\omega_k t\right)}
\hat{a}_{\vec{k},\epsilon}(0)}$ accounting for the noise entering the atom-cavity system from the reservoir. Under the assumption that all the modes of the reservoir are in the vacuum state the only non zero correlation function of the operators $\hat{F}_i$ and $\hat{F}_i^\dag$ is ${\langle\hat{F}_i(t)\hat{F}_i^\dag(t')\rangle=g(t-t')e^{-i\omega_{eg}(t-t')}}$. The function ${g(\tau)=\sum_{\vec{k},\epsilon}|g_{\vec{k},\epsilon}|^2e^{-i(\omega_k-\omega_{eg})\tau}}$ is not exactly the delta-function although if the reservoir bandwidth is much larger than the inverse of the smallest time step considered in the problem then, it approaches a delta function ${\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} g(\tau)d\tau=2\pi\sum_{\vec{k},\epsilon}|g_{\vec{k},\epsilon}|^2\delta(\omega_k-\omega_{eg})=\gamma}$ [@Cohen-Tannoudji1992]. Apart from the spontaneous decay rate $\gamma$ also a negligibly small energy shift additional to $\omega_{eg}$ appears due to the spontaneous emission which will further on be reabsorbed into the frequency.
The second step is the adiabatic elimination of the atomic excited state in the limit of the large detuning $\Delta_a\gg\gamma,g\sqrt{N_{ph}},\kappa,\nu$. This is done by formaly solving the first two equations of system (\[eq\_HL\_spin+motion+losses\]) and expanding the solution up to the second order in $1/\Delta_a$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_optical_coherence_2order}
\sigma^{(i)}_{ge}=
&-&\frac{g f(\hat{x}_i)}{\Delta_a}\left[
\left(1+\frac{\Delta_c}{\Delta_a}+i\frac{\frac{\gamma}{2}-\kappa}{\Delta_a}\right)\hat{A}^\dag
+\frac{i}{\Delta_a}\left(\eta_p^*e^{i\omega_p t} + \sqrt{2\kappa}\hat{A}^\dag_{in}\right)
\right]
\\
\nonumber
&-&i\frac{g\sqrt{\omega_R\nu}}{\sqrt{2}\Delta^2_a}f'(\hat{x}_i)\frac{\hat{p}_i}{\Delta p}\hat{A}^\dag
+i\frac{\hat{F}^\dag(t)}{i\Delta_a+\gamma/2}
+O(\frac{1}{\Delta_a^3}).\end{aligned}$$ The geometric functions depending on the positions of the atoms along the cavity are $f(\hat{x}_i)=\cos(k_cx_i^{(0)})-\sin(k_cx_i^{(0)})k_c\hat{x}_i-\frac{1}{2}\cos(k_cx_i^{(0)})(k_c\hat{x}_i)^2$ and $f'(\hat{x}_i)=-\sin(k_cx_i^{(0)})-\cos(k_cx_i^{(0)})k_c\hat{x}_i$ up to the second order the Lamb-Dicke parameter.
The final point needed to arrive from equations (\[eq\_HL\_spin+motion+losses\]) to equation (\[H-L\_equations\_sp\_em\]) and (\[eq\_cor\_fun\_sp\_em\]) is the relations between the functions $\hat{F}_i(t)$ and $\hat{F}_{p_i}(t)$ and the normalized Langevin sources $ \hat{f}_{ai}(t)$ and $ \hat{f}_{bi}(t)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{f}_{ai}(t)=\frac{1}{\gamma}\hat{F}_i e^{i\omega_p t}
\\
\nonumber
\hat{f}_{bi}(t)=\frac{\cos(k_c x_i^{(0)})}{\sqrt{\gamma}}
\left(\hat{F}^\dag_i e^{-i\omega_p t}+\hat{F}_i e^{i\omega_p t}\right)
+\frac{i\sin(k_c x_i^{(0)})}{\sqrt{\gamma}\hbar k_c}
\left(\hat{F}^\dag_{pi} e^{-i\omega_p t}-\hat{F}_{pi} e^{i\omega_p t}\right)\end{aligned}$$ Equations (\[H-L\_equations\_sp\_em\]) and (\[eq\_cor\_fun\_sp\_em\]) are then derived from equations (\[eq\_HL\_spin+motion+losses\]) using these relations, expression (\[eq\_optical\_coherence\_2order\]) and keeping only the terms up to the second order in $1/\Delta_a$.
References
==========
[99]{}
S. Gupta, K. Moore, K. Murch, and D. Stamper-Kurn 2007 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**99**]{} 213601
M. Schleier-Smith, I. Leroux, H. Zhang, M. [Van Camp]{}, and V. Vuletić 2011 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**107**]{} 143005
L. Brandt, C. Muldoon, T. Thiele, J. Dong, E. Brainis, and A. Kuhn 2010 [*App. Phys. B*]{} [**102**]{} 443
P. F. Herskind, A. Dantan, J. P. Marler, M. Albert, and M. Drewsen, 2009 [*Nature Physics*]{} [**5**]{} 494
D. M. Stamper-Kurn, 2012 [*arXiv:1204.4351*]{}
H. Ritsch, P. Domokos, F. Brennecke, and T. Esslinger 2013 [*Rev. of Mod. Phys.*]{} [**8**]{} 553
D. W. C. Brooks, T. Botter, S. Schreppler, T. P. Purdy, N. Brahms, and D. M. Stamper-Kurn 2012 [*Nature*]{} [**488**]{} 476
A. Peng and A. Parkins 202 [*Phys.l Rev. A*]{} [**65**]{} 062323
G.-X. Li 2006 [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**74**]{} 055801
C. Cormick and G. Morigi 2013 [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**87**]{} 013829
S. Hamann, D. Haycock, G. Klose, P. Pax, I. Deutsch, and P. Jessen, 1998 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**80**]{} 4149
B. Lev, A. Vukics, E. Hudson, B. Sawyer, P. Domokos, H. Ritsch, and J. Ye 2008 [*A.*]{} [**77**]{} 023402
J. Cirac, M. Lewenstein, and P. Zoller 1995 [*A*]{} [**51**]{} 1650
V. Vuletić, H. Chan, and A. Black 2001 [*A*]{} [**64**]{} 033405
S. Zippilli and G. Morigi 2005 [**]{} [**95**]{} 143001
D. Leibrandt, J. Labaziewicz, V. Vuletić, and I. Chuang 2009 [**]{} [**103**]{} 103001
T. Elsässer, B. Nagorny, and A. Hemmerich 2003 [*A*]{} [**67**]{} 051401(R)
A. Xuereb, C. Genes, and A. Dantan 2012 [**]{}, [**109**]{} 223601
P. Domokos and H. Ritsch 2003 [*B*]{} [**20**]{} 1098
J. Larson, S. Fernández-Vidal, G. Morigi, and M. Lewenstein 2008 [**]{} [**10**]{} 045002
M Bienert and G. Morigi 2012 [*A*]{} [**86**]{} 053402
D. Vitali, P. Cañizares, J. Eschner, and G. Morigi 2008 [**]{} [**10**]{} 033025
Daniel A. Steck. Alkali D Line Data. http://steck.us/alkalidata/
C. Genes, D. Vitali, and P. Tombesi 2008 [**]{} [**10**]{} 095009
J. Eschner, G. Morigi, F. Schmidt-Kaler, and R. Blatt 2003 [*B*]{} [**20**]{} 1003
F. Marquardt, J. Chen, A. Clerk, and S. Girvin 2007 [**]{} [**99**]{} 093902
S. Stenholm 1986 [**]{} [**58**]{} 699
S. Zippilli and G. Morigi 2005 [*A*]{} [**72**]{} 053408
M. Gangl and H. Ritsch 1999 [*A*]{} [**61**]{} 011402(R)
P. Horak, S. Barnett, and H. Ritsch 2000 [*A*]{} [**61**]{} 033609 A. Reiserer, C. Nölleke, S. Ritter, and G. Rempe 2013 [**]{} [**110**]{} 223003
C. Cohen-Tannoudji, J. Dupont-Roc, and G. Grynberg John [*Atom-photon interactions: Basic processes and applications*]{} Wiley and Sons, New York (1992) 656 pages
C. Gardiner, P. Zoller [*Quantum Noise: A Handbook of Markovian and Non-Markovian Quantum Stochastic Methods with Applications to Quantum Optics*]{} Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg (2004) 449 pages
|
---
abstract: 'Stock prediction is a topic undergoing intense study for many years. Finance experts and mathematicians have been working on a way to predict the future stock price so as to decide to buy the stock or sell it to make profit. Stock experts or economists, usually analyze on the previous stock values using technical indicators, sentiment analysis etc to predict the future stock price. In recent years, many researches have extensively used machine learning for predicting the stock behaviour. In this paper we propose data driven deep learning approach to predict the future stock value with the previous price with the feature extraction property of convolutional neural network and to use Neural Arithmetic Logic Units with it.'
author:
- |
Shangeth Rajaa[^1]\
Department of Mathematics\
BITS Pilani Goa Campus\
Goa, India 403725\
`[email protected]`\
Jajati Keshari Sahoo\
Department of Mathematics\
BITS Pilani Goa Campus\
Goa, India 403725\
`[email protected]`\
bibliography:
- 'paper.bib'
title: Convolutional Feature Extraction and Neural Arithmetic Logic Units for Stock Prediction
---
INTRODUCTION
============
A large number of people buy and sell stocks everyday in an aim to make maximum profit. Many mathematical methods and models have been developed which analyses the movement of the stock price. But its not sure if the future stock prices can actually be predicted due to its dependency on various factors and its dynamic nature. In recent years, machine learning and deep learning are being used in almost all the industries including finance. Machine learning in one way can be viewed as a function approximation(or a complex multiple dimensional curve fitting) for a given data. Machine learning can analyse and learn the complex multiple dimensional features of the data which humans cannot visualize or learn. Although there are several mathematical models and techniques for stock prediction, this paper focuses on data driven machine learning approach with least knowledge in finance.The future stock price is to be predicted given the past prices. This paper tries to use and analyse the complex feature extraction ability of deep learning to learn the pattern of the stock price movement and predict the future price.
MACHINE LEARNING
================
In recent times machine learning research in finance has been steadily increasing. There are generally 2 types of tasks in machine learning, classification and regression. Supervised machine learning regression model will be used for this stock prediction task.
Classical Machine Learning Algorithms
-------------------------------------
Classical machine learning algorithms are much more easier to interpret and understand than deep learning as we have a thorough understanding of underlying algorithms. These algorithms works better even on smaller data set and are computationally cheaper than deep learning techniques. Many researches have been done in predicting the stock price using classical machine learning algorithms. The author of [@svm1] has used Support Vector Machine (SVM) for financial forecasting and also did experimental analysis of parameters for SVM. Random forest techniques are also used in financial data, in [@treemodel]. Random forest, Naive bayes and support vector machine are used for classification the direction of movement of financial data.
Deep Learning
-------------
Although many machine learning algorithms exists and are successful, the evolution of deep learning marked a great milestone in the field of Artificial intelligence. The base work for deep learning started in 1940s, but it became more popular recently due to availability of more data and cheap computation devices. The performance of deep learning models increased exponentially every year and is projected to increase more. Image classification task is performed in [@annimage] using a Artificial Neural networks. After Neural Networks, many new models were invented to increase the performance of deep learning in images, videos and time series data such as text, voice, etc. Convolutional Neural Network [@alexnet] won the imagenet competition as it was good in extracting features of images/frames. Then Recurrent Neural networks [@rnn] were used for series data such as text and voice which needed a memory to remember the previous data features. Deep learning also performs very good in unsupervised models such as Auto Encoder [@ae] , General Adverserial Networks(GAN) [@gan] and in Reinforcement Learning.
Deep Learning in Finance
========================
Artificial Neural Networks(ANN)
-------------------------------
ANNs are models comprised of densely connected computation nodes(neurons). These neural networks have the ability to learn complex features of the input data and perform the task. ANNs are series of matrix multiplication with non-linear function to make the whole network non linear to learn more complex features. $$\label{eq:1}
h_1 = \phi(X.W_1 + b_1)$$ $$\label{eq:2}
h_i = \phi(h_{i-1}.W_i + b_i)$$ $$\label{eq:3}
\hat{y} = \phi(h_{n}. W_n + b_n)$$
where n is the number of layers in the network, h is the hidden unit , $\hat{y}$ is the prediction in forward pass through the model abd $\phi$ is the activation function. [@ann1] and [@ann2] uses Artificial Neural Networks to predict the stock price and direction of movement of the price. Dimensionality reduction techniques such as Principle Component Analysis(PCA) are used in [@drann] for stock prediction. Artificial neural networks are also experimented for the task of predicting close price after 5 time interval(days/hour/minute). Data got from data processing steps explained in PROPOSED APPROACH was used and Tensors of shape (n, 20) was used as input data , where n is the number of data. And tensor of shape (n,1) was the label. The model consists of 4 layers of Fully Connected Dense Layer with dropouts and ReLU Non Linearity.
Convolutional Neural Network
----------------------------
Convolutional Neural Network(CNN)s are stacks of convolution operations between input which is passed through the network and filters(kernels) which extract the features of the input. The network is also activated with some activation function like ReLU for non linearity . The dimension of the layers are reduced with Pooling layers to reduce computation and it can also be viewed as increasing the feature concentration. [@convfin1] shows the potential of convolutional neural network for finance stock prediction. 1-d convolutional network [@convfin2] is also used to predict the stock movement as a classification model with 1 day close, open, high, low, volume data. For this experiment, since the data is 1 dimensional , Conv1d(1 dimensional convolutional layers) of Pytorch is used with 3 convolutional layers with MaxPooling and ReLU activation. Then the convolutional layers are flattened into tensor of shape (n, 1, -1), where n is the number of data in the batch and -1 represents length of the layer multiplied by number of channels in the last convolutional layer. Followed by 3 layers of Dense or Fully Connected Layers with ReLU activation and Dropouts to avoid over fitting of the data.
Recurrent Neural Networks
-------------------------
Recurrent Neural network predicts an output given an input but in a sequential manner. The inputs and outputs are in sequence like text or audio. $$\label{eq:4}
h_t = \phi(X_t . W_x + h_{t-1} . W_h)$$ $$\label{eq:3}
\hat{y_t} = \phi(h_t . W_y)$$
where $W_x, W_y, W_y$ are the weights, $h_t$ is the hidden state or memory state of state/time t and $\phi$ is the activation function. The financial data can be seen as a sequential data , the future stock price is predicted in [@lstm1] using LSTM network. A hybrid model RNN was used in [@lstm2] to predict the stock price.
Neural Arithmetic Logic Units
-----------------------------
Neural Networks, although can perform several tasks nearly to human level accuracy, but they seem to fail when it encounters quantities outside the range of training data, like extrapolation. This shows that that the models actually try to fit the data rather than to generalize and learn it. [@nalu] proposed a new module Neural Accumulator and Neural Arithmetic Logic Units which can be added to any neural network architecture which helps in generalizing quantities to neural network and helps the model to generalize for tasks like extrapolation.
Stock prediction in one way can also be seen as an extrapolation task , where we are trying to predict the stock price in the future which can be above or below the range of out training data. In this paper we propose to use the ability of the Neural Arithmetic Logic Units to generalize and extrapolate to our task of stock prediction.
Proposed Approach
=================
Data
----
![Closing Stock Prices data[]{data-label="close_data"}](images/close_data.png){width="100.00000%"}
Historical stock price data of India from Feb, 2015 to Aug, 2018 was used for this research. The data contains columns like Date, Close, High, Low, Open, Volume. This data changes every 1 hour, a total of around 6200 price data. The data set is checked for missing data and removed. Only Close prices are taken. All the other columns such as Date, High, Low, Open, Volume are omitted in the data. The goal is to predict stock closing price after 5 interval, with the closing price of past 20 intervals. This is a regression task to predict the exact closing price. For computational reasons and faster convergence, the data is scaled to a range of 0-1. The stock values are scaled with $$\label{eq:3}
x_{scaled} = \dfrac{x-x_{min}}{x_{max}-x_{min}}$$
**Close Price** 411.15 414.05 410.20 410.25 410.00
------------------ -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
**Scaled Close** 0.1840 0.1874 0.1828 0.1829 0.1826
: Scaled Close Prices data[]{data-label="tab:scaled_price"}
After scaling, the data is split into input and label. Input contains past 20 scaled close prices and the label contains the scaled stock prices after 5 intervals.
Facebook’s PyTorch framework was used to design the computation graph and for training the model. The arrays of data are converted into tensors and are split into batches for faster computation using the advantage of Matrix operations. So the input X will be a vector of shape (20, 1) and label will be of shape (1, 1). The data was split into training and testing data in the ration of (8:2). And a batch size of 1232 was used to split the data into 5 equal batches. So 4 batches of 1232 data for training set and 1 batch for test set. Each batch of data will be a tensor of shape (1232, 20) for Artificial Neural network models and tensor of shape (1232, 1, 20) for Convolutional Neural Network models.
Neural Arithmetic Logic Units(NALU) based model for Stock Prediction
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead of PyTorch’s nn.Linear layers, a self defined NALU module which is defined by
Neural Accumulator(NAC): $$\label{eq:3}
a = Wx$$ $$\label{eq:3}
W = \tanh(\hat{W})\circledast \sigma(\hat{M}) \\$$
Neural Arithmetic Logic Unit(NALU): $$\label{eq:3}
y = g\circledast a + (1-g) \circledast m$$ $$\label{eq:3}
m=\sigma(\ W(log(\abs{x} +\epsilon)))$$ $$\label{eq:3}
g=\sigma(Gx)$$
Sigmoid function was used in the calculation of m instead of exponential function which was used originally in the Neural Arithmetic Logical units paper. Four layers of Neural Arithmetic Logic Units are stacked like fully connected layers using defined pytorch NALU module. Dropouts are added in between each layer as a regularization technique to avoid over fitting the data. Relu activation function is added in between the NALU layers.
$$\label{eq:3}
ReLU(x) =\begin{cases}
0 & x \leq 0\\
x & x > 0\\
\end{cases}$$
Finally sigmoid activation is used to make the prediction in the desired range of 0-1 (as the data is scaled to 0-1 range). $$\label{eq:3}
Sigmoid(x) = \dfrac{1}{1+e^{-x}}$$
![Architecture of NALU Network[]{data-label="fig:naluarc"}](images/NALU_ANN.jpg){height="5cm" width="8cm"}
The output of the network is compared with the true value using Squared L2 Norm(Mean Squared Error) loss function.
$$\label{eq:3}
MSELoss(y, \Hat{y}) = \dfrac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^{m}(y^{(i)} - \Hat{y}^{(i)})^2$$
where $ y^{(i)}$ is the true label value and $\hat{y}^{(i)} $ is the model prediction for $i^{th}$ training data.To minimize the loss, back propagation algorithm is used with Adam optimizer. A cyclic learning rate [@clr] scheduler has been used with the optimizer as an attempt to escape the problem of local minimum of loss. When the algorithm is stuck in a local minimum or narrow minimum , increasing the learning rate help it escape the local space and reach a better or wider minimum space. Each data batch is has been used 500 times to learn and update the weight parameters of the model so as to reduce the total loss. As we use cyclic learning rate, the loss tends to go high when the learning rate increases, so we save the model state with lowest loss.
Convolutional feature extraction and NALU based model for Stock Prediction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Convolutional Neural Network has been used to predict the stock in the past. This paper proposes a new model using the feature extraction ability of convolutional neural network with the Neural Arithmetic Logic Units. As the stock data is 1 dimensional series data, 1 dimensional convolutional layers using nn.Conv1d in Pytorch are used and stacked 3 layers of 1-d convolutional layers to extract the features of stock price movements. Kernel size of 4 has been used in the network for all the convolutional layers. The number of kernels/filters in each layers are 1, 16, 32 and 64. Max pooling layers are added in between every convolutional layer to reduce the dimension , kernel size of 1 or 2 is used and stride is also 2 , which will reduce the layer length to half. ReLU activation function is used to make the network non linear.
![Architecture of CNN-NALU Network[]{data-label="fig:cnnnaluarc"}](images/CNN-NALU.jpg){height="6cm" width="10cm"}
Convolutional layers are followed by 2 layers of Neural Arithmetic Logic Units and 2 layers of Fully connected layers as the regressor. ReLU activation function is used in between the linear and NALU layers with dropouts to avoid overfitting of the data. we use sigmoid activation function in the last layer of the network to make the prediction in the range of 0-1 . Squared L2 Norm loss function was used to get the loss after the forward pass, Adam optimizer was used for optimization and Cyclic learning rate scheduler was used to change the learning rate in cycle from $10^{-6}$ to $10^{-2}$.
Results
=======
Different models were used in this research to find which model is able to learn the trend of the stock price and predict the future price given the last 20 prices better. In each iteration after training the models using training set, the testing set is used to check how good the model has learned and how good it can predict unseen data. After training the model, the whole stock close data is predicted using the trained model and plotted to visualize how good the model performs on the data as a whole.
TABLE 2 gives the training loss of each of the model. It can be observed that Models with Neural Arithmetic Logic Units learned better ANN and CNN models.TABLE 3 gives the loss of the models on testing set. Models with Neural Arithmetic Logic Units was able to predict the stock price better than ANNs and CNNs on unseen data.After the training and validating the testing set, the model was used to test the complete data . Previous 20 data points were given and the model predicted the close price after 5 intervals. The loss of the model with the whole data set is given by TABLE 4. This value has to be re scaled back to the original interval to compare with the actual price.
**Model** **Training Loss**
--------------------------------------------- -------------------
Artificial Neural Network(ANN) 8.04649e-06
Convolutional Neural Network(CNN) 5.58822e-06
Neural Arithmetic Logic Units Network(NALU) 1.91356e-06
NALU CNN Network(NALU-CNN) 5.58499e-07
: Training Loss of Models[]{data-label="tab:loss1"}
**Model** **Testing Loss**
--------------------------------------------- ------------------
Artificial Neural Network(ANN) 1.30709e-06
Convolutional Neural Network(CNN) 5.99638e-07
Neural Arithmetic Logic Units Network(NALU) 4.31875e-07
NALU CNN Network(NALU-CNN) 3.05196e-07
: Testing loss of Models[]{data-label="tab:loss2"}
**Model** **Total Loss**
--------------------------------------------- ----------------
Artificial Neural Network(ANN) 1.29998e-06
Convolutional Neural Network(CNN) 1.07971e-06
Neural Arithmetic Logic Units Network(NALU) 3.97540e-07
NALU CNN Network(NALU-CNN) 3.30627e-07
: Loss of Models in the whole data set[]{data-label="tab:loss3"}
{height="6cm" width="\textwidth"}
{height="6cm" width="\textwidth"}
{height="6cm" width="\textwidth"}
{height="6cm" width="\textwidth"}
Conclusion
==========
In this paper we proposed to use the feature extraction property of convolutional neural networks and the extrapolation and arithmetic ability of Neural Arithmetic Logic Units to predict the stock price 5 days later.
During the course of this experiment it was observed that the models with Neural Arithmetic Logic Units(NALU) converged faster than the other model not only in the task of Stock prediction but also on many other tasks. NALU models were able to learn the pattern and other features of the stock values and was able to predict the closing price better than ANNs and CNNs.
[^1]: [shangeth.github.io](https://shangeth.github.io/)
|
---
abstract: 'We report the results of a 100 square degree survey of the Taurus Molecular Cloud region in the J = 1 $\rightarrow$ 0 transition of and of . The image of the cloud in each velocity channel includes $\simeq$ 3$\times$10$^6$ Nyquist-—sampled pixels, sampled on a 20grid. The high sensitivity and large linear dynamic range of the maps in both isotopologues reveal a very complex, highly structured cloud morphology. There are large scale correlated structures evident in emission having very fine dimensions, including filaments, cavities, and rings. The emission shows a quite different structure, with particularly complex interfaces between regions of greater and smaller column density defining the boundaries of the largest–scale cloud structures. The axes of the striations seen in the emission from relatively diffuse gas are aligned with the direction of the magnetic field. We have developed a statistical method for analyzing the pixels in which but not is detected, which allows us to determine the CO column in the diffuse portion of the cloud as well as in the denser regions in which we detect both isotopologues. Using a column density–dependent model for the CO fractional abundance, we derive the mass of the region mapped to be 2.4$\times$10$^4$ . This is more than a factor of two greater than would be obtained using a canonical fixed fractional abundance of and a factor three greater than would be obtained using this fractional abundance restricted to the high column density regions. We determine that half the mass of the cloud is in regions having column density below 2.1$\times$10$^{21}$ 2. The distribution of young stars in the region covered is highly nonuniform, with the probability of finding a star in a pixel with a specified column density rising sharply for $N(H_2)$ = 6$\times$10$^{21}$ 2. We determine a relatively low star formation efficiency (mass of young stars/mass of molecular gas), between 0.3 and 1.2 percent, and an average star formation rate during the past 3 Myr of 8$\times$10$^{-5}$ stars yr$^{-1}$.'
author:
- 'Paul F. Goldsmith, Mark Heyer, Gopal Narayanan, Ronald Snell, Di Li, and Chris Brunt'
title: 'Large–Scale Structure of the Molecular Gas in Taurus Revealed by High Linear Dynamic Range Spectral Line Mapping'
---
INTRODUCTION
============
The close association of young stars and concentrations within molecular clouds indicates that stars form in cloud cores, which are regions of increased density within the bulk of molecular clouds [cf. @beichman1986]. While the evolution from cloud core to protostar is dominated by gravity, the physics controlling the process in which the cores themselves, and the clouds in which they are embedded, are formed and evolve is still quite controversial. While on the scale of pc to tens of pc molecular clouds are close to satisfying virial equilibrium between gravitational and kinetic energies, the significance of this equality is not entirely clear. Furthermore, the role of magnetic field, while often postulated to be significant, remains uncertain [@shu1987; @heiles2005]. Finally, the formation of molecular clouds themselves, and their lifetime, remains very much a matter of discussion [e.g. @hartmann2001]
Molecular clouds may be formed by compression of atomic gas, with the increased density and extinction enhancing the formation rate of molecules, starting with 2, for which self–shielding enables the buildup of a substantial fraction of the total hydrogen density even when the visual extinction is only a fraction of a magnitude. It has also been suggested that the large molecular cloud presence in galactic spiral arms is the result of the agglomeration of molecular material existing in the interarm region, as discussed by [@pringle2001]. While one viewpoint has held that molecular clouds have relatively long lifetimes, and are disrupted only by the energy injected by massive star formation and evolution, another picture is that molecular clouds are relatively transient objects, with the denser regions representing only turbulent fluctuations of density rather than well-defined gravitationally bound condensations [see e.g. review by @vazquez2007].
These issues have been discussed on global scale, addressing the distribution of clouds and the apportioning of molecular and atomic gas in the Galaxy. They are also very relevant to studies of specific molecular cloud complexes, with one of the best–studied of these being that in Taurus. The structure of the interstellar gas in atomic and molecular form, the stellar population, the issue of star formation rate, and the role of different physical processes have all been the subject of numerous papers focused on the Taurus region, primarily because its proximity [140 pc; @elias1978][^1] allows very detailed studies of the morphology of the gas and the relationship between gas and stars. The sheer volume of the data that have been obtained and the number of analyses that have been carried out preclude giving a complete listing of the references to Taurus, so we will have to be selective rather than comprehensive, recognizing that we may have omitted many valuable contributions.
The very closeness of Taurus means that available instrumentation, particularly at radio frequencies, has faced a challenge to cover the entire region with angular resolution sufficient to reveal the morphology of the gas. The result has been that previous large–scale surveys of molecular line emission at millimeter wavelengths have been limited to quite low angular resolution [@ungerechts1987]. The survey of [@ungerechts1987] covers essentially all of Taurus and part of Perseus, but the 30 angular resolution of the map (obtained by averaging multiple telescope pointings to obtain a larger effective beam size) yields only 3000 pixels in the 750 square degree region mapped. The pixel size corresponds to a linear size of 1.2 pc at a distance of 140 pc, which is sufficiently large to blur out structure at important astrophysical scales. In fact, the maps of [@ungerechts1987], while delineating the large–scale structure quite well, show an almost complete absence of fine detail. This is in part due to the use exclusively of , which is sufficiently optically thick that significant variations in column densities can be entirely hidden, as well as to the low angular resolution.
There have been a number of investigations of molecular gas in the Taurus region with higher angular resolution, but these have typically been limited to small subregions within the overall gas distribution. These studies, with $\simeq$1 to 2 angular resolution include a few thousand to $\simeq$ 30,000 spatial pixels [@schloerb1984; @duvert1986; @heyer1987; @mizuno1995]. These studies, with the combination of higher angular resolution and use of the J = 1$\rightarrow$0 transition of do reveal considerable structure in the molecular gas, but have not elucidated its relationship to larger–scale features in the molecular gas distribution.
A number of other studies have utilized yet higher angular resolution and different tracers to probe gas having different characteristic properties over limited regions. Some examples include [@langer1995] employing CCS, [@onishi1996] and [@onishi1998] using , [@onishi2002] using H$^{13}$CO$^+$, and [@tatematsu2004] employing N$_2$H$^+$. Many individual cores have been observed in ammonia, a tracer in which they appear relatively well–defined, as indicated by compilation of @jijina1999. Most of the regions covered by these studies have been pre-selected based on the large–scale surveys discussed above. In these maps, we see indications of finer–scale structure, but the emission is generally quite spatially restricted compared to that seen in the more abundant isotopologues of carbon monoxide.
In this paper we present the initial results from a large–scale high angular resolution study of the Taurus molecular clouds using and . The data cover approximately 100 square degrees on the sky (11.5 in R.A. by 8.5 in decl.) corresponding to a region 28 pc by 21 pc. The reduced maps include 3.2$\times$10$^6$ Nyquist–sampled pixels in each isotopologue, with pixel size 20 corresponding to 0.014 pc. The linear dynamic range (LDR, defined as map size divided by Nyquist–sampled interval) of the maps thus exceeds 1000, which is the largest of any molecular cloud study carried out to date. The good angular resolution and large LDR together allow us to examine in detail the relationship between the relatively fine structures seen, especially in , with the large–scale distribution of the molecular material, the young stars in the region, and the magnetic field.
The region of Taurus studied here has been observed using a variety of other tracers. The Leiden/Dwingeloo 21 cm study [@burton1994] traced the atomic hydrogen in this direction, but with an angular resolution of 35. One investigation [@shuter1987] used the Arecibo radio telescope having an angular resolution of 4, but included only $\sim$ 1300 positions to probe the self–absorption seen in the 21 cm HI line. This cold atomic hydrogen appears to be associated with molecular gas [@li2003; @goldsmith2005], but the limited sampling of Shuter et al. does not reveal much about its morphology. The far–infrared emission from Taurus has been studied by [@abergel1995], who also compared it to moderate resolution maps of J = 1$\rightarrow$0 emission. The dust column density distribution has been examined by [@padoan2002] and does bear a quite close resemblance to the integrated intensity of and thus to the column density of gas in relatively high extinction regions.
We discuss the observations and data reduction procedure in §\[observations\]. Derivation of the column density in the different portions of the maps is presented in §\[coldens\], in which we also discuss the distribution of column density and mass in the region. We present a brief discussion of the large–scale gas kinematics in §\[kinematics\]. We address the relationship of the molecular material and the magnetic field in §\[magnetic\], and discuss the relationship of the gas and the young stars in the region in §\[youngstars\]. We discuss some of the interesting features of the morphology of the gas in §\[morphology\]. We summarize our results in §\[summary\].
OBSERVATIONS
============
The observations were taken between 2003 November and 2005 May using the 13.7m radome–enclosed Quabbin millimeter wave telescope. The 32 pixel SEQUOIA focal plane array[^2] receiver observed the J = 1$\rightarrow$0 transition of and simultaneously. Since the receiver uses amplifiers for the first stage, there is no issue of the sideband gain uncertainty and its effect on calibration. Sixteen pixels are arranged in a 4 x 4 array in two orthogonal linear polarizations. The main beam of the antenna pattern had a full width to half maximum angular width of 45for and 47 for .
The data were obtained using an on–the–fly (OTF) mapping technique. A standard position was observed using position switching several times per observing session to verify calibration consistency. Details of the data–taking, data reduction, and calibration procedures are given by [@narayanan2007]. The signals from a band of frequencies around each spectral line were sent to an autocorrelation spectrometer with 1024 lags covering 25 MHz for each spectral line. The lag spacing of the spectrometer system corresponds to 0.068 for and 0.065 for . The data cube of each isotopologue employed in the subsequent analysis included 76 spectral channels for and 80 channels for covering approximately -5 to +14.9 and thus included 2.4$\times$10$^8$ voxels.
As discussed in detail by [@narayanan2007], the overall quality of the data was excellent. After calibration and combination of the 30 by 30 submaps which were the units in which the data was taken, the data were resampled onto a uniform grid of 20 spacing, which is very close to the Nyquist sampling interval $\lambda/2D$ for the 13.7 m diameter telescope operating at a wavelength of 2.6 mm. The images produced by the combination of the submaps and regridding were 2069 pixels in RA by 1529 pixels in decl., thus comprising 3,163,501 spatial pixels resampled onto a uniform 20 grid. The final data set has a well–behaved distribution of noise with a mean rms antenna temperature equal to 0.125 K for and 0.28 K for in channel widths of 0.27 and 0.26 , respectively.
![\[13co\_tint\] Antenna temperature of the J = 1$\rightarrow$0 transition integrated over the velocity range 2 to 9 . The scale is shown in the bar at the right; values have not been corrected for antenna efficiency.](f1.pdf)
We show the basic data in Figure \[13co\_tint\], which gives the intensity of the J = 1$\rightarrow$0 transition integrated over the velocity range 2 to 9 . This interval encompasses almost all of the emission in the Taurus region, with the exception of some isolated areas with gas at $\simeq$ 10 , which may well not be associated with Taurus, and a limited amount of emission in the velocity range 1 to 2 . Figure \[12co\_tmax\] displays the J = 1$\rightarrow$0 peak emission within this same velocity interval. Note that in both of these figures, the emission is not corrected for the antenna efficiency. [@narayanan2007] present images of the emission of both isotopologues in 1 bins covering the range 0 to 13 .
It is evident that the is detectable over a significantly larger area than is the . Particularly in the northeast portion of the map, we see very extended emission, where there is relatively little . There are also two interesting regions of quite strong emission, at 422+2830 and 448+2940, which are among the warmest regions observed, and yet which do not show up as significant local maxima in the (and hence column density). In general, the warmer gas as traced by is seen in regions of high column density, but the amount of structure seen in the optically thick with our angular resolution, sampling, and sensitivity, is very impressive.
**\[!htbp\]**
COLUMN DENSITY, COLUMN DENSITY DISTRIBUTIONS, AND CLOUD MASS {#coldens}
============================================================
Mask Regions
------------
In order to facilitate analysis of the data to determine column densities, we have broken the Taurus data up into 4 regions, according to the detection or nondetection of and . The detection thresholds are defined by the requirement that the integrated intensity over the velocity range extending from 0 to 12 be a minimum of 3.5 times larger than the rms noise in an individual pixel over this 12 velocity interval. The median values are $\sigma_{T_{int}}$ = 0.18 for and $\sigma_{T_{int}}$ = 0.40 for . Since the peak values of the integrated intensity are 6 for and 18 for , the peak integrated intensities are 30 to 50 $\sigma_{T_{int}}$.
We define mask 0 to be the region in which neither nor is detected, mask 1 to be the region in which is detected but is not, mask 2 to be the region in which both isotopologues are detected, and mask 3 to be the region in which is detected but is not. The different regions and the number of pixels in each are given in Table \[maskregiontable\].
[ccc]{} 0 &neither nor & 944,802\
1 & but not & 1,212,271\
2 &both and & 1,002,955\
3 & but not & 3,473\
The average spectra of mask 0, mask 1, and mask 2 regions are shown in Figure \[3masks\_spectra\]. These profiles are valuable for deducing general characteristics of the regions, but it must be kept in mind that the characteristics of the average profile are quite different from those of individual profiles. The difference is primarily due to systematic velocity shifts across the cloud; these result in the average spectra being much weaker and broader than individual spectra. The line width of the averaged mask 1 spectra is close to a factor of 2 greater than the average line width of spectra in this region. For mask 2, the ratio is $\simeq$1.5. Along with this, the peak intensities are much weaker than those seen in individual spectra or even in spectra averaged over a restricted region. Consequently, in determining characteristics of the molecular gas, we have used individual spectra wherever possible to derive physical quantities.
**\[!htbp\] **
As expected, the lines are strongest in mask 2. The to ratio at the line peak in mask 2 is just over 3, consistent with relatively high optical depth in the more abundant isotopologue. We do see that when an average over $\sim$ 10$^6$ pixels of mask 1 is formed, we readily see emission in as well as . The ratio of peak intensities is significantly larger in mask 1 than in mask 2. The value, about 10, is still much less than the presumed abundance ratio \[\]/\], suggesting that the in mask 1, while optically thick, typically has lower opacity than in mask 2.
The mask 0 and spectra show two or three peaks, including velocities for which the emission in mask 2 is very weak compared to that in the range of the peak emission, 5 to 8 . In particular, the 10 emission feature comes from a fairly extended region in the northern portion of our map, but is so weak that only when averaging over modest-sized ($\sim$1 square degree) regions in mask 0 can it be detected. Emission in this velocity range can be quite clearly seen in the mask 1 spectrum, but hardly can be detected in mask 2. This is consistent with it being relatively low average column density material, which is extended over quite large areas. Thus, even in what we consider largely “empty” regions between the major, well–known subunits of the Taurus molecular cloud complex, there is molecular gas. This is discussed further in the following section. The overall composition of the mask 0 region, particularly the presence of atomic gas, is the subject of another study.
The mask 0, mask 1, and mask 2 regions have close to equal numbers of pixels. Their distribution, however, is very different. Figure \[mask\_regions\] shows the four mask regions. It is evident that the mask 1 predominantly surrounds mask 2, which is consistent with the expectation that both isotopologues are detected in the regions of highest column density (mask 2) while in the periphery of these regions we detect in individual pixels the but not the emission.
**\[!htbp\] **
The pixels in mask 3 are unusual inasmuch as they exhibit detectable emission but not . There are evidently very few such pixels ($\simeq$ 0.1% of the total), although this number is considerably larger than would be expected purely on the basis of Gaussian noise statistics. On close inspection of these spectra, it appears that the problem is due to very low level baseline imperfections partially canceling the integrated intensity, resulting in a “non–detection” of this isotopologue. We thus ignore the mask 3 pixels in further analysis of the emission from Taurus.
Calculation of the Column Density
---------------------------------
We wish to exploit the large linear dynamic range of our map to examine the structure in the column density, and thus wish to determine the column density for as many pixels as possible. This is also important for accurately determining the total molecular mass of the region. In what follows we divide the problem into two parts. The first is determination of the carbon monoxide column density. While subject to its own uncertainties due to excitation, optical depth, and limited signal to noise ratio, we can carry out this step of the analysis based only on data in hand. The second step is conversion of the carbon monoxide column densities to molecular hydrogen column densities, and finally to total cloud mass. This is evidently dependent on the processes which determine the fractional abundance of the various isotopologues observed. Since the additional uncertainties in the second step are large, we present results first in terms of the carbon monoxide distribution and subsequently give results for the molecular hydrogen distribution and the total molecular mass. This second step should benefit significantly from combination of our data with dust column density determined from e.g. 2MASS data. This effort is in progress and will be reported in a subsequent publication.
### Carbon Monoxide Column Density {#col_dens_calc}
The three different different regions of the cloud, defined by the detectability of each isotopologue, require different schemes to determine the carbon monoxide column density. We ignore mask 3 in determining the column density and to the mass of the cloud as we cannot readily correct for the artificial non–detections of (discussed above). Its extremely small area and weak emission make its contribution negligible.
Mask 2 represents the portion of the cloud that is most conventional in terms of column density determination. Since we have both and in each pixel, we determine the kinetic temperature from the peak value of the (with appropriate correction for antenna efficiency). Here (as well as for other mask regions), we use the maximum antenna temperature of in the velocity interval between 0 and 12 . The kinetic temperature is distributed from 3 K to 21 K, but with the vast majority of positions having kinetic temperatures between 6 K and 12 K. Since mask 2 is the densest portion of the cloud, we assume that the levels are populated in LTE at the kinetic temperature, but we calculate a nominal value for the optical depth from the ratio of the peak and intensities using the usual equation of radiative transfer in a uniform medium. We assume a to abundance ratio of 65, very close to the average value for local clouds found by [@langer1993]. We use the value of optical depth obtained to make a saturation correction to the column density derived assuming optically thin emission, with the usual formula N(\^[13]{}[CO corrected]{}) = N(\^[13]{}[CO assumed optically thin)]{}
Mask 1 presents the greatest challenge in terms of column density determination since it encompasses approximately one third of the area mapped and has reasonably strong emission. However, since the is not detected in individual pixels, we need a different scheme to extract the column density. We have developed a statistical approach, which should be applicable to other large maps in which only the more abundant isotopologue is detected in individual pixels. The procedure assumes that the is optically thick at its peak, and that the value of the antenna temperature can directly be converted to the excitation temperature of the . Since mask 1 points lie at the periphery of the regions of high extinction and greater molecular column density (as witnessed by the detection of in each mask 2 pixel), they encompass lower column density gas which is presumably characterized by lower volume density. Therefore we cannot assume that LTE applies as it does in mask 2. Approximately half of the mask 1 positions have an excitation temperature $\le$ 7.5 K, and if in LTE the gas would have to be unusually cold. It is thus reasonable to assume that this gas is subthermally excited. To analyze positions in mask 1 we use a simple excitation/radiative transfer analysis employing a spherical cloud large velocity gradient (LVG) code to compute the line intensities [e.g. @snell1981; @goldsmith1983]. We are using an LVG model largely as a tool to characterize the effect of trapping, which is important for excitation of CO at lower density. We do not believe it necessarily represents any statement about the detailed kinematics of the gas. The sensitivity of our results to the details of the velocity field should be quite small.
We have assumed that the kinetic temperature of the mask 1 region is uniformly 15 K, somewhat higher than well-shielded dense gas, which is plausible in view of increased heating in the peripheral regions surrounding regions of high extinction. [e.g. @li2003b]. We take advantage of the large number of pixels in our map, and bin the data according to the excitation temperature of the determined as described above. In each bin, we have a sufficient number of pixels that the J = 1$\rightarrow$0 line is detected with good signal to noise ratio. For each $T_{ex}$ bin, we then have the excitation temperature and the observed / integrated intensity ratio. The data generally have the observed intensity ratio decreasing with increasing $T_{ex}$, from $\simeq$ 22 for $T_{ex}$ = 4.5 K to $\simeq$ 13 for $T_{ex}$ = 2.5 K. The free parameters are the column density, the 2 density, and the / abundance ratio. The latter cannot be assumed to be a fixed value (e.g. 65), due to the complicating presence of isotopic enhancement due to chemical and/or photo effects [e.g. @watson1976; @bally1982; @chu1983; @vandishoeck1988]. We thus consider $R$ = / between 25 and 65.
[cccccc]{} 4.5 &21.7 &32321 &125 &0.7 &30\
5.5 &21.7 &113923 &200 &1.0 &35\
6.5 &19.6 &202328 &250 &1.4 &38\
7.5 &16.7 &245949 &280 &2.0 &40\
8.5 &14.9 &211649 &325 &2.7 &42\
9.5 &13.9 &175431 &425 &3.1 &45\
10.5 &13.4 &122423 &550 &3.6 &50\
11.5 &13.0 &65428 &850 &3.7 &55\
12.5 &12.8 &27387 &1200 &4.3 &65\
With three free parameters and only two observables, we cannot uniquely determine the properties of the gas in mask 1. Rather, we compute for each $T_{ex}$ bin, a family of $R$, density and CO column density per unit line width solutions. If we knew [*a priori*]{} the value of $R$, then we could compute a unique density and CO column density per unit line width for each $T_{ex}$. With no knowledge of $R$, then the values of density and CO column density per unit line width span a range of approximately a factor of 4, with density and CO column density per unit line width inversely correlated. The family of solutions for the physical parameters of the gas show some significant general characteristics. First, for higher values of $T_{ex}$, only solutions with $R\geq50$ fit the data. This is encouraging as the higher excitation gas has on average the largest column density and we do not expect significant fractionation in the more shielded regions. On the other hand, for lower values of $T_{ex}$, values of $R$ as large as 65 are excluded, and the range of acceptable solutions gradually shifts from $R$ $\leq$ 50 at $T_{ex}$ = 7.5 K to values of $R$ $\leq$ 30 at $T_{ex}$ = 4.5 K. Correspondingly, the allowable solutions for the gas density and CO column density per unit line width decrease with decreasing excitation temperature. This trend again is consistent with increasing fractionation in the less well–shielded regions at the periphery of the clouds (see Liszt 2007) for a discussion of this effect in diffuse clouds). These regions dominate the positions found within our mask 1. This result agrees with the behavior found in previous observational studies [e.g. @goldsmith1980; @langer1980; @young1982; @langer1989; @goldsmith2005; @kainulainen2006].
It is not possible to model the mask 1 observations with a fixed value of the [*in situ*]{} carbon monoxide isotopic ratio but rather require that the value of $R$ vary significantly with excitation temperature. We have chosen solutions such that $R$ varies smoothly from a value of 65 at $T_{ex}$ $\geq$ 12.5 K to a value of 30 for $T_{ex}$ = 4.5 K. With this choice of $R$, we find that the gas density and CO column density per unit line width both increase monotonically with increasing excitation temperature. The solutions we have chosen are shown in Table \[bestLVG\_table\] and in Figure \[bestLVG\_figure\]. We emphasize that these solutions are not unique, but depend on our choice of $R$. However, the general behavior of the solutions are physically plausible, given that we expect the excitation temperature to increase as one moves from the cloud interior to the cloud periphery. This suggests that binning by $T_{ex}$ is a useful approach, and gives us a reasonable handle on how the physical conditions vary as a function of excitation temperature and position in the cloud.
Our assumption of 15 K for the kinetic temperature is a potential source of error in determining the carbon monoxide column density. To assess this, we have carried out some calculations using a kinetic temperature of 25 K which seems an upper limit to what one might expect in a cloud edge in a region with modest UV intensity. We find that for this value of the kinetic temperature, the column density per unit velocity gradient is approximately a factor 1.5 larger than for a kinetic temperature of 15 K, and the derived 2 density is a factor of 2.5 lower, for an assumed value of $R$. The same trends of carbon monoxide column density and 2 density as a function of $R$ are seen for the higher kinetic temperature as for the lower. The uncertainty resulting from the assumption of a fixed kinetic temperature is thus of the same order as resulting from our choosing a best value of $R$, and combining these could yield a factor of 2 uncertainty in $N$(CO). Observations of multiple transitions of carbon monoxide isotopologues would provide a more accurate estimate of the molecular column density. However, observations of these transitions over a region of comparable size would pose a formidable challenge for currently available telescopes and receiver systems.
To obtain the column density for each line of sight, we utilize an analytic fit to the relationship between the CO column density per unit line width and the excitation temperature obtained for the set of $T_{ex}$ bins, $N(^{12}CO)/\delta v = (-1.473\times 10^{16}+4.672\times 10^{15}T_{ex})$. We multiply the results by the observed FWHM line width $\Delta v$ from the data. The use of the LVG model introduces some uncertainty because the carbon monoxide excitation is quite subthermal, and the excitation temperature does depend on the optical depth, and is quite different for and . Nevertheless, the likely error in the trapping predicted by the LVG and other models is relatively modest compared to other uncertainties inherent in this analysis.
**\[!htbp\] **
**\[!htbp\] **
In mask 0, after averaging $\simeq$ 10$^6$ spatial pixels, we are able to detect both isotopologues, and we thus analyze the emission for the region as if it were a single spatial entity. The general analysis follows the procedure described above for mask 1. The fact that the integrated / ratio is $\simeq$ 19 indicates that the is almost certainly optically thin. This is also the case for mask 1, and here as well results in the and having quite different excitation temperatures due to the radiative trapping for the more abundant isotopologue.
Again, we fix the kinetic temperature to be 15 K, reflecting increased heating in regions of low extinction, and assume that the average line width is 2 , similar to that observed for the low excitation gas of mask 1. Note that the average mask 0 spectrum (Figure \[3masks\_spectra\]) is much broader than 2 , but the large value of the line width reflects changes in the line center velocity over the entire region observed. Following the trend of $R$ from mask 1, we assume this ratio to have a value of 20.
The mask 0 data cannot be fit satisfactorily by larger values of $R$ thus confirming that relatively strong isotopic selective effects are at work in the low density/low column density regions of Taurus. With these assumptions, the parameters we derive, although again not unique as described above, are $n(H_2)$ = 75 , and $N$() = 7.5$\times$10$^{15}$ 2. The carbon monoxide excitation in this region is evidently highly subthermal, consistent with the low derived H$_2$ density and the modest optical depth. This very low value for the density of the mask 0 region gives a reasonably low column density for the extended component of the gas in Taurus. Taking a representative dimension for mask 0 of 1.5$\times$10$^{19}$ 2, we obtain $N(H_2)$ = 1.1$\times$10$^{21}$ 2. This corresponds to A$_v$ $\simeq$ 1 for the extended component of the cloud, consistent with that determined from stellar reddening [@cernicharo1987].
The spatial distribution of column densities from the three mask regions is shown in Figure \[co-coldens\_dist\]. The column density for mask 0 is a single value $<N(^{12}CO)>$ = 7.5$\times$10$^{15}$ 2 as given above. The column density distribution in the mask 1 region is a relatively symmetric, fairly Gaussian distribution with a mean value $<N(^{12}CO)>$ = 3.6$\times$10$^{16}$ 2. The column density distribution in the mask 2 region is flat–topped with a mean value $<N(^{12}CO)>$ = 1.3$\times$10$^{17}$ 2.
The distribution of carbon monoxide in the Taurus region is shown in Figure \[co\_coldens\_map\]. This figure dramatically illustrates the complexity of the molecular gas distribution. The impression given is quite different from that of studies with low angular resolution, in that instead of an ensemble of “relaxed", fairly smooth condensations one sees a great deal of highly filamentary structure, a strong suggestion of cavities and surrounding regions with enhanced column densities. The large size of the region covered also suggests relationships between the different portions of the Taurus molecular region. The most striking of these points will be addressed briefly later in this paper.
**\[!htbp\] **
### Molecular Hydrogen Column Density and Mass
Most studies of molecular regions using carbon monoxide have emphasized regions in which the column density is sufficiently large that dust shielding plus self–shielding result in an “asymptotic” abundance between 0.9$\times$10$^{-4}$ and 3.0$\times$10$^{-4}$ relative to 2 [see e.g. @frerking1982; @lacy1994]. In our study of Taurus, only the mask 2 region is plausibly consistent with this assumption. The remainder of the cloud is characterized by lower densities and column densities, and the fractional abundance of carbon monoxide must be regarded as being significantly uncertain and likely to be dependent on the extinction.
There is considerable value in trying to make a self–consistent model for the carbon monoxide as a tracer of total molecular (H$_2$) column density. To this end, we have used the theoretical modeling by [@vandishoeck1988]. We have utilized the curve for $I_{UV}$ = 1.0 (in units of Habings), carbon depletion $\delta_C$ = 0.1, and models T1–T6, which correspond to temperature range 40 K to 15 K and n$_H$ = 500 to 1000 throughout the model slab being considered. We have used a polynomial fit to the data from the appropriate curve in Figure 8 of [@vandishoeck1988] for the relationship between CO and H$_2$ column densities. This value of carbon depletion is recommended by [@vandishoeck1988] as agreeing with the available Taurus data. We also note that the carbon monoxide fractional abundance as given by these models of [@vandishoeck1988] agrees well at low column densities with the UV measurements of [@sonnentrucker2007] and [@burgh2007].
The lower CO lines in absorption from diffuse clouds lying in front of millimeter continuum sources have been observed by [@liszt1998]. The clouds, analyzed by [@liszt2007] have a range of 2 column density (determined by UV absorption; Federman et al. 1994) which extends from 5$\times$10$^{20}$ 2 to just above 10$^{21}$ 2, and thus includes our mask 0 (and very low end of mask 1) results. While there is considerable scatter among various clouds having the same hydrogen column density, the best fit relationship gives $X$() = 5$\times$10$^{-6}$ for $N$(2) = 10$^{21}$ 2. This is quite close to our results and again reinforces the general applicability of a reduced carbon monoxide fractional abundance for low extinction cloud material. The specific parameters we have adopted have been chosen, in addition to being consistent with the measurements of low column density diffuse clouds, to give good agreement at high column densities with the mm emission measurements of [@bachiller1986], [@cernicharo1987], and [@alves1999].
The strong dependence of CO column density on H$_2$ column density reflects the onset of self–shielding when N(CO) reaches $\simeq$10$^{15}$ 2. This produces a rapidly increasing CO fractional abundance as a function of H$_2$ column density in the range covered by the mask 0 and mask 1 regions of our study, and a gradual leveling out of N(CO)/N(2) in mask 2. The most significant difference is that using this approach we find that the low CO column densities correspond to considerably larger 2 column densities than would be found if a constant fractional abundance of CO were adopted. We convert our CO distribution to a molecular hydrogen distribution using the nonlinear relationship, and the result is given in histogram form in Figure \[h2-dist-image\].
**\[!htbp\] **
When compared to Figure \[co-coldens\_dist\], it is evident that the varying fractional abundance has resulted in a significant compression in converting the carbon monoxide to 2 column densities. The drop in X(CO) in regions of lower extinction and lower density means that the relatively weak emission that we observe there implies a greater H$_2$ column density than would be derived assuming a constant fractional abundance. Taking mask 0 as an example, the CO column density of 7.5$\times$10$^{15}$ 2, with fractional abundance 7.0$\times$10$^{-6}$ corresponds to an H$_2$ column density equal to 1.1$\times$10$^{21}$ 2 using the variable fractional abundance, more than an order of magnitude larger than would be obtained using the canonical high–extinction fractional abundance of 10$^{-4}$.
This suggests that the majority of the area within the Taurus molecular cloud complex has a visual extinction from molecular hydrogen on the order of 1 magnitude. This is consistent with the hydrogen column density of mask 1 discussed in the previous section, as well as with the ”halo” component of the HCL2 region discussed by [@cernicharo1987]. There is certainly a high column density tail which reaches 10$^{22}$ 2, but this includes only a very small fraction of the cloud area and mass. While is not the ideal tracer of the densest component of the cloud, this study makes it clear that only about 10$^{-3}$ of the pixels with detectable have $A_v$ $\geq$ 5.
Despite the relatively low density in mask 0 and mask 1 regions, the time scale to arrive at the the low fractional abundance of carbon monoxide found there is quite modest. Using the expression from Section 4.1 of [@liszt2007], we find that if we start with $X(e)$ = 10$^{-5}$ and $n$(2) = 100 , the characteristic time to reach $X$(CO) = 10$^{-5}$ is only $\sim$ 10$^5$ yr. This is consistent with results obtained using explicit time–dependent models with CO formation and destruction by E. Bergin (private communication). Thus, whatever the history of the diffuse surroundings of dense clouds, the low but significant abundance of carbon monoxide found there appears entirely plausible.
We show the spatial distribution of 2 column density in the Taurus region mapped in Figure \[coldensmap\]. The contributions of individual pixels in mask 1 and mask 2 are included. Approximately 50 percent of the total molecular mass of the region is in directions in which cannot readily be detected in an individual map pixel. From the masses in each mask region, we compute the total mass of the region of Taurus mapped in the present study. The results (including correction for He and heavy elements) are given in Table \[mask\_mass\]. For mask 0, we have considered the entire area it comprises to be characterized by the single set of conditions derived in the previous subsection, while the contribution of mask 3 has been neglected.
Table \[mask\_mass\] shows that assuming the physically plausible variable fractional abundance of carbon monoxide gives a total mass of the region a factor approximately 2.5 times larger than that obtained using a uniform high abundance characteristic of well–shielded regions. We also see that the contributions from the low column density mask 0 and mask 1‘ regions are considerably enhanced and that their contribution to the total mass is no longer negligible as would be the case if a constant fractional abundance obtained.
**\[!htbp\] **
[ccc]{} 0 &0.1 &4.1\
1 &1.7 &7.7\
2 &7.8 &11.8\
& &\
Total &9.6 &23.6\
Cloud Structure
---------------
Valuable insight into the structure of the cloud can be obtained by examining the cumulative distribution of cloud mass and area as a function of column density. This information in shown in Figure \[cum\_mass\_area\]. Our survey focused on the region of the Taurus molecular cloud known to have most prominent high density regions with exceptional chemical diversity [TMC-1; @pratap1997] and prominent star formation (e.g. L1495). Nevertheless, we see that half of the cloud’s mass is in material with N(H$_2$) less than 2.1$\times$10$^{21}$ 2. Only about 5% of the cloud’s mass occurs at 2 column densities above 5$\times$10$^{21}$ 2, or visual extinction greater than 5. The column density we derive may be modestly underestimated due to incomplete correction for saturation in our observations for large column densities, and as a consequence of molecular depletion at high densities, but even together these effects are unlikely to increase this fraction by a factor of 2 [see e.g. @alves1999]. The fraction of the cloud area with N(H$_2$) $\geq$ 5$\times$10$^{21}$ 2 is only 0.02.
**\[!htbp\] **
Another view of the mass distribution can be obtained by attempting to dissect the cloud by extracting the well–recognized high column density regions from the remainder of the gas. In Figure \[roi\_boundaries\] we show the division into eight regions, which together include approximately 25% of the area of the map. We have generally followed the region limits and designations given in Fig. 3 of @onishi1996.
**\[!htbp\] **
We give the mass of each of these regions in Table \[roi\_masses\]. The total mass contained in these regions, 9807 , is 42% of the total mass included in the region we have studied, and their combined area is 21% of that of the region we have mapped. However, since we have made an unbiased map of rather than a map restricted to regions of strong intensity [as @mizuno1995 did in their survey], we include somewhat larger areas. The masses we derive for L1495/B213 and for B18 are approximately a factor of 3 larger than those obtained by [@mizuno1995], and that for HCl2 is a factor of 2 larger. It is evident that a large fraction of the mass even within the boundaries shown in Figure \[roi\_boundaries\] is in relatively low–density gas.
[lcc]{}
L1495 &2616 &31.7\
B213 &1095 &13.7\
L1521 &1584 &17.6\
HCl2 &1513 &15.8\
L1498 &373 &5.7\
L1506 &491 &7.7\
B18 &1157 &14.5\
L1536 &978 &16.6\
& &\
Total &9807 &123.3\
Having a well–sampled map of a large region and a mass determination allows us to examine the application of a CO luminosity to mass conversion factor [@dickman1986] to Taurus. In Table \[mass\_lum\] we show the results for the different mask regions and the total. The entries in the third column are obtained using a conversion factor M() = 4.1L$_{CO}$(K km s$^{-1}$ pc$^2$). This value is obtained using the Egret $\gamma$–ray data [@strong1996], and a factor 1.36 for the total mass per H$_2$ molecule (including He and metals) in the gas. For mask 0, the CO luminosity drastically underestimates the mass, due to highly subthermal excitation of the CO and its modest optical depth. For the denser regions, the agreement is much better. The surprisingly close agreement for the complete Taurus region may, to a certain extent, be fortuitous, but it suggests that use of the luminosity to derive total mass of molecular regions does appear to work reasonably well for regions with only low–mass young stars, as well as for regions with young high–mass stars.
[lccc]{} mask 0 &4081 &193 &791\
mask 1 &7699 &2052 &8413\
mask 2 &11752 &3305 &13550\
Total &23532 &5550 &22754\
LARGE SCALE KINEMATICS OF THE MOLECULAR GAS {#kinematics}
===========================================
Previous studies have revealed a variety of motions on different scales within the Taurus complex. These include velocity gradients along individual filaments possibly indicative of rotation, along with a systematic East–West velocity difference as one moves across the region. In Figure \[gas\_kin\] we show a color–coded image of the integrated intensities in three velocity intervals for the two isotopologues. There is a great deal of structure seen even in this relatively crude representation of the velocity field. Certain regions, and particularly the edges of particular regions, show up as having significantly shifted velocities relative to the surrounding gas.
This coarsely divided integrated intensity does not give the full measure of the complexity of the and line profiles in Taurus. An indication of this can be seen in Fig. 20 of [@narayanan2007], in which it is evident that in general the regions with multiply–peaked lines exhibit this characteristic in both and . Since the visibility of the multiple peaks is approximately equal in the two isotopologues, it is unlikely to be a result of self–absorption, but rather an indication of multiple, kinematically distinct components. These are most prominent in several regions of Taurus, notably the western part of B18, north of L1521, in B213 and west thereof, and in the southern part of Heiles’ Cloud 2. This indicates that some regions are characterized by a considerably greater degree of velocity multiplicity along lines of sight. There does not appear to be any correlation of this characteristic with e.g. star formation.
**\[!htbp\] **
MOLECULAR GAS AND THE MAGNETIC FIELD {#magnetic}
====================================
The Taurus Molecular Cloud has long been a target for investigations of the interstellar magnetic field and its role within the dynamics of the molecular gas component [@moneti1984; @heyer1987; @heyer1988; @goodman1992; @troland1996; @crutcher2000]. Many of these studies have compared the distribution of gas and dust with respect to the magnetic field geometry inferred from optical polarization measurements of background stars. The relationship of the cloud geometry to the magnetic field morphology is an essential aspect of models that have been developed for the formation of Taurus [@gomez1992; @ballesteros1999]. These have hypothesized an initial alignment of a more diffuse cloud with the Galactic magnetic field as part of the initial conditions for formation of the dense cloud, with the gas streaming along magnetic field lines.
Observationally, at intermediate scales ($\sim$1 pc), the situation has become more complex. In particular, toward the western end of the Taurus cloud, the long axis of the L1506 filament is oriented along the field in contrast to alignments of Heiles’ Cloud 2 and the B216 and B217 filaments for which the field is essentially perpendicular to the axis of the filaments [@goodman1992]. Note that the latter structure is denoted B213 in Figure \[roi\_boundaries\]. From this departure from rigorous alignment, @goodman1992 conclude that either the magnetic field does not dominate the cloud structure at these scales and densities, or that the optical polarization measurements probe a volume that is spatially distinct from the dense filaments. @goodman1992 demonstrate that polarization by selective absorption at optical and infrared wavelengths is produced by dust grains within the outer, low column density envelopes of the molecular clouds and provides little or no information on the magnetic field direction within the high density filaments.
The and data presented in this study afford an opportunity to extend these comparisons to lower column densities than these previous investigations. We have used the data assembled by @heiles2000, taken from other sources, and superimposed this on a figure showing the integrated intensities of and . Figure \[CO+B\] shows the results. ****
This figure highlights the relationship between the field direction and the morphology of the dense filaments of gas discussed in the references given above.
We can use the emission to probe the relationship between the lower column density portions of Taurus and the magnetic field. This comparison is shown in the top half of Figure \[CO+B\]. Within the faint, low surface brightness emission, we see marked striations, which are discussed in more detail in §\[striations\]. Remarkably, these features within the Taurus Cloud follow the local orientation of the magnetic field even as the polarization angles vary from a mean of 53 degrees within the northeast corner of the surveyed area, to 81 degrees within the southwest corner. The alignment of these faint features points toward a strong coupling of the gas with the interstellar magnetic field. Such strong coupling may be expected in these low column density regions that are more exposed to the ambient, UV radiation field, which maintains a higher degree of ionization.
The origin of these threadlike features and the mechanism whereby they are aligned with the magnetic field are not established, but we can speculate on several processes that may be responsible. The channel maps of the molecular line emission identify regions of systematic motions over scales from the resolution limit up to 30 to 60. If the magnetic field is well coupled to the neutral gas by frequent ion-neutral collisions but the magnetic energy is small with respect to the kinetic energy of the gas, then the field can be carried by these large scale flows within the cloud. Correspondingly, the field lines would be stretched along the direction of the flow. Alternatively, the narrow emission threads may arise from successive compressions and rarefactions of the gas and magnetic field produced by magnetosonic waves that propagate perpendicular to the field. Within the subthermally excited regime, which likely prevails within these regions of low surface brightness, these column density perturbations would produce corresponding variations in the intensity.
MOLECULAR GAS AND YOUNG STARS IN TAURUS {#youngstars}
=======================================
The distribution of young stellar objects with respect to the molecular gas may offer valuable insights to the formation of stars within a dense interstellar cloud. For comparison with our molecular images, we adopted the set of pre-main sequence stars in the Taurus regions from S. Kenyon (2007 private communication, to be published in 2008). This list is comprised of data from many surveys in optical and infrared wavebands [^3]. The pre–main sequence stars are divided into three populations according to their colors. If the R-K magnitude is larger than eight, the star is categorized as likely to be a Class I or younger source. If R-K is smaller than eight, the source is likely to be a T-Tauri star. If the source is not detected in either R or K, it is is likely to be extended/nebulous, in which case it is probably still a protostar, younger than a T-Tauri star. In the region covered by our map, there are a total of 230 stars, 18 of which are Class I or younger, 44 are extended, and 168 are likely to be T-Tauri stars. The stars are shown overlaid on the distribution of the 2 column density in Figure \[taurus-stars\]. The distribution of pre–main sequence stars generally follows that of the dense gas, although a many of the stars in the older category are located in regions with only diffuse gas emission. As noted by [@hartmann2002], the young stars are grouped in three nearly parallel bands that are associated with Heiles’ Cloud 2/L1521/B213/L1495, B18/L1506 and L1536.
**\[!htbp\] **
The relationship between 2 column density and stellar population is examined further in Fig. \[h2\_stars\]. **\[!htpb\] **
Roughly equal number of stars can be found in each of the column density bins spanning the range from 0 to $6.5\times10^{21}$ 2(upper-left panel). Although the number of stars drops towards higher column density regions, such direct examination of the distribution of stars is somewhat misleading inasmuch as our map includes a substantial area with very weak or no carbon monoxide emission, as shown in the upper right panel of Figure \[h2\_stars\]. The surface density of stars versus column density is plotted in the lower left panel. A significant jump in the surface density occurs at around $N(H_2) = 6\times10^{21}$ 2, or roughly, A$_v$ = 6, suggestive of a threshold for star formation. Note that the same trend is visible even in a sample of mostly T-Tauri stars (lower right panel).
In Taurus, neither the dispersion of gas due to star formation nor the dispersion of stars due to stellar motion is likely to have altered the collocation of very dense gas and highly extincted young stars. The threshold in column density for star formation is consistent with the conclusion of @mizuno1995 with the difference being our finding a higher threshold of $6\times10^{21}$ 2 instead of $3\times10^{21}$ 2. Given the larger number of pre–main sequence stars available for the present work, the significance of the change in the stellar surface density is also higher.
With our rather complete coverage of gas and stars, we can examine the relationship of the stellar mass to the gas mass, which defines the star formation efficiency (or SFE). From a very simplified point of view of the time evolution of the star formation process, we can define the star formation efficiency in three ways. In the first, the SFE is defined as the mass of all known young (pre–main sequence) stars divided by the total gas mass. Assuming an average mass of 0.6 solar mass for each of the stars in our sample [following @palla2000] and the total molecular mass of 2.4$\times10^4$ (Table \[mask\_mass\]), the star formation efficiency thus defined is 0.6 percent.
In the second, we define the SFE more strictly for the current epoch, i.e., counting only the mass of protostars and of dense gas (that in our mask 2 region). The SFE thus defined in this more restricted sense is about 0.3 percent. For the third method, we adopt a less physically motivated but procedurally simple approach of defining the star formation efficiency to be the mass of all pre–main sequence stars divided by the mass of dense gas, we obtain an SFE equal to 1.2 percent. These low values confirm that Taurus is a region of relatively low star formation efficiency.
Since star formation is an ongoing process in Taurus the SFE as defined will evolve with time. A more meaningful quantity is the star formation rate per unit molecular gas mass. The star formation history of Taurus is a topic of some controversy [cf. @palla2000; @hartmann2001; @palla2002], particularly the issue regarding whether the star formation rate is presently accelerating or has already reached a peak and is declining. Nevertheless, there does seem to be agreement that star formation has been rapid. Star formation in Taurus began over 10 Myr ago, but most of the identified pre-main sequence stars have formed in the past 3 Myr [@palla2002]. The average star formation rate over the past 3 Myr within the region of Taurus included in this study has been $\simeq$ 8$\times10^{-5}$ stars yr$^{-1}$.
Assuming as before an average mass of 0.6 solar masses, we derive a star formation rate of 5$\times10^{-5}$ yr$^{-1}$. Thus, the star formation rate per unit molecular gas mass is approximately 2$\times10^{-9}$ per year per solar mass of molecular gas. If this rate were to continue, the gas consumption timescale would be over 400 Myr. However, most of the dense gas is likely to be dispersed by the winds from the newly forming stars long before a significant fraction of the cloud mass is converted into stars. It is intriguing that the star formation rate per unit molecular gas mass in Taurus is very similar to that found globally in the Milky Way (assuming a total molecular mass of 2$\times10^9$ and a star formation rate of 3 yr$^{-1}$).
MORPHOLOGY OF THE MOLECULAR GAS {#morphology}
===============================
General Structure of the Gas
----------------------------
Regions of Interest
-------------------
In this section we discuss several of the regions of particular interest that stand out in the carbon monoxide emission from Taurus. These are to some degree reflections of the complex structure seen on a large scale, but highlight some of the varied structures that can easily be identified. The present discussion is by no means complete but does illustrate the varied and complex structures found in this region in which only low mass star formation is taking place. These are grouped together by location within the cloud so that they can be highlighted by detailed images, but this does not necessarily reflect any physical relationship between different features.
### Filamentary Structure Within the Dense Gas
A very striking feature of the molecular gas within the dense portion of Taurus is the fact that the emission is highly structured even in integrated intensity, as can be seen in Figure \[13co\_tint\]. An impressive example is shown in Figure \[filaments\] which shows a several approximately parallel filaments at 427+2645, having a southeast to northwest orientation. The filaments are $\simeq$ 20’ to 25’ (0.8 pc to 1.0 pc) long, with a $\simeq$ 6:1 length to width ratio. These filaments are readily visible in individual velocity images [@narayanan2007] as well as the integrated intensity image, but are invisible in the data. The peak H$_2$ column density of the filaments is 3$\times$10$^{21}$ 2, about a factor of two greater than that of the region between them.
Another very interesting feature visible in Figure \[filaments\] is the almost complete ring–like structure centered at 431+2801. It is fairly circular, having an angular diameter of 18, corresponding to 0.73 pc. The molecular hydrogen column density is typically 3$\times$10$^{21}$ 2 around the periphery of the ring and 1.8$\times$10$^{21}$ 2 in the center. This ring shows up quite clearly in the integrated intensity image in which $\int
T_A dv$ increases from 7.5 in the center to $\simeq$ 11 on the periphery. This features is not discernible in the maximum intensity image, indicating that it is showing increased line width, although distinct kinematic structure is not evident.
**\[!htbp\] **
### Cometary Globules and Ring in Large Cavity
A structure that appears to be a large cavity is visible at the eastern end of B213, just to the north of B18, visible in the image, but more clearly in the integrated intensity (Figure \[13co\_tint\]). An enlarged image is shown in Figure \[globules\]. The center of the cavity is approximately 429+2530. Although the cavity is still clearly visible, it is considerably smaller, 40 (1.6 pc) in compared to 70 (2.9 pc) in . The minimum H$_2$ column density of the cavity is 1.4$\times$10$^{21}$ (it is included in mask 1), but the is detected when averaged over a reasonable number of pixels.
**\[!htbp\] **
The boundary of this cavity contains an impressive number of young stars, which in fact nearly completely surround it. To the north, these seem to be distributed around the periphery of the cavity, but at its western edge (the eastern end of B213), there are three prominent condensations, looking remarkably like cometary globules, projecting into the cavity. Some properties of the condensations are shown in Table \[globule\_properties\]. The globules are undistinguished in terms of maximum temperature. The maximum column density of each of the globules is close to 4$\times$10$^{21}$ 2. We have not been able to identify any source that would be responsible for forming the cavity, but this may be a result of its relatively great age.
[cc ccc]{} 1 &42649.8 &253906&5.9 &DF Tau\
2 &42706.3 &260607&8.3 &DG Tau\
& & & &FV Tau\
3 &42925.5 &261442&4.1 &FW Tau\
As indicated in Table \[globule\_properties\] (see also Figure \[taurus-stars\]), each of the globules contains a T Tauri star, with Globule 2 containing two stars. DF Tau is located slightly inwards (toward the cavity center) relative to Globule 1, while the stars in Globules 2 and 3 are located 3 away from the cavity center compared to the tip of the globule. There does not appear to be any readily discernible kinematic signature giving clues to the origin of the globules, or revealing an effect of the star formation. For example, although the star DG Tau B in Globule 2 has an optical jet which is presumed to be driving the observed red–shifted molecular outflow [@mitchell1997], we do not see an effect on the quiescent gas distribution.
The stars in question range from 0.2 to 2.2 , and have ages between 0.6 Myr (DG Tau) to 1.2 Myr (FW Tau). Stars of this age may well have moved a significant distance since their formation, so that it is not surprising that if they were formed in these globules by e.g. radiative implosion [@bertoldi1990], they may now appear displaced from their formation sites.
### Irregular Filament or Boundary in L1536
**\[!htbp\] **
A very long filament having one end in the south–central portion of L1536 and extending to the northwest is visible in the emission, shown in an enlarged view in Figure \[twisted\_filament\]. The filament center is at 423 +2345, and its length is 2, corresponding to 4.9 pc. The morphology of the filament is suggestive of its being a boundary between regions of lower (to the south) and higher (to the north) column density. The form of the filament is somewhat suggestive of a helix, but it could simply have an irregular shape. The 2 column density along the filament is typically 3$\times$10$^{21}$ 2, but reaches 5$\times$10$^{21}$ 2 in the regions of strongest emission. The region surrounding the filament has a 2 column density of 1.3 to 1.5 $\times$10$^{21}$ 2, only slightly greater than our minimum value defined by mask 0 of 1.1$\times$10$^{21}$ 2. This filament, is roughly parallel to the structure formed by B18 and L1506, to the filamentary part of B213, and also to the less well–defined but still quite flattened structure formed by Heiles’ Cloud 2 and L1521. This thin filament is the most southerly and furthest from the Galactic plane of all of these structures. The position angle of all four of these filamentary/elongated clouds is approximately 45 relative to the plane of the Milky Way.
### Molecular Ring and Planar Boundary
Figure \[planar\_boundary\] includes several different structures. The first is the “molecular ring”, studied in detail by [@schloerb1984]. This ring, 30 (1.2 pc) in diameter, centered at 44030 +2545, contains at least 6 dense condensations visible in the integrated intensity image. The best–studied of these is the chemically very interesting TMC-1 ridge, observed in detail by [@pratap1997] and many others. The ridge (the NH$_3$ peak is at 44121+2548) is not very prominent in the integrated intensity image, which is presumably a result of the significant optical depth in the ring material, which may not be corrected for entirely by the simple process (described in §\[col\_dens\_calc\]) employed here. The peak 2 column density we derive is 7$\times$10$^{21}$ 2 which is somewhat less than half of that which would be derived from the observations of [@pratap1997]. Given the difficulties expected in deriving the column density in regions of optically thick emission in which significant temperature gradients may be present, this difference is not unreasonable. The ridge is more visible in our map than in that of [@schloerb1984] due to the better sampling in the present work.
**\[!htbp\] **
The second noticeable feature in Figure \[planar\_boundary\] is the very straight boundary of the molecular emission seen in centered at 43830 +2650 and extending for over 1 degree (2.4 pc). The questions of the formation of this interface and how it is maintained are intriguing. In this region, the emission extends significantly beyond that of the away from the high column density portion of the cloud, typically by 0.5 pc. As can be seen in Figures \[12co\_tmax\] and \[CO+B\], the emission is highly structured, particularly perpendicular to the interface direction. This behavior is not restricted to this portion of the cloud boundary, but in fact is a general characteristic of the emission in the mask 1 region surrounding the high column density portion of the cloud (mask 2) where is detected in individual spectra.
Finally, we note the intriguing feature to the west of the better–known ring discussed above. With a center at 437+2645, this is again a slightly non circular ring having a diameter of 30 (1.2 pc). Given the complexity of the structure observed in our study of the molecular gas in Taurus, this could certainly be a superposition of filaments rather than a ring.
### L1495 and B213
The L1495 region contains the greatest concentration of young stars within the region of the Taurus molecular cloud that we have mapped. Figure \[L1495\] shows the eastern part of L1495; the western part (seen in Figure \[13co\_tint\]) is more diffuse. The enlarged image also shows the very narrow B213 filament which extends to the southeast from L1495. The emission and the 2 column density we derive from it, are relatively continuous over the high column density portion of L1495 and the B213 filament. In [@onishi1996] individual dense cores are better resolved, and in HCO$^+$ [@onishi2002] they stand out yet more clearly.
The central part of of L1495 contains over 20 young stars in Palla’s compilation [@palla2008], and has a maximum 2 column density of 10$^{22}$ 2, which is the highest we see in our map. The mass of the L1495 region is (Table \[roi\_masses\]) 2.6$\times$10$^3$ , but a significant fraction of this is in the spatially extended, lower density material.
The B213 filament is approximately 75 or 3 pc in length, and only 4.5 or 0.2 pc thick. One of the curious features about this structure is that while there are dense cores seen along its entire length [@onishi1996; @onishi2002], young stars have apparently not yet formed in the northwestern 30 (1.2 pc) long portion closest to L1495. The magnetic field orientation at the boundaries of this filament is strikingly oriented perpendicular to its long axis, as seen dramatically in Figure \[CO+B\], and discussed in §\[magnetic\].
**\[!htbp\] **
### Striations in Emission {#striations}
One of the surprising features in the map of is the prominent striations (or threads, or strands) seen in the lower level emission seen away from the main molecular condensations. These can be recognized in Figure \[12co\_tmax\], but this effect is more visible in the enlarged image shown in Figure \[12co\_striations\]. Another region in which this is very prominent is located at 415+2430. These are similar to structures seen within some infrared cirrus clouds. The striations are visible in images of maximum antenna temperature and also integrated antenna temperature. The characteristic values are $T_A$ = 3 K on the striations and 2 K between them, while $\int T_A dv$ drops from $\simeq$ 2.8 on the striations to between 1 and 1.5 between them. Given that the density in these regions is low, the emission is almost certainly subthermally excited so that it is difficult to determine the kinetic temperature. Based on the procedure described in § \[col\_dens\_calc\], which assumes $T_{kin}$ equal to 15 K, the 2column density of the striated features is 2$\times$10$^{21}$ 2, approximately double that of the background emission. A striking feature of the striations is their alignment parallel to the direction of the magnetic field measured by optical starlight polarization, as shown in Figure \[CO+B\] and discussed in §\[magnetic\]. **\[!htbp\] **
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS {#summary}
=======================
We have carried out a large–scale survey of the molecular gas in Taurus by mapping a 100 square degree region with the 13.7 m Five College Radio Astronomy Observatory millimeter telescope. The J = 1 $\rightarrow$ 0 transition of and of were observed simultaneously using the 32 pixel Sequoia focal plane array receiver. The observing and data reduction techniques are discussed by [@narayanan2007]. In this overview, we have discussed some of the highlights of the data that we have obtained, deferring detailed analyses to future papers.
The combination of an unbiased, high sensitivity survey with coverage of a relatively large area allows us to study the structure and properties of the molecular gas in new ways. With approximately 3 million independent spatial pixels, we have a linear dynamic range which is unequaled in previous studies of the Taurus region. While our angular resolution is inferior to that obtained with larger/higher frequency telescopes or interferometers, the strength of the present work is to show the relationship between structures on scales ranging from $\simeq$ 1 or 0.04 pc to 10 degrees (approximately 25 pc). Our observations are sensitive to a range of column densities equivalent to a range in visual extinction between 1 and 10 magnitudes.
**Cloud Morphology** One of our key conclusions is that the morphology of this region is very complex. In contrast to earlier large–scale surveys carried out with low angular resolution in which clouds appeared largely smooth–edged and having little structure, we find an astoundingly rich range of structures including filaments, ridges, blobs, and holes. The internal structure is more striking in than in which is not surprising given the large optical depth of the former isotopologue. The filaments have lengths up to 3 pc, and axial to transverse dimension ratios as large as 15:1. Holes in the molecular emission appear on a large range of scales extending from 0.1 pc to 3 pc.
The edges of the dense molecular regions are generally very irregular, with structures on the order of 0.1 pc in size visible especially in which traces cloud boundaries which are more extended than seen in the . This “hair–like” edge structure is found to be common in while the cloud boundaries are relatively sharper but still quite irregular. There is one notable exception in which we find a sharp, straight boundary in almost 2.5 pc in length.
**Cloud Mass and Mass Distribution** Having both the and detected in regions of relatively large column density (mask 2, comprising about 1/3 of the map pixels), we have used the standard method to derive the kinetic temperature and molecular column density, including a correction for saturation of the which becomes significant for the regions of greatest column density. To analyze portions of the image (mask 1 comprising about 1/3 of total area of the cloud mapped) in which we detect but not in individual pixels we use a different approach. With $\simeq$ 1 million such pixels available, we have binned them by excitation temperature $T_{ex}$. When spectra within a bin are averaged, the as well as the is readily detectable, and we obtain the 2 density and the CO column density. We thus have a relationship which gives us n(H$_2$) and N(CO) as a function of $T_{ex}$(). Since the excitation temperature is available for each pixel, we can derive the CO column density for each line of sight. Averaging together all the pixels in mask 0 (in any one of which neither nor was detectable), we detect both isotopologues, and use the two spectra to derive the average density and column density for mask 0, the final third of the map. This procedure allows us to determine the CO column density throughout the region mapped, including even regions of relatively low column density.
To convert $N(CO)$ to total column density, we have used the results of [@vandishoeck1988] which are appropriate for Taurus. The essential point is that the fractional abundance of carbon monoxide drops as the total 2 column density is reduced, as a result of reduced dust shielding and self–shielding. Inverting this argument, the column density of 2 corresponding to a low column density of carbon monoxide is larger than would be obtained assuming a constant fractional abundance for CO. The result is that the total mass for the region of Taurus mapped is close to 2.4$\times$10$^4$ , compared to less than 1$\times$10$^4$ that would be found using a standard, uniform fractional abundance. We find that half the mass of the cloud is contained in regions having column density below 2.1$\times$10$^{21}$ 2. This result reduces the fraction of mass found in dense cores by a factor greater than 2, and also confirms the presence of significant external pressure in the regions external to the dense regions. The total mass for the region we have mapped thus obtained agrees well with that predicted from the CO luminosity, 5.55$\times$10$^3$ K km s$^{-1}$ pc$^2$, and a standard conversion M() = 4.1 L$_{CO}$ (K km s$^{-1}$ pc$^2$). It seems likely that our conclusion that a significant component of diffuse molecular gas accompanies the more widely studied high density regions is not restricted to Taurus. It reinforces the importance of observations which can study this diffuse molecular material, which is not readily detected in individual spectra with the sensitivity typically available in large–scale molecular cloud surveys.
**Cloud Structure and Star Formation** The structural complexity over a wide range of scale sizes hints at the richness of the physical processes which underly the formation and evolution of molecular cloud complexes such as Taurus. The present data set, both in terms of morphology and mass distribution, constitutes a potentially valuable resource for comparison with outputs from simulations of cloud formation. The large scale kinematic structure that we see confirms that identified in earlier studies. Along with the complexity of the line profiles observed along many lines of sight, this poses a real challenge for any detailed theoretical model of this region.
We see a varied relationship between the magnetic field as measured by polarization of background stars, and the distribution of the gas. In the more diffuse regions traced by we see large–scale alignment between the field direction and striated structure in the gas. Although we have not been able to measure any kinematic signature, the appearance is strongly suggestive of flows along the field lines. In several of the very elongated filaments seen in the denser gas traced by , the magnetic field is oriented perpendicular, or nearly perpendicular, to the major axes of the filaments. Combined with the hair–like appearance of the boundaries of these filaments seen in but more prominent in , this again suggests that motions of material along the field lines have been responsible for building up the regions of higher density within the overall molecular cloud.
The surface density of very young and moderately young stars shows a rapid increase at a H$_2$ column density of 6$\times$10$^{21}$ 2, confirming the existence of a threshold for star formation. We have used new compilations of young stars in the Taurus region to calculate the star formation efficiency (SFE). Our large value for the gas mass, especially in regions of lower column density, results in the SFE, taken to be the mass of all young stars in the region divided by the total molecular mass, to be 0.6 percent. Taking the SFE for most recent star formation by comparing the mass of only the embedded protostars with that of the dense gas, gives an SFE equal to 0.3 percent. If we consider all of the young stars (whether embedded protostars or T-Tauri stars) in the region of high column density, we obtain a SFE equal to 1.2 percent. The average star formation rate over the past 3 Myr within the region of Taurus included in this study has been $\simeq$ 8$\times10^{-5}$ stars yr$^{-1}$, corresponding to a mass going into new stars of 5$\times10^{-5}$ yr$^{-1}$.
This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation through grant AST-0407019 to Cornell University, and by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology. The Five College Radio Astronomy Observatory is operated with support from the National Science Foundation through NSF grant AST 05 40852 and with permission of the Metropolitan District Commission. We thank Yvonne Tang for contributions to data taking and analysis of dense condensations in Taurus, and Marko Krco for assistance with observations. We thank Pierre Hily–Blant for the suggestion to compare the magnetic field and integrated intensity maps in Taurus, and for many useful conversations about this and other topics. We are indebted to Francesco Palla and Scott Kenyon for providing compilations of young stars in the Taurus region and their properties. We thank Ted Bergin for carrying out time–dependent calculations of the CO abundance in diffuse regions. We thank the anonymous reviewer for very carefully reading the lengthy manuscript, noting some problems, and making some suggestions for further work which has improved this study. This research has made use of NASA’s Astrophysics Data System.
Abergel, A., Boulanger, F., Fukui, Y., & Mizuno, A. 1995, , 111, 483
Alves, J., Lada, C.J., & Lada, E.A. 1999, , 515, 265
Bachiller, R. & Cernicharo, J. 1986, , 168, 262
Ballesteros–Paredes, J., Hartmann, L., & Vázquez–Semadeni, E. 1999, , 527, 285
Bally, J. & Langer, W.D. 1982, , 255, 143
Beichman, C.A., Myers, P.C., Emerson, J.P., Harris, S., Mathieu, R., Benson, P.J., & Jennings, R.E. 1986, , 307, 377
Bertoldi, F. & McKee, C.F. 1990, , 354, 529
Burgh, E.B., France, K., & McCandliss, S.R. 2007, , 658, 446
Burton, W.B. & Hartmann, D. 1994, in Unveiling Large–Scale Structures Behind the Milky Way, ASP Conf. Series, Vol. 67, C. Balkowski & R.C. Kraan-Kortweg eds. (San Francisco: Astronomical Society of the Pacific), 31
Cernicharo, J., & Guélin, M. 1987, , 176, 299
Chu, W.–H. & Watson, W.D. 1983, , 267, 151
Crutcher, R. M., & Troland, T.H. 2000, , 537, L139
Dickman, R.L., Snell, R.L., & Schloerb, F.P. 1986, , 309, 326
Duvert, G., Cernicharo, J., & Baudry, A. 1986, , 164, 349
Elias, J.H. 1978, , 224, 857
Erickson, N.R., Grosslein, R.M., Erickson, R.B., & Weinreb, S. 1999, IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Tech., 47(12), 2212
Federman, S.R., Strom, C.J., Lambert, D.L., Cardelli, J.A., Smith, V.V., & Joseph, C.L. 1994, , 424, 772
Frerking, M.A., Langer, W.D., & Wilson, R.W. 1982, , 262, 590
Goldsmith, P.F., Langer, W.D., Carlson, R.E., & Wilson, R.W. 1980, in Interstellar Molecules, IAU Symp. 87, B.H. Andrew ed. (Dordrecht: Reidel), 417
Goldsmith, P.F., Young, J.S., & Langer, W.D. 1983, , 51, 203
Goldsmith, P.F. & Li, D. 2005, , 622, 938
Gomez de Castro, A.I. & Pudritz, R.E. 1992, , 395, 501
Goodman, A.A., Jones, J.T., Lada, E.A., & Myers, P.C. 1992, , 399, 108
Hartigan, P., & Kenyon, S.J. 2003, , 583, 334
Hartmann, L., Ballesteros–Paredes, J., & Bergin, E. A. 2001, ,562, 852
Hartmann, L. 2002, , 578, 914
Heiles, C. 2000, , 119, 923
Heiles, C. & Crutcher, R. 2005, in Cosmic Magnetic Fields, R. Wielebinski & R. Beck ed. (Berlin: Springer), 137
Heyer, M.H., Vrba, F.J., Snell, R.L., Schloerb, F.P., Strom, S.E., Goldsmith, P.F., & Strom, K.M. 1987, , 321, 855
Heyer, M.H. 1988, , 324, 311
Jijina, J., Myers, P.C., & Adams, F.C. 1999, , 125, 161
Kainulainen, J., Lehtinen, K., & Harju, J. 2006, , 447, 597
Kenyon, S. 2007, private communication; to appear in The Handbook of Star Forming Regions, ASP Conference Series, B. Reipurth, ed., 2008
Lacy, J.H., Knacke, R., Geballe, T.R., & Tokunaga, A.T. 1994, , 428, L69
Langer, W.D., Goldsmith, P.F., Carlson, E.R., & Wilson, R.W. 1980, , 235, L39
Langer, W.D., Wilson, R.W., Goldsmith, P.F., & Beichman, C.A. 1989, , 337, 355
Langer, W.D. & Penzias, A.A. 1993, , 408, 539
Langer, W.D., Velusamy, T., Kuiper, T.B.H., Levin, S., Olsen, E., & Migenes, V. 1995, , 453, 293
Li, D. & Goldsmith, P.F. 2003, , 585, 823
Li, D., Goldsmith, P.F., & Menten, K.M. 2003, , 587, 262
Liszt, H.S. & Lucas, R. 1998, , 339, 561
Liszt, H.S. 2007, , 476, 291
Mitchell, G.F., Sargent, A.I., & Mannings, V. 1997, , 483, L127
Mizuno, A., Onishi, T., Yonekura, Y., Nagahama, T., Ogawa, H., & Fukui, Y. 1995, , 445, L161
Moneti, A., Pipher, J.L., Helfer, H.L., McMillan, R.S., & Perry, M.L. 1984, , 282, 508
Narayanan, G., Heyer, M., Brunt, C., Snell, R.L., Goldsmith, P.F., & Li, D. 2007, submitted to
Onishi, T., Mizuno, A., Kawamura, A., Ogawa, H., & Fukui, Y. 1996, , 465, 815
Onishi, T., Mizuno, A., Kawamura, A., Ogawa, H., & Fukui, Y. 1998, , 502, 296
Onishi, T., Mizuno, A., Kawamura, A., Tachihara, K., & Fukui, Y. 2002, , 575, 950
Padoan, P., Cambrésy, L., & Langer, W.D. 1992, , 580, L57
Palla, F. & Stahler, S.W. 2000, , 540, 255
Palla, F. & Stahler, S.W. 2002, , 58, 1194
Palla, F. 2008, private communication
Pratap, P., Dickens, J.E., Snell, R. L., Miralles, M.P., Bergin, E.A., Irvine, W.M., & Schloerb, F.P. 1997, , 486, 862
Pringle, J.E., Allen, R.J., & Lubow, S.H. 2001, , 327, 663
Schloerb, F.P., & Snell, R.L. 1984, , 283, 129
Shu, F.H., Adams, F.C., & Lizano, S. 1987, , 25, 23
Shuter, W.L.H., Dickman, R.L., & Klatt, C. 1987, , 322, L103
Snell, R.L. 1981, , 45, 121
Sonnentrucker, P., Welty, D.E., Thorburn, J.A., & York, D.G. 2007, , 168, 58
Strong, A.W. & Mattox, J.R. 1996, , 308, L21
Tamura, M., Gatley, I., Wall, W., & Werner, M.W. 1991, , 374, L25
Tatematsu, K., Umemoto, T., Kandori, R., & Sekimoto, Y. 2004, , 606, 333
Troland, T., Crutcher, R.M., Goodman, A.A., Heiles, C., Kazès, I., & Myers, P.C. 1996, , 471, 302
Ungerechts, H. & Thaddeus, P. 1987, , 63, 645
Van Dishoeck, E.F. & Black, J.H. 1988, , 334, 771
Vázquez–Semadeni, E. 2007, in Triggered Star Formation in a Turbulent ISM, Proc. IAU Symp. 237, B.G. Elmegreen & J. Palous, eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 292
Watson, W.D., Anicich, V.G., & Huntress, W.T. Jr. 1976, , 205, L165
Young, J.S., Goldsmith, P.F., Langer, W.D., & Wilson, R.W. 1982, , 261, 513
[^1]: This value, from @elias1978, is so entrenched in the literature that we will use it despite the plausible suggestion by [@hartigan2003] that the distance should be reduced by about 10%, to $\sim$126 pc.
[^2]: A 16 pixel single–polarization version of the array is described in [@erickson1999].
[^3]: We obtain essentially the same results using the data compiled by F. Palla, which was also provided to us as a private communication.
|
---
abstract: 'We investigate $S$-arithmetic inhomogeneous Khintchine type theorems in the dual setting for nondegenerate manifolds. We prove the convergence case of the theorem, including, in particular, the $S$-arithmetic inhomogeneous counterpart of the Baker-Sprindžuk conjectures. The divergence case is proved for ${\mathbb{Q}}_p$ but in the more general context of Hausdorff measures. This answers a question posed by Badziahin, Beresnevich and Velani [@BaBeVe].'
address: 'School of Mathematics, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai, 400005, India'
author:
- Shreyasi Datta
- Anish Ghosh
title: '$S$-arithmetic Inhomogeneous Diophantine approximation on manifolds'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
In this paper we are concerned with metric Diophantine approximation on nondegenerate manifolds in the $p$-adic, or more generally $S$-arithmetic setting for a finite set of primes $S$. To motivate our results we recall Khintchine’s theorem, a basic result in metric Diophantine approximation. Let $\Psi : {\mathbb{R}}^n \to {\mathbb{R}}_{+} $ be a function satisfying $$\label{defmultapp}
\Psi(a_1, \dots, a_n) \geq \Psi(b_1, \dots, b_n) \text{ if } |a_i| \leq |b_i| \text{ for all } i = 1,\dots, n.$$ Such a function is referred to as a *multivariable approximating function*. Given such a function, define ${\mathcal{W}}_{n}(\Psi)$ to be the set of ${\mathbf{x}}\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$ for which there exist infinitely many ${\mathbf{a}}\in {\mathbb{Z}}^{n}$ such that $$\label{preKG}
|a_0 + {\mathbf{a}}\cdot {\mathbf{x}}| < \Psi({\mathbf{a}})$$ for some $a_0 \in {\mathbb{Z}}$. When $\Psi({\mathbf{a}}) = \psi(\|{\mathbf{a}}\|)$ for a non-increasing function $\psi$, we write ${\mathcal{W}}_{n}(\psi)$ for ${\mathcal{W}}_{n}(\Psi)$. Khintchine’s Theorem ([@Khintchine], [@Groshev]) gives a characterization of the measure of ${\mathcal{W}}_{n}(\psi)$ in terms of $\psi$:
\[KG\] $$|{\mathcal{W}}_{n}(\psi)| = \left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
0 & \text{if } \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} k^{n-1} \psi(k) < \infty\\
\\
\text{ full } & \text{if } \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}k^{n-1} \psi(k) = \infty.
\end{array} \right.$$
Here, $\|~\|$ denotes the supremum norm of a vector and $|~|$ denotes the absolute value of a real number as well as the Lebesgue measure of a measurable subset of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$; the context will make the use clear. The kind of approximation considered above is called “dual" approximation in the literature as opposed to the setting of simultaneous Diophantine approximation. In this paper, we will only consider dual approximation. Given an approximation function, one can consider the corresponding $S$-arithmetic question as follows, we follow the notation of Kleinbock and Tomanov [@KT]. Given a finite set of primes $S$ of cardinality $l$ we set ${\mathbb{Q}}_S := \prod_{\nu \in S}{\mathbb{Q}}_\nu$ and denote by $|~|_S$ the $S$-adic absolute value, $|{\mathbf{x}}| = \max_{v \in S }|x^{(v)}|_v$. For ${\mathbf{a}}= (a_1, \dots, a_n) \in {\mathbb{Z}}^n$ and $a_0 \in {\mathbb{Z}}$ we set $$\widetilde{{\mathbf{a}}} := (a_0, a_1, \dots, a_n).$$ We say that ${\mathbf{y}}\in {\mathbb{Q}}^{n}_S$ is $\Psi$-approximable (${\mathbf{y}}\in {\mathcal{W}}_{n}(S, \Psi)$) if there are infinitely many solutions ${\mathbf{a}}\in {\mathbb{Z}}^n$ to $$|a_0 + {\mathbf{a}}\cdot {\mathbf{y}}|_{S}^{l} \leq \left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
\Psi(\widetilde{{\mathbf{a}}}) & \text{ if } \infty \notin S\\
\\
\Psi({\mathbf{a}}) & \text{ if } \infty \in S.
\end{array} \right.$$
We fix Haar measure on ${\mathbb{Q}}_p$, normalized to give ${\mathbb{Z}}_p$ measure $1$ and denote the product measure on ${\mathbb{Q}}_S$ by $|~|_S$. Then, the following analogue of Khintchine’s theorem can be proved. Namely,
\[S-KG\] ${\mathcal{W}}_{n}(S, \psi)$ has zero or full measure depending on the convergence or divergence of the series $$\left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} k^{n}\psi(k) & \text{if } \infty \notin S \\
\\
\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} k^{n-1} \psi(k) & \text{if } \infty \in S.
\end{array} \right.$$
Indeed, the convergence case follows from the Borel-Cantelli lemma as usual and the divergence case can be proved using the methods in [@L].
Inhomogeneous approximation:
----------------------------
Given a multivariable approximating function $\Psi$ and a function $\theta : {\mathbb{R}}^n \to {\mathbb{R}}$, we set ${\mathcal{W}}^{\theta}_{n}(\Psi)$ to be the set of ${\mathbf{x}}\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$ for which there exist infinitely many ${\mathbf{a}}\in \mathbb{Z}^n\setminus \{\mathbf{0}\}$ such that $$\label{preKGinhom}
|a_0 + {\mathbf{a}}\cdot {\mathbf{x}}+ \theta({\mathbf{x}})| < \Psi({\mathbf{a}})$$ for some $a_0 \in {\mathbb{Z}}$. For $\psi$ as above, the set ${\mathcal{W}}^{\theta}_{n}(\psi)$ is often referred to as the (dual) set of “$(\psi, \theta)$-inhomogeneously approximable" vectors in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$. The following inhomogeneous version of Theorem \[KG\] is established in [@BaBeVe]. We denote by $C^n$ the set of $n$-times continuously differentiable functions.
\[KGinhom\] Let $\theta : \mathbb{R}^n \to \mathbb{R}$ be a $C^2$ function. Then $$|{\mathcal{W}}^{\theta}_{n}(\psi)| = \left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
0 & \text{if } \ \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} k^{n-1}\psi(k) < \infty\\
\\
\text{ full } & \text{if } \ \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} k^{n-1}\psi(k) = \infty.
\end{array} \right.$$
We remark that the choice of $\theta = \text{constant}$ is the setting of traditional inhomogeneous Diophantine approximation and in that case the above result was well known, see for example [@Cassels]. Similarly inhomogeneous Diophantine approximation can be considered in the $S$-arithmetic setting.
For a multivariable approximating function $\Psi$ and a function $\Theta: {\mathbb{Q}}^{n}_S \to {\mathbb{Q}}_S$, we say that a vector ${\mathbf{x}}\in {\mathbb{Q}}_S^n $ is $(\Psi,\Theta)$-approximable if there exist infinitely many $({\mathbf{a}}, a_0)\in{\mathbb{Z}}^n\setminus\{0\}\times {\mathbb{Z}}$ such that $$|a_0 + {\mathbf{a}}\cdot {\mathbf{x}}+\Theta({\mathbf{x}})|_{S}^l\leq \left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
\Psi(\widetilde{{\mathbf{a}}}) & \text{ if } \infty \notin S\\
\\
\Psi({\mathbf{a}}) & \text{ if } \infty \in S.
\end{array} \right.$$
The convergence case of Khintchine’s theorem in this setting again follows from the Borel Cantelli lemma. The divergence Theorem when $S = \{p\}$ comprises a single prime $p$ is a consequence of the results in this paper.
Diophantine approximation on manifolds
--------------------------------------
In the theory of Diophantine approximation on manifolds, one studies the inheritance of generic (for Lebesgue measure) Diophantine properties by proper submanifolds of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$. This theory has seen dramatic advances in the last two decades, beginning with the proof of the Baker-Sprindžuk conjectures by Kleinbock and Margulis [@KM] using non divergence estimates for certain flows on the space of unimodular lattices. Motivated by problems in transcendental number theory, K. Mahler conjectured in 1932 that almost every point on the curve $${\mathbf{f}}({\mathbf{x}}) = (x, x^2, \dots, x^n)$$ is not *very well approximable*, i.e. $\psi$-approximable for $\psi:= \psi_{\varepsilon}(k) = k^{-n-\varepsilon}$. This conjecture was resolved by V. G. Sprindžuk [@Sp; @Sp3] who in turn conjectured that almost every point on a nondegenerate manifold is not very well approximable. This conjecture, in a more general, multiplicative form, was resolved by D. Kleinbock and G. Margulis in [@KM]. The following definition is taken from [@KT] and is based on [@KM]. Let $f : U \to F^n$ be a $C^k$ map, where $F$ is any locally compact valued field and $U$ is an open subset of $F^d$, and say that $f$ is nondegenerate at $x_0 \in U$ if the space $F^n$ is spanned by partial derivatives of $f$ at $x_0$ up to some finite order. Loosely speaking, a nondegenerate manifold is one in which is locally not contained in an affine subspace. Subsequent to the work of Kleinbock and Margulis, there were rapid advances in the theory of dual approximation on manifolds. In [@BKM] (and independently in [@Ber1]) the convergence case of the Khintchine-Groshev theorem for nondegenerate manifolds was proved and in [@BBKM], the complementary divergence case was established.
As for the $p$-adic theory, Sprindžuk [@Sp] himself established the $p$-adic and function field (i.e. positive characteristic) versions of Mahler’s conjectures. Subsequently, there were several partial results (cf. [@Kov; @BK]) culminating in the work of Kleinbock and Tomanov [@KT] where the $S$-adic case of the Baker-Sprindžuk conjectures were settled in full generality. In [@G], the second named author established the function field analogue. The convergence case of Khintchine’s theorem for nondegenerate manifolds in the $S$-adic setting was established by Mohammadi and Golsefidy [@MoS1] and the divergence case for ${\mathbb{Q}}_p$ in [@MoS2].
In the case of inhomogeneous Diophantine approximation on manifolds, following several partial results (cf. [@Bu] and the references in [@BeVe; @BeVe2]), an inhomogeneous transference principle was developed by Beresnevich and Velani using which they resolved the inhomogeneous analogue of the Baker-Sprindžuk conjectures. Subsequently, Badziahin, Beresnevich and Velani [@BaBeVe] established the convergence and divergence cases of the inhomogeneous Khintchine theorem for nondegenerate manifolds. They proved a new result even in the classical setting by allowing the inhomogeneous term to vary. The divergence theorem is established in the same paper in the more general setting of Hausdorff measures.
In this paper, we will establish the convergence case of an inhomogeneous Khintchine theorem for nondegenerate manifolds in the $S$-adic setting, as well as the divergence case for ${\mathbb{Q}}_p$. As in [@BaBeVe], the divergence case is proved in the greater generality of Hausdorff measures. Prior results in the $p$-adic theory of inhomogeneous approximation for manifolds focussed mainly on curves, cf. [@BDY; @BeK; @U1; @U2].
Main Results
------------
To state our main results, we introduce some notation following [@MoS1], recall some of the assumptions from that paper and set forth one further standing assumption. The assumptions are as follows.
1. $S$ contains the infinite place.
2. We will consider the domain to be of the form ${\mathbf{U}}=\prod_{\nu\in S} {\mathbf{U}}_{\nu} $ where ${\mathbf{U}}_\nu\subset{\mathbb{Q}}_\nu^{d_\nu} $ is an open box. Here, the norm is taken to be the Euclidean norm at the infinite place and the $L^{\infty}$ norm at finite places.
3. We will consider functions ${\mathbf{f}}({\mathbf{x}}) =({\mathbf{f}}_\nu(x_\nu)) _{\nu\in S}$, for ${\mathbf{x}}=(x_\nu) \in{\mathbf{U}}$ where ${\mathbf{f}}_\nu=(f_\nu^{(1)},f_\nu^{(2)},\dots,f_\nu^{(n)}):
{\mathbf{U}}_\nu\to {\mathbb{Q}}_\nu^n $ is an analytic map for any $\nu\in S $, and can be analytically extended to the boundary of $ {\mathbf{U}}_\nu$.
4. We assume that the restrictions of $1 ,{f_\nu^{(1)},f_\nu^{(2)},\dots,f_\nu^{(n)}}$ to any open subset of ${\mathbf{U}}_\nu $ are linearly independent over ${\mathbb{Q}}_\nu $ and that $\|{\mathbf{f}}({\mathbf{x}})\|\leq 1,\|\nabla{\mathbf{f}}_\nu(x_\nu)\| \leq 1$ and $|\Phi_\beta {\mathbf{f}}_\nu(y_1,y_2,y_3)| \leq \frac{1}{2} $ for any $\nu \in S,$ second difference quotient $\Phi_\beta$ and $x_\nu,y_1,y_2,y_3 \in U_\nu$. We refer the reader to Section $3$ for definitions.
5. \[monotone\_cond\] We assume that the function $\Psi :{\mathbb{Z}}^n \to {\mathbb{R}}_{+ } $ is monotone decreasing componentwise i.e. $$\Psi(a_1,\cdots,a_i,\cdots, a_n)\geq \Psi(a_1,\cdots, a'_{i},\cdots, a_n)$$ whenever $|a_i|_S\leq |a'_i|_S $.
6. We assume that $\Theta({\mathbf{x}})=(\Theta_\nu(x_\nu)) $ where $\Theta :{\mathbf{U}}\mapsto {\mathbb{Q}}_S $ is also analytic and can be extended analytically to the boundary of ${\mathbf{U}}_\nu$.we will assume $\|\Theta({\mathbf{x}})\|\leq 1,\|\nabla\Theta_\nu(x_\nu)\| \leq 1$ and $|\Phi_\beta \Theta_\nu(y_1,y_2,y_3)| \leq \frac{1}{2} $ for any $\nu \in S $ , second difference quotient $\Phi_\beta$ and $x_\nu,y_1,y_2,y_3 \in U_\nu$.
We can now state the first main Theorem of the present paper.
\[thm:main\] Let $S$ be as in (I0) and ${\mathbf{U}}$ as in (I1). Suppose ${\mathbf{f}}$ satisfies (I2) and (I3), that $\Psi$ satisfies (I4) and $\Theta$ satisfies (I5). Then $${\mathcal{W}}_{\Psi,\Theta}^{{\mathbf{f}}} := \{ {\mathbf{x}}\in{\mathbf{U}}| \ {\mathbf{f}}({\mathbf{x}}) \text{ is } (\Psi,\Theta)-\text{ approximable}\}$$ has measure zero if $\sum_{{\mathbf{a}}\in {\mathbb{Z}}^n\setminus\{0\}} \Psi({\mathbf{a}}) <\infty$.
The divergence case of our Theorem is proved in the more general setting of Hausdorff measures. However, we need to impose some restrictions: we only consider the case when $S = \{p\}$ consists of a single prime, the inhomogeneous function is assumed to be analytic, and the approximating function is not as general as in Theorem \[thm:main\]. We will denote by $\mathcal{H}^{s}(X) $ the $s$-dimensional Hausdorff measure of a subset $X$ of ${\mathbb{Q}}^{n}_{S}$ and $\dim X$ the Hausdorff dimension, where $s > 0$ is a real number.
\[thm:divergence\] Let $S$ be as in (I0) and ${\mathbf{U}}$ as in (I1). Suppose ${\mathbf{f}}:{\mathbf{U}}\subset{\mathbb{Q}}_p^m\to {\mathbb{Q}}_p^n$ satisfies (I2) and (I3). Let $$\label{def:newpsi}
\Psi({\mathbf{a}})= \psi(\|{\mathbf{a}}\|), {\mathbf{a}}\in{\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1}$$ be an approximating function and assume that $s > m-1$. Let $\Theta:{\mathbf{U}}\to {\mathbb{Q}}_p$ be an analytic map satisfying (I5). Then $$\mathcal{H}^s(\mathcal{W}^{\mathbf{f}}_{(\Psi,\Theta)}\cap{\mathbf{U}})=\mathcal{H}^s({\mathbf{U}}) \text{ if } \sum_{{\mathbf{a}}\in {\mathbb{Z}}^n \backslash \{0\}} (\Psi({\mathbf{a}}))^{s+1-m}=\infty.$$
Given an approximating function $\psi$, the lower order at infinity $\tau_{\psi}$ of $1/\psi$ is defined by $$\tau_{\psi} := \liminf_{t \to \infty}\frac{-\log\psi(t)}{\log t}.$$ The divergent sum condition of Theorem \[thm:divergence\] is satisfied whenever $$s<m-1+\frac{n+1}{\tau_\psi}.$$ Therefore, by the definition of Hausdorff measure and dimension, we get
[\[jar\]]{} Let ${\mathbf{f}}$ and $\Theta$ be as in Theorem \[thm:divergence\]. Let $\psi$ be an approximating function as in (\[def:newpsi\]) such that $n+1\leq \tau_\psi<\infty$. Then $$\dim (\mathcal{W}^{\mathbf{f}}_{(\Psi,\Theta)}\cap{\mathbf{U}})\geq m-1+\frac{n+1}{\tau_\psi}.$$
Remarks
-------
1. We have assumed $S$ contains the infinite place in Theorem \[thm:main\]. This is not a serious assumption, the proof in the case when $S$ contains only finite places needs some minor modifications but follows the same outline, details will appear in [@Datta], the PhD thesis, under preparation, of the first named author. In [@MoS1], the (homogeneous) $S$-adic convergence case is proved in slightly greater generality than in the present paper. Namely, instead of ${\mathbb{Q}}$, the quotient field of a finitely generated subring of ${\mathbb{Q}}$ is considered. This, more general formulation will also be investigated in [@Datta].
2. Our proof for the convergence case, namely Theorem \[thm:main\] blends techniques from the homogeneous results, namely [@KT; @BKM; @MoS1] and uses the transference principle developed by Beresnevich and Velani in the form used in [@BaBeVe]. The structure of the proof is the same as in [@BaBeVe]. We also take the opportunity to clarify some properties of $(C, \alpha)$-good functions in the $S$-adic setting which may be of independent interest.
3. The proof of Theorem \[thm:divergence\], follows the ubiquity framework used in [@BaBeVe] but needs new ideas to implement in the $p$-adic setting. At present, we are unable to prove the more general $S$-adic divergence statement. We note that the $S$-adic case remains open even in the homogeneous setting.
4. We now undertake a brief discussion of the assumptions (I1) - (I5). The conditions (I1)-(I4) are assumed in [@MoS1] and, as explained in loc. cit., are assumed for convenience. Namely, as mentioned in [@MoS1], the statement for any non-degenerate analytic manifold over ${\mathbb{Q}}_S$ follows from Theorem \[thm:main\]. In [@BaBeVe], the inhomogeneous parameter $\Theta$ is allowed to be $C^2$ when restricted to the nondegenerate manifold. However, we need to assume it to be analytic.
5. Theorem \[thm:divergence\] is slightly more general than Theorem 1.2 of [@MoS2] in the homogeneous setting. In [@MoS2], the approximating function is taken to be of the form $$\Psi({\mathbf{a}})=\frac{1}{\|{\mathbf{a}}\|^{n}}\psi(\|{\mathbf{a}}\|), {\mathbf{a}}\in{\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1}$$ which is a more restrictive class of approximating functions. For an $n$-tuple $v = (v_1, \cdots, v_n)$ of positive numbers satisfying $v_1 + \cdots + v_n = n$, define the $v$-quasinorm $| ~ |_v$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ by setting $$\|{\mathbf{x}}\|_v := \max |x_i|^{1/v_i}.$$ Following [@BaBeVe] we say that a multivariable approximating function $\Psi$ satisfies property $\mathbf{P}$ if $\Psi({\mathbf{a}}) = \psi(\|{\mathbf{a}}\|_v)$ for some approximating function $\psi$ and $v$ as above. As noted in loc. cit. when $v = (1, \dots, 1)$ we have that $\|{\mathbf{a}}\|_v = \|{\mathbf{a}}\|$ and any approximating function $\psi$ satisfies property $\mathbf{P}$, where $\psi$ is regarded as the function ${\mathbf{a}}\to \psi(\|{\mathbf{a}}\|)$. The proof of Theorem \[thm:divergence\] can be modified to deal with the case of functions satisfying property $\mathbf{P}$.
Structure of the paper {#structure-of-the-paper .unnumbered}
----------------------
In the next section, we recall the transference principle of Beresnevich and Velani. The subsequent section studies $(C, \alpha)$-good functions in the $S$-adic setting. We then prove Theorem \[thm:main\] and then Theorem \[thm:divergence\]. We conclude with some open questions.
Inhomogeneous transference principle
====================================
In this section we state the inhomogeneous transference principle of Beresnevich and Velani from [@BeVe Section 5] which will allow us to convert our inhomogeneous problem to the homogeneous one. Let $(\Omega, d)$ be a locally compact metric space. Given two countable indexing sets $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathbf{T}$, let H and I be two maps from ${\mathbf{T}}\times {\mathcal{A}}\times {\mathbb{R}}_{+}$ into the set of open subsets of $\Omega$ such that
$$\label{H_fn}
H~:~(t, \alpha, \lambda) \in {\mathbf{T}}\times {\mathcal{A}}\times {\mathbb{R}}_{+} \to H_{\mathbf{t}}(\alpha, \lambda)$$
\
and $$\label{I_fn}
I~:~ (t, \alpha, \lambda) \in {\mathbf{T}}\times {\mathcal{A}}\times {\mathbb{R}}_{+} \to I_{\mathbf{t}}(\alpha, \lambda)$$\
Furthermore, let $$\label{defH}
H_{{\mathbf{t}}} (\lambda) := \bigcup_{\alpha \in {\mathcal{A}}} H_{\mathbf{t}}(\alpha, \lambda) \text{ and } I_{{\mathbf{t}}} (\lambda) := \bigcup_{\alpha \in {\mathcal{A}}} I_{\mathbf{t}}(\alpha, \lambda).$$
Let $\Psi$ denote a set of functions $\psi: {\mathbf{T}}\to {\mathbb{R}}_{+}~:~{\mathbf{t}}\to \psi_{{\mathbf{t}}}$. For $\psi \in \Psi$, consider the limsup sets
$$\label{deflambda}
\Lambda_{H}(\psi) = \limsup_{{\mathbf{t}}\in {\mathbf{T}}} H_{{\mathbf{t}}}(\psi_{{\mathbf{t}}}) \text{ and } \Lambda_{I}(\psi) = \limsup_{{\mathbf{t}}\in {\mathbf{T}}} I_{{\mathbf{t}}}(\psi_{{\mathbf{t}}}).$$
The sets associated with the map $H$ will be called homogeneous sets and those associated with the map $I$, inhomogeneous sets. We now come to two important properties connecting these notions.
The intersection property {#the-intersection-property .unnumbered}
-------------------------
The triple $(H, I, \Psi)$ is said to satisfy the intersection property if, for any $\psi \in \Psi$, there exists $\psi^{*} \in \Psi$ such that, for all but finitely many ${\mathbf{t}}\in {\mathbf{T}}$ and all distinct $\alpha$ and $\alpha'$ in ${\mathcal{A}}$, we have that $$\label{inter}
I_{{\mathbf{t}}}(\alpha, \psi_{{\mathbf{t}}}) \cap I_{{\mathbf{t}}}(\alpha', \psi_{{\mathbf{t}}}) \subset H_{{\mathbf{t}}}(\psi^{*}_{{\mathbf{t}}}).$$
The contraction property {#the-contraction-property .unnumbered}
------------------------
Let $\mu$ be a non-atomic finite doubling measure supported on a bounded subset $\mathbf{S}$ of $\Omega$. We recall that $\mu$ is doubling if there is a constant $\lambda > 1$ such that, for any ball $B$ with centre in ${\mathbf{S}}$, we have $$\mu(2B) \leq \lambda \mu(B),$$ where, for a ball $B$ of radius $r$, we denote by $cB$ the ball with the same centre and radius $cr$. We say that $\mu$ is contracting with respect to $(I, \Psi)$ if, for any $\psi \in \Psi$, there exists $\psi^{+}\in \Psi$ and a sequence of positive numbers $\{k_{{\mathbf{t}}}\}_{{\mathbf{t}}\in {\mathbf{T}}}$ satisfying $$\label{conv}
\sum_{{\mathbf{t}}\in {\mathbf{T}}}k_{{\mathbf{t}}} < \infty,$$ such that, for all but finitely ${\mathbf{t}}\in {\mathbf{T}}$ and all $\alpha \in {\mathcal{A}}$, there exists a collection $C_{{\mathbf{t}}, \alpha}$ of balls $B$ centred at $\mathbf{S}$ satisfying the following conditions: $$\label{inter1}
{\mathbf{S}}\cap I_{{\mathbf{t}}}(\alpha, \psi_{{\mathbf{t}}}) \subset \bigcup_{B \in C_{{\mathbf{t}}, \alpha}} B$$
$$\label{inter2}
{\mathbf{S}}\cap \bigcup_{B \in C_{{\mathbf{t}}, \alpha}} B \subset I_{{\mathbf{t}}}(\alpha, \psi^{+}_{{\mathbf{t}}})$$
and
$$\label{inter3}
\mu(5B \cap I_{{\mathbf{t}}}(\alpha, \psi_{{\mathbf{t}}})) \leq k_{{\mathbf{t}}} \mu(5B).$$
We are now in a position to state Theorem $5$ from [@BeVe]
\[transfer\] Suppose that $(H, I, \Psi)$ satisfies the intersection property and that $\mu$ is contracting with respect to $(I, \Psi)$. Then $$\label{eq:transfer1}
\mu(\Lambda_{H}(\psi))=0 ~\forall~\psi \in \Psi \Rightarrow \mu(\Lambda_{I}(\psi)) = 0 ~\forall~\psi \in \Psi.$$
$(C, \alpha)$-good functions
============================
In this section, we recall the important notion of $(C, \alpha)$-good functions on ultrametric spaces. We follow the treatment of Kleinbock and Tomanov [@KT]. Let $X$ be a metric space, $\mu$ a Borel measure on $X$ and let $(F, |\cdot|)$ be a local field. For a subset $U$ of $X$ and $C, \alpha > 0$, say that a Borel measurable function $f : U \to F$ is $(C, \alpha)$-good on $U$ with respect to $\mu$ if for any open ball $B \subset U$ centred in ${\operatorname{sup}}\mu$ and $\varepsilon > 0$ one has $$\label{gooddef}
\mu \left(\{ x \in B \big| |f(x)| < \varepsilon \} \right) \leq
C\left(\displaystyle \frac{\varepsilon}{\sup_{x \in
B}|f(x)|}\right)^{{\alpha}}|B|,$$ The following elementary properties of $(C,
{\alpha})$-good functions will be used.
1. If $f$ is $(C,{\alpha})$-good on an open set $V$, so is $\lambda
f~\forall~\lambda \in
F$;\
2. If $f_i, i \in I$ are $(C,{\alpha})$-good on $V$, so is $\sup_{i \in
I}|f_i|$;\
3. If $f$ is $(C,{\alpha})$-good on $V$ and for some $c_1,c_2\,\textgreater \,0,\, c_1\leq
\frac{|f(x)|}{|g(x)|}\leq c_2
\text{ for all }x \in V$, then g is $(C(c_2/c_1)^{{\alpha}},{\alpha})$-good on $V$.\
4. If $f$ is $(C,{\alpha})$-good on $V$, it is $(C',\alpha')$-good on $V'$ for every $C' \geq \max\{C,1\}$, $\alpha' \leq \alpha$ and $V'\subset V$.
One can note that from (G2), it follows that the supremum norm of a vector valued function ${\mathbf{f}}$ is $(C,{\alpha})$-good whenever each of its components is $(C,{\alpha})$-good. Furthermore, in view of (G3), we can replace the norm by an equivalent one, only affecting $C$ but not ${\alpha}$.
Polynomials in $d$ variables of degree at most $k$ defined on local fields can be seen to be $(C, 1/dk)$-good, with $C$ depending only on $d$ and $k$ using Lagrange interpolation. In [@KM], [@BKM] and [@KT] (for ultrametric fields), this property was extended to smooth functions satisfying certain properties. We rapidly recall, following [@S] (see also [@KT]), the definition of smooth functions in the ultrametric case. Let $U$ be a non-empty subset of $X$ without isolated points. For $n \in \mathbb{N}$, define $$\nabla^{n}(U) = \{(x_1,\dots,x_n) \in U, x_i \neq x_j \text{ for } i \neq j \}.$$ The $n$-th order difference quotient of a function $f : U \to X$ is the function $\Phi_n(f) $ defined inductively by $\Phi_0 (f) =
f$ and, for $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$, and $(x_1,\dots,x_{n+1}) \in \nabla^n(U)$ by $$\Phi_{n}f(x_1,\dots,x_{n+1}) = \frac{\Phi_{n-1}f(x_1,x_3,\dots,x_{n+1}) -
\Phi_{n-1}f(x_2,\dots,x_{n+1})}{x_1-x_2}.$$
This definition does not depend on the choice of variables, as all difference quotients are symmetric functions. A function $f$ on $X$ is called a $C^n$ function if $\Phi_n f$ can be extended to a continuous function $\bar{\Phi}_{n}f : U^{n+1} \to X $. We also set $$D_n f(a) = \overline{\Phi_n}f(a,\dots,a),~a \in U.$$ We have the following theorem (c.f. [@S], Theorem $29.5$).
\[derivative\] Let $f \in C^{n}(U \to X)$. Then, $f$ is $n$ times differentiable and $$j!D_j f = f^j$$ for all $1 \leq j \leq n$.
To define $C^{k}$ functions in several variables, we follow the notation set forth in [@KT]. Consider a multiindex $\beta =
(i_1,\dots,i_d)$ and let $$\Phi_{\beta}f = \Phi^{i_1}_{1}\circ \dots \circ \Phi^{i_d}_{d} f.$$ This difference order quotient is defined on the set $
\nabla^{i_1}U_1 \times \dots \times \nabla^{i_d}U_d$ and the $U_i$ are all non-empty subsets of $X$ without isolated points. A function $f$ will then be said to belong to $C^{k}(U_1\times \dots
\times U_d)$ if for any multiindex $\beta$ with $|\beta| = \sum_{j =
1}^{d} i_j \leq k$, $\Phi_{\beta} f$ extends to a continuous function $\bar{\Phi}_{\beta}f : U_{1}^{i_1 + 1} \times \dots \times
U_{d}^{i_d + 1}$. We then have $$\label{multivanish}
\partial_{\beta}f(x_1,\dots,x_d) = \beta!
\bar{\Phi}_{\beta}(x_1,\dots,x_1,\dots,x_d,\dots,x_d)$$ where $\beta ! = \prod_{j = 1}^{d} i_{j}!$.\
We are now ready to gather the results on ultrametric $(C, \alpha)$-good functions that we need. We begin with Theorem $3.2$ from [@KT].
\[theorem 3.2\] Let $V_1,V_2,\cdots,V_3$ be nonempty open sets in F, ultrametric field. Let $ k\in {\mathbb{N}}$, $A_1,\cdots,A_d> 0 $ and $ f\in C^k(V_1\times\cdots,\times V_n) $ be such that $$\label{eqn 3.3}
|\Phi_j^kf|\equiv A_j \text{ on } \nabla^{k+1}V_j\times\prod_{i\neq j}V_j , j=1,\cdots,d.$$ Then f is $(dk^{3-\frac{1}{k}},\frac{1}{dk})$-good on $V_1\times\cdots,\times V_n$
The following is an ultrametric analogue of Proposition 1 from [@BaBeVe].
\[Calpha\_Prop\] Let $U_\nu$ be an open subset of ${\mathbb{Q}}_\nu ^d,$ ${\mathbf{x}}_0 \in U_\nu$ and let $\mathcal{F}\subset C^l(U)$ be a compact family of functions $f: U\to {\mathbb{Q}}_\nu $ for some $l\geq 2$. Also assume that $$\label{3.4}
\inf_{f\in\mathcal{F}}\max_{0<|\beta|\leq l} \ |\partial_{\beta}f({\mathbf{x}}_0)|>0.$$
Then there exists a neighbourhood $V_\nu\subset U_\nu$ of ${\mathbf{x}}_0$ and $C, \delta > 0$ satisfying the following property. For any $\Theta\in C^l(U)$ such that $$\label{theta_cond}
\sup_{{\mathbf{x}}\in U_\nu} \max_{0<|\beta|\leq l} \ |\partial_{\beta}\Theta({\mathbf{x}}_0)|\leq \delta$$ and for any $f\in \mathcal {F}$ we have that
1. $f+\Theta $ is $(C,\frac{1}{dl})$-good on $V_\nu$.
2. $|\nabla(f+\Theta)|$ is $ \left(C,\frac{1}{m(l-1)}\right)$-good on $V_\nu$
We follow the proof of [@BaBeVe], which in turn is a modification of the ideas used to establish Proposition 3.4 in [@BKM]. Here $\nu=\infty$ is exactly Proposition 1 of [@BaBeVe] so we assume that $\nu\neq\infty$. By (\[3.4\]) there exists $C_1 > 0$ such that for any $f\in \mathcal{F}$ there exists a multiindex $\beta$ with $0<|\beta|=k\leq l $ , where $k=k(f)$ such that $$\label{3.6}
|\partial_{\beta} f ({\mathbf{x}}_0)|\geq C_1.$$ By the compactness of $\mathcal{F}$, $\inf_{f\in\mathcal{F}}\max_{|\beta|\leq l} \ |\partial_{\beta}f({\mathbf{x}}_0)|$ will be actually attained for some f and we may take that value to be $C_1$. Since there are finitely many $\beta$, we can consider the subfamily $\mathcal{F}_\beta:=\{f\in\mathcal{F}\ |\ \partial_{\beta} f ({\mathbf{x}}_0)|\geq C_1\} $, which is also compact in $C^l(U)$ and satisfies (\[3.4\]). Proving the theorem for $\mathcal{F}_\beta$ will yield sets $U_\beta$ where (1) and (2) above hold. Setting $V_{\nu} := \bigcap_{\beta} U_{\beta}$ then proves the Proposition. We may therefore assume without loss of generality that $\beta$ is the same for every $f\in\mathcal{F}$.\
We wish to apply Theorem 3.2 of [@KT] and to do so we need to satisfy (\[eqn 3.3\]). We are going to show that there exists $A\in {\operatorname{GL}}_d(\mathcal{O})$ such that $f\circ A$ has the property (\[eqn 3.3\]). For $A\in {\operatorname{GL}}_d(\mathcal{O})$ we have, by the chain rule that $$\label{lin_sys1}
\begin{array}{rcr}
\partial_{1}^{k}f\circ A(A {^{\text{-}1}}{\mathbf{x}}_0) &=& \sum_{\sum i_j=k, i_j\geq 0} C_{(i_1,\cdots,i_d)} a_{11}^{i_1}\cdots a_{d1}^{i_d} \ \partial_{\beta=(i_1,\cdots,i_d)}^k f({\mathbf{x}}_0) \\
\vdots \\
\partial_{d}^{k}f\circ A(A{^{\text{-}1}}{\mathbf{x}}_0) &=& \sum_{\sum i_j=k, i_j\geq 0} C_{(i_1,\cdots,i_d)} a_{1d}^{i_1}\cdots a_{dd}^{i_d} \ \partial_{\beta=(i_1,\cdots,i_d)}^k f({\mathbf{x}}_0).
\end{array}$$ We want $A=(a_{ij})$ such that every element in the left side of (\[lin\_sys1\]) above is nonzero knowing that for at least one $\beta ,\ \partial_{ \beta=(i_1,\cdots,i_k)}^k f({\mathbf{x}}_0)\neq 0 $. Namely, we wish to find $A\in {\operatorname{GL}}_d(\mathcal{O}) $ such that $x'_i\neq 0$ for every $i$ where $$\begin{array}{rcr}
x'_1 &= & \sum C_{(i_1,\cdots,i_d)} \ a_{11}^{i_1}\cdots a_{d1}^{i_d} \ x_{(i_1,\cdots,i_d)}\\
\vdots \\
x'_d &=& \sum C_{(i_1,\cdots,i_d)} \ a_{1d}^{i_1}\cdots a_{dd}^{i_d} \ x_{(i_1,\cdots,i_k)}
\end{array}$$ i.e. $$\begin{array}{rcr}
x'_1&=& g(a_{11},\cdots,a_{d1}) \\
\vdots \\
x'_d&=& g(a_{1d},\cdots,a_{dd})
\end{array}$$ and $g$ is a homogeneous polynomial of degree k. We already know that $ \partial_{ \beta=(i_1,\cdots,i_k)}^k f({\mathbf{x}}_0)\neq 0$ for at least one $\beta$, so at least one $x_{(i_1,\cdots,i_k)}\neq 0$ and thus $g $ is a nonzero polynomial.
Now $ g $ should have at least one nonzero value on $\{1+\pi\mathcal{O}\}\times\{\pi\mathcal{O}\} \times\cdots\times\{\pi\mathcal{O}\}$, otherwise $g$ is identically zero. So take $(a_{11},\cdots,a_{1d})$ to be the point of the aforementioned set where $g(a_{11},\cdots,a_{1d})\neq 0$. Then by a similar argument choose $(a_{i1},\cdots,a_{id})\in \{\pi\mathcal{O}\}\times\cdots\times\{1+\pi\mathcal{O}\} \times\cdots\times\{\pi\mathcal{O}\}$ such that $g(a_{i1},\cdots,a_{id})\neq 0$. Choosing $A$ this way we will automatically get that $\det(A)$ is a unit, which implies that $A\in {\operatorname{GL}}_d(\mathcal{O})$. Thus we have that for $f\in\mathcal{F}$ there exists $A_f\in {\operatorname{GL}}_d(\mathcal{O})$ depending on $f$ such that $$\label{der_nonzero}
\min_{i=1,\cdots,d} |\partial_i^k f\circ A_f (A_f{^{\text{-}1}}({\mathbf{x}}_0) )|>0$$ in fact there exists a uniform $C>0$ such that $$\min_{i=1,\cdots,d} |\partial_i^k f\circ A_f (A_f{^{\text{-}1}}({\mathbf{x}}_0) )|>C.$$ This is because we can take $$C=\inf_{f\in\mathcal{F}}\sup_{A\in {\operatorname{GL}}_d(\mathcal{O})}\min_{i=1,\cdots,d} |\partial_i^k f\circ A (A{^{\text{-}1}}({\mathbf{x}}_0) )|,$$ which is nonzero. For if not, then there exists $\{f_n\} \in\mathcal{F}$ such that $$\sup_{A\in {\operatorname{GL}}_d(\mathcal{O})}\min_{i=1,\cdots,d} |\partial_i^k f_n\circ A (A{^{\text{-}1}}({\mathbf{x}}_0) )|<\frac{1}{n}.$$ Since $\mathcal{F}$ is compact, $\{f_n\}$ has a convergent subsequence $\{f_{n_k}\}\to f\in\mathcal{F}$. Taking limits, we get that $$\min_{i=1,\cdots,d} |\partial_i^k f\circ A (A{^{\text{-}1}}({\mathbf{x}}_0) )|=0 \ \forall \ A \in {\operatorname{GL}}_d(\mathcal{O}),$$ which is a contradiction to (\[der\_nonzero\]). Consider the following map $$\Phi_1: {\operatorname{GL}}_d({\mathbb{Q}}_\nu)\times C^l(U_\nu)\times U_\nu \longmapsto {\mathbb{Q}}_\nu$$ $$(A,f,{\mathbf{x}})\mapsto \min_{i=1,\cdots,d} |\partial_i^k f\circ A (A{^{\text{-}1}}({\mathbf{x}})|.$$ It can be easily verified that $\Phi_1$ is continuous. For every $f\in\mathcal{F}$ there exists $A_f \in {\operatorname{GL}}_d(\mathcal{O}) $ such that $\Phi_1(A_f,f,{\mathbf{x}}_0)\geq C>\frac{C}{2},$ so by continuity we have an open neighbourhood $U_{A_f}\times U_f\times U_{({\mathbf{x}}_0,f)}$ of $ (A_f,f,{\mathbf{x}}_0)$ such that $$\Phi_1(A,g,{\mathbf{x}}) >\frac{C}{2} \
\forall \ (A,g,{\mathbf{x}}) \in U_{A_f}\times U_f\times U_{({\mathbf{x}}_0,f)}.$$ In particular, $$\label{unicondition}
\Phi_1(A_f,g,{\mathbf{x}})>\frac{C}{2} \ \forall g\in U_f \text{ and } \forall \ {\mathbf{x}}\in U_{({\mathbf{x}}_0,f)}.$$ Now $\mathcal{F}\subset \bigcup_{f} U_f,$ must have a finite subcovering $\{U_{f_i}\}_{i=1}^{r}$. So by (\[unicondition\]) we have that for every ${\mathbf{x}}\in U_{{\mathbf{x}}_0}=\bigcap_{i=1}^r U_{({\mathbf{x}}_0f_i)} $ and $f\in\mathcal{F}$ there exists $A_{f_i}$ such that $$\label{final_cond}
\Phi_1(A_{f_i},f,{\mathbf{x}}) >\frac{C}{2}.$$
Choose $\delta=\frac{C}{4u}$ where $ u $ is the constant coming from the inequality $$|\partial_i^k\Theta\circ T(T{^{\text{-}1}}{\mathbf{x}})| \leq u \max_{|\beta|\leq l}|\partial_{ \beta} f({\mathbf{x}}) |$$ for $T\in {\operatorname{GL}}_d(\mathcal{O})$. Thus any $\Theta $ satisfying (\[theta\_cond\]) will also satisfy $$\Phi_1(A_{f_i},f+\Theta,{\mathbf{x}})>\frac{C}{4} \ \ \forall \ {\mathbf{x}}\in U_{{\mathbf{x}}_0}.$$ By the compactness of $\mathcal{F}$ and (\[theta\_cond\]) there is a uniform upper bound for every $f\in\mathcal{F}$ and $\Theta $ of the aforementioned type. Now applying Theorem \[theorem 3.2\] we have that $f+(\Theta\circ A_{f_i})$ is $(dk^{3-\frac{1}{k}},\frac{1}{dk})$-good on $A_{f_i}^{-1} U_{{\mathbf{x}}_0}$. Therefore, $f+\Theta$ is $(dk^{3-\frac{1}{k}},\frac{1}{dk})$-good on $U_{{\mathbf{x}}_0}$. This completes the proof of the first part.\
Now consider the set $\mathcal{F}_{A_{f_i}}= \{f\in\mathcal{F} \ | \ \Phi_1(A_{f_i},f,{\mathbf{x}}_0)\geq \frac{C}{2}\}$. Clearly this is a closed subset of the compact set $\mathcal{F}$, so it is also compact. Therefore $\{\partial_j(f\circ A_{f_i}) | \ f\in\mathcal{F}_{A_{f_i}} \}$ is also compact being the image of a compact set under a continuous map. Since $\mathcal{F} \subset \bigcup_{i=1,\cdots,r} \mathcal{F}_{A_{f_i}}$, we may, without loss of generality, take the same $A$ for every $f\in \mathcal{F}$. Now we want to apply the first part of this Proposition. Suppose $|\beta| \geq 2 $ in (\[3.6\]), then to apply part(1) we have to check condition (\[3.4\]) for the set $\{\partial_j(f\circ A) | \ f\in\mathcal{F} \}$, where we know that $\Phi_1(A,f,{\mathbf{x}}_0)\geq \frac{C}{2}$. Suppose $$\inf_{f\in\mathcal{F}}\max_{|\beta|\leq l-1}|\partial_{ \beta}\partial_{j}(f\circ A)(A{^{\text{-}1}}({\mathbf{x}}_0))|=0.$$ Then by compactness of $\mathcal{F}$ we have that for some $f\in\mathcal{F}$, $$\max_{|\beta|\leq l-1}|\partial_{ \beta}\partial_{j}(f\circ A)(A{^{\text{-}1}}({\mathbf{x}}_0))|=0,$$ which implies that $\Phi_1(A,f,{\mathbf{x}}_0)=0,$ which is a contradiction. Thus by applying the first part of the Proposition we get that for every $j=1,\cdots,d , \partial_j((f+\Theta)\circ A)$ is $(C_\star,\frac{1}{d(l-1)})$-good on an open neighbourhood $B_{A{^{\text{-}1}}({\mathbf{x}}_0)}$ of $A{^{\text{-}1}}({\mathbf{x}}_0)$. So $(\partial_j(f+\Theta\circ A))\circ A{^{\text{-}1}}$ is $(C_\star,\frac{1}{d(l-1)})$-good on $A(B_{A{^{\text{-}1}}({\mathbf{x}}_0)})$. Therefore each $\partial_j(f+\Theta)$ is $(C_\star,\frac{1}{d(l-1)})$-good on $A(B_{A{^{\text{-}1}}({\mathbf{x}}_0)})$ and so is $|\nabla (f+\Theta)|$. The case $|\beta|=1$ in (\[3.6\]) is trivial (See property (G3) of $(C,\alpha)$-good functions). This completes the proof.
As a Corollary, we have,
\[good\_corollary\] Let $U_\nu$ be an open subset of ${\mathbb{Q}}_\nu^{d\nu}, {\mathbf{x}}_0\in U_\nu$ be fixed and assume that ${\mathbf{f}}_\nu=(f_\nu^{(1)},f_\nu^{(2)},\dots,f_\nu^{(n)}):
U_\nu\to {\mathbb{Q}}_\nu^n $ satisfies (I2) and (I3) and that $\Theta_\nu $ satisfies (I5). Then there exists a neighbourhood $V_\nu\subset U_\nu$ of ${\mathbf{x}}_0$ and positive constants $ C > 0 $ and $l\in {\mathbb{N}}$ such that for any $(a_0,{\mathbf{a}})\in \mathcal{O}^{n+1},$
1. $a_0+{\mathbf{a}}.{\mathbf{f}}_{\nu}+\Theta_\nu$ is $(C,\frac{1}{d_\nu l})$-good on $V_\nu,$ and
2. $|\nabla({\mathbf{a}}.{\mathbf{f}}_\nu +\Theta_\nu)| $ is $ (C,\frac{1}{d_\nu(l-1)})$-good on $V_\nu$.
For the case $\nu=\infty$, see Corollary $3$ of [@BaBeVe] and also [@BKM]. So we may assume $\nu\neq \infty.$ Let $\mathcal{F}:= \{a_0+{\mathbf{a}}.{\mathbf{f}}_\nu+\Theta_\nu \ |\ (a_0,{\mathbf{a}})\in\mathcal{O}^{n+1}\}$. This is a compact family of functions of $C^l(U_\nu)$ for every $l>0 $ since $\mathcal{O}$ is compact in ${\mathbb{Q}}_\nu$. Now if this family satisfies condition (\[3.4\]) for some $l\in {\mathbb{N}}$, then the conclusion follows from the previous Proposition. Hence we may assume that the family does not satisfy (\[3.4\]) for every $l\in {\mathbb{N}}$. Then by the continuity of differential and the compactness of $\mathcal{O}$, there exists ${\mathbf{c}}_l\in \mathcal{O}^n$ such that for every $2 \leq l\in {\mathbb{N}}$ we have $$\max_{|\beta|\leq l}|\partial_{ \beta}({\mathbf{c}}_l.f_\nu+\Theta_\nu)({\mathbf{x}}_0)| > 0.$$ Now this sequence $\{{\mathbf{c}}_l\} \in\mathcal{O}^n$ has a convergent subsequence $\{{\mathbf{c}}_{l_k}\}$ converging to ${\mathbf{c}}\in \mathcal{O}^n$ since $\mathcal{O}^n$ is compact. By taking limits we get that $$|\partial_{ \beta}({\mathbf{c}}.f_\nu+\Theta_\nu)({\mathbf{x}}_0)|=0 \ \forall \ \beta.$$ However, as each of the ${\mathbf{f}}_{\nu}$ and $\Theta_\nu$ are analytic on $U_\nu,$ there exists a neighbourhood $V_{{\mathbf{x}}_0}$ of ${\mathbf{x}}_0$ such that $$({\mathbf{c}}.f_\nu+\Theta_\nu)({\mathbf{x}})=u\ \forall \ {\mathbf{x}}\in V_{{\mathbf{x}}_0},$$ where $u \in {\mathbb{Q}}_\nu$ is a constant. Therefore replacing $\Theta_\nu$ by $u-{\mathbf{c}}.{\mathbf{f}}_{\nu},$ we get that $$\mathcal{F}=\{ a_0+u+({\mathbf{a}}-{\mathbf{c}}).{\mathbf{f}}_{\nu} \ | (a_0,{\mathbf{a}})\in \mathcal{O}^{n+1} \}.$$ First consider the case where $|a_0+u| < 2|{\mathbf{a}}-{\mathbf{c}}|,$ then $$\mathcal{F}_1= \left\{\frac{a_0+u}{|{\mathbf{a}}-{\mathbf{c}}|}+\frac{{\mathbf{a}}-{\mathbf{c}}}{|{\mathbf{a}}-{\mathbf{c}}|}.{\mathbf{f}}_\nu |\ (a_0,{\mathbf{a}})\in\mathcal{O}^{n+1}\right\}$$ is compact in $C^l(U_\nu)$ for every $l\in {\mathbb{N}}$. Then by linear independence of $1,f_\nu^{(1)},\cdots,f_\nu^{(n)},$ $\mathcal{F}_1$ satisfies (\[3.4\]) for some $l\in{\mathbb{N}}$. And then by Proposition \[Calpha\_Prop\] we can conclude that every element in $\mathcal{F}_1$ is $(C,\frac{1}{d_\nu l})$-good on some $V_\nu\subset V_{{\mathbf{x}}_0}\subset U_\nu$ together with conclusion (2) of the Corollary above. This also implies $ a_0+u+({\mathbf{a}}-{\mathbf{c}}).{\mathbf{f}}_{\nu} $ are all $(C,\frac{1}{d_\nu l})$ good on $V_\nu$ for all $(a_0,{\mathbf{a}})\in\mathcal{O}^{n+1}$ with $|a_0+u| < 2|{\mathbf{a}}-{\mathbf{c}}|$. Otherwise $$\sup_{{\mathbf{x}}\in V_{{\mathbf{x}}_0}}|a_0+u+({\mathbf{a}}-{\mathbf{c}}).{\mathbf{f}}_{\nu}|\leq 3.\inf_{{\mathbf{x}}\in V_{{\mathbf{x}}_0}}|a_0+u+({\mathbf{a}}-{\mathbf{c}}).{\mathbf{f}}_{\nu}|$$ as $|a_0+u|\geq 2|{\mathbf{a}}-{\mathbf{c}}| $ and it turns out to be a trivial case. This implies that for $C\geq 3$ and $0<\alpha\leq1$ the aforementioned functions are $(C,\alpha)$-good.
Let us recall the following Corollary from [@KT] (Corollary 2.3).
[\[product\_good\]]{} For $ j=1,\cdots,n,$ let $X_j$ be a metric space, $\mu_j$ be a measure on $X_j $. Let $ U_j\subset X_j $ be open, $C_j,\alpha_j >0 $ and let $f$ be a function on $U_1\times\cdots \times U_d$ such that for any $j=1,\cdots d$ and any $x_i\in U_i$ with $i\neq j,$ the function $${\label{fun}}
y~~\mapsto f(x_1,\cdots,x_{j-1}, y, x_{j+1},\cdots, x_d)$$ is $(C_j,\alpha_j)$-good on $U_j$ with respect to $\mu_j$. Then $f$ is $(\widetilde{C},\widetilde{\alpha}) $ -good on $U_1\times\cdots\times U_d $ with respect to $\mu_1\times\cdots\times\mu_d,$ where $\widetilde{C}=d,\widetilde{\alpha }$ are computable in terms of $C_j,\alpha_j $. In particular, if each of the functions (\[fun\]) is $(C,\alpha)$-good on $U_j$ with respect to $\mu_j$, then the conclusion holds with $\widetilde{\alpha}=\frac{\alpha}{d}$ and $\widetilde{C}=dC$.
Now combining Corollary (\[good\_corollary\]) and (\[product\_good\]) we can state the following:
\[good\_function\] Let ${\mathbf{f}}$ and $\Theta$ be as in Corollary (\[good\_corollary\]) and let ${\mathbf{x}}_0\in {\mathbf{U}}.$ Then there exists a neighbourhood ${\mathbf{V}}\subset{\mathbf{U}}$ of ${\mathbf{x}}_0$ and $C>0, k,k_1\in{\mathbb{N}}$ such that for any $(a_0,{\mathbf{a}})\in{\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1} $ the following holds:
1. $ {\mathbf{x}}~\mapsto ~|(a_0+{\mathbf{a}}.{\mathbf{f}}+\Theta )({\mathbf{x}})|_S\text{ is } (C,\frac{1}{dk})-\text{good on } {\mathbf{V}}$,
2. ${\mathbf{x}}~\mapsto~\|\nabla({\mathbf{a}}.{\mathbf{f}}_{\nu}+\Theta_\nu)({\mathbf{x}}_{\nu})\| \text{ is } (C,\frac{1}{dk_1})-\text{ good on } {\mathbf{V}}, \forall ~\nu\in S$
where $d=\max{d_\nu}$.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:main\]
=============================
We set $\phi(\nu)=\left\{\begin{array}{rl} -\varepsilon & \text{ if } \nu\neq\infty \\
1-\varepsilon & \text{ if }\nu=\infty
\end{array} \right.
$.
From the definition, it follows that ${\mathcal{W}}_{\Psi,\Theta}^{{\mathbf{f}}}$ admits a description as a limsup set. Namely, $${{\mathcal{W}}_{\Psi,\Theta}^{{\mathbf{f}}}}=\limsup_{{\mathbf{a}}\to \infty}{\mathbf{W}}_{\mathbf{f}}({\mathbf{a}},\Psi,\Theta)$$ where $${\mathbf{W}}_{\mathbf{f}}({\mathbf{a}},\Psi,\Theta)=\{{\mathbf{x}}\in{\mathbf{U}}:| a_0+ {\mathbf{a}}\cdot {\mathbf{f}}({\mathbf{x}})+\Theta({\mathbf{x}})|_S^l\leq \Psi({\mathbf{a}}) \text{ for some } a_0 \} .$$
We may now write $${\mathbf{W}}_{{\mathbf{f}}}^{\text{large}}({\mathbf{a}},\Psi,\Theta)= \left \{{\mathbf{x}}\in {{\mathbf{W}}_{\mathbf{f}}({\mathbf{a}},\Psi,\Theta)}~:~\|\nabla({\mathbf{a}}.{\mathbf{f}}_\nu({\mathbf{x}}_\nu)+\Theta_\nu({\mathbf{x}}_\nu))\|_\nu>\|{\mathbf{a}}\|_S^{\phi(\nu)} ~\forall~\nu \right\}$$ where $0<\varepsilon <\frac{1}{4(n+1)l^2},$ is fixed and $${{\mathbf{W}}_{\mathbf{f}}({\mathbf{a}},\Psi,\Theta)}\setminus{{\mathbf{W}}_{{\mathbf{f}}}^{\text{large}}({\mathbf{a}},\Psi,\Theta)}=\bigcup_{\nu\in S}{\mathbf{W}}_{\nu,{\mathbf{f}}}^{\text{small}}({\mathbf{a}}, \Psi,\Theta)$$ where $${\mathbf{W}}_{\nu,{\mathbf{f}}}^{\text{small}}({\mathbf{a}},\Psi,\Theta)=\left\{{\mathbf{x}}\in{{\mathbf{W}}_{\mathbf{f}}({\mathbf{a}},\Psi,\Theta)}:\|\nabla({\mathbf{a}}.{\mathbf{f}}_\nu({\mathbf{x}}_\nu)+\Theta_\nu({\mathbf{x}}_\nu))\|_\nu\leq\|{\mathbf{a}}\|_S^{\phi(\nu)} \right\}.$$ As the set $S$ is finite, we have
$${{\mathcal{W}}_{\Psi,\Theta}^{{\mathbf{f}}}}={\mathcal{W}}_{{\mathbf{f}}}^{\text{large}}(\Psi,\Theta)\bigcup_{\nu\in S}{\mathcal{W}}_{\nu,{\mathbf{f}}}^{\text{small}}(\Psi,\Theta)$$ where $${\mathcal{W}}_{{\mathbf{f}}}^{\text{large}}(\Psi,\Theta)={\limsup_{{\mathbf{a}}\to\infty}{{\mathbf{W}}_{{\mathbf{f}}}^{\text{large}}({\mathbf{a}},\Psi,\Theta)}}$$ and $${\mathcal{W}}_{\nu,{\mathbf{f}}}^{\text{small}}(\Psi,\Theta)={\limsup_{{\mathbf{a}}\to\infty}{{\mathbf{W}}_{\nu,{\mathbf{f}}}^{\text{small}}({\mathbf{a}},\Psi,\Theta)}}.$$ To prove Theorem \[thm:main\], we will show that each of these limsup sets has zero measure. Namely, the proof is divided into the “large derivative" case where we will show $|{\mathcal{W}}_{{\mathbf{f}}}^{\text{large}}(\Psi,\Theta)|=0$, and the “small derivative" case which involves $|{\mathcal{W}}_{\nu,{\mathbf{f}}}^{\text{small}}(\Psi,\Theta)|=0 \ \forall\ \nu\in S.$
The small derivative
--------------------
We begin by showing that $|{\mathcal{W}}_{\nu,{\mathbf{f}}}^{\text{small}}(\Psi,\Theta)|=0 \ \forall\ \nu\in S$. From the assumed property (I4) of $\Psi$, it follows that $$\Psi({\mathbf{a}})<\Psi_0({\mathbf{a}}) :=\prod_{\substack{i=1,\cdots,n \\ a_i\neq 0}}|a_i|_S{^{\text{-}1}}.$$ So ${\mathcal{W}}_{\nu,{\mathbf{f}}}^{\text{small}}(\Psi,\Theta)\subset {\mathcal{W}}_{\nu,{\mathbf{f}}}^{\text{small}}(\Psi_0,\Theta)$, which means that it is enough to show that $ |{\mathcal{W}}_{\nu,{\mathbf{f}}}^{\text{small}}(\Psi_0,\Theta)|=0 \ \forall\ \nu\in S $. Let us take $\mathcal{A}={\mathbb{Z}}\times{\mathbb{Z}}^n\setminus\{0\} $ and ${\mathbf{T}}={\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}^n $ and define the function
$$\label{r_equation}
r_\nu ({\mathbf{t}})=\left\{\begin{array}{rl}
2^{(|{\mathbf{t}}|+1)(1-\varepsilon)} & \text{if } \nu=\infty\\
\\
2^{-(|{\mathbf{t}}|+1)\varepsilon} & \text{if } \nu\neq\infty
\end{array} \right .$$
where $\varepsilon$ is fixed as before. Now we define sets $ I_{\mathbf{t}}^\nu(\alpha,\lambda) $ and $H_{\mathbf{t}}^\nu(\alpha,\lambda)$ for every $\lambda>0,{\mathbf{t}}\in{\mathbf{T}}\text{ and } \alpha=(a_0, {\mathbf{a}})\in \mathcal{A} $ as follows:\
$$\label{def_I}
I_{\mathbf{t}}^\nu(\alpha,\lambda)=\left\{ {\mathbf{x}}\in{\mathbf{U}}:\begin{array}{l}
|a_0+{\mathbf{a}}.{\mathbf{f}}({\mathbf{x}})+\Theta({\mathbf{x}})|_S^l<\lambda\Psi_0(2^{\mathbf{t}})\\\\
\|\nabla({\mathbf{a}}.{\mathbf{f}}_{\nu}({\mathbf{x}}_\nu)+\Theta_\nu({\mathbf{x}}_\nu))\|_\nu<\lambda r_\nu({\mathbf{t}})\\\\
2^{t_i}\leq \max{\{1,|a_i|_S\}}\leq 2^{t_i+1} \ \forall \ 1\leq i\leq n
\end{array}
\right\}$$ and $$\label{def_H}
H_{\mathbf{t}}^\nu(\alpha,\lambda)=\left\{ {\mathbf{x}}\in{\mathbf{U}}:\begin{array}{l}
|a_0+{\mathbf{a}}.{\mathbf{f}}({\mathbf{x}})|_S^l<2^l\lambda\Psi_0(2^{\mathbf{t}})\\\\
\|\nabla({\mathbf{a}}.{\mathbf{f}}_{\nu}({\mathbf{x}}_\nu))\|_\nu<2\lambda r_\nu({\mathbf{t}})\\\\
|a_i|_S\leq 2^{t_i+2} \ \forall\ 1\leq i \leq n
\end{array}
\right\}$$ where $2^{\mathbf{t}}=(2^{t_1},\cdots,2^{t_n})$ and $|S|=l$. These give us the functions (\[I\_fn\]) and (\[H\_fn\]) required in the inhomogeneous transference principle. As in (\[defH\]) and (\[deflambda\]) we get $H_{\mathbf{t}}^\nu(\lambda)$, $I_{\mathbf{t}}^\nu(\lambda)$, $\Lambda_H^\nu(\lambda)$ and $\Lambda_I^\nu(\lambda)$. Now define $\phi_\delta~:~{\mathbf{T}}\mapsto {\mathbb{R}}_{+}$ as $\phi_\delta({\mathbf{t}}):=2^{\delta|{\mathbf{t}}|}$ for $\delta\in(0,\frac{\varepsilon}{2}] $. Clearly ${\mathcal{W}}_{\nu,{\mathbf{f}}}^{\text{small}}(\Psi_0,\Theta)\subset \Lambda_I^\nu(\phi_\delta) $ for every $\delta\in(0,\frac{\varepsilon}{2}]$. So to settle Case 2 it is enough to show that $$\label{Inhomo_set}
|\Lambda_I^\nu(\phi_\delta)|=0 \text{ for some } \delta\in(0,\frac{\varepsilon}{2}].$$
Now we recall Theorem $1.3$ from [@MoS1].
\[<\] Let $S$ be as in (I0), ${\mathbf{U}}$ be as in (I1), and assume that $\mathbf{f}$ satisfies (I2) and (I3). Then for any ${\mathbf{x}}=({\mathbf{x}}_{\nu})_{\nu\in S}\in {\mathbf{U}}$, one can find a neighborhood $\mathbf{V}=\prod V_{\nu}\subseteq {\mathbf{U}}$ of ${\mathbf{x}}$ and $\alpha_1 >0$ with the following property: for any ball $\mathbf{B}\subseteq \mathbf{V}$, there exists $E>0$ such that for any choice of $0<\delta\le 1$, $T_1,\cdots,T_n\ge 1$, and $K_{\nu}>0$ with $\delta{ (\frac{T_1\cdots
T_n}{\max_i T_i})}\prod K_{\nu}\le 1$ one has
$$\label{<eqn}\left|\left\{{\mathbf{x}}\in\mathbf{B}|\hspace{1mm}\exists\
{\mathbf{a}}\in{\mathbb{Z}}^n\setminus\{0\}:\begin{array}{l}|\langle {\mathbf{a}}.{\mathbf{f}}({\mathbf{x}}) \rangle|^{l}<\delta\\\\
\|{\mathbf{a}}\nabla {\mathbf{f}}_{\nu}({\mathbf{x}}_\nu)\|_{\nu}<K_{\nu},\hspace{2mm}\nu\in S\\\\
|a_i|_S<T_i, 1 \leq i \leq n\end{array}\right\}\right|\le
E\hspace{.5mm}\varepsilon_1^{\alpha_1}|\mathbf{B}|,\hspace{5mm}$$
where $\varepsilon_1=\max\{\delta^\frac{1}{l},(\delta{ (\frac{T_1\cdots
T_n}{\max_i T_i})}\prod K_{\nu})^{\frac{1}{\l(n+1)}}\},$ where $|S|=l$.
The Theorem above is an $S$-adic analogue of Theorem $1.4$ in [@BKM] and is proved using nondivergence estimates for certain flows on homogeneous spaces. We will denote the set in the LHS of (\[<eqn\]) as $S(\delta,K_{\nu_1},\cdots,K_{\nu_l},T_1,\cdots,T_n)$ for further reference.
To show (\[Inhomo\_set\]) we want to use the Inhomogeneous transference principle (\[transfer\]). Assume that $(H_\nu,I_\nu,\Phi)$ satisfies the intersection property and that the product measure is contracting with respect to $(I_\nu,\Phi)$ where, $\Phi:=\{\phi_\delta : 0\leq \delta <\frac{\varepsilon }{2}\} $. Then by (\[transfer\]) it is enough to show that $$\label{homo_condi}
|\Lambda_H^\nu(\phi_\delta)|=0 \text{ for some } 0<\delta \leq\frac{\varepsilon}{2}.$$
Note that $$\Lambda_H^\nu(\phi_\delta)=\limsup_{{\mathbf{t}}\in{\mathbf{T}}} \bigcup_{\alpha\in\mathcal{A}} H_{{\mathbf{t}}}^\nu(\alpha,\phi_\delta({\mathbf{t}})).$$ Using Theorem \[<\], we will show that $$\sum |\cup_{\alpha \in \mathcal{A}}H_{{\mathbf{t}}}^\nu(\alpha,\phi_\delta({\mathbf{t}}))|<\infty$$ for some $0<\delta<\frac{\varepsilon}{2}$. This, together with Borel-Cantelli will give us $|\Lambda_H^\nu(\phi_\delta)|=0$.\
By the definition \[def\_H\] of $H_{{\mathbf{t}}}^\nu(\alpha,\phi_\delta({\mathbf{t}})),$ we get $$\bigcup_{\alpha\in\mathcal{A}}H_{{\mathbf{t}}}^\nu(\alpha,\phi_\delta({\mathbf{t}}))\subset S(2^l\phi_\delta({\mathbf{t}})\Psi_0(2^{{\mathbf{t}}}),1,\cdots ,2.\phi_\delta({\mathbf{t}})r_\nu({\mathbf{t}}),\cdots,1,2^{t_1+2}, \dots, 2^{t_n +2})$$ i.e. here $K_\nu=2\cdot \phi_\delta({\mathbf{t}})r_\nu({\mathbf{t}}), K_\omega=1,$ where $\omega\neq\nu$ and $T_i=2^{t_i+2}$.
Case $1$ $(\nu=\infty)$
-----------------------
Here $r_\infty({\mathbf{t}})=2^{(1-\varepsilon)(|{\mathbf{t}}|+1)}$. So, $$2^l.2^{\delta|{\mathbf{t}}|}\Psi_0(2^{{\mathbf{t}}}).2.2^{\delta|{\mathbf{t}}|}2^{(1-\varepsilon)(|{\mathbf{t}}|+1)}.1.\frac{2^{\sum_{1}^n t_i+2}}{2 ^{|{\mathbf{t}}|}}=2^{2n+l+2-\varepsilon}.2^{|{\mathbf{t}}|(2\delta-\varepsilon)}<1$$ for all large $ {\mathbf{t}}$ as $2\delta-\varepsilon<0$. So by Theorem \[<\] we have $$|\bigcup_{\alpha\in\mathcal{A}}H_{{\mathbf{t}}}^\infty(\alpha,\phi_\delta({\mathbf{t}}))|\leq E\varepsilon_1^{\alpha_1}|\mathbf{B}|,$$ where $\varepsilon_1=\max\{2.2^{\frac{\delta|{\mathbf{t}}|-\sum t_i}{l}},2^{\frac{2n+l+2-\varepsilon}{l(n+1)}}.2^{\frac{|{\mathbf{t}}|(2\delta-\varepsilon)}{l(n+1)}}\}
=2^{\frac{2n+l+2-\varepsilon}{l(n+1)}}.2^{\frac{|{\mathbf{t}}|(2\delta-\varepsilon)}{l(n+1)}}$ for all large ${\mathbf{t}}\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}^n$. We note that $\varepsilon_1$ is ultimately the 2nd term in the parenthesis. Because if not then for infinitely many ${\mathbf{t}}$, $$\frac{\delta|{\mathbf{t}}|-\sum t_i}{l}>\frac{|{\mathbf{t}}|(2\delta-\varepsilon)}{l(n+1)} + O(1)$$ which implies that $$\sum t_i<|{\mathbf{t}}| + O(1),$$ a contradiction. Therefore we have $$|\bigcup_{\alpha\in\mathcal{A}}H_{{\mathbf{t}}}^\infty(\alpha,\phi_\delta({\mathbf{t}}))| \ll 2^{-\gamma|{\mathbf{t}}|},$$ where $\gamma=\frac{(\varepsilon-2\delta)}{l(n+1)}\alpha_1>0$. Hence $$\sum_{{\mathbf{t}}\in {\mathbf{T}}}|\bigcup_{\alpha\in\mathcal{A}}H_{{\mathbf{t}}}^\infty(\alpha,\phi_\delta({\mathbf{t}}))|\ll\sum_{{\mathbf{t}}\in{\mathbf{T}}} 2^{-\gamma|{\mathbf{t}}|}<\infty.$$
Case $2$ ($\nu\neq\infty$)
--------------------------
The argument proceeds as in Case $1$. In this case, $r_\nu({\mathbf{t}})=2^{-\varepsilon (|{\mathbf{t}}|+1)}$. So, $$2^l.2^{\delta|{\mathbf{t}}|}\Psi_0(2^{{\mathbf{t}}}).2.2^{\delta|{\mathbf{t}}|}2^{(-\varepsilon)(|{\mathbf{t}}|+1)}.1.\frac{2^{\sum_{1}^n t_i+2}}{2 ^{|{\mathbf{t}}|}}=2^{2n+l+1-\varepsilon}.2^{|{\mathbf{t}}|(2\delta-\varepsilon-1)}<1$$ for large ${\mathbf{t}}$ as $2\delta-\varepsilon<0$. Therefore, by Theorem \[<\] we have $$|\bigcup_{\alpha\in\mathcal{A}}H_{{\mathbf{t}}}^\nu(\alpha,\phi_\delta({\mathbf{t}}))|\leq E\varepsilon_1^{\alpha_1}|\mathbf{B}|,$$ where $\varepsilon_1=\max\{2^{\frac{\delta|{\mathbf{t}}|-\sum t_i}{l}},2^{\frac{2n+l+1-\varepsilon}{l(n+1)}}.2^{\frac{|{\mathbf{t}}|(2\delta-\varepsilon-1)}{l(n+1)}}\}
=2^{\frac{2n+l+1-\varepsilon}{l(n+1)}}.2^{\frac{|{\mathbf{t}}|(2\delta-\varepsilon-1)}{l(n+1)}}$ for all large ${\mathbf{t}}\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}^n$. As in case $1$, $\varepsilon_1$ is ultimately the 2nd term in the parenthesis. For if not, then for infinitely many ${\mathbf{t}}$, $$\frac{\delta|{\mathbf{t}}|-\sum t_i}{l}>\frac{|{\mathbf{t}}|(2\delta-\varepsilon-1)}{l(n+1)}+ O(1)$$ which implies that $$\sum t_i<2|{\mathbf{t}}|+ O(1).$$
This gives a contradiction. Therefore we have $$|\bigcup_{\alpha\in\mathcal{A}}H_{{\mathbf{t}}}^\nu(\alpha,\phi_\delta({\mathbf{t}}))|\ll 2^{-\gamma|{\mathbf{t}}|},$$ where $\gamma=\frac{(\varepsilon-2\delta+1)}{l(n+1)}\alpha_1>0$. Hence $$\sum_{{\mathbf{t}}\in {\mathbf{T}}}|\bigcup_{\alpha\in\mathcal{A}}H_{{\mathbf{t}}}^\nu(\alpha,\phi_\delta({\mathbf{t}}))|\ll \sum_{{\mathbf{t}}\in{\mathbf{T}}} 2^{-\gamma|{\mathbf{t}}|}<\infty.$$
Consequently the only thing left to verify are the intersection and contracting properties of the transference principle.
We will consider $|.|$ the measure to be restricted on some bounded open ball ${\mathbf{V}}_{{\mathbf{x}}_0}$ around ${\mathbf{x}}_0\in {\mathbf{U}}$. Then we will get $|\Lambda^\nu_{I}(\phi_\delta)\cap{\mathbf{V}}_{{\mathbf{x}}_0} |=0$. But because the space is second countable, we eventually get $|\Lambda^\nu_{I}(\phi_\delta)|=0$.
Verifying the intersection property:
------------------------------------
Let ${\mathbf{t}}\in{\mathbf{T}}$ with $|{\mathbf{t}}|> \frac{l}{1-\frac{\varepsilon}{2}}$. We have to show that for $\phi_\delta$ there exists $\phi_\delta^*$ such that for all but finitely many ${\mathbf{t}}\in {\mathbf{T}}$ and all distinct $\alpha=(a_0,{\mathbf{a}}),\alpha'=(a_0',{\mathbf{a}}_0')\in\mathcal{A},$ we have that $I_{\mathbf{t}}^\nu(\alpha,\phi_\delta({\mathbf{t}}))\cap I_{\mathbf{t}}^\nu(\alpha',\phi_\delta({\mathbf{t}}))\subset H_{\mathbf{t}}^\nu(\phi_\delta^*({\mathbf{t}}))$. Consider $${\mathbf{x}}\in I_{\mathbf{t}}^\nu(\alpha,\phi_\delta({\mathbf{t}}))\cap I_{\mathbf{t}}^\nu(\alpha',\phi_\delta({\mathbf{t}})),$$ then by Definition (\[def\_I\]) we have $$\label{eqn_1}\left\{\begin{array}{l}
|a_0+{\mathbf{a}}.{\mathbf{f}}({\mathbf{x}})+\Theta({\mathbf{x}})|_S<{(\phi_\delta({\mathbf{t}})\Psi_0(2^{\mathbf{t}}))}^\frac{1}{l}\\\\
\|\nabla({\mathbf{a}}.{\mathbf{f}}_{\nu}({\mathbf{x}}_\nu)+\Theta_\nu({\mathbf{x}}_\nu))\|_\nu<\phi_\delta({\mathbf{t}}) r_\nu({\mathbf{t}})\end{array}\right.$$ and $$\label{eqn_2}\left\{\begin{array}{l}
|a'_0+{\mathbf{a}}'.{\mathbf{f}}({\mathbf{x}})+\Theta({\mathbf{x}})|_S<{(\phi_\delta({\mathbf{t}})\Psi_0(2^{\mathbf{t}}))}^\frac{1}{l}\\\\
\|\nabla({\mathbf{a}}'.{\mathbf{f}}_{\nu}({\mathbf{x}}_\nu)+\Theta_\nu({\mathbf{x}}_\nu))\|_\nu<\phi_\delta({\mathbf{t}}) r_\nu({\mathbf{t}})\end{array}\right.$$ where $$|a_i|<2^{t_i+1}\text{ for }1\leq i\leq n \text{ and } |a_i'|<2^{t_i+1}\text{ for } 1\leq i\leq n.$$ Now subtracting the respective equations of (\[eqn\_2\]) from (\[eqn\_1\]) we have $\alpha''=(a_0-a_0',{\mathbf{a}}-{\mathbf{a}}')$ satisfying the following equations $$\label{eqn_3}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
|a''_0+{\mathbf{a}}''.{\mathbf{f}}({\mathbf{x}})|_S^l<2^l\phi_\delta({\mathbf{t}})\Psi_0(2^{\mathbf{t}})\\\\
\|\nabla({\mathbf{a}}''.{\mathbf{f}}_{\nu}({\mathbf{x}}_\nu))\|_\nu<2\phi_\delta({\mathbf{t}}) r_\nu({\mathbf{t}})\\\\
|a''_i|_S\leq 2^{t_i+2} \ \forall\ 1\leq i \leq n .
\end{array} \right.$$ Observe that ${\mathbf{a}}''\neq\mathbf{0}$, because otherwise $$1\leq|a_0''|^l<2^l\phi_\delta({\mathbf{t}})\Psi_0(2^{\mathbf{t}})<2^l.2^{-{(1-\frac{\varepsilon}{2})}|{\mathbf{t}}|},$$ which implies that $|{\mathbf{t}}|\leq\frac{l}{1-\frac{\varepsilon}{2}}$, which is true for the finitely many ${\mathbf{t}}$’s that we are avoiding. Therefore $\alpha''\in\mathcal{A} $ and ${\mathbf{x}}\in H_{\mathbf{t}}^\nu(\alpha'',\phi_\delta({\mathbf{t}}))$. So here the particular choice of $\phi_\delta^*$ is $\phi_\delta$ itself. This verifies the intersection property.
Verifying the Contraction Property :
------------------------------------
Recall that to verify the contraction property we need to verify the following: for any $\phi_\delta\in \Phi $ we need to find $\Phi_\delta^+\in \Phi$ and a sequence of positive numbers $\{k_{{\mathbf{t}}}\}_{{\mathbf{t}}\in{\mathbf{T}}}$ satisfying $$\sum_{{\mathbf{t}}\in{\mathbf{T}}}k_{{\mathbf{t}}}<\infty$$ such that for all but finitely many ${\mathbf{t}}\in{\mathbf{T}}$ and all $\alpha\in\mathcal{A},$ there exists a collection $C_{{\mathbf{t}},\alpha}$ of ball $B$ centred at a point in $\mathbf{S}={\mathbf{V}}={\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mu{\mathbf{V}}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}$ satisfying (\[inter1\]), (\[inter2\]) and (\[inter3\]).\
Let us consider the open set $5{\mathbf{V}}_{{\mathbf{x}}_0}$ in Corollary \[good\_function\]. So we have that for any ${\mathbf{t}}\in {\mathbf{T}}$ and $\alpha=(a_0,{\mathbf{a}})\in \mathcal{A}$ $$\mathbf{F}^\nu_{{\mathbf{t}},\alpha}({\mathbf{x}}) :~=\max\{\Psi_0{^{\text{-}1}}(2^{\mathbf{t}})r_\nu({\mathbf{t}})|a_0+{\mathbf{a}}.{\mathbf{f}}({\mathbf{x}})+\Theta({\mathbf{x}})|_S^l,\|\nabla({\mathbf{a}}.{\mathbf{f}}_{\nu}+\Theta_\nu)({\mathbf{x}}_\nu)\|\}$$ is $(C,\frac{1}{dk})$-good on $5{\mathbf{V}}_{{\mathbf{x}}_0}$ for some $C>0,k\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and $d=\max d_\nu$. Using this new function $\mathbf{F}^\nu_{{\mathbf{t}},\alpha},$ we can write the previous inhomogeneous sets as following :$$I_{\mathbf{t}}^\nu(\alpha,\phi_\delta({\mathbf{t}}))=\left\{{\mathbf{x}}\in{\mathbf{U}}:\begin{array}{l}
\mathbf{F}^\nu_{{\mathbf{t}},\alpha}({\mathbf{x}})<\phi_\delta({\mathbf{t}})r_\nu({\mathbf{t}})\\
\\
2^{t_i}\leq\max\{1,|a_i|_S\}<2^{t_i+1} ~~\forall~ 1\leq i\leq n
\end{array}\right\}.$$\[inhom\_new\] We also note that $$I_{\mathbf{t}}^\nu(\alpha,\phi_\delta({\mathbf{t}}))\subset I_{\mathbf{t}}^\nu(\alpha,\phi^+_\delta({\mathbf{t}}))$$ where $\phi_\delta^+({\mathbf{t}})=\phi_{\frac{\delta}{2}+\frac{\varepsilon}{4}} ({\mathbf{t}})\geq \phi_\delta({\mathbf{t}}) ~\forall~ {\mathbf{t}}\in{\mathbf{T}}$. And $\phi_\delta^+({\mathbf{t}})=\phi_{\frac{\delta}{2}+\frac{\varepsilon}{4}}({\mathbf{t}})\in\Phi $ because $\frac{\delta}{2}+\frac{\varepsilon}{4}<\frac{\varepsilon}{2} .$ If $I_{\mathbf{t}}^\nu(\alpha,\phi_\delta({\mathbf{t}}))=\emptyset$ then it is trivial. So without loss of generality we can assume that $ I_{\mathbf{t}}^\nu(\alpha,\phi_\delta({\mathbf{t}})) \ne \emptyset $. Because for every $\phi_\delta \in \Phi $ , $\phi_\delta({\mathbf{t}}) \Psi_0(2^{\mathbf{t}})<2^{-(1-\frac{\varepsilon}{2})|{\mathbf{t}}|}$, so in particular $$I_{\mathbf{t}}^\nu(\alpha,\phi_\delta^+({\mathbf{t}}))\subset \{{\mathbf{x}}\in {\mathbf{U}}~:~|a_0+{\mathbf{a}}.{\mathbf{f}}({\mathbf{x}})+\Theta({\mathbf{x}})|^l<2^{-(1-\frac{\varepsilon}{2})|{\mathbf{t}}|}\}.$$ We recall Corollary 4 of [@BaBeVe] , $$\inf_{\substack{({\mathbf{a}}, a_0) \in{\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}\setminus\{0\} \\ \|{\mathbf{a}}\| \geq H_0}}\sup_{{\mathbf{x}}\in5{\mathbf{V}}_{{\mathbf{x}}_0}}|a_0+{\mathbf{a}}.{\mathbf{f}}_\infty({\mathbf{x}}_\infty)+\Theta_\infty({\mathbf{x}}_\infty)|_\infty>0.$$ Therefore, $$\inf_{\substack{({\mathbf{a}}, a_0)\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}\setminus\{0\} \\ \|{\mathbf{a}}\|\geq H_0 }}\sup_{{\mathbf{x}}\in5{\mathbf{V}}_{{\mathbf{x}}_0}}|a_0+{\mathbf{a}}.{\mathbf{f}}({\mathbf{x}})+\Theta({\mathbf{x}})|_S >$$ $$\inf_{\substack{({\mathbf{a}}, a_0)\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}\setminus\{0\} \\ \|{\mathbf{a}}\| \geq H_0}}\sup_{{\mathbf{x}}\in5{\mathbf{V}}_{{\mathbf{x}}_0}}|a_0+{\mathbf{a}}.{\mathbf{f}}_\infty({\mathbf{x}}_\infty)+\Theta_\infty({\mathbf{x}}_\infty)|_\infty
> 0.$$ Now by the $(C,\frac{1}{dk})$-good property of the function $|a_0+{\mathbf{a}}.{\mathbf{f}}({\mathbf{x}})+\Theta({\mathbf{x}})|_S^l$ on $5{\mathbf{V}}_{{\mathbf{x}}_0}$ we conclude $$|I_{\mathbf{t}}^\nu(\alpha,\phi_\delta^+({\mathbf{t}}))\cap{\mathbf{V}}_{{\mathbf{x}}_0}|\leq |\{{\mathbf{x}}\in {\mathbf{V}}_{{\mathbf{x}}_0} ~:~|a_0+{\mathbf{a}}.{\mathbf{f}}({\mathbf{x}})+\Theta({\mathbf{x}})|_S^l<2^{-(1-\frac{\varepsilon}{2})|{\mathbf{t}}|}\}|$$ $$\ll2^{-(1-\frac{\varepsilon}{2})(\frac{1}{dk})|{\mathbf{t}}|}|{\mathbf{V}}_{{\mathbf{x}}_0}|$$ for all sufficiently large $|{\mathbf{t}}|.$ Therefore ${\mathbf{V}}_{{\mathbf{x}}_0}\not\subset I_{{\mathbf{t}}}^\nu(\alpha,\phi^+_\delta({\mathbf{t}}))$ for sufficiently large $|{\mathbf{t}}|$ . The measure restricted to ${\mathbf{V}}_{{\mathbf{x}}_0}$ will be denoted as $|~~|_{{\mathbf{V}}_{{\mathbf{x}}_0}}$ and thus $\mathbf{S}={\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mu{\mathbf{V}}_{{\mathbf{x}}_0}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}$. So $\mathbf{S}\cap I_{{\mathbf{t}}}^\nu(\alpha,\phi^+_\delta{\mathbf{t}}) $ is open and for every ${\mathbf{x}}\in \mathbf{S}\cap I_{{\mathbf{t}}}^\nu(\alpha,\phi_\delta({\mathbf{t}}) $ there exists a ball $$B'({\mathbf{x}})\subset I_{{\mathbf{t}}}^\nu(\alpha,\phi^+_\delta({\mathbf{t}})).$$ So we can find $\kappa\geq 1$ such that the ball $B=B({\mathbf{x}}):=\kappa B'({\mathbf{x}})$ satisfies $$5 B({\mathbf{x}})\subset 5V_{{\mathbf{x}}_0}$$ and $$\label{twosided_inclusion}
B({\mathbf{x}})\cap \mathbf{S}\subset I_{{\mathbf{t}}}^\nu(\alpha,\phi^+_{\delta}({\mathbf{t}}))\not\supset {\mathbf{S}}\cap 5B({\mathbf{x}})$$ holds for all but finitely many ${\mathbf{t}}$ . The second inequality holds because we would otherwise have ${\mathbf{V}}_{{\mathbf{x}}_0}\subset I_{{\mathbf{t}}}^\nu(\alpha,\phi^+_{\delta}({\mathbf{t}}))$, a contradiction. Then take $C_{{\mathbf{t}},\alpha}:=\{B({\mathbf{x}})~:~ {\mathbf{x}}\in \mathbf{S}\cap I_{{\mathbf{t}}}^\nu(\alpha,\phi_{\delta}({\mathbf{t}}))\} $. Hence (\[inter1\]) and (\[inter2\]) are satisfied. By (\[twosided\_inclusion\]) we have $$\label{ineq_1}
\sup_{{\mathbf{x}}\in 5B}\mathbf{F}_{{\mathbf{t}},\alpha}^\nu({\mathbf{x}})\geq \sup_{{\mathbf{x}}\in 5B\cap S} \mathbf{F}_{{\mathbf{t}},\alpha}^\nu({\mathbf{x}})\geq \phi_\delta^+({\mathbf{t}})r_\nu({\mathbf{t}})$$ for all but finitely many ${\mathbf{t}}$. So in view of the definitions we get $$\label{ineq_2}
\sup_{{\mathbf{x}}\in 5B\cap I_{{\mathbf{t}}}^\nu(\alpha,\phi_{\delta}({\mathbf{t}})) }\mathbf{F}_{{\mathbf{t}},\alpha}^\nu({\mathbf{x}})\leq 2^{(\frac{\delta}{2}-\frac{\varepsilon}{4})|{\mathbf{t}}| }\phi_\delta^+({\mathbf{t}})r_\nu({\mathbf{t}})\leq_{\ref{ineq_1}}2^{(\frac{\delta}{2}-\frac{\varepsilon}{4})|{\mathbf{t}}|}\sup_{{\mathbf{x}}\in 5B}\mathbf{F}_{{\mathbf{t}},\alpha}^\nu({\mathbf{x}}).$$ Therefore for all large $|{\mathbf{t}}|$ and $\alpha \in {\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1}$ we have $$\begin{split}
|5B\cap I_{{\mathbf{t}}}^\nu(\alpha,\phi_{\delta}({\mathbf{t}}))|\leq_{\ref{ineq_2}} &
|\{ {\mathbf{x}}\in 5B~:~\mathbf{F}_{{\mathbf{t}},\alpha}^\nu({\mathbf{x}})\leq
2^{(\frac{\delta}{2}-\frac{\varepsilon}{4})|{\mathbf{t}}|}
\sup_{{\mathbf{x}}\in 5B}\mathbf{F}_{{\mathbf{t}},\alpha}^\nu({\mathbf{x}}) \} |\\ &\leq C2^{(\frac{\delta}{2}-\frac{\varepsilon}{4})\frac{1}{dk}|{\mathbf{t}}|}|5B|.\end{split}$$ Hence finally we conclude $$\begin{split}
|5B\cap I_{{\mathbf{t}}}^\nu(\alpha,\phi_{\delta}({\mathbf{t}}))|_{{\mathbf{V}}}\leq|5B\cap I_{{\mathbf{t}}}^\nu(\alpha,\phi_{\delta}({\mathbf{t}}))|
&
\\\leq C2^{(\frac{\delta}{2}-\frac{\varepsilon}{4})\frac{1}{dk}|{\mathbf{t}}|}|5B|&\\ \leq
C_\star C2^{(\frac{\delta}{2}-\frac{\varepsilon}{4})\frac{1}{dk}|{\mathbf{t}}|}|5B|_{{\mathbf{V}}_{{\mathbf{x}}_0}},
\end{split}$$ since $5B\subset5{\mathbf{V}}_{{\mathbf{x}}_0}$. Here we are using that the measure is doubling and the centre of the ball $5B$ is in ${\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mu{\mathbf{V}}_{{\mathbf{x}}_0}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}$. So $C_\star$ is only dependent on $d_\nu$. We choose $k_{{\mathbf{t}}}=C_\star C2^{(\frac{\delta}{2}-\frac{\varepsilon}{4})\frac{1}{dk}|{\mathbf{t}}|}$ and as $(\frac{\delta}{2}-\frac{\varepsilon}{4})<0$ we also have $\sum k_{{\mathbf{t}}}<\infty$ as required in (\[conv\]). This verifies the contracting property.
The large derivative
--------------------
In this section, we will show that $|{\mathcal{W}}_{{\mathbf{f}}}^{\text{large}}(\Psi,\Theta)|=0$. Let us recall Theorem 1.2 from [@MoS1].
Assume that $\mathbf{U}$ satisfies (I1), $\mathbf{f}$ satisfies (I2), (I3) and $0<\epsilon< \frac{1}{4n|S|^2}.$ Let $\mathcal{A}$ be $$\left\{{\mathbf{x}}\in{\mathbf{U}}|~\exists~{\mathbf{a}}\in{\mathbb{Z}}^n, \frac{T_i}{2}\leq~|a_i|_{S}<T_i,
\begin{array}{l}|\langle {\mathbf{a}}. {\mathbf{f}}({\mathbf{x}}) \rangle|^{l}<\delta(\prod_{i} T_i)^{-1}\\\\
\|{\mathbf{a}}. \nabla {\mathbf{f}}_{\nu}({\mathbf{x}}_\nu)\|_{\nu}>\|{\mathbf{a}}\|_S^{-\varepsilon},\hspace{2mm}\nu\neq\infty\\\\
\|{\mathbf{a}}. \nabla {\mathbf{f}}_{\nu}({\mathbf{x}}_\nu)\|_{\nu}>\|{\mathbf{a}}\|_S^{1-\varepsilon},\hspace{2mm}\nu=\infty
\end{array}
\right\}.$$ Then $|\mathcal{A}|<C \delta\hspace{1mm}|{\mathbf{U}}|,$ for large enough $\max (T_i)$ and a universal constant $C$.
Note that the function $({\mathbf{f}},\Theta):{\mathbf{U}}~\mapsto {\mathbb{Q}}_S^{n+1}$ satisfies the same properties as ${\mathbf{f}}$. So as a Corollary of the previous theorem we get,
\[>coro\] Let $0<\varepsilon< \frac{1}{4(n+1)|S|^2}$ and $\mathcal{A}_{(T_i)_{1}^n}$ be the set $$\bigcup_{\substack{({\mathbf{a}},1)\in{\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1}\\\frac{T_i}{2}\leq~|a_i|_{S}<T_i}}\left\{{\mathbf{x}}\in{\mathbf{U}}~|\\
\begin{array}{l}|\langle {\mathbf{a}}. {\mathbf{f}}({\mathbf{x}})+\Theta({\mathbf{x}}) \rangle|_S^{l}<\delta(\prod_{i=1}^{n} T_i)^{-1}\\\\
\|\nabla( {\mathbf{a}}{\mathbf{f}}_{\nu}(x)+\Theta_\nu({\mathbf{x}}_{\nu}))\|_{\nu}>\|{\mathbf{a}}\|_S^{-\varepsilon},\hspace{2mm}\nu\neq\infty\\\\
\|\nabla ({\mathbf{a}}{\mathbf{f}}_{\nu}(x_\nu)+\Theta_\nu({\mathbf{x}}_{\nu}))\|_{\nu}>\|{\mathbf{a}}\|_S^{1-\varepsilon},\nu=\infty
\end{array}
\right\}.$$ Then $|\mathcal{A}_{(T_i)_{1}^n}
|<C \delta\hspace{1mm}|{\mathbf{U}}|,$ for large enough $\max (T_i)$ and a universal constant $C$.
Now take $T_i=2^{t_i+1}$ and $\delta=2^{\sum_{1}^n t_i+1}\Psi(2^{{\mathbf{t}}})$. As $2^{t_i}\leq|a_i|_S<2^{t_i+1},$ this implies by (\[monotone\_cond\]) that $\Psi({\mathbf{a}})\geq \Psi(2^{{\mathbf{t}}+1})$ and we have using (\[>coro\]) that $$\label{>measure_inq}
|\bigcup_{2^{t_i}\leq|a_i|_S<2^{t_i+1}}{\mathbf{W}}_{{\mathbf{f}}}^{\text{large}}({\mathbf{a}},\Psi,\Theta)|<C2^{\sum_{1}^n t_i+1}\Psi(2^{{\mathbf{t}}}).$$ Note that $$\sum\Psi({\mathbf{a}})\geq\sum\Psi(2^{t_1+1},\cdots,2^{t_n+1})2^{\sum_{1}^n t_i},$$ so the convergence of $\sum\Psi({\mathbf{a}})$ implies the convergence of the later. Therefore by (\[>measure\_inq\]) and by the Borel-Cantelli lemma we get that almost every point of ${\mathbf{U}}$ are in at most finitely many ${\mathbf{W}}_{{\mathbf{f}}}^{\text{large}}({\mathbf{a}},\Psi,\Theta)$. Hence $|{\mathcal{W}}_{{\mathbf{f}}}^{\text{large}}(\Psi,\Theta)|=0$ completing the proof.
The divergence theorem for ${\mathbb{Q}}_p$
===========================================
In this section we prove Theorem \[thm:divergence\] using ubiquitous systems as in [@BaBeVe]. In [@BBKM], the related notion of regular systems was used. As mentioned in the introduction, the divergence case will be proved for a more restrictive choice of approximating function than the convergence case, namely for those satisfying property $\mathbf{P}$. Indeed a more general formulation which includes the multiplicative case of the divergence Khintchine theorem remains an outstanding open problem even for submanifolds in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$. Without loss of generality, and in an effort to keep the notation reasonable, we will prove the Theorem for the usual norm, i.e. we will assume ${\mathbf{v}}= (1, \dots, 1)$. The interested reader can very easily make the minor changes required to prove it for general ${\mathbf{v}}$. For $\delta > 0$ and $Q > 1$ we follow [@BaBeVe] in defining $\Phi^{{\mathbf{f}}}(Q,\delta) := \{x \in U~:~ \exists~{\mathbf{a}}=(a_0,{\mathbf{a}}_1) \in {\mathbb{Z}}\times{\mathbb{Z}}^n\backslash \{0\}$ such that $$|a_0+ {\mathbf{a}}_1 \cdot {\mathbf{f}}({\mathbf{x}})|_p < \delta Q^{-{(n+1)}} \text{ and } \|(a_0,{\mathbf{a}}_1)\| \leq Q\}.$$ We now recall definition of a $\mathit{nice}$ function.
\[nice\] We say that ${\mathbf{f}}$ is *nice* at ${\mathbf{x}}_0\in {\mathbf{U}}$ if there exists a neighbourhood ${\mathbf{U}}_0\subset {\mathbf{U}}$ of ${\mathbf{x}}_0$ and constants $0<\delta, w<1$ such that for any sufficiently small ball ${\mathbf{B}}\subset {\mathbf{U}}_0$ we have that $$\limsup_{Q\to \infty}|\Phi^{{\mathbf{f}}}(Q,\delta)\cap {\mathbf{B}}|\leq w|{\mathbf{B}}|.$$
If ${\mathbf{f}}$ is *nice* at almost every ${\mathbf{x}}_0$ in ${\mathbf{U}}$ then ${\mathbf{f}}$ is called *nice*. The following Theorem from [@MoS2] plays a crucial role. It’s proof involves a suitable adaptation of the dynamical technique in [@BKM].
[[@MoS2]]{}\[lemma:nice\] Assume that ${\mathbf{f}}:{\mathbf{U}}\to {\mathbb{Q}}_p^n$ is nondegenerate at ${\mathbf{x}}\in {\mathbf{U}}$. Then there exists a sufficiently small ball ${\mathbf{B}}_0\subset {\mathbf{U}}$ centred at ${\mathbf{x}}_0$ and a constant $C>0$ such that for any ball ${\mathbf{B}}\subset {\mathbf{B}}_0$ and any $\delta>0 $, for sufficiently large $Q$, one has $$|\Phi^{{\mathbf{f}}}(Q,\delta)\cap {\mathbf{B}}|\leq C\delta |{\mathbf{B}}|.$$
This implies that if ${\mathbf{f}}$ is nondegenerate at ${\mathbf{x}}_0$ then ${\mathbf{f}}$ is nice at ${\mathbf{x}}_0$. We will now state the main two theorems of this section. Let $\psi : \mathbb{N} \to {\mathbb{R}}_{+}$ be a decreasing function.
\[thm:nice\] Assume that ${\mathbf{f}}:{\mathbf{U}}\subset{\mathbb{Q}}_p^m\to {\mathbb{Q}}_p^n$ is nice and satisfies the standing assumptions (I1 and I2) and that $s>m-1$. Let $\Theta:{\mathbf{U}}\to {\mathbb{Q}}_p$ be an analytic map satisfying assumption (I5). Let $\Psi({\mathbf{a}})=\psi(\|{\mathbf{a}}\|) ,{\mathbf{a}}\in{\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1} $ be an approximating function. Then, $$\label{main sum}
\mathcal{H}^s(\mathcal{W}^{\mathbf{f}}_{(\Psi,\Theta)}\cap{\mathbf{U}})=\mathcal{H}^s({\mathbf{U}}) \text{ if } \sum (\Psi({\mathbf{a}}))^{s+1-m}=\infty.$$
In view of Theorem \[lemma:nice\], Theorem \[thm:nice\] implies Theorem \[thm:divergence\]. Note that condition (I3) implies the nondegeneracy of ${\mathbf{f}}$ at every point of ${\mathbf{U}}$.
Ubiquitous Systems in ${\mathbb{Q}}_p^n$
-----------------------------------------
Let us recall the the definition of Ubiquitous systems in ${\mathbb{Q}}_p^n$ following [@BaBeVe]. Throughout, balls in ${\mathbb{Q}}_p^m$ are assumed to be defined in terms of the supremum norm $|\cdot|$. Let ${\mathbf{U}}$ be a ball in ${\mathbb{Q}}_p^m$ and $\mathcal{R}=(R_\alpha)_{\alpha\in J}$ be a family of subsets $R_\alpha\subset {\mathbb{Q}}_p^m$ indexed by a countable set $J$. The sets $R_\alpha$ are referred to as *resonant sets*. Throughout, $\rho\;:\;{\mathbb{R}}^+\to{\mathbb{R}}^+$ will denote a function such that $\rho(r)\to0$ as $r\to\infty$. Given a set $A\subset {\mathbf{U}}$, let $$\Delta(A,r):=\{{\mathbf{x}}\in {\mathbf{U}}\;:\; {\operatorname{dist}}({\mathbf{x}},A)<r\}$$ where ${\operatorname{dist}}({\mathbf{x}},A):=\inf\{|{\mathbf{x}}-{\mathbf{a}}|: {\mathbf{a}}\in A\}$. Next, let $\beta\;:\;J\to {\mathbb{R}}^+\;:\;\alpha\mapsto\beta_\alpha$ be a positive function on $J$. Thus the function $\beta$ attaches a ‘weight’ $\beta_\alpha$ to the set $R_\alpha$. We will assume that for every $t\in {\mathbb{N}}$ the set $J_t=\{\alpha\in J: \beta_\alpha\le 2^t\}$ is finite.\
\
**The intersection conditions:** There exists a constant $\gamma$ with $ 0 \leq \gamma \leq m$ such that for any sufficiently large $t$ and for any $\alpha\in J_t$, $c\in{\mathcal{R}}_\alpha$ and $0< \lambda \le \rho(2^t)$ the following conditions are satisfied: $$\label{i1}
\big|{\mathbf{B}}(c, {\mbox{\small
$\frac{1}{2}$}}\rho(2^t))\cap\Delta(R_\alpha,\lambda)\big| \geq c_1 \,
|{\mathbf{B}}(c,\lambda)|\left(\frac{\rho(2^t)}{\lambda}\right)^{\gamma}$$ $$\label{i2}
\big|{\mathbf{B}}\cap
{\mathbf{B}}(c,3\rho(2^t))\cap\Delta(R_\alpha,3\lambda)\big| \leq c_2 \,
|{\mathbf{B}}(c,\lambda)| \left(\frac{r({\mathbf{B}})}{\lambda}\right)^{\gamma} $$ where ${\mathbf{B}}$ is an arbitrary ball centred on a resonant set with radius $r({\mathbf{B}})\le 3 \, \rho(2^t)$. The constants $c_1$ and $ c_2$ are positive and absolute. The constant $\gamma$ is referred to as the *common dimension* of ${\mathcal{R}}$.
Suppose that there exists a ubiquitous function $\rho$ and an absolute constant $k>0$ such that for any ball ${\mathbf{B}}\subseteq {\mathbf{U}}$ $$\label{coveringproperty}
\liminf_{t\to\infty} \left|\bigcup_{\alpha\in
J_t}\Delta(R_\alpha,\rho(2^t))\cap {\mathbf{B}}\right| \ \ge \ k\,|{\mathbf{B}}|.$$ Furthermore, suppose that the intersection conditions and are satisfied. Then the system $(\mathcal{R}, \beta)$ is called *locally ubiquitous in ${\mathbf{U}}$ relative to $\rho$.*
Let $(\mathcal{R},\beta)$ be a ubiquitous system in ${\mathbf{U}}$ relative to $\rho$ and $\phi$ be an approximating function. Let $\Lambda(\phi)$ be the set of points ${\mathbf{x}}\in {\mathbf{U}}$ such that the inequality $$\label{vb+}
{\operatorname{dist}}({\mathbf{x}},R_{\alpha})<\phi(\beta_\alpha)$$ holds for infinitely many $\alpha\in J$.\
We are going to use this following ubiquity lemma from [@BaBeVe] in our main proof.
\[ubi\] Let $\phi$ be an approximating function and $(\mathcal{R},\beta)$ be a locally ubiquitous system in ${\mathbf{U}}$ relative to $\rho$. Suppose that there is a $0<\lambda<1$ such that $\rho(2^{t+1})<\lambda\rho({2^t})~\forall~ t \in {\mathbb{N}}.$ Then for any $s>\gamma,$ $$\mathcal{H}^s(\Lambda(\phi))=\mathcal{H}^s({\mathbf{U}}) \text{ if }\sum_{t=1}^\infty \frac{{\phi(2^t)}^{s-\gamma}}{{\rho(2^t)}^{m-\gamma}}=\infty.$$
We will also need the strong approximation theorem mentioned in [@Zelo].
\[Strong\] For any $\bar \epsilon = (\epsilon_{\infty},(\epsilon_{p}))
\in \mathbb{R}_{>0}^{2}$ satisfying the inequality $$\epsilon_{\infty} \geq
\frac{1}{2} \epsilon_{p}^{-1} p,$$ there exists a rational number $r \in \mathbb{Q}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
&| r - \xi_{\infty} |_{\infty} \leq \epsilon_{\infty},
\\
&| r - \xi_{p} |_{p} \leq \epsilon_{p}
,
\\
&| r |_{q} \leq 1
\quad \forall~q \neq p.
\end{aligned}$$
Before we start the proving the main theorem in this section we would like to calculate a covolume formula of certain lattices.
\[covolume\] Suppose $|y_i|_p\leq 1$ then $$\Gamma=\left\{
(q_0, q_1,\cdots, q_n)\in{\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1} :
\begin{array}{l}
|q_0 + q_1y_1+\cdots+ q_ny_n|_p\leq\frac{1}{p^j},\\\\
|q_i|_p\leq \frac{1}{p}\\\\
i=1,\cdots n
\end{array}\right\}.$$ is a lattice in ${\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1} $ and ${\operatorname{Vol}}({\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}/\Gamma)= p^{j+n}$.
First of all $\Gamma$ is a discrete subgroup of ${\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1}$. Clearly $(p^j,0,\cdots,0)\in{\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1} $ is in $\Gamma$. Since $|y_i|_p\leq 1$ we may take $q_i\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ such that $$\label{q_conditions}
|q_i-py_i|_p\leq\frac{1}{p^j},$$ which implies that $(q_i,0,\cdots,-p,\cdots,0)\in \Gamma$ where $-p$ is in $(i+1)$th position. We claim that $$\{(p^j,0,\cdots,0),(q_i,0,\cdots,-p,\cdots,0)\ | \ i=1,\cdots,n\}$$ is a basis of $\Gamma$. The matrix comprising these elements as column vectors as follows $$A:= \begin{bmatrix}
p^j & q_1 & & \dots &q_i &\dots & q_n\\
0 & -p & & \dots &0 &\dots & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & &\vdots&\vdots &\vdots &\vdots,\\
0 & 0 & & \dots &-p &\dots & 0\\
\vdots & \vdots & &\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\vdots \\
0 & 0 & &\dots &0 &\dots & -p
\end{bmatrix}.$$ We want to show that if $\mathbf{m}=(m_0,m_1,\cdots,m_n)\in \Gamma $ then there exists $\mathbf{s}=(s_o,s_1,\cdots,s_n)\in {\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1}$ such that $A\mathbf{s}=\mathbf{m}$. Note that $$A{^{\text{-}1}}\mathbf{m} = \left(\frac{m_0p+q_1m_1+\cdots+q_nm_n}{p^{j+1}},-\frac{m_1}{p},\cdots,-\frac{m_n}{p}\right).$$ As $\mathbf{m}\in \Gamma$ we have that $p|m_i~\forall~ i=1,\cdots,n,$ hence $-\frac{m_i}{p}$ is an integer for all $i$. Now it is enough to show that $p^{j+1} | (m_0p+q_1m_1+\cdots+m_nq_n)$. Note that $$m_0p+m_1q_1+\cdots+m_nq_n= p(m_0+m_1y_1+\cdots+m_ny_n)+m_1(q_1-y_1p)+\cdots+m_n(q_n-y_np).$$ Now conclusion follows from $\mathbf{m}\in\Gamma$ and (\[q\_conditions\]).
Now we will construct a ubiquitous system which will give the main result of this section.
\[ubiquity\] Let ${\mathbf{x}}_0\in {\mathbf{U}}$ be such that ${\mathbf{f}}$ is *nice* at ${\mathbf{x}}_0$ and satisfies (I3). Then there is a neighbourhood ${\mathbf{U}}_0$ of ${\mathbf{x}}_0,$ constants $\kappa_0>0$ and $\kappa_1>0$ and a collection ${\mathcal{R}}:=(R_F)_{F\in\mathcal{F}_n}$ of sets $R_F\subset \widetilde{R_F}\cap {\mathbf{U}}_0$ such that the system $({\mathcal{R}},\beta)$ is locally ubiquitous in ${\mathbf{U}}_0$ relative to $\rho(r)=\kappa_1r^{(n+1)} $ with common dimension $\gamma:=m-1,$ where $$\mathcal{F}_n:=\left\{F:{\mathbf{U}}\to{\mathbb{R}}\ |\begin{array}{l} F({\mathbf{x}})= a_0+a_1f_1({\mathbf{x}})+\cdots+a_nf_n({\mathbf{x}}),\\\\
{\mathbf{a}}=(a_0,a_1,\cdots,a_n)\in{\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1}\setminus\mathbf{0} \end{array} \right \}$$ and given $F\in\mathcal{F}_n$ $$\widetilde{R_F}:=\{{\mathbf{x}}\in{\mathbf{U}}:\ (F+\Theta)({\mathbf{x}}) \ =\ 0\}$$ and $$\beta:\ \mathcal{F}_n\to {\mathbb{R}}^+\ : F\to \ \beta_F=\kappa_0|(a_0,a_1,\cdots,a_n)|=\kappa_0|{\mathbf{a}}|.$$
Let $\pi:\ {\mathbb{Q}}_p^m\to{\mathbb{Q}}_p^{m-1}$ be the projection map given by $$\pi(x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_m)=(x_2,\cdots,x_m),$$ and let $$\widetilde{\mathbf{V}}:=\pi(\widetilde R_F\cap{\mathbf{U}}_0),
\\
{\mathbf{V}}=\bigcup_{3\rho(\beta_F)-\text{balls} B\subset \widetilde{{\mathbf{V}}}}\frac{1}{2}B$$ and $$R_F=\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\pi{^{\text{-}1}}({\mathbf{V}})\cap\widetilde{R_F} \ \text{if} \ \ |\partial_1(F+\Theta)({\mathbf{x}})|> \lambda|\nabla(F+\Theta)({\mathbf{x}})| \ \forall \ {\mathbf{x}}\in {\mathbf{U}}_0\\\\
\emptyset \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \text{otherwise}.
\end{array}\right
.$$ where $0<\lambda<1$ is fixed.\
We claim that the $R_F$ are resonant sets. The intersection property, namely (\[i1\]) and (\[i2\]) can be checked exactly as in the case of real numbers as accomplished in [@BaBeVe], Proposition 5. We only need to note that implicit function theorem for $C^l(U)$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ was used in [@BaBeVe]. The Implicit function theorem in ${\mathbb{Q}}_p$ holds for analytic maps and all our maps have been assumed analytic, so the proof in [@BaBeVe] goes through verbatim.
It remains to check the covering property (\[coveringproperty\]) to establish ubiquity. Without loss of generality we will assume that the ball ${\mathbf{U}}_0$ in the definition of (\[nice\]) satisfies $${\operatorname{diam}}{{\mathbf{U}}_0}\leq \frac{1}{p}.$$ From the Definition \[nice\] of ${\mathbf{f}}$ being nice at ${\mathbf{x}}_0,$ there exist fixed $0<\delta,w<1$ such that for any arbitrary ball ${\mathbf{B}}\subset{\mathbf{U}}_0,$ $$\limsup_{Q\to \infty}|\Phi^{{\mathbf{f}}}(Q,\delta)\cap \frac{1}{2}{\mathbf{B}}|\leq w|\frac{1}{2}{\mathbf{B}}|.$$ So for sufficiently large $Q$ we have that $$|\frac{1}{2}{\mathbf{B}}\setminus \Phi^{{\mathbf{f}}}(Q,\delta)|\geq \frac{1}{2}(1-w)|\frac{1}{2}{\mathbf{B}}|=2^{-m-1}(1-w)|{\mathbf{B}}|.$$ Therefore it is enough to show that $$\frac{1}{2}{\mathbf{B}}\setminus \Phi^{{\mathbf{f}}}(Q,\delta)\subset\bigcup _{F\in\mathcal{F}_n\\
\beta_F\leq Q}\Delta(R_F,\rho(Q))\cap{\mathbf{B}}.$$ Suppose ${\mathbf{x}}\in \frac{1}{2}{\mathbf{B}}\setminus \Phi^{{\mathbf{f}}}(Q,\delta).$ Consider the lattice $$\Gamma_{{\mathbf{x}}}=\left\{(a_0,a_1,\cdots,a_n)\in{\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1}: \begin{array}{l}|a_0+a_1f_1({\mathbf{x}})+\cdots+a_nf_n({\mathbf{x}})|_p<\delta Q^{-(n+1)}\\\\
|a_i|_p\leq\frac{1}{p} \ \forall \ {1\leq i\leq n}\end{array}\right\},$$ and the convex set $K=[-Q,Q]^{n+1}$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$. Note that $$|a_o+a_1f_1({\mathbf{x}})+\cdots+a_nf_n({\mathbf{x}})|_p<\delta Q^{-(n+1)}$$ if and only if $$|a_o+a_1f_1({\mathbf{x}})+\cdots+a_nf_n({\mathbf{x}})|_p\leq {p^{[\log_p\delta Q^{-(n+1)}]}}.$$ So by Lemma \[covolume\] we have that $${\operatorname{Vol}}({\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}/\Gamma)=p.p^n.p^{-[\log_pQ^{-(n+1)}\delta]}\leq p^{n+1}\frac{1}{p^{log_p{\delta Q^{-(n+1)}-1}}}\leq Q^{n+1}\frac{p^{n+2}}{\delta}.$$ Using the fact that ${\mathbf{x}}\notin \Phi^{{\mathbf{f}}}(Q,\delta) $ we get the first minima $\lambda_1=\lambda_1(\Gamma_{{\mathbf{x}}},K)>1$. Therefore using Minkowski’s theorem on successive minima, we have that $$2^{n+1}Q^{n+1}\lambda_1.\lambda_2.\cdots.\lambda_{n+1}\leq 2^{n+1}{\operatorname{Vol}}({\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}/\Gamma_{{\mathbf{x}}})\leq 2^{n+1}Q^{n+1}\frac{p^{n+2}}{\delta}.$$ This implies that $\lambda_{n+1}\leq \frac{p^{n+2}}{\delta}.$ By the definition of $\lambda_{n+1}$ we get $n+1$ linearly independent integer vectors ${\mathbf{a}}_j=(a_{j,0},\cdots,a_{j,n})\in{\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1}(0\leq j\leq n)$ such that the functions $F_j$ given by $$F_j({\mathbf{y}})=a_{j,0}+a_{j,1}f_1({\mathbf{y}})+\cdots+a_{j,n}f_n({\mathbf{y}})$$ satisfy $$\label{conditions}
\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
|F_j({\mathbf{x}})|_p<\delta Q^{-(n+1)}\\\\
|a_{j,i}|_\infty\leq Q.\frac{p^{n+2}}{\delta}\\\\
|a_{j,i}|_p\leq\frac{1}{p} \text{ for } 0\leq i,j \leq n.
\end{array}\right.$$ As $\lambda_1>1$ so for every $0\leq j \leq n$ there exists at least one $0\leq j^\star\leq n$ such that $|a_{j,j^\star}|_\infty>Q$.
Now consider the following system of linear equations,\
$$\label{linear}
\begin{array}{l}
\eta_0F_0({\mathbf{x}})+\eta_1F_1({\mathbf{x}})+\cdots+\eta_nF_n({\mathbf{x}})+\Theta({\mathbf{x}})=0\\\\
\eta_0\partial_1F_0({\mathbf{x}})+\eta_1\partial_1F_1({\mathbf{x}})+\cdots+\eta_n\partial_1F_n({\mathbf{x}})+\partial_1\Theta({\mathbf{x}})=1\\\\
\eta_0a_{0,j}+\cdots+\eta_na_{n,j}=0 \ \ (2\leq j \leq n).
\end{array}$$ Since ${\mathbf{f}}_1({\mathbf{x}})=x_1 $, the determinant of this aforementioned system is $\det(a_{j,i})\neq 0$. Therefore there exists a unique solution to the system, say $(\eta_0,\eta_1,\cdots,\eta_n)\in {\mathbb{Q}}_p^n$. By the argument above, there is at least one $|a_{j,i} |_\infty > Q$. Without loss of generality assume $|a_{0,0}|_\infty >Q$. Using the strong approximation Theorem \[Strong\] we get $r_i\in{\mathbb{Q}}$ such that $$\label{r_i}
\begin{aligned}
& |r_i-2p|_\infty\leq p \text{ if } a_{i,0}>0 \text{ otherwise } |r_i+2p|_\infty<p,\\
&
|r_i-\eta_i|_p\leq 1,\\
&
|r_i|_q\leq 1
\quad \text{for} \ \text{ prime }q\neq p.
\end{aligned}$$ Now take the function $$\begin{aligned}
F({\mathbf{y}})=r_0F_0({\mathbf{y}})+r_1F_1({\mathbf{y}})+\cdots+r_nF_n({\mathbf{y}})\\\\
=a_0+a_1f_1({\mathbf{y}})+\cdots+a_nf_n({\mathbf{y}}),
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{a_i}
a_i=r_0a_{0,i}+r_1a_{1,i}+\cdots+r_na_{n,i},
\ \forall \ i=0,\cdots,n.$$
We claim that\
**Claim $1$.**The $a_i$ are all integers.\
From (\[r\_i\]) and (\[a\_i\]) we get $$\label{claim1.1}
|a_i|_q\leq 1, \ \forall \ \ {i}=0,\cdots,n \text{ for } q\neq p$$ and by (\[r\_i\]), (\[linear\]) and (\[conditions\]) we have $$\begin{aligned}
|a_i|_p\leq \max_{j=0,\cdots,n} \{|\eta_j-r_j|_p|a_{j,i}|_p\}\leq 1
\quad \text{ for } i=2,\cdots,n.
\end{aligned}$$ So $a_i$ are all integers for $i=2,\cdots,n$. Now note that $$F({\mathbf{x}})+\Theta({\mathbf{x}})\\
=(r_0-\eta_0)F_0({\mathbf{x}})+\cdots+(r_n-\eta_n)F_n({\mathbf{x}}).$$ Therefore we have $$\label{condition1}
|(F+\theta)({\mathbf{x}})|_p\leq \delta Q^{-(n+1)}.$$ Again $$\partial_1(F+\Theta)({\mathbf{x}})=(r_0-\eta_0)\partial_1F_0({\mathbf{x}})+\cdots+(r_n-\eta_n)\partial_1F_n({\mathbf{x}})+1.$$ Since $|a_{j,i}|_p\leq\frac{1}{p}$ so $|\partial_1F_j({\mathbf{x}})|_p\leq \frac{1}{p}$ and thus by (\[r\_i\]) we get $$\label{partial_condition}
1-\frac{1}{p}\leq|\partial_1(F+\Theta)({\mathbf{x}})|_p\leq 1.$$\
Now we can show that $a_1$ and $a_0$ are also integers. Since $f_1({\mathbf{y}})=y_1,$ we have $$a_1=\partial_1(F+\Theta)({\mathbf{x}})-\partial_1\Theta({\mathbf{x}})-\sum_{j =2}^{n}a_j\partial_1f_j({\mathbf{x}})$$ which implies that $|a_1|_p\leq 1$. This together with (\[claim1.1\]) proves that $a_1$ is an integer. We similarly prove that $a_0$ is an integer. We can write $$\begin{aligned}\label{a_0}
a_0=(F+\Theta)({\mathbf{x}})-\Theta({\mathbf{x}})-\sum_{j =1}^{n}a_jf_j({\mathbf{x}}).
\end{aligned}$$ This implies that $|a_0|_p\leq 1$ and thus by (\[a\_0\]) and (\[claim1.1\]) we get that $a_0$ is integer. So the first claim is proved.
Now we look at the infinity norm of the integers $a_i$. By (\[a\_i\]), (\[conditions\]) and (\[r\_i\]) we have $$\label{a_infty}
\begin{aligned}
|a_i|_\infty\leq|r_0a_{0,i}+\cdots+r_na_{n,i}|_\infty\\
\leq 3p(n+1)Q.\frac{p^{n+2}}{\delta}
\end{aligned}
\quad \text{ for } i=0,1,\cdots,n.$$ By the choice of $r_i$ we have $a_0>0$ and using the fact that $Q<|a_{0,0}|_\infty$ we get that $|a_0|_\infty>pQ$ and therefore $|{\mathbf{a}}|>pQ$.
So by (\[a\_infty\]) and the previous observation we get $$\label{beta}
\frac{1}{3p(n+1)}p^{-(n+1)}\delta.Q<\beta_F=\frac{1}{3p(n+1)}p^{-(n+2)}\delta|{\mathbf{a}}|\leq Q,$$ here $\kappa_0=\frac{1}{3p(n+1)}p^{-(n+2)}\delta$. Note that for all ${\mathbf{y}}\in{\mathbf{U}}_0$ we have $$\partial_1(F+\Theta)({\mathbf{x}})=\partial_1(F+\Theta)({\mathbf{y}})+\sum_{j=1}^m\Phi_{j1}(\partial_1(F+\Theta))(\star)(x_j-y_j)$$ where $\star$ is from the coefficients of ${\mathbf{x}}$ and ${\mathbf{y}}$. By using (\[partial\_condition\]) and by the fact that ${\operatorname{diam}}({\mathbf{U}}_0)\leq \frac{1}{p}$ we have $$|\partial_1(F+\Theta)({\mathbf{y}})|_p\geq 1-\frac{2}{p} \ \ \forall \ {\mathbf{y}}\in{\mathbf{U}}_0.$$ So $F$ satisfies $|\partial_1(F+\Theta)({\mathbf{x}})|> (1-\frac{2}{p})|\nabla(F+\Theta)({\mathbf{x}})| \ \forall \ {\mathbf{x}}\in {\mathbf{U}}_0$ and thus by the constructions $\Delta(R_F,\rho(Q))\neq \emptyset$.\
**Claim $2$.** ${\mathbf{x}}\in \Delta(R_F,\rho(Q))$.\
We set $r_0 := {\operatorname{diam}}({\mathbf{B}})$ and define the function $$g(\xi) :=(F+\Theta)(x_1+\xi,x_2,\cdots,x_d), \text { where } |\xi|_p<r_0.$$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
|g(0)|_p=|(F+\Theta)({\mathbf{x}})|_p<\delta Q^{-(n+1)} \\
\text{ and } |g'(0)|_p=|\partial_1(F+\Theta)({\mathbf{x}})|_p>1-\frac{1}{p}.
\end{aligned}$$ Now applying Newton’s method there exists $\xi_o$ such that $g(\xi_0)=0$ and $|\xi_0|_p<\frac{p}{(p-1)}\delta Q^{-(n+1)}$. For sufficiently large $Q$ we get ${\mathbf{x}}_{\xi_0}=(x_1+\xi_0,x_1,\cdots,x_n)\in {\mathbf{B}},$ that $(F+\Theta)({\mathbf{x}}_{\xi_0})=0$ and that $|{\mathbf{x}}-{\mathbf{x}}_{\xi_0}|_p\leq \frac{p}{(p-1)}\delta Q^{-(n+1)}$. Then we will argue exactly same as in [@BaBeVe]. We recall the argument for the sake of completeness. By the Mean Value Theorem we will get $$\begin{aligned}
|(F+\Theta)({\mathbf{y}})|_p \ll Q^{-(n+1)}\\
\text{ for any } |{\mathbf{y}}-{\mathbf{x}}_{\xi_0}|_p \ll Q^{-(n+1)}.
\end{aligned}$$ Then by (\[beta\]) and using the same argument as above tells us that for sufficiently large $Q>0$ the ball of radius $\rho(\beta_F)$ centred at $\pi{\mathbf{x}}_{\xi_0}$ is contained in $\widetilde{{\mathbf{V}}}$. This ultimately gives ${\mathbf{x}}_{\xi_0}\in R_F$ . Since $$|{\mathbf{x}}-{\mathbf{x}}_{\xi_0}|_p\leq \frac{p}{(p-1)}\delta Q^{-(n+1)}$$ so ${\mathbf{x}}\in\Delta(R_F,\rho(Q))$ where $\rho(Q)= \frac{p}{(p-1)}\delta Q^{-(n+1)}=\kappa_1Q^{-(n+1)}$. Therefore ${\mathbf{x}}\in \Delta(R_F,\rho(Q))$ for some $F\in\mathcal{F}_n $ such that $\beta_F\leq Q$ and this completes the proof of the Theorem.
Proof of the main divergence theorem
-------------------------------------
Now using Theorem \[ubiquity\] and lemma \[ubi\] we can complete the proof of Theorem \[thm:nice\].
Fix ${\mathbf{x}}_0\in {\mathbf{U}}$ and let ${\mathbf{U}}_0$ be the neighbourhood of ${\mathbf{x}}_0$ which comes from (\[ubiquity\]). We need to show that $$\mathcal{H}^s(\mathcal{W}^{\mathbf{f}}_{(\Psi,\Theta)}\cap{\mathbf{U}}_0)=\mathcal{H}^s({\mathbf{U}}_0)$$ if the series in (\[main sum\]) diverges. Consider $\phi(r):=\psi(\kappa_0{^{\text{-}1}}r) $. Our first aim is to show that $$\Lambda(\phi)\subset \mathcal{W}^{\mathbf{f}}_{(\Psi,\Theta)}.$$ Note that ${\mathbf{x}}\in \Lambda(\phi)$ implies the existence of infinitely many $F\in\mathcal{F}_n $ such that ${\operatorname{dist}}({\mathbf{x}},R_F)<\phi(\beta_F)$. For such $F\in\mathcal{F}_n$ there exists ${\mathbf{z}}\in{\mathbf{U}}_0$ such that $(F+\Theta)({\mathbf{z}})=0$ and $|{\mathbf{x}}-{\mathbf{z}}|_p<\phi(\beta_F)$. By Mean value theorem $$(F+\Theta)({\mathbf{x}})=(F+\Theta)({\mathbf{z}})+ \nabla(F + \Theta)({\mathbf{x}})\cdot ({\mathbf{x}}- {\mathbf{z}}) + \sum_{i,j}\Phi_{ij}(F+\Theta)(\star)(x_i - z_i)(x_j-z_j),$$ where $\star$ comes from the coefficients of ${\mathbf{x}}$ and ${\mathbf{z}}$. Then we have that $$|(F+\Theta)({\mathbf{x}})|_p\leq|{\mathbf{x}}-{\mathbf{z}}|_p<\phi(\beta_F)=\phi(\kappa_0 |{\mathbf{a}}|)=\Psi({\mathbf{a}}).$$ Hence $\Lambda(\phi)\subset \mathcal{W}^{\mathbf{f}}_{(\Psi,\Theta)} $. Now the Theorem will follow if we can show that $$\sum_{t=1}^{\infty} \frac{\phi(2^t)^{s-m+1}}{\rho(2^t)}=\infty.$$ Observe that $$\sum_{t=1}^{\infty} \frac{\phi(2^t)^{s-m+1}}{\rho(2^t)}\asymp \sum_{t=1}^\infty (\psi(\kappa_0{^{\text{-}1}}2^t))^{s-m+1}\frac{1}{\rho(2^t)}\\
\asymp \sum_{t=1}^\infty (\psi(\kappa_0{^{\text{-}1}}2^t))^{s-m+1}2^{t(n+1)}$$ $$\gg \sum_{t=1}^\infty \sum_{\kappa_0{^{\text{-}1}}2^t<|{\mathbf{a}}|\leq\kappa_0{^{\text{-}1}}2^{t+1} }(\psi(\kappa_0{^{\text{-}1}}2^t))^{s-m+1}.$$ As $\psi$ is an approximating function so we got that the above series $$\gg\sum_{t=1}^\infty \sum_{\kappa_0{^{\text{-}1}}2^t<|{\mathbf{a}}|\leq\kappa_0{^{\text{-}1}}2^{t+1} }(\psi(|{\mathbf{a}}|))^{s-m+1}\asymp \sum_{{\mathbf{a}}\in{\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1}\setminus{0}}(\psi(|{\mathbf{a}}|))^{s-m+1}\\$$ $$=\sum_{{\mathbf{a}}\in{\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1}\setminus{0}}\Psi({\mathbf{a}})^{s-m+1}=\infty.$$ This completes the proof of the Theorem.
Concluding Remarks
==================
Some extensions
---------------
An interesting possibility is an investigation of the function field case. In [@G], the function field analogue of the Baker-Sprindžuk conjectures were established and similarly it should be possible to prove the function field analogue of the results in the present paper.
Affine subspaces
----------------
In [@Kleinbock-extremal], analogues of the Baker-Sprindžuk conjectures were established for affine subspaces. In this setting, one needs to impose Diophantine conditions on the affine subspace in question. Subsequently, Khintchine type theorems were established (see [@G1; @G-Monat]), we refer the reader to [@G-handbook] for a survey of results. Recently, in [@BGGV], the inhomogeneous analogue of Khintchine’s theorem for affine subspaces was established in both convergence and divergence cases. It would be interesting to consider the $S$-adic theory in the context of affine subspaces.
Friendly Measures
-----------------
In [@KLW] a category of measures called *Friendly* measures was introduced and the Baker-Sprindžuk conjectures were proved for friendly measures. Friendly measures include volume measures on nondegenerate manifolds, so the results of [@KLW] generalize those of [@KM], but also include many other examples including measures supported on certain fractal sets. In [@BeVe], the inhomogeneous version of the Baker-Sprindžuk conjectures were established for a class of measures called *strongly contracting* which include friendly measures. It should be possible to prove an $S$-adic inhomogeneous analogue of the Baker-Sprindžuk conjectures for strongly contracting measures.
[99]{} V. Beresnevich, *A Groshev type theorem for convergence on manifolds*, Acta Math. Hungar. 94 (2002), no. 1-2, 99–130. Bernik, V., Budarina, N., Dickinson, D.: Simultaneous Diophantine approximation in the real, complex and p-adic fields. Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc., 149, 193–216 (2010). V. Beresnevich, V. Bernik, H. Dickinson and M. M. Dodson, *On linear manifolds for which the Khintchin approximation theorem holds*, Vestsi Acad Navuk Belarusi. Ser. Fiz. - Mat. Navuk (2000), 14–17 (Belorussian). D. Badziahin, V. Beresnevich and S. Velani, *Inhomogeneous theory of dual Diophantine approximation on manifolds*, Advances in Mathematics **232** (2013) 1–35. V.V. Beresnevich, V.I. Bernik, E.I. Kovalevskaya, *On approximation of p-adic numbers by p-adic algebraic numbers*, Journal of Number Theory 111 (2005), 33–56. V. Beresnevich, V. Bernik, D. Kleinbock and G. Margulis, *Metric Diophantine approximation : the Khintchine-Groshev theorem for non-degenerate manifolds*, Moscow Mathematical Journal 2:2 (2002), 203–225. V.V. Beresnevich, E.I. Kovalevskaya, *On Diophantine approximations of dependent quantities in the p-adic case*, Mat. Zametki 73:1 (2003), 22–37; translation: Math. Notes 73:1-2 (2003), 21–35. V. Bernik, H. Dickinson, M. M. Dodson, *Approximation of real numbers by values of integer polynomials*, Dokl. Nats. Akad. Nauk Belarusi 42 (1998), no. 4, 51–54, 123. V. Beresnevich, D. Dickinson and S. Velani, *Measure theoretic laws for lim sup sets*, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc., **179** (2006). V. Beresnevich, A. Ganguly, A. Ghosh and S. Velani, *Inhomogeneous dual Diophantine approximation on affine subspaces*, https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.08559. V. Bernik, D. Kleinbock and G. A. Margulis, *Khintchine type theorems on manifolds : the convergence case for the standard and multiplicative versions*, Internat. Math. Res. Notices **9** (2001), pp. 453–486. V. Beresnevich, S. Velani, An inhomogeneous transference principle and Diophantine approximation, Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. **101** (2010) 821–851. , Simultaneous inhomogeneous Diophantine approximations on manifolds. Fundam. Prikl. Mat. 16 (2010), no. 5, 3–17. V. Bernik, H. Dickinson, J. Yuan, *Inhomogeneous Diophantine approximation on polynomials in ${\mathbb{Q}}_p$*, Acta Arith. 90 (1999), no. 1, 37–48. V.I. Bernik, E.I. Kovalevskaya, *Simultaneous inhomogeneous Diophantine approximation of the values of integral polynomials with respect to Archimedean and non-Archimedean valuations*, Acta Math. Univ. Ostrav. 14:1 (2006), 37–42. N. Budarina, D. Dickinson, *Inhomogeneous Diophantine approximation on integer polynomials with non-monotonic error function*, Acta Arith. 160 (2013), no. 3, 243–257. N. Budarina and E. Zorin, *Non-homogeneous analogue of Khintchine’s theorem in divergence case for simultaneous approximations in different metrics*, Siauliai Math. Semin. 4(12) (2009), 21–33. Y. Bugeaud, *Approximation by algebraic integers and Hausdorff dimension*, J. Lond. Math. Soc., 65 (2002), pp. 547–559. J. W. S. Cassels, An introduction to Diophantine Approximation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1957. Shreyasi Datta, TIFR thesis, in preparation. H. Dickinson, M. M. Dodson, J. Yuan, *Hausdorff dimension and p-adic Diophantine approximation*, Indag. Math. (N.S.) 10 (1999), no. 3, 337–347. A. Ghosh, *A Khintchine-type theorem for hyperplanes*, J. London Math.Soc. **72**, No.2 (2005), pp. 293–304. A. Ghosh, *Metric Diophantine approximation over a local field of positive characteristic*, Journal of Number Theory, 124 (2007), no. 2, 454–469. A. Ghosh, *Diophantine approximation and the Khintchine-Groshev theorem*, Monatsh. Math **163** (2011), no. 3, 281–299. A. Ghosh, *Diophantine approximation on subspaces of $\mathbb{R}^n$ and dynamics on homogeneous spaces*, to appear in the Handbook of Group Actions III/IV, Editors, L. Ji, A. Papadopoulos, S. T. Yau. A. Ghosh and A. Marnat, *On Diophantine transference principles*, https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.02161. To appear in Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society. A. Groshev, *Une théorème sur les systèmes des formes linéaires*, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR **9** (1938), pp. 151–152. Alan Haynes, *The metric theory of p-adic approximation*, Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN 2010, no. 1, 18–52. A. Khintchine, *Einige Sätze über Kettenbrüche, mit Anwendungen auf die Theorie der Diophantischen Approximationen*, Math. Ann. **92**, (1924), pp. 115–125. D. Kleinbock, *Extremal subspaces and their submanifolds*, Geom. Funct. Anal **13**, (2003), No 2, pp.437–466. D. Kleinbock, E. Lindenstrauss, B. Weiss, *On fractal measures and Diophantine approximation*, Selecta Math. (N.S.) 10 (2004), no. 4, 479–523. D. Kleinbock and G. A. Margulis, *Flows on homogeneous spaces and Diophantine Approximation on Manifolds*, Ann Math**148**, (1998), pp.339–360. D. Kleinbock and G. Tomanov, *Flows on $S$-arithmetic homogeneous spaces and applications to metric Diophantine approximation*, Comm. Math. Helv. 82 (2007), 519–581. E.I. Kovalevskaya, *A metric theorem on the exact order of approximation of zero by values of integer polynomials in ${\mathbb{Q}}_p$*, Dokl. Nats. Akad. Nauk Belarusi 43:5 (1999), 34–36 (in Russian). S. Lang, *Algebra*, Second edition. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Advanced Book Program, Reading, MA, 1984. E. Lutz, *Sur les approximations diophantiennes linéaires P-adiques*, Actualités Sci. Ind., no. 1224, Hermann $\&$ Cie, Paris, 1955. A. Mohammadi, A. Salehi Golsefidy, *$S$-arithmetic Khintchine-type theorem*, Geom. Funct. Anal. 19 (2009), no. 4, 1147–1170. A. Mohammadi, A. Salehi Golsefidy, *Simultaneous Diophantine approximation on non-degenerate p-adic manifolds*, Israel J. Math. 188 (2012), 231–258. W. Schmidt, *Metrische Sätze über simultane Approximation abhänginger Grössen*, Monatsch. Math. 68 (1964), 154–166. W.H. Schikhof, *Ultrametric Calculus. An Introduction to p-adic Analysis*, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics 4, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1984). V. G. Sprindžuk, *Achievements and problems in Diophantine Approximation theory*, Russian Math. Surveys **35** (1980), pp. 1–80. V. G. Sprindžuk, *Metric theory of Diophantine approximations*, John Wiley & Sons, New York-Toronto-London, 1979. A. E. Ustinov, *Inhomogeneous approximations on manifolds in $\mathbb{Q}_p$*, Vestsï Nats. Akad. Navuk Belarusï Ser. Fïz.-Mat. Navuk 2005, no. 2, 30–34, 124. A. E. Ustinov, *Approximation of complex numbers by values of integer polynomials*, Vestsï Nats. Akad. Navuk Belarusï Ser.Fïz.-Mat. Navuk 1 (2006) 9–14, 124. Zelo, Dmitrij *Simultaneous approximation to real and $p$-adic numbers*, Thesis (Ph.D.) €“University of Ottawa (Canada). 2009. 147 pp. ISBN: 978-0494-59539-8 ProQuest LLC
[^1]: Ghosh acknowledges support of a UGC grant and a CEFIPRA grant.
|
---
abstract: 'In medical domain, data features often contain missing values. This can create serious bias in the predictive modeling. Typical standard data mining methods often produce poor performance measures. In this paper, we propose a new method to simultaneously classify large datasets and reduce the effects of missing values. The proposed method is based on a multilevel framework of the cost-sensitive SVM and the expected maximization imputation method for missing values, which relies on iterated regression analyses. We compare classification results of multilevel SVM-based algorithms on public benchmark datasets with imbalanced classes and missing values as well as real data in health applications, and show that our multilevel SVM-based method produces fast, and more accurate and robust classification results.'
author:
- |
Talayeh Razzaghi\
School of Computing\
Clemson Univeristy\
Clemson, SC 29634\
Email: [email protected]
- |
Oleg Roderick\
Geisinger Health System\
Danville, PA 17822\
Email: [email protected]
- |
Ilya Safro\
School of Computing\
Clemson Univeristy\
Clemson, SC 29634\
Email: [email protected]
- |
Nick Marko\
Geisinger Health System\
Danville, PA 17822\
Email: [email protected]
bibliography:
- 'roderick\_medical.bib'
- 'paper.bib'
- 'ilya.bib'
title: Fast Imbalanced Classification of Healthcare Data with Missing Values
---
|
---
author:
- |
\
\
**\
**
title: '**[Dyson-Schwinger equation constraints on the gluon propagator in BRST quantised QCD]{}**'
---
SLAC-PUB-17219
The gluon propagator plays a central role in determining the dynamics of QCD. In this work we demonstrate for BRST quantised QCD that the Dyson-Schwinger equation imposes significant analytic constraints on the structure of this propagator. In particular, we find that these constraints control the appearance of massless components in the gluon spectral density.
Introduction \[intro\]
======================
Understanding the nature of confinement in QCD is crucial for explaining why quarks and gluons are absent from the physical spectrum of the theory [@Alkofer_Greensite07]. Although there remains much debate surrounding the precise confinement mechanism, it has been understood for many years that the non-perturbative structure of the gluon propagator plays an important role [@Mandula99]. An issue that has received significant focus in the literature is what happens to the propagator in the low momentum *infrared* regime. Motivated by the issues surrounding gauge fixing, Gribov [@Gribov78] and Zwanziger [@Zwanziger89] proposed a form for the gluon propagator that vanishes in the limit $p^{2} \rightarrow 0$. Similar forms have also been proposed which suggest that the gluon propagator has an effective mass [@Mandula_Ogilvie87]. In order to test both these and other hypotheses, a mixture of non-perturbative numerical and analytic techniques are often employed. In particular, the computation of the gluon propagator using lattice QCD and the Dyson-Schwinger equations remains a very active area of research [@Alkofer_vonSmekal01; @Alkofer_Detmold_Fischer_Maris04; @Cucchieri_Mendes_Taurines05; @Cucchieri_Mendes08; @Strauss_Fischer_Kellermann12; @Oliveria_Silva12; @Dudal_Oliveira_Silva14]. Besides confinement, determining the structure of the gluon propagator is also important for describing other non-perturbative phenomena like the dynamics of quark-gluon plasma [@Haas_Fister_Pawlowski14], a topic which is currently the focus of significant theoretical and experimental interest at facilities such as ALICE (CERN) and RHIC (Brookhaven).\
Many of the approaches to analysing the structure of the gluon propagator involve using the Becchi-Rouet-Stora-Tyutin (BRST) quantisation of QCD to work in specific Lorentz covariant gauges. BRST quantisation involves the introduction of additional auxiliary gauge-fixing and ghost degrees of freedom in such a way that the equations of motion are no longer gauge invariant, but remain invariant under a residual BRST symmetry. The physical states are then defined to be those that are annihilated by the conserved charge $Q_{B}$ associated with this symmetry [@Nakanishi_Ojima90]. A key feature of BRST quantised QCD is that the space of states no longer possesses a positive-definite inner product, and hence negative norm states are permitted. This has the important implication that the momentum space correlation functions are no longer guaranteed to be non-negative [@Bogolubov_Logunov_Oksak90]. Non-negativity violations of the gluon propagator are of particular relevance since this characteristic is often attributed to the absence of gluons from the physical spectrum [@Alkofer_vonSmekal01; @Oehme_Zimmermann80_1; @Oehme_Zimmermann80_2; @Cornwall13], and recent numerical studies appear to indicate that these violations do indeed occur [@Alkofer_Detmold_Fischer_Maris04; @Cucchieri_Mendes_Taurines05; @Strauss_Fischer_Kellermann12]. Although significant progress has been made in determining the structure of the BRST quantised gluon propagator, its behaviour remains far from understood. Part of the difficulty is that most of this progress has relied on functional techniques such as lattice QCD and the solution of the Dyson-Schwinger equations, both of which have significant uncertainties. A particularly prominant source of uncertainy concerns the non-perturbative definition of BRST symmetry, and whether this quantisation of QCD can in fact be implemented in spite of the Gribov problem [@Gribov78; @Zwanziger89].\
In Ref. [@Lowdon17_1] a more formal analytic approach was developed in order to determine the most general non-perturbative features of vector boson propagators. This approach involves the application of a rigorous quantum field theory framework, the construction of which is based on a series of physically motivated axioms [@Nakanishi_Ojima90; @Bogolubov_Logunov_Oksak90; @Streater_Wightman64; @Haag96; @Strocchi13]. The advantage of this approach is that the axioms are assumed to hold independently of the coupling regime, and this allows genuine non-perturbative features to be derived in a purely analytic manner[^1]. For example, since BRST quantised QCD involves a space of states with an indefinite inner product, this opens up the possiblity that the gluon propagator contains singular terms involving derivatives of $\delta(p)$ [@Lowdon17_1], a feature which is indicative of confinement [@Strocchi76; @Strocchi78; @Lowdon16]. Nevertheless, it remains an open question as to whether the solutions of the gluon propagator derived using functional methods are actually sensitive to this type of singular behaviour. In this paper we adopt an axiomatic framework in order to provide a complimentary probe of the BRST quantised gluon propagator. Instead of solving the Dyson-Schwinger equation explicitly, we use this equation to derive analytic constraints on the form of this propagator.
The gluon propagator in QCD {#QCD_prop}
===========================
Before exploring the constraints that the Dyson-Schwinger equation imposes on the structure of the BRST quantised gluon propagator, it is important to first outline the dynamical characteristics of this theory, and the explicit form of the Dyson-Schwinger equation itself. The equations of motion of BRST quantised QCD are defined by $$\begin{aligned}
&(D^{\nu}F_{\nu\mu})^{a} +\partial_{\mu}\Lambda^{a} = gj_{\mu}^{a} -igf^{abc}\partial_{\mu}{\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5muC\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}^{b}C^{c}, \hspace{3mm} \partial^{\mu}A_{\mu}^{a} = \xi\Lambda^{a}, \label{eom1} \\
&\partial^{\nu}(D_{\nu}C)^{a}=0, \hspace{5mm} (D^{\nu}\partial_{\nu}{\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5muC\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu})^{a}=0, \label{eom2}\end{aligned}$$ where $C^{a}$ and ${\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5muC\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}^{a}$ are the ghost and anti-ghost fields, $\Lambda^{a}$ is an auxiliary field, and $\xi$ is the renormalised gauge fixing parameter. It follows from Eq. (\[eom1\]) that the renormalised gluon field satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\left[ \partial^{2}g_{\mu}^{\ \alpha} - \left(1 - \frac{1}{\xi_{0}} \right)\partial_{\mu}\partial^{\alpha} \right]A_{\alpha}^{a} = \mathcal{J}_{\mu}^{a},
\label{EOM_A}\end{aligned}$$ where $\xi_{0}$ is the bare gauge fixing parameter and $\mathcal{J}_{\mu}^{a}$ has the form $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{J}_{\mu}^{a} = gj_{\mu}^{a} -igf^{abc}\partial_{\mu}{\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5muC\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}^{b}C^{c} + (Z_{3}^{-1}-1)\partial_{\mu}\Lambda^{a} - igf^{abc}A^{b \nu}F_{\nu\mu}^{c} - gf^{abc}\partial^{\nu}(A_{\nu}^{b}A_{\mu}^{c}), \end{aligned}$$ with $Z_{3}$ the gluon field renormalisation constant and $j_{\mu}^{a}$ the matter current. Furthermore, one assumes that the renormalised fields satisfy the following equal-time commutation relations: $$\begin{aligned}
&\left[\Lambda^{a}(x),\Lambda^{b}(y)\right]_{x_{0}=y_{0}} = 0, \hspace{5mm} \left[\Lambda^{a}(x),A_{\nu}^{b}(y)\right]_{x_{0}=y_{0}} = i\delta^{ab}g_{0\nu}\delta(\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y}), \label{etcr1} \\
&\left[A_{\mu}^{a}(x),A_{\nu}^{b}(y)\right]_{x_{0}=y_{0}} = 0, \hspace{5mm} \left[F_{0i}^{a}(x),A_{\nu}^{b}(y)\right]_{x_{0}=y_{0}} = i\delta^{ab}g_{i\nu}Z_{3}^{-1}\delta(\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y}). \label{etcr2}\end{aligned}$$ Since the gluon propagator is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\langle 0|T\{ A_{\mu}^{a}(x)A_{\nu}^{b}(y)\}|0\rangle = \theta(x^{0}-y^{0}) \langle 0| A_{\mu}^{a}(x)A_{\nu}^{b}(y)|0\rangle + \theta(y^{0}-x^{0})\langle 0| A_{\nu}^{b}(y)A_{\mu}^{a}(x)|0\rangle,
\label{t_ordered_expl}\end{aligned}$$ one can directly apply the dynamical conditions in Eqs. (\[EOM\_A\]), (\[etcr1\]) and (\[etcr2\]) to this definition, and in doing so this implies the Dyson-Schwinger equation $$\begin{aligned}
\left[ \partial^{2}g_{\mu}^{\ \alpha} - \left(1 - \frac{1}{\xi_{0}} \right)\partial_{\mu}\partial^{\alpha} \right]\langle 0|T\{ A_{\alpha}^{a}(x)A_{\nu}^{b}(y)\}|0\rangle = i\delta^{ab} g_{\mu \nu}Z_{3}^{-1} \delta(x-y) + \langle 0|T\{ \mathcal{J}_{\mu}^{a}(x)A_{\nu}^{b}(y)\}|0\rangle,
\label{SDE_x}\end{aligned}$$ which in momentum space has the form $$\begin{aligned}
-\left[ p^{2}g_{\mu}^{\ \alpha} - \left(1 - \frac{1}{\xi_{0}} \right)p_{\mu}p^{\alpha} \right]\widehat{D}_{\alpha\nu}^{ab\, F}(p) = i\delta^{ab} g_{\mu \nu}Z_{3}^{-1} + \widehat{J}_{\mu\nu}^{ab}(p),
\label{SDE_p}\end{aligned}$$ where $\widehat{J}_{\mu\nu}^{ab}(p):= \mathcal{F}\left[\langle 0|T\{ \mathcal{J}_{\mu}^{a}(x)A_{\nu}^{b}(y)\}|0\rangle \right]$. In what follows we will demonstrate that Eq. (\[SDE\_p\]) imposes non-trivial analytic constraints on the structure of the gluon propagator.\
In order to explicitly understand the constraints imposed on the gluon propagator $\widehat{D}_{\mu\nu}^{ab\, F}(p)$ by Eq. (\[SDE\_p\]), one must consider the spectral representation of both $\widehat{D}_{\mu\nu}^{ab\, F}(p)$ and the current propagator $\widehat{J}_{\mu\nu}^{ab}(p)$ involving the non-conserved current $\mathcal{J}_{\mu}^{a}$. In Ref. [@Lowdon17_1] it was shown from Eqs. (\[eom1\]), (\[etcr1\]) and (\[etcr2\]) that the momentum space gluon propagator has the general form $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{D}_{\mu\nu}^{ab\, F}(p) &= i\int_{0}^{\infty} \frac{ds}{2\pi} \, \frac{\left[ g_{\mu\nu}\rho_{1}^{ab}(s) + p_{\mu}p_{\nu}\rho_{2}^{ab}(s) \right]}{p^{2}-s +i\epsilon} -i \,g_{\mu 0}g_{\nu 0} \int_{0}^{\infty} \frac{ds}{2\pi} \, \rho_{2}^{ab}(s) \nonumber \\
& \hspace{10mm} +\sum_{n=0}^{N} \left[ c_{n}^{ab} \, g_{\mu\nu} (\partial^{2})^{n} + d_{n}^{ab} \partial_{\mu}\partial_{\nu}(\partial^{2})^{n-1}\right]\delta(p),
\label{general_propagator_QCD_mom}\end{aligned}$$ where $c_{n}^{ab}$ and $d_{n}^{ab}$ are complex coefficients which are linearly related[^2] for $n \geq 1$, and the spectral densities $\rho_{1}^{ab}(s)$ and $\rho_{2}^{ab}(s)$ satisfy the following conditions [@Lowdon17_1] $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{1}^{ab}(s) + s \rho_{2}^{ab}(s) = -2\pi\xi\delta^{ab}\delta(s), \hspace{2mm} \int_{0}^{\infty} ds \, \rho_{1}^{ab}(s) = -2\pi\delta^{ab} Z_{3}^{-1}, \hspace{2mm} \int_{0}^{\infty} ds \, \rho_{2}^{ab}(s) = 0.
\label{spectr_rel_gluon}\end{aligned}$$ The conditions in Eq. (\[spectr\_rel\_gluon\]) demonstrate that the gluon propagator contains only one independent spectral density[^3], and that the non-covariant term, which follows from the definition of the time-ordered product in Eq. (\[t\_ordered\_expl\]), actually vanishes due to the sum rule for $\rho_{2}^{ab}(s)$.\
Now one can consider the structure of the propagator $\widehat{J}_{\mu\nu}^{ab}(p)$. The first constraint on this propagator arises from the fact that one can write the equations of motion for the gluon field as $$\begin{aligned}
\partial^{\nu}F_{\nu\mu}^{a} = gJ_{\mu}^{a} + \left\{ Q_{B},(D_{\mu}{\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5muC\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu})^{a} \right\},\end{aligned}$$ where $\partial^{\mu}J_{\mu}^{a}=0$, and $Q_{B}$ is the BRST operator [@Nakanishi_Ojima90]. By combining this equation with Eq. (\[eom1\]), the divergence of the current $\mathcal{J}_{\mu}^{a}$ can be written $$\begin{aligned}
\partial^{\mu}\mathcal{J}_{\mu}^{a} = \left\{Q_{B},Z_{3}^{-1}\partial^{2}{\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5muC\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu}^{a} +(\partial^{\mu}D_{\mu}{\mkern 1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5muC\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu})^{a}\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ Using Eq. (\[eom2\]) together with the fact that $Q_{B}|0\rangle=0$, it then follows that the correlator $\langle 0| \mathcal{J}_{\mu}^{a}(x)A_{\nu}^{b}(y)|0\rangle$ satisfies the condition $$\begin{aligned}
\partial^{\mu}_{x}\partial^{\nu}_{y}\langle 0| \mathcal{J}_{\mu}^{a}(x)A_{\nu}^{b}(y)|0\rangle = 0.
\label{vanish}\end{aligned}$$ Using an analogous analysis as in the case of the gluon propagator [@Lowdon17_1], this condition implies that $\widehat{J}_{\mu\nu}^{ab}(p)$ has the same overall structural form $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{J}_{\mu\nu}^{ab}(p) &= i\int_{0}^{\infty} \frac{ds}{2\pi} \, \frac{\left[ g_{\mu\nu}\widetilde{\rho}_{1}^{ab}(s) + p_{\mu}p_{\nu}\widetilde{\rho}_{2}^{ab}(s) \right]}{p^{2}-s +i\epsilon} +\sum_{n=0}^{\widetilde{N}} \left[ C_{n}^{ab} \, g_{\mu\nu} (\partial^{2})^{n} + D_{n}^{ab} \partial_{\mu}\partial_{\nu}(\partial^{2})^{n-1}\right]\delta(p),
\label{J_propagator_QCD_mom}\end{aligned}$$ where $C_{n}^{ab}$ and $D_{n}^{ab}$ are complex parameters which are related in the same manner as $c_{n}^{ab}$ and $d_{n}^{ab}$ in Eq. (\[general\_propagator\_QCD\_mom\]). Moreover, Eq. (\[vanish\]) implies that the spectral densities of this correlator are also not independent, and are in fact related as follows $$\begin{aligned}
&\widetilde{\rho}_{1}^{ab}(s) + s \widetilde{\rho}_{2}^{ab}(s) = \widetilde{C}^{ab}\delta(s), \label{mix_rel}\end{aligned}$$ where $\widetilde{C}^{ab}$ is a constant coefficient. In order to determine $\widetilde{C}^{ab}$, one can consider the contracted propagator expression $p^{\mu}p^{\nu}\widehat{J}_{\mu\nu}^{ab}(p)$, which due to Eqs. (\[J\_propagator\_QCD\_mom\]) and (\[mix\_rel\]) can be written $$\begin{aligned}
p^{\mu}p^{\nu}\widehat{J}_{\mu\nu}^{ab}(p) = \frac{i}{2\pi}p^{2}\int_{0}^{\infty} ds \, \widetilde{\rho}_{2}^{ab}(s) + \frac{i}{2\pi}\widetilde{C}^{ab}.
\label{contr}\end{aligned}$$ Since $\widehat{J}_{\mu\nu}^{ab}(p)$ is defined by Eq. (\[SDE\_p\]), contracting this equation with $p^{\mu}p^{\nu}$ gives an explicit expression for $p^{\mu}p^{\nu}\widehat{J}_{\mu\nu}^{ab}(p)$. In doing so, it follows from the Slavnov-Taylor identity[^4] that $$\begin{aligned}
p^{\mu}p^{\nu}\widehat{J}_{\mu\nu}^{ab}(p) =0, \end{aligned}$$ which in comparison with Eq. (\[contr\]) therefore implies the spectral density constraints $$\begin{aligned}
&\widetilde{\rho}_{1}^{ab}(s) + s \widetilde{\rho}_{2}^{ab}(s) = 0 \hspace{5mm} (\widetilde{C}^{ab}=0), \label{constr_rho3_1} \\
& \hspace{10mm} \int_{0}^{\infty}ds \, \widetilde{\rho}_{2}^{ab}(s) = 0.
\label{constr_rho3_2}\end{aligned}$$ \
Having derived the spectral structure of both the gluon and current propagators, one can now determine the explicit constraints imposed by Eq. (\[SDE\_p\]). Inserting Eqs. (\[general\_propagator\_QCD\_mom\]) and (\[J\_propagator\_QCD\_mom\]) into Eq. (\[SDE\_p\]), and separately equating[^5] the purely singular terms involving derivatives of $\delta(p)$, one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
&\left[ -p^{2}g_{\mu}^{\ \alpha} + \left(1 - \frac{1}{\xi_{0}} \right)p_{\mu}p^{\alpha} \right]\left[\sum_{n=0}^{N} \left[ c_{n}^{ab} \, g_{\alpha\nu} (\partial^{2})^{n} + d_{n}^{ab} \partial_{\alpha}\partial_{\nu}(\partial^{2})^{n-1}\right]\delta(p) \right] \nonumber \\
& \hspace{50mm} = \sum_{n=0}^{\widetilde{N}} \left[ C_{n}^{ab} \, g_{\mu\nu} (\partial^{2})^{n} + D_{n}^{ab} \partial_{\mu}\partial_{\nu}(\partial^{2})^{n-1}\right]\delta(p), \label{constr_2} \\
&\left[ -p^{2}g_{\mu}^{\ \alpha} + \left(1 - \frac{1}{\xi_{0}} \right)p_{\mu}p^{\alpha} \right]\left[i\int_{0}^{\infty} \frac{ds}{2\pi} \, \frac{\left[ g_{\alpha\nu}\rho_{1}^{ab}(s) + p_{\alpha}p_{\nu}\rho_{2}^{ab}(s) \right]}{p^{2}-s +i\epsilon} \right] \nonumber \\
& \hspace{50mm} = i\delta^{ab} g_{\mu \nu}Z_{3}^{-1} + \left[ i\int_{0}^{\infty} \frac{ds}{2\pi} \, \frac{\left[ g_{\mu\nu}\widetilde{\rho}_{1}^{ab}(s) + p_{\mu}p_{\nu}\widetilde{\rho}_{2}^{ab}(s) \right]}{p^{2}-s +i\epsilon} \right]. \label{constr_1}\end{aligned}$$ Expanding out the left-hand-side of Eq. (\[constr\_2\]) it follows that the coefficients $c_{n}^{ab}$ and $d_{n}^{ab}$ are directly related to $C_{n}^{ab}$ and $D_{n}^{ab}$. In particular, one has the relation $$\begin{aligned}
c_{n+1}^{ab} = -\frac{(2n+5)}{4(2n+3)(n+1)(n+3)}C_{n}^{ab}, \hspace{5mm} n \geq 0 \label{c_constr_rel} \end{aligned}$$ Since both $c_{n}^{ab}$, $d_{n}^{ab}$, and $C_{n}^{ab}$, $D_{n}^{ab}$ are separately linearly related, Eq. (\[c\_constr\_rel\]) implies that all of these parameters must be linearly related to one another. The significance of these relations is that they demonstrate that the coefficients of terms involving derivatives of $\delta(p)$ in the gluon propagator ($c_{n}^{ab}$ and $d_{n}^{ab}$ for $n \geq 1$) are proportional to the coefficients of $\delta(p)$ and derivatives of $\delta(p)$ in $\widehat{J}_{\mu\nu}^{ab}(p)$. In particular, for $n=0$ Eq. (\[c\_constr\_rel\]) implies that if $\widehat{J}_{\mu\nu}^{ab}(p)$ has a non-vanishing $\delta(p)$ term, this is sufficient to prove that the gluon propagator contains a $\partial^{2}\delta(p)$ component. This characteristic is particularly relevant in the context of confinement, since the appearance of singular terms involving non-vanishing derivatives of $\delta(p)$ is related to the violation of the cluster decomposition property [@Strocchi76; @Strocchi78; @Lowdon16; @Nakanishi_Ojima90; @Roberts_Williams_Krein91]. Eq. (\[c\_constr\_rel\]) therefore demonstrates that the singular structure of the interaction current propagator $\widehat{J}_{\mu\nu}^{ab}(p)$ plays an important role in understanding this phenomenon.\
In order to derive the constraints imposed by Eq. (\[constr\_1\]), one must expand this equation and then separately equate the terms on both sides which depend on $g_{\mu\nu}$ and $p_{\mu}p_{\mu}$. In doing so, this implies the relations $$\begin{aligned}
&-p^{2}\int_{0}^{\infty} \frac{ds}{2\pi} \, \frac{\rho_{1}^{ab}(s)}{p^{2}-s +i\epsilon} = \delta^{ab} Z_{3}^{-1} + \int_{0}^{\infty} \frac{ds}{2\pi} \, \frac{\widetilde{\rho}_{1}^{ab}(s)}{p^{2}-s +i\epsilon}, \label{constr_1_1} \\
&\int_{0}^{\infty} \frac{ds}{2\pi} \, \frac{\left(1 - \frac{1}{\xi_{0}} \right)\rho_{1}^{ab}(s) - \frac{1}{\xi_{0}}p^{2}\rho_{2}^{ab}(s) }{p^{2}-s +i\epsilon} = \int_{0}^{\infty} \frac{ds}{2\pi} \, \frac{\widetilde{\rho}_{2}^{ab}(s)}{p^{2}-s +i\epsilon}. \label{constr_1_2}\end{aligned}$$ Using the constraints in Eq. (\[spectr\_rel\_gluon\]), it follows from Eq. (\[constr\_1\_1\]) that $\rho_{1}^{ab}(s)$ satisfies the equality $$\begin{aligned}
s\rho_{1}^{ab}(s) + \widetilde{\rho}_{1}^{ab}(s) = 0,
\label{rho1_c}\end{aligned}$$ which in combination with Eq. (\[constr\_rho3\_1\]) implies $$\begin{aligned}
s\left[\rho_{1}^{ab}(s) - \widetilde{\rho}_{2}^{ab}(s)\right] = 0.
\label{cond_zero}\end{aligned}$$ In order to solve this equation it is important to recognise that because spectral densities are distributions, not functions, the solution is not necessarily continuous[^6]. In fact, the general solution of Eq. (\[cond\_zero\]) has the form: $\rho_{1}^{ab}(s) - \widetilde{\rho}_{2}^{ab}(s) = A^{ab}\delta(s)$, where $A^{ab}$ is a constant coefficient [@Bogolubov_Logunov_Oksak90]. By applying the integral constraints in Eqs. (\[spectr\_rel\_gluon\]) and (\[constr\_rho3\_2\]) this fixes the coefficient to: $A^{ab}= -2\pi \delta^{ab}Z_{3}^{-1}$, and hence $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{1}^{ab}(s) = -2\pi \delta^{ab}Z_{3}^{-1}\delta(s) + \widetilde{\rho}_{2}^{ab}(s). \label{constr_rho1} \end{aligned}$$ Applying an analogous approach to Eq. (\[constr\_1\_2\]) subsequently leads to the following constraint $$\begin{aligned}
s\rho_{2}^{ab}(s) = 2\pi \delta^{ab}\left( Z_{3}^{-1} -\xi \right) \delta(s) - \widetilde{\rho}_{2}^{ab}(s). \label{constr_rho2}\end{aligned}$$ \
In general, Eqs. (\[constr\_rho1\]) and (\[constr\_rho2\]) demonstrate that the behaviour of the gluon spectral densities is completely determined by the spectral densities of the current propagator $\widehat{J}_{\mu\nu}^{ab}(p)$. Moreover, Eq. (\[constr\_rho1\]) implies that $\rho_{1}^{ab}(s)$ contains an explicit massless contribution, which has an overall $Z_{3}^{-1}$ coefficient. Since $Z_{3}^{-1}$ is expected to vanish in Landau gauge [@Alkofer_vonSmekal01], massless gluons must therefore necessarily be absent from the spectrum in this gauge. However, because $Z_{3}^{-1}$ is gauge dependent, the absence of a massless gluon component is not necessarily guaranteed in other gauges[^7]. In the literature [@Alkofer_Detmold_Fischer_Maris04; @Cucchieri_Mendes_Taurines05; @Strauss_Fischer_Kellermann12; @Dudal_Oliveira_Silva14; @Cornwall13] it is often argued that the violation of non-negativity of $\rho_{1}^{ab}(s)$ in Landau gauge as a result of the sum rule[^8]: $\int ds \, \rho_{1}^{ab}(s)=0$ is the reason why gluons do not appear in the spectrum. However, from the structure of Eq. (\[constr\_rho1\]) it is apparent that (continuous) non-negativity violations can only arise from the component $\widetilde{\rho}_{2}^{ab}(s)$, which has vanishing integral \[Eq. (\[constr\_rho3\_2\])\]. Since the analogous component $\widetilde{\rho}_{2}(s)$ of the photon spectral density in QED turns out to also have vanishing integral, this implies that potential non-negativity violations are not QCD specific, and casts doubt on the hypothesis that these violations in Landau gauge are the reason why gluons are absent from the spectrum.
Conclusions
===========
In this work we have demonstrated for the first time that the Dyson-Schwinger equation imposes non-trivial analytic constraints on the structure of the gluon propagator in BRST quantised QCD. These constraints imply that the gluon spectral density explicitly contains a massless component, but that the coefficient of this component is gauge-dependent. As well as the purely theoretical relevance of this result, these constraints could also provide important input for improving existing parametrisations of the gluon propagator.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
I thank Reinhard Alkofer for useful discussions and input. This work was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation under contract P2ZHP2\_168622, and by the DOE under contract DE-AC02-76SF00515.
[99]{}
R. Alkofer and J. Greensite, “Quark confinement: the hard problem of hadron physics,” *J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys.* **34**, S3 (2007).
J. E. Mandula, “The gluon propagator,” *Phys. Rep.* **315**, 273 (1999).
V. N. Gribov, “Quantization of Non-abelian Gauge Theories,” *Nucl. Phys. B* **139**, 1 (1978).
D. Zwanziger, “Local and renormalizable action from the Gribov horizon,” *Nucl. Phys. B* **323**, 513 (1989).
J. E. Mandula and M. Ogilvie, “The gluon is massive: A lattice calculation of the gluon propagator in the Landau gauge,” *Phys. Lett. B* **185**, 127 (1987).
R. Alkofer and L. von Smekal, “The Infrared behavior of QCD Green’s functions: Confinement dynamical symmetry breaking, and hadrons as relativistic bound states,” *Phys. Rept.* **353**, 281 (2001).
R. Alkofer, W. Detmold, C. S. Fischer and P. Maris, “Analytic properties of the Landau gauge gluon and quark propagators,” *Phys. Rev. D* **70**, 014014 (2004).
A. Cucchieri, T. Mendes, and A. R. Taurines, “Positivity violation for the lattice Landau gluon propagator,” *Phys. Rev. D* **71**, 051902(R) (2005).
A. Cucchieri and T. Mendes, “Constraints on the IR behavior of the gluon propagator in Yang-Mills theories,” *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **100**, 241601 (2008).
S. Strauss, C. S. Fischer and C. Kellermann, “Analytic Structure of the Landau-Gauge Gluon Propagator,” *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **109**, 252001 (2012).
O. Oliveira and P. J. Silva, “The lattice Landau gauge gluon propagator: lattice spacing and volume dependence,” *Phys. Rev. D* **86**, 114513 (2012).
D. Dudal, O. Oliveira and P. J. Silva, “Källén-Lehmann spectroscopy for (un)physical degrees of freedom,” *Phys. Rev. D* **89**, 014010 (2014).
M. Haas, L. Fister and J. M. Pawlowski, “Gluon spectral functions and transport coefficients in Yang-Mills theory,” *Phys. Rev. D* **90**, 091501 (2014).
N. Nakanishi and I. Ojima, *Covariant Operator Formalism of Gauge Theories and Quantum Gravity*, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd (1990).
N. N. Bogolubov, A. A. Logunov and A. I. Oksak, *General Principles of Quantum Field Theory*, Kluwer Academic Publishers (1990).
R. Oehme and W. Zimmermann, “Quark and gluon propagators in quantum chromodynamics,” *Phys. Rev. D* **21**, 471 (1980).
R. Oehme and W. Zimmermann, “Gauge field propagator and the number of fermion fields,” *Phys. Rev. D* **21**, 1661 (1980).
J. M. Cornwall, “Positivity violations in QCD,” *Mod. Phys. Lett. A* **28**, 1330035 (2013).
P. Lowdon, “The non-perturbative structure of the photon and gluon propagators,” *Phys. Rev. D* **96**, 065013 (2017).
R. F. Streater and A. S. Wightman, *PCT, Spin and Statistics, and all that*, W. A. Benjamin, Inc. (1964).
R. Haag, *Local Quantum Physics*, Springer-Verlag (1996).
F. Strocchi, *An Introduction to Non-Perturbative Foundations of Quantum Field Theory*, Oxford University Press (2013).
P. Lowdon, “Spectral density constraints in quantum field theory,” *Phys. Rev. D* **92**, 045023 (2015).
F. Strocchi, “Locality, charges and quark confinement,” *Phys. Lett. B* **62**, 60 (1976).
F. Strocchi, “Local and covariant gauge quantum theories. Cluster property, superselection rules, and the infrared problem,” *Phys. Rev. D* **17**, 2010 (1978).
P. Lowdon, “Conditions on the violation of the cluster decomposition property in QCD,” *J. Math. Phys.* **57**, 102302 (2016).
C. D. Roberts, A. G. Williams and G. Krein, “On the Implications of Confinement,” *Int. J. Mod. Phys. A* [**[7]{}**]{}, 5607 (1992).
[^1]: Analytic approaches to constraining the non-perturbative structure of propagators have been pursued before, but have often relied on additional input such as the operator product expansion [@Lowdon15_1].
[^2]: For $n=0$, $c_{n}^{ab}$ is unconstrained but $d_{n}^{ab}$ vanishes [@Lowdon17_1]. As previously discussed, the possibility of non-vanishing terms involving derivatives of $\delta(p)$ arises because the BRST space of states has an indefinite inner product.
[^3]: Subtleties can arise if one attempts to express the gluon propagator exclusively in terms of $\rho_{1}^{ab}(s)$ [@Lowdon17_1], and this is why we will keep both spectral densities explicit in the proceeding analysis.
[^4]: In this notation, the Slavnov-Taylor identity has the form $p^{\mu}p^{\nu}\widehat{D}_{\mu\nu}^{ab\, F}(p) = -i\xi\delta^{ab}$.
[^5]: Since the terms involving deriviatives of $\delta(p)$ have support only at $p=0$, whereas the other terms are defined to have support outside $p=0$ (in the closed forward light cone) [@Bogolubov_Logunov_Oksak90], this justifies why these terms can be separately equated.
[^6]: See Ref. [@Lowdon17_1] for a general discussion of this issue.
[^7]: Performing the same analytic procedure for the photon propagator would also result in a massless spectral density component with a $Z_{3}^{-1}$ prefactor, where now $Z_{3}$ is the photon field renormalisation constant, which is gauge invariant.
[^8]: This sum rule is often referred to as the Oehme-Zimmermann superconvergence relation [@Oehme_Zimmermann80_1; @Oehme_Zimmermann80_2].
|
---
title: 'Precise Measurements of Branching Fractions for $\dsp$ Meson Decays to Two Pseudoscalar Mesons'
---
INTRODUCTION {#sec:intro}
============
Among the hadronic decays of the strange-charmed meson $D_s^+$, the theoretical treatment based on QCD-inspired models of its decays into two pseudoscalar mesons ($\dstopp$) is the cleanest [@Hai-Yang; @Cheng2010; @Fu-Sheng; @Yu2011]. Precision measurements of these decay rates can provide crucial calibrations to different theoretical models [@Cheng:2019ggx; @Hai-Yang; @Cheng2010; @Fu-Sheng; @Yu2011; @Hsiang-nan; @Li2012; @Di; @Wang2017]. For each decay branching fraction (BF) listed in Table \[tab:results\_BFs\_theo\], the precision of current measurements listed by the Particle Data Group (PDG) [@pdg2018] is still not good enough to test theoretical models. Hence, more precise and independent measurements are desired to further improve our understanding of QCD dynamics in charm physics.
In 2019, LHCb discovered $\emph{CP}$ violation in $D^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ and $D^0\to K^+K^-$ decays with a significance of 5.3$\sigma$ [@Aaij:2019kcg], providing stringent constraints on theoretical approaches to $\emph{CP}$ violation in the charm sector [@Hai-Yang; @Cheng2010; @Hsiang-nan; @Li2012]. For the strange-charmed meson $D_s^+$, there are theoretical predictions for the $\emph{CP}$ asymmetries of the singly Cabibbo-suppressed (SCS) decay modes, which rely on the potential effect of SU(3) symmetry breaking [@Cheng:2019ggx; @Buccella:2019kpn]. However, the current world average results, as shown in Table \[tab:results\_BFs\_theo\], suffer from large uncertainties and are thus insensitive to SU(3) breaking. More precise measurements of the BFs for the SCS modes in $\dstopp$ will help to explore SU(3) symmetry breaking in $D_s^+$ decays [@Cheng:2019ggx; @Buccella:2019kpn]. As a result, more reliable theoretical predictions of $\emph{CP}$ asymmetries in the $D_s^+$ SCS hadronic decays can be achieved.
In this work, we measure the BFs for seven two-body hadronic decays $\dstopp$: $\dstoketaprim$, $\pietaprim$, $\keta$, $\pieta$, $\kpipi$, $\pipipi$ and $\kpiz$. These decay modes were previously measured by CLEO [@cleo2008; @cleo2010; @cleo2013]. The analysis is carried out in the process of $e^+e^-\to D_s^+D_s^{*-} + c.c.\to \gamma D_s^+ D_s^-$ based on data samples collected at the center-of-mass energies $\sqrt{s}$ = 4.178, 4.189, 4.199, 4.209, 4.219 and 4.226 $\gev$, corresponding to the integrated luminosities of 3189.0, 526.7, 526.0, 517.1, 514.6 and 1091.7 pb$^{-1}$, respectively [@Ablikim:2015zaa; @Ablikim:2015nan].
A partial reconstruction technique is adopted: only one $D_s^{\pm}$, decaying into the $PP^{\,\prime}$ mode, is detected along with a soft photon from $D_s^{*\pm}(D_s^{*\mp})$; the other $D_s^{\mp}$ is not used. The BFs are measured relative to the normalization mode $D_s^+\to K^+K^-\pi^+$. In the context, charge conjugate modes are always implied, unless explicitly mentioned.
[c|c c c c c c c]{} & && & & &\
&&SU(3)&
----------------
SU(3)-breaking
----------------
&&&&\
$\kaon^+\eta'$ & $1.8\pm0.6$ &
---------------
$1.23\pm0.06$
---------------
&
---------------
$1.49\pm0.08$
---------------
&
---------------
$1.07\pm0.17$
---------------
&
-------------
$1.4\pm0.4$
-------------
& $1.92$ &
-------------
$3.1\pm0.4$
-------------
\
$\eta'\pi^+$ & $39.4\pm2.5$ & - & - &
--------------
$38.2\pm3.6$
--------------
&
----------
$46\pm6$
----------
& $34.4$ &
--------------
$46.7\pm6.2$
--------------
\
$\kaon^+\eta$ & $1.77\pm0.35$ &
---------------
$0.91\pm0.03$
---------------
&
---------------
$0.86\pm0.03$
---------------
&
---------------
$0.78\pm0.09$
---------------
&
---------------
$1.76\pm0.36$
---------------
& $1.00$ &
---------------
$0.91\pm0.20$
---------------
\
$\eta\pi^+$ & $17.0\pm0.9$ & - & - &
--------------
$18.2\pm3.2$
--------------
&
--------------
$18.4\pm1.5$
--------------
& $16.5$ &
--------------
$19.6\pm4.4$
--------------
\
$\kaon^+\ks$ & $15.0\pm0.5$ & - & - &
----------------
$14.85\pm3.20$
----------------
&
--------------
$14.9\pm0.8$
--------------
& $15.0$ &
--------------
$15.0\pm1.6$
--------------
\
$\ks\pi^+$ & $1.22\pm0.06$ &
---------------
$1.20\pm0.04$
---------------
&
---------------
$1.27\pm0.04$
---------------
&
-----------------
$1.365\pm0.260$
-----------------
&
---------------
$1.26\pm0.27$
---------------
& $1.055$ &
---------------
$1.04\pm0.13$
---------------
\
$\kaon^+\pi^{0}$ & $0.63\pm0.21$ &
---------------
$0.86\pm0.04$
---------------
&
---------------
$0.56\pm0.02$
---------------
&
---------------
$0.86\pm0.09$
---------------
&
---------------
$0.62\pm0.23$
---------------
& $0.67$ &
---------------
$0.69\pm0.03$
---------------
\
BESIII DETECTOR AND MONTE CARLO SIMULATION
==========================================
The BESIII detector is a magnetic spectrometer [@Ablikim:2009aa] located at BEPCII [@Yu:IPAC2016-TUYA01]. The cylindrical core of the BESIII detector consists of a helium-based main drift chamber (MDC), a plastic scintillator time-of-flight system (TOF), and a CsI(Tl) electromagnetic calorimeter (EMC), which are all enclosed in a superconducting solenoidal magnet providing a 1.0 T magnetic field. The solenoid is supported by an octagonal flux-return yoke with resistive plate counter muon tracker modules interleaved with steel. The acceptance of charged particles and photons is 93% over $4\pi$ solid angle. The charged-particle momentum resolution at $1~{\rm GeV}/c$ is $0.5\%$, and the ionization energy loss $\dedx$ resolution is $6\%$ for the electrons from Bhabha scattering. The EMC measures photon energies with a resolution of $2.5\%$ ($5\%$) at $1$ GeV in the barrel (end cap) region. The time resolution of the TOF barrel part is 68 ps, while that of the end cap part is 110 ps. The end cap TOF system was upgraded in 2015 with multi-gap resistive plate chamber technology, providing a time resolution of 60 ps [@etof]. Only the 4.226 GeV data was taken before this upgrade.
Simulated data samples, produced with the [geant4]{}-based [@geant4] Monte Carlo (MC) package which includes the geometric description of the BESIII detector and the detector response, are used to determine the detection efficiency and to estimate the backgrounds. The simulation includes the beam energy spread and initial state radiation in the $e^+e^-$ annihilations modelled with the generator [kkmc]{} [@ref:kkmc]. In order to study the backgrounds, generic MC samples consisting of open-charm states, radiative return to $J/\psi$ and $\psi(2S)$, and continuum processes of $q\bar{q}~(q=u, d, s)$, along with Bhabha scattering, $\mu^+\mu^-$, $\tau^+\tau^-$, and $\gamma\gamma$ events are generated. The known decay modes are modeled with [evtgen]{} [@ref:evtgen] using BFs taken from PDG [@pdg2018], and the remaining unknown decays from the charmonium states are treated with [lundcharm]{} [@ref:lundcharm]. Final state radiation (FSR) from charged final state particles is incorporated with the [photos]{} package [@photos]. The signal MC samples of $\ee\to D_s^{*\pm}D_s^{\mp}$ with a $\dsp$ meson decaying to the signal decay modes together with a $\dsm$ decaying inclusively are generated with [ConExc]{} [@Ping:2013jka].
MEASUREMENT METHOD {#sec:method}
==================
In this analysis, a candidate $\dsp$ meson is reconstructed by the combination of the detected final-state particles. With current precision, $\emph{CP}$ violation is negligible, which means the BFs for $\dsp$ decays to the mode $i^+$, $\mathcal{B}^{i^+}\equiv\mathcal{B}(D_s^+ \to i^+)$, and for $\dsm$ decays to the mode $i^-$, $\mathcal{B}^{i^-}$, are equal. Therefore, we denote $\mathcal{B}^{i^+}=\mathcal{B}^{i^-}=\mathcal{B}^{i}$. The yield, $n^{i}$, of the observed $\dsp\to i$ signal events at all six energy points can be written as $$n^{i}=2N^{D_s^{*+}D_s^{-}} \cdot\mathcal{B}^i\cdot\mathcal{B}_{inter}^{i}\cdot \overline{\varepsilon}^i,
\label{eq:signal}$$ where $N^{D_s^{*+}D_s^{-}}$ is the total number of $D_s^{*+}D_s^{-}$ pairs produced in all the data samples. For mode $i$, $\mathcal{B}_{inter}^i$ is the product BFs of the involved intermediate states ($\eta'$, $\eta$, $\ks$ and $\piz$), and $\overline{\varepsilon}^i$ is average detection efficiency for the whole data set, which is given as $$\overline{\varepsilon}^i = \frac{ \sum\limits_{k=1}^6 L_{k}\cdot\sigma_{k} \cdot \varepsilon_k^i}{\sum\limits_{k=1}^6L_{k} \cdot \sigma_{k}}.
\label{eq:eff_weight}$$ Here, $L_{k}$ is the integrated luminosity, $\sigma_{k}$ is the observed cross section and $\varepsilon_k^i$ is the detection efficiency at the $k$-th energy point.
The absolute BF of the normalization mode decay, $\dstokkpi$, is denoted by $\mathcal{B}^{\kaon^+\kaon^-\pi^+}$ and is taken from PDG [@pdg2018]. Based on Eq. , the relative BF for the signal mode $D_s^+\to i$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\emph{$R^{i}$}=\frac{\mathcal{B}^i}{\mathcal{B}^{K^+K^-\pi^+}}= \frac{n^i \cdot \overline{\varepsilon}^{K^+K^-\pi^+}}{n^{K^+K^-\pi^+} \cdot \overline{\varepsilon}^i \cdot \mathcal{B}^i_{inter}}\,.
\label{eq:relative_ratio}
\end{aligned}$$ The absolute BF $\mathcal{B}^{i}$ is obtained by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{B}^i=R^i\cdot\mathcal{B}^{K^+K^-\pi^+}.
\end{aligned}$$
EVENT SELECTION {#sec:event_selection}
===============
Charged tracks are reconstructed from hits in the MDC. Except for the tracks used to reconstruct the $\ks$ meson, the distances of closest approach to the interaction point are required to satisfy $R_{xy}<1.0$ cm in the $xy$ plane perpendicular to the beam direction and $R_z<10.0$ cm along the average beam direction. The track polar angle $\theta$ must satisfy $|\costht|<0.93$. For particle identification (PID) of charged tracks, measurements of $\dedx$ and the flight time measured by the TOF are combined to form a likelihood $L(h)$ ($h=\pi, K$) for each hadron hypothesis. Tracks are identified as charged pions when the PID likelihoods of pions are larger than those of kaons, $L(\pi)>L(K)$, while tracks with $L(K)>L(\pi)$ are identified as kaons.
Shower clusters with no association to any charged tracks in the EMC crystals will be identified as photon candidates when the following requirements are fulfilled: the measured EMC time is within $0\leqslant t \leqslant 700$ ns of the event start time to suppress the electronic noise and showers unrelated to the events; the deposited energy is larger than 25 $\mev$ in the barrel ($|\costht|<0.80$) and larger than 50 $\mev$ in the end cap ($0.86<|\costht|<0.92$). Additionally, the angle between a photon candidate and the nearest charged track must be larger than 10$^\circ$ to prevent contamination from hadronic showers.
The $\piz$ and $\eta$ meson candidates are reconstructed from photon pairs with the invariant mass $M(\gamma\gamma)$ within \[0.120, 0.145\] $\gevcc$ and \[0.510, 0.560\] $\gevcc$, respectively. In order to improve the momentum resolution, a kinematic fit constraining the reconstructed $\piz$ ($\eta$) mass to its nominal mass [@pdg2018] is applied and the fitted four-momentum of the $\piz$ ($\eta$) meson is used for further analysis. The $\etaprim$ meson candidates are reconstructed from $\pip\pim\eta$ with an $M(\pip\pim\eta)$ invariant mass requirement of \[0.945, 0.970\] $\gevcc$.
Candidate $\ks$ mesons are reconstructed from two oppositely charged tracks, with no PID requirement; these tracks are required to satisfy the polar angle requirement $|\cos\theta|<0.93$ and $R_{xy}<20$ cm. Furthermore, there is usually a detectable displacement before the decay of $\ks$ meson due to its relatively long lifetime. Therefore, the decay length and corresponding uncertainty of $\ks$ candidates are required to satisfy $L/\sigma_{L} > 2$, which suppresses prompt $\pip\pim$ combinatorial background. The $\ks$ meson candidates with an invariant mass $M(\pip\pim)$ within the mass window \[0.491, 0.505\] $\gevcc$ are retained.
For a specific $\dsp$ decay mode, the $\dsp$ signal candidates are formed by combining all the detected final-state particles. In addition, a radiative photon from the $D_s^{*\pm}$ decay must be detected. Among all the $\gamma\dsp$ combinations in the event, the one with the minimal $|\deltaE|$ is kept for subsequent analysis only, where $\deltaE$ is the difference between the center-of-mass energy $E_{0}\equiv \sqrt{s}$ and the total energy of $\gamma\dsp\dsm$ in the center-of-mass frame of the $e^+e^-$ beams $$\begin{aligned}
\deltaE = (E_{\dsp} + E_{\gamma}+E_{\rm rec}) - E_{0}.
\label{eq:deltaE}
\end{aligned}$$ Here $E_{\dsp}$ and $E_{\gamma}$ are the energies of reconstructed $\dsp$ and $\gamma$ from $D_s^{*\pm}$, respectively. $E_{\rm rec}$ is the energy of the recoiled $\dsm$, defined as $$\begin{aligned}
E_{\rm rec}=\sqrt{\left|-(\overrightarrow{p}_{\dsp}+\overrightarrow{p}_{\gamma})\right|^2+m_{\dsm}^2},
\label{eq:recoilE}
\end{aligned}$$ where **$\overrightarrow{p}_{\dsp}$** is the total momentum of the detected $\dsp$, **$\overrightarrow{p}_{\gamma}$** is the momentum of the radiative photon $\gamma$, and $m_{\dsm}$ is the nominal mass of the $\dsm$ [@pdg2018]. For a correctly reconstructed $\dsp$ candidate, $\deltaE$ is expected to be around zero. Therefore, candidates will be rejected when they fail the requirements of $\deltaE$ for each decay mode, as shown in Table \[tab:deltaE\_cross\_cut\_ranges\], which correspond to the $\pm3\sigma$ regions of the signal $\deltaE$ distributions. To further improve the kinematic resolutions of the final states, a kinematic fit is performed to constrain the recoil mass of the $\dsp\gamma$, $M_{\rm rec}(\dsp\gamma)$, to the nominal mass of the $\dsm$. According to the kinematic fit, the four momenta of all the final-state particles are updated.
As an example, data for $\dstokpiz$ is shown in Fig. \[fig:crossCut\_after\_1c\_kpi0\]; the two-dimensional distribution of the recoil mass $\mdsprec$ and the invariant mass $M(\dsp\gamma)$ depicts the two resonance structures of the processes. The horizontal band corresponds to $\ee\to\dsstp\dsm\to\gamma\dsp\dsm$, while the vertical band corresponds to $\ee\to\dsp\dsstm\to\dsp\gamma\dsm$. To improve the signal-to-background ratio, we further retain only events lying in the regions of the horizontal or vertical bands defined in Table \[tab:deltaE\_cross\_cut\_ranges\].
Decay $\deltaE$($\gev$) $\mdsprec$($\gevcc$) $\mdspgam$($\gevcc$)
---------------- ------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------
$\kaon^+\eta'$ ($-$0.040, 0.025) (2.100, 2.130) (2.095, 2.130)
$\eta'\pi^+$ ($-$0.040, 0.025) (2.100, 2.130) (2.095, 2.130)
$\kaon^+\eta$ ($-$0.045, 0.025) (2.100, 2.130) (2.095, 2.130)
$\eta\pi^+$ ($-$0.045, 0.025) (2.100, 2.130) (2.095, 2.130)
$\kaon^+\ks$ ($-$0.040, 0.020) (2.100, 2.130) (2.100, 2.130)
$\ks\pi^+$ ($-$0.040, 0.020) (2.100, 2.130) (2.100, 2.130)
$\kaon^+\piz$ ($-$0.050, 0.020) (2.100, 2.130) (2.100, 2.130)
$\kp\km\pi^+$ ($-$0.030, 0.020) (2.100, 2.130) (2.100, 2.130)
: Summary of the requirements of $\deltaE$, $\mdsprec$ and $\mdspgam$ for each $\dstopp$ decay mode and the normalization mode.
\[tab:deltaE\_cross\_cut\_ranges\]
![Two-dimensional distribution of the recoil mass of $\dsp$ and the invariant mass of $\dsp\gamma$ for the decay $\dstokpiz$, where the solid lines denote the boundaries for the horizontal and vertical band ranges.[]{data-label="fig:crossCut_after_1c_kpi0"}](crosscut/canvPlane_1c.pdf){width="10.0cm"}
SIGNAL YIELD AND BRANCHING FRACTION
===================================
To extract the signal yields for the signal $\dstopp$ decay modes and the normalization decay mode, unbinned extended maximum likelihood fits are performed on the $\mdsp$ distributions of the selected candidates in data. In each fit, the probability density function (PDF) is parameterized as the sum of signal and background PDFs. The signal PDF is a template shape formed from the signal MC sample convolved with a Gaussian function to compensate the resolution difference between data and MC simulations. For the more common Cabibbo-favored (CF) decay modes $\dstokkpi$, $\dstokpipi$, $\dstopieta$, $\dstopietaprim$ and the SCS decay $\dstokpiz$, the Gaussian parameters are left free. For the low-yield SCS decays $\dstopipipi$, $\dstoketa$ and $\dstoketaprim$, the Gaussian parameters are fixed at the values obtained from the corresponding fits to the CF decay modes $\dstokpipi$, $\dstopieta$ and $\dstopietaprim$, respectively, since the kaons and pions have almost the same kinematics. According to the background study using inclusive MC samples, peaking backgrounds are present for the modes of $\dstopietaprim$, $\dstokpipi$ and $\dstopipipi$. The peaking backgrounds are modeled in the fit with the MC-determined shape and size. The fractions of the peaking background in the total event yields are estimated to be 2.0$\%$, 1.4$\%$ and 1.6$\%$ for $\dstopietaprim$, $\dstokpipi$ and $\dstopipipi$, respectively. The non-peaking background components are described with linear functions and second-order Chebychev functions for the CF and SCS decay modes, respectively. The fits are presented in Fig. \[fig:data\_yields\], and the numerical results of the signal yields are listed in Table \[tab:yield\_efficiency\_ratio\]. The relative and absolute BFs, calculated with the average detection efficiencies obtained from the signal MC simulations, are summarized in Table \[tab:yield\_efficiency\_ratio\].
Decay $n^{i}$ $\overline{\varepsilon}^i$ (%) *$R^{i}$* (%) $\mathcal{B}^i$ ($10^{-3}$)
---------------- ---------------- -------------------------------- -------------------------- -----------------------------------
$\kaon^+\eta'$ $675\pm43$ $13.66\pm0.20$ $ 4.83\pm0.31\pm0.30$ $2.63\pm0.17\pm0.16\pm0.08$
$\eta'\pi^+$ $9912\pm113$ $14.19\pm0.04$ $68.3\pm0.8\pm3.7$ $37.2\pm0.4\pm2.0\pm1.2$
$\kaon^+\eta$ $1841\pm114$ $26.21\pm0.17$ $ 2.98\pm0.18\pm0.05$ $1.62\pm0.10\pm0.03\pm0.05$
$\eta\pi^+$ $19519\pm192$ $25.86\pm0.05$ $32.03\pm0.33\pm0.49$ $17.46\pm0.18\pm0.27\pm0.54$
$\kaon^+\ks$ $35977\pm206$ $31.47\pm0.05$ $27.55\pm0.18\pm0.50$ $15.02\pm 0.10\pm0.27\pm 0.47$
$\ks\pi^+$ $2724\pm83$ $32.27\pm0.16$ $ 2.035\pm0.062\pm0.042$ $1.109\pm 0.034\pm0.023\pm 0.035$
$\kaon^+\piz$ $2275\pm149$ $27.96\pm0.18$ $ 1.373\pm0.090\pm0.034$ $0.748\pm 0.049\pm0.018\pm 0.023$
$\kp\km\pi^+$ $160262\pm478$ $26.73\pm0.02$ $100$ 54.5$\pm$1.7
: Summary of the signal yields, average detection efficiencies, relative BFs and absolute BFs of individual signal decay modes. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second is systematic, and the third is external, from the BF of the normalization mode $\dstokkpi$ [@pdg2018]. The uncertainties on efficiencies are due to the limited MC event statistics.
\[tab:yield\_efficiency\_ratio\]
SYSTEMATIC UNCERTAINTY
======================
The sources of systematic uncertainties considered in obtaining the relative BFs include the MC statistics, $\sigma$($e^+e^-\to\dsstpdsm$) lineshape, shapes of invariant mass distributions for signal and background, peaking background modeling, kinematic fit, $\deltaE$ and invariant mass requirements, reconstruction efficiency estimation and quoted BFs. Table \[tab:sys\_err\] summarizes all of these systematic uncertainties. Some correlated uncertainties between the signal decay modes and the reference decay mode have been partially cancelled when extracting $\emph{$R^{i}$}$ in Table \[tab:yield\_efficiency\_ratio\].
[c|c c c c c c c]{} Source & $\kaon^+\eta'$ & $\eta'\pi^+$ &$\kaon^+\eta$ & $\eta\pi^+$ & $\kaon^+\ks$ & $\ks\pi^+$ & $\kaon^+\pi^0$\
MC statistics & 0.7 & 0.1 & 0.3 & 0.1 & 0.1 & 0.2 & 0.3\
Lineshape & 1.0 & 0.5 & 1.1 & 0.9 & 0.1 & 1.0 & 1.8\
Signal shape & 1.0 & 1.0 & 0.7 & 0.7 & 0.3 & 0.3 & 0.3\
Background shape & 0.0 & 0.3 & 1.0 & 0.2 & 0.0 & 0.8 & 1.4\
Peaking background & - & 0.8 & - & - & 0.0 & 0.1 & -\
Kinematic fit & 0.6 & 0.6 & 0.6 & 0.6 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.6\
$\deltaE$ and invariant masses & 2.2 & 1.8 & 0.4 & 0.4 & 1.1 & 1.0 & 0.4\
---------------------------
Reconstruction efficiency
---------------------------
& 5.4 & 4.6 & 0.2 & 0.5 & 1.4 & 1.2 & 0.0\
Quoted BFs & 1.7 & 1.7 & 0.5 & 0.5 & 0.1 & 0.1 & 0.0\
Total & 6.3 & 5.5 & 1.8 & 1.5 & 1.8 & 2.0 & 2.5\
\[tab:sys\_err\]
- *MC Statistics.* Average detection efficiencies are evaluated using MC simulated samples. The uncertainties due to the limited sample sizes, obtained by propagating the statistical uncertainties of the individual efficiencies at different energy points according to Eq. , are assigned as systematic uncertainties.
- *$\sigma$[(]{}$e^+e^-\to\dsstpdsm$[)]{} lineshape.* Signal PDFs and detection efficiencies have slight dependencies on the input lineshape of $\sigma$($e^+e^-\to\dsstpdsm$). To evaluate this uncertainty, different lineshapes are used to estimate the detection efficiencies and data yields. The resulting changes in BFs are taken as systematic uncertainties.
- *Signal shape.* The uncertainties related to the signal shapes are studied using the decays $\dstokpiz$, $\dstopietaprim$, $\dstopieta$ and $\dstokpipi$. In the nominal analysis, signal shape in the $\mdsp$ distribution of the signal candidates is modelled by the signal PDF convolved with a Gaussian function. Double-Gaussian functions are used instead as convolution functions, and the resultant changes of BFs are taken as systematic uncertainties. For the low-yield SCS decays $\dstopipipi$, $\dstoketa$ and $\dstoketaprim$ the uncertainties of the corresponding CF modes are used.
- *Background shape.* In the nominal analysis, the background shapes are described by first-order polynomial functions for the decays $\dstopietaprim$, $\dstopieta$, $\dstokpipi$ and $\dstokkpi$ and second-order polynomials for the decays $\dstoketaprim$, $\dstoketa$, $\dstopipipi$ and $\dstokpiz$. To estimate the uncertainties from the background shapes, higher-order polynomials are considered as alternatives: second-order and third-order, respectively. The resulting changes of the BFs are taken as systematic uncertainties.
- *Peaking background.* The contributions to the peaking backgrounds of $\dstokpipi$, $\dstopipipi$ and $\dstopietaprim$ are from the decays of $D^+\to\ks\pi^+$ (due to $\kaon^{+}$ and $\pi^{+}$ misidentification), $D_s^+\to\pi^+\pi^+\pi^-$ and $D_s^+\to a_1(1260)^+\eta$, respectively. Their shapes and sizes are fixed according to MC simulations in the fit. The input BFs of these background processes are varied by their uncertainties and the changes in results are taken as systematic uncertainties.
- *Kinematic fit.* High-yield CF decays of $\dstokpipi$ and $\dstopieta$ are used to study the uncertainty due to the kinematic fit. We perform the analysis without applying the kinematic fit. The differences from the nominal results are taken as systematic uncertainties. For the $\dstopipipi$ mode the uncertainty from $\dstokpipi$ is taken while the uncertainty from $\dstopieta$ is assigned to the decays with photons in the final states.
- *$\deltaE$ and invariant mass requirements.* To estimate potential bias on efficiency estimations by restricting the kinematics in the selected regions, the distributions of the kinematic variables in MC simulations are smeared with Gaussian functions. The parameters of the functions are obtained by fitting the smeared MC distributions to the corresponding distributions in data. The variables $\deltaE$, ${\it M}$($\pip\pim$), ${\it M}$($\gamma\gamma$), ${\it M}$($\pip\pim\eta$), ${\it M_{\rm rec}}(D_{s}^{+})$ and ${\it M}(D_{s}^{+}\gamma)$ are studied. Updated efficiencies based on the Gaussian-smeared MC simulations are obtained and the relative changes from the nominal efficiencies are assigned as the systematic uncertainties.
- *Reconstruction efficiency.* We consider the efficiencies of tracking and PID ($K^{\pm}$, $\pi^{\pm}$) and the efficiencies of intermediate particles ($\pi^{0}$, $\eta$, $\ks$) reconstructions, which are studied based on a series of control samples. The $\kaon^{\pm}$ and $\pi^{\pm}$ tracking and PID efficiencies are studied using control samples of $e^+e^-\to\kaon^+\kaon^-\pi^+\pi^-$, $\kaon^+\kaon^-\kaon^+\kaon^-$, $\kaon^+\kaon^-\pi^+\pi^-\piz$, $\pi^+\pi^-\pi^+\pi^-$ and $\pi^+\pi^-\pi^+\pi^-\piz$ events [@Ablikim:2019whl]. A partial cancellation of the tracking and PID uncertainties in the ratio of the signal modes and the normalization mode is taken into account. The $\piz$ and $\eta$ reconstruction efficiencies are evaluated using the double-tag $D\bar{D}$ hadronic decays $D^0\to\kaon^-\pi^+$, $\kaon^-\pi^+\pi^+\pi^-$ versus $\bar{D}^0\to\kaon^+\pi^-\piz$, $\ks\piz$ [@Ablikim:2016sqt; @Ablikim:2016xny] and approximating the $\eta$ behavior as similar to the $\pi^0$. The $\ks$ reconstruction efficiency is studied with samples of $J/\psi\to\kaon^{*}(892)^{\pm}\kaon^{\mp}$, $\kaon^{*}(892)^{\pm}\to\ks\pi^{\pm}$ and $J/\psi\to\phi\ks\kaon^{\mp}\pi^{\pm}$ [@Ablikim:2015qgt]. To account for the different kinematics of the various signal modes, the nominal detection efficiencies are scaled based on event-by-event corrections according to the momentum-dependent efficiency differences between MC simulations and data. The appropriately averaged scaling factors are assigned as the corresponding systematic uncertainties, as given in Table \[tab:sys\_err\]. Here, the $\dstoketaprim$ and $\dstopietaprim$ decays suffer from large reconstruction uncertainties due to the low-momentum charged pions and $\eta$ from $\eta'$ decay.
- *Quoted BFs.* The nominal BFs of $\ks\to\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$, $\pi^{0}\to\gamma\gamma$, $\eta\to\gamma\gamma$ and $\eta'\to\eta\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$ are used and their corresponding uncertainties [@pdg2018] are propagated as systematic uncertainties.
Relative BFs This work PDG [@pdg2018]
-------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- ----------------
$\mathcal{B}(\kaon^+\eta')$/$\mathcal{B}(\eta'\pi^+)$ $7.07\pm0.46\pm0.11$ $4.2\pm1.3$
$\mathcal{B}(\kaon^+\eta)$/$\mathcal{B}(\eta\pi^+)$ $9.31\pm0.58\pm0.10$ $8.9\pm1.6$
$\mathcal{B}(\ks\pi^+)$/$\mathcal{B}(\kaon^+\ks)$ $7.38\pm0.23\pm0.09$ $8.12\pm0.28$
$\mathcal{B}(\kaon^+\eta)$/$\mathcal{B}(\kaon^+\eta')$ $61.7\pm5.5\pm3.6$ –
$\mathcal{B}(\eta\pi^+)$/$\mathcal{B}(\eta'\pi^+)$ $46.90\pm0.71\pm2.04$ –
: Results of the obtained relative BFs (in unit of $\%$). The first uncertainty is statistical, and the second is systematic.[]{data-label="tab:other_branching_ratios"}
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
======================
The BFs for $\dstoketaprim$, $\dstopietaprim$, $\dstoketa$, $\dstopieta$, $\dstokpipi$, $\dstopipipi$ and $\dstokpiz$ are measured using $\ee$ collision data collected at $\sqrt{s}=4.178\sim4.226~\gev$ in the BESIII experiment. The results obtained in this work are listed in Table \[tab:yield\_efficiency\_ratio\] and can be compared with the results from PDG [@pdg2018] as well as with theoretical predictions [@Hai-Yang; @Cheng2010; @Fu-Sheng; @Yu2011; @Hsiang-nan; @Li2012; @Di; @Wang2017] (Table \[tab:results\_BFs\_theo\]). Our results are consistent with the PDG values, while the precision is three to five times better than that of previous results. In addition, our results in general agree with the available theoretical calculations [@Cheng:2019ggx; @Hai-Yang; @Cheng2010; @Fu-Sheng; @Yu2011; @Hsiang-nan; @Li2012; @Di; @Wang2017] within about 3$\sigma$. However, the discrepancies from our measurements are significant for the model calculations in Ref. [@Hai-Yang; @Cheng2010] for the modes $\dstoketaprim$ and $\dstoketa$, and from the model calculations in Ref. [@Hsiang-nan; @Li2012] for the mode $\dstoketa$. Investigating these discrepancies should aid in further developing these QCD-derived models in charm physics.
The ratios of the BFs, $\mathcal{B}(\kaon^+\eta')$/$\mathcal{B}(\eta'\pi^+)$, $\mathcal{B}(\kaon^+\eta)$/$\mathcal{B}(\eta\pi^+)$, $\mathcal{B}(\ks\pi^+)$/ $\mathcal{B}(\kaon^+\ks)$, $\mathcal{B}(\kaon^+\eta)$/$\mathcal{B}(\kaon^+\eta')$, and $\mathcal{B}(\eta\pi^+)$/$\mathcal{B}(\eta'\pi^+)$, are also determined, as listed in Table \[tab:other\_branching\_ratios\]. The partial cancellations of the systematic uncertainties from $\sigma$($e^+e^-\to\dsstpdsm$) lineshape, signal shape, background shape, peaking background, kinematic fit, $\deltaE$ and invariant mass requirements, and reconstruction efficiency between the pairs of decay modes are considered. Our results of $\mathcal{B}(\kaon^+\eta')$/$\mathcal{B}(\eta'\pi^+)$, $\mathcal{B}(\kaon^+\eta)$/$\mathcal{B}(\eta\pi^+)$, $\mathcal{B}(\ks\pi^+)$/ $\mathcal{B}(\kaon^+\ks)$ are consistent with the PDG values within about 2$\sigma$, but the precisions are improved. Our results are also in general accord with the theoretical calculations [@Cheng:2019ggx; @Hai-Yang; @Cheng2010; @Fu-Sheng; @Yu2011; @Hsiang-nan; @Li2012; @Di; @Wang2017] within about 3$\sigma$. However, our measurements are in disagreement with the model calculations in Refs. [@Hai-Yang; @Cheng2010; @Fu-Sheng; @Yu2011] for the ratio $\mathcal{B}(\kaon^+\eta')$/$\mathcal{B}(\eta'\pi^+)$ and with those in Refs. [@Hai-Yang; @Cheng2010; @Hsiang-nan; @Li2012] for the ratio $\mathcal{B}(\kaon^+\eta)$/$\mathcal{B}(\eta\pi^+)$. The theoretical uncertainties on these ratios are expected to be reduced as well, offering more meaningful comparisons between experimental measurements and theoretical calculations.
The BESIII collaboration thanks the staff of BEPCII and the IHEP computing center for their strong support. This work is supported in part by National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) under Contracts Nos. 11625523, 11635010, 11675275, 11735014, 11775027, 11822506, 11835012, 11935015, 11935016, 11935018, 11975021, 11961141012; National Key Basic Research Program of China under Contract No. 2015CB856700; the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) Large-Scale Scientific Facility Program; CAS Key Research Program of Frontier Sciences under Contracts Nos. QYZDJ-SSW-SLH003, QYZDJ-SSW-SLH040; Joint Large-Scale Scientific Facility Funds of the NSFC and CAS under Contracts Nos. U1932101, U1832207, U1732263; 100 Talents Program of CAS; National 1000 Talents Program of China; INPAC and Shanghai Key Laboratory for Particle Physics and Cosmology; The University of Chinese Academy of Sciences; The Beijing municipal government under Contract No. CIT$\&$TCD201704047; ERC under Contract No. 758462; German Research Foundation DFG under Contracts Nos. Collaborative Research Center CRC 1044, FOR 2359; Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Italy; Ministry of Development of Turkey under Contract No. DPT2006K-120470; National Science and Technology fund; STFC (United Kingdom); The Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation (Sweden) under Contract No. 2016.0157; The Royal Society, UK under Contracts Nos. DH140054, DH160214; The Swedish Research Council; U. S. Department of Energy under Contracts Nos. DE-FG02-05ER41374, DE-SC-0012069.
[99]{} H. Y. Cheng and C. W. Chiang, *Two-body hadronic charmed meson decays*, *Phys. Rev. D* [**81**]{} (2010) 074021. \[arXiv:1001.0987\]
F. S. Yu, X. X. Wang and C. D. Lu, *Nonleptonic Two Body Decays of Charmed Mesons*, *Phys. Rev. D* [**84**]{} (2011) 074019. \[arXiv:1101.4714\]
H. Y. Cheng and C. W. Chiang, *Revisiting CP violation in $D\to P\!P$ and $V\!P$ decays*, *Phys. Rev. D* [**100**]{} (2019) 093002. \[arXiv:1909.03063\]
H. n. Li, C. D. Lu and F. S. Yu, *Branching ratios and direct CP asymmetries in $D\to PP$ decays*, *Phys. Rev. D* [**86**]{} (2012) 036012. \[arXiv:1203.3120\]
D. Wang, F. S. Yu, P. F. Guo and H. Y. Jiang, *$K_{S}^{0}-K_{L}^{0}$ asymmetries in $D$-meson decays*, *Phys. Rev. D* [**95**]{} (2017) 073007. \[arXiv:1701.07173\]
M. Tanabashi [*et al.*]{} \[Particle Data Group\], *Review of Particle Physics*, *Phys. Rev. D* [**98**]{} (2018) 030001 and the 2019 online update.
R. Aaij [*et al.*]{} \[LHCb Collaboration\], *Observation of $CP$ violation in charm decays*, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**122**]{} (2019) 211803. \[arXiv:1903.08726\]
F. Buccella, A. Paul and P. Santorelli, *$SU(3)_F$ breaking through final state interactions and $CP$ asymmetries in $D \to PP$ decays*, *Phys. Rev. D* [**99**]{} (2019) 113001. \[arXiv:1902.05564\]
J. P. Alexander [*et al.*]{} \[CLEO Collaboration\], *Absolute measurement of hadronic branching fractions of the ${D}_{s}^{+}$ meson*, *Phys. Rev. Lett. * [**100**]{} (2008) 161804. \[arXiv:0801.0680\]
H. Mendez [*et al.*]{} \[CLEO Collaboration\], *Measurements of D meson decays to two pseudoscalar mesons*, *Phys. Rev. D* [**81**]{} (2010) 052013. \[arXiv:0906.3198\]
P. U. E. Onyisi [*et al.*]{} \[CLEO Collaboration\], *Improved measurement of absolute hadronic branching fractions of the $D_s^+$ meson*, *Phys. Rev. D* [**88**]{} (2013) 032009. \[arXiv:1306.5363\]
M. Ablikim [*et al.*]{} \[BESIII Collaboration\], *Measurement of the center-of-mass energies at BESIII via the di-muon process*, *Chin. Phys. C* [**40**]{} (2016) 063001. \[arXiv:1510.08654\]
M. Ablikim [*et al.*]{} \[BESIII Collaboration\], *Precision measurement of the integrated luminosity of the data taken by BESIII at center of mass energies between 3.810 GeV and 4.600 GeV*, *Chin. Phys. C* [**39**]{} (2015) 093001. \[arXiv:1503.03408\]
M. Ablikim [*et al.*]{} \[BESIII Collaboration\], *Design and construction of the BESIII detector*, *Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A* [**614**]{} (2010) 345. \[arXiv:0911.4960\]
C. Yu [*et al.*]{}, *BEPCII performance and beam dynamics studies on luminosity*, *JACoW-IPAC2016-TUYA01*.
X. Li [*et al.*]{}, *Study of MRPC technology for BESIII endcap-TOF upgrade*, *Radiat. Detect. Technol. Methods* [**1**]{} (2017) 13; Y. X. Guo [*et al.*]{}, *The study of time calibration for upgraded end cap TOF of BESIII*, *Radiat. Detect. Technol. Methods* [**1**]{} (2017) 15.
S. Agostinelli [*et al.*]{} \[GEANT4 Collaboration\], *GEANT4: A Simulation toolkit*, *Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A* [**506**]{} (2003) 250.
S. Jadach, B. F. L. Ward and Z. Was, *Coherent exclusive exponentiation for precision Monte Carlo calculations*, *Phys. Rev. D* [**63**]{} (2001) 113009; \[arXiv:hep-ph/0012124\] *The precision Monte Carlo event generator KK for two-fermion final states in $e^{+} e^{-}$ collisions*, *Comput. Phys. Commun. * [**130**]{} (2000) 260. \[arXiv:hep-ph/9912214\]
D. J. Lange, *The EvtGen particle decay simulation package*, *Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A* [**462**]{} (2001) 152; R. G. Ping, *Event generators at BESIII*, *Chin. Phys. C* [**32**]{} (2008) 599.
J. C. Chen, G. S. Huang, X. R. Qi, D. H. Zhang and Y. S. Zhu, *Event generator for $J/\psi$ and $\psi(2S)$ decay*, *Phys. Rev. D* [**62**]{} (2000) 034003; R. L. Yang, R. G. Ping and H. Chen, *Tuning and validation of the lundcharm model with $J/\psi$ decays*, *Chin. Phys. Lett. * [**31**]{} (2014) 061301.
E. Richter-Was, *QED bremsstrahlung in semileptonic B and leptonic $\tau$ decays*, *Phys. Lett. B* [**303**]{} (1993) 163.
R. G. Ping, *An exclusive event generator for $e^+ e^-$ scan experiments*, *Chin. Phys. C* [**38**]{} (2014) 083001. \[arXiv:1309.3932\]
M. Ablikim [*et al.*]{} \[BESIII Collaboration\], *Study of the decays $D_{s}^{+} \rightarrow K_{S}^{0}K^{+}$ and $K_{L}^{0}K^{+}$*, *Phys. Rev. D* [**99**]{} (2019) 112005. \[arXiv:1903.04164\]
M. Ablikim [*et al.*]{} \[BESIII Collaboration\], *Improved measurement of the absolute branching fraction of $D^{+}\rightarrow \bar{K}^0 \mu ^{+}\nu _{\mu }$*, *Eur. Phys. J. C* [**76**]{} (2016) 369. \[arXiv:1605.00068\]
M. Ablikim [*et al.*]{} \[BESIII Collaboration\], *Measurement of the absolute branching fraction of $D^{+}\rightarrow\bar K^0 e^{+}\nu_{e}$ via $\bar K^0\to\pi^0\pi^0$*, *Chin. Phys. C* [**40**]{} (2016) 113001. \[arXiv:1605.00208\]
M. Ablikim [*et al.*]{} \[BESIII Collaboration\], *Study of decay dynamics and $CP$ asymmetry in $D^+ \to K^0_L e^+ \nu_e$ decay*, *Phys. Rev. D* [**92**]{} (2015) 112008. \[arXiv:1510.00308\]
|
---
abstract: 'Driven by a large number of potential applications in areas like bioinformatics, information retrieval and social network analysis, the problem setting of inferring relations between pairs of data objects has recently been investigated quite intensively in the machine learning community. To this end, current approaches typically consider datasets containing crisp relations, so that standard classification methods can be adopted. However, relations between objects like similarities and preferences are often expressed in a graded manner in real-world applications. A general kernel-based framework for learning relations from data is introduced here. It extends existing approaches because both crisp and graded relations are considered, and it unifies existing approaches because different types of graded relations can be modeled, including symmetric and reciprocal relations. This framework establishes important links between recent developments in fuzzy set theory and machine learning. Its usefulness is demonstrated through various experiments on synthetic and real-world data.'
author:
- |
Willem Waegeman, Tapio Pahikkala, Antti Airola,\
Tapio Salakoski, Michiel Stock, Bernard De Baets
bibliography:
- 'referenties.bib'
- 'myBibliography.bib'
title: |
A kernel-based framework for learning\
graded relations from data
---
Introduction
============
Relational data occurs in many predictive modeling tasks, such as forecasting the winner in two-player computer games [@Bowling2006], predicting proteins that interact with other proteins in bioinformatics [@Yamanishi2004], retrieving documents that are similar to a target document in text mining [@Yang2009], investigating the persons that are friends of each other on social network sites [@Taskar2004], etc. All these examples represent fields of application in which specific machine learning and data mining algorithms have been successfully developed to infer relations from data; pairwise relations, to be more specific.
The typical learning scenario in such situations can be summarized as follows. Given a dataset of known relations between pairs of objects and a feature representation of these objects in terms of variables that might characterize the relations, the goal usually consists of inferring a statistical model that takes two objects as input and predicts whether the relation of interest occurs for these two objects. Moreover, since one aims to discover unknown relations, a good learning algorithm should be able to construct a predictive model that can generalize for unseen data, i.e., pairs of objects for which at least one of the two objects was not used to construct the model. As a result of the transition from predictive models for single objects to pairs of objects, new advanced learning algorithms need to be developed, resulting in new challenges with regard to model construction, computational tractability and model assessment.
As relations between objects can be observed in many different forms, this general problem setting provides links to several subfields of machine learning, like statistical relational learning [@Deraedt2009], graph mining [@Vert2005], metric learning [@Xing2002] and preference learning [@Hullermeier2010a]. More specifically, from a graph-theoretic perspective, learning a relation can be formulated as learning edges in a graph where the nodes represent information of the data objects; from a metric learning perspective, the relation that we aim to learn should satisfy some well-defined properties like positive definiteness, transitivity or the triangle inequality; and from a preference learning perspective, the relation expresses a (degree of) preference in a pairwise comparison of data objects.
The topic of learning relations between objects is also closely related to recent developments in fuzzy set theory. This article will elaborate on these connections via two important contributions: (1) the extension of the typical setting of learning crisp relations to real-valued and ordinal-valued relations and (2) the inclusion of domain knowledge about relations into the inference process by explicit modeling of mathematical properties of these relations. For algorithmic simplicity, one can observe that many approaches only learn crisp relations, that is relations with only 0 and 1 as possible values, so that standard binary classifiers can be modified. In this context, consider examples as inferring protein-protein interaction networks or metabolic networks in bioinformatics [@Yamanishi2004; @Geurts2007].
However, graded relations are observed in many real-world applications [@Doignon1986], resulting in a need for new algorithms that take graded relational information into account. Furthermore, the properties of graded relations have been investigated intensively in the recent fuzzy logic literature[^1], and these properties are very useful to analyze and improve current algorithms. Using mathematical properties of graded relations, constraints can be imposed for incorporating domain knowledge in the learning process, to improve predictive performance or simply to guarantee that a relation with the right properties is learned. This is definitely the case for properties like transitivity when learning similarity relations and preference relations – see e.g. [@Switalski2000; @DeBaets2005; @DeBaets2006; @Diaz2007], but even very basic properties like symmetry, antisymmetry or reciprocity already provide domain knowledge that can steer the learning process. For example, in social network analysis, the notion “person A being a friend of person B" should be considered as a symmetric relation, while the notion “person A defeats person B in a chess game" will be antisymmetric (or, equivalently, reciprocal). Nevertheless, many examples exist, too, where neither symmetry nor antisymmetry necessarily hold, like the notion “person A trusts person B".
In this paper we present a general kernel-based approach that unifies all the above cases into one general framework where domain knowledge can be easily specified by choosing a proper kernel and model structure, while different learning settings are distinguished by means of the loss function. Let ${Q}({v},{v}')$ be a binary relation on an object space ${\mathcal{V}}$, then the following learning settings will be considered in particular:
Crisp relations: when the restriction is made that $Q: {\mathcal{V}}^2 \rightarrow \{0,1\}$, we arrive at a binary classification task with pairs of objects as input for the classifier.
$[0,1]$-valued relations: here it is allowed that relations can take the form $Q: {\mathcal{V}}^2 \rightarrow [0,1]$, resulting in a regression type of learning setting. The restriction to the interval $[0,1]$ is predominantly made because many mathematical frameworks in fields like fuzzy set theory and decision theory are built upon such relations, using the notion of a fuzzy relation, but in general one can account quite easily for real-graded relations by applying a scaling operation from ${\mathbb{R}}$ to $[0,1]$.
Ordinal-valued relations: situated somewhat in the middle between the other two settings, here it is assumed that the actual values of the relation do not matter but rather the provided order information should be learned.
Furthermore, one can integrate different types of domain knowledge in our framework, by guaranteeing that certain properties are satisfied. The following cases can be distinguished:
Symmetric relations. Applications arise in many domains and metric learning or learning similarity measures can be seen as special cases that require additional properties to hold, such as the triangle inequality for metrics and positive definiteness or transitivity properties for similarity measures. As shown below, learning symmetric relations can be interpreted as learning edges in an undirected graph.
Reciprocal or antisymmetric relations. Applications arise here in domains such as preference learning, game theory and bioinformatics for representing preference relations, choice probabilities, winning probabilities, gene regulation, etc. We will provide a formal definition below, but, given a rescaling operation from ${\mathbb{R}}$ to $[0,1]$, antisymmetric relations can be converted into reciprocal relations. Similar to symmetric relations, transitivity properties typically guarantee additional constraints that are definitely required for certain applications. It is, for example, well known in decision theory and preference modeling that transitive preference relations result in utility functions [@Luce1965; @Bodenhofer2007]. Learning reciprocal or antisymmetric relations can be interpreted as learning edges in a directed graph.
Ordinary binary relations. Many applications can be found where neither symmetry nor reciprocity holds. From a graph inference perspective, learning such relations should be seen as learning the edges in a bidirectional graph, where edges in one direction do not impose constraints on edges in the other direction.
Indeed, the framework that we propose below strongly relies on graphs, where nodes represent the data objects that are studied and the edges represent the relations present in the training set. The weights on the edges characterize the values of known relations, while unconnected nodes indicate pairs of objects for which the unknown relation needs to be predicted. The left graph in Figure \[fig:examples\] visualizes a toy example representing the most general case where neither symmetry nor reciprocity holds. Depending on the application, the learning algorithm should try to predict the relations for three types of object pairs:
- pairs of objects that are already present in the training dataset by means of other edges, like the pair (A,B),
- pairs of objects for which one of the two objects occurs in the training dataset, like the pair (E,F),
- pairs of objects for which none of the two objects is observed during training, like the pair (F,G).
The graphs on the right-hand side in Figure \[fig:examples\] show examples of specific types of relations that are covered by our framework. The differences between these relations will become more clear in the following sections.
![Left: example of a multi-graph representing the most general case, where no additional properties of relations are assumed. Right: examples of eight different types of relations in a graph of cardinality three. The following relational properties are illustrated: (C) crisp, (G) graded, (R) reciprocal, (S) symmetric, (T) transitive and (I) intransitive. For the reciprocal relations, (I) refers to a relation that does not satisfy weak stochastic transitivity, while (T) is showing an example of a relation fulfilling strong stochastic transitivity. For the symmetric relations, (I) refers a relation that does not satisfy $T$-transitivity w.r.t. the Łukasiewicz t-norm $T_{\bf L}(a,b) = \max(a+b-1,0)$, while (T) is showing an example of a relation that fulfills $T$-transitivity w.r.t. the product t-norm $T_{\bf P}(a,b) = ab$. See Section 4 for formal definitions of transitivity.[]{data-label="fig:examples"}](exampleMultiGen.pdf)
\
\
\
General framework
=================
Notation and basic concepts
---------------------------
Let us start with introducing some notations. We assume that the data is structured as a graph $G = ({\mathcal{V}},{\mathcal{E}},{Q})$, where ${\mathcal{V}}$ corresponds to the set of nodes ${v}$ and ${\mathcal{E}}\subseteq {\mathcal{V}}^2$ represents the set of edges ${e}$, for which training labels are provided in terms of relations. Moreover, these relations are represented by training weights ${y}_{{e}}$ on the edges, generated from an unknown underlying relation ${Q}: {\mathcal{V}}^2 \rightarrow [0,1]$. Relations are required to take values in the interval $[0,1]$ because some properties that we need are historically defined for such relations, but an extension to real-graded relations ${h}: {\mathcal{V}}^2 \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ can always be realized. Consider $b \in {\mathbb{R}}^+$ and an increasing isomorphism $\sigma : [-b,b] \rightarrow [0,1]$ that satisfies $\sigma(x) = 1 - \sigma(-x)$, then we consider the ${\mathbb{R}}\rightarrow [0,1]$ mapping $\nabla$ defined by: $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla(x) & = & \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 0, &
\textrm{if $ x \le -b$}\\
\sigma(x), & \textrm{if $-b \le x \le b$} \\
1, & \textrm{if $b \le x$}
\end{array} \right.\end{aligned}$$ and its inverse $\nabla^{-1} = \sigma^{-1}$.
Any real-valued relation ${h}: {\mathcal{V}}^2 \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ can be transformed into a $[0,1]$-valued relation $Q$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:monmap}
Q({v},{v}') = \nabla(h({v},{v}')) \,, \quad \forall ({v},{v}') \in {\mathcal{V}}^2 \,,\end{aligned}$$ and conversely by means of $\nabla^{-1}$. In what follows we tacitly assume that $\nabla$ has been fixed.
Following the standard notations for kernel methods, we formulate our learning problem as the selection of a suitable function ${h}\in{\mathcal{H}}$, with ${\mathcal{H}}$ a certain hypothesis space, in particular a reproducing kernel Hilbert space (RKHS). More specifically, the RKHS supports in our case hypotheses $h: {\mathcal{V}}^2 \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ denoted as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:primalmodel}
h({e}) = {\mathbf{w}}^T \Phi({e}) \,,\end{aligned}$$ with ${\mathbf{w}}$ a vector of parameters that needs to be estimated from training data, $\Phi$ a joint feature mapping for edges in the graph (see below) and ${\mathbf{a}}^T$ the transpose of a vector ${\mathbf{a}}$. Let us denote a training dataset of cardinality ${q}= |{\mathcal{E}}|$ as a set $T = \{({e},{y}_{{e}}) \mid {e}\in {\mathcal{E}}\}$ of input-label pairs, then we formally consider the following optimization problem, in which we select an appropriate hypothesis ${h}$ from ${\mathcal{H}}$ for training data $T$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{regalgorithm}
\hat{{h}}=\operatorname*{argmin}_{{h}\in{\mathcal{H}}} \frac{1}{q} \sum_{{e}\in {\mathcal{E}}} {\mathcal{L}}({h}({e}),{y}_{{e}})
+{\lambda}\Arrowvert {h}\Arrowvert_{{\mathcal{H}}}^2 \,\end{aligned}$$ with ${\mathcal{L}}$ a given loss function, $\Arrowvert \cdot \Arrowvert_{{\mathcal{H}}}^2$ the traditional quadratic regularizer on the RKHS and ${\lambda}>0$ a regularization parameter. According to the representer theorem [@Scholkopf2002], any minimizer ${h}\in{\mathcal{H}}$ of (\[regalgorithm\]) admits a dual representation of the following form: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:dualmodel}
{h}({\overline{{e}}})
= {{\mathbf{w}}}^T \Phi({\overline{{e}}}) = \sum_{{e}\in {\mathcal{E}}}
{a}_{{e}}{K}^{\Phi}({e},{\overline{{e}}}) \,,\end{aligned}$$ with ${a}_{{e}} \in\mathbb{R}$ dual parameters, ${K}^{\Phi}$ the kernel function associated with the RKHS and $\Phi$ the feature mapping corresponding to ${K}^{\Phi}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathbf{w}}}=\sum_{{e}\in {\mathcal{E}}}
{a}_{{e}}\Phi({e}).\end{aligned}$$ We will alternate several times between the primal and dual representation for ${h}$ in the remainder of this article.
The primal representation as defined in (\[eq:primalmodel\]) and its dual equivalent (\[eq:dualmodel\]) yield an RKHS defined on edges in the graph. In addition, we will establish an RKHS defined on nodes, as every edge consists of a couple of nodes. Given an input space $\mathcal{V}$ and a kernel ${K}:\mathcal{V}\times\mathcal{V}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$, the RKHS associated with ${K}$ can be considered as the completion of $$\left\{ f \in \mathbb{R}^\mathcal{V} \left\arrowvert
f({v})=\sum_{i=1}^m\beta_i{K}({v},{v}_i)\right.\right\},$$ in the norm $$\Arrowvert f\Arrowvert_{K}=\sqrt{\sum_{i,j}\beta_i\beta_j{K}({v}_i,{v}_j)},$$ where $\beta_i\in\mathbb{R},m\in\mathbb{N},{v}_i\in\mathcal{V}$.
Learning arbitrary relations
----------------------------
As mentioned in the introduction, both crisp and graded relations can be handled by our framework. To make a subdivision between different cases, a loss function needs to be specified. For crisp relations, one can typically use the hinge loss, which is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{L}}({h}({e}),{y}) = [1- {y}{h}({e})]_+ \,,\end{aligned}$$ with $[\cdot]_+$ the positive part of the argument. Alternatively, one can opt to optimize a probabilistic loss function like the logistic loss: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{L}}({h}({e}),{y}) = \ln(1+\exp(-{y}{h}({e}))) \,.\end{aligned}$$ Conversely, if in a given application the observed relations are graded instead of crisp, other loss functions have to be considered. Hence, we will run experiments with a least-squares loss function: $$\label{regrloss}
{\mathcal{L}}({h}({e}),{y}) = ({y}_{e}-{h}({e}))^2 \,,$$ resulting in a regression type of learning setting. Alternatively, one could prefer to optimize a more robust regression loss like the $\epsilon$-insensitive loss, in case outliers are expected in the training dataset. So far, our framework does not differ from standard classification and regression algorithms. However, the specification of a more precise model structure for (\[eq:primalmodel\]) offers a couple of new challenges. In the most general case, when no further restrictions on the underlying relation can be specified, the following Kronecker product feature mapping is proposed to express pairwise interactions between features of nodes: $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi({e}) = \Phi({v},{v}') = \phi({v}) \otimes \phi({v}')\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\phi$ represents the feature mapping for individual nodes. A formal definition of the Kronecker product can be found in the appendix. As first shown in [@Ben-Hur2005], the Kronecker product pairwise feature mapping yields the Kronecker product edge kernel (a.k.a. the tensor product pairwise kernel) in the dual representation: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:tppk}
{K}_{\otimes}^{\Phi}({e},{\overline{{e}}}) = {K}_{\otimes}^{\Phi}({v},{v}',{\overline{{v}}},{\overline{{v}}}')= {K}^{\phi}({v},{\overline{{v}}}) {K}^{\phi}({v}',{\overline{{v}}}') \,,\end{aligned}$$ with $K^{\phi}$ the kernel corresponding to $\phi$.
This section aims to formally prove that the Kronecker product edge kernel is the best kernel one can choose, when no further domain knowledge is provided about the underlying relation that generates the data. We claim that with an appropriate choice for $K^{\phi}$, such as the Gaussian RBF kernel, the kernel $K^{\Phi}$ generates a class ${\mathcal{H}}$ of universally approximating functions for learning any type of relation. Armed with the definition of universality for kernels and the Stone-Weierstra[ß]{} theorem [@Steinwart2002consistency], we arrive at the following theorem concerning the Kronecker product pairwise kernels:
\[unikrontheorem\] Let us assume that the space of nodes ${\mathcal{V}}$ is a compact metric space. If a continuous kernel ${K}^\phi$ is universal on ${\mathcal{V}}$, then ${K}_{\otimes}^\Phi$ defines a universal kernel on ${\mathcal{E}}$.
The proof can be found in the appendix. We would like to emphasize that one cannot conclude from the theorem that the Kronecker product pairwise kernel is the best kernel to use in all possible situations. The theorem only shows that the Kronecker product pairwise kernel makes a reasonably good choice, if no further domain knowledge about the underlying relation is known. Namely, the theorem says that given a suitable sample of data, the RKHS of the kernel contains functions that are arbitrarily close to any continuous relation in the uniform norm. However, the theorem does not say anything about how likely it is to have, as a training set, such a data sample that can represent the approximating function. Further, the theorem only concerns graded relations that are continuous and therefore crisp relations and graded, discontinuous relations require more detailed considerations.
Other kernel functions might of course outperform the Kronecker product pairwise kernel in applications where domain knowledge can be incorporated in the kernel function. In the following section we discuss reciprocity, symmetry and transitivity as three relational properties that can be represented by means of more specific kernel functions. As a side note, we also introduce the Cartesian pairwise kernel, which is formally defined as follows $$K_{C}^{\Phi}({v},{v}',{\overline{{v}}},{\overline{{v}}}') = K^{\phi}({v}', {\overline{{v}}}') [{v}= {\overline{{v}}}] + K^{\phi}({v},{\overline{{v}}}) [{v}' = {\overline{{v}}}'] \,,$$ with $[.]$ the indicator function, returning one when both elements are identical and zero otherwise. This kernel was recently proposed by [@Kashima2009] as an alternative to the Kronecker product pairwise kernel. By construction, the Cartesian pairwise kernel has important limitations, since it cannot generalize to couples of nodes for which both nodes did not appear in the training dataset.
Special relations
=================
Thus, if no further information is available about the relation that underlies the data, one should definitely use the Kronecker product edge kernel. In this most general case, we allow that for any pair of nodes in the graph several edges can exist, in which an edge in one direction does not necessarily impose constraints on the edge in the opposite direction. Multiple edges in the same direction can connect two nodes, leading to a multi-graph as in Figure \[fig:examples\], where two different edges in the same direction connect nodes $D$ and $E$. This construction is required to allow repeated measurements. However, two important subclasses of relations deserve further attention: reciprocal relations and symmetric relations.
Reciprocal relations
--------------------
This subsection briefly summarizes our previous work on learning reciprocal relations [@Pahikkala2010]. Let us start with a definition of this type of relation.
A binary relation ${Q}: {\mathcal{V}}^2 \rightarrow [0,1]$ is called a reciprocal relation if for all $({v},{v}') \in {\mathcal{V}}^2$ it holds that ${Q}({v},{v}') = 1 - {Q}({v}',{v})$.
A binary relation ${h}: {\mathcal{V}}^2 \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ is called an antisymmetric relation if for all $({v},{v}') \in {\mathcal{V}}^2$ it holds that ${h}({v},{v}') = - {h}({v}',{v})$.
For reciprocal and antisymmetric relations, every edge ${e}=({v},{v}')$ in a multi-graph like Figure \[fig:examples\] induces an unobserved invisible edge ${e}_R = ({v}',{v})$ with appropriate weight in the opposite direction. The transformation operator $\nabla$ transforms an antisymmetric relation into a reciprocal relation. Applications of reciprocal relations arise here in domains such as preference learning, game theory and bioinformatics for representing preference relations, choice probabilities, winning probabilities, gene regulation, etc. The weight on the edge defines the real direction of such an edge. If the weight on the edge ${e}= ({v},{v}')$ is higher than 0.5, then the direction is from $v$ to $v'$, but when the weight is lower than 0.5, then the direction should be interpreted as inverted, for example, the edges from $A$ to $C$ in Figures \[fig:examples\] (a) and (e) should be interpreted as edges starting from $A$ instead of $C$. If the relation is $3$-valued as $Q: {\mathcal{V}}^2 \rightarrow \{0,1/2,1\}$, then we end up with a three-class ordinal regression setting instead of an ordinary regression setting.
Interestingly, reciprocity can be easily incorporated in our framework.
Let $\Psi$ be a feature mapping on ${\mathcal{V}}^2$ and let ${h}$ be a hypothesis defined by (\[eq:primalmodel\]), then the relation $Q$ of type (\[eq:monmap\]) is reciprocal if $\Phi$ is given by $$\Phi_R({e})=\Phi_R({v},{v}')=\Psi({v},{v}')-\Psi({v}',{v}) \,.$$
The proof is immediate. In addition, one can easily show that reciprocity as domain knowledge can be enforced in the dual formulation. Let us in the least restrictive form now consider the Kronecker product for $\Psi$, then one obtains for $\Phi_R$ the kernel $K_{\otimes R}^{\Phi}$ given by $K_{\otimes R}^{\Phi}({e},{\overline{{e}}})=$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:recedgekernel}
2 \big(K^{\phi}({v},{\overline{{v}}}) K^{\phi}({v}',{\overline{{v}}}') - K^{\phi}({v},{\overline{{v}}}') K^{\phi}({v}',{\overline{{v}}})\big)\,.\end{aligned}$$ The following theorem shows that this kernel can represent any type of reciprocal relation.
\[antisymmetrictheorem\] Let $$R({\mathcal{V}}^2)=\{ t \mid t \in C({\mathcal{V}}^2),t({v},{v}')= - t({v}',{v})\}$$ be the space of all continuous antisymmetric relations from ${\mathcal{V}}^2$ to $\mathbb{R}$. If $K^\phi$ on ${\mathcal{V}}$ is universal, then for every function $t\in R({\mathcal{V}}^2)$ and every $\epsilon > 0$, there exists a function $h$ in the RKHS induced by the kernel $K_{\otimes R}^{\Phi}$ defined in (\[eq:recedgekernel\]), such that $$\label{recclaim}
\max_{({v},{v}')\in {\mathcal{V}}^2}\left\{\left\arrowvert t({v},{v}')-{h}({v},{v}')\right\arrowvert\right\}\leq\epsilon \,.$$
The proof can be found in the appendix.
Symmetric relations
-------------------
Symmetric relations form another important subclass of relations in our framework. As a specific type of symmetric relations, similarity relations constitute the underlying relation in many application domains where relations between objects need to be learned. Symmetric relations are formally defined as follows.
A binary relation ${Q}: {\mathcal{V}}^2 \rightarrow [0,1]$ is called a symmetric relation if for all $({v},{v}') \in {\mathcal{V}}^2$ it holds that ${Q}({v},{v}') = {Q}({v}',{v})$.
A binary relation ${h}: {\mathcal{V}}^2 \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ is called a symmetric relation if for all $({v},{v}') \in {\mathcal{V}}^2$ it holds that ${h}({v},{v}') = {h}({v}',{v})$.
Note that $\nabla$ preserves symmetry. For symmetric relations, edges in multi-graphs like Figure \[fig:examples\] become undirected. Applications arise in many domains and metric learning or learning similarity measures can be seen as special cases. If the relation is $2$-valued as $Q: {\mathcal{V}}^2 \rightarrow \{0,1\}$, then we end up with a classification setting instead of a regression setting.
Just like reciprocal relations, it turns out that symmetry can be easily incorporated in our framework.
Let $\Psi$ be a feature mapping on ${\mathcal{V}}^2$ and let ${h}$ be a hypothesis defined by (\[eq:primalmodel\]), then the relation $Q$ of type (\[eq:monmap\]) is symmetric if $\Phi$ is given by $$\Phi_S({e})=\Phi_S({v},{v}')=\Psi({v},{v}')+\Psi({v}',{v}) \,.$$
In addition, by using mathematical properties of the Kronecker product, one obtains in the dual formulation an edge kernel that looks very similar to the one derived for reciprocal relations. Let us again consider the Kronecker product for $\Psi$, then one obtains for $\Phi_S$ the kernel $K_{\otimes S}^{\Phi}$ given by $K_{\otimes S}^{\Phi}({e},{\overline{{e}}})=$ $$\begin{aligned}
2 \big(K^{\phi}({v},{\overline{{v}}}) K^{\phi}({v}',{\overline{{v}}}') + K^{\phi}({v},{\overline{{v}}}') K^{\phi}({v}',{\overline{{v}}})\big) \,.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the substraction of kernels in the reciprocal case becomes an addition of kernels in the symmetric case. The above kernel has been used for predicting protein-protein interactions in bioinformatics [@Ben-Hur2005] and it has been theoretically analyzed in [@Hue2010]. More specifically, for some methods one has shown in the latter paper that enforcing symmetry in the kernel function yields identical results as adding every edge twice to the dataset, by taking each of the two nodes once as first element of the edge. Unlike many existing kernel-based methods for pairwise data, the models obtained with these kernels are able to represent any reciprocal or symmetric relation respectively, without imposing additional transitivity properties of the relations.
We also remark that for symmetry as well, one can prove that the Kronecker product edge kernel yields a model that is flexible enough to represent any type of underlying relation.
Let $$S({\mathcal{V}}^2)=\{t \mid t\in C({\mathcal{V}}^2),t({v},{v}')=t({v}',{v})\}$$ be the space of all continuous symmetric relations from ${\mathcal{V}}^2$ to $\mathbb{R}$. If $K^\phi$ on ${\mathcal{V}}$ is universal, then for every function $t\in S({\mathcal{V}}^2)$ and every $\epsilon > 0$, there exists a function $h$ in the RKHS (\[eq:primalmodel\]) induced by the kernel (\[eq:recedgekernel\]), such that $$\max_{({v},{v}')\in {\mathcal{V}}^2}\left\{\left\arrowvert t({v},{v}')-{h}({v},{v}')\right\arrowvert\right\}\leq\epsilon.$$
The proof is analogous to that of Theorem \[antisymmetrictheorem\] (see appendix).
As a side note, we remark that a symmetric and reciprocal version of the Cartesian kernel can be introduced as well.
Relationships with fuzzy set theory
===================================
The previous section revealed that specific Kronecker product edge kernels can be constructed for modeling reciprocal and symmetric relations, without requiring any further background about these relations. In this section we demonstrate that the Kronecker product edge kernels $K_{\otimes}^{\Phi}$, $K_{\otimes R}^{\Phi}$ and $K_{\otimes S}^{\Phi}$ are particularly useful for modeling intransitive relations. Intransitive relations occur in a lot of real-world scenarios, like game playing [@DeSchuymer2003; @Fisher2008], competition between bacteria [@Kerr2002; @czaran2002chemical; @nowak2002; @Kirkup2004; @karolyi2005rps; @reichenbach2007] and fungi [@Boddy2000], mating choice of lizards [@Sinervo1996] and food choice of birds [@Waite2001], to name just a few. In an informal way, Figure \[fig:examples\] shows with the help of examples what transitivity means for symmetric and reciprocal relations that are crisp and graded.
Despite the occurrence of intransitive relations in many domains, one has to admit that most applications are still characterized by relations that fulfill relatively strong transitivity requirements. For example, in decision making, preference modeling and social choice theory, one can argue that reciprocal relations like choice probabilities and preference judgments should satisfy certain transitivity properties, if they represent rational human decisions made after well-reasoned comparisons on objects [@Luce1965; @Fishburn1991; @Tversky1998]. For symmetric relations as well, transitivity plays an important role [@Gower1986; @Jakel2008], when modeling similarity relations, metrics, kernels, etc.
It is for this reason that transitivity properties have been studied extensively in fuzzy set theory and related fields. For reciprocal relations, one traditionally uses the notion of stochastic transitivity [@Luce1965].
Let $g$ be an increasing $[1/2,1]^2 \rightarrow [0,1]$ mapping. A reciprocal relation $Q: {\mathcal{V}}^2 \rightarrow [0,1]$ is called $g$-stochastic transitive if for any $({v}_1,{v}_2,{v}_3)
\in {\mathcal{V}}^3$ $$\begin{aligned}
\big( Q({v}_1,{v}_2) \geq 1/2 \wedge Q({v}_2,{v}_3) \geq 1/2 \big)
\Rightarrow Q({v}_1,{v}_3) \geq
g(Q({v}_1,{v}_2),Q({v}_2,{v}_3))\,.\end{aligned}$$
Important special cases are weak stochastic transitivity when $g(a,b) =
1/2$, moderate stochastic transitivity when $g(a,b) =
\min(a,b)$ and strong stochastic transitivity when $g(a,b) =
\max(a,b)$. Alternative (and more general) frameworks are FG-transitivity [@Switalski2003] and cycle transitivity [@DeBaets2005; @DeBaets2006]. For graded symmetric relations, the notion of $T$-transitivity has been put forward [@DeBaets2002; @Moser2006].
A symmetric relation $Q: {\mathcal{V}}^2 \rightarrow [0,1]$ is called $T$-transitive with $T$ a t-norm if for any $({v}_1,{v}_2,{v}_3) \in {\mathcal{V}}^3$ $$\begin{aligned}
T(Q({v}_1,{v}_2),Q({v}_2,{v}_3)) \leq
Q({v}_1,{v}_3)\,.\end{aligned}$$
Three important t-norms are the minimum t-norm $T_{\bf M}(a,b) = \min(a,b)$, the product t-norm $T_{\bf P}(a,b) = ab$ and the Łukasiewicz t-norm $T_{\bf
L}(a,b) = \max(a+b-1,0)$.
In addition, several authors have shown that various forms of transitivity give rise to utility representable or numerically representable relations, also called fuzzy weak orders – see e.g. [@Luce1965; @Billot1995; @Koppen1995; @Fono2007; @Bodenhofer2007]. We will use the term ranking representability to establish a link with machine learning. We give a slightly specific definition that unifies reciprocal and symmetric relations.
A reciprocal or symmetric relation ${Q}: {\mathcal{V}}^2 \rightarrow [0,1]$ is called ranking representable if there exists a ranking function ${f}: {\mathcal{V}}\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ such that for all $({v},{v}')
\in {\mathcal{V}}^2$ it respectively holds that
${Q}({v},{v}') = \nabla ({f}({v}) - {f}({v}')) \,$ (reciprocal case) ;
${Q}({v},{v}') = \nabla ({f}({v}) + {f}({v}')) \,$ (symmetric case) .
The main idea is that ranking representable relations can be constructed from a utility function $f$. Ranking representable reciprocal relations correspond to directed acyclic graphs, and a unique ranking of the nodes in such graphs can be obtained with topological sorting algorithms. The ranking representable reciprocal relations of Figures \[fig:examples\] (a) and (e) for example yield the global ranking $A \succ B \succ C$. Interestingly, ranking representability of reciprocal relations and symmetric relations can be easily achieved in our framework by simplifying the joint feature mapping $\Psi$. Let $\Psi({v},{v}') = \phi({v})$ such that $K^{\Phi}$ simplifies to $$\begin{aligned}
\arraycolsep=2pt
K_{{f}R}^{\Phi}({e},{\overline{{e}}})&=&K^{\phi}({v},{\overline{{v}}}) + K^{\phi}({v}',{\overline{{v}}}') -K^{\phi}({v},{\overline{{v}}}') -
K^{\phi}({v}',{\overline{{v}}}) \,, \\
K_{{f}S}^{\Phi}({e},{\overline{{e}}})&=&K^{\phi}({v},{\overline{{v}}}) + K^{\phi}({v}',{\overline{{v}}}') +K^{\phi}({v},{\overline{{v}}}') +
K^{\phi}({v}',{\overline{{v}}}) \,,\end{aligned}$$ when $\Phi({v},{v}') = \Phi_R({v},{v}')$ or $\Phi({v},{v}') = \Phi_S({v},{v}')$, respectively, then the following proposition holds.
The relation $Q: {\mathcal{V}}^2 \rightarrow [0,1]$ given by (\[eq:monmap\]) and $h$ defined by (\[eq:primalmodel\]) with $K^{\Phi} = K_{{f}R}^{\Phi}$ (respectively $K^{\Phi} = K_{{f}S}^{\Phi}$) is a ranking representable reciprocal (respectively symmetric) relation.
The proof directly follows from the fact that for this specific kernel, ${h}({v},{v}')$ can be respectively written as ${f}({v}) - {f}({v}')$ and ${f}({v}) + {f}({v}')$. The kernel $K_{{f}R}^{\Phi}$ has been initially introduced in [@Herbrich2000] for ordinal regression and during the last decade it has been extensively used as a main building block in many kernel-based ranking algorithms. Since ranking representability of reciprocal relations implies strong stochastic transitivity of reciprocal relations, $K_{{f}R}^{\Phi}$ can represent this type of domain knowledge.
The notion of ranking representability is powerful for reciprocal relations, because the majority of reciprocal relations satisfy this property, but for symmetric relations it has a rather limited applicability. Ranking representability as defined above cannot represent relations that originate from an underlying metric or similarity measure. For such relations, one needs another connection with its roots in Euclidean metric spaces [@Gower1986].
A symmetric relation ${Q}: {\mathcal{V}}^2 \rightarrow [0,1]$ is called Euclidean representable if there exists a ranking function $f: {\mathcal{V}}\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ such that for all pairs $({v},{v}')
\in {\mathcal{V}}^2$ it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:rrsym}
{Q}({v},{v}') = \nabla (({f}({v}) - {f}({v}'))^T({f}({v}) - {f}({v}'))) \,,\end{aligned}$$ with $\vec{a}^T$ the transpose of a vector $\vec{a}$.
Euclidean representability as defined here basically can be seen as Euclidean embedding or Multidimensional Scaling in a $z$-dimensional space [@Zhang2003]. In its most restrictive form, when $z=1$, it implies that the symmetric relation can be constructed from the Euclidean distance in a one-dimensional space. When such a one-dimensional embedding can be realized, one global ranking of the objects can be found, similar to reciprocal relations. Nevertheless, although models of type (\[eq:rrsym\]) with $z=1$ are sometimes used in graph inference [@Vert2005] and semi-supervised learning [@Belkin2006], we believe that situations where symmetric relations become Euclidean representable in a one-dimensional space occur very rarely, in contrast to reciprocal relations. The extension to $z > 1$ on the other hand does not guarantee the existence of one global ranking, then Euclidean representability still enforces some interesting properties, because it guarantees that the relation $Q$ is constructed from a Euclidean metric space with a dimension upper bounded by the number of nodes ${p}$. Moreover, this type of domain knowledge about relations can be incorporated in our framework. To this end, let $\Phi({v},{v}') = \Phi_S({v},{v}')$ and let $\Psi({v},{v}') = \phi({v}) \otimes (\phi({v}) - \phi({v}'))$ such that $K^{\Phi}$ becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\arraycolsep=2pt
K_{\rm MLPK}^{\Phi}({e},{\overline{{e}}}) &=& (K_{fR}^{\Phi}({e},{\overline{{e}}}))^2 \\
&=& \big(K^{\phi}({v},{\overline{{v}}}) + K^{\phi}({v}',{\overline{{v}}}') -K^{\phi}({v},{\overline{{v}}}') -
K^{\phi}({v}',{\overline{{v}}})\big)^2 \,.\end{aligned}$$ This kernel has been called the metric learning pairwise kernel by [@Vert2007]. As a consequence, the vector of parameters ${{\mathbf{w}}}$ can be rewritten as an ${r}\times {r}$ matrix ${\mathbf{W}}$ where ${\mathbf{W}}_{ij}$ corresponds to the parameter associated with $(\phi_i({v}) - \phi_i({v}'))(\phi_j({v}) - \phi_j({v}'))$ such that ${\mathbf{W}}_{ij} = {\mathbf{W}}_{ji}$.
\[thm:mlpk\] If ${\mathbf{W}}$ is positive semi-definite, then the symmetric relation $Q: {\mathcal{V}}^2 \rightarrow [0,1]$ given by (\[eq:monmap\]) with $h$ defined by (\[eq:primalmodel\]) and $K^{\Phi} = K_{\rm MLPK}^{\Phi}$ is an Euclidean representable symmetric relation.
See the appendix for the proof. Although the model established by $K_{\rm MLPK}^{\Phi}$ does not result in a global ranking, this model strongly differs from the one established with $K_{\otimes S}^{\Phi}$, since $K_{\rm MLPK}^{\Phi}$ can only represent symmetric relations that exhibit transitivity properties. Therefore, one should definitely use $K_{\rm MLPK}^{\Phi}$ when, for example, the underlying relation corresponds to a metric or a similarity relation, while the kernel $K_{\otimes S}^{\Phi}$ should be preferably used for symmetric relations for which no further domain knowledge can be assumed beforehand.
Relationships with other machine learning algorithms
====================================================
As explained in Section 2, the transition from a standard classification or regression setting to the setting of learning graded relations should be rather found in the specification of joint feature mappings over couples of objects, thereby naturally leading to the introduction of specific kernels. Any existing machine learning algorithm for classification or regression can in principle be adopted if joint feature mappings are constructed explicitly. Since kernel methods avoid this explicit construction, they can often outperform non-kernelized algorithms in terms of computational efficiency [@Scholkopf2002]. As a second main advantage, kernel methods allow to express similarity scores for structured objects, such as strings, graphs and trees and text [@Shawetaylor2004]. In our setting of learning graded relations, this implies that one should plug these domain-specific kernel functions into (\[eq:tppk\]) or the other pairwise kernels that are discussed in this paper. Such a scenario is in fact common practice in some applications of Kronecker product pairwise kernels, such as predicting protein-ligand compatibility in bioinformatics [@Jacob2008]. String kernels or graph kernels can be defined on various types of biological structures [@Vishwanathan2010] and Kronecker product pairwise kernels then combine these object-based kernels into relation-based kernels (thus, node kernels versus edge kernels).
The edge kernels we discussed in this article can be utilized within a wide variety of kernel methods. Since we focus on learning graded relations, one naturally arrives at a regression setting. In the following section, we run some experiments with regularized least-squares methods, which optimize (\[regrloss\]) using a hypothesis space induced by kernels. The solution is found by simply solving a system of linear equations [@Saunders1998; @Suykens2002; @Shawetaylor2004; @pahikkala2009preferences].
Apart from kernel methods, we briefly mention a number of other algorithms that are somewhat connected, even though they provide solutions for different learning problems. If pairwise relations are considered between objects of two different domains, one arrives at a learning setting that is referred to as predicting labels for dyadic data [@Menon2010]. Examples of such settings include link prediction in bipartite graphs and movie recommendation for users. As such, one could also argue that specific link prediction and matrix factorization methods could be applied in our setting as well, see e.g. [@Srebro2005; @Miller2009; @Lawrence2009]. However, these methods have been primarily designed for exploiting relationships in the output space, whereas feature representations of the objects are often not observed or simply irrelevant. Moreover, similar to the Cartesian pairwise kernel, these methods cannot be applied in situations where predictions need to be made for two new nodes that were not present in the training dataset.
Another connection can be observed with multivariate regression and structured output prediction methods. Such methods have been occasionally applied in settings where relations had to be learned [@Geurts2007]. Also recall that structured output prediction methods use Kronecker product pairwise kernels on a regular basis to define joint feature representations of inputs and outputs [@Tsochantaridis2005; @Weston2007].
In addition to predictive models for dyadic data, one can also detect connections with certain information retrieval and pattern matching methods. However, these methods predominantly use similarity as underlying relation, often in a purely intuitive manner, as a nearest neighbor type of learning, so they can be considered as much more restrictive. Consider the example of protein ranking [@Weston2004] or algorithms like *query by document* [@Yang2009]. These methods simply look for rankings where the most similar objects w.r.t. the query object appear on top, contrary to our approach, which should be considered as much more general, since we learn rankings from any type of binary relation. Nonetheless, similarity relations will of course still occupy a prominent place in our framework as an important special case.
Experiments
===========
In the experiments, we test the ability of the pairwise kernels to model different types of relations, and the effect of enforcing prior knowledge about the properties of the learned relations. To this end, we train the regularized least-squares (RLS) algorithm to regress the relation values [@pahikkala2009preferences]. We perform experiments on both symmetric and reciprocal relations, considering both synthetic and real-world data. In addition to the standard, symmetric and reciprocal Kronecker product pairwise kernels, we also consider the Cartesian kernel, the symmetric Cartesian kernel and the metric learning pairwise kernel.
Abbreviation Method
------------------------ ----------------------------------------------
MPRED Predicting the mean
$K_{\otimes}^{\Phi}$ Kronecker Product Pairwise Kernel
$K_{\otimes S}^{\Phi}$ Symmetric Kronecker Product Pairwise Kernel
$K_{\otimes R}^{\Phi}$ Reciprocal Kronecker Product Pairwise Kernel
$K_{\rm MLPK}^{\Phi}$ Metric Learning Pairwise Kernel
$K_{C}^{\Phi}$ Cartesian Product Pairwise Kernel
$K_{C S}^{\Phi}$ Symmetric Cartesian Pairwise Kernel
: Methods considered in the experiments[]{data-label="abbreviations"}
Synthetic data: learning similarity measures
--------------------------------------------
Experiments on synthetic data were conducted to illustrate the behavior of the different kernels in terms of the transitivity of the relation to be learned. A parametric family of cardinality-based similarity measures for sets was considered as the relation of interest [@DeBaets2001]. For two sets $A$ and $B$, let us define the following cardinalities: $$\begin{aligned}
\arraycolsep=2pt
\Delta_{A,B} &=& |A \setminus B| + |B \setminus A| \,, \\
\delta_{A,B} &=& |A \cap B| \,, \\
\nu_{A,B} &=& |(A \cup B)^c| \,,\end{aligned}$$ then this family of similarity measures for sets can be expressed as: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:simfamily}
S(A,B) = \frac{t \Delta_{A,B} + u \delta_{A,B} + v \nu_{A,B}}{t' \Delta_{A,B} + u \delta_{A,B} + v \nu_{A,B}} \,,\end{aligned}$$ with $t$, $t'$, $u$ and $v$ four parameters. This family of similarity measures includes many well-known similarity measures for sets, such as the Jaccard coefficient [@Jaccard1908], the simple matching coefficient [@Sokal1958] and the Dice coefficient [@Dice1945].
Three members of this family are investigated in our experiments. The first one is the Jaccard coefficient, corresponding to $(t,t',u,v) = (0,1,1,0)$. The Jaccard coefficient is known to be $T_{\bf L}$-transitive. The second member that we investigate was originally proposed by [@Sokal1963]. It corresponds to $(t,t',u,v) = (0,1,2,2)$ and it does not satisfy $T_{\bf L}$-transitivity, which is considered as a very weak transitivity condition. Conversely, the third member that we analyse has rather strong transitivity properties. It is given by $(t,t',u,v) = (1,2,1,1)$ and it satisfies $T_{\bf P}$-transitivity.
Features and labels for all three members are generated as follows. First we generate 20-dimensional feature vectors consisting of statistically independent features that follow a Bernoulli distribution with $\pi=0.5$. Subsequently, the above-mentioned similarity measures are computed for each pair of features, resulting in a deterministic mapping between features and labels. Finally, to introduce some noise in the problem setting, 10% of the features are swapped in a last step from a zero to a one or vice versa. Figure \[fig:heatmaps\] illustrates the distribution of the obtained similarity scores for a 100 $\times$ 100 matrix.
![The distribution of similarity scores obtained on a 100 by 100 matrix for all three members of the family. From top to bottom: $(t,t',u,v) = (0,1,2,2)$, $(t,t',u,v) = (0,1,1,0)$ and $(t,t',u,v) = (1,2,1,1)$.[]{data-label="fig:heatmaps"}](simsInt.pdf "fig:")\
![The distribution of similarity scores obtained on a 100 by 100 matrix for all three members of the family. From top to bottom: $(t,t',u,v) = (0,1,2,2)$, $(t,t',u,v) = (0,1,1,0)$ and $(t,t',u,v) = (1,2,1,1)$.[]{data-label="fig:heatmaps"}](simsTL.pdf "fig:")\
![The distribution of similarity scores obtained on a 100 by 100 matrix for all three members of the family. From top to bottom: $(t,t',u,v) = (0,1,2,2)$, $(t,t',u,v) = (0,1,1,0)$ and $(t,t',u,v) = (1,2,1,1)$.[]{data-label="fig:heatmaps"}](simsTP.pdf "fig:")
In the experiments, we always generate three data sets, a training set for building the model, a validation set for hyperparameter selection, and a test set for performance evaluation. We perform two kinds of experiments. In the first experiment, we have a single set of $100$ nodes. $500$ node pairs are randomly sampled without replacement to the training, validation and test sets. Thus, the learning problem here is, given a subset of the relation values for a fixed set of nodes, to learn to predict missing relation values. This setup allows us to test also the Cartesian kernel, which is unable to generalize to completely new pairs of nodes. In the second experiment, we generate three separate sets of $100$ nodes for the training, validation and test sets, and sample from each of these $500$ edges. This experiment allows us to test the generalization capability of the learned models with respect to new couples of nodes (i.e., previously unseen nodes). Here, the Cartesian kernel is not applicable, and thus not included in the experiment. The experiments are repeated 100 times, the presented results are means over the repetitions. For statistical significance testing, we use the paired Wilcoxon-signed-rank test with significance level $0.05$. All pairs of kernels are compared, and the conservative Bonferroni correction is applied to take into account multiple hypothesis testing, meaning that the required p-value is divided by the number of comparisons. The Gaussian RBF kernel was considered at the node level. The used performance measure is the mean squared error (MSE). For training RLS we solve the corresponding system of linear equations using matrix factorization, by considering an explicit regularization parameter. A grid search is conducted to select the width of the Gaussian RBF kernel and the regularization parameter of the RLS algorithm. Both parameters are selected from the range $2^{-20}, \ldots, 2^1$.
Setting $(t,t',u,v)$ MPRED $K_{\otimes}^{\Phi}$ $K_{\otimes S}^{\Phi}$ $K_{\rm MLPK}^{\Phi}$ $K_{C}^{\Phi}$ $K_{C S}^{\Phi}$
------------------------ -------------- --------- ---------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------- ---------------- ------------------ --
Intransitive (0,1,2,2) 0.01038 0.00908 0.00773 0.00768 0.00989 0.00924
$T_{\bf L}$-transitive (0,1,1,0) 0.01514 0.00962 0.00781 0.00805 0.01155 0.00941
$T_{\bf P}$-transitive (1,2,1,1) 0.00259 0.00227 0.00192 0.00188 0.00248 0.00231
: The predictive performance on test data for the different types of relations and kernels. In this experiment, the task is to predict relation values for unknown edges in a partially observed relational graph. The performance measure is the mean squared error.[]{data-label="table:artificial1"}
Setting $(t,t',u,v)$ MPRED $K_{\otimes}^{\Phi}$ $K_{\otimes S}^{\Phi}$ $K_{\rm MLPK}^{\Phi}$
------------------------ -------------- --------- ---------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------- --
Intransitive (0,1,2,2) 0.01032 0.00995 0.00936 0.00971
$T_{\bf L}$-transitive (0,1,1,0) 0.01515 0.01236 0.01166 0.01453
$T_{\bf P}$-transitive (1,2,1,1) 0.00259 0.00251 0.00236 0.00242
: The predictive performance on test data for the different types of relations and kernels. In this experiment, the task is to predict relation values for a completely new set of nodes. The performance measure is the mean squared error.[]{data-label="table:artificial2"}
The results for the experiments are presented in Tables \[table:artificial1\] and \[table:artificial2\]. In both cases all the kernels outperform the mean as prediction, meaning that they are able to model the underlying relations. For all the learning methods, the error is lower in the first experiment than in the second one, demonstrating that it is easier to predict relations between known nodes, than to generalize to a new set of nodes. Enforcing symmetry is clearly beneficial, as the symmetric Kronecker product pairwise kernel always outperforms the standard Kronecker product pairwise kernel, and the symmetric Cartesian kernel always outperforms the standard one. Comparing the Kronecker and Cartesian kernels, the Kronecker one leads to clearly lower error rates. With the exception of the $T_{\bf L}$-transitive case in the second experiment, MLPK turns out to be highly successful in modeling the relations, probably due to enforcing symmetry of the learned relation. In the first experiment, all the differences are statistically significant, apart from the difference between the symmetric Kronecker product pairwise kernel and MLPK for the intransitive case. In the second experiment, all the differences are statistically significant. We can conclude that including prior knowledge about symmetry really helps boosting the predictive performance in this problem.
Learning the similarity between documents
-----------------------------------------
In the second experiment, we compare the ordinary and symmetric Kronecker pairwise kernels on a real-world data set based on newsgroups documents[^2]. The data is sampled from 4 newsgroups: rec.autos, rec.sport.baseball, comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware and comp.windows.x. The aim is to learn to predict the similarity of two documents as measured by the number of common words they share. The node features correspond to the number of occurrences of a word in a document. Unlike the previous experiment, the feature representation is very high-dimensional and sparse, as there are more than $50000$ possible features, the majority of which are zero for any given document. First, we sample separate training, validation and test sets each consisting of $1000$ nodes. Second, we sample edges connecting the nodes in the training and validation set using exponentially growing sample sizes to measure the effect of sample size on the differences between the kernels. The sample size grid is $[ 100, 200, 400, \ldots ,102400 ]$. Again, we sample only edges with different starting and end nodes. When computing the test performance, we consider all the edges in the test set, except those starting and ending at the same node. The linear kernel is used at the node level. We train the RLS algorithm using conjugate gradient optimization with early stopping [@Pahikkala2010conditional], optimization is terminated once the MSE on the validation set has failed to decrease for 10 consecutive iterations. Since we rely on the regularizing effect of early stopping, a separate regularization parameter is not needed in this experiment. We do not include other types of kernels than the Kronecker product pairwise kernels in the experiment. To the best of our knowledge, no algorithms that scale to the considered experiment size exist for the other kernel functions. Hence, this experiment mainly aims to illustrate the computational advantages of the Kronecker product pairwise kernel. The mean as prediction achieves an MSE around $145$ on this dataset.
The results are presented in Figure \[fig:newsgroups\]. Even for $100$ pairs the errors are for both kernels much lower than the results for the mean as prediction, showing that the RLS algorithm succeeds with both kernels in learning the underlying relation. Increasing the training set size leads to a decrease in test error. Using the prior knowledge about the symmetry of the learned relation is clearly helpful. The symmetric kernel achieves for all sample sizes a lower error than the ordinary Kronecker product pairwise kernel and the largest differences are observed for the smallest sample sizes. For $100$ training instances, the error is almost halved by enforcing symmetry.
![The comparison of the ordinary Kronecker product pairwise kernel $K_{\otimes}^{\Phi}$ and the symmetric Kronecker product pairwise kernel $K_{\otimes S}^{\Phi}$ on the Newsgroups dataset. The mean squared error is shown as a function of the training set size.[]{data-label="fig:newsgroups"}](ngroups.pdf "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}\
Competition between species
---------------------------
In this final experiment we evaluate the performance of the ordinary and reciprocal Kronecker pairwise kernels and the metric learning pairwise kernel on simulated data from an ecological model. The setup is based on the one described in [@allesina2011competitive]. This model provides an elegant explanation for the coexistence of multiple species in the same habitat, a problem that has puzzled ecologists for decades [@hutchinson1961paradox].
Imagine $n$ species sharing a habitat and struggling for their share of the resources. One species can dominate another species based on $k$ so-called limiting factors. A limiting factor defines an attribute that can give a fitness advantage, for example in plants, such as the ability to photosynthesize, the ability to draw minerals from the soil, resistance to diseases, etc. Each species can score better or worse on each of its $k$ limiting factors. The degree to which one species can dominate a competitor is relative to the number of limiting factors for which it is superior. All possible interactions can thus be represented in a tournament. In this framework relations are reciprocal and often intransitive.
For this simulation 400 species were simulated with 10 limiting factors. The value of each limiting factor is for each species drawn from a random uniform distribution between 0 and 1. Thus, any species $v$ can be represented by a vector $\mathbf{f}$ of length $k$ with the limiting factors as elements. The probability that a species $v$ dominates species $v'$ can easily be calculated: $$Q(v,v')=\frac{1}{k}\sum_{i=1}^{k} H(f_i-f_i'), \label{lf}$$ where $H(x)$ is the Heaviside step function.
Of the 400 species, 200, 100 and 100 were used for generating training, validation and testing data. For each subset, the complete tournament matrix was determined using (\[lf\]). From those matrices 1200 interactions were sampled for training, 600 for model validation and 600 for testing. No combination of species was used more than once. Using the limiting factors as features, we try to regress the probability that one species dominates another one using the ordinary and reciprocal Kronecker product pairwise kernels and the metric learning pairwise kernel. Again, the Gaussian kernel is applied as the node kernel. The validation set is used to determine the optimal regularization parameter and kernel width parameter from the grids $ 2^{-20}$, $2^{-19}$ $\ldots$, $2^4$ and $2^{-10}$, $2^{-9}$ $\ldots$, $2^1$. To obtain statistically significant results the setup is repeated 100 times.\
Kernel MPRED $K_{\otimes}^{\Phi}$ $K_{\otimes R}^{\Phi}$ $K_{\rm MLPK}^{\Phi}$
-------- --------- ---------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------- --
MSE 0.02795 0.01082 0.01067 0.02877
: The predictive performance on test data for the different types of kernels. The performance measure is the mean squared error.[]{data-label="ecores"}
The results are shown in Table \[ecores\]. The Wilcoxon-signed-rank test with significance level 0.05 is used for significance testing, and a conservative Bonferroni correction is applied for multiple hypothesis testing. All differences are statistically significant.
The metric learning pairwise kernel gives rise to worse predictions than the mean as prediction. This is not surprising, as the MLPK cannot learn reciprocal relations. The ordinary Kronecker product pairwise kernel performs good and the reciprocal Kronecker product pairwise kernel performs even better. All the differences are statistically significant. The results show that using the information on the types of relations to be learned can boost the accuracy of the predictions.
Conclusion
==========
A general kernel-based framework for learning various types of graded relations was presented in this article. This framework extends existing approaches for learning relations, because it can handle crisp and graded relations. A Kronecker product feature mapping was proposed for combining the features of pairs of objects that constitute a relation (edge level in a graph), and it was shown that this mapping leads to a class of universal approximators, if an appropriate kernel is chosen on the object level (node level in a graph).
In addition, we clarified that domain knowledge about the relation to be learned can be easily incorporated in our framework, such as reciprocity and symmetry properties. Experimental results on synthetic and real-world data clearly demonstrate that this domain knowledge really helps in improving the generalization performance. Moreover, important links with recent developments in fuzzy set theory and decision theory can be established, by looking at transitivity properties of relations.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
W.W. is supported as a postdoc by the Research Foundation of Flanders (FWO Vlaanderen) and T.P. by the Academy of Finland (grant 134020).
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
Formal definitions
------------------
The Kronecker product of two matrices ${{\mathbf{M}}}$ and ${{\mathbf{N}}}$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathbf{M}}}\otimes{{\mathbf{N}}}=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
{{{\mathbf{M}}}}_{1,1}{{\mathbf{N}}}&\cdots&{{\mathbf{M}}}_{1,n}{{\mathbf{N}}}\\
\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\
{{{\mathbf{M}}}}_{m,1}{{\mathbf{N}}}&\cdots&{{\mathbf{M}}}_{m,n}{{\mathbf{N}}}\end{array}
\right),\end{aligned}$$
A continuous kernel ${K}$ on a compact metric space $\mathcal{V}$ (i.e. $\mathcal{V}$ is closed and bounded) is called universal if the RKHS induced by ${K}$ is dense in $C(\mathcal{V})$, where $C(\mathcal{V})$ is the space of all continuous functions $f : \mathcal{V} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$. That is, for every function $f\in C(\mathcal{V})$ and every $\epsilon > 0$, there exists a set of input points $\{{v}_i \}_{i=1}^m \in \mathcal{V}$ and real numbers $\{\alpha_i\}_{i=1}^m$, with $m\in \mathbb{N}$, such that $$\max_{x\in \mathcal{V}}\left\{\left\arrowvert f({v})-\sum_{i=1}^m\alpha_i{K}({v}_i,{v})\right\arrowvert\right\}\leq\epsilon.$$ Accordingly, the hypothesis space induced by the kernel ${K}$ can approximate any function in $C(\mathcal{V})$ arbitrarily well, and hence it has the universal approximating property.
The following result is in the literature known as the Stone-Weierstra[ß]{} theorem (see e.g [@rudin1991functional]):
\[stoneweierstrass\] Let $\mathcal{V}$ be a compact metric space and let $C(\mathcal{V})$ be the set of real-valued continuous functions on $\mathcal{V}$. If $\mathcal{A}\subset C(\mathcal{V})$ is a subalgebra of $C(\mathcal{V})$, that is, $$\begin{array}{l}
\forall {f({v}),g({v})\in\mathcal{A}}, {r\in\mathbb{R}}:
{f({v})+rg({v})\in\mathcal{A}, f({v})g({v})\in\mathcal{A}}
\end{array}$$ and $\mathcal{A}$ separates points in $\mathcal{V}$, that is, $$\forall {v},{v}'\in\mathcal{V},{v}\neq {v}':\exists g\in\mathcal{A}:g({v})\neq g({v}'),$$ and $\mathcal{A}$ does not vanish at any point in $\mathcal{V}$, that is, $$\forall {v}\in\mathcal{V}:\exists g\in\mathcal{A}:g({v})\neq 0,$$ then $\mathcal{A}$ is dense in $C(\mathcal{V})$.
Proofs
------
([**Theorem \[unikrontheorem\]**]{}) Let us define $$\label{funckron}
\begin{array}{l}
\mathcal{A}\otimes\mathcal{A}
=\left\{t\mid t({v},{v}')=g({v})u({v}'),g,u\in \mathcal{A}\right\}
\end{array}$$ for a compact metric space $\mathcal{V}$ and a set of functions $\mathcal{A}\subset C(\mathcal{V})$. We observe that the RKHS of the kernel ${K}_{\otimes}^\Phi$ can be written as $\mathcal{H}\otimes\mathcal{H}$, where $\mathcal{H}$ is the RKHS of the kernel ${K}^\phi$.
Let $\epsilon>0$ and let $t\in C({\mathcal{V}})\otimes C({\mathcal{V}})$ be an arbitrary function which can, according to (\[funckron\]), be written as $t({v},{v}')=g({v})u({v}')$, where $g,u\in C({\mathcal{V}})$. By definition of the universality property, $\mathcal{H}$ is dense in $C({\mathcal{V}})$. Therefore, $\mathcal{H}$ contains functions $\overline{g},\overline{u}$ such that $$\max_{{v}\in{\mathcal{V}}}\left\{\left\arrowvert \overline{g}({v})-g({v})\right\arrowvert\right\}\leq \overline{\epsilon},\ \max_{{v}\in{\mathcal{V}}}\left\{\left\arrowvert \overline{u}({v})-u({v})\right\arrowvert\right\}\leq \overline{\epsilon} \,,$$ where $\overline{\epsilon}$ is a constant for which it holds that $$\max_{{v},{v}'\in{\mathcal{V}}}\left\{\left\arrowvert \overline{\epsilon} \, \overline{g}({v})\right\arrowvert+\left\arrowvert\overline{\epsilon} \,\overline{u}({v}')\right\arrowvert+\overline{\epsilon}^2\right\}\leq \epsilon \,.$$ Note that, according to the extreme value theorem, the maximum exists due to the compactness of ${\mathcal{V}}$ and the continuity of the functions $g$ and $u$. Now we have $$\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle
\max_{{v},{v}'\in{\mathcal{V}}}\left\{\left\arrowvert t({v},{v}')-\overline{g}({v})\overline{u}({v}')\right\arrowvert\right\}\\
\displaystyle
\leq\max_{{v},{v}'\in{\mathcal{V}}}\left\{\left\arrowvert t({v},{v}')-g({v})u({v}')\right\arrowvert+\left\arrowvert \overline{\epsilon} \,\overline{g}({v})\right\arrowvert+\left\arrowvert\overline{\epsilon}\,\overline{u}({v}')\right\arrowvert+\overline{\epsilon}^2\right\}\\
\displaystyle
=\max_{{v},{v}'\in{\mathcal{V}}}\left\{\left\arrowvert \overline{\epsilon} \,\overline{g}({v})\right\arrowvert+\left\arrowvert\overline{\epsilon} \,\overline{u}({v}')\right\arrowvert+\overline{\epsilon}^2\right\}\\
\displaystyle\leq \epsilon,
\end{array}$$ which confirms the density of $\mathcal{H}\otimes\mathcal{H}$ in $C({\mathcal{V}})\otimes C({\mathcal{V}})$.
According to Tychonoff’s theorem, ${\mathcal{V}}^2$ is compact if ${\mathcal{V}}$ is compact. It is straightforward to see that $C({\mathcal{V}})\otimes C({\mathcal{V}})$ is a subalgebra of $C({\mathcal{V}}^2)$, it separates points in ${\mathcal{V}}^2$, it vanishes at no point of $C({\mathcal{V}}^2)$, and it is therefore dense in $C({\mathcal{V}}^2)$ due to Theorem \[stoneweierstrass\]. Consequently, $\mathcal{H}\otimes\mathcal{H}$ is also dense in $C({\mathcal{V}}^2)$, and ${K}_{\otimes}^\Phi$ is a universal kernel on ${\mathcal{E}}$.
([**Theorem \[antisymmetrictheorem\]**]{}) Let $\epsilon>0$ and $t\in R({\mathcal{V}}^2)$ be an arbitrary function. According to Theorem \[unikrontheorem\], the RKHS of the kernel ${K}_{\otimes}^\Phi$ defined in (\[eq:tppk\]) is dense in $C({\mathcal{V}}^2)$. Therefore, we can select a set of edges and real numbers $\{\alpha_i\}_{i=1}^m$, such that the function $$u({v},{v}')=\sum_{i=1}^m\alpha_i{K}^{\phi}({v},{v}_i) {K}^{\phi}({v}',{v}_i')$$ belonging to the RKHS of the kernel (\[eq:tppk\]) fulfills $$\label{tempapproxone}
\max_{({v},{v}')\in {\mathcal{V}}^2}\left\{\left\arrowvert t({v},{v}')-4u({v},{v}')\right\arrowvert\right\}\leq\frac{1}{2}\epsilon \,.$$ We observe that, because $t({v},{v}')=-t({v}',{v})$, the function $u$ also fulfills $$\max_{({v},{v}')\in {\mathcal{V}}^2}\left\{\left\arrowvert t({v},{v}')+4u({v}',{v})\right\arrowvert\right\}\leq\frac{1}{2}\epsilon$$ and hence $$\label{tempapproxthree}
\max_{({v},{v}')\in {\mathcal{V}}^2}\left\{\left\arrowvert 4u({v},{v}')+4u({v}',{v})\right\arrowvert\right\}\leq\epsilon \,.$$ Let $$\gamma({v},{v}')=2u({v},{v}')+2u({v}',{v}) \,.$$ Due to (\[tempapproxthree\]), we have $$\label{gammaineq}
\arrowvert\gamma({v},{v}')\arrowvert\leq\frac{1}{2}\epsilon,\phantom{\qed}\forall({v},{v}')\in{\mathcal{V}}^2 \,.$$ Now, let us consider the function ${h}({v},{v}')=$ $$\sum_{i=1}^m\alpha_i 2\left({K}^{\phi}({v},{v}_i) {K}^{\phi}({v}',{v}_i')-{K}^{\phi}({v}',{v}_i) {K}^{\phi}({v},{v}_i')\right) \,,$$ which is obtained from $u$ by replacing kernel (\[eq:tppk\]) with kernel (\[eq:recedgekernel\]). We observe that [ $$\begin{aligned}
{h}({v},{v}')&=&2u({v},{v}')-2u({v}',{v})\nonumber\\
&=&4u({v},{v}')-\gamma({v},{v}')\label{fgammaeq}.\end{aligned}$$ ]{} By combining (\[tempapproxone\]), (\[gammaineq\]) and (\[fgammaeq\]), we observe that the function ${h}$ fulfills (\[recclaim\]).
([**Proposition \[thm:mlpk\]**]{}) The model that we consider can be written as: $$Q({v},{v}') = \nabla \big((\phi({v}) - \phi({v}'))^T {\mathbf{W}} (\phi({v}) - \phi({v}')) \big) \,.$$ The connection with (\[eq:rrsym\]) then immediately follows by decomposing ${\mathbf{W}}$ as ${\mathbf{W}} = {\mathbf{U}}^T {\mathbf{U}}$ with ${\mathbf{U}}$ an arbitrary matrix. The specific case of $z=1$ is obtained when ${\mathbf{U}}$ can be written as a single-row matrix.
[^1]: Often the term fuzzy relation is used in the fuzzy set literature to refer to graded relations. However, fuzzy relations should be seen as a subclass of graded relations. For example, reciprocal relations should not be considered as fuzzy relations, because they often exhibit a probabilistic semantics rather than a fuzzy semantics.
[^2]: Available at: <http://people.csail.mit.edu/jrennie/20Newsgroups/>
|
---
abstract: 'We propose Hybridizable Discontinuous Galerkin (HDG) methods for solving the frequency-domain Maxwell’s equations coupled to the Nonlocal Hydrodynamic Drude (NHD) and Generalized Nonlocal Optical Response (GNOR) models, which are employed to describe the optical properties of nano-plasmonic scatterers and waveguides. Brief derivations for both the NHD model and the GNOR model are presented. The formulations of the HDG method are given, in which we introduce two hybrid variables living only on the skeleton of the mesh. The local field solutions are expressed in terms of the hybrid variables in each element. Two conservativity conditions are globally enforced to make the problem solvable and to guarantee the continuity of the tangential component of the electric field and the normal component of the current density. Numerical results show that the proposed HDG methods converge at optimal rate. We benchmark our implementation and demonstrate that the HDG method has the potential to solve complex nanophotonic problems.'
address:
- 'School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, 611731, Chengdu, P.R. China'
- 'INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France'
- 'Department of Photonics Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, [Ø]{}rsteds Plads 343, DK-2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark.'
- 'Center for Nanostructured Graphene, Technical University of Denmark, [Ø]{}rsteds Plads 343, DK-2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark'
author:
- Liang Li
- Stéphane Lanteri
- 'N. Asger Mortensen'
- Martijn Wubs
title: A hybridizable discontinuous Galerkin method for solving nonlocal optical response models
---
Maxwell’s equations; nonlocal hydrodynamic Drude model; general nonlocal optical response theory; hybridizable discontinuous Galerkin method
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Nanophotonics is the active research field field concerned with the study of interactions between nanometer scale structures/media and light, including near-infrared, visible, and ultraviolet light. It bridges the micro and the macro worlds, and there are many connections between theoretical studies and feasible engineering. The many fascinating (potential) applications include invisibility cloaking, nano antennas, metamaterials, novel biological detection and treatment technologies, as well as new storage media [@Maier].
All of the above applications of nanophotonics require elaborate control of the propagation of light waves. In order to do so, appropriate mathematical models are needed to predict the behavior of light-matter interactions. Metals are interesting for nanophotonics because they can both enhance and confine optical fields, making plasmonics of interest to emerging quantum technologies [@Tame; @Bozhevolnyi; @Fitzgerald]. This is enabled by the existence of Surface Plasmons (SPs). SPs are coherent oscillations that exist as evanescent waves at both sides of the interface between any two materials where the real part of the dielectric function changes sign across the interface. The typical example is a metal-dielectric interface, such as a metal sheet in air [@SaridChallener]. Maxwell’s equations can be employed to model the macroscale electromagnetic waves and armed with classical electrodynamics there are numerous approaches ranging from classical electrodynamics to ab initio treatments [@Gallinet2015; @Varas2016]. Ab initio techniques can be used to simulate the microscopic dynamics on the atomic scale, but with ab initio methods one can only deal with systems with up to about ten thousand atoms [@Varas2016], thus calling for semiclassical treatments [@MortensenGNOR; @ToscanoEtal2015] or more effective inclusions of quantum phenomena into classical electrodynamics [@Luo2013; @Yan2015; @Christensen2016; @Zhu2016].
If one models the interaction of light with metallic nanostructures classically or semiclassically, then this calls for appropriate modelling of the material response as described for example by the Drude model [@Drude1900; @DresselScheffler2006], the Nonlocal Hydrodynamic Drude (NHD) model [@Bloch1933a; @RazaEtal2015JPCM], or the Generalized Nonlocal Optical Response (GNOR) theory [@MortensenGNOR], all in combination with and coupled to Maxwell’s equations. Except for some highly symmetric geometries, analytical solutions to the resulting systems of differential equations are not available. Thus, numerical treatment of these systems of PDEs is an important aspect of nanophotonics research. Numerical experiments help to find promising systems and geometries before real fabrication, to obtain optimized parameters, to visualize field distributions, to investigate the dominant contribution to a phenomenon, to explain experimental observations, and so on [@Busch2011].
Several numerical methods exist for computing the solution of Maxwell’s equations [@Gallinet2015]. For time-dependent problems, the Finite-Difference Time-Domain (FDTD) algorithm is the most popular method [@Taflove2005] among physicists and engineers. More recently, the Discontinuous Galerkin Time-Domain (DGTD) method has drawn a lot of attention because of several appealing features, for example, easy adaptation to complex geometries and material composition, high-order accuracy, and natural parallelism [@HesthavenWarburton2002]. For time-harmonic problems, the Finite Element Method (FEM) is most widely used for the solution of Maxwell’s equations. In very recent years, the Hybridizable Discontinuous Galerkin (HDG) method appears as a promising numerical method for time-harmonic problems because it inherits nearly all the advantages of the DG methods while leading to a computational complexity similar to FEM [@CGL2009; @NPC2011; @LLP2014; @HLLH2016].
Currently, FDTD (for time-dependent problems) and FEM (for time-harmonic problems) methods are still the methods most commonly adopted for the simulation of light-matter interactions. Most often, commercial simulation software (such as Lumerical FDTD[^1] and Comsol Multiphysics[^2]) is used for that purpose. However, these methods and computer codes do not always offer the required capabilities for addressing accurately and efficiently the complexity of the physical phenomena underlying nanometer scale light-matter interactions. In the academic community, also the DGTD method has recently been considered in this context [@Busch2011; @Viquerat2015; @HuangYQ2016]. In Ref. [@Schmittetal2016], some numerical results are presented for the NHD model using the DGTD method. In the present paper we are employing the HDG method to solve the frequency-domain NHD and GNOR models. The development of accurate and efficient numerical methods for computational nanophotonics is expected to be a long-lasting demand, both because new models are regularly proposed that require innovative numerical methods, and because there is demand for more accurate and faster simulation methods for existing models.
This paper introduces a HDG method for the solution the NHD and GNOR models. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In section \[sec:models\], we briefly introduce mathematical aspects both of the NHD model and of the GNOR model. HDG formulations are given in section \[sec:hdg\]. Numerical results are presented in section \[sec:tests\] to show the effectiveness of high-order HDG methods for solving problems in nanophotonics. We draw conclusions in section \[sec:con\].
Physics problem: nonlocal optical response by nanoparticles {#sec:models}
===========================================================
The problem considered is shown in Figure \[fig:struct\] where the nanometer-size metal $\Omega_S$ is illuminated by an incident plane wave of light. The infinite scattering domain is truncated as a finite computational domain $\Omega$ by employing an artificial absorbing boundary condition, which is designed to absorb outgoing waves.
![Sketch of the incident electromagnetic wave illuminating the scatterer $\Omega_S$ that has a subwavelength size and is surrounded by free space. $\Omega_S$ is usually filled with metals, such as gold, silver or sodium. An artificial absorbing boundary $\partial\Omega$ is introduced to make a computational domain $\Omega$.[]{data-label="fig:struct"}](./struct.pdf)
Nonlocal hydrodynamic Drude model
---------------------------------
There are a number of theories for the modeling of the light-matter interactions which are used under different settings. In this subsection, we briefly introduce the NHD model. The incoming light is described as a propagating electromagnetic wave that satisfies Maxwell’s equations. Without external charge and current, Maxwell’s equations of macroscopic electromagnetism for non-magnetic materials can be written as $$\label{eq:max}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\nabla\times {\mathbf{H}}= \varepsilon_0\varepsilon_{\text{loc}}\partial_t{\mathbf{E}}+{\mathbf{J}},\\
\nabla\times{\mathbf{E}}= -\mu_0\partial_t\mathbf{H},
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $\mathbf{H}$ and ${\mathbf{E}}$ are respectively the magnetic and electric fields, $ \varepsilon_0$ is the permittivity constant, $\mu_0$ is the permeability constant, $\varepsilon_{\text{loc}}=\varepsilon_{\infty}+\varepsilon_{\text{inter}}$ is introduced to account for the local response, and ${\mathbf{J}}$ is the nonlocal hydrodynamic polarization current density which is due to the nonlocal material on the plasmonic scatterers [@HiremathEtal2012]. In this paper, we will for simplicity set $\varepsilon_{\text{inter}}=0$ and $\varepsilon_{\infty}=1$, thereby focusing solely on the free-electron response to light. Equations need to be completed to solve electromagnetic fields ${\mathbf{E}}$ and $\mathbf{H}$ because of the unknown polarization current density ${\mathbf{J}}$. The models that we will consider in this paper differ only in the assumed dynamics of the polarization current density, which we will now discuss in more detail.
The polarization current density ${\mathbf{J}}$ due to the motion of the free-electron gas can be written as $$\label{eq:jHD}
{\mathbf{J}}= -en{\mathbf{v}},$$ where $e$ is the charge of the electron, $n$ is the density of the electron gas (a scalar field), and ${\mathbf{v}}$ is its hydrodynamic velocity (a vector field). Within the hydrodynamic model, the dynamics of the velocity field is given by [@Schmittetal2016; @RazaEtal2015] $$\label{eq:hd}
m_e(\partial_t+{\mathbf{v}}\cdot\nabla){\mathbf{v}}=-e({\mathbf{E}}+{\mathbf{v}}\times\mathbf{B}) - m_e\gamma{\mathbf{v}}-\nabla\left(\frac{\delta g[n]}{\delta n}\right),$$ where $m_e$ is the mass of an electron, $-e({\mathbf{E}}+{\mathbf{v}}\times\mathbf{B})$ is the Lorentz force with $\mathbf{B}$ being the magnetic flux density, $\gamma$ is a damping constant, $g[n]$ is an energy functional of the fluid, and the term $\nabla\left(\frac{\delta g[n]}{\delta n}\right)$ denotes the quantum pressure. Complementary to Eq. \[eq:hd\], the dynamics of the free-electron density is given by $$\partial_t n+\nabla\cdot(n{\mathbf{v}})=0,$$ which is the well-known continuity relation that relates the velocity ${\mathbf{v}}$ and the density $n$.
The hydrodynamic dynamics described by Eq. (\[eq:hd\]) is obviously nonlinear in ${\bf v}$, but in the following we only consider the linear response of the electron gas on external fields. One can write a perturbation expansion ${\bf v} \simeq {\bf v}_{0} + {\bf v}_{1}$ and similarly for the electric and magnetic fields and for the density. Since in the absence of an external field ${\bf v} = {\bf v}_{0} = {\bf 0}$, both the nonlinear term ${\mathbf{v}}\cdot\nabla{\mathbf{v}}$ and the magnetic induction field $\mathbf{B}$ disappear due to the linearization [@ToscanoEtal2015]. If we furthermore assume the energy functional to be of the Thomas-Fermi form, then we obtain for the linearized quantum pressure $$\label{eq:qpressure}
-\nabla\left(\frac{\delta g[n]}{\delta n}\right)= -m_e\beta^2\frac{1}{n_0}\nabla n,$$ where $\beta^2=\frac{3}{5}v_F^2$ with $v_F$ being the Fermi velocity. The zero-order (i.e. equilibrium) density $n_0$ is constant within the plasmonic medium [@ToscanoEtal2015]. Here in Eq. and below, we write $n$ for the linearized density ${n}_{1}$ and similarly we will from now on simply write ${\bf v}$ for the linearized velocity ${\bf v}_{1}$. As a result, we obtain the linearized hydrodynamic equation [@RazaEtal2015JPCM; @Schmittetal2016] $$\label{eq:hds}
m_e\partial_t{\mathbf{v}}=-e{\mathbf{E}}-m_e\gamma{\mathbf{v}}-m_e\beta^2\frac{1}{n_0}\nabla n,$$ as well as the linearized continuity relation $$\label{eq:nv}
\partial_t n = -n_0 \nabla\cdot {\mathbf{v}}.$$ Inserting Eqs. (linearized as ${\mathbf{J}}=-en_0{\mathbf{v}}$) and into , and taking the time-derivative $\partial_t$, we obtain $$\label{eq:hdT}
\partial_{tt} {\mathbf{J}}+\gamma\partial_t{\mathbf{J}}-\beta^2\nabla(\nabla\cdot{\mathbf{J}})-\omega_p^2\varepsilon_0\partial_t{\mathbf{E}}=0,$$ where $\omega_p$ is the plasma frequency with $\omega_p^2=n_0e^2/(m_e\varepsilon_0)$. By Fourier transformation we replace $\partial_t$ with $-{\mathrm{i}}\omega$, where ${\mathrm{i}}$ is the imaginary unit and $\omega$ is the angular frequency, and obtain the frequency-domain relation between polarization current density and the electric field within the hydrodynamic model as $$\label{eq:hdFre}
\omega(\omega+{\mathrm{i}}\gamma){\mathbf{J}}+\beta^2\nabla(\nabla\cdot{\mathbf{J}})={\mathrm{i}}\omega\omega^2_p\varepsilon_0{\mathbf{E}}.$$ This equation describes electron-field interaction within the plasmonic nanostructure $\Omega_S$. We will neglect spill-out of electrons outside the classical geometric surface of the structure, which for our purposes is a good assumption for noble metals such as silver and gold [@ToscanoEtal2015]. Mathematically, this is arranged by imposing a hard-wall condition on the boundary $\partial\Omega_S$, namely ${\mathbf{n}}\cdot{\mathbf{J}}=0$ on $\partial\Omega_S$ [@Jewsbury:1981a; @Yan:2013a].
General nonlocal optical response model
---------------------------------------
We also briefly present the mathematical derivation of the central equations of the GNOR model, based on Ref. [@MortensenGNOR]. In the GNOR model, also diffusion of the electron gas is taken into consideration. Let the density $n({\mathbf{r}},t)=n_0+n_1({\mathbf{r}},t)$, where the last term is the induced density variation caused by a non-vanishing electric field ${\mathbf{E}}$, which we assume sufficiently small that $n_1\ll n_0$ holds. Instead of , we now consider the linearized convection-diffusion equation [@MortensenGNOR] $$\label{eq:cd}
\partial_t (-e_1) n_1 = D\nabla^2(-e)n_1-\nabla\cdot[(-e)n_0{\mathbf{v}}]=-\nabla\cdot{\mathbf{J}},$$ where $D$ is the diffusion constant for the charge-carrier diffusion. Then the current density is given by Fick’s law $$\label{eq:current}
{\mathbf{J}}= (-e)n_0{\mathbf{v}}-D\nabla(-e)n_1.$$ Multiplying by the charge of the electron $-e$, the equilibrium density $n_0$ and taking the time-derivative we have $$\label{eq:hddv}
m_e(\partial_t+\gamma)\partial_t[(-e)n_0{\mathbf{v}}]=n_0e^2\partial_t{\mathbf{E}}-m_e\beta^2\nabla[\partial_t(-e)n_1].$$ Dividing by $m_e$ and combining with Fick’s law results in $$\label{eq:hddj}
(\partial_t+\gamma)\{\partial_t{\mathbf{J}}+D\nabla[\partial_t(-e)n_1]\}=\frac{n_0e^2}{m_e}\partial_t{\mathbf{E}}-\beta^2\nabla[\partial_t(-e)n_1].$$ From the convection-diffusion equation , we have $$\label{eq:hdd}
(\partial_t+\gamma)[\partial_t{\mathbf{J}}+D\nabla(\nabla\cdot{\mathbf{J}})]=\frac{n_0e^2}{m_e}\partial_t{\mathbf{E}}-\beta^2\nabla(\nabla\cdot{\mathbf{J}}).$$ Like what we did for , transforming to the frequency domain gives $$\label{eq:gnor}
\omega(\omega+{\mathrm{i}}\gamma){\mathbf{J}}+[\beta^2+D(\gamma-{\mathrm{i}}\omega)]\nabla(\nabla\cdot{\mathbf{J}})={\mathrm{i}}\omega\omega^2_p\varepsilon_0{\mathbf{E}}.$$ The physical predictions obtained by the GNOR and NHD models often differ substantially, as illustrated below. However, from a computational point of view the GNOR model only differs by the replacement $\beta^2\rightarrow\beta^2+D(\gamma-{\mathrm{i}}\omega)$ in the frequency domain, whereby the nonlocal hydrodynamic parameter acquires an often non-negligible imaginary part. In the GNOR model we have the same additional boundary condition ${\mathbf{n}}\cdot{\mathbf{J}}=0$ on $\partial\Omega_S$ as in the NHD model.
Specification to 2D TM mode
---------------------------
Now we can couple Maxwell’s equation with for the NHD model, or similarly with for the GNOR model. We will compute light extinction by infinitely long nanowires. We take the wire axes along the $z$-direction and consider TM-polarized incident light, i.e. polarized in the $(x,y)$-plane. In this 2D setting, we can define ${\mathbf{E}}= (E_x, E_y)^T$ to be a vector and $H = H_z$ a scalar function. Coupling the time-harmonic Maxwell’s equations and hydrodynamic Drude model , we have in 2D $$\label{eq:hyd}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
\nabla\times H & = -{\mathrm{i}}\omega\varepsilon_0{\mathbf{E}}+{\mathbf{J}}, \text{ in } \Omega, \\
\nabla\times{\mathbf{E}}& = {\mathrm{i}}\omega\mu_0 H, \text{ in } \Omega,\\
\nabla(\nabla\cdot{\mathbf{J}}) + \frac{\omega(\omega+{\mathrm{i}}\gamma)}{\beta^2}{\mathbf{J}}& =\frac{{\mathrm{i}}\omega\omega^2_p\varepsilon_0}{\beta^2}{\mathbf{E}}, \text{ in } \Omega_S.
\end{aligned}
\right.$$ If the Silver-M[ü]{}ller boundary condition (first-order absorbing boundary condition) [@Stupfel1994] is applied on the boundary $\partial\Omega$ of the computational domain, then we have the boundary conditions $$\label{eq:bc}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf{n}}\times{\mathbf{E}}-H & = {\mathbf{n}}\times{\mathbf{E}}^{\text{inc}}-H^{\text{inc}} = g^{\text{inc}}, \text{ on } \partial\Omega, \\
{\mathbf{n}}\cdot{\mathbf{J}}& =0, \text{ on } \partial\Omega_S,
\end{aligned}
\right.$$ where ${\mathbf{E}}^{\text{inc}}$ and $H^{\text{inc}}$ stand for the electromagnetic fields of the incoming light.
HDG formulations of nonlocal optical response models {#sec:hdg}
=====================================================
The promise of hybridizable DG methods {#Sec:promiseHDG}
--------------------------------------
In the Introduction some properties and advantages of DG and HDG methods were briefly mentioned, which we here explain in more detail. The classic DG method is seldomly employed for solving stationary problems, because it duplicates degrees of freedom (DOFs) on every internal edge. Thus the number of globally coupled DOFs is much greater than the number of DOFs required by conforming finite element methods for the same accuracy. Consequently, DG methods are expensive in terms of both CPU time and memory consumption. Hybridization of DG methods [@CGL2009] is devoted to addressing this issue while at the same time keeping all the advantages of DG methods. HDG methods introduce additional hybrid variables on the edges of the elements. Then we define the numerical traces arising from partial integration in the DG formulations through the hybrid variables. We can thus define the local (element-wise) solutions by hybrid variables. Conservativity conditions are imposed on numerical traces to ensure the continuity of the tangential component of the electric field and the normal component of the current density and to make the problem solvable. As a result, HDG methods produce a linear system in terms of the DOFs of the additional hybrid variables only. In this way, the number of globally coupled DOFs is greatly reduced as compared to the classic DG method. In a recent study [@Yakovlev:2016], the authors showed that HDG methods outperform FEM in many cases.
Computational concepts and notations
------------------------------------
In order to give a clear presentation of the HDG method, here we introduce some computational concepts and notations. We divide the computational domain $\Omega$ into triangle elements. The union of all the triangles is denoted by ${\mathcal{T}}_h$. By ${\mathcal{F}}_h$ we denote the union of all edges of ${\mathcal{T}}_h$. Furthermore, ${\mathcal{F}}^I_h$ stands for the union of all the edges associated with the nanostructure. For an edge associated with two elements $F =\overline{K^+}\cap\overline{K^-}\in{\mathcal{F}}_h$, let $({\mathbf{v}}^\pm, v^\pm)$ be the *traces* of $({\mathbf{v}}, v)$ on $F$ from the interior of $K^{\pm}$, see Fig. \[fig:interEdge\], where we use the term *trace* to denote the restriction of a function on the boundaries of the elements [@Arnold2002]. Note that from now on ${\mathbf{v}}$ is used to describe a general vector function instead of velocity.
![Two neighboring discretization elements (here: triangles) within the computational domain. An edge $F$ is shared by two elements $K^+$ and $K^-$. The outward normal vectors $n^+$ and $n^-$ point in opposite directions. A characteristic property of the DG method is that computed functions are allowed to be discontinuous across $F$ (hence the “D” in DG). For example, for a function $v$, be it a scalar or a vector, its value on $F$ from $K^+$ is $v^+$, while its value on $F$ from $K^-$ is $v^-$, and these $v^+$ and $v^-$ are not necessarily equal. By contrast, the hybrid variables in the HDG method [*are*]{} single-valued on $F$.[]{data-label="fig:interEdge"}](./traceDem.pdf)
On every face, we define *mean* (*average*) *values* ${\left\{ \cdot \right\}}$ and *jumps* ${\llbracket \cdot \rrbracket}$ as $$\left\{
\begin{aligned}
{\left\{ {\mathbf{v}}\right\}}_F & = \dfrac{1}{2} ({\mathbf{v}}^+ + {\mathbf{v}}^-),
\\
{\left\{ v \right\}}_F & = \dfrac{1}{2}(v^+ + v^-),
\\
{\llbracket {\mathbf{n}}\times{\mathbf{v}}\rrbracket}_F & = {\mathbf{n}}^+\times{\mathbf{v}}^+ +
{\mathbf{n}}^-\times{\mathbf{v}}^-, \\
{\llbracket {\mathbf{n}}\cdot{\mathbf{v}}\rrbracket}_F & = {\mathbf{n}}^+\cdot{\mathbf{v}}^+ +
{\mathbf{n}}^-\cdot{\mathbf{v}}^-,
\\
{\llbracket v{\mathbf{t}}\rrbracket}_F & = v^+ {\mathbf{t}}^+ + v^- {\mathbf{t}}^-,
\end{aligned}
\right.$$ where ${\mathbf{n}}^{\pm}$ denotes the outward unit norm vector to $K^\pm$ and ${\mathbf{t}}^{\pm}$ denotes the unit tangent vectors to the boundaries $\partial K^{\pm}$ such that ${\mathbf{t}}^+\times{\mathbf{n}}^+=1$ and ${\mathbf{t}}^-\times{\mathbf{n}}^-=1$. For the boundary edges, either on $\partial\Omega$ or on $\partial\Omega_S$, these expressions are modified as $$\left\{
\begin{aligned}
{\left\{ {\mathbf{v}}\right\}}_F & = {\mathbf{v}}^+,
\\
{\left\{ v \right\}}_F & = v^+,
\\
{\llbracket {\mathbf{n}}\times{\mathbf{v}}\rrbracket}_F & = {\mathbf{n}}^+ \times{\mathbf{v}}^+, \\
{\llbracket {\mathbf{n}}\cdot{\mathbf{v}}\rrbracket}_F & = {\mathbf{n}}^+ \cdot{\mathbf{v}}^+,
\\
{\llbracket v{\mathbf{t}}\rrbracket}_F & = v^+ {\mathbf{t}}^+.
\end{aligned}
\right .$$ Let $\mathbb{P}_p(D)$ denote the space of polynomial functions of degree at most $p$ on a domain $D$. For any element $K\in{\mathcal{T}}_h$, let $V^p(K)$ be the space $\mathbb{P}_p(K)$ and ${\mathbf{V}}^p(K)$ the space $(\mathbb{P}_p(K))^2$. The discontinuous finite element spaces are then defined by $$\label{eq:dgSpace}
\begin{aligned}
V^p_h & = \left\{ v \in L^{2}(\Omega) \ \lvert \ v|_K\in
V^p(K), \ \forall K\in{\mathcal{T}}_h\right\},
\\
{\mathbf{V}}^p_h & = \left\{ {\mathbf{v}}\in (L^2(\Omega))^2 \ \lvert \
{\mathbf{v}}|_K\in {\mathbf{V}}^p(K), \ \forall K\in{\mathcal{T}}_h \right\},
\end{aligned}$$ where $L^2(\Omega)$ is the space of square integrable functions on the domain $\Omega$. We also introduce a traced finite element space $$\label{SpaceM}
M^p_h = \left\{ \eta \in L^2({\mathcal{F}}_h) \ \lvert
\ \eta|_F \in\mathbb{P}_p(F),
\ \forall F\in{\mathcal{F}}_h \right\}.$$ Note that $M^p_h$ consists of functions which are continuous on an edge, but discontinuous at its ends. The restrictions of $V^p_h$, ${\mathbf{V}}^p_h$ and $M^p_h$ in $\Omega_S$ are denoted by $\widetilde{V}^p_h$, $\widetilde{{\mathbf{V}}}^p_h$ and $\widetilde{M}^p_h$. For two vectorial functions $\mathbf{u}$ and ${\mathbf{v}}$ in $(L^2(D))^2$, we introduce the inner product $(\mathbf{u},{\mathbf{v}})_{D} = {\displaystyle}\int_D\mathbf{u}\cdot\overline{{\mathbf{v}}} \, {\rm d}x$, where $\overline{\cdot}$ denotes the complex conjugation. Likewise for scalar functions $u$ and $v$ in $L^2(D)$, the inner product is defined as $(u,v)_D = {\displaystyle}\int_D u \overline v \,{\rm d}x$ provided $D$ is a domain in $\mathbb{R}^2$. Finally we define the edge overlap $\langle u,v\rangle_F ={\displaystyle}\int_F u \overline v \, {\rm d}s$, where $F$ is a specific edge. Accordingly, we can define the total edge overlap for the whole triangulation or for relevant subsets of edges. Important cases are $$\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_{{\mathcal{F}}_h} =
\sum_{F\in{\mathcal{F}}_h}\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_F, \qquad
\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_{\partial\Omega} =
\sum_{F\in{\mathcal{F}}_h\cap\partial\Omega}\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_F,
\qquad
\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_{{\mathcal{F}}^I_h} =
\sum_{F\in{\mathcal{F}}^I_h}\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_F.$$ denoting, respectively, the total edge overlap on the computational domain, the cumulative edge overlap on the absorbing boundary of the computational domain, and finally the cumulative edge overlap on the nanostructure.
DG formulation of the coupled electrodynamical equations {#subsec:dg}
---------------------------------------------------------
We begin the construction of a DG implementation of the hydrodynamic Drude model by rewriting the coupled electrodynamical equations into a system of first-order equations $$\label{eq:MaxHyd}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{i}}\omega \varepsilon_0{\mathbf{E}}+ \nabla\times H -{\mathbf{J}}&= 0 \qquad \text{ in } \Omega, \\
{\mathrm{i}}\omega\mu_0 H - \nabla\times{\mathbf{E}}& =0 \qquad \text{ in } \Omega, \\
\nabla q +\frac{ \gamma-{\mathrm{i}}\omega}{\beta^2}{\mathbf{J}}- \frac{\omega_p^2\varepsilon_0}{\beta^2}{\mathbf{E}}& = 0 \qquad \text{ in } \Omega_S, \\
{\mathrm{i}}\omega q - \nabla\cdot{\mathbf{J}}& = 0 \qquad \text{ in } \Omega_S,
\end{aligned}
\right.$$ where we introduced the scalar function $q = ({\mathrm{i}}\omega)^{-1}\nabla\cdot{\mathbf{J}}$ which coincides with a scaled charge density. In general, a DG method seeks an approximate solution $({\mathbf{E}}_h, H_h, {\mathbf{J}}_h, q_h)$ in the space ${\mathbf{V}}^{p}_{h}\times V^{p}_{h}\times\widetilde{{\mathbf{V}}}^{p}_{h}\times \widetilde{V}^{p}_{h}$ that for each element $K$ (in our case: for each discretization triangle) satisfies [@ElBouajaji2013] $$\label{eq:MaxHydInt}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
({\mathrm{i}}\omega \varepsilon_0{\mathbf{E}}_h, {\mathbf{v}})_{K} + (\nabla\times H_h, {\mathbf{v}})_{K} - ({\mathbf{J}}_h, {\mathbf{v}})_{K} & = 0 \qquad \forall {\mathbf{v}}\in {\mathbf{V}}^{p}(K), \\
({\mathrm{i}}\omega\mu_0 H_h, v)_{K} - (\nabla\times{\mathbf{E}}_h, v)_{K} & =0 \qquad \forall v\in V^{p}(K), \\
(\nabla q_h, {\mathbf{v}})_{K} + \Big(\frac{\gamma-{\mathrm{i}}\omega}{\beta^2}{\mathbf{J}}_h, {\mathbf{v}}\Big)_{K} - \Big(\frac{\omega_p^2\varepsilon_0}{\beta^2}{\mathbf{E}}_h, {\mathbf{v}}\Big)_{K} & = 0 \qquad \forall {\mathbf{v}}\in \widetilde{{\mathbf{V}}}^{p}(K), \\
({\mathrm{i}}\omega q_h, v)_{K} - (\nabla\cdot{\mathbf{J}}_h, v)_{K} & = 0 \qquad \forall v\in \widetilde{V}^{p}(K).
\end{aligned}
\right.$$ The application of appropriate Green’s formulas to this system of equations leads to terms on the element boundaries [@Arnold2002]. These boundary terms are the keys to connect the elements, since the elements themselves are independent due to the nature of the discontinuous finite elements spaces of Eq. . In a DG method, one replaces the boundary terms by so-called *numerical traces* $\hat{{\mathbf{E}}}_{h}, \hat{H}_h, \hat{{\mathbf{J}}}_{h}$ and $\hat{q}_{h}$ [@CGL2009; @LLP2013], which are also known as ‘numerical fluxes’ in the literature [@Busch2011]. These numerical traces are defined as $$\label{eq:dgNumericalTrace}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
\hat{H}_h & ={\left\{ H_h \right\}} + \alpha_{E}{\llbracket {\mathbf{n}}\times{\mathbf{E}}_h \rrbracket}, \\
{\mathbf{n}}\times\hat{{\mathbf{E}}}_h & = {\left\{ {\mathbf{n}}\times{\mathbf{E}}_h \right\}}+\alpha_{H}{\llbracket H_h \rrbracket},\\
\hat{q}_h & = {\left\{ q_h \right\}}+\alpha_J{\llbracket {\mathbf{n}}\cdot{\mathbf{J}}_h \rrbracket},\\
{\mathbf{n}}\cdot\hat{{\mathbf{J}}}_h & ={\left\{ {\mathbf{n}}\cdot{\mathbf{J}}\right\}}+\alpha_q{\llbracket q_h \rrbracket}.
\end{aligned}
\right.$$ In these definitions there is still freedom to choose values for the $\alpha$ parameters, and this corresponds to different DG schemes: by setting $\alpha_{E}=\alpha_{H}=\alpha_{J}=\alpha_{q}=0$, one obtains the *centered flux* DG scheme. With $\alpha_{E}=\alpha_{H}=\alpha_{J}=\alpha_{q}=1$, one obtains the *upwind flux* DG scheme [@ElBouajaji2013]. For more validated DG schemes, we refer the interested readers to Ref. [@Arnold2002]. Having defined the numerical traces, we finally form a global system of linear equations involving all the DOFs on all the elements $$\label{eq:MaxHydIntGreen}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
({\mathrm{i}}\omega \varepsilon_0{\mathbf{E}}_h, {\mathbf{v}})_{K} + (H_h, \nabla\times {\mathbf{v}})_{K} - \langle\hat{H}_{h},{\mathbf{n}}\times{\mathbf{v}}\rangle_{\partial K} - ({\mathbf{J}}_h, {\mathbf{v}})_{K} & = 0 \quad \forall {\mathbf{v}}\in {\mathbf{V}}^{p}(K), \\
({\mathrm{i}}\omega\mu_0 H_h, v)_{K} - ({\mathbf{E}}_h, \nabla\times v)_{K} - \langle{\mathbf{n}}\times\hat{{\mathbf{E}}}_{h}, v\rangle_{\partial K} & =0 \quad \forall v\in V^{p}(K), \\
-(q_h, \nabla\cdot{\mathbf{v}})_{K} + \langle \hat{q}_{h}, {\mathbf{n}}\cdot{\mathbf{v}}\rangle_{\partial K} + \Big(\frac{\gamma-{\mathrm{i}}\omega}{\beta^2}{\mathbf{J}}_h, {\mathbf{v}}\Big)_{K} - \Big(\frac{\omega_p^2\varepsilon_0}{\beta^2}{\mathbf{E}}_h, {\mathbf{v}}\Big)_{K} & = 0 \quad \forall {\mathbf{v}}\in \widetilde{\mathbf{V}}^{p}(K), \\
({\mathrm{i}}\omega q_h, v)_{K} + ({\mathbf{J}}_h, \nabla v)_{K} -\langle{\mathbf{n}}\cdot\hat{{\mathbf{J}}}_{h}, v\rangle_{\partial K} & = 0 \quad \forall v\in\widetilde V^{p}(K),
\end{aligned}
\right.$$ which are coupled equations that are valid whatever DG scheme is adopted.
Hybridizable DG implementation of the electrodynamical equations {#subsec:hdg}
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In Sec. \[Sec:promiseHDG\] we mentioned that hybridized DG methods have advantages as compared to the classic DG schemes, and here we discuss the hybridized approach in more detail. Unlike in the above classic DG formulations where the numerical traces directly couple the values from the elements on both sides of the edges, in a HDG formulation the numerical traces are defined through hybrid variables. Introducing two hybrid variables $\lambda_h$ and $\eta_h$ which live only on the boundaries of the elements, we define the numerical traces by $$\label{eq:numTrac}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
\hat{H}_h & = \lambda_h, \\
\hat{{\mathbf{E}}}_h & = {\mathbf{E}}_h + \tau_{\lambda}(\lambda_h-H_h){\mathbf{t}}, \\
\hat{q}_h & = \eta_h, \\
\hat{{\mathbf{J}}}_h & = {\mathbf{J}}+ \tau_{\eta}(q_h-\eta_h){\mathbf{n}},
\end{aligned}
\right.$$ where $\tau_{\lambda}$ and $\tau_{\eta}$ are two stabilization parameters. Replacing the numerical traces in with the expressions in and applying Green’s formulas to the first and fourth equations in , we obtain the local formulation of the HDG method as $$\label{eq:MaxHydIntGreen2}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
({\mathrm{i}}\omega \varepsilon_0{\mathbf{E}}_h, {\mathbf{v}})_{K} + (H_h, \nabla\times {\mathbf{v}})_{K} - \langle\lambda_{h},{\mathbf{n}}\times{\mathbf{v}}\rangle_{\partial K} - ({\mathbf{J}}_h, {\mathbf{v}})_{K} & = 0, \ \forall {\mathbf{v}}\in {\mathbf{V}}^{p}(K), \\
({\mathrm{i}}\omega\mu_0 H_h, v)_{K} - (\nabla\times{\mathbf{E}}_h, v)_{K} + \langle\tau_{\lambda}(H_h-\lambda_h), v\rangle_{\partial K} & =0, \ \forall v\in V^{p}(K), \\
-(q_h, \nabla\cdot{\mathbf{v}})_{K} + \langle\eta_{h}, {\mathbf{n}}\cdot{\mathbf{v}}\rangle_{\partial K} + \Big(\frac{\gamma-{\mathrm{i}}\omega}{\beta^2}{\mathbf{J}}_h, {\mathbf{v}}\Big)_{K} - \Big(\frac{\omega_p^2\varepsilon_0}{\beta^2}{\mathbf{E}}_h, {\mathbf{v}}\Big)_{K} & = 0, \ \forall {\mathbf{v}}\in\widetilde {\mathbf{V}}^{p}(K), \\
({\mathrm{i}}\omega q_h, v)_{K} - (\nabla\cdot{\mathbf{J}}_h, v)_{K} -\langle\tau_{\eta}(q_h-\eta_h), v\rangle_{\partial K} & = 0, \ \forall v\in\widetilde V^{p}(K) .
\end{aligned}
\right.$$ One can solve the local fields element by element once the solutions for $\lambda_h$ and $\eta_h$ are obtained. In order to make the problem solvable, we need to employ global conditions $$\label{eq:globalRaw}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
\langle{\llbracket {\mathbf{n}}\times\hat{{\mathbf{E}}}_h \rrbracket}, v\rangle_{{\mathcal{F}}_h} - \langle\lambda_h, v\rangle_{\partial\Omega} & = \langle g^{\text{inc},v}\rangle_{\partial\Omega}, \ \forall v\in M^p_h, \\
\langle{\llbracket {\mathbf{n}}\cdot\hat{{\mathbf{J}}}_h \rrbracket}, v\rangle_{{\mathcal{F}}_h^I} & = 0, \ \forall v\in\widetilde M^p_h.
\end{aligned}
\right.$$ The first relation in weakly enforces the continuity condition for the tangential component of the electric field across any edges, and also takes into account the Silver-M[" u]{}ller absorbing boundary condition. The other global condition in Eq. weakly enforces the continuity condition for the normal component of the current density across any edges. The additional boundary condition on the surface of the nanostructure is implicitly contained in this relation.
Substituting $\hat{{\mathbf{E}}}_h$ and $\hat{{\mathbf{J}}}_h$ in with the definitions in , we arrive at the global reduced system of equations $$\label{eq:global}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
\langle{\mathbf{n}}\times{\mathbf{E}}_h-\tau_{\lambda}(\lambda_h-H_h), v\rangle_{{\mathcal{F}}_h} - \langle\lambda_h, v\rangle_{\partial\Omega} & = \langle g^{\text{inc}},v\rangle_{\partial\Omega}, \ \forall v\in M^p_h, \\
\langle{\mathbf{n}}\cdot{\mathbf{J}}_h+\tau_\eta(q_h-\eta_h), v\rangle_{{\mathcal{F}}_h^I} & = 0, \ \forall v\in\widetilde M^p_h.
\end{aligned}
\right.$$ Note that we used the fact that ${\mathbf{n}}\times{\mathbf{t}}=-1$ in . The two relations in Eq. are not independent. They are coupled through the local solutions of ${\mathbf{E}}$, $H$, ${\mathbf{J}}$ and $q$ of the local equations .
**Remark I.** The proposed HDG formulation for the global system is naturally consistent with the boundary conditions, both on the artificial boundary and on the medium boundary.
**Remark II.** Globally, we only need to solve Eq. , in which the fields ${\mathbf{E}}_h$, $H_h$, ${\mathbf{J}}_h$ and $q_h$ are replaced by the solutions in terms of $\lambda_h$ and $\eta_h$ from the local problems . So the global DOFs are associated with $\lambda_h$ in the whole computational domain, while they are associate with $\eta_h$ only within in the material medium. The discretization leads to a system of linear equations $$\label{eq:linSys}
A\begin{bmatrix}
\underline{\lambda}_h \\[5pt]
\underline{\eta}_h
\end{bmatrix}=\begin{bmatrix}
\underline{g}^\text{inc}_h \\[5pt]
0
\end{bmatrix},$$ where $\underline{\lambda}_h$ and $\underline{\eta}_h$ are vectors accounting for the degrees of freedom of the hybrid variables $\lambda$ and $\eta$ respectively, and the coefficient matrix $A$ is large and sparse.
Numerical results {#sec:tests}
=================
In this section we present numerical results to validate the proposed HDG formulations. All HDG methods have been implemented in Fortran 90. All our tests are performed on a Macbook with a 1.3 GHz Inter Core i5 CPU and 4 GB memory. We employ the multifrontal sparse direct solver MUMPS [@AmestoyEtal2000] to solve the discretized systems of linear equations.
In HDG methods, we calculate the total fields ${\mathbf{E}}^\text{tot}$ and $H^\text{tot}$. The scattered fields are then calculated by subtracting the incident field from the total fields. We use HDG-$\mathbb{P}_p$ to denote the HDG method with interpolation order $p$. Here we choose fixed values $\tau_{\lambda}= \tau_{\eta}=1$ for the stabilization parameters. Different choices are discussed in Ref. [@Gopalakrishnan2015].
Convergence study: Wave propagation in a cavity
-----------------------------------------------
While elsewhere in this article we focus on nanowire structures, here we first study the convergence of our method by considering wave propagation in a cavity. This cavity is assumed to be a square domain $\Omega_{\Box}=\{(x,y)\in[0,L]\times[0,L]\}$ with the PEC boundary condition and hard-wall condition $${\mathbf{n}}\times {\mathbf{E}}= 0, \text{ and } {\mathbf{n}}\cdot{\mathbf{J}}=0, \text { on } \partial\Omega_{\Box}.$$ This test case can be viewed as the frequency-domain version of the first test case in [@Schmittetal2016]. The simplicity is achieved by introducing artificial current density and electric field, such that the analytical solutions coincide with Maxwell’s equations and with the hydrodynamic equation $$\label{eq:MaxHydArt}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{i}}k{\mathbf{E}}+ \nabla\times H & = {\mathbf{J}}-{\mathbf{J}}^{a}, \\
{\mathrm{i}}k H - \nabla\times{\mathbf{E}}& =0, \\
\nabla q -\frac{ {\mathrm{i}}\omega}{\beta^2}{\mathbf{J}}& = -\frac{\gamma}{\beta^2}{\mathbf{J}}+\frac{\gamma}{\beta^2}{\mathbf{J}}^{a} + \frac{\omega_p^2\varepsilon_0}{\beta^2}{\mathbf{E}}-\frac{\omega_p^2\varepsilon_0}{\beta^2}{\mathbf{E}}^{a}, \\
{\mathrm{i}}\omega q - \nabla\cdot{\mathbf{J}}& = 0,
\end{aligned}
\right.$$ where $k=\frac{\omega}{c}$ is the wave number, with $c$ being the light speed. We make this modification to unify the scale of the electric and magnetic fields. The artificial terms ${\mathbf{J}}^a$ and ${\mathbf{E}}^a$ are also the analytical solution to this equation : $$\label{eq:anaSol}
\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf{E}}^a & = \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}{\mathrm{i}}\begin{bmatrix}
-\cos(\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}kx)\sin(\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}ky)\\[5pt]
\sin(\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}kx)\cos(\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}ky)
\end{bmatrix},\\{\mathbf{J}}^a & = -\frac{\sqrt{2}\mu_0 k\beta^2}{2\omega}\begin{bmatrix}
\sin(\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}kx)\cos(\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}ky)\\[5pt]
\cos(\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}kx)\sin(\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}ky)
\end{bmatrix} .
\end{aligned}$$ We only take the real part of $H$ and ${\mathbf{J}}$ and the imaginary part of ${\mathbf{E}}$ and $q$ into consideration. In order to have this analytical solution , one needs to set the length of the square $L=\frac{\sqrt{2}\pi}{k}$ and $\beta^2=\frac{\omega^2}{k^2}$. The convergence history of the HDG method with interpolation order $\mathbb{P}_p \ (p=1,2,3)$ is given in Table \[tbl:convRect\] and Figure \[fig:convRect\]. Mesh size $h$ is the edge length of elements associated to the boundary $\partial\Omega_{\Box}$. The convergence orders are calculated by $$\frac{\log(\|{\mathbf{E}}^a-{\mathbf{E}}^h\|_{\Omega_{\Box}}^{h_2}/\|{\mathbf{E}}^a-{\mathbf{E}}^h\|_{\Omega_{\Box}}^{h_1})}{\log(h_2/h_1)},$$ where $h_1$ and $h_2$ denote a coarse and a refined mesh size, respectively. From Table \[tbl:convRect\] and Figure \[fig:convRect\], we observe that the proposed HDG method has an optimal convergence order which is $p+1$ for HDG-$\mathbb{P}_p$.
\[tbl:convRect\]
-------------------- ---------------------- ------- ---------------------- ------- ---------------------- -------
$h$ error order error order error order
$5\time10^{-8}$ $1.67\times10^{-9}$ - $4.52\times10^{-10}$ - $2.04\times10^{-11}$ -
$2.5\time10^{-8}$ $4.10\times10^{-10}$ 2.0 $5.61\times10^{-11}$ 3.0 $1.28\times10^{-12}$ 4.0
$1.25\time10^{-8}$ $9.98\times10^{-11}$ 2.0 $7.52\times10^{-12}$ 3.0 $7.78\times10^{-14}$ 4.0
$6.25\time10^{-9}$ $2.40\times10^{-12}$ 2.1 $9.11\times10^{-13}$ 3.0 $5.03\times10^{-15}$ 4.0
: Convergence results for the cavity problem.
![Convergence history of the proposed HDG method for the cavity problem.[]{data-label="fig:convRect"}](./convRect.pdf)
Benchmark problem: a cylindrical plasmonic nanowire
---------------------------------------------------
As our benchmark problem we consider the plasmonic behavior of a cylindrical nanowire. This has been used as a convenient benchmark problem for other numerical methods before [@ToscanoEtal2012; @HiremathEtal2012] because analytical solutions exist both for the local and for the NHD models, see the derivation in Ref. [@Ruppin2001]. We make use of the fact that the analytical Mie solution of Ref. [@Ruppin2001] allows making the nonlocal parameter $\beta$ complex-valued. This enables us to benchmark our HDG simulations against exact analytical results for the GNOR model as well. (For comparison, optical properties of a sphere in the GNOR model, based on exact Mie results, are discussed in Ref. [@RazaEtal2015JPCM].)
For the NHD model, the configuration of the nanowire is taken to be the same as that in the first test in [@HiremathEtal2012]: the radius of the cylinder is 2nm, no interband transitions are considered, the plasma frequency $\omega_p=8.65\times10^{15}$, the damping constant $\gamma=0.01\omega_p$, the Fermi velocity $v_F=1.07\times 10^{6}$, and $\beta^2=\frac{3}{5}v_F^2$. For the GNOR model, we use the same parameters and furthermore we take $D=2.04\times10^{-4}$ [@MortensenGNOR]. An artificial absorbing boundary is set to be a concentric circle with a radius of $100$nm.
As our benchmark observable we will calculate the Extinction Cross Section (ECS, $\sigma_{\text{ext}}$), which is given by the sum of the scattering cross section $\sigma_\text{sca}$ and the absorption cross section $\sigma_\text{abs}$ [@BergEtal2009], $$\sigma_\text{ext} = \sigma_\text{sca} + \sigma_\text{abs}.$$ More precisely, for the cylindrical nanowire we consider the extinction cross section per wire length, which actually has the units of a length. We scale this quantity by the diameter $2 r$ of the nanowire to obtain a dimensionless normalized extinction cross section that we denote by $\sigma_\text{ext}$. It can be expressed as the sum of scaled scattering and absorption cross sections, $$\sigma_\text{sca} = \frac{1}{2r}Re \oint_S({\mathbf{E}}^\text{sca}\times \overline{H}^\text{sca})\cdot{\mathbf{n}}\, dS, \ \text{ and } \ \sigma_\text{abs} = -\frac{1}{2r}Re \oint_S({\mathbf{E}}^\text{tot}\times \overline{H}^\text{tot})\cdot{\mathbf{n}}\, dS.$$ Here the integrations are performed along a closed path around the nanowire, and $Re$ denotes the real part.
The simulations are performed on a mesh with 4,513 nodes, 8,896 elements and 13,280 edges of which 722 edges are located inside the nanostructure. The ECS is presented in Figure \[fig:Cext\_nanowire\]. Curvilinear treatment is employed for high-order accuracy, where the curved edges are geometrically approximated by second-order curves instead of straight lines [@LLP2013]. From Figure \[fig:Cext\_nanowire\] we can observe that the fourth-order HDG method produces an ECS curve that matches the analytical solution very well. By contrast, the first-order method is not accurate enough on this mesh. Contour plots of the electric field and the current density are presented in Figure \[fig:Fields\_nanowire\]. These results match well with corresponding results in Ref. [@HiremathEtal2012] despite the lower resolution, probably because our simulation is performed on a coarser mesh. Comparing the two subfigures in Figure \[fig:Cext\_nanowire\], we also find that the ECS curve for the GNOR model is smoother than for the NHD model. But this has a physical rather than a numerical origin. In particular the standing bulk plasmon resonances above the plasma frequency in the NHD model are essentially washed out by the introduced diffusion in the GNOR model. The ECS curves of HDG-$\mathbb{P}_2$ and HDG-$\mathbb{P}_3$ are are not presented in Figure \[fig:Cext\_nanowire\], but we found that they they lie in between the displayed curves of HDG-$\mathbb{P}_1$ and HDG-$\mathbb{P}_4$.
![The electric-field and current-density distributions of the light-matter interaction of a Na nanowire. In the upper row, we show the distributions on the fourth-order nonlocal resonance at $\omega/\omega_p=1.227$ for the NHD model. For comparison, in the bottom row we show the corresponding distributions for the GNOR model.[]{data-label="fig:Fields_nanowire"}](./FieldsNanoWire.pdf){width="95.00000%"}
In our 2D simulations, we use a sparse direct solver MUMPS [@AmestoyEtal2000] to solve the resulting systems of linear equations. We need to solve a linear system at each frequency. The computational performance mainly relies on the size of the coefficient matrices, *i.e.* the number of degrees of freedom (\#DOF). The computational performance for one frequency is given in Table \[tbl:perf\], where $t_\text{construction}$ denotes the CPU time for construction the matrices, $t_\text{factorization}$ denotes the CPU time used by MUMPS for the factorization of the coefficient matrix $A$ , and memory denotes the memory consumed by MUMPS. From Table \[tbl:perf\] we can see that the HDG-$\mathbb{P}_4$ is more expensive than HDG-$\mathbb{P}_1$ in CPU time for both construction and factorization. However, high-order methods are preferable because they costs less for the same accuracy [@LLP2013].
\[tbl:perf\]
-------------------- -------- ---------------------------------- ----------------------------------- -------------
\#DOF $t_\text{construction}$ (second) $t_\text{factorization}$ (second) memory (MB)
HDG-$\mathbb{P}_1$ 28,260 0.067 0.36 74
HDG-$\mathbb{P}_4$ 70,650 2.4 3.3 418
: Computational performance of the nanowire problem.
Dimer of cylindrical nanowires {#sec:dimer}
------------------------------
Plasmonic dimer structures with small gaps are both experimentally interesting and computationally challenging because of high field enhancements in the gap region [@ToscanoEtal2012; @Gallinet2015; @RazaEtal2015JPCM]. Here we present our HDG simulations of a cylindrical gold dimer geometry as shown in Figure \[fig:dimerConfig\](a), and this particular configuration is from Ref. [@RazaEtal2015]. A typical mesh is shown in Figure \[fig:dimerConfig\](b). On a mesh with 5,829 nodes, 11,520 triangles and 17,348 edges with 3,712 edges inside the nanostructure, we calculate the ECS curve by HDG-$\mathbb{P}_4$. The size of matrix for HDG-$P1$ is $105,300\times105,300$, the matrix construction CPU time is 5.2 seconds, the factorization CPU time is 6.9 seconds for one frequency, and the memory cost is 717 MB.
For the material properties gold we use the same values as in Ref. [@ToscanoEtal2012]: the plasma frequency $\omega_p=1.34\times10^{16}$, damping constant $\gamma=1.14\times 10^{14}$, the Fermi velocity $v_F=1.39\times 10^{6}$, and the nonlocal parameter $\beta$ is determined by $\beta^2=\frac{3}{5}v_F^2$. The incoming plane wave of light is incident perpendicular to the line connecting the centers of the two circles, with a linear polarization parallel to this line (TM- or $p$-polarization). A comparison of the ECS curves is presented in Figure \[fig:dimECS\]. Overall, there are small but clear differences, illustrating that nonlocal response effects occur even for dimer structures for which the corresponding monomers ($r= 30$nm nanowires) would show essentially no nonlocal effects [@ToscanoEtal2012]. Both nonlocal models have blueshifted resonances as compared to the local model, and resonances in the GNOR model are less pronounced than in the local and NHD models. For smaller gap sizes, nonlocal blueshifts are larger and resonances are broadened more (the latter only in the GNOR model). Field distributions at the same particular frequency for the NHD and the GNOR models are compared in Figure \[fig:dimerFields\]. The figure illustrates the generic features that the GNOR model washes out some finer details of the field distributions, and also that minimal and maximal field values lie closer together in the GNOR model.
![Comparison of extinction cross sections of a gold dimer as calculated with the local Drude model, the NHD model and the GNOR model. The configuration is shown in Figure \[fig:dimerConfig\] and the material parameters are given in subsection \[sec:dimer\]. []{data-label="fig:dimECS"}](./dimerECS.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
![Various field distributions in the gold dimer when illuminated by a plane wave of light. On the top line we show the distributions at the third SPR of the NHD model, at $\omega/\omega_p=0.66$. On the second line we show the corresponding distributions in the GNOR model at the same frequency.[]{data-label="fig:dimerFields"}](./FieldsDimer.pdf){width="95.00000%"}
Conclusions {#sec:con}
===========
This paper introduces a HDG method to solve the nonlocal hydrodynamic Drude model and the GNOR model, both of which are often employed to describe light-matter interactions of nanostructures. The numerical fluxes are expressed in terms of two newly introduced hybrid terms. Only the hybrid unknowns are involved in the global problem. The local problems are solved element-by-element once the hybrid terms are obtained. The proposed HDG formulations naturally couple the hard-wall boundary condition. Numerical results indicate that the HDG method converges at the optimal rate. Our benchmark simulations for a cylindrical nanowire and our calculations for a dimer structure show that the HDG method is a promising method in nanophotonics. Building on these results, in the near future we plan to generalize our computations to 3D structures, and to introduce domain decomposition and model order reduction into nanophotonic computations.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The first author was supported by the NSFC (11301057) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (ZYGX2014J082). N. A. M. and M. W. acknowledge support from the Danish Council for Independent Research (FNU 1323-00087). M. W. acknowledges support from the Villum Foundation via the VKR Centre of Excellence NATEC-II. The Center for Nanostructured Graphene is sponsored by the Danish National Research Foundation, Project DNRF103.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[10]{} S.A. Maier, *Plasmonics: Fundamentals and Applications*, Springer, New York, 2007.
M.S. Tame, K.R. McEnery, S.K. [Ö]{}zdemir, J. Lee, S.A. Maier, M.S. Kim, Quantum Plasmonics, *Nature Physics* 9(6): 329-340, 2013.
S.I. Bozhevolnyi, N.A. Mortensen, Plasmonics for emerging quantum technologies, *Nanophotonics* 2016. doi: 10.1515/nanoph-2016-0179
J.M. Fitzgerald, P. Narang, R.V. Craster, S.A. Maier, V. Giannini, Quantum Plasmonics, *Proceedings of the IEEE* PP(99): 1-16, 2016. doi: 10.1109/JPROC.2016.2584860
D. Sarid, W.A. Challener, *Modern Introduction to Surface Plasmons: Theory, Mathematica Modeling, and Applications*, Cambridge University Press, 2010.
B. Gallinet, J. Butet, O. J. F. Martin, Numerical methods for nanophotonics: standard problems and future challenges *Laser Photonics Rev.* 9(6): 577–603, 2015.
A. Varas and P. Garc[í]{}a-Gonz[á]{}lez, J. Feist, F.J. Garc[í]{}a-Vidal, A. Rubio, Quantum plasmonics: from jellium models to ab initio calculations, *Nanophotonics* 5(3): 409-426, 2016.
N.A. Mortensen, S. Raza, M. Wubs, T. Søndergaard, S. I. Bozhevolnyi, A generalized non-local optical response theory for plasmonic nanostructures, *Nature Communications*, 5:3809, 2014.
G. Toscano, J. Straubel, A. Kwiatkowski, C. Rockstuhl, F. Evers, H. Xu, N.A. Mortensen, M. Wubs, Resonance shifts and spill-out effects in self-consistent hydrodynamic nanoplasmonics, *Nature Communications*, 6:7132, 2015.
Y. Luo, A.I. Fernandez-Dominguez, A. Wiener, S.A. Maier, J.B. Pendry, Surface plasmons and nonlocality: a simple model, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* 111(9): 093901, 2013.
W. Yan, M. Wubs, N.A. Mortensen, Projected dipole model for quantum plasmonics, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* 115(13): 137403. 2015.
T. Christensen, W. Yan, A.-P. Jauho, M. Solja[č]{}i[ć]{}, N.A. Mortensen, Quantum corrections in nanoplasmonics: shape, scale, and material, arXiv:1608.05421.
W. Zhu, R. Esteban, A.G. Borisov, J.J. Baumberg, P. Nordlander, H.J. Lezec, J. Aizpurua, K.B. Crozier, Quantum mechanical effects in plasmonic structures with subnanometre gaps, *Nature Communications* 7:11495, 2016.
P. Drude, Zur Elektronentheorie der Metalle, *Annalen der Physik*, 306(3):566-613, 1900.
M. Dressel, M. Scheffler, Verifying the Drude response. *Ann. Phys.*, 15(7-8): 535-544, 2006.
F. Bloch, Bremsverm[" o]{}gen von Atomen mit mehreren Elektronen, Z. Physik 81:363, 1933.
S. Raza, S. I. Bozhevolnyi, M. Wubs, N.A. Mortensen, Nonlocal optical response in metallic nanostructures, *J. Phys.: Condens. Matter*, 27: 183204, 2015.
K. Busch, M. König, J. Niegemann, Discontinuous Galerkin methods in nanophotonics, *Laser Photonics Rev.*, 5(6): 773-809, 2011.
A. Taflove, S.C. Hagness, *Computational Electrodynamics - The Finite-Difference Time-Domain Method*, Third Edition, Artech House Publishers, 2005.
J.S. Hesthaven, T. Warburton, Nodal high-order methods on unstructured grids: I. Time-domain solution of Maxwell’s equations, *J. Comput. Phys.*, 181(1):186-221, 2002.
B. Cockburn, J. Gopalakrishnan, R. Lazarov, Unified hybridization of discontinuous [Galerkin]{}, mixed, and continuous [Galerkin]{} methods for second order elliptic problems, *SIAM J. Numer. Anal.*, 47(2):1319-1365, 2009.
N.C. Nguyen, J. Peraire, B. Cockburn, Hybridizable discontinuous [Galerkin]{} methods for the time-harmonic [Maxwell’s]{} equations, *J. Comput. Phys.*, 230(19): 7151-7175, 2011.
L. Li, S. Lanteri, R. Perrussel, A hybridizable discontinuous [G]{}alerkin method combined to a Schwarz algorithm for the solution of 3d time-harmonic Maxwell’s equation, *J. Comput. Phys.*, 256(1): 563-581, 2014.
Y.X. He, L. Li, S. Lanteri, T.Z. Huang, Optimized Schwarz algorithms for solving time-harmonic Maxwell’s equations discretized by a hybridizable discontinuous Galerkin method, Comput. Phys. Commun., 200: 23-31, 2016.
J. Viquerat, Simulation of electromagnetic waves propagation in nano-optics with a high-order discontinuous Galerkin time-domain method, PhD thesis, University of Nice-Sophia Antipolis, December 2015.
Y. Q. Huang, J. C. Li, W. Yang, Theoretical and numerical analysis of a non-local dispersion model for light interaction with metallic nanostructures, *Comput. Math. Appl.*, 72: 921-932, 2016.
N. Schmitt, C. Scheid, S. Lanteri, A. Moreau, J. Viquerat, A DGTD method for the numerical modeling of the interaction of light with nanometer scale metallic structures taking into account non-local dispersion effects, *J. Comput. Phys.*, 316(1): 396-415, 2016.
K.R. Hiremath, L. Zschiedrich, F. Schmidt, Numerical solution of nonlocal hydrodynamic Drude model for arbitrary shaped nano-plasmonic structures using Nédélec finite elements, *J. Comput. Phys.*, 231: 5890-5896, 2012.
S. Raza, M. Wubs, S. I. Bozhevolnyi, N. Asger Mortensen, Nonlocal study of ultimate plasmon hybridization, *Opt. Lett.*, 40 (5): 839-842, 2015.
P. Jewsbury, Electrodynamic boundary conditions at metal interfaces, *J. Phys. F: Met. Phys.* 11(1): 195, 1981.
W. Yan, N. A. Mortensen, M. Wubs, Green’s function surface-integral method for nonlocal response of plasmonic nanowires in arbitrary dielectric environments, *Phys. Rev. B* 88: 155414, 2013.
B. Stupfel, Absorbing boundary conditions on arbitrary boundaries for the scalar and vector wave equations, *IEEE T. Antenn. Propag.*, 42(6): 773-780, 1994.
S. Yakovlev, D. Moxey, R. M. Kirby, S. J. Sherwin, To CG or to HDG: A Comparative Study in 3D, *J. Sci. Comput.*, 67(1): 192–220, 2016.
D.N. Arnold, B. Brezzi, B. Cockburn, L.D. Marini, Unified analysis of discontinuous [Galerkin]{} methods for elliptic problems, *SIAM J. Numer. Anal.*, 39(5): 749-1779, 2002.
M. El Bouajaji and S. Lanteri, High order discontinuous Galerkin method for the solution of 2D time-harmonic Maxwell’s equations, *Appl. Math. Comput.*, 219(13): 7241-7251, 2013.
L. Li, S. Lanteri, R. Perrussel, Numerical investigation of a high order hybridizable discontinuous Galerkin method for 2d time-harmonic Maxwell’s equations, COMPEL. 32: 1112-1138, 2013.
P. Amestoy, I. Duff, J. L’Excellent, Multifrontal parallel distributed symmetric and unsymmetric solvers, *Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng.* 184: 501-520, 2000.
J. Gopalakrishnan, S. Lanteri, N. Olivares, and R. Perrussel, Stabilization in relation to wavenumber in HDG methods, *Adv. Model. and Simul. in Eng. Sci.* 2(13), 2015.
G. Toscano, S. Raza, A.P. Jauho, N.A. Mortensen, M. Wubs, Modified field enhancement and extinction by plasmonic nanowire dimers due to nonlocal response, *Opt. Express*, 20 (4): 4176-4188, 2012.
R. Ruppin, Extinction properties of thin metallic nanowires, *Opt. Commun.*, 190: 205-209, 2001.
M.J. Berg, A. Chakrabarti, C.M. Sorensen, General derivation of the total electromagnetic cross sections for an arbitrary particle, *J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transfer*, 10: 43-50, 2009.
[^1]: https://www.lumerical.com/
[^2]: http://www.comsol.com/
|
---
author:
- 'P. Karpov'
- 'F. Piazza'
date: 'September 30, 2019'
title: 'Supplemental Material for “Crystalline droplets with emergent topological color-charge in many-body systems with sign-changing interactions”'
---
Density-wave phase transition: mean-field theory {#Appendix Density-wave transition}
================================================
In this Supplementary Section we construct a mean-field theory for density-wave phase transition and find the temperature dependence of the order parameter. This can be done if the number of atoms inside a $D$-dimensional sphere with radius $\xi$ is much greater than one: $n \xi^D \gg 1$.
Let $n_A$ and $n_B$ be the average concentrations of particles per cite at the two checkerboard sublattices $A$ and $B$. We define the sublattice imbalance order parameter as $$\begin{aligned}
m(T)= \frac{n_A-n_B}{2n}
\label{eq:order_param_Z2}\end{aligned}$$ Recall that $n = N/L^D$ is average number of particles per site in the uniform phase. We start from the density-wave phase $n_A\approx 2n$, $n_B \approx 0$, so $m\approx 1$ and want to describe a transition to the uniform state $n_A\approx n_B\approx n$, $m\approx 0$.
Consider a particle in the effective mean field potential created by other particles. The particle can be treated as an effective two-level system, where two states correspond to sublattices $A$ and $B$. The ground-state energy of the chosen particle is reached when it sits at the sublattice $A$: $$\begin{aligned}
E_0 = -n_A U_A + n_B U_B\end{aligned}$$ The particle is in the excited state, when it sits at the sublattice $B$, then its energy is $$\begin{aligned}
E_1 = -n_B U_A + n_A U_B\end{aligned}$$ The excitation energy of the particle is $$\begin{aligned}
E_1-E_0 = (n_A-n_B) [U_A+U_B]=2n\, m(T) [U_A+U_B]\end{aligned}$$ Let $n_0$ be the occupation number for the considered particle of sublattice $A$ and $n_1$ for sublattice $B$, so only one of $n_0, n_1$ is non-zero and $n_0+n_1=1$. Now we are dealing with a simple statistical-mechanics problem of a classical two-level system with Hamiltonian $H=n_0 E_0 + n_1 E_1$, but with additional self-consistency conditions $$\begin{aligned}
& \langle n_0 \rangle = n_A/2n \nonumber\\
& \langle n_1 \rangle = n_B/2n\end{aligned}$$ where average is defined as $\langle O \rangle = (O_0 \cdot e^{-E_0/T} + O_1 \cdot e^{-E_1/T})/Z$, and $Z$ is the single-particle partition function $Z=e^{-E_0/T}+e^{-E_1/T}$. Subtracting these two equations we get the self-consistency condition in a compact form $$\begin{aligned}
m(T) = 2\langle n_0 \rangle -1
\label{eq:self-consistency}\end{aligned}$$ Substituting $\langle n_0 \rangle = e^{-E_0/T}/Z$ to (\[eq:self-consistency\]) we get $$\begin{aligned}
m = \frac{2}{1+e^{-2n[U_A+U_B] m/T}} - 1
\label{eq:self-consistency-full}\end{aligned}$$ Figure \[fig:plot\_m\_T\_analytical\] shows the dependence $m(T)$, implicitly defined by eq. (\[eq:self-consistency-full\]) (this equation is used in order to construct Fig. 2a of the main text). Expanding its RHS to the first order in $m$ we find $$\begin{aligned}
T_{\mathrm{DW}} = \frac{N [U_A + U_B ]}{L^D}
\label{eq:T_CDW_mean_field}\end{aligned}$$ The third-order expansion gives also the mean-field critical exponent $m(T)\sim |T-T_c|^{1/2}$).
Comparing the mean-field value of $T_{\mathrm{DW}}$ (\[eq:T\_CDW\_mean\_field\]) with the estimate obtained from the free energy arguments (\[eq:T\_CDW-arbitrary-D-N\]) we see that they indeed differ only by a numerical factor $2\ln2\approx 1.4$, with mean-field result giving higher value of the critical temperature.
We also note that the expression in the square brackets in (\[eq:T\_CDW\_mean\_field\]) is the integrated “staggered” strength of the interaction potential: $U_{stag} = -\sum (-1)^{i_x+i_y} U_{i_x,i_y} = U_A + U_B$. Therefore the mean-field expression for the DW-transition critical temperature can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
T_{\mathrm{DW}} = \frac{N U_{stag}}{L^D}
\label{eq:T_CDW_mean_field}\end{aligned}$$
![Analytical mean-field temperature dependence of the sublattice imbalance order parameter; $m(T)$ is implicitly defined by eq. (\[eq:self-consistency-full\]). []{data-label="fig:plot_m_T_analytical"}](figAppA_plot_m_T_mean_field_Z2.png){width="0.45\linewidth"}
We can estimate the limits of applicability of the mean-field theory using the Ginzburg criterion $t_G = |T_G-T_{\mathrm{DW}}|/T_{\mathrm{DW}} \sim a^2/(n \xi^2)$, where the Ginzburg temperature $T_G$ is the temperature above which fluctuation effects become important, $\xi$ is the range of the potential. The mean-field theory works better and better with the growing number of particles in $\xi \times \xi$ region, $n (\xi/a)^2$, ultimately becoming exact when the latter quantity goes to infinity.
Droplet-formation phase transition: exactly-solvable toy model and numerical tests {#Appendix Collapse transition}
==================================================================================
In this Supplementary Section we, first, consider a toy model for the droplet-formation phase transition and.
Consider $N$ particles occupying $L$ lattice sites in 1D. If two particles sit on the same lattice site they interact with energy $-U_0<0$ (on-site attraction) and particles at different sites don’t interact with each other. Let $n_i$ be the occupation number of site $i$. The Hamiltonian of the system is $$\begin{aligned}
H = -\frac{U_0}{2}\sum_{i=1}^L n_i (n_i-1) \approx -\frac{U_0}{2}\sum_{i=1}^L n_i^2\end{aligned}$$ Such model is equivalent to the fully-connected (mean-field) Potts model with $L$ states, which possesses a phase transition from disorder (uniform occupation of all sites) to order (all particles occupy the single site): for $L=2$ it is of the second order and for $L>2$ it is of the first order [@Wu:1982]. The exact solution[@Wu:1982] gives the critical temperature: $$\begin{aligned}
T_{\mathrm{dr}} = \frac{L-2}{L-1} \frac{N U_0}{2\ln(L-1)}
\label{eq:Potts}\end{aligned}$$ In case $L \gg 1$ this gives us $$\begin{aligned}
T_{\mathrm{dr}} \approx \frac{N U_0}{2 \ln L}
\label{eq:Tc=NU0/2lnL}\end{aligned}$$ The simplest model described here works for the case when on-site interaction is much greater then the interaction at nearest-neighboring sites, which corresponds to the case of infinitely many degenerate modes in the optical cavity. Alternatively it can be viewed as a coarse-grained model for interaction with range $\xi$, where one site corresponds a coarse-grained cell of the size $\xi$, so we should substitute $L\rightarrow L/\xi$. Additional substitution $L/\xi \rightarrow (L/\xi)^D$ trivially generalizes eq. (\[eq:Tc=NU0/2lnL\]) to the $D$-dimensional case, thus we arrive to the formula (2) of the main text.
In order to test eq. (2) of the main text we perform Monte Carlo (MC) simulations of the 1D system with the same Gaussian potential with the range $\xi$ as we use in the main text. Since eq. (2) works only qualitatively, we check the linear dependence of $T_{\mathrm{dr}}$ on the number of particles $N$ (Fig. \[fig:plots\_Tdr\]a) and the dependence of the form $T_{\mathrm{dr}} = A / \ln(B/\xi)$ (Fig. \[fig:plots\_Tdr\]b).
Simulation of interaction of color-charged droplets {#Appendix Droplets interaction}
===================================================
Derivation of the light-mediated interaction of atoms and mapping to the classical lattice gas problem {#Appendix Derivation of the model}
======================================================================================================
![Geometry of the system. Cavity axis is parallel to $z$; both lasers and the atomic gas are in the $xy$ plane. []{data-label="fig:geometry"}](figAppGeometry.png){width="0.5\linewidth"}
In this Supplementary Section we describe the setting we propose for the experimental realization of the interaction we use in the main text. We consider an ensemble of atoms in a multimode cavity pumped transverse to the cavity axis by a pair of lasers with a frequency $\omega_L$ and mode functions $\mathbf{\Omega}(\mathbf{r}) = \mathbf{e}_z \Omega(\mathbf{r}) \equiv
\mathbf{e}_z (\Omega_1(\tilde{x}) + \Omega_2(\tilde{y})) \equiv \mathbf{e}_z
(\cos(2\pi \tilde{x}/\lambda) + \cos(2\pi \tilde{y}/\lambda))$ (here $\tilde{x}=(x-y)/\sqrt{2}$, $\tilde{y}=(x+y)/\sqrt{2}$, Fig. \[fig:geometry\]). The cavity possesses (nearly) degenerate modes with frequencies $\omega_{c\alpha}$ (where $\alpha$ is the mode index). The atoms are treated as two-level systems with the level splitting $\omega_A$ and the transition dipole moment connecting the ground and excited state being parallel to $\mathbf{e}_x+\mathbf{e}_z$ (spatial isotropy can be broken by external magnetic field), which allows to couple the atomic dipole transitions to both pump and cavity modes. For more realistic experimental settings with many-level atoms such coupling can be achieved by employing vector polarizability of the atoms[@LeKien:2013].
For low density of atoms we can neglect their contact interaction and describe the light-mediated interaction in a multimode cavity by the following effective action [@Gopalakrishnan:2009]: $$\begin{aligned}
S = S_{at} + S_{int} + S_{em}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
S_{at} = \int d\mathbf{r} d\tau \left[ \Psi_g^*(\mathbf{r},\tau) \left( \partial_{\tau} -\frac{\hbar\nabla^2}{2M} -\frac{\mu}{\hbar} \right) \Psi_g(\mathbf{r},\tau) +
\Psi_e^*(\mathbf{r},\tau) \left( \partial_{\tau} -\frac{\hbar\nabla^2}{2M} -\frac{\mu}{\hbar} + \Delta_a \right) \Psi_e(\mathbf{r},\tau) \right]\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
S_{int} = \int d\mathbf{r} d\tau \left[ \sum_{\alpha} i g_{\alpha}(\mathbf{r}) \Psi^*_e(\mathbf{r},\tau) \Psi_g(\mathbf{r},\tau) a_{\alpha}(\tau) + i\Omega(\mathbf{r}) \Psi^*_e (\mathbf{r},\tau) \Psi_g(\mathbf{r},\tau) + h.c.\right]\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
S_{em} = \int d\tau \sum_{\alpha} a^*_{\alpha}(\tau) (\partial_{\tau}+\Delta_{c\alpha}) a_{\alpha}(\tau)\end{aligned}$$ Here $\Psi_g$ and $\Psi_e$ are the bosonic second-quantized fields corresponding to the ground and excited states of the atoms with mass $M$. We work in the reference frame rotating at the laser frequency $\omega_L$ and denote $\Delta_a = \omega_A - \omega_L$, $\Delta_{c\alpha} = \omega_{c\alpha} - \omega_L$. $g_{\alpha} (\mathbf{r}) = g_{0} \Xi_{\alpha}(\mathbf{r})$ where $g_0$ is the atom-cavity coupling strength and $\Xi_{\alpha}(\mathbf{r})$ is the normalized mode function of the cavity mode $\alpha$. Integrating out excited state $\Psi_e$ and cavity modes $a_{\alpha}$ we get the following effective action $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\text{eff}}[\Psi_g,\Psi_g^*]&=\int d\mathbf{r} d\tau \Psi_g^*(\mathbf{r},\tau) \left( \partial_{\tau} -\frac{\nabla^2}{2M} +(V(\mathbf{r})-\mu) \right ) \Psi_g(\mathbf{r},\tau)-\nonumber \\
&+ \int d\tau d\mathbf{r} d\mathbf{r}'
|\Psi_g(\mathbf{r},\tau)|^2 U(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}') |\Psi_g(\mathbf{r}',\tau)|^2
\label{eq:eff-action-simplified}\end{aligned}$$ The external optical potential $V(\mathbf{r})$ and the cavity-mediated interaction $U(\mathbf{r}, \mathbf{r}')$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
V(\mathbf{r}) &= -\frac{1}{\Delta_a} |\Omega(\mathbf{r})|^2 \label{eq:ExternalPotential}\\
U(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}') &=- \frac{g_0^2}{\Delta_a^2} \Omega^*(\mathbf{r}) \Omega(\mathbf{r}') \sum_{\alpha} \frac{\Xi^*_{\alpha}(\mathbf{r}) \Xi_{\alpha}(\mathbf{r}')}{\Delta_{c\alpha}} \label{eq:InteractionPotential}\end{aligned}$$ We consider the case of red-detuned laser frequency with respect to both atom splitting and to cavity nearly degenerate modes $\Delta_a, \Delta_{c\alpha}>0$. In this case the atoms are attracted to maxima of $|\Omega(\mathbf{r})|^2$; the interaction is attractive at small distances $\mathbf{r}'\rightarrow \mathbf{r}$ i.e. $U(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r})<0$, which creates a possibility for a peculiar droplet-formation phase transition.
[*Mapping to a classical lattice-gas problem.*]{} We consider the classical limit of the action (\[eq:eff-action-simplified\]), which bounds of applicability we find below. For a large number of particles $N\gg1$ we can use the canonical ensemble ($N=const$) instead of the grand canonical one ($\mu=const$), and describe the system of atoms by a classical Hamiltonian $H = \sum_i V(\mathbf{r}_i) + \sum_{i ,j} U(\mathbf{r}_i, \mathbf{r}_j)$.
We study the case when the external optical potential $V$ confines all the particles to the plane $z=0$. For the pump mode function chosen as $\Omega(\mathbf{x}) = \Omega_0 (\cos(2\pi \tilde{x}/\lambda)+ \cos(2\pi \tilde{y}/\lambda))$, the external optical potential (\[eq:ExternalPotential\]) becomes $V(\mathbf{x})= -V_0 (\cos(2\pi \tilde{x}/\lambda)+\cos (2\pi \tilde{y}/\lambda))^2$, with $V_0 = \Omega_0^2/\Delta_a^2$. The interaction potential (\[eq:InteractionPotential\]) takes the form $U(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x}') \sim - (\cos\frac{2\pi \tilde{x}}{\lambda}+\cos\frac{2\pi \tilde{y}}{\lambda}) (\cos\frac{2\pi \tilde{x}'}{\lambda}+\cos\frac{2\pi \tilde{y}'}{\lambda})$, see Fig. 1. The interaction potential $U(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{x}')$ is sign-alternating and attractive at short distances, as considered in the main text. For $V_0 \gg|U|$ it is convenient to define the lattice version of the interaction potential $U_{i, j}=U(0,i \,\mathbf{a}_1+j \,\mathbf{a}_2)$ where $\mathbf{a}_1, \mathbf{a}_2$ are the basis vectors of the optical lattice, with $|\mathbf{a}_1|=|\mathbf{a}_2|=a=\lambda/\sqrt{2}$ (Fig. 1a).
Experimental realization and results for the 4-color case. {#Appendix Z4}
==========================================================
In this Supplementary Section we show how to modify the experimental scheme in order to have 4 types of color-charges and present the results of the simulations in this case.
We consider a pair of transverse to the cavity axis lasers with orthogonally-polarized pump modes $\mathbf{\Omega}(\mathbf{r}) = (\mathbf{e}_y\Omega_1(x) + \mathbf{e}_x\Omega_2(y)) \equiv (\mathbf{e}_y\cos(2\pi x/\lambda) + \mathbf{e}_x\cos(2\pi y/\lambda))$, with each polarization being coupled to one of the two degenerate excited states $\Psi_{e,1}$, $\Psi_{e,2}$, which scatter the light into two families of orthogonally-polarized cavity modes $a_{\alpha,1}$, $a_{\alpha,2}$ degenerate with respect to polarization. Analogously to the previous section we have
$$\begin{aligned}
S_{at} = \int d\mathbf{r} d\tau \left[ \Psi_g^*(\mathbf{r},\tau) \left( \partial_{\tau} -\frac{\hbar\nabla^2}{2M} -\frac{\mu}{\hbar} \right) \Psi_g(\mathbf{r},\tau) +
\sum_{i=1,2} \Psi_{e,i}^*(\mathbf{r},\tau) \left( \partial_{\tau} -\frac{\hbar\nabla^2}{2M} -\frac{\mu}{\hbar} + \Delta_a \right) \Psi_{e,i}(\mathbf{r},\tau) \right]\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
S_{int} = \int d\mathbf{r} d\tau \left[ i \sum_{\alpha,i} g_{\alpha}(\mathbf{r}) \Psi^*_{e,i}(\mathbf{r},\tau) \Psi_g(\mathbf{r},\tau) a_{\alpha,i}(\tau) + i\sum_{i=1,2}\Omega_i(\mathbf{r}) \Psi^*_{e,i} (\mathbf{r},\tau) \Psi_g(\mathbf{r},\tau) + h.c.\right]\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
S_{em} = \int d\tau \sum_{\alpha,i} a^*_{\alpha,i}(\tau) (\partial_{\tau}+\Delta_{c\alpha}) a_{\alpha,i}(\tau)\end{aligned}$$
After integrating out excited state $\Psi_e$ and cavity modes $a_{\alpha}$ we get the effective action (\[eq:eff-action-simplified\]) with the external and interaction potentials $$\begin{aligned}
V(\mathbf{r}) &= -\frac{1}{\Delta_a} \left(|\Omega_1(\mathbf{r})|^2 +|\Omega_2(\mathbf{r})|^2 \right) \label{eq:ExternalPotential}\\
U(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}') &= -\frac{g_0^2}{\Delta_a^2} \left(\Omega_1^*(\mathbf{r}) \Omega_1(\mathbf{r}') + \Omega_2^*(\mathbf{r}) \Omega_2(\mathbf{r}')\right)\sum_{\alpha} \frac{\Xi^*_{\alpha}(\mathbf{r}) \Xi_{\alpha}(\mathbf{r}')}{\Delta_{c\alpha}} \label{eq:InteractionPotential}\end{aligned}$$ Periodicity of the external potential $V$ and the sign-changing nature of the interaction $U$ is shown in Fig. \[fig:potential\_orthogonal\_polarizations\]. DW-state here breaks the translational $\mathbb{Z}_2 \times \mathbb{Z}_2$ symmetry.
![Contour plot of the external potential $V(x,y)$ (blue contours) and signs of the interaction potential $U(0,0,x,y)$ ($+,-,0$) for the 4-color case. The contours encircle the local minima of the potential $V$. The interaction potential $U$ favors the formation of density-wave corresponding to one of the four sublattices $A$, $B$, $C$, $D$ (marked by red, green, black, and blue colors) and endows the droplets with $\mathbb{Z}_2 \times \mathbb{Z}_2$ color-charge.[]{data-label="fig:potential_orthogonal_polarizations"}](figAppZ4_potential_orthogonal_polarizations.png){width="5cm"}
Figures \[fig:Z4\_modeling\_plots\]-\[fig:quench\_Z4\] show the results of the numerical simulations for the $\mathbb{Z}_2 \times \mathbb{Z}_2$ case analogous to Figures 3-5 for $\mathbb{Z}_2$ case presented in the main text.
\
[99]{}
F.Y. Wu, *Rev. Mod. Phys.* **54**, 235 (1982).
F. Le Kien, P. Schneeweiss, and A. Rauschenbeutel, Dynamical polarizability of atoms in arbitrary light fields: general theory and application to cesium, *Eur. Phys. J. D* [**67**]{}, 92 (2013).
S. Gopalakrishnan, B. Lev, and P. Goldbart, Emergent crystallinity and frustration with BECs in multimode cavities, *Nature Physics* [**5**]{}, 845 (2009).
|
---
abstract: 'The multiscaling properties of the mixed Obukhov-Novikov shell model of turbulence are investigated numerically and compared with those of the complex GOY model, mostly studied in the recent years. Two types of generic singular fluctuations are identified : first, self-similar solutions propagating from large to small scales and building up intermittency, second, complex time singularities inhibiting the cascade and promoting chaos. A simple and robust method is proposed to track these objects. It is shown that the scaling exponent of self-similar solutions selected by the dynamics is compatible with large order statistics whenever it departs enough from the Kolmogorov value. Complex time singularities on the other hand get trapped on the last shells, when the proportion of Novikov interactions exceeds a critical value which is argued to mark the boundary between chaotic and regular dynamics in the limit of infinite Reynolds number.'
address: 'Centre de Recherches sur les Très Basses Températures, CNRS, BP166, 38042 Grenoble Cedex 9, France'
author:
- 'Thierry Dombre and Jean-Louis Gilson'
title: 'Intermittency, chaos and singular fluctuations in the mixed Obukhov-Novikov shell model of turbulence'
---
psfig
Introduction
============
The shell models of turbulence have recently attracted a lot of interest as a useful tool for mimicking the Navier-Stokes dynamics. In the simplest scalar models, one places velocity variables on a one-dimensional array of wavevectors of the form $k_{n}=k_{0} Q^{n}$, where the integer $n$ labels the shell from 0 to, ideally, $+\infty$ and $Q$ is a scale parameter fixing the step of the cascade. The time evolution of shell-velocities is governed by ordinary differential equations with quadratic non-linearities, whose strength grows like $k_{n}$, deterministic forcing at large scales and viscous dissipation at small ones. The couplings between shells are usually local and chosen in such a way that the total kinetic energy is conserved in the absence of forcing and viscous effects. These hydrodynamic systems display strong departure from the naive scaling expected on the basis of Kolmogorov- like dimensional analysis, which shows up in particular in the higher order moments of velocity. Following the seminal work of Okhitani and Yamada [@YO; @OY], Jensen, Paladin and Vulpiani [@JPV] found in a particular shell model, nowadays referred to as the GOY model, multiscaling properties very close to those of real turbulent flows. Most subsequent studies in this field have therefore concentrated on the GOY model and important progress was made towards a deeper understanding of its behaviour in recent publications [@BBP; @BLLP; @KLWB] (we shall go back to some of these results in the bulk of the paper).\
The GOY model uses complex velocity variables and interactions among all triads made up of three different neighbouring shells. One may wonder whether these two features are necessary to produce “good” chaotic properties. In order to clarify this question, we report in this paper a mostly numerical investigation of the scaling properties of a simpler class of shell models, which results from the linear superposition of two chains introduced in the early $70'$s by Obukhov [@O] and Novikov [@DN] (for an historical insight into the field and a comprehensive review of the huge russian litterature concerned with cascade-like systems under various disguises, see for instance [@GGO]). In the Obukhov-Novikov model, hereafter referred to as the ON model, the velocity variables are real and interacting triads involve only two neighbouring shells. The structure of non-linearities depends as in the GOY model on a single parameter (together with the scale parameter $Q$), which fixes in that case the relative proportion of the two basic chains. Both models exhibit qualitatively the same phenomenology. When the proportion of Novikov-like interactions (favouring the transfer of energy towards small scales) is high enough, the system relaxes to a time independent state with Kolmogorov scaling properties. As Obukhov-like interactions (favouring on the contrary the backflow of energy towards large scales) take over, the system transits through a Ruelle-Takens scenario into a chaotic state with stochastic fluctuations. There is clearly multifractality close to the transition, even if it looks less pronounced than the one observed in the GOY model for usual values of parameters.\
We switch to more deterministic concerns in the second part of this paper, which aims at characterizing singular fluctuations able to form in the ON model or more generally in any one-dimensional shell model. We shall argue that self-similar or soliton-like solutions of the equations of motion in the inertial range are the building blocks of intermittency, while movable singularities occuring at complex times induce chaos by inhibiting the energy cascade. We are not aware of any previous study of the structure of complex time singularities in shell models. In contrast, self-similar solutions were already considered within the context of the ON model by Siggia [@S78] and later on in more details by Nakano [@N88]. They are curiously absent of more recent works. We propose here an efficient method for identifying such solutions without any [*a priori*]{} assumption on their shape. We find that the set of dynamically accessible self-similar solutions is in fact limited to one single object (as Nakano’s results suggested it). This proves that multiscaling properties should not be ascribed to the existence of a large manifold of singular behaviours. The exponent $z$ controlling the multiplicative growth of these particular solutions, accounts in a satisfying way for the asymptotic scaling properties of high order velocity or energy transfer moments. It is easy to extend this analysis to the GOY model, where basically the same conclusions concerning the unicity of solutions can be drawn. However self-similar solutions in that case are very mild and do not seem to play a major role in the statistics at high orders.\
The paper is organized as follows : in Section 2 we specify the conventions used in our computations for normalizing variables and parameters and describe some general properties of the ON model. Section 3 presents statistical results obtained from numerics. The emphasis is put on scaling exponents of the moments of energy transfer and their evolution with the relative proportion of Obukhov and Novikov interactions. Our goal here is to provide the reader with data and facts, disentangled from any theoretical interpretation. An attempt of comparison with the GOY model is made. Section 4 is devoted to the hunt for self-similar solutions and a confrontation of their scaling properties with the statistics of the model at large orders. Complex time singularities are introduced and studied in Section 5, while perspectives and conclusions are briefly outlined in Section 6.
General properties of the model
===============================
Definitions and basic considerations
------------------------------------
As already said in the Introduction, scalar shell models define a velocity variable $u_{n}$, real or complex, on a one-dimensional array of wave-vectors $k_{n}=k_{0}Q^{n}$ where the integer $n$ runs from $0$ to $N$. In most of the paper we shall restrict ourselves to the case of real variables. It simplifies notations to consider that the $u_{n}$ form a ($N+1$)-dimensional vector $\vec u$. The equation of motion then takes the following form $$\frac{d}{dt}\vec{u} =\vec{N}[\vec{u}]+\vec{F}-\vec{D}
\label{equmod1}$$ where the three vectors $\vec N$, $\vec F$, $\vec D$ embody respectively the non-linearities, the external forcing and the dissipation. We only considered a deterministic forcing acting on the $\mbox{zero}^{th}$ shell and usual viscous dissipation, which means $$F_{n}=f\delta _{n,0}\;\;\;,\;\;\; D_{n}=\nu k_{n}^{2}u_{n}$$ where $\nu$ is the kinematic viscosity. The nonlinear kernel $\vec N$ is quadratic in the $u_{n}$, with a coupling constant growing like $k_{n}$ in order to reproduce the hierarchy of characteristic times of the Navier-Stokes dynamics. It must also conserve the total kinetic energy $E=\displaystyle{1\over 2}\sum_{n=0}^{N} u_{n}^{2}$. If interactions between shells (which are always supposed to be local) do not extend beyond nearest neighbours, the most general expression for the $n^{th}$ component of $\vec N$ is $$N_{n}[\vec u] = \alpha Q^{2\over 3} [k_{n}u_{n-1}u_{n}-k_{n+1}u_{n+1}^2]
+\beta [k_{n}u_{n-1}^2-k_{n+1}u_{n}u_{n+1}]$$ (this formula remains valid on the two boundaries $n=0$ and $n=N$, provided $u_{-1}=u_{N+1}=0$ is assumed).\
The model appears like the linear superposition of the Obukhov-Gledzer (OG) and Novikov-Desniansky (ND) chains, with respective weights $\alpha Q^{2/3}$ and $\beta$. We shall assume $\alpha,\beta >0$ and, without loss of generality, $\alpha +\beta =1$. Since, on the average, the $u_{n}$ decrease like $k_{n}^{-1/3}$ according to Kolmogorov-scaling, it is convenient to introduce a new set of variables $\phi_{n}$ by the relation $$u_{n}=Q^{-{n\over 3}} \phi_{n}
\label{defphi}$$ The equations for $\vec \phi$ read $$\frac{d}{dt}\vec{\phi} = k_{0} Q^{2\over 3} \vec{N}[\vec{\phi}]+\vec{F}-\vec{D}$$ where the expression of the $n^{th}$ component of $\vec N$ is now $$N_{n}[\vec{\phi}]=Q^{2n\over 3}[(\alpha \phi_{n-1}\phi_{n}+\beta \phi_{n-1}^2)
- (\alpha \phi_{n+1}^2+\beta \phi_{n}\phi_{n+1})]
\label{nlphi_n}$$ We still have the freedom to set to unity the forcing amplitude and the coefficient in front of $\vec N$ by non-dimensionalizing in the proper way time and velocities. The final form of the equations (as they were used in the numerical investigations reported in Section 3) is $$\frac{d}{dt} \phi_{n} =N_{n}[\vec{\phi}] +\delta_{n,0}-
{1\over R} Q^{2n} \phi_{n}
\label{equphi_n}$$ The Reynolds number $R$ has been defined as $\displaystyle{R={1\over \nu} \sqrt{{f Q^{2\over 3}}\over k_{0}^{3}}}$. Equations (\[nlphi\_n\]) and (\[equphi\_n\]) make energy conservation quite obvious. Indeed, in the limit $R=+\infty$ and for $n\geq 1$, the energy $E_{n}=\displaystyle{u_{n}^{2}\over 2}=
\displaystyle{{1\over 2}{\phi_{n}^{2} Q^{-{2n\over 3}}}}$ carried by the $n^{th}$ shell obeys the equation $$\frac{d}{dt} E_{n}= \epsilon_{n}-\epsilon_{n+1}$$ where $$\epsilon_{n}= \phi_{n-1} \phi_{n} (\alpha \phi_{n} +\beta \phi_{n-1})
\label{flux_n}$$ is the energy flux from the $(n-1)^{th}$ to the $n^{th}$ shell. Kolmogorov scaling corresponds to $\phi_{n}=C^{te}$ or more fundamentally to $\epsilon_{n}=C^{te}$ throughout the cascade.\
The physics of the model, as defined by equation (\[equphi\_n\]), depends on three parameters, namely : the step of the cascade Q, the proportion of Novikov interactions $\beta$, and the Reynolds number $R$. The number of shells will not matter, provided the truncation is done far beyond the Kolmogorov dissipative scale, where viscous effects become of the same order as inertial ones. Assuming $\phi_{n}=O(1)$, the index $N_{d}$ of the dissipative shell is given by the condition $\displaystyle{{Q^{2N_{d}}
\over R}\sim Q^{2N_{d}\over 3}}$. One should however pay attention to the fact that the stronger the fluctuation, the smaller the scale at which it will be effectively dissipated. Since $\phi_{n}$ can grow at most like $Q^{n\over 3}$ (this corresponds to the extreme case of a fluctuation carrying a constant energy through the cascade), we conclude that $N$ should be an integer between $n_{d}$ and $\displaystyle{{4\over 3} n_{d}}$, where we have defined $n_{d}$ as $$n_{d}={3\over 4} \frac{\mbox{Log} R}{\mbox{Log} Q}
\label{defn_d}$$ In our numerical study of the statistical properties of the model, we took $Q=2$, $R=10^{5}$ and let vary $\beta$ between 0 and 1. The choice of 18 shells ($N=17$) turned out to ensure the absence of any spurious boundary effect.\
Since we shall allude sometimes to the complex GOY model, we close this section by writing down the version of it we used in our computations. With complex variables $\phi_{n}$ rescaled in the way described just before, the equations read :
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dt}\phi_{0} & = & (2-\epsilon)[1-\phi^{*}_1\phi^{*}_2]-{\phi_0\over
R}\\
\frac{d}{dt}\phi_{1} & = & Q^{2\over
3}[\phi^{*}_0\phi^{*}_2-\phi^{*}_2\phi^{*}_3]
-{Q^2\over R} \phi_1\\
\frac{d}{dt}\phi_{n} & = & Q^{2n\over
3}[(1-\epsilon)\phi^{*}_{n-1}\phi^{*}_{n-2}
+ \epsilon \phi^{*}_{n-1}\phi^{*}_{n+1} - \phi^{*}_{n+1}\phi^{*}_{n+2}]
-{Q^{2n}\over R}\phi_{n}\quad 2\leq n \leq N\\
\phi_{N+1} & = & \phi_{N+2}=0\end{aligned}$$
\[GOYmod\]
Here again the structure of non-linearities is fixed by a single parameter $\epsilon$, varying as $\beta$ between 0 and 1. We put for simplicity the forcing on the $\mbox{zero}^{th}$ shell, as first tried in [@BLLP]. The factor $-i$, which is usually kept in front of the non-linear terms, as a remnant of the Navier-Stokes equation, has been absorbed in an innocuous redefinition of variables ($u_{n} \rightarrow
iu_{n}$). The forcing also can be assumed to be real (here $F_{n}=(2-\epsilon) \delta
_{n,0}$), without loss of generality, thanks to the invariance of equations under the following phase transformation (see for instance [@BBP])
\[GOYsym\] $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_{3n} & \rightarrow & e^{i\theta_{0}} \phi_{3n}\\
\phi_{3n+1} & \rightarrow & e^{i\theta_{1}} \phi_{3n+1}\\
\phi_{3n+2} & \rightarrow & e^{-i(\theta_{0}+\theta_{1})} \phi_{3n+2}\end{aligned}$$
where $\theta_{0}$ and $\theta_{1}$ are arbitrary angles. There are obvious differences between the real ON model and the complex GOY model, which make their comparison interesting in its own right. The phase space which may be explored by the GOY model is [*a priori*]{} larger, at least for initial conditions not purely real. Also the range of non-linear interactions is wider than in the first model. Lastly, the GOY model admits a second quadratic invariant besides kinetic energy, which is thought to play a prominent role in fixing its statistical properties [@KLWB; @GPZ]. Such an extra invariant is definitely absent in the ON model.\
Fixed points and qualitative description of the phase diagram
-------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, let us say a few words about the existence and the nature of the fixed points of the model, which lead to Kolmogorov scaling. In the absence of dissipation and for an infinite number of shells, $\phi_{n}=1$ is an obvious solution for any value of $\beta$. However, once viscous dissipation is introduced, it is easy to see that static solutions making physical sense can exist only for $\beta \neq 0$. Indeed for $\alpha =1$ (OG chain), one has to solve for every $n>0$ $$Q^{2n\over 3}(\phi_{n-1}\phi_{n} - \phi_{n+1}^2)=\frac{Q^{2n}}{R} \phi_{n}
\label{pfobu_n}$$ In order to balance the leading order terms of this equation for $n \rightarrow
+\infty$, $\phi_{n}$ must behave like $-\displaystyle{Q^{4n\over 3}\over R}$ which is not acceptable. This absence of any fixed point in the presence of dissipation for the Obukhov chain is consistent with the dynamical behaviour one observes in this case. A solitary wave of negative amplitude appears invariably at the end of the cascade, which carries back energy towards large scales. In the final state, energy oscillates back and forth between the first two shells, the other ones being inactive.\
Things are different, as soon as a finite amount of Novikov interactions is introduced. This is because the term $\phi_{n-1}^{2}$ in equation (\[nlphi\_n\]) favours energy transfer to small scales. At a static level, assuming a rapid decay of the spectrum on the ultraviolet side (i.e. $\phi_{n-1}>>
\phi_{n}>>\phi_{n+1}$), one has now to achieve the balance $$\beta \phi_{n-1}^{2} \sim {Q^{4n\over 3}\over R}\phi_{n}$$ This yields the following general solution $\phi_{n}=\displaystyle{{Q^{4(n+2)\over 3}\over \beta R}}
\mbox{exp}(-b\,2^{n})$ with $b>0$ otherwise arbitrary. More physically, we may rewrite $\phi_{n}$ in the dissipative range as $$\phi_{n}={Q^{4(n-n_{d}+2)\over 3}\over \beta}\:\mbox{exp}(-a\,2^{(n-n_{d})})
\;\;\;\;\;\; \mbox{for} \;n>n_{d}
\label{pfdiss_n}$$ with $n_{d}$ given by (\[defn\_d\]). These considerations suggest the following procedure for computing the fixed point $\phi_{n}^{e}$ in the presence of dissipation. The condition of equilibrium for the $n^{th}$ shell being quadratic in $\phi_{n-1}$, it can be used to express $\phi_{n-1}$ in terms of $\phi_{n}$ and $\phi_{n+1}$. Going from the last shell with $\phi_{N}$ parameterized as in (\[pfdiss\_n\]) to the first one, and keeping at each step the positive root, one ends up with $N+1$ numbers $\phi_{N}(a),\ldots,
\phi_{1}(a),\phi_{0}(a)$. The last equation on the $\mbox{zero}^{th}$ shell yields then a solvability condition for the parameter $a$ $$F(a)=1-(\alpha \phi_{1}^{2}(a)+\beta \phi_{0}(a) \phi_{1}(a))=0
\label{pfsolva}$$ Figures \[shellsta\] and \[IRbound\] show how things work for $Q=2$, $R=10^{5}$ and $\beta =0.348$. At least in the range of Reynolds numbers investigated here, there exists only one solution and the resulting fixed point is drawn on Fig.\[ptfix\]. The emergence of oscillations of period 2 and growing amplitude on the infrared side of the spectrum, is a generic feature of the ON model. Similar phenomena involving period 3 are known to plague the GOY model. Here the explanation is the following : in the inertial range (i.e. $1\ll n\ll n_{d}$), the equation to be solved reduces to $$q_n^{-1}(1+Cq_n^{-1})-q_{n+1}(q_{n+1}+C)=0
\label{itermap}$$ where one has introduced the ratio $q_n={\phi_n\over \phi_{n-1}}$ and $C={\beta
\over \alpha}$. Equation (\[itermap\]) defines a map $q_{n}=g(q_{n+1})$, whose fixed point $q_{n}=1$ is easily seen to be unstable for $C\leq 1$. Only for discrete values of the Reynolds number (such that one of the crossing points in Fig.\[shellsta\] has ordinate 1), can one hope to get rid of these oscillations. We should say that this odd-even disymmetry, though a pathology of the ON model, is less visible in the chaotic state to be described below. Furthermore, it does not affect other physical quantities like the energy transfer $\epsilon_{n}$ defined in (\[flux\_n\]).\
We turn now to a qualitative discussion of the phase diagram of the model, which is observed as $\beta$ varies (for the particular values $Q=2$ and $R=10^{5}$). Although the static solution exists for every strictly positive $\beta$, it becomes unstable for $\beta \leq 0.355 \pm 10^{-3}$ and evolves towards a periodic limit cycle through a first Hopf bifurcation. A scenario à la Ruelle Takens, similar to the one already discovered in the GOY model [@BLLP], leads then to chaos for $\beta \leq \beta^{*} = 0.349 \pm
10^{-3}$. We did not try to get very precise estimates of these two thresholds, whose position is expected to vary with $R$. From a slightly unrelated analysis of movable singularities of the ON model, presented in Section 5, we shall speculate later in the paper that the asymptotic value of $\beta^{*}$ in the limit of infinite Reynolds number is of order 0.394. In the quasiperiodic regime, the shells oscillate in a coherent way around the static fixed point discussed above. Their oscillations remain of moderate amplitude even close to the transition, and one has with a very good accuracy, for all integers $n$ and $p$, $\langle \phi_{n}^{p}(t)\rangle =(\phi_{n}^{e})^{p}$ (where $\langle \ldots \rangle$ denotes a temporal average).\
The behaviour in the chaotic phase is rather simple to understand, far from the transition. For values of $\beta$ not greater than say 0.28, the dynamics consists in well isolated pulses emitted from the forced shell, after it has reached a significant level. The pulse propagates down the scales, through almost inactive shells, leaving behind a finite amount of energy. After being stopped by dissipation, it gives rise to a rather well characterized pulse of negative amplitude, which carries back to the large scales most of the energy that dissipation failed to absorb. This is quite close to what is observed in the Obukhov limit, although here things repeat themselves in a slightly disordered manner. The picture gets more complicated as $\beta$ gets closer to $\beta^{*}$ (typically for $0.30\leq \beta \leq 0.349$). Shells in the inertial range remain almost always active and they form a noisy background out of which only the biggest fluctuations develop like singular pulses. Negative excursions of variables, triggering backflow of energy, occur very rarely. Splitting of pulses as well as partial reflection of some of them may be observed all the way along the cascade. The next Section will help to quantify a bit these statements.\
Multiscaling properties of the chaotic phase
============================================
Moments of the variables $\phi_{n}$, defined as $S_{n,p}=\langle\phi_{n}^{p}\rangle$, are good tools for characterizing the intermittency of shell models. According to (\[defphi\]), exponential growth of any of the $S_{n,p}$’s with $n$ in the inertial range is the sign of deviations from K41-scaling. However we shall rather concentrate on moments of the energy flux $\epsilon_{n}$ defined in (\[flux\_n\]), namely on quantities $\Sigma _{n,p}=\langle |\epsilon _{n}|^{p\over 3}\rangle$ The reason for this choice has already been discussed in [@KLWB] within the context of the GOY model. The point is that for moderate $p$, the oscillations we found in the static solution still contaminate $S_{n,p}$. Although they are much smaller, they prevent us from an accurate determination of the scaling exponents. As far as scaling properties are concerned, the $\Sigma_{n,p}$’s provide a valuable alternative, because they are free from any spurious oscillations.\
On the other hand one must be aware that the absolute value introduces a considerable bias for the lowest moments if the energy cascade has a poor positive “smooth component”, as it is the case far away from the transition where the mean energy transfer is very small. When on the contrary the smooth component is important, $\epsilon _n$ is almost always positive and $\langle |\epsilon_{n}|\rangle$ is very close to a constant in the inertial range as $\langle \epsilon_{n}\rangle $ should be in a statistically stationnary state. In any case the bias disappears at higher values of $p$ since the strongest fluctuations are always positive.\
We have calculated $\Sigma_{n,p}$ for $p$ up to $12$. For each run we integrated the equations over $1000$ turn-over or unit times and sampled the signal with a step much smaller than the characteristic time-scales of the more intense structures (in practice we took $\Delta t =10^{-4})$. The length of each run was enough to ensure the stationarity of the statistics, at least for moments of order $p$ smaller than $7-8$. As shown on Fig. \[exscal\] for $\beta =0.33$, these quantities obey nice power laws on a rather wide range of shell numbers. We may thus define exponents $\sigma_{p}$ such that in the inertial range $\Sigma_{n,p}\sim {k_{n}}^{\sigma_{p}}$ (the relation between $\sigma_{p}$ and the usual exponent $\zeta_{p}$ associated to the velocity field is : $\zeta_{p}={p\over 3}-\sigma_{p}$).\
To extract values of the scaling exponents $\sigma_{p}$ from our data, we again followed the procedure outlined in [@KLWB] (though not with the same refinement!). The inertial or fitting range was determined as the interval of values of $n$, for which a least square fit of the data to a straight line, give $\sigma_{1}$ the closest to zero. A fitting range $5\leq n \leq 10$ proved to be the best for all values of $\beta$ we looked at, with $\sigma_{1}$ as small as $0.01$ for $\beta \sim
0.33$. Actually the highest moments ($p\geq7$) allow a wider range for an estimation of the exponents, whereas the lowest depend only slightly on this length. In order to get a rough estimate of statistical errors due to the finite length of our temporal signal, we repeated the same operations many times (typically $5$), taking as new initial conditions the state obtained at the end of the precedent run. Error bars drawn in the next figures take into account this only source of uncertainty. Our results for the scaling exponents $\sigma_{p}$ are summarized in Fig. \[tp1\] for three typical values of $\beta $ : $\beta =0.28$, $\beta =0.33$, and $\beta
=0.343$.\
As concerning the scattering of data, we see that it remains small for $p\leq 8$, except when we get very close to the transition, a not too surprising fact. The overall shape of the $\sigma_{p}$-curve illustrates the distinction made at the end of Section 2 between two chaotic regimes. For $\beta =0.28$, i.e. rather far from the transition, one crosses over rapidly ($p\geq 5$) towards a linear growth of exponents with $p$. The exponents take rather big negative values for $p\leq 3$, presumably because of the important role played by energy backflows in this case. For the two other values of $\beta$ we investigated, the cross-over region is significantly wider. There is clearly curvature and henceforth multifractality, even if for $p \geq 7-8$ an asymptotic linear regime ultimately sets in. Figure \[tp2\] offers a magnified view on the cross-over region. The fact that exponents still vary strongly between $\beta =0.33$ and $\beta =0.343$ proves the influence of the proximity of the transition on the physics probed by the moments of corresponding order. On the other hand, it can be noted that the asymptotic slope remains almost the same. This feature will be explained in the next Section in terms of self-similar solutions parameterizing the biggest fluctuations of our hydrodynamic system.\
As a way of checking our numerics, and also in order to get some insight into the differences between the two models, we have performed strictly analogous computations on the complex GOY model for two different values of $\epsilon$ (with $Q=2$, $R=10^{5}$ and $N=17$). The first one, $\epsilon =0.75$, lies far from the transition, which was found in [@BLLP] to occur at $\epsilon^{*}=0.395..$ for a Reynolds number roughly the halfth of ours. The second one is the standard $\epsilon=0.5$, known to lead to scaling properties in good agreement with experiment [@JPV]. Figure \[GOYON1\] shows on the same graph the scaling exponents for the ON model with $\beta =0.28$ and the GOY one for $\epsilon =0.75$. The resemblance is striking, apart from from slightly different asymptotic slopes of the two curves and a cross-over region a bit wider for the GOY model. In Fig. \[GOYON2\], the same comparison is made between the two models, this time for $\beta =0.33$ and $\epsilon =0.5$. Now differences show up, especially at large orders. While a linear monofractal behaviour has definitely set in for $p\geq 7$ in the case of the ON model, the local slope of the $\sigma_{p}$ does not stop increasing in the GOY model, even though this is hardly perceptible to the eye. Also significant is the lack of convergence for $p\geq 8$. We note that the points marking the upper error bars, which were obtained from one particular run among six of equal temporal length, are surprisingly well fitted by the formula proposed by She and Leveque [@SL] for real Navier-Stokes turbulence $$\sigma_{p}=\frac{2p}{9} -2[1-(\frac{2}{3})^{p\over 3}]
\label{SheLev}$$ up to the highest values of $p$ investigated here. A physical reason for this good agreement observed by many others is missing. We did not try to tighten our error bars by increasing the length of numerical integration since this was beyond the scope of this work. The results of the next Section will somehow confirm the peculiar nature of intermittency in the GOY model for such values of parameters as $\epsilon =0.5$ and $Q=2$.\
Study of self-similar solutions
===============================
Let us take for granted from the results of the preceding Section that the scaling exponents $\sigma_{p}$ grow asymptotically like $\gamma p$ at large $p$, with $\gamma $ a positive number depending on the parameter $\beta $ only. This means that the amplitude of fluctuations carrying the system away from the K41 fixed point cannot grow from shell to shell more rapidly than $Q^{\gamma n}$. On the other hand, the fact that $\gamma$ takes a finite value even close to the transition suggest that such fluctuations are efficient as soon as the instability threshold is passed. It is the purpose of this Section to identify the set of singular fluctuations that the ON model can admit.\
Since we are now interested in nonlinear instabilities occuring in the inertial range, we may forget about forcing and dissipation, and think of the shell number $n$ as running from $-\infty$ to $+\infty$. Let us rewrite the equation of motion in terms of new variables $b_{n}=Q^{n}u_{n}=Q^{2n\over 3}\phi_{n}$ ($b_{n}$ is nothing dimensionally but the gradient of the velocity field). We get from (\[nlphi\_n\]) and (\[equphi\_n\]), after absorbing the factor $\alpha Q^{2\over 3}$ into a rescaling of time : $$\frac{d}{dt} b_{n}= N_{n}[\vec{b}]=(b_{n-1}b_{n}+{\beta\over \alpha}
Q^{2\over 3} b_{n-1}^2) - {1\over Q^{2}}(b_{n+1}^2+{\beta\over \alpha}
Q^{2\over 3}b_{n}b_{n+1})
\label{nlb_n}$$ Since ${\vec N}[\vec b]$ does not depend explicitely on $n$ and is quadratic in $\vec b$, the set of equations (\[nlb\_n\]), for $-\infty
< n< +\infty$, support formally self-similar solutions of the type : $$b_{n}(t)={1\over {t^{*}-t}} f(Q^{nz}(t^{*}-t))\;\equiv
Q^{nz} g(Q^{nz}(t^{*}-t))
\label{selfsim_1}$$ In the equation above, $t^{*}$ is the critical time at which, in the absence of dissipation, the fluctuation reaches the end of the cascade. The scaling exponent $z$ is [*a priori*]{} arbitrary. However $z={2\over 3}$ gives back Kolmogorov scaling, while $z=1$ corresponds to the extreme situation of a fluctuation carrying a constant energy. One expects therefore ${2\over 3}\leq z \leq 1$ on physical grounds.\
Self-similar solutions, if they exist, are obviously good candidates for describing the growth of singular fluctuations. The question then arises whether many values of $z$ are dynamically accessible, which would be a natural source of multifractality, or whether on the contrary a single $z$ is selected. In that case, one should check that $\gamma =(z-{2\over 3})$, since moments $\Sigma_{n,p}$ are dominated by extreme fluctuations for high values of $p$. Self-similar solutions together with their exponent $z$ have already been determined by Nakano for the ON model [@N88]. He used a rather cumbersome iterative method to find them and we were not convinced he had exhausted the whole set of possibilities in his work. This is why we came back to this problem and were led to develop a procedure to be described below, which is quite efficient and easily extended to any shell model. It should however be said from the beginning that our results about the ON model are in complete agreement with the conclusions reached in [@N88].\
By plugging the Ansatz (\[selfsim\_1\]) into (\[nlb\_n\]) and introducing the logarithmic variable $\xi =n+{1\over z \log Q}\log (t^{*}-t)$, one arrives at the following equation for $f$ ($f$ is actually divided by $z \log Q$ to make the result a bit simpler) $$f'(\xi )-z\log Q f(\xi )=(f(\xi -1)f(\xi )+{\beta\over \alpha}
Q^{2\over 3} f(\xi-1)^{2}) - {1\over Q^{2}}(f(\xi+1)^{2}+{\beta\over \alpha}
Q^{2\over 3}f(\xi )f(\xi+1))
\label{selfsimequ}$$ If square integrability of $f$ is required, Eq. (\[selfsimequ\]) is nothing but a non-linear eigenvalue problem for the unknown $z$, which is very difficult to solve directly, either analytically or numerically. To make progress, we can try to approach $f$ dynamically. Rather than coming back to the original equations of the model, let us introduce a fictitious dynamics leaving the norm of the $(N+1)$-dimensional vector $\vec b$ invariant $$\frac{d}{d\tau} \vec{b}= \vec{N}[\vec{b}]-\frac{<\vec{N}[\vec{b}],\vec{b}>}
{<\vec{b},\vec{b}>}\, \vec{b}
\label{projdyn}$$ In the equation above, $\vec{N}[\vec{b}]$ is the vector of components $N_{n}[\vec{b}]$, whose expression was given in Eq. (\[nlb\_n\]) and $\langle \vec{A},\vec{B}\rangle =\sum_{n=0}^{N} A_{n}B_{n}$ is the usual euclidean scalar product. The projection factor, which intervenes in the r.h.s. of (\[projdyn\]) to keep $\vec b$ on a sphere : $$A(\tau)=\frac{<\vec{N}[\vec{b}](\tau),\vec{b}(\tau)>}
{<\vec{b}(\tau),\vec{b}(\tau)>}
\label{defA}$$ will be of central importance in the following.\
Characteristic time scales on shell $n$ are in first approximation proportional to $b_{n}$ but now $b_{n}$ cannot exceed the initial value of $\sqrt{<\vec{b},\vec{b}>}$. It follows that within the “projected dynamics” defined by Eq. (\[projdyn\]), the cascade towards small scales is not accompanied by an acceleration of motion as in the original equations. There is now no impediment against taking a very large number of shells since the required time resolution does not grow anymore exponentially with $N$. By integrating numerically (\[projdyn\]), we observed that any initial condition of finite support (i.e. $b_{n}(0)\neq 0$ for $0\leq n \leq
n_{0}$, with $n_{0}\ll N$) gives birth at large times $\tau$ to a solitary wave moving with a constant velocity towards small scales. In other words, a period $T$ may be defined such that asymptotically, for $\tau
\rightarrow +\infty$ (a more precise condition reads $1\ll \tau \ll NT$, because some reflection will ultimately occur on the ultraviolet boundary), $$b_{n+1}(\tau +T) = b_{n}(\tau) \;\;\equiv \;\;
b_{n}(\tau)=b(n-\frac{\tau}{T})
\label{asymptb_n}$$ Note that (\[asymptb\_n\]) implies $A(\tau +T)= A(\tau)$. The shape of the final solitary wave is found to be always the same, up to the scaling symmetry $$b(n-{\tau \over T}) \rightarrow \lambda b(n-\lambda{\tau \over T})
\label{scalesym}$$ and it is remarkably stable, as demonstrated by Figs. \[selfsim1\] and \[selfsim2\].\
Let us now make the connection between this finding and self-similar solutions in shell models. This is easily done by writing any solution $\vec{b}(\tau)$ of Eq. (\[projdyn\]) in the form $$\vec{b}(\tau)=\exp \bigl(-\int_{0}^{\tau} \! A(\tau ') d\tau '\bigr)\,
\vec{c}(\tau)=B(\tau) \vec{c}(\tau)
\label{transfproj}$$ Since the non-linear kernel is quadratic, one gets for $\vec{c}(\tau)$ $$\frac{d}{d\tau}\vec{c}=B(\tau) \vec{N}[\vec{c}\,]$$ The original dynamics : $\displaystyle{\frac{d}{dt}\vec{c}}=\vec{N}[\vec{c}\,]$ is recovered, after defining the physical time $t$ as $$t(\tau)=\int_{0}^{\tau} \! B(\tau ') d\tau '
\label{transftime}$$ These straightforward manipulations prove that every solution $\vec{b}(\tau)$ of Eq. (\[projdyn\]) can be mapped onto a solution $\vec{c}(t)$ of the real physical problem in the inertial range, according to the transformation law : $$\vec{c}(t)=\exp \bigl(\int_{0}^{\tau (t)} \! A(\tau ') d\tau '\bigr)\,
\vec{b}(\tau (t))
\label{transfsol}$$ where $\tau (t)$ is obtained from the inversion of Eq. (\[transftime\]). It can now be seen that a travelling wave in the projected dynamics, of period $T$ and average value in time $\langle A(\tau)\rangle >0$, is the signature of a self-similar solution in the true dynamics. Indeed, according to (\[transfsol\]), each time the component of $\vec{b}$ of maximal amplitude moves from one shell to the next, $\vec{c}$ is multiplied by $\exp (\langle A\rangle T)$. From a comparison with the initial Ansatz (\[selfsim\_1\]), one gets : $$Q^{z} = \exp (\langle A\rangle T)$$ or $$z=\frac{\langle A\rangle T}{\log Q}
\label{computz}$$ This formula allows one to obtain accurate estimates for $z$, since both quantities $\langle A\rangle $ and $T$ are easily measurable (and their product is left invariant as it should by the scaling symmetry (\[scalesym\])).\
The method was first used to compute $z$ for various values of $\beta$ in the ON model. Results are summarized in table \[tab:1\], where a comparison between $z-{2\over 3}$ and the asymptotic slope $\gamma$ of the $\sigma_{p}$- curve is also made. We find a reasonable agreement between these last two quantities, in view of the comparatively large errors in the estimate for $\gamma$. It is important to realize that the existence of self-similar solutions has nothing to do with the presence of chaos. In the ON model, the exponent $z$ decreases gently from 1 to $\displaystyle{2\over 3}$, as $\beta$ varies between 0.145.. and 1 (as already noticed in [@S78; @N88], one has $z=1$ for $\beta \leq
0.145..$). The analytic stucture of the solitary wave remains the same. The scaling function $f$ of Eq. (\[selfsimequ\]) presents an essential singularity $f(\xi) \sim 2^{\xi} \exp (-2^{\xi})$ for $\xi \rightarrow +\infty$ (up to subdominant multiplicative corrections), and an exponential tail $f(\xi) \sim Q^{z\xi}$ for $\xi \rightarrow -\infty$. In the case where $z=1$, the exponential tail is replaced by a second essential singularity $f(\xi) \sim 2^{-\xi} \exp (-2^{-\xi})$. Table \[tab:1\] shows that $z \sim 0.88$ at the transition between the regular and chaotic regimes, located near $\beta =0.349$. This high value explains why the ON model (at least for $Q=2$) is bound to exhibit rather strong intermittency in the chaotic part of its phase diagram.\
We were curious to extend this analysis to the complex GOY model. It is a simple matter to generalize Eq. (\[projdyn\]) to the case of a complex vector. Details will not be given here. The conclusion of our (partial) investigations is that the GOY model also possesses only one ideal self-similar solution for a given value of $\epsilon$. Furthermore, this self-similar solution is purely real and positive, up to the phase symmetry (\[GOYsym\]) of the model. This means that the complex amplitudes $b_{n}(\tau)$ take the asymptotic form $b_{n}(\tau)=e^{i\theta (n)}b(n-{\tau \over T})$, where the phase $\theta (n)$, subject to the constraint $\theta(n)+\theta(n+1)+\theta(n+2)=0$, is the only footprint of the initial condition and the amplitude $b$ presents a shape quite similar to the one obtained for the ON model. Quantitative results are presented in the table \[tab:2\]. The comparison between large order statistics and scaling properties of self-similar solutions was done only for two values of $\epsilon$ : $\epsilon=0.75$ and $\epsilon =0.5$. While in the former case the same agreement is obtained as for the ON model, we find in the latter a discrepancy by a factor 2 between $\gamma $ and $z-{2\over 3}$. The discrepancy is even bigger if one extrapolates from the She-Leveque formula (\[SheLev\]) $\gamma =2/9=0.222$. We think that the failure of self-similar solutions to explain intermittency at high orders in this case, lies in the closeness to the Kolmogorov value $2\over 3$ of their scaling exponent $z$. After all, with $z-{2\over 3}$ as small as 0.052 and a Reynolds number $R=10^{5}$ as in our computations, the amplitude of singular fluctuations grows, upon propagating from the integral scale to the dissipative one, by a factor $Q^{(z-{2\over 3})n_{d}}
=R^{{3\over 4}(z-{2\over 3})}$, which does not exceed 1.5 ! This gives very little chance to such a fluctuation to survive collisions with the turbulent background and to govern statistics at large orders. We find it plausible that the mildness of singular fluctuations and the finite length of the cascade combine to produce a new kind of intermittency with a more pronounced multifractal character. It is an interesting issue, left for further investigation, to understand how the system is then able to develop an asymptotic growth of the $\sigma_{p}$ with $p$ steeper than the one expected on the basis of self-similar solutions.\
Movable singularities as a signature of chaos
=============================================
From a formal point of view, self-similar solutions studied in the previous Section describe the approach of the system towards blowing-up, which, in the absence of dissipation, happens in finite time. It is also of interest in the context of nonlinear o.d.e.’s to consider movable singularities taking place at complex times. The local structure of such objects is intimately linked to the non-linearity, while their distribution in the complex $t$-plane may help to understand such physical properties as high-frequency intermittency [@FM]. Besides, according to Painlevé’s criterion, non algebraic singularities indicate usually lack of integrability. This yields a very economical way to detect analytically the presence of chaos in any dynamical system (see for instance [@DFHGMS] and the references therein related to this topic). There are two main reasons why we report in this Section a study of movable singularities in the ON model, which at first sight is disconnected from the rest of the paper. The first one is purely technical : it turns out that the method used to determine the local structure of movable singularities (and possibly their position) is quite close to the one developed in Section 4 for tracking self-similar solutions. The second reason has more to do with physics : whereas self-similar solutions by themselves had nothing to tell us about the chaotic properties of the model, we shall see that movable singularities in the complex $t$-plane disappear (or better said, get trapped on the last shells near the ultraviolet boundary) as $\beta$ exceeds a value of order $0.394\pm 10^{-3}$. It is tempting to speculate that this threshold marks the ultimate boundary between chaotic and regular dynamics, the one reached in the limit of infinite Reynolds number. We shall also get strong indications that movable singularities in shell models parameterize energy backflows and as such could be responsible for the peeling off of coherent structures as they cascade downwards to small scales. It will become rapidly clear to the reader that the analysis to be presented below, though restricted to the ON model, can easily be applied to any shell model with presumably similar conclusions at the end.\
We shall work with the vector $\vec b$ defined in Section 4. The quadratic degree of non-linearities implies that the only movable singularities are poles so that : $$b_{n}(t) \sim \frac{a_{n}}{t-t^{*}} \;\;\; \mbox{for}\;\;\;
t\rightarrow t^{*}\;\;\;\mbox{and}\;\;\; 0\leq n\leq N
\label{defpole}$$ where $t^{*}$ is an arbitrary complex critical time. The $N+1$ residues $a_{n}$ form a vector $\vec a$, which after substituting (\[defpole\]) into (\[projdyn\]) is seen to obey the condition : $$- \vec{a}=\vec{N}[\vec{a}\,]
\label{equapole}$$ The problem now is to solve (\[equapole\]). This is a much more difficult task than computing fixed points as in Section 2. First, $\vec a$ is necessarily complex (it is easy to check that (\[equapole\]) implies $\sum_{n=0}^{N} a_{n}^{2} Q^{-2n} =0$). Second, we expect on physical grounds the vector $\vec a$ to be localized in shell space. This means that we are looking for solutions of Eq. (\[equapole\]) which would be square-summable ($\sum_{-\infty}^{+\infty} |a_{n}|^{2} < +\infty $), were the range of shell numbers extended to the whole set of relative integers. Any “shooting” method of the type outlined in Section 2, which would start from one endpoint and try to join the other one with the appropriate asymptotic behaviour, is in fact doomed to failure because of strong numerical instabilities.\
As in the preceding Section the idea will be to approach dynamically the desired solutions to (\[equapole\]). Before doing so, we must say a few words about the notion of “genericity” of movable singularities. Consider a singularity at time $t^{*}$ and assume $\vec a$ is known. Equation (\[defpole\]) gives only the leading order term in the expansion of $\vec b$ near $t^{*}$, which may be pursued order by order just from local analysis. Writing $\vec b$ as $\displaystyle{{\vec{a}\over t-t^{*}} + \delta \vec{b}}$, where the correction $\delta \vec{b}$ is small compared to the $\mbox{zero}^{th}$ order term, one gets to linear order in $\delta \vec{b}$ $$\frac{d}{dt} \delta \vec{b}=\frac{1}{t-t^{*}} M \delta \vec{b} +\vec{F}
-\frac{\vec{D}[\vec{a}]}{t-t^{*}}
\label{equacorr}$$ In the equation above, $M=\left[\displaystyle{{\partial N_{i}\over \partial
b_{j}}}\right]$ is the Jacobian matrix of the nonlinear kernel $\vec{N}[\vec{b}]$ evaluated at point $\vec a$. Forcing and dissipation were kept for completeness in the right hand side of (\[equacorr\]) but only the homogeneous part of the equation really matters in what follows. It has (N+1) independent solutions of the form $(t-t^{*})^{\mu_{i}} \vec{b}_{i}$, where $\mu_{i}$ is the $i^{th}$ eigenvalue of $M$ and $\vec{b}_{i}$ the corresponding eigenvector. Provided $Re\, \mu_{i} >-1$, a correction of the type $\lambda_{i}
(t-t^{*})^{\mu_{i}} \vec{b}_{i}$ with $\lambda_{i}$ an arbitrary complex number, is free to appear in the expansion of $\vec b$ around $t^{*}$, since it is indeed smaller than the $\mbox{zero}^{th}$ term. Actually, $\vec N$ being quadratic, $\vec{N}[\vec{a}]=-\vec{a}$ implies $M\vec{a}=-2\vec{a}$. Therefore, one of the $\mu_{i}$ (say $\mu_{0}$) equals by construction -2. The eigenvalue -2 and the corresponding eigendirection $\vec{a}$ are associated to the arbitrary position of $t^{*}$ and as such must be excluded from the expansion of $\vec{b}$. It follows that the most general expression of $\vec{b}$ around a singularity reads : $$\vec{b}(t)=\frac{\vec{a}}{t-t^{*}} +\sum_{i=1}^{N_{s}} \lambda_{i}
(t-t^{*})^{\mu_{i}} \vec{b}_{i} +\mbox{h.o.t.}
\label{genexp}$$ where $N_{s}$ is the number of eigenvalues of $M$, whose real part is bigger than -1. It is not difficult to check that, once the $N_{s}$ complex numbers $\lambda_{i}$ are given, there is no arbitrariness left in the rest of the expansion (denoted as h.o.t. in (\[genexp\])). What we have in our hands is a local expression of our solution which depends on $(N_{s}+1)$ parameters ($t^{*},
\lambda_{1},\ldots \lambda_{N_{s}}$), whereas $(N+1)$ initial conditions are necessary to specify entirely the evolution of the dymamical system. Therefore a singularity will be generic (i.e. it will not result from a set of initial conditions of zero measure), if and only if $N_{s}=N$. In other words, we are interested only in solutions to (\[equapole\]) with $N$ eigenvalues $\mu_{i}$ of real part bigger than -1, besides the trivial one $\mu_{0}=-2$.\
The previous considerations suggest the introduction of the following dynamics : $$\frac{d}{d\tau}\vec{a}=-\vec{N}[\vec{a}]+\bigl(Re \frac{\langle \vec{a},
\vec{N}[\vec{a}]\rangle }{\langle \vec{a},\vec{a}\rangle } + i\delta\,Im
\frac{\langle \vec{a},\vec{N}[\vec{a}]\rangle}{\langle \vec{a},\vec{a}\rangle}
\bigr) \vec{a}
\label{residyn}$$ where, since we are dealing now with complex-valued vectors, $\langle \vec{A},\vec{B}\rangle =\sum_{n=0}^{N} A^{*}_{n}B_{n}$ The second term in the r.h.s. of (\[residyn\]) keeps the norm of $\vec{a}$ constant. The last one affects only its phase and one is in principle free to choose any value for the parameter $\delta$. It may be shown that there is a one-to-one correspondance between fixed points of the dynamics (\[residyn\]) with a basin of attraction of finite measure, and generic solutions (in the sense of the previous paragraph) to the initial problem. A proof of this almost intuitive statement is given in the Appendix. It has nice consequences : in order to determine the possible arrangements of residues $a_{n}$, it suffices to integrate (\[residyn\]) for initial conditions which are not purely real (otherwise they remain so forever). If after a long enough time, a stationary state $\vec{a}_{f}$ is reached, then : $$\vec{a}=-\vec{a}_{f} \displaystyle{\frac{\langle
\vec{a}_{f},\vec{a}_{f} \rangle}{\langle
\vec{N}[\vec{a}_{f}],\vec{a}_{f}\rangle}}
\label{resirescal}$$ contains the desired information. Note that the computational cost of the method increases only linearly with the number of shells $N+1$. It is therefore easy to get rid of finite size effects if necessary.\
We have applied this technique to the ON model and made the following observations. As anticipated on the basis of the preceding considerations, the vector $\vec{a}$ evolves systematically towards a fixed point provided the condition $\delta \geq 1$ is met (actually, the marginal case $\delta =1$ still works but requires longer times of integration). After performing the rescaling (\[resirescal\]), the final state of $\vec{a}$ (giving access to the residues $a_{n}$) was found to be always the same, up to complex conjugation (which is an obvious symmetry of (\[equapole\])) and translation along the shell number axis. This last property, which is crucial to ensure the “mobility” of the singularity in momentum space, holds for $\beta < \beta^{*}=0.394\,\pm
10^{-3}$. For $\beta \geq \beta^{*}$ we find only one solution, rigidly attached to the last shell. Figures \[resi\_1\] and \[resi\_2\] summarize the phenomenon by showing the modulus and the real part of $a_{n}$ for respectively $\beta =0.39$ and $\beta =0.40$. They were deduced from a numerical integration of (\[residyn\]) with $N=29$, $\delta =2$ and the initial condition $a_{n}=i \delta_{n,0}$. The imaginary part of $a_{n}$ has not been represented in order not to burden the figures. For $\beta =0.39$, a change in the initial conditions or in the value of $\delta$ most likely leads to a displacement of the peak of the final structure along the horizontal axis. In contrast, for $\beta =0.40$, the peak resides always on the last shell. A perfect convergence onto a true fixed point of (\[residyn\]) is difficult to achieve because of slow transients near the transition. Thus we cannot exclude some minor adjustments of residues with respect to the picture shown here, especially at the rear end of the structure ($n\geq 10$ in Fig. \[resi\_1\]). Note the characteristic pattern at the front ($5\leq n
\leq 7$ in Fig. \[resi\_1\]) with a large negative excursion of $Re(a_{n})$, which by the way may be still recognized in Fig. \[resi\_2\], i. e. beyond the threshold. From a mathematical point of view, solutions in the inertial range, as depicted by Fig. \[resi\_1\], disappear when one of the eigenvalues $\mu_{i}$ of the Jacobian matrix $M$ gets a real part smaller than -1. Apparently, the only place where they manage to survive is near the ultraviolet boundary, where the nonlinear kernel is strongly modified.\
We shall not expand too much on these findings. At least they prove that complex time singularities are not involved in the building-up of self-similar solutions, because in contrast to the former, the latter were found to exist for any value of $\beta$. Just from this obvious remark, it is tempting to infer that complex time singularities in shell models, when sufficiently close to the real time axis, encode the occurence of “blockades” in the energy cascade, leading possibly to negative excursions of shell amplitudes and more or less developed energy backflows. This interpretation is corroborated by the wild oscillations displayed by the phase of residues and also the fact that such objects form most naturally at the ultraviolet boundary as suggested by Fig. \[resi\_2\]. The system is bound to exhibit regular dynamics for $\beta \geq \beta ^{*}$ because it has lost these agents of disorder.\
Before closing this Section, we would like to mention that equations (\[residyn\]), which were introduced as an abstract auxiliary tool, may also be used more concretely for locating singularities of a real solution of the shell model (neglecting forcing and dissipation). Consider indeed initial conditions of the form $\vec{a}=i\vec{b}_{0}$ where $\vec{b}_{0}$ is arbitrary but real. It may be checked, by using manipulations similar to those leading in Section 4 to Eq. (\[transfsol\]), that stepping forward the fictitious dynamics (\[residyn\]) is in fact equivalent to integrating the original dynamics $\displaystyle{\frac{d}{dt}}\vec{b}=\vec{N}[\vec{b}]$ (from the initial condition $\vec{b}_{0}$) along a trajectory in time space parameterized as : $$t=-i \int_{0}^{\tau }\! \mbox{exp}\bigl(\int_{0}^{\tau '} A(\tau '')d\tau ''
\bigr) d\tau '
\label{cmplxtrajec}$$ where $A(\tau )$ reads : $$A(\tau )=Re \frac{\langle \vec{a}(\tau ),\vec{N}[\vec{a}](\tau )\rangle }
{\langle \vec{a}(\tau ),\vec{a}(\tau )\rangle } + i\delta\,Im
\frac{\langle \vec{a}(\tau ),\vec{N}[\vec{a}](\tau )\rangle}
{\langle \vec{a}(\tau ),\vec{a}(\tau )\rangle}$$ For $\delta =0$, $A(\tau )$ is real and according to (\[cmplxtrajec\]) the path followed in the complex time plane is parallel to the imaginary axis. The probability of crossing a singularity in this way is obviously null for arbitrary initial conditions. For finite values of $\delta $, the trajectory gets curved in such a way that, for $\delta > 1$, it finds with probability one a singularity of $\vec{b}(t)$ at the end.\
**Conclusion**
==============
Starting from a numerical investigation of the ON model, we were led to identify elementary bricks in its dynamics, which must exist more generally in any scalar shell model. Interestingly enough, they appear to have rather constrained structures. Naturally the construction of a statistical theory from these deterministic objects remains a hard task. But we think that a precise knowledge of their properties may help to formulate new questions. For instance the discrepancy found in the case of the GOY model for $\epsilon =0.5$ between the asymptotic growth of scaling exponents of statistical moments and the strength of extreme fluctuations is a puzzling fact, which clearly deserves further investigation. Another isssue concerns the selection mechanism of the scaling exponent $z$ of self-similar solutions whose present understanding is still poor. One must remember that the method developed in the paper is in essence dynamical. We cannot therefore exclude the existence of a larger manifold of solutions, out of which only the element with the smallest $z$ would be systematically observed. Clearly more mathematically oriented work would be welcome to elucidate this technical point, which may be of some physical relevance.\
[**Acknowledgment**]{}\
We are grateful to E. Gledzer for suggesting us to revisit the ON model. He was a constant source of inspiration during the course of this work, which benefitted also from many discussions with B. Castaing and Y. Gagne.\
------- ------- ------- ---------- -----------------
0.15 0.996 0.329 $\cdots$ $\cdots$
0.28 0.921 0.245 0.24 $\pm 10^{-2}$
0.33 0.889 0.223 0.213 $\pm 10^{-2}$
0.343 0.881 0.214 0.20 $\pm 2 10^{-2}$
0.348 0.878 0.212 $\cdots$ $\cdots$
0.7 0.721 0.054
0.8 0.692 0.025
------- ------- ------- ---------- -----------------
: Exponents $z$ of self-similar solutions in the ON model for various values of $\beta$. The left columns present estimates obtained from Eq. (\[computz\]) after a numerical integration of Eq. (\[projdyn\]). The last digit is given with an $\pm 1$ accuracy. The last two columns present data extracted from statistical analysis. The comparison between columns 3 and 4 show that scaling properties of self-similar solutions account in a satisfying way for large order statistics in the chaotic part of the phase diagram, even close to the transition where $z$ remains rather big.[]{data-label="tab:1"}
------- ------- ------- ---------- -----------------
0.398 0.684 0.018
0.5 0.719 0.052 0.12 $\pm 3 10^{-2}$
0.75 0.888 0.222 0.23 $\pm 10^{-2}$
0.8 0.946 0.279 $\cdots$ $\cdots$
------- ------- ------- ---------- -----------------
: Same quantities as in table \[tab:1\] but for the GOY model. One observes that $z$ takes rather small values everywhere in the chaotic part of the phase diagram ($\epsilon > 0.398$). The disagreement between columns 3 and 4 for $\epsilon =0.5$ is too large to be imputable to a lack of statistics. []{data-label="tab:2"}
{#section .unnumbered}
In this Appendix we establish the equivalence between stable fixed points of the dynamical system (\[residyn\]) introduced in the Section 5 and generic movable singularities in shell models.\
First, we observe that static solutions of (\[residyn\]), if they exist, are such that $\vec{N}[\vec{a}_{f}]=\lambda \vec{a}_{f}$ where the coefficient of proportionality $\lambda =\displaystyle{\frac{\langle \vec{a}_{f},
\vec{N}[\vec{a}_{f}]\rangle }{\langle \vec{a}_{f}, \vec{a}_{f} \rangle }}$ obeys : $$\lambda =Re(\lambda )+i\delta Im(\lambda )$$ If $\delta \neq 1$, $\lambda$ is bound to be real. The case $\lambda =0$ corresponds to $\vec{a}_{f}$ being an inertial fixed point ($\vec{N}[\vec{a}_{f}]= \vec{0}$). We discard this possibility (whose occurence would be easily identified in practice) and concentrate on the more interesting case of a finite value of $\lambda $. Then $\vec{a}=-\displaystyle{\frac{\vec{a}_{f}}{\lambda }}$ verifies as it should $\vec{N}[\vec{a}]=-\vec{a}$.\
Now we must ask about stability properties of $\vec{a}_{f}$. By linearizing the system of differential equations (\[residyn\]) around their fixed point, one finds the following evolution of small perturbations $\delta \vec{a}$ : $$\frac{d}{dt} \delta \vec{a} = \lambda (M+1) \delta \vec{a} + \ldots$$ where the terms hidden behind the dots are all directed in the direction of $\vec{a}_{f}$ and have been omitted for simplicity. As in Eq.(\[equacorr\]) of Section 5, $M$ is the Jacobian matrix of first order derivatives of the non linear kernel $\vec{N}$ evaluated at point $\vec{a}$ defined above. It appears that the space “transverse" to $\vec{a}_{f}$ belongs as a whole to the stable manifold of $\vec{a}_{f}$, if and only if all the eigenvalues $\mu_{i}$ of $M$ for $1\leq i \leq N$ have a real part bigger (resp. smaller) than -1 with $\lambda$ negative (resp. positive). The second possibility would lead to a divergence of the trace of $M$ in the limit $N\rightarrow +\infty$, which contradicts the assumption of a finite norm for $\vec{a}$. We are thus left with $\lambda <0$ and by the same token N eigenvalues $\mu_{i}$ of real part bigger than -1, which is nothing but the criterion for genericity established in Section 5.\
Finally, let us consider perturbations along the direction of $\vec{a}_{f}$ or $\vec{a}$. Since the dynamics (\[residyn\]) preserves the norm of $\vec{a}(\tau )$, they reduce to phase fluctuations which may be parameterized as $\vec{a}(\tau ) = e^{i\theta (\tau )} \vec{a}_{f}$. The phase $\theta (\tau )$ is found to obey the equation of motion : $$\frac{d}{d\tau } \theta =\lambda (\delta -1) \sin \theta$$ Therefore complete stability of $\vec{a}_{f}$ requires $\delta > 1$ (since $\lambda < 0$), as announced in the main text of Section 5.
M. Yamada and K. Okhitani, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**60**]{}, 983 (1988). K. Okhitani and M. Yamada, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**81**]{}, 329 (1989). M. H. Jensen, G. Paladin, and A. Vulpiani, Phys. Rev. A [**43**]{}, 798 (1991). R. Benzi, L. Biferale, and G. Parisi, Physica D [**65**]{}, 163 (1993). L. Biferale, A. Lambert, R. Lima, and G. Paladin, Physica D [**80**]{}, 105 (1995). L. Kadanoff, D. Lohse, J. Wang, and R. Benzi, Phys Fluids [**7**]{}, 617 (1995). A. M. Obukhov, Atmos. Oceanic Phys. [**7**]{}, 41 (1971). V. I. Desnyansky and E. A. Novikov, Sov. J. Appl. Mech. [**38**]{}, 507 (1974). E. B. Gledzer, A. B. Glukhovsky, and A. M. Obukhov, J. Theor. Appl. Mech. [**7**]{}, 111 (1988). E. D. Siggia, Phys. Rev. A [**17**]{}, 1166 (1978). T. Nakano, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**79**]{}, 569 (1988). O. Gat, I. Procaccia, and R. Zeitak, Phys. Rev. E [**51**]{}, 1148 (1995). Z. S. She and E. Leveque, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**72**]{}, 336 (1994). U. Frisch and R. Morf, Phys. Rev. A [**23**]{}, 2673 (1981). T. Dombre, U. Frisch, J. M. Greene, M. Hénon, A. Mehr, and A. M. Soward, J. Fluid Mech. [**167**]{}, 353 (1986).
|
---
abstract: 'An article usually includes an abstract, a concise summary of the work covered at length in the main body of the article. It is used for secondary publications and for information retrieval purposes.'
author:
- 'A. Author'
- 'B. Author'
- 'C. Author'
bibliography:
- 'aipsamp.bib'
nocite: '[@*]'
title: |
Sample Title:\
with Forced Linebreak[^1]
---
[^2]
> The “lead paragraph” is encapsulated with the LaTeX `quotation` environment and is formatted as a single paragraph before the first section heading. (The `quotation` environment reverts to its usual meaning after the first sectioning command.) Note that numbered references are allowed in the lead paragraph. The lead paragraph will only be found in an article being prepared for the journal *Chaos*.
\[sec:level1\]First-level heading:\
The line break was forced \\\\
===================================
This sample document demonstrates proper use of REVTeX 4.2 (and ) in manuscripts prepared for submission to AIP journals. Further information can be found in the documentation included in the distribution or available at <http://authors.aip.org> and in the documentation for REVTeX 4.2 itself.
When commands are referred to in this example file, they are always shown with their required arguments, using normal TeX format. In this format, `#1`, `#2`, etc. stand for required author-supplied arguments to commands. For example, in `\section{#1}` the `#1` stands for the title text of the author’s section heading, and in `\title{#1}` the `#1` stands for the title text of the paper.
Line breaks in section headings at all levels can be introduced using \\\\. A blank input line tells TeX that the paragraph has ended.
\[sec:level2\]Second-level heading: Formatting
----------------------------------------------
This file may be formatted in both the `preprint` (the default) and `reprint` styles; the latter format may be used to mimic final journal output. Either format may be used for submission purposes; however, for peer review and production, AIP will format the article using the `preprint` class option. Hence, it is essential that authors check that their manuscripts format acceptably under `preprint`. Manuscripts submitted to AIP that do not format correctly under the `preprint` option may be delayed in both the editorial and production processes.
The `widetext` environment will make the text the width of the full page, as on page . (Note the use the `\pageref{#1}` to get the page number right automatically.) The width-changing commands only take effect in `twocolumn` formatting. It has no effect if `preprint` formatting is chosen instead.
### \[sec:level3\]Third-level heading: Citations and Footnotes
Citations in text refer to entries in the Bibliography; they use the commands `\cite{#1}` or `\onlinecite{#1}`. Because REVTeX uses the `natbib` package of Patrick Daly, its entire repertoire of commands are available in your document; see the `natbib` documentation for further details. The argument of `\cite` is a comma-separated list of *keys*; a key may consist of letters and numerals.
By default, citations are numerical; [@feyn54] author-year citations are an option. To give a textual citation, use `\onlinecite{#1}`: (Refs. ). REVTeX “collapses” lists of consecutive numerical citations when appropriate. REVTeX provides the ability to properly punctuate textual citations in author-year style; this facility works correctly with numerical citations only with `natbib`’s compress option turned off. To illustrate, we cite several together [@feyn54; @witten2001; @epr; @Berman1983], and once again (Refs. ). Note that, when numerical citations are used, the references were sorted into the same order they appear in the bibliography.
A reference within the bibliography is specified with a `\bibitem{#1}` command, where the argument is the citation key mentioned above. `\bibitem{#1}` commands may be crafted by hand or, preferably, generated by using BibTeX. The AIP styles for REVTeX 4 include BibTeX style files `aipnum.bst` and `aipauth.bst`, appropriate for numbered and author-year bibliographies, respectively. REVTeX 4 will automatically choose the style appropriate for the document’s selected class options: the default is numerical, and you obtain the author-year style by specifying a class option of `author-year`.
This sample file demonstrates a simple use of BibTeX via a `\bibliography` command referencing the `aipsamp.bib` file. Running BibTeX (in this case `bibtex aipsamp`) after the first pass of LaTeX produces the file `aipsamp.bbl` which contains the automatically formatted `\bibitem` commands (including extra markup information via `\bibinfo` commands). If not using BibTeX, the `thebibiliography` environment should be used instead.
#### Fourth-level heading is run in.
Footnotes are produced using the `\footnote{#1}` command. Numerical style citations put footnotes into the bibliography[^3]. Author-year and numerical author-year citation styles (each for its own reason) cannot use this method. Note: due to the method used to place footnotes in the bibliography, *you must re-run BibTeX every time you change any of your document’s footnotes*.
Math and Equations
==================
Inline math may be typeset using the `$` delimiters. Bold math symbols may be achieved using the `bm` package and the `\bm{#1}` command it supplies. For instance, a bold $\alpha$ can be typeset as `$\bm{\alpha}$` giving $\bm{\alpha}$. Fraktur and Blackboard (or open face or double struck) characters should be typeset using the `\mathfrak{#1}` and `\mathbb{#1}` commands respectively. Both are supplied by the `amssymb` package. For example, `$\mathbb{R}$` gives $\mathbb{R}$ and `$\mathfrak{G}$` gives $\mathfrak{G}$
In LaTeX there are many different ways to display equations, and a few preferred ways are noted below. Displayed math will center by default. Use the class option `fleqn` to flush equations left.
Below we have numbered single-line equations, the most common kind: $$\begin{aligned}
\chi_+(p)\alt{\bf [}2|{\bf p}|(|{\bf p}|+p_z){\bf ]}^{-1/2}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
|{\bf p}|+p_z\\
px+ip_y
\end{array}\right)\;,
\\
\left\{%
\openone234567890abc123\alpha\beta\gamma\delta1234556\alpha\beta
\frac{1\sum^{a}_{b}}{A^2}%
\right\}%
\label{eq:one}.\end{aligned}$$ Note the open one in Eq. (\[eq:one\]).
Not all numbered equations will fit within a narrow column this way. The equation number will move down automatically if it cannot fit on the same line with a one-line equation: $$\left\{
ab12345678abc123456abcdef\alpha\beta\gamma\delta1234556\alpha\beta
\frac{1\sum^{a}_{b}}{A^2}%
\right\}.$$
When the `\label{#1}` command is used \[cf. input for Eq. (\[eq:one\])\], the equation can be referred to in text without knowing the equation number that TeX will assign to it. Just use `\ref{#1}`, where `#1` is the same name that used in the `\label{#1}` command.
Unnumbered single-line equations can be typeset using the `\[`, `\]` format: $$g^+g^+ \rightarrow g^+g^+g^+g^+ \dots ~,~~q^+q^+\rightarrow
q^+g^+g^+ \dots ~.$$
Multiline equations
-------------------
Multiline equations are obtained by using the `eqnarray` environment. Use the `\nonumber` command at the end of each line to avoid assigning a number: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal M}=&&ig_Z^2(4E_1E_2)^{1/2}(l_i^2)^{-1}
\delta_{\sigma_1,-\sigma_2}
(g_{\sigma_2}^e)^2\chi_{-\sigma_2}(p_2)\nonumber\\
&&\times
[\epsilon_jl_i\epsilon_i]_{\sigma_1}\chi_{\sigma_1}(p_1),\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\sum \vert M^{\text{viol}}_g \vert ^2&=&g^{2n-4}_S(Q^2)~N^{n-2}
(N^2-1)\nonumber \\
& &\times \left( \sum_{i<j}\right)
\sum_{\text{perm}}
\frac{1}{S_{12}}
\frac{1}{S_{12}}
\sum_\tau c^f_\tau~.\end{aligned}$$ **Note:** Do not use `\label{#1}` on a line of a multiline equation if `\nonumber` is also used on that line. Incorrect cross-referencing will result. Notice the use `\text{#1}` for using a Roman font within a math environment.
To set a multiline equation without *any* equation numbers, use the `\begin{eqnarray*}`, `\end{eqnarray*}` format: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum \vert M^{\text{viol}}_g \vert ^2&=&g^{2n-4}_S(Q^2)~N^{n-2}
(N^2-1)\\
& &\times \left( \sum_{i<j}\right)
\left(
\sum_{\text{perm}}\frac{1}{S_{12}S_{23}S_{n1}}
\right)
\frac{1}{S_{12}}~.\end{aligned}$$ To obtain numbers not normally produced by the automatic numbering, use the `\tag{#1}` command, where `#1` is the desired equation number. For example, to get an equation number of (\[eq:mynum\]), $$g^+g^+ \rightarrow g^+g^+g^+g^+ \dots ~,~~q^+q^+\rightarrow
q^+g^+g^+ \dots ~. \tag{2.6$'$}\label{eq:mynum}$$
A few notes on `\tag{#1}`. `\tag{#1}` requires `amsmath`. The `\tag{#1}` must come before the `\label{#1}`, if any. The numbering set with `\tag{#1}` is *transparent* to the automatic numbering in REVTeX; therefore, the number must be known ahead of time, and it must be manually adjusted if other equations are added. `\tag{#1}` works with both single-line and multiline equations. `\tag{#1}` should only be used in exceptional case - do not use it to number all equations in a paper.
Enclosing single-line and multiline equations in `\begin{subequations}` and `\end{subequations}` will produce a set of equations that are “numbered” with letters, as shown in Eqs. (\[subeq:1\]) and (\[subeq:2\]) below:
\[eq:whole\] $$\left\{
abc123456abcdef\alpha\beta\gamma\delta1234556\alpha\beta
\frac{1\sum^{a}_{b}}{A^2}
\right\},\label{subeq:1}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal M}=&&ig_Z^2(4E_1E_2)^{1/2}(l_i^2)^{-1}
(g_{\sigma_2}^e)^2\chi_{-\sigma_2}(p_2)\nonumber\\
&&\times
[\epsilon_i]_{\sigma_1}\chi_{\sigma_1}(p_1).\label{subeq:2}\end{aligned}$$
Putting a `\label{#1}` command right after the `\begin{subequations}`, allows one to reference all the equations in a subequations environment. For example, the equations in the preceding subequations environment were Eqs. (\[eq:whole\]).
### Wide equations
The equation that follows is set in a wide format, i.e., it spans across the full page. The wide format is reserved for long equations that cannot be easily broken into four lines or less:
$${\cal R}^{(\text{d})}=
g_{\sigma_2}^e
\left(
\frac{[\Gamma^Z(3,21)]_{\sigma_1}}{Q_{12}^2-M_W^2}
+\frac{[\Gamma^Z(13,2)]_{\sigma_1}}{Q_{13}^2-M_W^2}
\right)
+ x_WQ_e
\left(
\frac{[\Gamma^\gamma(3,21)]_{\sigma_1}}{Q_{12}^2-M_W^2}
+\frac{[\Gamma^\gamma(13,2)]_{\sigma_1}}{Q_{13}^2-M_W^2}
\right)\;. \label{eq:wideeq}$$
This is typed to show the output is in wide format. (Since there is no input line between `\equation` and this paragraph, there is no paragraph indent for this paragraph.)
Cross-referencing
=================
REVTeX will automatically number sections, equations, figure captions, and tables. In order to reference them in text, use the `\label{#1}` and `\ref{#1}` commands. To reference a particular page, use the `\pageref{#1}` command.
The `\label{#1}` should appear in a section heading, within an equation, or in a table or figure caption. The `\ref{#1}` command is used in the text where the citation is to be displayed. Some examples: Section \[sec:level1\] on page , Table \[tab:table1\],
Left[^4] Centered[^5] Right
---------- -------------- -------
1 2 3
10 20 30
100 200 300
: \[tab:table1\]This is a narrow table which fits into a text column when using `twocolumn` formatting. Note that REVTeX 4 adjusts the intercolumn spacing so that the table fills the entire width of the column. Table captions are numbered automatically. This table illustrates left-aligned, centered, and right-aligned columns.
and Fig. \[fig:epsart\].
Figures and Tables
==================
Figures and tables are typically “floats”; LaTeX determines their final position via placement rules. LaTeX isn’t always successful in automatically placing floats where you wish them.
Figures are marked up with the `figure` environment, the content of which imports the image (`\includegraphics`) followed by the figure caption (`\caption`). The argument of the latter command should itself contain a `\label` command if you wish to refer to your figure with `\ref`.
Import your image using either the `graphics` or `graphix` packages. These packages both define the `\includegraphics{#1}` command, but they differ in the optional arguments for specifying the orientation, scaling, and translation of the figure. Fig. \[fig:epsart\]
![\[fig:epsart\] A figure caption. The figure captions are automatically numbered.](fig_1)
is small enough to fit in a single column, while Fig. \[fig:wide\]
is too wide for a single column, so instead the `figure*` environment has been used.
The analog of the `figure` environment is `table`, which uses the same `\caption` command. However, you should type your caption command first within the `table`, instead of last as you did for `figure`.
The heart of any table is the `tabular` environment, which represents the table content as a (vertical) sequence of table rows, each containing a (horizontal) sequence of table cells. Cells are separated by the `&` character; the row terminates with `\\`. The required argument for the `tabular` environment specifies how data are displayed in each of the columns. For instance, a column may be centered (`c`), left-justified (`l`), right-justified (`r`), or aligned on a decimal point (`d`). (Table \[tab:table4\]
[ccddd]{} One&Two&&&\
one&two&&&\
He&2& 2.77234 & 45672. & 0.69\
C[^6] &C[^7] & 12537.64 & 37.66345 & 86.37\
illustrates the use of decimal column alignment.)
Extra column-spacing may be be specified as well, although REVTeX 4 sets this spacing so that the columns fill the width of the table. Horizontal rules are typeset using the `\hline` command. The doubled (or Scotch) rules that appear at the top and bottom of a table can be achieved by enclosing the `tabular` environment within a `ruledtabular` environment. Rows whose columns span multiple columns can be typeset using LaTeX’s `\multicolumn{#1}{#2}{#3}` command (for example, see the first row of Table \[tab:table3\]).
----- ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
Ion 1st alternative 2nd alternative lst alternative 2nd alternative
K $(2e)+(2f)$ $(4i)$ $(2c)+(2d)$ $(4f)$
Mn $(2g)$[^8] $(a)+(b)+(c)+(d)$ $(4e)$ $(2a)+(2b)$
Cl $(a)+(b)+(c)+(d)$ $(2g)$[^9] $(4e)^{\text{a}}$
He $(8r)^{\text{a}}$ $(4j)^{\text{a}}$ $(4g)^{\text{a}}$
Ag $(4k)^{\text{a}}$ $(4h)^{\text{a}}$
----- ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
The tables in this document illustrate various effects. Tables that fit in a narrow column are contained in a `table` environment. Table \[tab:table3\] is a wide table, therefore set with the `table*` environment. Lengthy tables may need to break across pages. A simple way to allow this is to specify the `[H]` float placement on the `table` or `table*` environment. Alternatively, using the standard package `longtable` gives more control over how tables break and allows headers and footers to be specified for each page of the table. An example of the use of `longtable` can be found in the file `summary.tex` that is included with the REVTeX 4 distribution.
There are two methods for setting footnotes within a table (these footnotes will be displayed directly below the table rather than at the bottom of the page or in the bibliography). The easiest and preferred method is just to use the `\footnote{#1}` command. This will automatically enumerate the footnotes with lowercase roman letters. However, it is sometimes necessary to have multiple entries in the table share the same footnote. In this case, create the footnotes using `\footnotemark[#1]` and `\footnotetext[#1]{#2}`. `#1` is a numeric value. Each time the same value for `#1` is used, the same mark is produced in the table. The `\footnotetext[#1]{#2}` commands are placed after the `tabular` environment. Examine the LaTeX source and output for Tables \[tab:table1\] and \[tab:table2\]
$r_c$ (Å) $r_0$ (Å) $\kappa r_0$ $r_c$ (Å) $r_0$ (Å) $\kappa r_0$
---- ----------- ----------- -------------- ---- ----------- ----------- --------------
Cu 0.800 14.10 2.550 Sn 0.680 1.870 3.700
Ag 0.990 15.90 2.710 Pb 0.450 1.930 3.760
Au 1.150 15.90 2.710 Ca 0.750 2.170 3.560
Mg 0.490 17.60 3.200 Sr 0.900 2.370 3.720
Zn 0.300 15.20 2.970 Li 0.380 1.730 2.830
Cd 0.530 17.10 3.160 Na 0.760 2.110 3.120
Hg 0.550 17.80 3.220 K 1.120 2.620 3.480
Al 0.230 15.80 3.240 Rb 1.330 2.800 3.590
Ga 0.310 16.70 3.330 Cs 1.420 3.030 3.740
In 0.460 18.40 3.500 Ba 0.960 2.460 3.780
Tl 0.480 18.90 3.550
: \[tab:table2\]A table with more columns still fits properly in a column. Note that several entries share the same footnote. Inspect the LaTeX input for this table to see exactly how it is done.
for an illustration.
All AIP journals require that the initial citation of figures or tables be in numerical order. LaTeX’s automatic numbering of floats is your friend here: just put each `figure` environment immediately following its first reference (`\ref`), as we have done in this example file.
We wish to acknowledge the support of the author community in using REVTeX, offering suggestions and encouragement, testing new versions, ….
Appendixes
==========
To start the appendixes, use the `\appendix` command. This signals that all following section commands refer to appendixes instead of regular sections. Therefore, the `\appendix` command should be used only once—to set up the section commands to act as appendixes. Thereafter normal section commands are used. The heading for a section can be left empty. For example,
\appendix
\section{}
will produce an appendix heading that says “APPENDIX A” and
\appendix
\section{Background}
will produce an appendix heading that says “APPENDIX A: BACKGROUND” (note that the colon is set automatically).
If there is only one appendix, then the letter “A” should not appear. This is suppressed by using the star version of the appendix command (`\appendix*` in the place of `\appendix`).
A little more on appendixes
===========================
Observe that this appendix was started by using
\section{A little more on appendixes}
Note the equation number in an appendix: $$E=mc^2.$$
\[app:subsec\]A subsection in an appendix
-----------------------------------------
You can use a subsection or subsubsection in an appendix. Note the numbering: we are now in Appendix \[app:subsec\].
### \[app:subsubsec\]A subsubsection in an appendix
Note the equation numbers in this appendix, produced with the subequations environment:
$$\begin{aligned}
E&=&mc, \label{appa}
\\
E&=&mc^2, \label{appb}
\\
E&\agt& mc^3. \label{appc}\end{aligned}$$
They turn out to be Eqs. (\[appa\]), (\[appb\]), and (\[appc\]).
[^1]: Error!
[^2]: Footnote to title of article.
[^3]: Automatically placing footnotes into the bibliography requires using BibTeX to compile the bibliography.
[^4]: Note a.
[^5]: Note b.
[^6]: Some tables require footnotes.
[^7]: Some tables need more than one footnote.
[^8]: The $z$ parameter of these positions is $z\sim\frac{1}{4}$.
[^9]: This is a footnote in a table that spans the full page width in `twocolumn` mode. It is supposed to set on the full width of the page, just as the caption does.
|
---
abstract: 'While there are a number of models that tackle the problem of calculating friction forces on the atomic level, providing a completely parameter-free approach remains a challenge. Here we present a quasi-static model to obtain an approximation to the nanofrictional response of dry, wearless systems based on quantum mechanical all-electron calculations. We propose a mechanism to allow dissipative sliding, which relies on atomic relaxations. We define two different ways of calculating the mean nanofriction force, both leading to an exponential friction-versus-load behavior for all sliding directions. Since our approach does not impose any limits on lengths and directions of the sliding paths, we investigate arbitrary sliding directions for an fcc Cu(111) interface and detect two periodic paths which form the upper and lower bound of nanofriction. For long aperiodic paths the friction force convergences to a value in between these limits. For low loads we retrieve the Derjaguin generalization of Amontons-Coulomb kinetic friction law which appears to be valid all the way down to the nanoscale. We observe a non-vanishing Derjaguin-offset even for atomically flat surfaces in dry contact.'
author:
- M Wolloch
- G Feldbauer
- P Mohn
- J Redinger
- A Vernes
bibliography:
- '../../PhD\_Papers/Bib.bib'
title: '*Ab-initio* friction forces on the nanoscale: A DFT study of fcc Cu(111).'
---
Introduction {#sec:Int}
============
In the $17^{th}$ and $18^{th}$ century Amontons and Coulomb formulated the basic laws of friction, which state that the macroscopic friction force is independent of the apparent contact area and varies linearly with the external load at moderate constant sliding velocities [@amonton:1699; @coulomb:1773]. These friction laws have been further extended by Derjaguin for adhesive surfaces, so that a non-vanishing friction force can occur even for zero load [@derjaguin:34b]. Although generally very successful, on the nano-scale deviations from this classical behavior have sometimes been observed depending on the sliding conditions. If the contacting surfaces are aligned incommensurately, friction can be reduced by several orders of magnitude and structural superlubricity may occur [@hirano:90; @hirano:97; @dienwiebel:04; @dietzel:13; @zhang:13], though this phenomenon is suspected to be unstable at least for graphene flakes on graphite [@filippov:08; @feng:13]. It has also been proposed that the drastic reduction of frictional forces may not stem from incommensurability but from thermal effects and the low effective mass of the nanocontact [@krylov:05; @maier:05]. Inclusion of third bodies between incommensurate contacts hinders structual superlubricity and leads to a linear behavior of friction on load [@he:99; @mueser:01], which is also recovered from thermodynamic considerations [@gao:04]. Other studies report a greater than linear [@gosvami:10], or sublinear dependence of the friction force on load [@wenning:01; @luan:05; @mo:09] where the latter is consistent with classic Hertzian contact mechanics [@hertz:1881]. Also even more complex dependencies of the friction force on the load have been reported [@eder:11; @vernes:12]. A more general overview on friction simulations on the nanoscale may be found in two recent reviews [@dong:13; @vanossi:13b]. Friction forces can also depend on the sliding direction as shown in experiments on rather complex geometries [@overney:94; @park:05], and recently by Weymouth et al. for a single atom asperity [@weymouth:13].
While the conventional method of choice for simulating atomic scale friction is classical molecular dynamics (MD), see Ref. and references therein, *ab-initio* density-functional-theory (DFT) apporaches [@hohenberg:64; @kohn:65] have become more common during recent years [@garvey:11a; @garvey:11b; @garvey:11c; @zibilotti:11; @cahangirov:12; @lf_wang:12; @j_wang:12; @kwon:12]. This is due to advantages in accuracy and the increasing power of computers which retain the simulation time manageable. In classical MD simulations, energy becomes dissipated to a heat bath via a thermostat, a method which is in principle also possible for DFT calculations. As simulation times for *ab-initio* MD are very short and thermostating is difficult due to a rapid heating of the electronic system, it is desirable to formulate a different way to describe dissipative sliding and to predict coefficients of friction within DFT. This may be done by computing potential energy landscapes and fitting the resulting energy barriers to mechanical models, for example the well known Prandtl-Tomlinson model [@prandtl:28; @tomlinson:29]. Another approach was suggested by Zhong and Tománek, who, in their “maximum-friction microscope” model, assume a complete dissipation of the potential energy into phonons and electronic excitations for each slip [@zhong:90; @tomanek:91].
Considering all these different concepts and methods, we attempt to formulate the problem of dry sliding friction on the basis of parameter-free (*ab-initio*) calculations, which rely only on the quantum-mechanical interactions of the sliding bodies. To this end we propose energy dissipation via the relaxations in the sliding materials themselves as calculated *ab-initio*. We will show that the concept allows to analyse arbitrary sliding directions and sliding paths up to $\mu m$ scale in length with a single initial set of DFT calculations. This permits us to gain insight into the different behavior of periodic and aperiodic (defined below) sliding directions by bridging four orders of magnitude in length scale.
Methods {#sec:Meth}
=======
As a prototype system to study our nanofriction model we consider two atomically flat slabs of fcc(111) copper in dry contact, represented by a $1\times 1$ hexagonal unit cell (see Fig. \[fig:0\]). Both slabs are described by two rigid Cu layers (grey spheres) representing the transition to Cu-bulk followed by a tribologically active zone consisting of four Cu layers (red spheres) which are allowed to relax in 3 dimensions. In preliminary calculations the addition of an additional free layer was found to not significantly change the resulting geometries even at the positions with the highest stresses. External loads are imposed by keeping the rigid layers at a given distance smaller than the equilibrium one. The full simulation box consists of 12 atoms using a bulk lattice constant $a=\unit[3.634]{\AA}$ determined from DFT equilibration, cf. in experiments $a=\unit[ 3.615]{\AA}$ [@wyckoff:63]. Due to the inherent periodicity of our supercell, a vacuum layer of about is included on top of the upper slab to decouple the periodically repeated simulation cell in the z direction. This 12 layer thick arrangement is comparable to a number of previous studies using *ab-initio* methods [@dag:04; @neitola:06; @wieferink:11; @zhang:11; @garvey:11a; @garvey:11b; @garvey:11c; @cahangirov:12; @j_wang:12; @cahangirov:13], and is sufficiently thick to approximate the elastic properties of copper while retaining computational efficiency.
![Sketch of the simulation cell containing 12 Cu atoms, tripled in the x and y direction for clarity. The top slab is displaced vertically to simulate several load conditions and in the x and y direction to collect data on energies and forces. Red atoms are allowed to relax, while grey atoms are kept rigid at their bulk-like positions. The gap at the interface is included for visual clarity and is of course not present under load when the slabs are compressed beyond their equilibrium distance.[]{data-label="fig:0"}](Fig0.pdf){width="0.51\linewidth"}
To investigate nanofrictional forces for sliding paths of different lengths and directions we apply a quasi-static grid approach, which means that the unit cell is sampled by choosing points on a regular grid for which the energies and forces are calculated (see Fig. \[fig:1\]). In addition to the advantage of being a parameter-free method, this concept ensures that the sliding direction can be chosen arbitrarily without recalculating energies and forces. The same holds for the length of the sliding path which can easily be extended to $\sim\unit[1]{\mu m}$, four orders of magnitude larger than the dimensions of the unit cell. To calculate the energies and forces for each lateral position a $10\times10$ grid is constructed in the x-y plane, resulting in a spacing of $\unit[\sim0.25]{\AA}$ between the grid points. A cubic spline interpolation is applied to refine this grid by a factor of 10 and create smooth energy- and force-surfaces. To simulate the usual experimental setup, we perform our scans keeping the load at a constant value which implies that the distance of the slabs needs to adapt. To this end the distance between the slabs is varied in 6 steps for each of the 100 grid-points, recording the respective volume $V$ and the total energy of the relaxed cell $E^{\mathrm{R}}$ which are fitted to a second order polynomial. The uniaxial pressure on the cell can now be evaluated by calculating the first derivative of $E^{\mathrm{R}}$ with respect to $V$ at each lateral position, namely $p=-\partial E^{\mathrm{R}}\,/\,\partial V$. The corresponding loading force $L$ is then obtained by multiplying the pressure with the cross-section area $A$ of the unit cell, $L=p\,A$. Choosing a load (given derivative of the energy vs. volume functions) we recalculate the respective energies and forces at each of the 100 grid points and obtain energy surfaces at that given constant load. Evidently that means, that the distance between the slabs has to be adjusted accordingly. Employing this process, which was also used in a very similar way by Cahangirov et al. [@cahangirov:12], we construct quantum mechanical energy- and force-maps for the quasi-static sliding system, both with and without relaxation of atoms.
It has to be pointed out that this model is not intended to simulate a macroscopic copper on copper system which would feature multiple grains, oxidation, impurities, and other imperfections. The aim is rather to study a model for dissipative sliding under idealized and controlled conditions. We believe that the modeled system and the computational method are ideally suited for this endeavor for the following reasons: i) commensurate sliding of a Cu(111) tip on Cu(111) was previously found to exhibit wearless atomic stick-slip motion, both in molecular dynamics simulations [@sorensen:96; @martini:09], and experiments in ultra-high vacuum [@bennewitz:99]. This is in contrast to results for Cu(100) on Cu(100) where both plastic deformations and wear play an important role [@sorensen:96; @nieminen:92]. ii) Garvey et al. showed in a recent series of papers on KCl sliding on Fe(100) that the investigation of shearing interfaces and the prediction of friction coefficients for such systems require very high accuracy in the calculated energies [@garvey:11a; @garvey:11b; @garvey:11c]. The Vienna Ab-Initio Simulation Package *VASP* [@kresse1993; @kresse1994a; @kresse1996a; @kresse1996b] applied to the copper system seems to be ideally suited for our study. The Projector Augmented Wave (PAW) code [@bloechl1994; @kresse:98] is much more accurate as for example embedded atom potentials but not as computationally expensive as highly accurate full-potential linearized augmented plane-wave (FLAPW) method which is needed sometimes for systems where the local bonding environment changes significantly [@garvey:11a]. We found that, while the considered system is small enough that the large number of calculations needed for the construction of accurate energy surfaces for various loads is still feasible, it is also realistic enough to work as a proof of concept for the proposed scheme to calculate friction forces on the nanoscale.
One of the main goals of this work is to examine the differences in nanofriction for different sliding directions, especially the differences between periodic and quasi aperiodic sliding paths. For all sliding directions we start in an energy minimum configuration corresponding to perfect fcc stacking. Different paths are distinguished by their angle with respect to the x-axis, see Fig. \[fig:1\]. When a sliding path exits at a unit cell boundary, the underlying lattice periodicity demands that it reenters on the opposite side. In Fig. \[fig:1\] we show two periodic paths with 0 and 30 degrees, respectively. The first (red path) in Fig. \[fig:1\] dissects the unit cell once along the Cartesian x-axis before returning to its starting point, whereas the second one (blue path) in Fig. \[fig:1\] cuts the unit cell twice. As can be seen from Fig. \[fig:1\] the energy variations along these two paths are distinctly different representing two extremal cases. Additional to these periodic paths we also consider 10 quasi aperiodic ones, namely for $-33$, $-29$, $-15$, $-10$, $3$, $5$, $10$, $21.13$, $45$, and $50$ degrees. We note that due to the inevitable representation of irrational numbers by rational fractions in a computer these paths are essentially also periodic, however, with very long periods. The forces acting on the upper slab have a parallel (friction) and an in-plane perpendicular (reaction) component with respect to the direction of the path. Since our model allows for both positive and negative contributions to the friction force, we use the convention that friction forces pointing against the sliding direction for a given sliding path are counted as positive.
As already mentioned all energies and forces are calculated with the DFT package *VASP* using the PAW method with an energy cut-off of . For the exchange and correlation potential, the Generalized Gradient Approximation (GGA) in the version devised by Perdew, Burke and Ernzerhof (PBE) is applied [@perdew:97]. As the strong chemical bonds in copper are well described with PBE and our results rely on the calculation of total energies, there is no need to explicitly consider van der Waals forces or meta-GGA. The Brillouin zone sampling is performed on a $\Gamma$-centered $24\times24\times1$ k-grid ensuring a total energy convergence better than per simulation cell. Atomic relaxations were converged to in total energy, with each electronic calculation being converged to .
![(color online) Energy landscape of a constant load scan for two fcc Cu(111) slabs displaced relativ to each other. In addition, two periodic sliding paths with $0^\circ$ (red) and $30^\circ$ (blue) are shown. The angles are defined with respect to the Cartesian x-direction. The arrows $a_1$ and $a_2$ are two basis vectors of the rhombohedral unit cell. The x-direction dissects the plane spanned by $a_1$ and $a_2$ and points into the $[\,1\,1\,\overline{1}\,]$ direction. The y-direction points into the $[\,\overline{1}\,1\,0\,]$ direction and is in the plane spanned by $a_1$ and $a_2$ and orthogonal to the x-axis.[]{data-label="fig:1"}](Fig1.pdf){width="1.0\linewidth"}
A central feature in the description of friction is to allow dissipative sliding. In principle, any modeling that involves smooth continuous energy surfaces, such as we get from our grid approach when using only the fully relaxed system, means that one moves on a conservative energy landscape, resulting in energy neutral displacements and frictionless sliding. An earlier *ab-initio* attempt to tackle this problem has been developed by Zhong and Tománek et al. [@zhong:90; @tomanek:91] who studied the stick-slip motion of single atom tips over graphite. In contrast to their approach and in order to describe the portion of energy lost into heat, we propose the following mechanism. Along each path we identify the local minima and maxima on the energy curve of the unrelaxed system. We assume static sliding without relaxations until a maximum in the energy is encountered, which in our model is representative of the “stick” phase of stick-slip sliding. At this point we allow the built up strain to be released by relaxing the tribologically active zone (the first part of the “slip” phase). The resulting energy difference is now assumed to be dissipated into the bulk crystal via phononic excitations and is ultimately lost as heat. Although the method is quasi-static the resulting frictional forces can be predicted sufficiently well, if the amount of energy that is lost during sliding is estimated correctly. The relaxed energy surface is also corrugated, thus, the movement to the next minimum may result in small gains or losses in the energy leading to small negative or positive friction forces along this portion of the path. This is the second part of the “slip” phase. When the next minimum in the unrelaxed surface is encountered the cycle is repeated until the desired path length is reached. If the local minimum of the unrelaxed energy curve is not at the same energy as the relaxed curve, an appropriate portion of the released energy from the last slip is used to bring the system back to the unrelaxed sliding position. With this method we avoid the use of springs to model the elasticity of the system, which is instead included implicitly in the relaxations. The process is visualized in Fig. \[fig:2\].
![Illustration of the energy dissipation model along a $50^\circ$ sliding path. The solid (cyan) line gives the energy for the unrelaxed slabs with the open (black) circles denoting local minima and maxima. The dashed (magenta) line shows the energy for the relaxed slabs with open (black) triangles marking the positions of the extrema of the unrelaxed slabs. The dotted (black) line is a schematic route for the calculation of the energy differences between the open circles and triangles, see equation (\[eq:F2\]).[]{data-label="fig:2"}](Fig2.pdf){width="1.0\linewidth"}
The use of unrelaxed energy curves, where the two bodies slide over each other statically, only adjusting their vertical distance to keep the load constant, is of course a rather crude assumption. However, for the two periodic sliding directions at $0^\circ$ and $30^\circ$ we also carried out more realistic shearing calculations that support our approach. In these calculations we use the same unit cell and drag the uppermost two (fixed) layers in small ($\sim\unit[0.1]{\AA}$) steps along the chosen sliding direction while holding the two bottom-most layers still. At each step the 8 free layers in the middle are allowed to relax and, in contrast to the quasi-static approach, these relaxed positions are the starting configuration for the next step. This method is only computationally practical for short path lengths and becomes extremely time consuming for long aperiodic paths. The vertical distance between the two fixed regions of the slab was kept constant during these calculations and at the equilibrium distance of the non-sheared slab, i.e. corresponding roughly to zero load. The results for the $0^\circ$ path are shown in figure \[fig:3\].
![A comparison between our friction model and a shearing simulation for the periodic $0^\circ$ sliding path at zero load. The entire period is shown. The solid (cyan) line and the dashed (magenta) line give the unrelaxed and relaxed energy curves for the quasi-static model, as seen also in figure \[fig:2\]. The black circles are fully relaxed data points of the shearing calculation.[]{data-label="fig:3"}](shear_0.pdf){width="0.9\linewidth"}
In the beginning the energy of the sheared slabs follows the relaxed energy curve from our proposed quasi-static model, but starts to deviate in the vicinity of its first maximum at about $l=\unit[1]{\AA}$. The sheared system is not fully relaxing into the total energy minimum but is still pinned in the potential well of the starting position, a common feature in stick-slip sliding. The slip is initiated only at the end of the period, where the built up stain energy of $E_{\mathrm{shear}}(0^\circ)=\unit[207]{meV}$ is dissipated and the system slips into the next minimum. This energy is actually underestimated by $\sim 25\%$ within our proposed quasi-static friction model at $E_{\mathrm{qs}}(0^\circ)=\unit[156]{meV}$ although we include contributions of the unrelaxed energy curve (see figure \[fig:2\] and equation (\[eq:F2\])). In contrast, applying the model by Zhong and Tománek [@zhong:90; @tomanek:91] to the relaxed energy curve underestimates the dissipated energy during shearing by more than 80% at $E_{\mathrm{ZT}}(0^\circ)=\unit[38]{meV}$.
For the $30^\circ$ (see figure \[fig:shear\_30\]) sliding direction the situation is different, as the shearing appears to become periodic only after the first slip with a much shorter period than in our quasi static model. Three small slips of roughly equal size happen during a sliding distance of $\sim\unit[4.2]{\AA}$ (from $l\sim\unit[2.0]{\AA}$ to $l\sim\unit[6.2]{\AA}$ in figure \[fig:shear\_30\]), which is comparable to one period in our quasi-static model of $\sim\unit[4.4]{\AA}$ where one small and one large slip occur. While the predicted slipping process is different the energetics are in excellent agreement, with $E_{\mathrm{qs}}(30^\circ)=\unit[286]{meV}$ being lost per period in our model and $E_{\mathrm{shear}}(30^\circ)=\unit[287]{meV}$ dissipated in three slips during shearing. Using the model of Zhong and Tománek underestimates the energy severely again at $E_{\mathrm{ZT}}(30^\circ)=\unit[104]{meV}$.
![A comparison between our friction model and a shearing simulation for the periodic $30^\circ$ sliding path at zero load. Two periods of the quasi static model are shown. The solid (cyan) line and the dashed (magenta) line give the unrelaxed and relaxed energy curves for the quasi-static model, as seen also in figure \[fig:2\]. The black circles are fully relaxed data points of the shearing calculation which shows periodic behavior after the first slip with a considerably shorter period than the quasi-static calculation.[]{data-label="fig:shear_30"}](shear_30.pdf){width="0.9\linewidth"}
This good agreement of our quasi-static results with the shearing calculations adds a convincing argument in favor of our model and justifies the seemingly *ad-hoc* application of unrelaxed energy surfaces. As the periodic paths that were tested in this way turn out to bound the friction force from below and above (see section \[sec:Res\]), it is reasonable to assume that the method will also yield plausible results for aperiodic paths for which the shearing calculations become extremely time consuming. The shearing was carried out at constant distance and not constant load, which would allow to adjust the distance between the slabs. This would decrease the pinning and lower the energy barrier, bringing $E_{\mathrm{shear}}$ even closer to the values obtained with our quasi-static model. We want to mention that our energies are calculated at ; finite temperature would of course reduce the effective potential corrugation so that a slip process could occur earlier, but this is equally true for both the quasi-static and shear model.
We want to point out, however, that the specific nature of the stick-slip process shown in the shearing calculation is not directly reproduced by our proposed quasi static model (see figures \[fig:3\] and \[fig:shear\_30\]). While the period lengths of the stick-slip cycle are in good agreement for the $0^\circ$ direction, they differ for the $30^\circ$ sliding path. Furthermore, the positions of the slip instabilities in the shearing calculations are of course not reproduced in our model, which allocates the slip points to the maxima of the unrelaxed energy curve. Thus, our new approach is not describing the “true” physical dynamics of the slip system, but rather provides a tool to arrive at much better estimates for the dissipated energy than the established model by Zhong and Tománek [@zhong:90; @tomanek:91], at considerable reduced computational effort compared to shearing calculations.
For the data containing the relaxed and the unrelaxed energy curves as well as the positions of the minima and maxima we propose two distinctively different ways to calculate the mean friction force denoted by $F^{(1)}$ and $F^{(2)}$. To calculate $F^{(1)}$ we determine the Hellmann-Feynman forces acting on the individual atoms in our *ab-initio* calculation [@feynman:39]. We perform an arithmetic average of all force components of the upper slab parallel to the sliding direction following the path described above, e.g., as indicated in Fig. \[fig:2\] by the dotted line. The contributions of the unrelaxed and the relaxed forces to $F^{(1)}$ are marked by the superscripts $U$ and $R$ while $N_{\mathrm{U}}$ and $N_{\mathrm{R}}$ are the total numbers of sampling points on the unrelaxed and relaxed energy curves yielding $$F^{(1)}= \frac{1}{N_\mathrm{U}} \sum_{i=1}^{N_\mathrm{U}} F^{\mathrm{U}}_{i} + \frac{1}{N_\mathrm{R}} \sum_{j=1}^{N_\mathrm{R}} F^{\mathrm{R}}_{j} \quad .
\label{eq:F1}$$ In contrast, $F^{(2)}$ is defined via the sum over the gains and losses of energy along the sliding path divided by the path length $l$, $$\begin{aligned}
F^{(2)} & = & \frac{1}{l}\Bigg[ \sum_{i^{\prime}=1}^{N_{\mathrm{max}}} \left(E^{\mathrm{U}}_{i^{\prime}} - E^{\mathrm{R}}_{i^{\prime}} \right) - \sum_{j^{\prime}=2}^{N_{\mathrm{min}}} \left(E^{\mathrm{U}}_{j^{\prime}} - E^{\mathrm{R}}_{j^{\prime}}\right) - \nonumber \\
& & - \sum_{i^{\prime}=1}^{N_{\mathrm{max}}} \sum_{j^{\prime}=2}^{N_{\mathrm{max}}} \left(E^{\mathrm{R}}_{i^{\prime}}-E^{\mathrm{R}}_{j^{\prime}}\right) \Bigg] \quad .
\label{eq:F2}\end{aligned}$$ The index $i^{\prime}$ iterates over all maxima in the unrelaxed energy curve and $j^{\prime}$ covers the minima while the energies are denoted by $E^{\mathrm{U}}$ (unrelaxed) and $E^{\mathrm{R}}$ (relaxed). $N_{\mathrm{min}}$ ($N_{\mathrm{max}}$) is the number of minima (maxima) encountered along the chosen sliding path such that $N_{\mathrm{max}}=N_{\mathrm{min}}-1$, as we always start and terminate our path in a minimum of the unrelaxed energy curve for both approaches.
Results and discussion {#sec:Res}
======================
With the methods described above we calculate the friction-versus-load behavior of fcc Cu(111). All averages are collected on paths of $\unit[1]{\mu m}$ length to get reliable values for the constitutive system parameters and to make sure that in the case of quasi aperiodic paths the whole unit cell becomes sampled. For both definitions of the mean friction force, $F^{(1)}$ and $F^{(2)}$, we observe an exponential friction law along all path directions, see Fig. \[fig:4\], given by $$\label{eq:exp}
F(L) = F_0 \exp \left( \frac{\mu}{F_0} L \right) \quad .$$ This result can be traced back to the exponential form for the binding energy in transition metals e.g. as given by Pettifor [@book:pettifor]. In a very general way the energy of bond breaking follows the *universal binding energy relation* (UBER) which also shows an exponential dependence on distance [@rose:83] which in our case depends linearly on load.
![Semi-logarithmic plot of the friction force $F^{(1)}$ versus load $L$ for the slip plane of fcc Cu(111). Both periodic paths $0^\circ$ (red circles) and $30^\circ$ (blue crosses) are shown alongside the quasi aperiodic $10^\circ$ path (green squares) which serves as a prototype for all other quasi aperiodic paths. The dashed black lines are linear fits.[]{data-label="fig:4"}](Fig4.pdf){width="1.0\linewidth"}
The form of the exponent in equation (\[eq:exp\]) incorporates the coefficient of friction (COF) $\mu$. Expanding equation (\[eq:exp\]) in a Taylor series around $L=0$ we retrieve a kinetic friction law of Derjaguin-form [@derjaguin:34b; @vernes:12]: linear in load $L$ plus the Derjaguin-offset $F_0$, $$\label{eq:taylor}
F(L)=F_0 + \mu L + \mathcal{O} \left( L^2 \right) \quad .$$ This behavior is well known in lubricated systems where the offset $F_0$ is attributed to adhesion resulting from the lubricant, see e.g. Refs. . In our dry system the strength of the adhesion, which for frictional purposes acts like an internal load $L_0$, can be estimated by simply lowering one slab down onto the other and registering the forces on the surface atoms. The resulting internal load $L_0$ is the maximum in this force curves depending on the lateral positions of the slabs. It ranges between $\unit[0.8]{nN}$ and $\unit[1]{nN}$ which is of the same order of magnitude as the maximum applied external loads. Of course the approximation of the exponential law with this linear expansion is only valid in the low load regime. For averaged values of all aperiodic paths the relative error reaches $10\%$ at a load of $\unit[90]{pN}$ which corresponds to a pressure of and should be regarded as the uttermost limit for the Taylor expansion. This low load regime is discussed in more detail later in the paper.
While all quasi aperiodic paths investigated for sufficiently long paths converge to the same friction force, there is a clear difference with respect to periodic ones, see Figs. \[fig:4\] and \[fig:5\]. As expected the $30^\circ$ path exhibits the largest friction as for each period it traverses the global maximum of the unrelaxed energy surface created by the on-top position of the contact atoms. This is in contrast to the $0^\circ$ path, which shows the least friction force at zero load and also the slowest increase with rising load.
As the energy loss for the $0^\circ$ path at zero load is underestimated by about 25% within our model compared to the shearing calculations, the difference between the aperiodic and the $0^\circ$ paths might actually be smaller than predicted. However, even if $F_0(0^\circ)$ is underestimated by our approach, in case that this discrepancy stays approximately the same over the whole range of loads, the predicted coefficients of friction should remain valid anyway. Nevertheless, the existence of a “hard” sliding direction at $30^\circ$, as predicted by our model, is supported by the shearing calculations.
![Plot of the mean friction force $F^{(1)}$ versus the path length $l$ for a load $L=\unit[183]{pN}$. Both periodic paths $0^\circ$ (red circles) and $30^\circ$ (blue crosses) are shown alongside three quasi aperiodic ones (green diamonds for $-10^\circ$, green triangles for $3^\circ$ and green squares for $10^\circ$). Dashed lines are plotted to guide the eye.[]{data-label="fig:5"}](Fig5.pdf){width="1.0\linewidth"}
In Fig. \[fig:5\] the reason why long paths are required ($\sim~\unit[1]{\mu m}$) becomes apparent. While the friction force for the $0^\circ$ path (red circles) shows essentially no dependence on the length of the path, for the $30^\circ$ one (blue crosses) the friction force oscillates in the beginning before converging to a constant value. This is due to the fact that the summation in equations (\[eq:F1\]) and (\[eq:F2\]) terminates at the last minimum encountered. For $0^\circ$ this happens always after a full period, while along the $30^\circ$ direction one has two minima per period (fcc and the hcp position), so that the total friction force average depends on the termination of the summation. It is obvious that with increasing path length the influence of the termination point becomes less and less important for the calculation of the average. In the quasi aperiodic case, where a short path length would only sample fractions of the energy landscape, it is evident that the friction force only converges for sufficiently long paths.
Both $F^{(1)}$ and $F^{(2)}$ lead to an exponential friction law, however, the calculated values of the Derjaguin-offset $F_0$ and the COF $\mu$, while showing the same trend, differ slightly (see Tab. \[tab:coefficients\]). However, this is not surprising given the two different approaches, see equations (\[eq:F1\]) and (\[eq:F2\]). Plotting both friction forces versus load curves for a given sliding path, one finds that $F^{(1)}$ and $F^{(2)}$ do agree well in the low to medium load regime while for loads larger than $L=\unit[150]{pN}$ higher deviations occur, as seen in Fig. \[fig:6\]. We attribute this discrepancy to the increasing influence of the reaction forces for large loads which are not considered in the calculation of $F^{(1)}$, but play a role in the dissipation mechanism and hence enter implicitly in $F^{(2)}$.
![Friction forces $F^{(1)}$ (green circles) and $F^{(2)}$ (green crosses) versus load $L$ for fcc Cu(111) slabs sliding along a $10^\circ$ path. The insert (black crosses) shows the difference $F^{(2)}-F^{(1)}$. At low to medium loads the difference is constant and corresponds to the disparity of the friction at zero load $F_0$[]{data-label="fig:6"}](Fig6.pdf){width="1.0\linewidth"}
The largest load considered in our simulations is $\unit[367]{pN}$, given the cross-section area of the unit cell $\unit[5.7]{\AA^2}$, this is equivalent to a static pressure of $\unit[6.4]{GPa}$ which is well beyond any realistic technological applications. Thus, it is important to analyze the low load regime of up to () separately. In this range the exponential law can be approximated reasonably well by a linear relation $F_{\mathrm{lin}}(L)=F_0+\mu_{\mathrm{lin}} L$ so that the COF $\mu_{\mathrm{lin}}$ is given by the slope, see Tab. \[tab:coefficients\]. It should be noted that the $\mu_{\mathrm{lin}}$ obtained in this manner are systematically larger than the values of $\mu$, since the slope of a linear fit to a segment of an exponential function is always steeper than the tangent of the function at the beginning of the segment. Since the ultimate tensile strength for annealed copper is approximately $\unit[160]{MPa}$ [@yu:04] an uniaxial pressure of more than will already deform the sample. However, it remains computationally feasible to study extremely high loads because the periodic boundary conditions imposed on our simulations restrict the horizontal movement of the atoms and the fcc (111) symmetry of the sample is preserved at all times.
Depending on direction and method we obtain a COF between $0.6 - 1.46$ which is one order of magnitude larger compared to the MD study by S[ø]{}rensen et al. [@sorensen:96]. This large difference can be explained at least in part by the small contact size in S[ø]{}rensen’s work that leads to slips mediated by a dislocation mechanism which is suppressed in our model due to the periodic boundary conditions. In 2006 Zhang et al. [@zhang:06] experimentally determined the friction coefficient for dry copper to be $\mu^{\mathrm{nc}}_{\mathrm{exp}}=0.78$ (nanocrystalline sample) and $\mu^{\mathrm{an}}_{\mathrm{exp}}=0.92$ (annealed sample). These values were found in the zero wear regime for a load of $\sim\unit[5]{N}$. The obtained COFs in the low load regime agree fairly well with our values for aperiodic sliding ($\mu^{(1)}=0.94 \pm 0.06$, $\mu^{(2)}=0.88 \pm 0.05$).
------------ -------------------------- -------------------------- ----------------- ----------------- ---------------------------- ---------------------------- ------------------------
$F_0^{(1)}[\mathrm{pN}]$ $F_0^{(2)}[\mathrm{pN}]$ $\mu^{(1)}$ $\mu^{(2)}$ $\mu^{(1)}_{\mathrm{lin}}$ $\mu^{(2)}_{\mathrm{lin}}$ $\mu_{\mathrm{exp}}$
$0^\circ$ 127 101 0.74 0.60 1.06 0.87 -
$30^\circ$ 159 109 1.03 0.91 1.45 1.46 -
aperiodic $157 \pm 4.4$ $121 \pm 2.7$ $0.94 \pm 0.06$ $0.88 \pm 0.05$ $1.33 \pm 0.14$ $1.25 \pm 0.04$ $0.78^{a}$, $0.92^{b}$
------------ -------------------------- -------------------------- ----------------- ----------------- ---------------------------- ---------------------------- ------------------------
\[sec:Con\]Conclusion
=====================
We present a novel approach to construct nanofriction vs. load curves from total energy landscapes generated by DFT calculations. The method is parameter-free as no external input is needed to compute the friction force since internal relaxations of the system are assumed to dissipate the energy. We are able to study very long sliding paths and find that the friction force on the nanoscale converge for all aperiodic paths to a value between the limits set by two paths along high symmetry directions (Fig. \[fig:5\]). Comparisons with more realistic but computationally more demanding shearing calculations, that were carried out for the limiting cases of low and high friction, show that, while the exact dynamics of the sliding system are not reproduced well, the estimation of the energy loss is significantly improved compared to established methods. We define two distinct ways to estimate the mean friction force which both lead to comparable results and yield an exponential friction law which in the low load regime can be expanded to a linear relation of Derjaguin form. These two methods serve primarily as an internal test of consistency of our model, however, since total energies can be calculated with a higher accuracy than forces, we would give preference to $F^{(2)}$ (as given by equation \[eq:F2\]). The exponential increase of friction with applied load is comparable to the experimental findings of Gosvami et al. [@gosvami:10] where a strong increase of friction at high loads was found for Au(111) and Cu(100). A similar behavior is found in Fig. 12 of Ref. by performing classical MD simulations. However, both groups attribute this strong increase in friction to the onset of wear at high loads, which is not considered in our work. We show that we can obtain good linear dependence of the friction force on the load in the low load regime (which is still under a high internal load due to adhesion) reminiscent of the Amontons-Coulomb law and also often found on the nanoscale [@he:99; @mueser:01; @gao:04]. The calculated coefficients of friction fit well to the measured values in macroscopic experiments, but there remains the possibility of a coincidental agreement which would require further studies, both theoretically and experimentally, to be ruled out.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work was funded by the “Austrian COMET-Program” (project XTribology, no. 824187) via the Austrian Research Promotion Agency (FFG) and the Province of Niederösterreich, Vorarlberg and Wien and has been carried out within the “Excellence Centre of Tribology” (AC2T research GmbH) and at Vienna University of Technology. P.M., J.R., and G.F. acknowledge the support by the Austrian science fund (FWF) \[SFB ViCoM F4109-N13\]. The authors want to thank Florian Mittendorfer for fruitful discussions and also appreciate the ample support of computer resources by the Vienna Scientific Cluster (VSC). Fig. \[fig:0\] in this paper was created with the help of the VESTA code [@vesta:11].
|
---
abstract: 'Contrary to a widespread belief, measures of velocity can yield a value larger than $c$, the instantaneous light speed in vacuum, without contradicting Einstein’s relativity. Nevertheless, the effect turns out to be too small to explain the recently claimed superluminal velocity by the OPERA collaboration. Several other general relativistic effects acting on the OPERA neutrinos are also analyzed. All of them are unable to explain the OPERA result.'
address: 'INFN Sezione di Pisa, Pisa, Italy'
author:
- 'B. Allés'
title: Relativity accommodates superluminal mean velocities
---
[2]{}
\#1[to 0pt[\#1]{}]{}
The recent observation of superluminal neutrinos by the OPERA team [@adam] (see also the MINOS collaboration [@adamson]) has prompted an intense discussion. Particle physics arguments [@cohen; @bi] or astrophysics data [@gonzalez; @fargion] seem to indicate that neutrinos could hardly attain such velocities. Moreover, and generally speaking, it is accepted that within the present physics knowledge, such velocities cannot be contemplated if the validity of the basic laws of relativity is to be maintained. In particular the causal structure of spacetime would be badly violated if superluminal particles existed.
However it should not be forgotten that such a causal structure holds good in special relativity, namely, in an ideal world where gravity is absent. When instead gravity is taken into account, a special relativistic spacetime arises only locally, in a close neighbourhood of every spacetime event $P$. Strictly speaking, with infinite mathematial precision, this is true exactly at $P$ (although, considering the inevitable inaccuracy of measurement devices, the region of validity of such an approximation turns out to be more or less extended, depending on the magnitude of the spacetime curvature at $P$). Thus, it should not come as a surprise that measurements carried out in a non–local way may apparently violate the main tenets of special relativity.
We are going to show that, although the [*instantaneous velocity*]{} of a particle cannot be larger than $c$, relativity consents that the [*mean velocity*]{} of the same particle may well exceed $c$. The interesting and appealing aspect of the above statement is that what the OPERA collaboration has measured is precisely the neutrino mean velocity.
To illustrate the above effect it will be assumed that the spacetime is satisfactorily described by the metric $ds^2=g_{00}dt^2-g_{ij}dx^idx^j$ where $(x^1,x^2,x^3)$ are general spatial coordinates and $t$ is the coordinate time. Throughout the paper mass and time units will be chosen such that $c$ and the Newton constant $G$ are 1. Also, the Einstein summation convention for pairs of repeated indices will be used with Latin indices indicating spatial components and Greek indices referring indistinctly to both spatial and time components. It will be also supposed that all metric components are time independent, $\partial g_{\mu\nu}/\partial t=0$, and that the time–space ones vanish, $g_{0i}=0$. This last condition is not essential (we include it to avoid lengthy mathematical expressions) and can be omitted without changing the conclusions of the paper [@explanationsynchro].
Consider a massless (or nearly massless) particle travelling along a spatial trajectory parametrized by a variable $\lambda$ and described by the three functions $(x^1(\lambda),x^2(\lambda),x^3(\lambda))$. It travels from the spatial point $P_1$ (where the parameter takes the value $\lambda_1$) to the spatial point $P_2$ (value $\lambda_2$). After having measured the physical distance $\Delta\ell$ between the two points (the metric is time independent), an observer at $P_2$ registers the time $\Delta\tau$ used by the particle to complete the trip. By physical distance we understand what one obtains for instance by lying rods in succession between $P_1$ and $P_2$ (a more realistic procedure to extract $\Delta\ell$ will be described in the discussion of the OPERA experiment). The time reading requires a previous synchronization among the clocks at $P_1$ and $P_2$. Then, the observer at $P_2$ defines the mean velocity of the particle as $$\frac{\overline{v}}{c}\equiv\frac{\Delta\ell}{\Delta\tau}\;.
\label{0}$$ Let us see what general relativity predicts for this quantity.
The physical distance $\Delta\ell$ is given by $$\Delta\ell=\int_{\lambda_1}^{\lambda_2}d\lambda\,\sqrt{g_{ij}\dot{x}^i\dot{x}^j}\;,
\label{1}$$ where $\dot{x}^i\equiv dx^i/d\lambda$. Viewed as a quadratic form, $g_{\ij}$ is positive definite. On the other hand, one of the several equations that govern the motion of the particle stems from the nullification of its proper time, $ds^2=0=g_{00}dt^2-g_{ij}dx^idx^j$, whence $$\Delta t=\int_{\lambda_1}^{\lambda_2}d\lambda\,\frac{\sqrt{g_{ij}\dot{x}^i\dot{x}^j}}{\sqrt{g_{00}}}\;.
\label{2}$$ Expression (\[2\]) gives the coordinate time interval employed by the particle during the trip from $P_1$ to $P_2$. To recover the time reading $\Delta\tau$ on the observer’s clock at $P_2$ one has to multiply $\Delta\tau=\sqrt{g_{00}(\lambda_2)}\Delta t$. Therefore the mean velocity recorded by the observer is $$\frac{\overline{v}}{c}=\frac{\Delta\ell}{\Delta\tau}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{g_{00}(\lambda_2)}}\frac{\int_{\lambda_1}^{\lambda_2}d\lambda\,\sqrt{g_{ij}\dot{x}^i\dot{x}^j}}
{\int_{\lambda_1}^{\lambda_2}d\lambda\,\sqrt{g_{ij}\dot{x}^i\dot{x}^j/g_{00}}}\;.
\label{3}$$ The dependence of $g_{\mu\nu}$ in (\[1\])–(\[3\]) on $\lambda$ comes through their dependence on the spatial coordinates.
The relevant fact that we wish to emphasize is that the mathematical framework of general relativity does not contain any mechanism whatsoever able to oblige (\[3\]) to stay equal or less than $1$. Rather, as remarked above, (\[3\]) tends to 1 only when the velocity measurement becomes local, to wit, when points $P_1$ and $P_2$ tend to coincide. Indeed, since $\sqrt{g_{ij}\dot{x}^i\dot{x}^j}$ is positive, the mean value theorem can be applied and it states that a value $\lambda_\xi$, comprised between $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$, exists such that $\int_{\lambda_1}^{\lambda_2}d\lambda\,\sqrt{g_{ij}\dot{x}^i\dot{x}^j/g_{00}}=(1/\sqrt{g_{00}(\lambda_\xi)})
\int_{\lambda_1}^{\lambda_2}d\lambda\,\sqrt{g_{ij}\dot{x}^i\dot{x}^j}$. Inserting this expression in the denominator of (\[3\]) we obtain $$\frac{\overline{v}}{c}=\frac{\sqrt{g_{00}(\lambda_\xi)}}{\sqrt{g_{00}(\lambda_2)}}\;,
\label{4}$$ which tends to unity as $P_1\to P_2$ because in this limit $\lambda_\xi\to\lambda_2$ also.
Let us consider an instance of the effect just exposed by studying the radial motion of a particle in a Schwarzschild metric (it characterizes the vacuum outside a spherically symmetric mass distribution with total mass $m$) in standard coordinates, $ds^2=g_{00}dt^2-g_{rr}dr^2-r^2d\Omega^2$ where $d\Omega$ is the solid angle and $g_{00}=1/g_{rr}=1-2m/r$. The massless or almost massless particle will travel radially from $r_1$ to $r_2$ (we do not specify yet whether $r_1<r_2$ or $r_2<r_1$). Because $g_{00}$ increases with $r$, following (\[4\]), we deduce $\overline{v}<c$ if $r_2>r_1$ and $\overline{v}>c$ if $r_2<r_1$. The detachment from the light speed can be better appreciated by plotting $\overline{v}/c$ against $r_1$ and $r_2$. Specifically, for the Schwarzschild metric we have (calling $\rho_{_A}\equiv r_{_A}/(2m)$, $A=1,2$) $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\Delta\ell}{2m}&=&\Bigg\vert\sqrt{\rho_2^2-\rho_2}-\sqrt{\rho_1^2-\rho_1}\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{1}{2}\log\frac
{(\sqrt{1-1/\rho_2}+1)(\sqrt{1-1/\rho_1}-1)}{(\sqrt{1-1/\rho_2}-1)(\sqrt{1-1/\rho_1}+1)}\Bigg\vert\;,\nonumber\\
\frac{\Delta\tau}{2m}&=&\sqrt{1-1/\rho_2}\;\left\vert\rho_2-\rho_1+\log\frac{\rho_2-1}{\rho_1-1}\right\vert\;.
\label{5}\end{aligned}$$ The absolute values in (\[5\]) make these expressions valid for both cases, $r_2>r_1$ and $r_2<r_1$. This is an important remark because the fact that the time intervals for the particle to go from $r_1$ to $r_2$ or for coming from $r_2$ to $r_1$ are the same allows to reliably synchronize clocks with the exchange of light signals.
In Figs. 1 and 2 the mean velocity $\overline{v}/c$ is plotted against $1/\rho_1$ for various values of $\rho_2$. Note [*(i)*]{} that we have deliberately excluded the region $1/\rho_1>1$ because otherwise the particle would enter the horizon of the corresponding black hole and [*(ii)*]{} that all plots touch the line $\overline{v}/c=1$ when $\rho_1$ coincides with $\rho_2$, confirming the validity of special relativity at short distances.
The case $r_1>r_2$ (the particle approaching the spherical distribution of mass) is shown in Fig 1. As viewed by the observer in $r_2$, $\overline{v}$ turns out to be always larger than $c$. This effect is particularly pronounced when the observer is close to the Schwarzschild radius $r_s\equiv2m$ (lower values of $\rho_2$) and for large separations $r_1-r_2$. For $\rho_2>100$ the resulting $\overline{v}/c$ is so close to 1 that the related plots cannot be seen within the scale of the vertical axis.
In Fig. 2 the case $r_1<r_2$ (the particle going away from the spherical massive object) is treated. Now all mean velocities come smaller than $c$, which looks quite surprising for massless particles. Again $\overline{v}$ tends to $c$ whenever the radial coordinate $r_1$ of the position of the particle’s departure is close to the radial coordinate $r_2$ of the position of arrival. Note the tendency of $\overline{v}$ to become null as $r_1$ approaches $r_s$ for every $r_2$.
![Mean velocity $\overline{v}/c$ of the particle travelling from $r_1=2m\rho_1$ to $r_2=2m\rho_2$ in a Schwarzschild metric for several values of $\rho_2$ as a function of $1/\rho_1$ and always with $r_1>r_2$.[]{data-label="Fig1"}](Figure_1.eps)
![Mean velocity $\overline{v}/c$ of the particle travelling from $r_1=2m\rho_1$ to $r_2=2m\rho_2$ in a Schwarzschild metric for several values of $\rho_2$ as a function of $1/\rho_1$ and always with $r_2>r_1$.[]{data-label="Fig2"}](Figure_2.eps)
As shown in the above plots, the superluminality or subluminality of the particle’s mean velocity is dramatically enhanced in regions of large curvature (near the Schwarzschild radius $r_s$). This stresses the general relativistic character of the the described effect.
A terrestrial experiment prepared to detect values for the radial velocity $\overline{v}$ different from $c$ cannot approach any Schwarzschild radius. If such an experimental set–up was constrained to use $r_1,r_2\geq r_\oplus$, the Earth’s radius, then $\Delta\ell$ and $\Delta\tau$ in (\[5\]) could be approximated with excellent accuracy to linear order in $m_\oplus/r_{_A}$ ($m_\oplus$ is the Earth mass) and (\[0\]) would barely differ from 1, $$\frac{\overline{v}}{c}\approx1+\frac{m_\oplus}{r_\oplus}-\frac{m_\oplus}{r_1-r_\oplus}\log\frac{r_1}{r_\oplus}>1\;,
\label{6}$$ where the observer has been put on the Earth’s surface, $r_2=r_\oplus$, and we have taken $r_1>r_\oplus$. For $r_1$ not much larger than $r_\oplus$, the percentage of excess of velocity is a meagre $(\overline{v}-c)/c\sim10^{-10}$.
To exemplify the above findings, we apply them in two cases: first, to the already mentioned OPERA experiment and, second, to the determination of the distance from the Earth to the Moon by exchange of light pulses.
In the OPERA experiment a beam of muon neutrinos was produced at CERN SPS and sent to the Gran Sasso underground laboratories (LNGS) in Italy where they were revealed [@adam]. The baseline distance $\Delta\ell$ was counted from the place at CERN where the proton beam time–structure is being ascertained (it is the so-called Beam Current Transformer or BCT) to the origin of the OPERA detector at LNGS. The coordinates in the Universal reference frame ETRF2000 [@boucher] of the two locations were obtained by two steps: firstly the coordinates of ancillary benchmarks placed outside the two laboratories were determined by a GPS campaign and secondly the distance between these benchmarks and the BCT at CERN or the OPERA detector at LNGS was directly measured by geodetic survey. The value of $\Delta\ell$ was then derived from the coordinates by usual Euclidean geometry [@colosimo] yielding $731278.0\pm0.2$ m (deriving it from the spatial part of the metric as in (\[1\]) would add a neglibible correction). Effects from geoid undulation, crust tides and continental drift (including earthquakes) do not significantly modify the above result. After an accurate synchronization between clocks of both laboratories [@tedesc], the baseline length was divided by the time of flight of neutrinos to obtain their average velocity. The result was larger than $c$ by an amount $[(\overline{v}-c)/c]_{\rm experiment}=2.48\pm0.28({\rm stat})\pm0.30({\rm syst})\cdot10^{-5}$. However, the mechanism described in the paper is unable to explain this excess. This can be easily seen by adopting the simplifying hypothesis that neutrinos travel over the sphere of the Earth’s surface and taking advantage of the fact that the angular sector of the Schwarzschild metric in standard coordinates is flat. Then $\Delta\ell$ equals the Euclidean result $r_\oplus\Delta\theta$ ($\Delta\theta$ is the angular separation between CERN and LNGS [@obtain]) while $\Delta t$ is $r_\oplus\Delta\theta/\sqrt{1-2m_\oplus/r_\oplus}$. Hence $\overline{v}/c$ is always 1. Eliminating the previous simplifying hypothesis (neutrinos actually traversed the Earth’s crust following the imaginary chord that joins CERN and LGNS) adds a negligible contribution of opposite sign (to verify this assertion an interior metric was derived at first order in $m_\oplus$ assuming a planet Earth with uniform mass density). The inclusion of the spin of Earth (for example by using the Lense–Thirring metric) produces an even smaller contribution (while $m_\oplus/r_\oplus\sim7\cdot10^{-10}$, $J_\oplus/r_\oplus^2\sim4\cdot10^{-16}$, $J_\oplus$ being the Earth’s angular momentum). Only the rotation of the observer’s laboratory at Gran Sasso induces a revealable effect but it affects the synchronization of clocks and therefore it has nothing to do with the topic described in this paper [@synchroCERN].
These considerations seem to imply that the observation of a superluminal velocity for the neutrinos of OPERA must be likely ascribable to other reasons: either purely experimental oversights [@bergeron; @dado] or really new physics peeping out (see [@amelino; @tamburini; @klinkhamer1; @giudice; @dvali; @mann; @drago; @li; @iorio; @alexandre; @nicolaidis; @klinkhamer2; @ciuffoli; @anber; @nojiri; @mecozzi; @morris1; @morris2; @pavsic; @bramante; @schreck] for a partial list of theoretical suggestions and criticisms).
Consider now the lunar laser ranging experiment (LLR) [@dickey; @williams] in which, among other ephemeris, the Earth–Moon distance is determined. It consists in sending a laser pulse from the Earth to the lunar surface where it is reflected (several manned missions in the past left corner reflectors on the Moon’s surface) and received back on Earth. Multiplying the time employed by the light in its round trip by the speed of light yields the Earth–Moon distance. However, assuming that the metric is well–approximated by the Schwarzschild one at linear order in $m_\oplus/r_\oplus$, the mean speed of the light ray turns out to be larger than $c$ and so, the distance should come out less than what it really is. To remedy this inconvenient and obtain at least an order of magnitude of the necessary correction, we resort again to expressions (\[5\]).
Establishing that the radial coordinate of the laboratory is the Earth’s radius $r_\oplus$, it has yet to find the radial coordinate on the Moon, $r_1$. This is achieved by inverting the formula for $\Delta\tau$ in (\[5\]). After some algebra we get the equation $$\exp\left[\left(\frac{\Delta\tau}{r_\oplus-m_\oplus}+1\right)\;\rho_\oplus\right]=\xi\;e^{\xi\rho_\oplus}\;,
\label{7}$$ where $\xi\equiv r_1/r_\oplus$, $\rho_\oplus\equiv r_\oplus/(2m_\oplus)$ and $\Delta\tau$ is half of the time (measured by terrestrial clocks) spent during the round trip. Eq.(\[7\]) can be solved for $\xi$ in terms of the Lambert $W$–function [@corless]. However, on account of the fact that $\rho_\oplus\gg1$, we can approximately set $\xi\approx1+\Delta\tau/(r_\oplus-m_\oplus)$. Inserting it into the first of (\[5\]) leads to $$\hbox{Earth--Moon distance}\approx\Delta\tau+\frac{2m_\oplus}{r_\oplus}\Delta\tau\;,
\label{8}$$ the correction being $2m_\oplus\Delta\tau/r_\oplus\approx53$ cm. It must be stressed that the above exercise has been presented in order to display an instance where the issue discussed in this paper yields a not insignificant contribution. With another name, this effect has surely been taken into account by the LLR collaboration. Indeed, the time lapse during the round trip of the laser pulse was evaluated in barycentric reference frame coordinates [@williams; @moyer] by including all general relativistic effects and leading to the Shapiro formula [@shapiro]. Moreover, in the original calculation of the LLR collaboration, the effects from all main Solar System bodies are included.
In conclusion we have seen that mean velocities in general do not conform to well–known special relativity principles. In particular, albeit amazing, the average velocity at which a particle has travelled for a long time can be different from the instantaneous velocities that the particle attained at every point along the trajectory, even when the latter was the same at all points. Indeed, special relativity adequately describes physics only locally while the average over large distances of a velocity must necessarily be introduced as a non–local quantity. Utilizing these considerations for understanding the results from the OPERA collaboration, we conclude that the real anomaly is [*not*]{} that $(\overline{v}-c)/c$ be positive but that it is a rather large number.
The discussion about mean velocities can be straightforwardly generalized to time dependent metrics as sensible definitions of proper time and length are also admissible on such metrics. An instance is the Friedmann–Robertson–Walker metric.
For the Schwarzschild metric, the effect described in the paper is driven mainly by the curvature dependence of the proper time $\Delta\tau$. Indeed, note that as $\rho_1$ approaches 1, the value of $\Delta\tau$ diverges while that of $\Delta\ell$ stays finite for any values of $\rho_1$ and $\rho_2$. This property is not general. For example, in a conformally flat metric $g_{\mu\nu}=f(x)\eta_{\mu\nu}$, $\Delta\tau=\sqrt{f(x_2)}\Delta t$ while $\Delta\ell=\int dx\sqrt{f(x)}$, which shows that any divergent behavior of the function $f(x)$ may influence both $\Delta\tau$ and $\Delta\ell$. An example of a conformally flat metric is again the Friedmann–Robertson–Walker metric, although it is more usually presented in Gaussian coordinates.
We have analyzed the case in which the observer stays at rest at one end of the particle’s trajectory. But of course other experimental dispositions are possible: the observer staying in the middle of the particle’s trajectory or even at a point outside it; the observer not at rest, etc. Also many possible definitions of mean velocity, other than the one used by OPERA (\[0\]), can be conceived. In all cases bizarre results should be carefully interpreted.
It is a pleasure to thank Mihail Mintchev and Giancarlo Cella for stimulating discussions.
[*Note added:*]{} During the refereeing of the paper we became aware of the existence of Ref. [@lust] where a similar analysis is performed. However the study presented here is more general and detailed.
T. Adam et al., arXiv:1109.4897. P. Adamson et al., Phys. Rev. D76, 072005, (2007). A. G. Cohen, S. L. Glashow, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 181803, (2011). X.–J. Bi, P.–F. Yin, Z-.-H. Yu, Q. Yuan, arXiv:1109.6667. L. Gonzalez–Mestres, arXiv:1109.6630. D. Fargion, arXiv:1109.5368. If the metric contained non–zero time–space terms $g_{0i}$ then, the spatial distance in (\[1\]) would be evaluated with the positive definite quadratic form $g_{0i}g_{0j}/g_{00}+g_{ij}$ [@moller] and the synchronization of coordinate times at distant points would require the inclusion of a lag defined by $-\int_{\lambda_1}^{\lambda_2}d\lambda\,g_{0i}\dot{x}^i/g_{00}$. Apart from these complications, the effect presented in the text would be, [*mutatis mutandis*]{}, qualitatively the same. C. M[ø]{}ller, “The theory of relativity”, Clarendon Press, Oxford (1972). C. Boucher, Z. Altamimi, “Memo: Specifications for reference frame fixing in the analysis of a EUREF GPS campaign”, http://etrs89.ensg.ign.fr/memo-V7.pdf. G. Colosimo, M. Crespi, A. Mazzoni, F. Riguzzi, M. Jones, D. Missiaen, “Determination of the CNGS global geodesy”, OPERA public note 132 (2011), http://operaweb.lngs.infn.it:2080/Opera/publicnotes/note132.pdf. T. Feldmann, “Relative calibration of the GPS time link between CERN and LNGS”, Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB) Report (2011), http://operaweb.lngs.infn.it/Opera/publicnotes/note134.pdf. An event occurring at coordinate time $t_{\rm CERN}$ at CERN is simultaneous with another event occurring at Gran Sasso at coordinate time $t_{\rm LNGS}$ if $t_{\rm LNGS}-t_{\rm CERN}\approx-\omega_\oplus
(r_\oplus\cos\alpha)^2\Delta\varphi\approx-2.3$ ns ($\omega_\oplus$ is the angular speed of the Earth’s rotation, $\alpha$ is the latitude of the CERN or Gran Sasso —assumed equal— and $\Delta\varphi$ is the difference in longitude of both laboratories). This time lag is related to the Sagnac effect and it has been discussed in [@colosimo]. $-2.3\pm0.9$ ns is precisely the systematic error identified in [@tedesc]. $\Delta\theta$ is obtainable from the geographical coordinates of Geneva (latitude=46$^{\rm o}$ $12^\prime$, longitude=$6^{\rm o}$ $9^\prime$) and Gran Sasso (latitude=42$^{\rm o}$ $28^\prime$, longitude=$13^{\rm o}$ $33^\prime$). H. Bergeron, arXiv:1110.5275. S. Dado, A. Dar, arXiv:1110.6408. G. Amelino–Camelia et al., arXiv:1109.5172. F. Tamburini, M. Laveder, arXiv:1109.5445. F. R. Klinkhamer, arXiv:1109.5671. G. J. Giudice, S. Sibiryakov, A. Strumia, arXiv:1109.5682. G. Dvali, A. Vikman, arXiv:1109.5685. R. B. Mann, U. Sarkar, arXiv:1109.5749. A. Drago, I. Masina, G. Pagliara, R. Tripiccione, arXiv:1109.5917. M. Li, T. Wang, arXiv:1109.5924. L. Iorio, arXiv:1109.6249. J. Alexandre, J. Ellis, N. E. Mavromatos, arXiv:1109.6296. A. Nicolaidis, arXiv:1109.6354. F. R. Klinkhamer, G. E. Volokik, JETP Letters 94, 673, (2011). E. Ciuffoli, J. Evslin, J. Liu, X. Zhang, arXiv:1109.6641. M, M. Anber, J. F. Donoghue, arXiv:1110.0132. S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, arXiv:1110.0889. A. Mecozzi, M. Bellini, arXiv:1110.1253. T. R. Morris, arXiv:1110.2463. T. R. Morris, arXiv:1110.3266. M. Pav$\check{\rm s}$i$\check{\rm c}$, arXiv:1110.4754. J. Bramante, arXiv:1110.4871. M. Schreck, arXiv:1111.7268. J. O. Dickey et al., Science, 265, 482, (1994). J. G. Williams, X. X. Newhall, J. O. Dickey, Phys. Rev. D53, 6730, (1996). R. M. Corless et al., Adv. Comput. Math., 5, 329, (1996) and references therein. T. D. Moyer, JPL Internal Memorandum 314.7–122, (1977) unpublished. I. I. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 789, (1964). D. Lüst, M. Petropoulos, arXiv:1110.0813.
|
---
abstract: 'Using the fluctuational electrodynamics and nonequilibrium Green’s function methods, we demonstrate the existence of a current-induced heat transfer in double-layer graphene even when the temperatures of the two sheets are the same. The heat flux is quadratically dependent on the current. When temperatures are different, external voltage bias can reverse the direction of heat flow. The drift effect can exist in both macroscopic and nanosized double-layer graphene and extend to any other 2D electron systems. These results pave the way for a different approach to the thermal management through radiation in nonequilibrium systems.'
author:
- Jiebin Peng
- 'Jian-Sheng Wang'
bibliography:
- 'MWref.bib'
date: 28 January 2019
title: 'Current-Induced Heat Transfer in Double-Layer Graphene'
---
Introduction
============
Understanding and controlling the heat flow is a significant endeavor both in nonequilibrium statistical physics and in practical applications. Managing radiative heat transfer (RHT) at small scales is essential for the development of a wide variety of technologies, including phononics [@bLi2012], near-field thermophotovoltaics [@basu2009review] and thermal photonic analog of electronic devices [@PhysRevLett.112.044301]. In the last decades, near-field radiative heat transfer (NFRHT) [@song2015near], where the separation distance is smaller than Wien’s wavelength, has been proposed to enhance the RHT through surface-plasmon polariton [@joulain2005surface], surface-phonon polariton [@RN14], and so on. The NFRHT between different materials, such as semiconductor or bilayer graphene, can be electronically controlled by the photon chemical potential or gate voltage bias [@PhysRevB.91.134301; @PhysRevB.85.155422; @yu2017ultrafast; @peng2015thermal]. Moreover, the novel electrically manipulated properties of 2D materials can give an additional knob to tune the RHT in nonequilibrium conditions.
Here we explore the RHT between two graphene layers (double-layer graphene) across a separation gap by drifting one of the layers with a constant drift velocity or voltage bias, through modeling by the fluctuational electrodynamics (FE) and nonequilibrium Green’s function (NEGF), respectively. We demonstrate the existence of drift-induced RHT in double-layer graphene, with intensity depending quadratically on the drift velocities or voltage bias. The RHT produced by the temperature imbalance can even be suppressed by drift-induced RHT, and the heat flux can be switched off by the voltage bias. We interpret that this drift effect is related to the negative Landau damping in graphene[@morgado2017negative]. The physics is generic and it appears in between bulk graphene sheets or nanosized flecks.
We consider a two-layer graphene system, where the bottom and top layer are labeled by 1 and 2 respectively, separated by a vacuum gap of distance $d$, and emitting thermal radiation at temperatures $T_{1(2)}$. Figure 1 schematically illustrates the configuration under our investigation. There is an electric current induced by a static voltage applied across the bottom layer of graphene. Due to the high mobility of graphene, the drift velocity of electrons in graphene can be on the order of the Fermi velocity of graphene, i.e., $10^6\, \mathrm{m/s}$.
![Scheme of a double-layer system under investigation: two graphene layers separated with a vacuum gap $d$. The chemical potential difference ($\mu_{1R}-\mu_{1L}$) induces electron drift in the bottom graphene layer, (a) perspective view, (b) top view.[]{data-label="figure1"}](Figure1.pdf)
Fluctuational electrodynamics description
=========================================
We generalize the usual formula for heat transfer, for which local equilibrium in each layer is assumed. Due to the current in the bottom layer, the system is intrinsically not in local thermal equilibrium. This nonequilibrium situation is taken care by a simple hypothesis of an energy shift in the distribution functions. When the bottom layer 1 is driven by a drift velocity $v_1$ in $x$ direction and there is no drift in the top layer, the photon distribution is Doppler shifted on the bottom layer. Thus, the Bose function becomes: $$\begin{aligned}
N_1(\omega, k_x) = \frac{1}{e^{\frac{\hbar (\omega-k_xv_1)}{k_b T_1}}-1},\end{aligned}$$ where $k_x$ is the wave number along $x$ direction. $k_b$ is the Boltzmann constant. Under the relaxation time approximation, the drift-induced distribution is similar to the distribution with chemical potential of photon in semiconductors. The heat transfer rate per unit area between the layers of graphene is then given under FE as [@rytov1959theory; @RN7]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{RHT_general}
H=\int_0^{\infty} \frac{d\omega}{2\pi} \int \frac{d^2 {\bf k}_\perp}{(2\pi)^2}
\Theta_{12}(\omega, k_x) \mathrm{T}_{12} (\omega, {\bf k}_\perp),\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega$ is the frequency of electromagnetic wave. ${\bf k}_\perp = (k_x, k_y)$ is the wavevector in the graphene plane. $\Theta_{12}(\omega,k_x) \equiv \hbar \omega\bigl[ N_1(\omega, k_x) - N_2(\omega) \bigr] $. $N_2(\omega)$ is the usual Bose function at temperature $T_2$. $\mathrm{T}_{12}(\omega,{\bf k}_\perp)$ is the transmission coefficient.
For an infinitely large suspended double-layer graphene with nanoscale separation, the $p$-polarized wave is the dominant channel for RHT [@PhysRevB.85.155422]. Based on FE, the transmission for evanescent $p$-polarized modes between a pair of two-dimensional materials in a parallel plate geometry can be written as (in the non-retardation limit, the speed of light $c \to \infty$) [@polder1971theory; @pendry1999radiative; @RN7]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Transmisson_p}
\mathrm{T}_{12} (\omega,{\bf k}_\perp)=\frac{4\,\mathrm{Im}(r_1)\, \mathrm{Im}(r_2)}{|1-r_1r_2e^{-2\gamma d}|^2} e^{-2\gamma d},\end{aligned}$$ where $r_1$ and $r_2$ are the reflection coefficients at the bottom and top interface of the vacuum gap. $d$ is the distance of the vacuum gap. $\gamma = \sqrt{k_x^2+k_y^2} $. The drifted reflection coefficient is computed according to $r_1= v_{{\bf k}_\perp} \Pi(\omega, {\bf k}_\perp, v_1) / \bigl[1- v_{{\bf k}_\perp} \Pi(\omega, {\bf k}_\perp, v_1)\bigr]$. The bare Coulomb interaction in wavevector space in two dimensions is $v_{{\bf k}_\perp} = 1/(2\epsilon_0 \gamma)$. $r_2$ is computed at no drift ($v_1=0$). We calculate the drifted polarization function following the approximation of Svintsov et al.[@svintsov18]: $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_{{\bf k}_\perp}(\omega, v_1) &=&
\frac{e^2 \mu(T_i)}{ (\pi \hbar v_F)^2} \int_0^{2\pi}\! d\theta\,
\frac{1}{(1 - \beta \cos\theta)^2}\times \qquad \nonumber \\
&& \frac{ k_x (\cos\theta - \beta) + k_y \sin\theta}{ (\hbar \omega + i \eta)/(\hbar v_F)
- k_x \cos\theta - k_y \sin\theta},\quad\end{aligned}$$ where we define $\beta = v_1/v_F$, the Fermi velocity is $v_F = \frac{3}{2} a t/\hbar$ with carbon bond length $a = 1.42\,$Å and hopping parameter $t=2.8\,$eV, and $\eta$ is a small electron damping parameter, which gives graphene a finite DC conductivity. Finally, $\mu(T) = 2 k_b T \ln [ 2\cosh\frac{\mu}{2 k_b T} ]$. The long-wave approximation (${\bf k}_\perp$ small) is valid as the contribution of the transmission is concentrated around $\gamma \sim O(1/d)$. The appendices further discuss details of the approximations and calculations.
![ (a) Integrated spectral transfer function $f(\omega)$ as a function of frequency and (b) $g(k_x)$ as a function of wave vector, with different drift velocities: no drift (blue dash-dot line), total heat current density $H=-0.84\,$MW/m$^2$, $v_1=5.0 \times 10^5 \ \mathrm{m/s}$ (red dash line), $-0.30\,$MW/m$^2$, and $v_1=9.0 \times 10^5 \ \mathrm{m/s}$ (black solid line), $+0.09\,$MW/m$^2$. The temperatures are $T_1=300\,$K and $T_2=320\,$K. The chemical potential of graphene $\mu$ is set as 0.1eV. Gap distance $d$ is set as 10nm. The damping parameter is $\eta = 9\,$meV.[]{data-label="figure2"}](figure2){width="\columnwidth"}
To understand the drift effects quantitatively, we define two integrated spectral transfer functions as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ISF}
&f(\omega) = \int \frac{d^2{\bf k}_\perp}{(2\pi)^3} \Theta_{12}(\omega,k_x) \mathrm{T}_{12} (\omega,{\bf k}_\perp), \\
&g(k_x)=\int_0^\infty \frac{d\omega}{2\pi} \int \frac{dk_y}{(2\pi)^2} \Theta_{12}(\omega,k_x) \mathrm{T}_{12} (\omega, {\bf k}_\perp).\end{aligned}$$ Figure \[figure2\](a) shows the spectral transfer function $f(\omega)$ as a function of frequency with different drift velocities. In the undriven case (blue dash-dot), $f(\omega)$ is strictly negative and the heat current flows from top layer to bottom layer due to the temperature difference ($T_1 =300$K and $T_2=320$K). It is the usual RHT between two graphene layers and the RHT can be tuned by doping or top gating (varying $\mu$). However, when the electrons in the bottom layer are drifted with a velocity $v_1=5.0\times 10^5 \mathrm{m/s}$ (red dash line) in Fig. \[figure2\](a), corresponding to an electric line current density $j_1 = (-e)n_1v_1 = 486$A/m, there is a small positive peak in $f(\omega)$. That means that part of the high-frequency modes can spontaneously emit external thermal radiation from bottom layer to top layer due to the drift velocity. Remarkably, with a higher drift velocity (black solid line), the height of the peak in the high-frequency region grows higher, and there is more heat transferred from bottom layer to the top layer. Qualitatively, the heat flux generated by a temperature difference can be suppressed or even reversed by the high drift velocity.
The above mentioned drift-induced effects in suspended layers can be further understood in Fig. \[figure2\](b): the distribution over the wavevector in the $\hat x$ (the driven) direction. In no drift case, $g(k_x)$ is negative and has the space inversion symmetry in $x$ direction. However, when we drift the electrons in $x$ direction, the $k_x$ symmetry is broken and the drift induced mode appears. In the $k_x < \omega/{v_1}$ and $\omega>0$ region, it is negative and the system locates at the normal Landau damping region. However, when $k_x > \omega/{v_1}$ and $\omega>0$, the drift induced modes carry positive value due to negative Landau damping. The total heat current is from contributions of all those modes. In low frequency region ($\omega<0.1$eV), the heat flux is dominated by the normal Landau damping modes. In high frequency region ($\omega> 0.1$eV), the negative Landau damping modes can be the dominant modes for heat transfer. Due to the unsymmetric nature with an $x$-direction drift current, heat can be transferred from low temperature layer to high temperature layer through the negative Landau damping modes.
![Heat current density as a function of $T_2$ (temperature of the top layer) with drift velocity $v_1=9.0 \times 10^5 \ \mathrm{m/s}$ (red solid line). Dotted line is the reference line for zero current density. The green circle indicates the point for “off temperature”. The chemical potential of graphene $\mu$ is set as 0.1eV. Temperature of bottom layer of graphene $T_1$ is set as 300K. Vacuum gap distance $d$ is set as 10nm. []{data-label="figure3"}](figure3){width="0.85\columnwidth"}
With the help of drift effects, we have demonstrated that the RHT in double-layer graphene can be tuned by the drift velocity, even shutting off or changing sign. To gain a detailed picture of the drift effects, we calculate the heat current density as a function of ${T_2}$ with fixed drift velocity $v_1=9.0\times 10^5$m/s. As seen in Fig. \[figure3\], the heat current density is almost linearly decreasing as the temperature $T_2$ increases. When $T_2$ equals 331K, there is no heat current between the layers and the “off temperature” for RHT is reached.
Nonequilibrium Green’s function calculation
===========================================
The above calculation is based on FE for the infinite suspended double-layer graphene. To extend drift induced effect in the nanoscale system, we consider a small graphene nano-ribbon of 72 atoms in each layer (see Fig. 1), connected to two baths, in each layer. The chemical potential difference ($\mu_{1R}-\mu_{1L}$) between bath 1L and bath 1R produces the drift electrons in layer 1. In such a nanoscale system, the Coulomb interaction (virtual photon or scalar photon) will be the dominant mechanism for RHT.
The calculation is based on a tight-binding model with a nearest neighbor hopping parameter $t=2.8$eV and Coulomb interactions between the electrons [@zhang2018energy; @wang2018coulomb; @peng2017scalar]. The energy transfer out of layer 1 to layer 2 of a nanoscale double-layer graphene due to the Coulomb interaction can be calculated through the Meir-Wingreen formula [@lu2016; @lu-AIP-2015; @MeirWingreen] under a lowest order expansion of the Coulomb interaction (see Appendix \[app-e\] for a derivation): $$\begin{aligned}
H =- \frac{1}{A} \int_{0}^{+\infty} \frac{d\omega}{2\pi} \hbar \omega {\rm Tr} (D^> \Pi^<_1 - D^< \Pi^>_1 ). \end{aligned}$$ Here $D^{>,<}$ is the greater/lesser Green’s function for the scalar photon, which is calculated from the Keldysh equation, $D^{<,>} = D^r \Pi^{<,>} D^a$, and retarded Green’s function is obtained by solving the Dyson equation, $D^r = v + v \Pi^r D^r$ ($v$ is the bare Coulomb potential with matrix element $1/(4\pi\epsilon_0 r_{ij})$ between the tight-binding sites $i$ and $j$ of a distance $r_{ij}$). $\Pi^{<,>} = \Pi^{<,>}_1 + \Pi^{<,>}_2$ is block-diagonal and is obtained with the random phase approximation (RPA). $A$ is the area of the graphene. Further computational details will be presented in Appendix \[app-d\].
Comparing with the calculation based on FE, the NEGF method provides a rigorous way to extend the drift effects into nanoscale ballistic systems without any phenomenological assumptions. Due to the smallness of the sample, the transport is ballistic with the electric current at the bottom driven layer given by $I_1 = (4 e/h) (\mu_{1R} - \mu_{1L})$, independent of the sample width or length. We do not observe Coulomb drag effect [@narozhny2016coulomb], as the electric current in the top unbiased layer is very close to 0, while the thermal current going into it is quite large, see Fig. 4(b). From the view of energy transport, the energy can be transferred from an electrically driven layer to the closely spaced but electrically isolated layer: the drift electrons are dragged by the Coulomb interaction between two layers, and the energy can be transferred at the cost of the kinetic energy of drift electrons.
![(a) FE calculation of drift-induced heat current density as a function of drift velocity. Vacuum gap distance $d$ is set as 10nm. The chemical potential of graphene $\mu$ is set as 0.1eV. (b) NEGF calculation of drift-induced heat current density as a function of chemical potential difference $\mu_{1R}-\mu_{1L}$ symmetrically biased and $\mu_{2L}=\mu_{2R}=0.1\,\mathrm{eV}$. Vacuum gap distance $d$ is set as 1nm. (c) FE drift-induced heat current density as a function of gap distance with drift velocity $v_1=7.0 \times 10^5\,$m/s. (d) NEGF drift-induced heat current density as a function of gap distance with $\mu_{1R}=0.15$eV, $\mu_{1L}=0.05\,$eV and $\mu_{2L}=\mu_{2R}=0.1\,$eV. There is no temperature difference between the double-layer graphene, $T_1=T_2=300\,$K.[]{data-label="figure4"}](figure4){width="\columnwidth"}
Huge heat transfer appears even for $T_1 = T_2$, which is clearly due to strong Coulomb interactions at short distances. A comparison of FE and NEGF results is presented in Fig. \[figure4\]. Using FE method, Fig. \[figure4\](a) indicates the drift-induced heat current density as a function of drift velocity with both layers at the same temperature. A parabolic dependence between drift-induced heat current and drift velocity is found numerically for small $v_1$. For large drift exceeding $|v_1| > 7.0\times 10^5\,$m/s, we see non-monotonic behavior. From the NEGF point of view, the chemical potential difference between left and right bath can produce an electric current and it is similar to the drift electron one in FE calculation. In Fig. \[figure4\](b), we found that the heat current density also quadratically depends on the chemical potential difference $\mu_{1R}-\mu_{1L}$. In our symmetric setup, we do not expect that the heat transfer will be different if we reverse the direction of the drift velocity or voltage bias, so it must depend on them quadratically. It is tempting to assume that the heat transfer is given by Joule heating caused by Coulomb drag. Unfortunately, this is not quite true (see Appendix \[app-c\]).
Further numerical evidence is shown in Fig. \[figure4\](c) and (d): the distance dependence of drift-induced heat current. Fig. \[figure4\](c) depicts the drift-induced heat current density as a function of distance under FE calculation with fixed drift velocity. We observe that the drift induced heat current decays initially as $d^{-4}$ when the gap distance is smaller than 10nm and decreases as $d^{-2}$ when $d>10$nm. A similar distance dependence is also observed in Fig. \[figure4\](d) for the nanosize sample with a larger range of $d^{-2}$ behavior. In summary, we proposed methods to describe heat transport without the assumption of local equilibrium. With FE method, the Bose function and Fermi function need to be shifted due to the drift velocity. For NEGF, we give a Meir-Wingreen formula with the input from a RPA calculation for $\Pi^r$ where the electron Green’s function is current-carrying and not in thermal equilibrium. We have demonstrated a drift induced radiative heat transfer in double-layer graphene. Such effects can be extended to any other 2D electron systems with large drift velocity or current. The drift induced heat current can even shut off the heat current produced by a temperature difference. It enables possibilities to exploit RHT through electronic control. Further, the proposed drift effects can exist in both large and microscopical systems. With wide-band tunability and nano-scale characteristic dimensions, the proposed drift effects appear very charming for the application in radiative thermal management.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank Han Hoe Yap for comments, and Jia-Huei Jiang for the codes. This work is supported by FRC grant R-144-000-402-114 and MOE grant MOE2018-T2-1-096.
Doppler shift
=============
In the appendices, we clarify some points made in the main texts and give some further details.
We first note that the function $\Pi^r_{\bf k}(\omega)$ is a description of the bosonic charge density plasmon. In particular, we consider a plasmon planewave $e^{i( {\bf k} \cdot {\bf r}-\omega t)}$ with frequency $\omega$ and wavevector ${\bf k}$. Let ${\bf v}_1$ describe the drift velocity of the electrons. If the wave ${\bf k}$ of the plasmon and the electron drift velocity ${\bf v}_1$ are in the same direction, electrons will “see” less vibrations, thus $\omega$ decreases. So the Doppler shift is, $\omega \rightarrow \omega + \delta \omega = \omega - {\bf k} \cdot {\bf v}_1 = \omega - k_x v_1$.
Doppler shift or not for scalar photon self-energy
==================================================
The scalar photon self energies or polarization functions under the random phase approximation are, in time domain and real space, $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_{jk}^>(t) &=& (-i\hbar)e^2 G_{jk}^>(t) G_{kj}^<(-t),\\
\Pi_{jk}^<(t) &=& (-i\hbar)e^2 G_{jk}^<(t) G_{kj}^>(-t),\\
\Pi_{jk}^r(t) &=& \theta(t) \bigl( \Pi_{jk}^>(t) - \Pi_{jk}^<(t) \bigr).\end{aligned}$$ We obtain the frequency and wavevector domain quantities if we Fourier transform the time and space. For simplicity of notation, we consider spinless electrons with a single band, $\epsilon_{\bf k}$. Since the system is not in thermal equilibrium, we cannot evoke the usual fluctuation-dissipation theorem, but something very close to it. We use the Kadanoff-Baym ansatz [@kadanoffbaym], i.e., $$G^< = -f (G^r - G^a),\quad G^> = (1 -f) (G^r - G^a),$$ where $f$ is given by the solution of Boltzmann equation. The spectrum function, $A = i (G^r - G^a)$, is assumed to be evaluated in thermal equilibrium. In wavevector and angular frequency domain, we can write [@mahan00; @duppen16] $$\label{eqpir}
\Pi^r_{\bf k}(\omega) = - e^2 \int \frac{d^2\bf p}{(2\pi)^2} \frac{ f_{\bf p} - f_{{\bf p} - {\bf k}}}{\hbar \omega + i \eta -
\epsilon_{\bf p} + \epsilon_{{\bf p} - {\bf k}}}.$$ Here the integration is over the first Brillouin zone, and $\eta$ is a small damping parameter inversely proportional to the relaxation time.
As the relaxation mechanism for the electrons can be very complicated due to different scattering possibilities – impurity scatterings, electron-electron and electron-phonon scatterings – we do not attempt to solve the Boltzmann equation, and just use a single-mode relaxation time approximation [@ziman60]. In such a framework, we can write $$f = f^0 - \frac{df^0}{d \epsilon} \Phi \approx f^0(\epsilon - \Phi),$$ here $\Phi \equiv \Phi_{\bf k}$ is mode ${\bf k}$ dependent, and $f^0 = 1/\bigl[\exp((\epsilon - \mu)/(k_bT)) + 1\bigr]$ is the equilibrium Fermi distribution at temperature $T$ and chemical potential $\mu$.
The effect of the current drift is to introduce anisotropy to the problem, thus we expect $\Phi$ should be angle and magnitude dependent, $\Phi_{\bf k} = \Phi(\theta, k)$, here $\theta$ is the angle between ${\bf k}$ and the drift velocity ${\bf v}_1$ and $k = | {\bf k}|$ is the magnitude of the wavevector. We make a Legendre polynomial expansion of the angular dependence and keep only the lowest non-trivial term, i.e., we write, $\Phi \propto \cos(\theta)$. It is convenient to assume $$\label{eqphik}
\Phi_{\bf k} = \hbar k_x v_1 = \hbar v_1 k \cos\theta.$$ If $\Phi$ does take this linear dependence on $k_x$, the nonequilibrium distribution might be transformed back to the equilibrium one of $f^0$ by a change of reference frame. That is, $$\label{noneq-eq}
\Pi^{>,<,r}_{{\bf k}, \rm noneq}(\omega) \approx \Pi^{>,<,r}_{{\bf k}, \rm eq}(\omega - k_x v_1).$$ In steady state, the fluctuation-dissipation like relation for photon self-energy can be obtained from Eq. (\[noneq-eq\]) even if there is drifted electron current: $$\begin{aligned}
&\Pi^{<}_{{\bf k}, \rm noneq}(\omega) = 2 i N_{{\bf k}, \rm noneq}(\omega) \mathrm{Im} \Pi^{r}_{{\bf k}, \rm noneq}(\omega),\\
&N_{{\bf k}, \rm noneq}(\omega)\approx N(\omega-k_x v_1),\end{aligned}$$ where $N(\omega) = 1/(e^{\hbar \omega/(k_bT)}-1)$ is the Bose distribution.
The reflection coefficient needed for the heat transfer calculation is then obtained from the relation $r = v \Pi^r/( 1 - v \Pi^r)$ with bare Coulomb potential in two dimensions $v = 1/(2 \epsilon_0 k)$. The optical conductivity is related to the retarded self energy by $\sigma = i \frac{\omega}{k^2} \Pi^r_{\bf k}(\omega)$.
![Imaginary part of $\Pi^r({\bf k}, \omega, v_1) - \Pi^r({\bf k}, \omega, 0)$, with ${\bf k} = (k_x,0)$, $v_1 = 5 \times 10^5$m/s, at chemical potential $\mu = 0.1\,$eV. Left graph has $k_x = K/1000$ and right 10 time larger, $K = 4\pi/(3 \sqrt{3} a)$ is the magnitude of the K-point vector from the $\Gamma$ point, $a=1.42\,$Å is carbon bond length. Temperature is set at 100K. A damping parameter in $\hbar \omega \to \hbar \omega + i\eta$ is set to $\eta = 3.3\,$meV. The legends apply to both graphs, full black solid line: tight-binding lattice model with nearest neighbor hopping parameter $t=2.8\,$eV, red dash line: Doppler shifted Wunsch et al. expression, green dot-dash line: Doppler shifted Falkovsky’s expression, blue circles: Svintsov et al expression, orange pluses: numerical integration of Eq. (\[eqpir\]).[]{data-label="figurePi"}](figurePi){width="\columnwidth"}
For a quadratic dispersion relation, $\epsilon_{\bf k} = \hbar^2 k^2/(2m)$, the claim, Eq. (\[noneq-eq\]), is easily verified using the explicit expression for $\Pi^r$, Eq. (\[eqpir\]), by a change of integration variable with a constant shift, ${\bf p} \to {\bf p} + m{\bf v}_1/\hbar$. For graphene with Dirac cone, $\epsilon_{\bf k} = v_F\, \hbar k$, this is no longer true. A variable transform cannot eliminate both $\Phi_{\bf p}$ and $\Phi_{{\bf p}-{\bf q}}$ simultaneously. As a result, Doppler shift of the equilibrium result and nonequilibrium distribution in the Fermi function becomes inequivalent[@svintsov18]. The energy shift needs to be momentum dependent. The linear dependence on $k_x$ times a constant requires a specific assumption on the energy dependence of the relaxation times. According to the usual relaxation time approximation, $\Phi$ is given by (near $K$ or $K'$ points) $$\Phi = - e E \tau_{k} \frac{\partial \epsilon_{\bf k}}{\partial ( \hbar k_x )},$$ where electron carries charge $-e$, $E$ is the applied electric field in $x$ direction, $\tau_k$ is the relaxation time assumed to only depend on the magnitude of ${\bf k}$, and the last factor is the group velocity. For a metal with the usual quadratic dispersion, Eq. (\[eqphik\]) is true if we use constant relaxation time, which turns out to be very good approximation for metal. For graphene, the group velocity in $x$-direction is $v_F \cos(\theta)$ with the Fermi velocity a constant, thus we must demand a relaxation time proportional to $k$, which turns out in agreement with experiments [@antonio-RMP2009]. For a full lattice model numerical calculation such that $\Phi_{\bf k}$ respects the lattice symmetry, we take the drift term to be $\Phi_{\bf k} = v_1 {\rm Re} \left[ z^{*} \frac{\partial z}{\partial k_x} \right]/ (\hbar v_F^2)$, where $v_F = 3 a t/(2\hbar)$ is the graphene Fermi velocity, and $z =
-t ( e^{-i k_x a} + e^{i (k_x a/2 + k_y a \sqrt{3}/2)} + e^{i (k_x a/2 - k_y a \sqrt{3}/2)} )$. In Fig. \[figurePi\], we compare Doppler shifted Wunsch et al. expression [@guinea06] (or that of Hwang and Sarma [@hwang-sarma07]) which is a nonlocal result at zero temperature or that of Falkovsky’s small $q$ (local) result[@falkovsky08] at $T=100\,$K. As we can see they differ a lot and do not agree with the correct way of evaluating the drifted polarization function. On this scale of vertical axis, they also tend to diverge to plus or minus infinity. However, Svintsov et al. expression [@svintsov18] (with a correction of a sign error in the denominator), $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi^r_{(k_x, k_y \!=\! 0)}(\omega, v_1) &=&
-\frac{2}{\pi} \frac{e^2 \mu}{(\hbar v_F)^2} \frac{1}{(1-s\beta)^2}\Bigg(\qquad\qquad\qquad \\
&&\qquad \sqrt{1-\beta^2} - \frac{s-\beta}{\sqrt{s^2-1}}\Bigg), \\
\beta &=& {\rm sgn}(k_x) \frac{v_1}{v_F}, \quad s = \frac{\hbar \omega + i\eta}{\hbar |k_x| v_F},\end{aligned}$$ agrees very well with a full lattice model calculation [@jia-huei17]. When the chemical potential is much larger than $k_b T$ and at $\omega > v_F k \to 0$, we have an excellent approximation for the equilibrium polarization $$\Pi^r_{\bf k}(\omega) \approx \frac{e^2 \mu}{\pi} \frac{k^2}{(\hbar \omega + i \eta)^2}.$$ Doppler shift of this expression in the small $v_1$ limit gives $\Delta \Pi^r = \Pi^r(v_1) - \Pi^r(0) \approx
2 D$, while Svintsov et al. expression in this limit is $-D$, where $D= (e^2 \mu/\pi)\hbar v_1 [k/(\hbar \omega + i \eta)]^3$. Both the sign and magnitude are different, contrary to the claim in ref. .
Possible connection to Coulomb drag\[app-c\]
============================================
Since we expect that the drift velocity $v_1$ is a small quantity, we can make linear, or rather, quadratic response calculations. Taylor expanding in variable $\delta \omega = - k_x v_1$ of the distribution $N_1$ of Eq. (1) in the main text to second order and the transmission function to first order, and then substituting into Eq. (2), and setting the temperatures $T_1 = T_2 = T$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
H &=& \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\!\! \frac{d\omega}{4\pi} \hbar \omega
\int \frac{d^2 {\bf k}}{(2\pi)^2} T_{12}({\bf k}, \omega)\Big|_{v_1=0} \frac{1}{2} \frac{\partial^2 N}{\partial \omega^2}
\bigl( \delta \omega \bigr)^2 \nonumber \\
&+& \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\!\! \frac{d\omega}{4\pi} \hbar \omega
\int \frac{d^2 {\bf k}}{(2\pi)^2} \frac{\partial T_{12}({\bf k}, \omega)}{\partial v_1}\Big|_{v_1 =0} \frac{\partial N}{\partial \omega}
\bigl( v_1 \delta \omega \bigr) \nonumber.\end{aligned}$$ The first order term proportional to $\delta \omega$ is 0 because it is an odd function in $k_x$. We will write this long expression as $H = a\, v_1^2 = (a_1 +a_2) v_1^2$ where $a_1$ is from the $(\delta \omega)^2$ term and $a_2$ from the cross term. The coefficient $a_2$ is complicated, hence we focus only on $a_1$. Since the integral over $k_x^2$ and $k_y^2$ factor is the same, we symmetrize the formula about $x$ and $y$ and divide by two. With further simplification of the second derivation of the Bose function, we obtain $$a_1 = \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{d\omega}{4\pi} \int \frac{d^2 {\bf k}}{(2\pi)^2}
\frac{ T_{12}({\bf k}, \omega)\, k^2 (\beta \hbar)^2 \hbar \omega }{ 16 \sinh^2(\frac{\beta \hbar \omega}{2})
\tanh(\frac{\beta \hbar \omega}{2}) }.$$ Here $T_{12}$ is defined in the main text by Eq. (\[Transmisson\_p\]), evaluated at $v_1=0$, $\beta = 1/(k_b T)$. Finally, we make one approximation, that is to assume $\tanh(x) \approx x$ valid if frequency is small in comparison with temperature. Then, we find $$a_1 \approx e^2 n_1^2 \rho_D,$$ if we compare our formula with that of Jauho and Smith[@jauho-smith1993] (Eq. (5) and (27)) and that of Flensberg and Hu[@flensberg-hu1995] (Eq. (2) and (20)). Here $n_1$ is the carrier surface density and $\rho_D$ is the Coulomb drag coefficient. Because of the existence of the second term, $a_2$, we don’t have a simple interpretation of Joule heating due to Coulomb drag. Numerically, for the parameters used for Fig. 4(a) in the main texts, we find $a_1 = 5.5 \times 10^{-6}\,$Ws$^2$/m$^4$, while $a_2 = - 4.3 \times 10^{-6}\,$Ws$^2$/m$^4$. There is a cancellation effect, given a smaller overall $a$.
Numerical calculation of the NEGF conjunction system\[app-e\]
=============================================================
For the 4-terminal junction double-layer system discussed in the main texts, wave-vector is not a good quantum number and we cannot study finite size transport in ${\bf k}$ space. As a result, we do calculation in real space with the electron Green’s functions $G_{jk}^{>,<,r}$ where $j$ and $k$ runs over the sites of top and bottom layers of graphene. The retarded Green’s function is calculated in energy space with $G^r(E) = ( E I - H_C - \Sigma^r)^{-1}$ where $\Sigma^r$ is the sum of total self energies due to the four leads. Actually, both $H_C$ and $\Sigma^r$ are block diagonal with respect to the layer index since there is no direct electronic coupling. As a result, $G^{>,<,r}$ is also block diagonal. The lead self energies are calculated by standard iterative algorithms of surface Green’s functions.
The polarization functions $\Pi^{>,<,r}$ are calculated according to the time-domain formulas and then Fourier transformed to frequency domain. This appears very fast computationally, but it brings about numerical instability for large systems. $4 \times 4$ system with about 200 atoms is probably the largest system we can obtain reliable result from. We have used 23000 fast Fourier transform points with a spacing $\hbar \Delta \omega =
22$meV. The nonequilibrium information is incorporated through the lead temperatures and chemical potentials by the Keldysh equation, $G^< = G^r \Sigma^< G^a$, at the very beginning when calculating the polarization function $\Pi^{>,<}$, and not through somewhat ad hoc procedure such as Doppler shifting the Bose function. $D^r$ is obtained with the Dyson equation, $D^r = v + v \Pi^r D^r$, and $D^{>,<}$ is obtained by the corresponding Keldysh equation. Since we are in real space, we have used periodic boundary conditions in the $y$ direction perpendicular to the transport direction, and have set the diagonal $v_{ii} = 0$. Finally, the heat current is calculated according to the formula given in the main texts, Eq. (7). The electric current can also be calculated, using the lowest order expansion formula for the interacting Green’s function given in the next section, with the Meir-Wingreen formula for electric current.
Proof of the scalar photon Meir-Wingreen formula, Eq. (7)\[app-d\]
==================================================================
We give a derivation of the Meir-Wingreen formula for scalar photon in terms of the Meir-Wingreen formula for the electrons under the lowest order of expansion approximation [@paulsson2005; @lu2016]. We consider a two-layer setup with four leads, layer 1 with left and right lead, and layer 2 left and right lead. The energy current out the layer $\alpha$ is [@MeirWingreen; @lu-AIP-2015] $$\label{MWeq1}
I_\alpha = \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{dE}{2\pi \hbar} E\, {\rm Tr} \bigl( G^> \Sigma_\alpha^<
- G^< \Sigma_\alpha^> \bigr).$$ Here $G^>$ and $G^<$ are the full interacting greater and lesser Green’s functions of the electrons and $\Sigma_{\alpha}^{>,<} = \Sigma_{\alpha,L}^{>,<} + \Sigma_{\alpha,R}^{>,<}$ are the total lead self energies. They are functions of energy $E$. This formula is exact provided that the electron Green’s function is obtained exactly. However, such a goal for the Coulomb system is not attainable. Thus, we use the lowest order expansion approximation in terms of the Coulomb interaction. Such approximation preserves energy conservation exactly. Since the two layers are not coupled directly, the Green’s functions for the electrons and self energies are block diagonal, and the Meir-Wingreen formula needs only the block $\alpha$. We focus on layer 1, and Green’s function $G_{1}^>$, can be expressed by the Keldysh equation as $$G_1^> = \bigl[ G^r( \Sigma_1^> +\Sigma_2^> + \Sigma_n^> ) G^a \bigr]_{11}.$$ Here $\Sigma_{1,2}^>$ are the lead self energies, and $\Sigma_n^>$ is the Fock term of Coulomb interaction, all of them block diagonal. For the 11-subblock, $\Sigma_2$ is 0. Putting this result into the Meir-Wingreen formula, noting that ${\rm Tr}( G_1^> \Sigma_1^< - G_1^< \Sigma_1^>)=0$ as a consequence of charge and energy conservation when Coulomb interaction is turned off, we obtain $$I_1 = \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{dE}{2\pi \hbar} E\, {\rm Tr} \bigl[ G^r_1 \Sigma_n^> G_1^a
\Sigma_1^< - ({\rm swap\ } {}^> \leftrightarrow {}^< ) \big].$$ From now on we will drop the subscript 1 for notational simplicity.
A key approximation we use is the lowest order expansion, $$\label{LOEeq}
G^> \approx G_0^> + G_0^r \Sigma_n^r G_0^> + G_0^r \Sigma_n^> G_0^a + G_0^> \Sigma_n^a G_0^a.$$ We obtain such terms if we expand the contour ordered Dyson equation, $G = G_0 + G_0 \Sigma_n G
\approx G_0 + G_0 \Sigma_n G_0 + \cdots$, and then take the greater component using the Langreth rule [@haug-jauho-book]. We also drop the subscript 0 from now on.
![Diagrams for heat current in lowest order expansion.[]{data-label="feynman-Diagrams"}](Diagram2.pdf)
It is useful for symmetry reasons we express the current by vacuum diagrams in time domain. We use the inverse Fourier transform to change the integral in energy to time, and also the Fock diagram result, $\Sigma_n^>(t,t') = i \hbar \sum_{l,l'}
M^l G^>(t,t') M^{l'} D_{l,l'}^>(t,t')$. Similar expressions are given for retarded and advanced self energies as $\Sigma_n^r \propto D^< G^r + D^r G^>$, and $\Sigma_n^a \propto
D^< G^a + D^a G^>$. Here for generality, we assume the interaction bare vertex takes the form $\sum_{l} c^+ M^l c \phi_l$, where $c$ is a column vector of electron annihilation operators and $c^\dagger$ is row vector of hermitian conjugate, and $\phi_l$ is scalar field at site $l$, and $M^l$ is a hermitian matrix. A matrix multiplication, $M G M$, is implied in the electron space index. By plugging in Eq. (\[LOEeq\]) into (\[MWeq1\]), the expansion leads to 10 terms, represented by the 10 diagrams in Figure \[feynman-Diagrams\]. We will label these diagrams as 1 to $5$, and $1'$ to $5'$ as shown. The diagrammatic rule follows the usual convention with all the (real) times as dummy integration variables and space indices summed. The current is obtained by $(i\hbar)^2/T$ times the value of the diagram. Since all the times are integration variables on equal footing, the integral actually diverges, the $1/T$ factor cancels the last integral interpreted as $\int_{-T/2}^{T/2} dt \cdots$. As an example, the graph 3 represents the contribution to current as $$\begin{aligned}
3) &=& \frac{(i\hbar)^2}{T} \int dt dt' dt_1 dt_2 \sum_{l,l'} D_{ll'}^>(t,t') \times \\
&&{\rm Tr}\left[ M^l G^{>}(t,t') M^{l'} G^a(t',t_1)
\frac{\partial \Sigma^<(t_1, t_2)}{\partial t_1} G^r(t_2, t) \right]. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Note the partial derivative on the first argument of $\Sigma^<$, which is represented by a dot in the diagram. The partial derivative can be moved around with repeated integration by part.
A key identity [@datta-book], $$G^r( \Sigma^> - \Sigma^< ) G^a =
G^a( \Sigma^> - \Sigma^< ) G^r = G^r - G^a = G^> - G^<,$$ is needed to show that the 10 diagrams cancel and reduce to only two. Here the self energies are total lead self energy (for layer 1 only). This identity is a simple consequence of the Dyson equation $(G^r)^{-1} = (g_c^r)^{-1} - \Sigma^r$, where $g_c^r$ is the Green’s function of isolated center. From the above equation we can show that $$G^a \Sigma^{>} G^r = G^{>} + C,$$ here we define $C = G^a \Sigma^{>,<} G^r - G^r \Sigma^{>,<} G^a$, and is the same for greater and lesser components. $C$ is anti-hermitian, $C^\dagger = - C$. $C=0$ if matrices are actually 1 by 1, or if system is time-reversal symmetric [@zhang2018energy], but not so in general. From this, ignoring the proportionality constant, integration variables, and $M$ factors, we can write, symbolically, $$\label{eq-delta3}
\Delta 3 + \Delta 3') = {\rm Tr} \bigl[ (D^> G^> - D^< G^< ) C\bigr].$$ Here the notation $\Delta$ means that the term when $G^a$ and $G^r$ are swapped to form $G^>$ or $G^<$ has been subtracted off. We show that Eq. (\[eq-delta3\]) cancels all the other 8 diagrams. To this end, we define $$B = G^> \Sigma^< - G^< \Sigma^>.$$ Using the same identities, we have $B G^r = - C$, thus $BG^r - G^a B^\dagger = -2C$, and $B G^r + G^a B^\dagger = 0$.
We can factor out common factors in the remaining diagrams. Using $B$, we can write $$\begin{aligned}
1\!+\!1') + 2 \!+\!2') &=& D^< {\rm Tr}(G^r B G^r) + D^r {\rm Tr}(G^> B G^r), \nonumber \\
4\!+\!4') + 5\! +\!5') &=& D^< {\rm Tr}(G^a D^a B^\dagger) + D^a {\rm Tr}(G^> G^a B^\dagger).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Further simplification is possible because $$D^< G^r + D^r G^> = D^> G^> - D^< G^< + D^< G^a + D^a G^>. \nonumber$$ Now, putting all the terms together, and using the identities obtained, we see $\Delta 3 + \Delta 3')$ cancels all the rest as claimed.
The remaining two terms can be transformed into the desired form. First, we need to move the derivative to other places, for example, from graph $3 - \Delta 3)$, we can write $$- D^>(t,t') {\rm Tr}\bigl[ G^>(t,t') {\partial \over \partial t} G^<(t',t) \bigr].$$ The extra minus sign is due to the integration by part. We can combine a similiar term from $3' - \Delta 3')$ so that it becomes $\partial \Pi^<(t',t)/\partial t$, using integration by part and cyclic permutation of trace whenever is needed. Using the definition of polarization $$\Pi^{<}_{l'l}(t',t) = - i\hbar\, {\rm Tr}\bigl[ M^{l'} G^<(t',t) M^{l} G^{>}(t,t') \bigr],$$ and then Fourier transform the final expression to frequency domain, we obtain $$I_1 =- \frac{1}{4\pi} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\!\!
d\omega\, \hbar \omega\, {\rm Tr} \bigl(D^> \Pi^<_1 - D^< \Pi^>_1 \bigr).$$ The heat current density is given by $H = I_1/A$ where $A$ is the area of one layer surface.
|
---
abstract: 'We address the two fundamental problems of *spatial field reconstruction* and *sensor selection* in heterogeneous sensor networks: (i) how to efficiently perform *spatial field reconstruction* based on measurements obtained simultaneously from networks with both high and low quality sensors; and (ii) how to perform *query based sensor set selection with predictive MSE performance guarantee*. For the first problem, we developed a low complexity algorithm based on the *spatial best linear unbiased estimator* (S-BLUE). Next, building on the S-BLUE, we address the second problem, and develop an efficient algorithm for *query based sensor set selection with performance guarantee*. Our algorithm is based on the Cross Entropy method which solves the combinatorial optimization problem in an efficient manner.'
author:
- |
Pengfei Zhang\
University of Oxford\
Oxford, UK\
Ido Nevat\
TUM CREATE\
Singapore\
Gareth W. Peters\
Heriot-Watt University\
Scotland, UK\
Wolfgang Fruehwirt\
University of Oxford\
Oxford, UK\
Yongchao Huang\
University of Oxford\
Oxford, UK\
Ivonne Anders\
ZAMG\
Vienna, Austria\
Michael Osborne\
University of Oxford\
Oxford, UK\
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: 'Sensor Selection and Random Field Reconstruction for Robust and Cost-effective Heterogeneous Weather Sensor Networks for the Developing World'
---
Introduction
============
We consider the case where two types of sensors are deployed: the first consists of expensive, high quality sensors; and the second, of cheap low quality sensors, which are activated only if the intensity of the spatial field exceeds a pre-defined activation threshold (eg. wind sensors). This type of *heterogeneous sensor networks* approach has gained attention in the last few years due to the vision of the Internet of Things (IoT) where networks may share their data over the internet [@gubbi2013internet; @vermesan2011internet].
Two practical scenarios [^1] that are of importance are: firstly, high-quality sensors may be deployed by government agencies (eg. weather stations). These are sparsely deployed due to their high costs, limited space constraints, high power consumption etc. To improve the coverage of the WSN, low-quality cheap sensors can be deployed to augment the high-quality sensor network [@rajasegarar2014high]; Secondly, High-quality sensors cannot be easily deployed in remote locations, for example in oceans, lakes, mountains and volcanoes. In these cases, battery operated low-quality cheap sensors can be deployed [@werner2006deploying].
More specifically, the following two fundamental problems are the focus of this paper: Firstly, ***Spatial field reconstruction**:* the task is to accurately estimate and predict the intensity of a spatial random field, not only at the locations of the sensors, but at all locations [@peters2015utilize; @nevat2015estimation; @nevat2013random], given heterogeneous observations from both sensor networks; Secondly, ***Query based sensor set selection with performance guarantee***: the task is to perform on-line sensor set selection which meets the QoS criterion imposed by the user, as well as minimises the costs of activating the sensors of these networks [@calvo2016sensor; @joshi2009sensor; @chepuri2015sparsity].
System model {#system_model}
============
We now present the system model for the physical phenomenon observed by two types of networks.
1. Consider a random spatial phenomenon (eg. wind) to be monitored defined over a $2$-dimensional space $\mathcal{X} \in \mathbb{R}^{2}$. The mean response of the physical process is a smooth continuous spatial function $f\left(\cdot\right):\mathcal{X} \mapsto \mathbb{R}$, and is modelled as a Gaussian Process (GP) according to $$\begin{aligned}
f\left({\mathbf{x}}\right) \sim {\mathcal{GP}}\left(\mu_f \left({\mathbf{x}};{\bm{\theta}}_f\right)
,{\mathcal{C}}_f\left({\mathbf{x}}_1,{\mathbf{x}}_2;{\bm{\Psi}}_f\right)
\right),\end{aligned}$$ where the mean and covariance functions $\mu_f \left({\mathbf{x}};{\bm{\theta}}_f\right),{\mathcal{C}}_f\left({\mathbf{x}}_1,{\mathbf{x}}_2;{\bm{\Psi}}_f\right)$ are assumed to be known.
2. Let $N$ be the total number of sensors that are deployed over a $2$-D region $\mathcal{X} \subseteq \mathbb{R}^2$, with ${\mathbf{x}}_{n} \in \mathcal{X}, n=\left\{1,\cdots, N\right\}$ being the physical location of the $n$-th sensor, assumed known by the FC. The number of sensors deployed by Network $1$ and Network $2$ are ${N_\text{\tiny{H}}}$ and ${N_\text{\tiny{L}}}$, respectively, so that $N={N_\text{\tiny{H}}}+{N_\text{\tiny{L}}}$ .
3. **Sensor network $1$ includes high quality sensors.** The sensors have a $0$-threshold activation and each of the sensors collects a noisy observation of the spatial phenomenon $f\left(\cdot\right)$. At the $n$-th sensor, located at ${\mathbf{x}}_n$, the observation is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
Y^{H}\left({\mathbf{x}}_n\right)= f\left({\mathbf{x}}_n\right) + W\left({\mathbf{x}}_n\right), \;n=\left\{1,\cdots,{N_\text{\tiny{H}}}\right\}\end{aligned}$$ where $W\left({\mathbf{x}}_n\right)$ is i.i.d Gaussian noise $W\left({\mathbf{x}}_n\right) \sim N\left(0,{\sigma^2_\text{\tiny{W}}}\right)$. **Sensor network $2$ includes low quality sensors.** The sensors have a $T$-threshold activation and each of the sensors collects a noisy observation of the spatial phenomenon $f\left(\cdot\right)$, only if the intensity of the field at that location exceeds the pre-defined threshold $T$, (eg. anemometer sensors for wind monitoring [@adafruit; @Anemo4403]). At the $n$-th sensor, located at ${\mathbf{x}}_n$, the observation is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
Y^{L}\left({\mathbf{x}}_n\right)=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
f\left({\mathbf{x}}_n\right)+V\left({\mathbf{x}}_n\right),&f\left({\mathbf{x}}_n\right)\geq T\\
V\left({\mathbf{x}}_n\right),&f\left({\mathbf{x}}_n\right)<T
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ where $V\left({\mathbf{x}}_n\right)$ is i.i.d Gaussian noise $V\left({\mathbf{x}}_n\right) \sim N\left(0,{\sigma^2_\text{\tiny{V}}}\right)$.
Field Reconstruction via Spatial Best Linear Unbiased Estimator (S-BLUE) {#S-BLUE}
========================================================================
To perform inference in our Bayesian framework, one would typically be interested in computing the predictive posterior density at any location in space, ${\mathbf{x}}_* \in \mathcal{X} $ , denoted $p\left(f_*|{{\mathbf{Y}}_{\mathcal{N} } }\right)$. Based on this quantity, a point estimator, like the Minimum Mean Squared Error (MMSE) estimator can be derived: $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{f_*}^{\text{MMSE}} = \int \limits_{-\infty}^{\infty}
p\left(f_*|{{\mathbf{Y}}_{\mathcal{N} } },{{\mathbf{x}}_{\text{\tiny{1:N} } } },{\mathbf{x}}_*\right) f_* {\text{d}}f_*\end{aligned}$$ We develop the spatial field reconstruction via Best Linear Unbiased Estimator (S-BLUE), which enjoys a low computational complexity [@kay:1998]. The S-BLUE does not require calculating the predictive posterior density, but only the first two cross moments of the model. The S-BLUE is the optimal (in terms of minimizing Mean Squared Error (MSE)) of all linear estimators and is given by the solution to the following optimization problem: $$\label{S_BLUE_objective}
\widehat{f}_* :=\widehat{a} + \widehat{{\mathbf{B}}} {{\mathbf{Y}}_{\mathcal{N} } }= \arg \min_{a, {\mathbf{B}}} {\mathbb{E}}\left[\left(f_*- \left(a + {\mathbf{B}}{{\mathbf{Y}}_{\mathcal{N} } }\right)\right)^2\right],$$ where $\widehat{a} \in \mathbb{R}$ and $\widehat{{\mathbf{B}}} \in \mathbb{R}^{1 \times N}$.
The optimal linear estimator that solves (\[S\_BLUE\_objective\]) is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\label{s_blue_estimate}
\hat{f_*}&={\mathbb{E}}_{f_*\; {{\mathbf{Y}}_{\mathcal{N} } }}\left[f_* \; {{\mathbf{Y}}_{\mathcal{N} } }\right]{\mathbb{E}}_{{{\mathbf{Y}}_{\mathcal{N} } }}\left[ {{\mathbf{Y}}_{\mathcal{N} } }\; {{\mathbf{Y}}_{\mathcal{N} } }\right]^{-1}\left({{\mathbf{Y}}_{\mathcal{N} } }-{\mathbb{E}}\left[{{\mathbf{Y}}_{\mathcal{N} } }\right]\right),
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ and the Mean Squared Error (MSE) is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\label{s_blue_estimate_MSE}
\sigma^2_{*}&=k\left({\mathbf{x}}_*,{\mathbf{x}}_*\right)-
{\mathbb{E}}_{f_*\; {{\mathbf{Y}}_{\mathcal{N} } }}\left[f_*\; {{\mathbf{Y}}_{\mathcal{N} } }\right]{\mathbb{E}}_{{{\mathbf{Y}}_{\mathcal{N} } }}\left[{{\mathbf{Y}}_{\mathcal{N} } }\; {{\mathbf{Y}}_{\mathcal{N} } }\right]^{-1}
{\mathbb{E}}_{{{\mathbf{Y}}_{\mathcal{N} } }\;f_*}\left[{{\mathbf{Y}}_{\mathcal{N} } }\; f_*\right].
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
Query Based Sensor Set Selection with Performance Guarantee {#cross_entropy}
===========================================================
In this Section we develop an algorithm to perform on-line sensor set selection in order to meet the requirements of a query made by users of the system. In this scenario users can prompt the system and request the system to provide an estimated value of the spatial random field at a location of interest ${\mathbf{x}}_*$. We defined the activation sets of the sensors in both networks by $\mathcal{S}_1 \in \left\{0,1\right\}^{\left|{N_\text{\tiny{H}}}\right|}, \mathcal{S}_2 \in \left\{0,1\right\}^{\left|{N_\text{\tiny{L}}}\right|}$. Then the sensor selection problem can be formulated as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{SSO}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{S} &= \operatorname*{arg\,min}_{
\left(
\stackrel{\mathcal{S}_1 \in \left\{0,1\right\}^{\left|{N_\text{\tiny{H}}}\right|}}{\mathcal{S}_2 \in \left\{0,1\right\}^{\left|{N_\text{\tiny{L}}}\right|}}
\right)}
w_h \left|\mathcal{S}_1\right|+w_l \left|\mathcal{S}_2\right|,
\\
&\text{s.t.} \;\;\sigma^2_*< \sigma^2_q,
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma^2_q$ is the maximal allowed uncertainty at the query location ${\mathbf{x}}_*$, and $w_h$ and $w_l$ are the known costs of activating a sensor from Network $1$ and Network $2$, respectively.
Suppose we wish to maximize a function $U\left({\mathbf{x}}\right)$ over some set $\mathscr{X}$. Let us denote the maximum by $\gamma^*$; thus, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{CEMO}
\gamma^*=\max_{{\mathbf{x}}\in\mathscr{X}}U({\mathbf{x}}).\end{aligned}$$ The Cross Entropy Method (CEM) solves this optimization problem by casting the original problem (\[CEMO\]) into an estimation problem of rare-event probabilities. By doing so, the CEM aims to locate an optimal parametric sampling distribution, that is, a probability distribution on $\mathscr{X}$, rather than locating the optimal solution directly. To apply the CEM to solve our optimization problem in (\[SSO\]), we need to choose a parametric distribution. Since the activation of the sensors is a binary variable (eg. $0 \rightarrow \text{don't activate},1 \rightarrow \text{activate}$), we choose an independent Bernoulli variable as our parametric distribution, with a single parameter $p$ (ie. ${\mathbf{V}}=p$). The Bernoulli distribution is a member of the NEF of distributions, hence, an analytical solution of the stochastic program is available in closed form as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
p_{t,j} =\frac{
\sum\limits_{i=1}^{K}
\mathds{1}\left(\mathbf{\Gamma^H_{i,j}}=1\right)
\mathds{1}\left(U\left(k\right) \geq \beta_t \right)
}
{\sum\limits_{i=1}^{K}
\mathds{1}\left(U\left(k\right) \geq \beta_t \right)}.\end{aligned}$$ Since the optimization problem in Eq. (\[SSO\]) is a constrained optimization problem, we introduce an Accept$\setminus$Reject step which rejects samples which do not meet the QoS criterion $\sigma^2_*< \sigma^2_q$, as follows $$\begin{aligned}
U\left(k\right)=
\begin{cases}
-\left(w_h \left|\mathcal{S}^H\right|+w_l \left|\mathcal{S}^L\right|\right),&\sigma^2_*\left(k\right) <\epsilon\\
-\infty,&\text{Otherwise}
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$
Experimental Results and Discussion
===================================
[.55]{} ![Left panel: map of region of interest with sensors locations. Right panel: Storm wind intensity map[]{data-label="fig:google_true_storm"}](google_map_roi2.eps "fig:"){height="4.5cm"}
[.55]{} ![Left panel: map of region of interest with sensors locations. Right panel: Storm wind intensity map[]{data-label="fig:google_true_storm"}](wind_field.eps "fig:"){height="4.5cm"}
[.55]{} ![Left panel: MSE with effect of different number of high and low quality sensors. Right panel: Comparison of U values between optimal scheme and CE method with effect of number of iterations.[]{data-label="fig:CompareRMSECost"}](nips2_true_storm_MSE.eps "fig:"){height="4.5cm"}
[.55]{} ![Left panel: MSE with effect of different number of high and low quality sensors. Right panel: Comparison of U values between optimal scheme and CE method with effect of number of iterations.[]{data-label="fig:CompareRMSECost"}](nips_europe1_convergence.eps "fig:"){height="4.5cm"}
In order to test our algorithm on real data sets, we use fine grained datasets available from Hans-Ertel-Centre for Weather Research (HErZ) project[^2]. Particularly, we choose Feb 23, 2015 as testing data since it has the highest wind speed across the whole year. The left panel of Fig. \[fig:google\_true\_storm\] shows the region of interest on the map. Both high and low quality sensors are selected randomly within the region. In this figure we randomly deployed $50$ high quality and $50$ low quality sensors. The right panel of Fig. \[fig:google\_true\_storm\] shows daily wind speed intensity across the region. In left panel of Fig. \[fig:CompareRMSECost\] we present a quantitative comparison of the MSE for various values of high and low quality sensors. The result shows a clear trend of MSE with the increasing of high and low quality sensors. We also illustrate how our sensor selection algorithm performs. For comparison, we use an optimal selection method which only selects the sensor set collections that minimize the U values and ensures that the QoS criterion is being met. The simulation parameters we have are: $\{N_h=5, N_l=10, T=0, w_h=150, w_l = 30, \sigma_w=0.001, \sigma_g=0.003, k_f(x_*,x_*)=5.8, x_*=10, y_*=50, \epsilon=\{3.4, 3.6, 3.8, 4, 4.2, 4.4\}\}$. We fix the $N_h=5, N_l=10$. The comparison is shown in right panel of Fig. \[fig:CompareRMSECost\]. We also increase the number of iterations in CE method from 1 to 10. It shows CE method converges quickly to the optimal selection algorithm within 10 iterations for all the $\epsilon$ values.
[^1]: In particular, developing world countries are constrained by their budget when purchasing equipment. Meanwhile, these countries are heavily effected by climate change. This combination makes the robust and cost-effective sensor selection in weather sensor networks a major concern for the developing world.
[^2]: https://www.herz-tb4.uni-bonn.de/index.php/hans-ertel-centre-for-weather-research/funding
|
---
abstract: 'For a group $G$ definable in a first order structure $M$ we develop basic topological dynamics in the category of definable $G$-flows. In particular, we give a description of the universal definable $G$-ambit and of the semigroup operation on it. We find a natural epimorphism from the Ellis group of this flow to the definable Bohr compactification of $G$, that is to the quotient $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_M$ (where $G^*$ is the interpretation of $G$ in a monster model). More generally, we obtain these results locally, i.e. in the category of $\Delta$-definable $G$-flows for any fixed set $\Delta$ of formulas of an appropriate form. In particular, we define local connected components ${G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$ and ${G^*}^{000}_{\Delta,M}$, and show that $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$ is the $\Delta$-definable Bohr compactification of $G$. We also note that some deeper arguments from [@KrPi] can be adapted to our context, showing for example that our epimorphism from the Ellis group to the $\Delta$-definable Bohr compactification factors naturally yielding a continuous epimorphism from the $\Delta$-definable generalized Bohr compactification to the $\Delta$-definable Bohr compactification of $G$. Finally, we propose to view certain topological-dynamic and model-theoretic invariants as Polish structures which leads to some observations and questions.'
address: |
Instytut Matematyczny, Uniwersytet Wrocławski\
pl. Grunwaldzki 2/4\
50-384 Wrocław, Poland
author:
- Krzysztof Krupiński
title: Definable topological dynamics
---
Introduction
============
Topological dynamics was introduced to model theory by Newelski in [@Ne1; @Ne2] and then further developed by various authors, e.g. in [@GiPePi], [@Ja], [@YaLo], [@ChSi], [@KrPi] and [@KrPiRz]. There are several natural categories to develop topological dynamics in model theory. The most natural are the categories of definable and externally definable “objects”. So far, however, mostly the externally definable category has been studied (the definable one was investigated under the extra assumption of definability of types, which makes both categories the same). In this paper, we develop basic topological dynamics in the category of definable flows, without the definability of types assumption.
Recall that a [*$G$-flow*]{} is a pair $(G,X)$, where $G$ is a group acting on a compact, Hausdorff space by homeomorphisms. We always consider discrete flows, i.e. with no topology on $G$ (or, if one prefers, with the discrete topology on $G$). A [*$G$-ambit*]{} is a $G$-flow $(G,X,x_0)$ with a distinguished point $x_0$ whose $G$-orbit is dense. With the obvious notion of a homomorphism of $G$-ambits, a universal $G$-ambit always exists and is unique; this universal ambit is exactly $(G,\beta G, e)$ (see [@Gl Chapter 1, Proposition 2.6]), where $\beta G$ is the Stone-$\check{\mbox{C}}$ech compactification of $G$.
Now, we recall some flows which have been investigated in model theory.
Let $G$ be a group $\emptyset$-definable in a first order structure $M$. By $S_G(M)$ we denote the space of complete types over $M$ containing the formula defining $G$; equivalently, this is the space of ultrafilters in the Boolean algebra of all definable (with parameters from $M$) subsets of $G$, equipped with the Stone topology. By $S_{G,\operatorname{{ext}}}(M)$ we denote the space of all externally definable complete types over $M$ containing $G$, that is the space of ultrafilters in the Boolean algebra of all externally definable subsets of $G$ (i.e. subsets which are intersections with $G$ of sets definable in arbitrary elementary extensions of $M$).
Following [@GiPePi] and [@KrPi], we will use the notion of \[externally\] definable $G$-flows. Namely, let $C$ be a compact, Hausdorff space. A map $f\colon G \to C$ is said to be [*\[externally\] definable*]{} if for all disjoint, closed subsets $C_1$ and $C_2$ of $C$ the preimages $f^{-1}[C_1]$ and $f^{-1}[C_2]$ can be separated by an \[externally\] definable subset of $G$. An [*\[externally\] definable $G$-flow*]{} is a $G$-flow $(G,X)$ such that for every $x \in X$ the map $f_x\colon G \to X$ defined by $f_x(g)=gx$ is \[externally\] definable. An [*\[externally\] definable $G$-ambit*]{} is an \[externally\] definable $G$-flow $(G,X,x_0)$ with a distinguished point $x_0$ such that the orbit $Gx_0$ is dense in $X$.
Now, $G$ acts by translations as groups of homeomorphisms of the compact spaces $S_{G}(M)$, $S_{G,\operatorname{{ext}}}(M)$ and $\beta G$, turning them into $G$-flows. As mentioned before, $(G,\beta G, e)$ is the universal $G$-ambit. Similarly, $(G,S_{G,\operatorname{{ext}}}(M),\operatorname{{tp}}_{\operatorname{{ext}}}(e/M))$ is the universal externally definable $G$-ambit. In particular, by the universality, there is a left-continuous semigroup operation on $S_{G,\operatorname{{ext}}}(M)$ turning it into a semigroup isomorphic to the Ellis semigroup $E(S_{G,\operatorname{{ext}}}(M))$ (for the definitions of Ellis \[semi\]groups see Section \[section: preliminaries\]). So one can consider both the minimal ideals and the Ellis group inside $S_{G,\operatorname{{ext}}}(M)$ instead of in $E(S_{G,\operatorname{{ext}}}(M))$. However, the ambit $(G,S_G(M),\operatorname{{tp}}(e/M))$ is not necessarily definable (it is so if all types in $S_G(M)$ are definable in which case $S_G(M)=S_{G,\operatorname{{ext}}}(M)$), and we do not have a natural semigroup operation on $S_G(M)$. This makes $S_{G,\operatorname{{ext}}}(M)$ and the category of externally definable $G$-flows easier to work with, and that is why topological dynamics has been developed in this context. On the other hand, $S_G(M)$ and definable flows are simpler and more natural objects from the point of view of model theory. This motivates our interest in the category of definable $G$-flows. Another, more concrete motivation stems from the fact that even if the language and the model $M$ are both countable, the universal externally definable $G$-ambit $S_{G,\operatorname{{ext}}}(M)$ may be “big” (e.g. not metrizable) which causes some difficulties in the application of topological dynamics to Borel cardinalities of bounded invariant equivalence relations [@KrPiRz]. In contrast, as we explain in this paper, under such a countability assumption, the universal definable $G$-ambit is always metrizable, which may lead to simplifications of some proofs concerning Borel cardinalities or even to new results. On the other hand, our research leads to interesting questions and relations with Polish structures introduced in [@Kr] and further developed by several authors, e.g. in [@KrWa].
In this paper, we will consider even a more general category than that of definable $G$-flows, namely the category of $\Delta$-definable $G$-flows, where $\Delta$ is an arbitrary set of formulas $\delta(x;y,z,\bar t)$ of the form $\varphi(y\cdot x \cdot z, \bar t)$ which contains a formula defining $G$. The definitions of $\Delta$-formulas, the space $S_{G,\Delta}(M)$, and $\Delta$-definable $G$-flows are given in Section \[section: preliminaries\].
In Section \[section: definable ambit\], we present the universal $\Delta$-definable $G$-ambit as the quotient of $S_{G,\Delta}(M)$ by some closed equivalence relation $E_\Delta$, we describe the semigroup operation on $S_{G,\Delta}(M)/E_\Delta$, and, using it, we give a description of the relation $E_\Delta$.
In Section \[section: connected components\], we define local versions of the connected components ${G^*}^{00}_M$ and ${G^*}^{000}_M$, namely ${G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$ and ${G^*}^{000}_{\Delta,M}$, and we show that $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$ is the $\Delta$-definable Bohr compactification of $G$. The proof follows the lines of the argument from [@GiPePi] showing that $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{M}$ is the definable Bohr compactification, but it also requires some additional observations (in particular, the fact that ${G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$ is a normal subgroup is not completely obvious, and we need Lemma \[lemma: mu is contained\] in order to show that the quotient map $G \to G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$ is $\Delta$-definable). Using results from Section \[section: definable ambit\], we find an explicitly given epimorphism $\theta$ from the universal $\Delta$-definable $G$-ambit $S_{G,\Delta}(M)/E_\Delta$ to $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$, whose restriction to the Ellis group is also an epimorphism. We formulate interesting questions concerning an analogous statement for ${G^*}/{G^*}^{000}_{\Delta,M}$.
In Section \[section: results from KrPi\], we explain that some deeper arguments from [@KrPi] can be adapted to the $\Delta$-definable context, which results in Theorems \[theorem: gen. Bohr comp.\], \[theorem: factorization by H(uM)\] and \[theorem: strong amenability\]. We also use [@ChSi Theorem 5.6] to get a variant of this theorem in our definable context (see Corollary \[corollary: from ChSi\]).
In Section \[section: Polish structures\], we explain how to treat various invariants (e.g. the Ellis group or the $\Delta$-definable generalized Bohr compactification of $G$) as Polish structures, which suggests that in some situations one could expect to get structural and topological theorems about these invariants via application of theorems on small Polish structures. We make a few observations in this direction and formulate some questions.
Preliminaries {#section: preliminaries}
=============
Detailed preliminaries concerning topological dynamics in model theory were given in several papers, so here we only recall a few things. For more details, see e.g. [@KrPi Section 1]. A good reference for classical topological dynamics is for example [@Au] or [@Gl].
The [*Ellis semigroup*]{} of the flow $(G,X)$, denoted by $E(X)$, is the closure of the collection of functions $\{\pi_g \colon g \in G\}$ (where $\pi_g\colon X \to X$ is given by $\pi_g(x)=gx$) in the space $X^X$ equipped with the product topology, with composition as semigroup operation.
This semigroup operation is continuous in the left coordinate, $E(X)$ is also a $G$-flow, and minimal subflows of $E(X)$ are exactly minimal left ideals with respect to the semigroup structure on $E(X)$, in particular they are cosed and so compact. The following was proved by Ellis (e.g. see [@El Propositions 3.5, 3.6] and [@Gl Chapter 1, Propositions 2.3, 2.5]).
\[Ellis theorem\] Let ${{{\mathcal M}}}$ be a minimal left ideal in $E(X)$, and let $J({{{\mathcal M}}})$ be the set of all idempotents in ${{{\mathcal M}}}$. Then:\
i) For any $p \in {{{\mathcal M}}}$, $E(X)p={{{\mathcal M}}}p={{{\mathcal M}}}$.\
ii) ${{{\mathcal M}}}$ is the disjoint union of sets $u{{{\mathcal M}}}$ with $u$ ranging over $J({{{\mathcal M}}})$.\
iii) For each $u \in J({{{\mathcal M}}})$, $u{{{\mathcal M}}}$ is a group with the neutral element $u$, where the group operation is the restriction of the semigroup operation on $E(X)$.\
iv) All the groups $u{{{\mathcal M}}}$ (for $u \in J({{{\mathcal M}}})$) are isomorphic, even when we vary the minimal ideal ${{{\mathcal M}}}$.
For a given group $G$ we say that a $G$-ambit $(G,X,x_0)$ is [*universal*]{} if for every $G$-ambit $(G,Y,y_0)$ there exists a (unique) homomorphism $h \colon X \to Y$ of $G$-flows mapping $x_0$ to $y_0$. The following fact is fundamental [@Gl Chapter 1, Proposition 2.6].
\[universality of beta G\] $(G,\beta G, e)$ is the unique up to isomorphism universal $G$-ambit.
Using this fact, one gets an “action” of $\beta G$ on any $G$-flow $(G,X)$, namely for $x \in X$ there is a unique flow homomorphism $h_x\colon (G,\beta G, e) \to (G,X,x)$, and for $p \in \beta G$ we define $px=h_x(p)$. More explicitly, this action is given by $px=\lim g_ix$ for any net $(g_i)$ of elements of $G$ converging to $p$ in $\beta G$. In particular, $\beta G$ acts on itself, and denoting this action by $*$, one has $(p*q)x=p(qx)$ for all $p,q \in \beta G$ and $x \in X$. In particular, $*$ is a semigroup operation on $\beta G$ which is continuous on the left and whose restriction to $G \times G$ is the original group operation on $G$. One easily checks that $(\beta G,*) \cong E(\beta G)$ (by sending $p \in \beta G$ to the function $(x \mapsto px) \in E(\beta G)$). In particular, Fact \[Ellis theorem\] applies to $(\beta G, *)$ in place of $E(\beta G)$.\
In this paper, $M$ denotes a model of a first order theory in a language $\mathcal L$, and ${{\mathfrak C}}\succ M$ is a monster model; $G$ will be a group $\emptyset$-definable in $M$, and $G^*$ its interpretation in ${{\mathfrak C}}$. Group multiplication, denoted by $\cdot$, will be often skipped for simplicity, but sometimes we will write it explicitly.\
As above, a [*universal \[externally\] definable $G$-ambit*]{} is defined as an \[externally\] definable $G$-ambit which maps homomorphically (by a (unique) homomorphism of $G$-ambits) to an arbitrary \[externally\] definable $G$-ambit. It is clear (by general category theory reasons) that, in each of these two categories, if a universal $G$-ambit exists, then it is unique up to isomorphism. As mentioned in the introduction, $(G,S_{G,\operatorname{{ext}}}(M),\operatorname{{tp}}_{\operatorname{{ext}}}(e/M))$ is the unique up to isomorphism universal externally definable $G$-ambit, so, in the same way as above, we get a semigroup operation on $S_{G,\operatorname{{ext}}}(M)$. The existence of the universal definable $G$-ambit is justified in Remark \[remark: existence of universal definable G-ambit\]. The main point of the current paper is to describe the universal definable $G$-ambit as well as its local versions.
Let $\Delta$ be a subset of the set of all formulas (without parameters) in the language $\mathcal L$ in the variable $x$ of the same sort as $G$ and some parametric variables. By a [*$\Delta$-formula*]{} over $M$ we mean a Boolean combination of instances of formulas from $\Delta$ with parameters from $M$. By $S_{G,\Delta}(M)$ we denote the compact space of complete $\Delta$-types over $M$ concentrating on $G$, equivalently, the space of ultrafilters of relatively $\Delta$-definable over $M$ subsets of $G$. In the case when $\Delta$ is the collection of all formulas in the variable $x$ of the same sort as $G$ and arbitrary parametric variables, $\Delta$-formulas over $M$ are just all formulas over $M$ in the variable $x$, and $S_{G,\Delta}(M)=S_G(M)$.
Sometimes we will be using $\Delta$-types over sets of parameters other than $M$. In such situations, all the definitions of “$\Delta$-objects” are analogous, except we take the convention that by a $\Delta$-formula over $A$ we mean a formula over $\operatorname{{dcl}}(A)$ which is equivalent to a Boolean combination of instances of formulas from $\Delta$ with parameters from $\operatorname{{dcl}}(A)$ (we do it in order to avoid writing “$\operatorname{{dcl}}$” many times in the paper). Another option is to define $\Delta$-formulas over $A$ as those formulas over $A$ which are equivalent to Boolean combinations of instances of formulas from $\Delta$ with arbitrary parameters (but then some statements would be slightly less general).
We naturally extend the definition of a definable function from $G$ to a compact space $C$ to a $\Delta$-definable context.
\[definable functions\] Let $C$ be a compact space. A map $f\colon G \to C$ is [*$\Delta$-definable*]{} if for all disjoint, closed subsets $C_1$ and $C_2$ of $C$ the preimages $f^{-1}[C_1]$ and $f^{-1}[C_2]$ can be separated by a $\Delta$-definable subset of $G$.
Now, we recall the definition of a definable map defined on the monster model and we extend it to local versions.
Let $C$ be a compact space.\
i) A function $f\colon G^* \to C$ is [*$M$-definable*]{} if for every closed $C_1 \subseteq C$ the preimage $f^{-1}[C_1]$ is type-definable over $M$.\
ii) A function $f\colon G^* \to C$ is [*$\Delta$-definable over $M$*]{} if for every closed $C_1 \subseteq C$ the preimage $f^{-1}[C_1]$ is $\Delta$-type-definable over $M$ (i.e. the intersection of sets defined by $\Delta$-formulas over $M$).
The first item of the next fact is [@GiPePi Lemma 3.2], and the second one (generalizing the first one) can be proved analogously. As usual, $C$ denotes a compact, Hausdorff space.
\[prolongation\] 1) Definable context:\
i) If $f\colon G \to C$ is definable, then it extends uniquely to an $M$-definable function $f^*\colon G^* \to C$. Moreover, $f^*$ is given by the formula $\{f^*(a)\}=\bigcap_{\varphi \in \operatorname{{tp}}(a/M)} \operatorname{{cl}}(f[\varphi(M)])$.\
ii) Conversely, if $f^*\colon G^* \to C$ is an $M$-definable function, then $f^*|_G\colon G \to C$ is definable.\
2) $\Delta$-definable context:\
i) If $f\colon G \to C$ is $\Delta$-definable, then it extends uniquely to a function $f^*\colon G^* \to C$ which is $\Delta$-definable over $M$. Moreover, $f^*$ is given by the formula $\{f^*(a)\}=\bigcap_{\varphi \in \operatorname{{tp}}_\Delta(a/M)} \operatorname{{cl}}(f[\varphi(M)])$.\
ii) Conversely, if a function $f^*\colon G^* \to C$ is a $\Delta$-definable over $M$, then $f^*|_G\colon G \to C$ is $\Delta$-definable.
\[rem: prolongation\] If $f\colon G \to C$ is $\Delta$-definable, then the unique function $f^*\colon G^* \to C$ which extends $f$ and is $\Delta$-definable over $M$ is also given by $\{f^*(a)\}=\bigcap_{\varphi \in \operatorname{{tp}}(a/M)} \operatorname{{cl}}(f[\varphi(M)])$.
This follows from the formula in point 2)(i) of Lemma \[prolongation\] and the observations that $\bigcap_{\varphi \in \operatorname{{tp}}(a/M)} \operatorname{{cl}}(f[\varphi(M)])$ is non-empty (which follows from the compactness of $C$) and contained in $\bigcap_{\varphi \in \operatorname{{tp}}_\Delta(a/M)} \operatorname{{cl}}(f[\varphi(M)])$.
The following remark follows easily from definitions.
\[remark: factorization\] A function $f\colon G^* \to C$ is $\Delta$-definable over $M$ if and only if there is a continuous function $h: S_{G,\Delta}(M) \to C$ such that $f=h\circ r$, where $r\colon G^* \to S_{G,\Delta}(M)$ is the obvious map $a \mapsto \operatorname{{tp}}_\Delta(a/M)$. In particular, a function $f\colon G^* \to C$ is $M$-definable if and only if there is a continuous function $h: S_{G}(M) \to C$ such that $f=h\circ r$, where $r\colon G^* \to S_{G}(M)$ is the obvious map.
We extend the notion of the definable flow in a natural way. Namely, a flow $(G,X)$ will be called [*$\Delta$-definable*]{} if for every $x \in X$ the map $f_x\colon G \to X$ given by $f_x(g)=gx$ is $\Delta$-definable.
The first part of the following observation was made in [@KrPi Remark 1.12], and the generalization to the second part can be obtained analogously.
\[definability of products\] i) A product of definable $G$-flows is a definable $G$-flow.\
ii) A product of $\Delta$-definable $G$-flows is a $\Delta$-definable $G$-flow.
Whenever we consider the quotient of $G^*$ by a bounded, $M$-invariant equivalence relation $E$, we can equip it with the [*logic topology*]{} which is defined by saying that a subset of the quotient is closed if its preimage in $G^*$ is type-definable (equivalently, type-definable over $M$). If $E$ is type-definable, then $G^*/E$ is a compact, Hausdorff space; if $E$ is only invariant, then $G^*/E$ is only quasi-compact. The definition of the logic topology applies in particular to the quotient $G^*/H$, where $H$ is an arbitrary bounded index, $M$-invariant subgroup of $G^*$. If $H$ is type-definable, then $G^*/H$ is a compact, Hausdorff group. For details on the logic topology see e.g. [@KrNe] and [@Pi1 Section 2]. The following basic remark will be useful later.
\[remark: denseness very basic\] Let $E$ be an bounded, $M$-invariant equivalence relation on $G^*$. Then $G/E$ is dense in $G^*/E$
Consider any non-empty, open subset $U$ of $G^*/E$, and let $\pi \colon G^* \to G^*/E$ be the quotient map. Then $\pi^{-1}[U]$ is a non-empty, $\bigvee$-definable over $M$ subset of $G^*$, and as such it has a point in $G$.
Universal $\Delta$-definable $G$-ambit {#section: definable ambit}
======================================
From now on, we fix a set $\Delta$ of formulas about which we assume that:
1. It consists of some formulas $\delta(x;y,z,\bar t)$ of the form $\psi(y\cdot x \cdot z; \bar t)$.
2. The formula $G(y \cdot x\cdot z)$ is in $\Delta$, where $G(x)$ is a formula over $\emptyset$ which defines $G$.
This makes sure that any left or right translate of a $\Delta$-formula by an element of $G$ is still a $\Delta$-formula. Note that if all formulas as in (1) are included in $\Delta$, then being “a subset of $G$ which is $\Delta$-definable over $M$” is the same thing as being “a subset of $G$ which is definable over $M$”, so we are in the definable context.
\[remark: existence of universal definable G-ambit\] There exists a unique (up to isomorphism) universal $\Delta$-definable $G$-ambit.
Uniqueness is clear. To show existence, consider a set $(G,X_i,x_i)_{i \in I}$ of all up to isomorphism $\Delta$-definable $G$-ambits (such a set exists, as there is a common bound on the cardinalities of all $G$-ambits). Now, let $X'=\prod_{i} X_i$, $x=(x_i)_i$, and let $X$ be the closure of the orbit of $x$ under the coordinatewise action of $G$. Then $(G,X')$ is $\Delta$-definable by Remark \[definability of products\], and so $(G,X,x)$ is a $\Delta$-definable $G$-ambit. From the construction, we see that $(G,X,x)$ maps on any $\Delta$-definable $G$-ambit, i.e. it is universal.
By the assumption on the form of the formulas in $\Delta$, we see that $G$ acts on $S_{G,\Delta}(M)$ by $$g \operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(a/M)=\operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(ga/M)$$ so that $(G,S_{G,\Delta}(M), \operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(e/M))$ is a $G$-ambit.
Let $(G,{\mathcal U}, x)$ be the universal $\Delta$-definable $G$-ambit. Then, $f_x \colon G \to {\mathcal U}$ given by $f_x(g)=gx$ is $\Delta$-definable. Thus, by Fact \[prolongation\], it extends to the function $f^*_x \colon G^* \to {\mathcal U}$ which is $\Delta$-definable over $M$. Hence, by Remark \[remark: factorization\], there exists a continuous function $h\colon S_{G,\Delta}(M) \to {\mathcal U}$ such that $f^*_x=h \circ r$, where $r \colon G^* \to S_{G,\Delta}(M)$ is the obvious map (namely $a \mapsto \operatorname{{tp}}_\Delta(a/M)$). The function $h$ is uniquely determined by $f^*_x$, and we see that $h(\operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(e/M))=x$.
\[remark: homomorphism of ambits\] The above map $h$ yields a homomorphism from the $G$-ambit $(G,S_{G,\Delta}(M), \operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(e/M))$ to $(G,{\mathcal U}, x)$.
It remains to show that $h(gp)=gh(p)$ for any $g \in G$ and $p \in S_{G,\Delta}(M)$. By the explicit formula for $f^*_x$, we have $$\{gh(p)\}=g\bigcap_{\varphi \in p} \operatorname{{cl}}(f_x[\varphi(M)])=\bigcap_{\varphi \in p} \operatorname{{cl}}(f_x[g\varphi(M)]) = \bigcap_{\psi \in gp} \operatorname{{cl}}(f_x[\psi(M)])=h(gp).$$
If $(G,S_{G,\Delta}(M), \operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(e/M))$ was a $\Delta$-definable $G$-ambit, we could proceed with the development of the theory exactly as in the well-understood externally definable context. However, in general, this ambit is not necessarily $\Delta$-definable (see Example \[example: E non-trivial\]). Recall that if all types in $S_G(M)$ are definable, then $(G,S_{G}(M), \operatorname{{tp}}(e/M))$ is definable and coincides with $(G,S_{G,\operatorname{{ext}}}(M),\operatorname{{tp}}_{\operatorname{{ext}}}(e/M))$, and the categories of definable and externally definable $G$-flows coincide. Our goal is to start to develop a theory of definable $G$-flows without the definability of types assumption.
Let $E_\Delta$ be the equivalence relation on $S_{G,\Delta}(M)$ given by $$E_\Delta(p,q) \iff h(p)=h(q).$$ In the definable context (i.e. when $\Delta$ consists of all formulas of the appropriate form), we will write $E$ instead of $E_\Delta$.
\[cor: definable ambit is a quotient\] $(G,S_{G,\Delta}(M)/E_\Delta,\operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(e/M)/E_\Delta)$ is the universal $\Delta$-definable $G$-ambit.
By Remark \[remark: homomorphism of ambits\], $E_\Delta$ is closed and invariant under the action of $G$. This implies that $(G,S_{G,\Delta}(M)/E_\Delta,\operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(e/M)/E_\Delta)$ naturally becomes a $G$-ambit. From the very definition of $E_\Delta$, we get that $h$ factors through the quotient map $S_{G,\Delta}(M) \to S_{G,\Delta}(M)/E_\Delta$ yielding an isomorphism from the $G$-ambit $(G,S_{G,\Delta}(M)/E_\Delta,\operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(e/M)/E_\Delta)$ to $(G,{\mathcal U}, x)$. This completes the proof as $(G,{\mathcal U}, x)$ was chosen to be the universal $\Delta$-definable $G$-ambit.
\[remark: uniqueness of E\] i) $E_\Delta$ is the unique equivalence relation $F$ on $S_{G,\Delta}(M)$ for which $(G,S_{G,\Delta}(M)/F,\operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(e/M)/F)$, with the action of $G$ defined by $g(p/F):=(gp)/F$, is the universal $\Delta$-definable $G$-ambit.\
ii) In the definable context (i.e. when $\Delta$ consists of all formulas of the appropriate form), if all types in $S_G(M)$ are definable, then $E$ is trivial (i.e. it is the equality).
i\) Suppose $F_1$ and $F_2$ are two such relations. It is enough to show that $F_1 \subseteq F_2$. By the universality of $(G,S_{G,\Delta}(M)/F_1,\operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(e/M)/F_1)$, there is $f\colon S_{G,\Delta}(M)/F_1 \to S_{G,\Delta}(M)/F_2$ which is a homomorphism of $G$-ambits. Let $f'\colon S_{G,\Delta}(M) \to S_{G,\Delta}(M)/F_2$ be the composition of $f$ with the quotient map $S_{G,\Delta}(M) \to S_{G,\Delta}(M)/F_1$. We see that $f'$ is a homomorphism from the $G$-ambit $(G,S_{G,\Delta}(M), \operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(e/M))$ to $(G,S_{G,\Delta}(M)/F_2, \operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(e/M)/F_2)$. But there is only one such homomorphism, and it is given by $p \mapsto p/F_2$. Therefore, $f(p/F_1)=p/F_2$ for any $p$, hence $F_1 \subseteq F_2$.\
ii) By assumption, $(G,S_G(M), \operatorname{{tp}}(e/M))$ is a definable $G$-ambit. Hence, Corollary \[cor: definable ambit is a quotient\] implies that $(G,S_G(M), \operatorname{{tp}}(e/M))$ is the universal definable $G$-ambit (literally, the quotient $S_G(M)/E$ is universal definable, but this implies the universal property of $S_G(M)$). And we finish using (i).
Define an equivalence relation $E_\Delta'$ on $G^*$ by $$E_\Delta'(a,b) \iff E_\Delta(\operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(a/M),\operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(b/M)).$$ In the definable context, we will skip $\Delta$ and write $E'$. We see that $E_\Delta'$ is a type-definable over $M$, bounded equivalence relation on $G^*$ which is coarser than the relation of having the same complete $\Delta$-type over $M$. We have a natural topological identification of $S_{G,\Delta}(M)/E_\Delta$ with $G^*/E_\Delta'$, which we will be using freely.
Our main goal is to give an explicit description of the relation $E_\Delta$, equivalently of $E_\Delta'$.
By Corollary \[cor: definable ambit is a quotient\], a standard argument (a sketch of which we give below for the reader’s convenience) shows that there is a left continuous semigroup operation $*$ on $S_G(M)/E_\Delta$ which is given by $$p/E_\Delta * q/E_\Delta = \lim_{g \rightarrow p/E_\Delta} g(q/E_\Delta),\label{eq: 0}$$ equivalently, $$a/E_\Delta' * b/E_\Delta'= \lim_{g \rightarrow a/E_\Delta'} g(a/E_\Delta').$$ (When we write “$g$ tends to $p/E_\Delta$”, we mean “$\operatorname{{tp}}_\Delta(g/M)/E_\Delta$ tends to $p/E_\Delta$ with $g$ ranging over $G$”, i.e. $\lim_{g \rightarrow p/E_\Delta} g(q/E_\Delta)=r/E_\Delta$ if and only if for every open neighborhood $U$ of $r/E_\Delta$ there is an open neighborhood $V$ of $p/E_\Delta$ such that for all $g \in G$ such that $\operatorname{{tp}}_\Delta(g/M)/E_\Delta \in V$ one has $g(q/E_\Delta) \in U$. And analogously in the equivalent definition.)
To simply notation, denote $(G,S_{G,\Delta}(M)/E_\Delta,\operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(e/M)/E_\Delta)$ by $(G,\mathcal U,x_0)$. By the universality of $(G,{\mathcal U},x_0)$, for every $x \in {\mathcal U}$ there is a unique $f_x \colon {\mathcal U} \to {\mathcal U}$ which is a $G$-flow homomorphism mapping $x_0$ to $x$. For $p \in {\mathcal U}$ put $$p * x = f_x(p).$$ From the choice of $f_x$, the following properties follow immediately.
1. $*$ is continuous in the left coordinate.
2. $*$ extends the action of $G$, i.e. $(gx_0) * x = gx$ for all $g \in G$ and $x \in {\mathcal U}$.
3. $\lim_{g \rightarrow p} gq = p * q$ for all $p,q \in {\mathcal U}$ (here $g \rightarrow p$ means that $gx_0$ tends to $p$).
Finally, we leave as an exercise (using nets and limits) to check that $*$ is associative.
Next, we give an explicit formula for $*$, which is similar to the one in the externally definable case.
\[proposition: formula for \*\] For any $p,q \in S_{G,\Delta}(M)$, $p/E_\Delta * q/E_\Delta=\operatorname{{tp}}_\Delta(a\cdot b/M)/E_\Delta$, where $b \models q$ and $a$ realizes a $\Delta$-coheir extension of $p$ over $M,b$ (i.e. $\operatorname{{tp}}_\Delta(a/M,b)$ is finitely satisfiable in $M$).
Note that a basis of open neighborhoods of $\operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(ab/M)/E_\Delta \in S_{G,\Delta}(M)/E_\Delta$ consists of the sets
$$U_\varphi:=\{ r/E_\Delta : [r]_{E_\Delta} \subseteq [\varphi]\}$$ with $\varphi$ ranging over all $\Delta$-formulas over $M$ such that $\operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(ab/M)/E_\Delta \in U_\varphi$, where $[r]_{E_\Delta}=\{ q \in S_{G,\Delta}(M): E_\Delta(r,q)\}$ and $[\varphi]=\{ q \in S_{G,\Delta}(M) : \varphi \in q\}$. Indeed, first of all, each set $U_{\varphi}$ is open in the quotient topology, because the preimage of the complement of $U_{\varphi}$ under the quotient map consists of all the types $r \in S_{G,\Delta}(M)$ for which there exists a type $r' \in S_{G,\Delta}(M)$ such that $E_\Delta(r,r')$ and $\neg \varphi(x) \in r'$ (and so we see that this preimage is closed as a projection of a closed set in a product of compact, Hausdorff spaces). Secondly, take any open neighborhood $U$ of $\operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(ab/M)/E_\Delta$. Then $[\operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(ab/M)]_{E_\Delta}$ is contained in the preimage $U'$ of $U$ under the quotient map. Since $[\operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(ab/M)]_{E_\Delta}$ is closed and $U'$ is open, by the compactness of $S_{G,\Delta}(M)$, we can find a $\Delta$-formula (over $M$) $\varphi(x)$ such that $[\operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(ab/M)]_{E_\Delta} \subseteq [\varphi(x)] \subseteq U'$, and so $U_\varphi$ is an open neighborhood of $\operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(ab/M)/E_\Delta$ contained in $U$.
Consider any $\varphi$ as above. Then $\operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(ab/M) \vdash E_\Delta'(ab,x) \vdash \varphi(x)$. So there is $\psi(x) \in \operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(ab/M)$ such that
$$(\exists y)(\psi(y) \wedge E_\Delta'(x,y)) \vdash \varphi(x).\label{eq: 1}$$
Clearly $\models \psi(ab)$.
Consider any $\delta(w) \in p$. As $\models \delta(a) \wedge \psi(ab)$, we get $\delta(w) \wedge \psi(wb) \in \operatorname{{tp}}_\Delta(a/M,b)$. (Note that in order to have that $\psi(wb)$ is a $\Delta$-formula over $M,b$, we use our convention which allows Boolean combinations of instances of formulas from $\Delta$ with parameters from $\operatorname{{dcl}}(M,b)$; namely, we have to use parameters which are products of the form $b\cdot g \in \operatorname{{dcl}}(M,b)$ where $g \in G$.) By the assumption that $\operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(a/M,b)$ is finitely satisfiable in $M$, there exists $g_{\delta,\varphi} \in G$ such that $\models \delta(g_{\delta,\varphi}) \wedge \psi(g_{\delta,\varphi} \cdot b)$. By (\[eq: 1\]), we conclude that $E_\Delta'(g_{\delta,\varphi} \cdot b, x) \vdash \varphi(x)$, and so $$g_{\delta,\varphi} (q/E_\Delta)=\operatorname{{tp}}_\Delta(g_{\delta,\varphi} \cdot b/M)/E_\Delta \in U_\varphi.\label{eq: 2}$$
The collection of all formulas $\varphi$ as above forms a directed set (with $\varphi_1\leq \varphi_2$ iff $\varphi_2 \vdash \varphi_1$) and similarly the collection of all $\delta$’s from $p$ forms a directed set; the product of these two directed sets is also a directed set with the product preorder, and the limits below are computed with respect to this product preorder.
By (\[eq: 2\]), we conclude that
$$\lim_{\delta,\varphi} g_{\delta,\varphi} (q/E_\Delta)=\operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(ab/M)/E_\Delta.\label{eq: 3}$$
On the other hand, $$\lim_{\delta,\varphi} \operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(g_{\delta,\varphi}/M) = p,$$ so $$\lim_{\delta,\varphi} \operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(g_{\delta,\varphi}/M)/E_\Delta = p/E_\Delta,$$ which by virtue of (\[eq: 0\]) implies that
$$\lim_{\delta,\varphi} g_{\delta,\varphi} (q/E_\Delta) = p/E_\Delta * q/E_\Delta. \label{eq: 4}$$
From (\[eq: 3\]) and (\[eq: 4\]), we get $p/E_\Delta * q/E_\Delta = \operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(ab/M)/E_\Delta$.
Define a relation ${F_0}_\Delta$ on $G^*$ as follows. ${F_0}_\Delta(\alpha,\beta)$ holds if there exist $a, b, a_1, b_1 \in G^*$ such that the following conditions hold:
1. $\alpha=a\cdot b$ and $\beta=a_1\cdot b_1$,
2. $\operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(a/M)=\operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(a_1/M)$ and $\operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(b/M)=\operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(b_1/M)$,
3. $\operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(a/M,b)$ and $\operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(a_1/M,b_1)$ are both finitely satisfiable in $M$.
The relation ${F_0}_\Delta$ is clearly reflexive and symmetric, but there is no obvious reason why it should be transitive. Let $F_\Delta$ be the transitive closure of ${F_0}_\Delta$. We see that ${F_0}_\Delta$ and $F_\Delta$ are $M$-invariant. Finally, let ${\bar F}_\Delta$ be the finest type-definable over $M$ equivalence relation on $G^*$ containing the relation $F_\Delta$. We easily see that all the relations ${F_0}_\Delta$, $F_\Delta$ and ${\bar F}_\Delta$ are coarser than the relation of having the same complete $\Delta$-type over $M$, so the last two are bounded equivalence relations.
As usual, in the definable context (i.e. when $\Delta$ consists of all formulas of the appropriate form), we skip the index $\Delta$ and write $F_0$, $F$ and $\bar F$.
The relations ${F_0}_\Delta$, $F_\Delta$ and ${\bar F}_\Delta$ are all invariant under the action of $G$, so $(G,G^*/{\bar F}_\Delta,e/{\bar F}_\Delta)$ is a $G$-ambit.
First, we check that ${F_0}_\Delta$ is invariant under $G$. Consider any $g \in G$ and $\alpha,\beta \in G^*$ such that ${F_0}_\Delta(\alpha,\beta)$. Take $a,b,a_1,b_1$ from the definition of ${F_0}_\Delta$ witnessing that ${F_0}_\Delta(\alpha,\beta)$ holds. Since $g \in G \subseteq M$, one easily checks that $ga,b,ga_1,b_1$ witness that ${F_0}_\Delta(g\alpha,g\beta)$ holds.
Since ${F_0}_\Delta$ is invariant under $G$, so is $F_\Delta$. For any $g \in G$, the equivalence relation $g{\bar F}_\Delta$ is type-definable over $M$ and contains $gF_\Delta=F_\Delta$, so $\bar F_\Delta \subseteq g \bar F_\Delta$. This implies that ${\bar F}_\Delta$ is invariant under $G$, which yields the natural action of $G$ on $G^*/{\bar F}_\Delta$ given by $g(h/{\bar F}_\Delta):= (gh)/{\bar F}_\Delta$. By the definition of the logic topology, we see that this is an action by homeomorphisms. Finally, the $G$-orbit of $e/{\bar F}_\Delta$ equals $G/{\bar F}_\Delta$, which is dense in the logic topology by Remark \[remark: denseness very basic\].
We will also need the following general remark.
\[remark: added because of the Referee\] If $D$ is a type-definable subset of $G^*$ which is a union of sets of realizations of complete $\Delta$-types over $M$, then $D$ is $\Delta$-type-definable over $M$.
Let $\pi \colon G^* \to S_{G,\Delta}(M)$ be the map given by $\pi(a):= \operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(a/M)$, and let $p(x)$ be a partial type defining $D$. Then $\pi[D]$ is the subset of $S_{G,\Delta}(M)$ consisting off all types consistent with $p(x)$, so $\pi[D]$ is closed, i.e. it is the set of all types in $S_{G,\Delta}(M)$ extending some partial $\Delta$-type $p'$ over $M$. Since $D$ is a union of sets of realizations of complete $\Delta$-types over $M$, we see that $D=\pi^{-1}[\pi[D]]$, so $D=p'(G^*)$ is $\Delta$-type-definable over $M$.
\[theorem: main theorem\] ${\bar F}_\Delta=E_\Delta'$, so $(G,G^*/{\bar F}_\Delta, e/{\bar F}_\Delta)$ is the universal $\Delta$-definable $G$-ambit.
First, we prove that ${\bar F}_\Delta \subseteq E_\Delta'$. For this, it is enough to show that ${F_0}_\Delta \subseteq E_\Delta'$, because then clearly $F_\Delta \subseteq E_\Delta'$ which implies that ${\bar F}_\Delta \subseteq E_\Delta'$ by the definition of ${\bar F}_\Delta$ and the fact that $E_\Delta'$ is type-definable over $M$.
So, consider any $\alpha, \beta \in G^*$ such that ${F_0}_\Delta(\alpha,\beta)$. Then we have $a,b,a_1,b_1$ satisfying (1), (2) and (3) from the definition of ${F_0}_\Delta$. Let $p=\operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(a/M)$ and $q=\operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(b/M)$. By Proposition \[proposition: formula for \*\], we get $ \operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(\alpha/M)/E_\Delta=\operatorname{{tp}}_\Delta(a\cdot b/M)/E_\Delta=p/E_\Delta*q/E_\Delta=\operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(a_1\cdot b_1/M)/E_\Delta=\operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(\beta/M)/E_\Delta.$ Hence, $E_\Delta'(\alpha,\beta)$.
Now, we will prove that $E_\Delta'\subseteq {\bar F}_\Delta$. Note that it is enough to show that $(G,G^*/{\bar F}_\Delta,e/{\bar F}_\Delta)$ is a $\Delta$-definable $G$-ambit. Indeed, if we know that $(G,G^*/{\bar F}_\Delta,e/{\bar F}_\Delta)$ is $\Delta$-definable, then, by the universality of $(G,G^*/E_\Delta',e/E_\Delta')$ (see Corollary \[cor: definable ambit is a quotient\]), there exists a $G$-flow homomorphism $\sigma_1\colon G^*/E_\Delta' \to G^*/{\bar F}_\Delta$ such that $\sigma_1(g/E_\Delta')=g/{\bar F}_\Delta$ for all $g \in G$. On the other hand, by the already proven fact that ${\bar F}_\Delta \subseteq E_\Delta'$, there is a $G$-flow homomorphisms $\sigma_2 \colon G^*/{\bar F}_\Delta \to G^*/E_\Delta'$ given by $\sigma_2(a/{\bar F}_\Delta):=a/E_\Delta'$. Therefore, $(\sigma_1 \circ \sigma_2)|_{G/{\bar F}_\Delta} = \operatorname{{id}}_{G/{\bar F}_\Delta}$, hence $\sigma_1 \circ \sigma_2 =\operatorname{{id}}_{G^*/{\bar F}_\Delta}$, so $\sigma_2$ is injective which implies that ${\bar F}_\Delta=E_\Delta'$.
So, our goal is to prove that $(G,G^*/{\bar F}_\Delta,e/{\bar F}_\Delta)$ is $\Delta$-definable. This means that for any $a \in G^*$ the function $f_a \colon G \to G^*/{\bar F}_\Delta$ given by $f_a(g)=(g \cdot a)/{\bar F}_\Delta$ is $\Delta$-definable. Fix any $a \in G^*$.
Define ${\bar f}_a \colon G^* \to G^*/{\bar F}_\Delta$ by ${\bar f}_a(\alpha)=(\alpha'\cdot a)/{\bar F}_\Delta$ for any (equivalently, some) $\alpha' \in G^*$ such that $\operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(\alpha'/M)=\operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(\alpha/M)$ and $\operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(\alpha'/M,a)$ is finitely satisfiable in $M$. By the definition of ${\bar F}_\Delta$, this function is well-defined. We see that ${\bar f}_a$ extends $f_a$. Hence, it remains to show that ${\bar f}_a$ is $\Delta$-definable over $M$.
So, consider any $D \subseteq G^*/{\bar F}_\Delta$ which is closed. Let $\pi \colon G^* \to G^*/{\bar F}_\Delta$ be the quotient map. Then $\pi^{-1}[D]$ is type-definable over $M$ by a partial type $p(x)$. We see that ${\bar f}_a^{-1}[D]$ is the set of all $\alpha \in G^*$ for which there exists $\alpha' \in G^*$ such that $$\operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(\alpha'/M)=\operatorname{{tp}}_\Delta(\alpha/M) \; \mbox{and}\; \operatorname{{tp}}_\Delta(\alpha'/M,a)\; \mbox{finitely satisfiable in}\; M\; \mbox{and}\; \models p(\alpha'a).$$ Hence, ${\bar f}_a^{-1}[D]$ is type-definable (over $M \cup\{a\}$) and it is also a union of sets of realizations of complete $\Delta$-types over $M$. Therefore, it is $\Delta$-type-definable over $M$ by Remark \[remark: added because of the Referee\].
1\) Is ${F_0}_\Delta$ type-definable?\
2) Is $F_\Delta$ generated by ${F_0}_\Delta$ in finitely many steps?\
3) Is $\bar{F}_\Delta$ equal to $F_\Delta$?
The answers are probably negative in general and the problem is to find appropriate counter-examples. It would be also interesting to understand when the answers are positive. Note that they are trivially positive when we work in the definable context and all types in $S_G(M)$ are definable, as then $F_0(\alpha,\beta) \iff \alpha \equiv_M \beta$.
Connected components and $\Delta$-definable Bohr compactification {#section: connected components}
=================================================================
A very important aspect of the topological-dynamic approach to model theory have been connections of some topological-dynamic invariants (e.g. the Ellis group) with model-theoretic invariants (such as quotients by various connected components of groups). Here, we try to say something about such connections in our $\Delta$-definable context. In particular, we introduce two $\Delta$-definable connected components and relate one of them to the Ellis group of the universal $\Delta$-definable ambit. We also give a desciption of the $\Delta$-definable Bohr compactification.
Recall that:
- ${G^*}^{00}_M$ is the smallest $M$-type-definable subgroup of $G^*$ of bounded index,
- ${G^*}^{000}_M$ is the smallest $M$-invariant subgroup of $G^*$ of bounded index.
Take $\Delta$ as in the previous section. We extend the first definition to the local context in the following way.
${G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$ is the smallest $\Delta$-type-definable over $M$ subgroup of $G^*$ of bounded index.
Note that $G^*$ is $\Delta$-definable over $M$ (even over $\emptyset$) by the formula defining $G$, so ${G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$ exists as the intersection of all $\Delta$-type-definable over $M$ subgroups of $G^*$ of bounded index.
Another definition of ${G^*}^{00}_\Delta$ has been proposed by E. Hrushovski in his lecture notes on approximate equivalence relations, but the above definition is more appropriate in our current situation of $\Delta$-definable topological dynamics. Later, we will also propose a local version of ${G^*}^{000}_M$, which leads to some questions.
It is well-known that ${G^*}^{000}_{M} \leq {G^*}^{00}_M$ are both normal subgroups of $G^*$ (e.g. see [@Gi Lemma 2.2]).
\[proposition: G00 is normal\] ${G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$ is a normal subgroup of $G^*$.
Note that ${G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$ is normalized by $G$, which follows from the fact that the conjugate of a $\Delta$-formula over $M$ by any element of $G$ remains a $\Delta$-formula over $M$. Therefore, $${G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}=\bigcap_{\varphi(x) \in {{\mathcal A}}} \varphi(G^*)$$ for some family ${{\mathcal A}}$ of formulas over $M$ which is closed under conjugations by elements of $G$.
Let $\{ g _i: i \in I\}$ be a bounded set of representatives of right cosets of ${G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$ in $G^*$. Then clearly $$\bigcap_{g \in G^*} ({G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M})^g= \bigcap_{i \in I} ({G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M})^{g_i}.$$ So this intersection is invariant over $M$ and also type-definable, and hence it is type-definable over $M$. Thus, $$\bigcap_{g \in G^*} ({G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M})^g = \bigcap_{\varphi(x) \in {{\mathfrak B}}} \varphi(G^*)$$ for some family ${{\mathfrak B}}$ of formulas over $M$. It is enough to show that ${G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M} \subseteq \bigcap_{g \in G^*} ({G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M})^g$. So take any $\varphi(x) \in {{\mathfrak B}}$. Then there are $\varphi_1(x),\dots,\varphi_n(x) \in {{\mathcal A}}$ and $a_1,\dots, a_n \in \{g_i: i \in I\}$ such that $\varphi_1(G^*)^{a_1} \cap \dots \cap \varphi_n(G^*)^{a_n} \subseteq \varphi(G^*)$. Since $M \prec {{\mathfrak C}}$, there are $h_1,\dots,h_n \in G$ for which $\varphi_1(G^*)^{h_1} \cap \dots \cap \varphi_n(G^*)^{h_n} \subseteq \varphi(G^*)$. Since ${{\mathcal A}}$ is closed under conjugations by elements of $G$, we get ${G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M} \subseteq \varphi_1(G^*)^{h_1} \cap \dots \cap \varphi_n(G^*)^{h_n}$. We conclude that ${G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M} \subseteq \varphi(G^*)$, and the proof is complete.
Let $\mu$ be the subgroup of $G^*$ generated by all elements of the form $a^{-1}b$ for $\operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(a/M)=\operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(b/M) \in S_{G,\Delta}(M)$. Since there are only boundedly many complete $\Delta$-types over $M$, we get
\[rem: mu of bounded index\] $\mu$ has bounded index in $G^*$.
\[lemma: mu is contained\] $\mu \leq {G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$.
By compactness and the fact that ${G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$ is a group $\Delta$-type-definable over $M$, we can present ${G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$ as the intersection of some family $\{ \varphi_i(G^*)\}_{i \in I}$ of sets $\Delta$-definable over $M$ such that for every $i \in I$:
1. $\varphi_i(G^*)$ is symmetric, i.e. $e \in \varphi_i(G^*)=\varphi_i(G^*)^{-1}$,
2. there is $j \in I$ for which $\varphi_j(G^*)\cdot \varphi_j(G^*) \subseteq \varphi_i(G^*)$.
Since ${G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$ is of bounded index, each $\varphi_i(G^*)$ is left generic, i.e. there exist $g_{i,1},\dots,g_{i,n_i} \in G$ such that $g_{i,1}\varphi(G^*) \cup \dots \cup g_{i,n_i}\varphi_i(G^*)=G^*$.
We need to show that if $\operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(a/M)=\operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(b/M)$, then $a^{-1}b \in {G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$. For this it is enough to show that for any $i \in I$, $a^{-1}b \in \varphi_i(G^*)$. Choose $j \in I$ for which $\varphi_j(G^*)\cdot \varphi_j(G^*) \subseteq \varphi_i(G^*)$. Since each $g_{j,k}\varphi_j(x)$ is a $\Delta$-formula over $M$, we get that $g_{j,k}\varphi_j(x) \in \operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(a/M)$ for some $k \in \{1,\dots,n_j\}$. But then $g_{j,k}\varphi_j(x) \in \operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(b/M)$. Hence, $a^{-1}b \in \varphi_j(G^*)^{-1}\varphi_j(G^*)=\varphi_j(G^*)\varphi_j(G^*) \subseteq \varphi_i(G^*)$.
The quotients $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_M$ and $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$ will be always equipped with the logic topology (see the end of Section \[section: preliminaries\]). Recall that a [*definable compactification*]{} of $G$ is a definable homomorphism from $G$ to a compact, Hausdorff group with dense image. The [*definable Bohr compactification*]{} of $G$ is a unique (up to $\cong$) [*universal definable compactification*]{} $G$, that is a definable compactification $f \colon G \to H$ such that for an arbitrary definable compactification $f_1 \colon G \to H_1$ there is a unique morphism from $f$ to $f_1$ (i.e. a group homomorphism $h\colon H \to H_1$ such that $h\circ f = f_1$).
In [@GiPePi Proposition 3.4], it was proven that the natural homomorphism from $G$ to $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_M$ is the definable Bohr compactification of $G$. Here, we extend this result to the $\Delta$-definable context.
By a [*$\Delta$-definable compactification of $G$*]{} we mean a $\Delta$-definable homomorphism from $G$ to a compact, Hausdorff group with dense image. A universal $\Delta$-definable compactification of $G$ is defined analogously to the universal definable compactification.
\[proposition: Delta-definable Bohr compactification\] The natural homomorphism from $G$ to $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$ is a unique (up to $\cong$) universal $\Delta$-definable compactification of $G$, which we call the $\Delta$-definable Bohr compactification of $G$.
First, we check that the natural homomorphism $\pi \colon G \to G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$ (given by $\pi(g)=g/{G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$) is a $\Delta$-definable compactification of $G$. Density of $\pi[G]$ in $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$ (equipped with the logic topology) follows from Remark \[remark: denseness very basic\]. Let $\bar \pi\colon G^* \to G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$ be the quotient map. For $\Delta$-definability of $\pi$ it is enough to show that $\bar \pi$ is $\Delta$-definable over $M$ (as $\bar \pi$ extends $\pi$ and we can use Lemma \[prolongation\]). Consider any closed $D \subseteq G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$. Then, ${\bar \pi}^{-1}[D]$ is type-definable over $M$, and, by Lemma \[lemma: mu is contained\], it is a union of sets of realizations of complete $\Delta$-types over $M$. By Remark \[remark: added because of the Referee\], this implies that ${\bar \pi}^{-1}[D]$ is $\Delta$-type-definable over $M$.
Now, we check universality of $\pi$. We adapt the proof of [@GiPePi Proposition 3.4]. Consider any $\Delta$-definable compactification $f\colon G \to C$. By Lemma \[prolongation\], there is a unique $\Delta$-definable over $M$ function $f^*\colon G^* \to C$ extending $f$. We check that $f^*$ is a homomorphism. Consider any $a,b \in G^*$, and let $p:=\operatorname{{tp}}(a/M)$, $q:= \operatorname{{tp}}(b/M)$, and $r:=\operatorname{{tp}}(ab/M)$. Then, by Remark \[rem: prolongation\] and compactness,
$$\begin{array}{lll}
\{f^*(ab)\} &= &\bigcap_{\theta \in r} \operatorname{{cl}}(f[\theta(G)]) \subseteq \bigcap_{\varphi \in p,\psi \in q} \operatorname{{cl}}(f[\varphi(G) \cdot \psi(G)])\\
&= &\bigcap_{\varphi \in p, \psi \in q} \operatorname{{cl}}(f[\varphi(G)]) \cdot \operatorname{{cl}}(f[\psi(G)]) \\
&= &\bigcap_{\varphi \in p} \operatorname{{cl}}(f[\varphi(G)])\cdot \bigcap_{\psi \in q} \operatorname{{cl}}(f[\psi(G)])\\
& = &\{f^*(a)f^*(b)\}.
\end{array}$$
Since $f^*$ is $\Delta$-definable over $M$, $\ker (f^*)$ is a normal subgroup of bounded index which is an intersection of some sets $\Delta$-type-definable over $M$. Since ${G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$ is the smallest such group, we finish as in the proof of [@GiPePi Proposition 3.4]. Namely, there is a natural continuous homomorphism from $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$ to $G^*/\ker(f^*)$, and $G^*/\ker(f^*)$ is naturally topologically isomorphic with $C$, so we get a continuous homomorphism $h \colon G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M} \to C$ such that $h \circ \pi = f$.
i\) ${G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$ is the smallest type-definable over $M$ subgroup of $G^*$ containing $\mu$.\
ii) ${G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M} \geq\mu \cdot {G^*}^{00}_{M}$.
i\) Let $H$ be this smallest subgroup. Then $H$ is type-definable over $M$ and it is a union of sets of realizations of complete $\Delta$-types over $M$, so it is $\Delta$-type-definable over $M$ by Remark \[remark: added because of the Referee\]. Thus, by Remark \[rem: mu of bounded index\], ${G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M} \leq H$. The opposite inclusion follows from Lemma \[lemma: mu is contained\].\
ii) follows from Lemma \[lemma: mu is contained\] and the definitions of ${G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$ and ${G^*}^{00}_{M}$.
This suggests the following generalization of the component ${G^*}^{000}_M$ to the local context.
${G^*}^{000}_{\Delta,M}$ is the smallest normal, invariant over $M$ subgroup of $G^*$ of bounded index containing $\mu$.
We know that ${G^*}^{000}_M$ is generated by all elements $a^{-1}b$ for $a\equiv_M b$. Therefore, ${G^*}^{000}_M \leq \mu$, and so $\mu$ has bounded index in $G^*$ (which was already noted in Remark \[rem: mu of bounded index\]). So, by the obvious observation that $\mu$ is invariant over $M$, we get
${G^*}^{000}_{\Delta,M}=\langle \mu^{G^*} \rangle$, where $\langle \mu^{G^*} \rangle$ denotes the normal closure of $\mu$.
It is clear that when we are in the definable context, i.e. $\Delta$ consists of all formulas of the appropriate form, then ${G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}= {G^*}^{00}_M$ and ${G^*}^{000}_{\Delta,M}={G^*}^{000}_M=\mu$.
Is it true that ${G^*}^{000}_{\Delta,M} = \mu$? Equivalently, is $\mu$ a normal subgroup of $G^*$?
Take the notation from Section \[section: definable ambit\]. Now, we define a counterpart of Newelski’s map defined in the externally definable context (see [@Ne1 Proposition 4.4] or [@KrPi Proposition 3.1]).
\[proposition: theta is onto\] The map $\hat{\theta} \colon G^*/E'_{\Delta} \to G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$ given by $\hat{\theta}(a/E'_{\Delta})=a/{G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$ is a well-defined, continuous semigroup epimorphism.
First, we check that $\hat{\theta}$ is well-defined. Theorem \[theorem: main theorem\] tells us that $E'_\Delta ={\bar F}_\Delta$. So, by the definition of ${\bar F}_\Delta$ and the fact that the relation of lying in the same left coset of ${G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$ is type-definable over $M$, we see that it is enough to show that whenever ${F_0}_{\Delta}(\alpha,\beta)$, then $\beta ^{-1}\alpha\in {G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$.
So, take any $\alpha, \beta$ with ${F_0}_{\Delta}(\alpha,\beta)$. Then $\alpha=ab$ and $\beta= a_1b_1$ for some $a,b,a_1,b_1$ such that $\operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(a/M)=\operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(a_1/M)$ and $\operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(b/M)=\operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(b_1/M)$. Then $\beta^{-1}\alpha=b_1^{-1}a_1^{-1}ab \in b_1^{-1} \mu b =b_1^{-1}b\mu^b \subseteq \mu \cdot \mu^b$. The last set is contained in ${G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$, because ${G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$ is normal and contains $\mu$ (by Proposition \[proposition: G00 is normal\] and Lemma \[lemma: mu is contained\]).
The fact that $\hat{\theta}$ is onto is clear from the definition of $\hat{\theta}$. Continuity follows from the definition of the logic topology. It remains to check that $\hat{\theta}$ is a homomorphism. Identifying $G^*/E'_{\Delta}$ with $S_{G,\Delta}(M)/E_\Delta$, we see that $\hat{\theta}(p/E_\Delta)=a/{G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$ for any $a\models p$. Consider any $p,q \in S_{G,\Delta}(M)$ and choose $b \models q$ and $a$ satisfying a $\Delta$-coheir extension of $p$ over $M,b$. By Proposition \[proposition: formula for \*\], $p/E_\Delta * q/E_\Delta=\operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(ab/M)$. Thus, $\hat{\theta}(p/E_\Delta * q/E_\Delta)=ab/{G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}=\hat{\theta}(p/E_\Delta) \cdot \hat{\theta}(q/E_\Delta)$.
Let ${{\mathcal M}}$ be a minimal left ideal in $G^*/E'_\Delta$ and $u$ an idempotent in ${{\mathcal M}}$. Let $\theta \colon u{\mathcal M} \to G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$ be the restriction of $\hat{\theta}$ to $u{{\mathcal M}}$. By Proposition \[proposition: theta is onto\] and the fact that $u{{\mathcal M}}=u * G^*/E'_\Delta * u$, we get that $\theta$ is a group epimorphism.
In the externally definable case, a very important ingredient of the theory was the fact that there is also an epimorphism from the universal externally definable $G$-ambit and from its Ellis group to $G^*/{G^*}^{000}_M$. In the current context, we leave it as an open problem.
1\) Is $\hat{f} \colon G^*/E'_{\Delta} \to G^*/{G^*}^{000}_{\Delta,M}$ given by $\hat{f}(a/E'_{\Delta})=a/{G^*}^{000}_{\Delta,M}$ a well-defined semigroup epimorphism? Notice that whenever it is well-defined, then it is an epimorphism (as in the proof of Proposition \[proposition: theta is onto\]).\
2) If the answer to the above question in general is no, the problem is to understand when $\hat{f}$ is well-defined. This may lead to a new dividing line (motivated by topological dynamics and model theory together) in the class of groups definable in first order structures.\
3) If $\hat{f}$ is well-defined, then its restriction $f$ to the Ellis group $u{{\mathcal M}}$ is also an epimorphism. If, however, it turns out that $f$ is not always well-defined, an interesting question is whether always there exits a (natural) epimorphism from $u{{\mathcal M}}$ to $G^*/{G^*}^{000}_{\Delta,M}$.\
4) It is very interesting to consider the above questions in the definable context, i.e. when $\Delta$ consists of all formulas of the appropriate form. For example, the first question asks if $\hat{f} \colon G^*/E' \to G^*/{G^*}^{000}_{M}$ given by $\hat{f}(a/E')=a/{G^*}^{000}_{M}$ is well-defined.
Let us look at the definable context. Notice that any counter-example to the statement that $\hat{f} \colon G^*/E' \to G^*/{G^*}^{000}_{M}$ given by $\hat{f}(a/E')=a/{G^*}^{000}_{M}$ is well-defined must satisfy ${G^*}^{000}_{M} \ne {G^*}^{00}_{M}$ and not all types in $S_G(M)$ are definable (the later property follows from Remark \[remark: uniqueness of E\](ii) and the fact that $a \equiv_M b$ implies $a^{-1}b \in {G^*}^{000}_M$). So a (simplest) natural candidate is the universal cover of $\operatorname{{SL}}_2(\mathbb{R})$ interpreted in the model $((\mathbb{Z},+),(K,+,\cdot))$, where $K$ is the real closure of the rationals. (For a model-theoretic analysis of the universal cover of $\operatorname{{SL}}_2({{\mathbb{R}}})$ (in particular, for the proofs that the two connected components differ) see [@CoPi] and [@GiKr]). However, an analysis of this example from the point of view of the definable topological dynamics seems quite complicated. Below we describe what happens in a much simpler example, namely in the unit circle $S^1(K)$.
The following remark follows easily from definitions by an argument as in the second paragraph of the proof of Proposition \[proposition: theta is onto\].
$\hat{f}^- \colon G^*/F_\Delta \to G^*/{G^*}^{000}_{\Delta,M}$ given by $\hat{f}^- (a/F_\Delta)=a/{G^*}^{000}_{\Delta,M}$ is a well-defined function. So, if $F_\Delta={\bar F}_\Delta$ (which is unlikely in general), then $\hat{f}$ is well-defined.
\[example: E non-trivial\] Let $M:=(K,+,\cdot) $ be the real closure of the rationals, $\Delta$ consist of all formulas of the appropriate form, and let $G:=S^1(K)$ be the unit circle computed in $K \times K$. Then $$S_{G}(M)=\{p_a: a\in S^{1}({{\mathbb{R}}}) \setminus S^1(K)\} \cup \{p_a^-,p_a^+,q_a: a \in S^1(K)\},$$ where $q_a:=\operatorname{{tp}}(a/M)$ is the algebraic type isolated by $x=a$, $p_a$ is the cut at $a$, and $p_a^-$ and $p_a^+$ are the left and right cuts at $a$, respectively.
It is well-known that $\mu={G^*}^{000}_M={G^*}^{00}_M$ is the subgroup of all infinitesimal elements (i.e. the monad of $1$ in $S^1({{\mathfrak C}})$). Moreover, $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_M$ is homeomorphic with the real circle $S^1$.
We will show that for any $\alpha,\beta \in S^1({{\mathfrak C}})$ $$\label{equation: new in example}
F_0(\alpha,\beta) \iff (\beta \cdot \alpha^{-1} \in \mu \wedge \alpha \notin S^1(K) \wedge \beta \notin S^1(K)) \lor \alpha=\beta.$$ $(\Rightarrow)$ First, consider the case when $\alpha \in S^1(K)$ or $\beta \in S^{1}(K)$. Without loss $\alpha \in S^1(K)$. Take $a,b,a_1,b_1$ witnessing that $F_0(\alpha,\beta)$. Then $a=\alpha \cdot b^{-1}$ and $\operatorname{{tp}}(a/K,b)$ is finitely satisfiable in $K$, so $b \in S^1(K)$, and hence $a \in S^1(K)$. Since $\operatorname{{tp}}(a_1/K)= \operatorname{{tp}}(a/K)$ and $\operatorname{{tp}}(b_1/K)=\operatorname{{tp}}(b/K)$, we conclude that $a_1=a$ and $b_1=b$. Therefore, $\alpha = \beta$.
Now, consider the case when $\alpha \notin S^1(K)$ and $\beta \notin S^{1}(K)$. Take $a,b,a_1,b_1$ witnessing that $F_0(\alpha,\beta)$. Then the computation from the second paragraph of the proof of Proposition \[proposition: theta is onto\] shows that $\beta\cdot \alpha^{-1} \in \mu$.\
$(\Leftarrow)$ If $\alpha =\beta$, then clearly $F_0(\alpha,\beta)$. So assume that $\beta \cdot \alpha^{-1} \in \mu$, $\alpha \notin S^1(K)$, and $\beta \notin S^1(K)$. Then $\xi_0:=\operatorname{{st}}(\alpha)=\operatorname{{st}}(\beta)$, where $\operatorname{{st}}$ is the standard part map computed on the circle. Since $K$ is countable, we can find $\xi_1 \in S^1({{\mathbb{R}}}) \setminus \operatorname{{acl}}(K,\alpha,\beta,\xi_0)$, and put $\xi:=\xi_0\cdot \xi_1$. Then $\xi \in S^1({{\mathbb{R}}}) \setminus S^1(K)$, and since $\alpha, \beta \notin S^1(K)$, the exchange property for $\operatorname{{acl}}$ implies that $\alpha, \beta \notin \operatorname{{acl}}(K,\xi_1)$. Define $a=\alpha \cdot \xi_1$, $b=\xi_1^{-1}$, $a_1=\beta \cdot \xi_1$, $b_1 = \xi_1^{-1}$. We check that $a,b,a_1,b_1$ witness that $F_0(\alpha,\beta)$. The equalities $\alpha =a \cdot b$, $\beta =a_1 \cdot b_1$, and $\operatorname{{tp}}(b/K)=\operatorname{{tp}}(b_1/K)$ are obvious. Since $\operatorname{{st}}(a) = \operatorname{{st}}(a_1) = \xi \notin S^1(K)$, we get $\operatorname{{tp}}(a/K)=\operatorname{{tp}}(a_1/K)=p_\xi$. It remains to check that $\operatorname{{tp}}(a/K,\xi_1)$ and $\operatorname{{tp}}(a_1/K,\xi_1)$ are finitely satisfiable in $K$. As $\xi_1,\xi_2 \in S^1({{\mathbb{R}}})$ and $S^1(K)$ is dense in $S^1({{\mathbb{R}}})$, it is enough to check that $a,a_1 \notin \operatorname{{acl}}(K,\xi_1)$. But this is clear, as otherwise $\alpha \in \operatorname{{acl}}(K,\xi_1)$ or $\beta \in \operatorname{{acl}}(K,\xi_1)$, a contradiction.\
By (\[equation: new in example\]), $F_0$ is already an $M$-type-definable equivalence relation, so, by Theorem \[theorem: main theorem\], we conclude that $F_0=F={\bar F}=E'$. This in turn implies that the classes of $E$ are the singletons $\{p_a\}$, $a \in S^1({{\mathbb{R}}}) \setminus S^1(K)$, the singletons $\{q_a\}$, $a \in S^1(K)$, and the pairs $\{p_a^-,p_a^+\}$, $a \in S^1(K)$. Hence, $E$ is non-trivial, which implies that the ambit $(G,S_G(M),\operatorname{{tp}}(e/M))$ is not definable by Remark \[remark: uniqueness of E\].
One can check that $S_G(M)/E$ is the real circle $S^1$ with an additional copy of each point from $S^1(K)$, with the usual circle topology expanded by new subbasic open sets which are the singletons of the additional points of the circle and their complements (in particular, each additional point is clopen). Then there is a unique minimal left ideal ${{\mathcal M}}$ in $S_G(M)/E$ and it consists of $E$-classes of the non-algebraic types (which follows from the observations that the $G$-orbit of each algebraic type is dense and that each non-algebraic type lies in the closure of an arbitrary $G$-orbit). Moreover, there is a unique idempotent $u \in {{\mathcal M}}$, namely the $E$-class $\{p_1^-,p_1^+\}$. In particular, ${\mathcal M}=u{\mathcal M}$ by Fact \[Ellis theorem\](ii). One easily sees that $\theta \colon u{{\mathcal M}}\to G^*/{G^*}^{00}_M$ is an isomorphism. In contrast, $\hat{\theta}\colon S_G(M)/E \to G^*/{G^*}^{00}_M$ is not injective, as it glues $\{p_a^-,p_a^+\}$ with $\{q_a\}$ for every $a \in S^1(K)$.
Note also that in this example the universal definable $G$-ambit is different (i.e. non-isomorphic) from the universal externally definable $G$-ambit, which follows from the more general observation that if $E$ in non-trivial, then the universal externally definable $G$-ambit is not definable. Indeed, if $S_{G,\operatorname{{ext}}}(M)$ was a definable $G$-ambit, then its homomorphic image $S_G(M)$ would be also definable, so $E$ would be trivial by Remark \[remark: uniqueness of E\]. One can check that $S_{G,\operatorname{{ext}}}(M)$ can be identified with the collection of all points of $S^1(K)$ and all left and right cuts at all points of $S^1({{\mathbb{R}}})$ with the topology whose description is left as an exercise.
On some results from [@KrPi] in the $\Delta$-definable context {#section: results from KrPi}
==============================================================
Most of the main results of [@KrPi] are about connections of the Ellis group and the externally definable generalized Bohr compactification of $G$ with quotients of $G^*$ by connected components. It is very important in there that we have a natural epimorphism from the Ellis group of the universal externally definable $G$-ambit to $G^*/{G^*}^{000}_M$. As we saw in the previous section, in the definable context, we do not know whether such an epimorphism exists. However, we have the natural epimorphism $\theta$ from the Ellis group of the universal definable $G$-ambit to $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_M$.
In this section, we formulate variants of some results from [@KrPi] in our $\Delta$-definable context (with $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$ in place of ${G^*}/{G^*}^{000}_M$) whose proofs are obvious adaptations of the proofs from [@KrPi], so they will be omitted. It would be really interesting, however, to get these kind of results with $G^*/{G^*}^{000}_{\Delta,M}$ in place of $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$, which would allow us to extend or strengthen some results from [@KrPi], and, in the case of a countable language, maybe apply to get information on the Borel cardinality of ${G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}/{G^*}^{000}_{\Delta,M}$ and simplify the proofs from [@KrPiRz] for the quotient ${G^*}^{00}_{M}/{G^*}^{000}_{M}$.
In the final part of this section, we analyze connections with the externally definable topological dynamics, and, using [@ChSi Theorem 5.7], we obtain a variant of this result in the definable context.
The key role in [@KrPi] is played by the so-called $\tau$-topology introduced by Ellis. Basic theory related to this notion is described in [@Gl Chapter IX] for the Ellis group of the universal $G$-ambit $\beta G$, but it works similarly for the Ellis group of universal $G$-ambits in many other categories. In [@KrPi Section 2], we described how to work with the universal externally definable $G$-ambit. In our new, $\Delta$-definable context, everything works analogously, so we will skip all the discussions, sending the reader to [@Gl] and [@KrPi] for details. Let us only recall the main definitions.
We take the notation as in previous sections. In particular, ${{\mathcal M}}$ is a minimal left ideal in $G^*/E'_\Delta$, and $u \in {{\mathcal M}}$ is an idempotent.
For $A \subseteq G^*/E'_\Delta$ and $p\in G^*/E'_\Delta$, $p \circ A$ is defined as the set of all points $x \in G^*/E'_\Delta$ for which there exist nets $(x_i)$ in $A$ and $(g_i)$ in $G$ such that $\lim_i g_i=p$ (here by $g_i$ we mean $g_i/E'_\Delta$) and $\lim_i g_ix_i=x$.
\[Def: tau topology\] For $A \subseteq u{{\mathcal M}}$, define $\operatorname{{cl}}_\tau (A) = (u \circ A) \cap u{{\mathcal M}}$.
The proofs of 1.2-1.12 (except 1.12(2)) from [@Gl Chapter IX] go through (with some slight modifications) in our context. In particular, $\operatorname{{cl}}_\tau$ is a closure operator on subsets of $u{{\mathcal M}}$, and it induces the so-called [*$\tau$-topology*]{} on $u{{\mathcal M}}$. This topology is compact and $T_1$, and multiplication is continuous in each coordinate separately. It is easy to see that $p \circ A$ is always closed, and so the $\tau$-topology on $u{{\mathcal M}}$ is weaker than the topology inherited from $G^*/E'_\Delta$.
$H(u{{{\mathcal M}}})$ is the intersection of the sets $\operatorname{{cl}}_\tau(V)$ with $V$ ranging over all $\tau$-neighborhoods of $u$ in the group $u{{\mathcal M}}$.
Then $H(u{{\mathcal M}})$ is a $\tau$-closed, normal subgroup of $u{{\mathcal M}}$, and $u{{\mathcal M}}/H(u{{\mathcal M}})$ is a compact, Hausdorff group (see [@Gl Chapter IX, Theorem 1.9]).
The notion of [*generalized Bohr compactification*]{} was introduced in [@Gl Chapter VIII]. It is recalled in [@KrPi Definition 1.23] in the externally definable context. In the $\Delta$-definable situation, we take the same definition, replacing the expression “externally definable” by “$\Delta$-definable”. The reader is referred to 1.13, 1.14, 1.21, 1.22, 1.23 from [@KrPi] for details.
It was proven in [@Gl Chapter IX, Theorem 4.2] that the generalized Bohr compactification of a discrete group $G$ equals $u{{\mathcal M}}/H(u{{\mathcal M}})$ (everything computed in $\beta G$). In [@KrPi Theorem 2.5], this was extended to the externally definable context. Since the class of $\Delta$-definable $G$-flows is closed under taking both products and quotients by closed, $G$-invariant equivalence relations, the proof from [@KrPi] yields
\[theorem: gen. Bohr comp.\] $u{{\mathcal M}}/H(u{{\mathcal M}})$ is the $\Delta$-definable generalized Bohr compactification of $G$.
The following fact is folklore in general topology, but we give a justification.
\[fact: from Engelking\] If $f\colon X \to Y$ is a continuous epimorphism, where $X$ is a second-countable (i.e. with a countable basis of open sets) space and $Y$ is a compact, Hausdorff space, then $Y$ is also second-countable.
If $Z$ is a topological space, then a family ${\mathcal N}$ of subsets of $Z$ is said to be a [*network*]{} for $Z$ if for every $z \in Z$ and its open neighborhood $U$, there is $N \in {\mathcal N}$ with $z \in N \subseteq U$. The smallest possible cardinality of a network for $Z$ is called the [*network weight*]{} of $Z$ and is denoted by $nw(Z)$. For every space $Z$ we clearly have $nw(Z) \leq w(Z)$ (where $w(Z)$ is the [*weight*]{} of $Z$, i.e. the smallest cardinality of a basis of open sets). [@En Theorem 3.1.19] tells us that if $Z$ is compact, Hausdorff, then $nw(Z)=w(Z)$.
Now, take a countable basis $\{B_i : i \in \omega\}$ of $X$. It is clear, by the continuity of $f$, that $\{f[B_i] : i \in \omega \}$ is a network for $Y$. Hence, $w(Y) = nw(Y) \leq \aleph_0$.
If both the language and the model $M$ are countable, then $u{{\mathcal M}}/H(u{{\mathcal M}})$ is a Polish, compact group.
We know that it is a compact, Hausdorff group, so it remains to show that it is metrizable. For this, it is enough to show that it is second-countable (see [@En Theorem 4.2.8]).
We know that $S_{G,\Delta}(M)$ is second-countable, and so is $S_{G,\Delta}(M)/E_\Delta$ (by Fact \[fact: from Engelking\] and the observations that $S_{G,\Delta}(M)/E_\Delta$ is compact, Hausdorff and is the image of $S_{G,\Delta}(M)$ under a continuous map).
Since the $\tau$-topology on $u{{\mathcal M}}$ is weaker than the topology inherited on $u{{\mathcal M}}$ from $S_{G,\Delta}(M)/E_\Delta$, we have that for $u{{\mathcal M}}$ equipped with this inherited topology (and $u{{\mathcal M}}/ H(u{{\mathcal M}})$ equipped with its usual quotient topology coming from the $\tau$-topology on $u{{\mathcal M}}$) the quotient function $u{{\mathcal M}}\to u{{\mathcal M}}/ H(u{{\mathcal M}})$ is continuous. But this inherited topology on $u{{\mathcal M}}$ has a countable basis (by the second paragraph of the proof). Thus, since $u{{\mathcal M}}/ H(u{{\mathcal M}})$ is compact, Hausdorff, we get that it is second-countable by Fact \[fact: from Engelking\].
This corollary shows an advantage of $u{{\mathcal M}}/H(u{{\mathcal M}})$ computed in the definable category in comparison with the same object computed in the externally definable category (where it does not have to be metrizabe). In [@KrPi], ${G^*}^{00}_M/{G^*}^{000}_M$ is presented as a quotient of a closed subgroup of the group $u{{\mathcal M}}/H(u{{\mathcal M}})$ computed in the externally definable context, and in [@KrPiRz], it was used to get new information on the Borel cardinality of ${G^*}^{00}_M/{G^*}^{000}_M$. If we were able to present ${G^*}^{00}_M/{G^*}^{000}_M$ as a quotient of closed subgroup of the group $u{{\mathcal M}}/H(u{{\mathcal M}})$ computed in the definable context, by the above remark, we would be immediately within a nice descriptive set-theoretic setting, which could simplify some arguments from [@KrPiRz] (for the objects that we are considering now) and maybe lead to new results. But in this paper, we only describe connections between $u{{\mathcal M}}/H(u{{\mathcal M}})$ and $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_M$.
Proposition \[proposition: theta is onto\] gives us the epimorphism $\hat{\theta} \colon G^*/E'_\Delta \to G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$ whose restriction $\theta$ to $u{{\mathcal M}}$ is also an epimorphism. Using the explicit definition of $\hat{\theta}$, one can adapt the proof of [@KrPi Theorem 0.1] to get the next theorem. In fact, the proof of (2) is even simpler now, because we do not use the $F_n$’s.
\[theorem: factorization by H(uM)\] Suppose that $u{{\mathcal M}}$ is equipped with the $\tau$-topology and $u{{\mathcal M}}/H(u{{\mathcal M}})$ – with the induced quotient topology. Then:
1. $\theta$ is continuous,
2. $H(u{{\mathcal M}}) \leq \ker(\theta)$,
3. the formula $p*H(u{{\mathcal M}}) \mapsto \theta(p)$ yields a well-defined continuous epimorphism $\bar \theta$ from $uM/H(uM)$ to $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$.
In particular, we get the following sequence of continuous epimorphisms $$u{{\mathcal M}}\twoheadrightarrow u{{\mathcal M}}/H(u{{\mathcal M}}){ \operatorname{{ext}}@arrow 0579{ \arrowfill@\relbar\relbar\twoheadrightarrow
}{}{\bar \theta}}{}{G^*}/{G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}.$$
We say that $G$ is [*$\Delta$-definably strongly amenable*]{} if it has no non-trivial $\Delta$-definable [*proximal*]{} $G$-flows (i.e. flows in which any two points $x$ and $y$ are [*proximal*]{} which means that there exists a net $(g_i)$ in $G$ such that $\lim g_i x = \lim g_i y$). This extends the notion of strongly amenable group from [@Gl]. For example, [@Gl Chapter II, Theorem 3.4] tells us that all nilpotent groups are strongly amenable so also $\Delta$-definably strongly amenable. Now, we significantly generalize Corollary 0.4 from [@KrPi] (by dropping the definability of types assumption and by extending the context to the local, $\Delta$-definable one). The same proof as the one from [@KrPi] works, once we use Proposition \[proposition: Delta-definable Bohr compactification\] and (in the final part of the proof) the explicit formula for $*$ obtained in Proposition \[proposition: formula for \*\].
\[theorem: strong amenability\] Suppose $G$ is $\Delta$-definably strongly amenable. Then the natural epimorphism $\bar \theta \colon u{{\mathcal M}}/H(uM) \to G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$ is an isomorphism.
The theorem implies that for $\Delta$-definably strongly amenable groups, the $\Delta$-definable generalized Bohr compactification is isomorphic with the $\Delta$-definable Bohr compactification.
Let us finish this section with a comparison of externally definable and definable objects.
Let ${{\mathcal M}}_{\operatorname{{ext}}}$ be a minimal left ideal of the universal externally definable $G$-flow $S_{G,{\operatorname{{ext}}}}(M)$, and let $u_{\operatorname{{ext}}}\in {{\mathcal M}}_{\operatorname{{ext}}}$ be an idempotent. Since each $\Delta$-definable $G$-flow is externally definable, there is a unique epimorphism $\hat{h}\colon (G,S_{G,\operatorname{{ext}}}(M),\operatorname{{tp}}_{\operatorname{{ext}}}(e/M)) \to (G,S_{G,\Delta}(M)/E_\Delta,\operatorname{{tp}}_\Delta(e/M)/E_\Delta)$. Then $\hat{h}$ is an epimorphism of semigroups. Put ${{\mathcal M}}:=\hat{h}[{{\mathcal M}}_{\operatorname{{ext}}}]$ and $u:=\hat{h}[u_{\operatorname{{ext}}}]$ (so far ${{\mathcal M}}$ and $u$ were chosen arbitrarily at the beginning, but now we define them in this particular way). We easily get that ${{\mathcal M}}$ is a minimal left ideal, $u \in {{\mathcal M}}$ is an idempotent, and $h:=\hat{h}|_{u_{\operatorname{{ext}}}{{\mathcal M}}_{\operatorname{{ext}}}}$ is an epimorphism from $u_{\operatorname{{ext}}} {{\mathcal M}}_{\operatorname{{ext}}}$ to $u{{\mathcal M}}$.
$h$ is continuous, where both Ellis groups are equipped with the $\tau$-topologies.
Let $D \subseteq u{{\mathcal M}}$ be $\tau$-closed. Let $D'=h^{-1}[D]$. The goal is to show that $D'$ is $\tau$-closed. Take $p \in \operatorname{{cl}}_\tau(D')$. There are nets $(g_i)$ in $G$ and $(x_i)$ in $D'$ such that $\lim_i g_i =u_{\operatorname{{ext}}}$ and $\lim_i g_ix_i = p$. Then $\lim_i \hat{h}(g_i) = \hat{h}(u_{\operatorname{{ext}}})=u$ and $\lim_i \hat{h}(g_i) \hat{h}(x_i)=\lim_i \hat{h}(g_ix_i)=\hat{h}(p)$. Moreover, $\hat{h}(g_i) =g_i/E'_{\Delta}$ and $\hat{h}(x_i) \in D$. Therefore, $h(p)=\hat{h}(p) \in \operatorname{{cl}}_\tau(D)=D$, hence $p \in D'$.
By this remark, we see that $h[H(u_{\operatorname{{ext}}}{{\mathcal M}}_{\operatorname{{ext}}})] \leq H(u{{\mathcal M}})$. Therefore, $h$ induces a continuous epimorphism from $u_{\operatorname{{ext}}}{{\mathcal M}}_{\operatorname{{ext}}}/H(u_{\operatorname{{ext}}}{{\mathcal M}}_{\operatorname{{ext}}})$ to $u{{\mathcal M}}/H(u{{\mathcal M}})$.
Let $N\succ M$ be an $|M|^+$-saturated elementary extension, and let $S_{G,M}(N)$ be the space of all types in $S_{G}(N)$ finitely satisfiable in $M$. Then $S_{G,\operatorname{{ext}}}(M)$ can be naturally identified with $S_{G,M}(N)$, which we will be using freely. Newelski was considering the epimorphism $\hat{\theta}_{\operatorname{{ext}}} \colon S_{G,M}(N) \to G^*/{G^*}^{00}_M$ given by $\hat{\theta}_{\operatorname{{ext}}}(\operatorname{{tp}}(a/N))=a/{G^*}^{00}_M$ and conjectured that $\theta_{ext}:=\hat{\theta}_{\operatorname{{ext}}}|_{u_{\operatorname{{ext}}}{{\mathcal M}}_{\operatorname{{ext}}}}\colon u_{\operatorname{{ext}}}{{\mathcal M}}_{\operatorname{{ext}}} \to {G^*}/{G^*}^{00}_M$ is an isomorphism (at least in nice situations), e.g. see the comment after [@Ne1 Proposition 4.4]. In general, such a conjecture is false, but it turned out to be true for definably amenable groups in NIP theories [@ChSi Theorem 5.6]. Using this result, we easily get that the same is true in our definable category.
\[corollary: from ChSi\] Assume we are in the definable case (i.e. $\Delta$ consists of all formulas of the appropriate form). If $G$ is definable amenable and $T:=\operatorname{{Th}}(M)$ has NIP, then $\theta\colon u{{\mathcal M}}\to G^*/{G^*}^{00}_M$ is an isomorphism.
Consider first the case as above, namely with ${{\mathcal M}}:=\hat{h}[{{\mathcal M}}_{\operatorname{{ext}}}]$ and $u:=\hat{h}[u_{\operatorname{{ext}}}]$. Note that $\hat{h}(\operatorname{{tp}}(a/N))= a/E'$ for any $\operatorname{{tp}}(a/N) \in S_{G,M}(N)$. Therefore, using the definitions of $\hat{\theta}$ and $\hat{\theta}_{\operatorname{{ext}}}$, we get $\hat{\theta}_{\operatorname{{ext}}}=\hat{\theta} \circ \hat{h}$. Hence, $\theta_{\operatorname{{ext}}}=\theta \circ h$. On the other hand, [@ChSi Theorem 5.6] tells us that $\theta_{\operatorname{{ext}}}$ is an isomorphism, and, by the above observations, we know that $h$ is an epimorphism. Therefore, $\theta$ is an isomorphism.
Now, consider an arbitrary minimal left ideal ${{\mathcal M}}$ and an idempotent $u \in {{\mathcal M}}$. Let ${{\mathcal M}}_0:=\hat{h}[{{\mathcal M}}_{\operatorname{{ext}}}]$ and $u_0:=\hat{h}[u_{\operatorname{{ext}}}]$. By [@Gl Chapter I, Proposition 2.5], there is an idempotent $v \in {{\mathcal M}}$ such that $vu_0=u_0$ and $u_0 v=v$. Then $f \colon u{{\mathcal M}}\to u_0{{\mathcal M}}_0$ given by $f(x)=u_0vxu_0=vxu_0$ is a group isomorphism (even $\tau$-continuous). Indeed, $f(x)f(y)=vxu_0vyu_0=vxvyu_0=vxyu_0=f(xy)$ (the fact that $xv=x$ follows from the fact that $u \in {{\mathcal M}}={{\mathcal M}}v$ (as $v \in {{\mathcal M}}$), $x \in {{\mathcal M}}={{\mathcal M}}u$ and $v$ is an idempotent), so $f$ is a homomorphism; to see that it is an isomorphism, one should check, by similar computations, that $g \colon u_0{{\mathcal M}}_0 \to u{{\mathcal M}}$ given by $g(y)=uyv$ is the inverse of $f$. Let $\theta_0 \colon u_0{{\mathcal M}}_0 \to {G^*}/{G^*}^{00}_M$ be $\hat{\theta}|_{u_0{{\mathcal M}}_0}$. By Proposition \[proposition: theta is onto\] and the definitions of $\theta$, $\theta_0$ and $f$, we get $\theta = \theta_0 \circ f$. Indeed, $\theta_0(f(x))=\hat{\theta}_0(vxu_0)=\hat{\theta}(v) \hat{\theta}(x) \hat{\theta}(u_0)=\hat{\theta}(x)=\theta(x)$. By the first paragraph of the proof, $\theta_0$ is an isomorphism. Hence, we conclude that $\theta$ is an isomorphism, too.
Similarly to the externally definable case, also in the $\Delta$-definable category there is a general question about the impact of changing the ground model $M$ on the topological-dynamic invariants $u{{\mathcal M}}$ and $u{{\mathcal M}}/H(u{{\mathcal M}})$. In particular, if we compute these invariants for a bigger model, does there exist epimorphisms to the corresponding objects for the smaller model? If we assume NIP, is $u{{\mathcal M}}/H(u{{\mathcal M}})$ independent of the choice of $M$?
Another interesting direction concerns some weaker versions of the notion of definable \[extremal\] amenability that naturally arise in our $\Delta$-definable category, but we leave this for the future.
Topological-dynamic invariants as Polish structures {#section: Polish structures}
===================================================
In [@Kr], the following notion was introduced.
A [*Polish structure*]{} is a pair $(G,X)$, where $G$ is a Polish group acting on a set $X$ so that the stabilizer of any singleton is a closed subgroup of $G$. We say that $(G,X)$ is [*small*]{} if for every $n\in \omega$ there are only countably many orbits on $X^n$ under the action of $G$.
In [@Kr], it is assumed that the action of $G$ on $X$ is faithful, but this assumption is purely cosmetic. The notion of [*$nm$-independence*]{} was introduced in [@Kr Definition 2.2], and it was proven that it has some nice properties (as forking independence in stable or simple theories), but the existence of $nm$-independent extensions requires the assumption of smallness of the Polish structure in question. Then a counterpart of basic stability theory was developed for small Polish structures. In particular, a counterpart of a superstable structure was introduced and called an [*$nm$-stable*]{} Polish structure. The following, particular case of Polish structures was studied deeply in [@Kr] and [@KrWa].
i\) A [*compact $G$-space*]{} is pair $(G,X)$, where $G$ is a Polish group acting continuously on a compact, Hausdorff space $X$.\
ii) A [*compact $G$-group*]{} is pair $(G,H)$, where $G$ is a Polish group acting continuously and by automorphisms on a compact, Hausdorff group $H$.
Various structural theorems on compact groups in the context of small Polish structures were proved in [@Kr] and [@KrWa], e.g.
\[fact: nm-stability implies nilpotency\] If $(G,H)$ is a small, $nm$-stable compact $G$-group, then $H$ is nilpotent-by-finite.
The main motivation to introduce Polish structures was to apply model-theoretic ideas to study purely topological objects. There is a variety of examples of classical small Polish structures, e.g. various compact metric spaces considered with the full group of homeomorphisms are always Polish structures which are often small. On the other hand, it would be interesting to use small Polish structures to get new results in pure model theory. A joint idea with Jan Dobrowolski is to view some spaces of types as Polish structures. For example, if $M$ is a countable first order structure, then $\operatorname{{Aut}}(M)$ is naturally a Polish group and $(\operatorname{{Aut}}(M),S(M))$ becomes a Polish structure (note that the action of $\operatorname{{Aut}}(M)$ on the type space $S(M)$ is continuous). However, even if $M$ is $\omega$-categorical (in particular, if its theory is small), this Polish structure is not necessarily small (e.g. for the random graph it is not small). However, one can formulate the following conjecture. Note before that a small, complete theory in a countable language has a unique (up to $\cong$) countable saturated model.
\[conjecture: chernikov\] Assume that $M$ is a countable, saturated model of a small, NIP theory in a countable language. Let $\Delta$ be a finite set of formulas without parameters. Then:\
i) $(\operatorname{{Aut}}(M),S(M))$ is a small Polish structure,\
ii) $(\operatorname{{Aut}}(M),S_{\Delta}(M))$ is a small Polish structure.
As both pairs are Polish structures, only smallness requires a proof. Clearly, (i) implies (ii). Artem Chernikov suggested that maybe some ideas from [@Sh] could be used to prove (ii).
As we will see in a moment, this conjecture is very important for potential applications of small Polish structures to say something new about topological-dynamic invariants, but it is also interesting in its own right.\
In this section, we explain how to view various invariants as Polish structures. Take the context and notation from previous sections. We start from a corollary of Theorem \[theorem: main theorem\].
$E_\Delta$ is $\operatorname{{Aut}}(M)$-invariant.
This is equivalent to the statement that $E'_{\Delta}$ is $\operatorname{{Aut}}({{\mathfrak C}}/\{ M\})$-invariant. By Theorem \[theorem: main theorem\], $E'_{\Delta}={\bar F}_\Delta$. Since ${\bar F}_\Delta$ is the finest type-definable over $M$ equivalence relation containing $F_\Delta$, it is enough to show that $F_\Delta$ is $\operatorname{{Aut}}({{\mathfrak C}}/\{M\})$-invariant. Since $F_\Delta$ is the transitive closure of ${F_0}_\Delta$, this boils down to showing that ${F_0}_\Delta$ is $\operatorname{{Aut}}({{\mathfrak C}}/\{ M\})$-invariant. But this follows immediately from the definition of ${F_0}_\Delta$, namely, items (1)-(3) from the definition of ${F_0}_\Delta$ are clearly preserved under all automorphisms which fix $M$ setwise.
Thus, $\operatorname{{Aut}}(M)$ acts on $S_{G,\Delta}(M)/E_\Delta$ in the natural way, namely $f (p/E_\Delta):=f(p)/E_\Delta$; denote this action by $\Phi \colon \operatorname{{Aut}}(M) \times S_{G,\Delta}(M)/E_\Delta \to S_{G,\Delta}(M)/E_\Delta$.
\[proposition: the action of aut(M) is continuous\] $\Phi$ is continuous.
A basic open set in $S_{G,\Delta}(M)/E_\Delta$ is of the form $U_\varphi:=\{ p/{E_\Delta} : [p]_{E_\Delta} \subseteq [\varphi]\}$ for a $\Delta$-formula $\varphi=\varphi(x,\bar m)$ with parameters $\bar m$ from $M$. Let $o(\bar m)$ be the orbit of $\bar m$ under $\operatorname{{Aut}}(M)$. We compute $$\Phi^{-1}[U_\varphi]= \bigcup_{{\bar m}' \in o(\bar m)} \{ f \in \operatorname{{Aut}}(M): f({\bar m}')=\bar m\} \times U_{\varphi(x,{\bar m}')},$$ which is clearly open in $\operatorname{{Aut}}(M) \times S_{G,\Delta}(M)/E_\Delta$.
\[proposition: the action preserves \*\] The action $\Phi$ preserves $*$.
Consider any $f \in \operatorname{{Aut}}(M)$ and $p,q \in S_{G,\Delta}(M)$. By Proposition \[proposition: formula for \*\], $$p/E_\Delta * q/E_\Delta=\operatorname{{tp}}_{\Delta}(ab/M),$$ where $b \models q$ and $a$ satisfies a $\Delta$-coheir extension of $p$ over $M,b$. Let $\bar{f}$ be an extension of $f$ to an automorphism of ${{\mathfrak C}}$. Then $f(p) = \operatorname{{tp}}_\Delta({\bar f}(a)/M)$, $f(q)=\operatorname{{tp}}_\Delta({\bar f}(b)/M)$, and $\operatorname{{tp}}_\Delta({\bar f}(a)/M,{\bar f}(b))$ is finitely satisfiable in $M$. Therefore, $$\begin{array}{lll}
f(p/E_\Delta) * f(q/E_\Delta) &= & f(p)/E_\Delta * f(q)/E_\Delta=\operatorname{{tp}}_\Delta({\bar f} (a){\bar f} (b)/M)/E_\Delta\\
&= & \operatorname{{tp}}_\Delta ({\bar f}(ab)/M)/E_\Delta= f(\operatorname{{tp}}_\Delta(ab/M)/E_\Delta)\\
&=& f(p/E_\Delta * q/E_\Delta).
\end{array}$$
Let ${{\mathcal M}}$ be a minimal left ideal in $S_{G,\Delta}(M)/E_\Delta$ and $u \in {{\mathcal M}}$ an idempotent. We will need the following observation [@Gl Chapter IX, Lemma 1.5].
\[fact: lim i tau-lim\] If $(p_i)$ is a net in $u{{\mathcal M}}$ converging (in the usual topology on ${{\mathcal M}}$) to $p$, then $\tau\mbox{-}\lim_i p_i= up$.
Let $\operatorname{{Aut}}(M/u)$ be the stabilizer of $u$ under the action $\Phi$. By Proposition \[proposition: the action of aut(M) is continuous\] and the fact that $S_{G,\Delta}(M)/E_\Delta$ is Hausdorff, $\operatorname{{Aut}}(M/u)$ is a closed subgroup of $\operatorname{{Aut}}(M)$.
The action $\Phi$ induces a $\tau$-continuous action of $\operatorname{{Aut}}(M/u)$ on $u{{\mathcal M}}$.
By Proposition \[proposition: the action preserves \*\] and the fact that ${{\mathcal M}}= S_{G,\Delta}(M)/E_\Delta *u$, we see that any automorphism $f \in \operatorname{{Aut}}(M/u)$ fixes both ${{\mathcal M}}$ and $u{{\mathcal M}}$ setwise. Thus, the action $\Phi$ induces an action of $\operatorname{{Aut}}(M/u)$ on ${{\mathcal M}}$, and further on $u{{\mathcal M}}$. Now, we want to show the continuity of this action of $\operatorname{{Aut}}(M/u)$ on $u{{\mathcal M}}$.
Consider arbitrary nets $(f_i)$ in $\operatorname{{Aut}}(M/u)$ and $(p_i)$ in $u{{\mathcal M}}$ such that $\lim_i f_i = f \in \operatorname{{Aut}}(M/u)$ and $\tau\mbox{-}\lim_i p_i = p \in u{{\mathcal M}}$. We need to show that $\tau\mbox{-}\lim_if_i(p_i) = f(p)$. For this it is enough to prove that any subnet $(f_k'(p_k'))$ of $(f_i(p_i))$ has a subnet which is $\tau$-convergent to $f(p)$. Hence, we see that it is enough to show that, for any data as in the first sentence of this paragraph, the net $(f_i(p_i))$ has a subnet which is $\tau$-convergent to $f(p)$.
By the compactness of ${{\mathcal M}}$, there is a subnet $(p_k')$ of $(p_i)$ converging, in the usual topology on ${{\mathcal M}}$, to some $p'$, i.e. $\lim_k p_k'=p'$. The corresponding subnet $(f_k')$ of $(f_i)$ still converges to $f$, i.e. $\lim_k f_k'=f$.
By Proposition \[proposition: the action of aut(M) is continuous\], $\lim_k f_k'(p_k')=f(p')$. Hence, by Fact \[fact: lim i tau-lim\] and Proposition \[proposition: the action preserves \*\], we get $\tau\mbox{-}\lim_k f_k'(p_k')=uf(p')=f(u)f(p')=f(up')$.
On the other hand, by Fact \[fact: lim i tau-lim\] applied to the net $(p_k)$, we get $p=\tau\mbox{-}\lim_i p_i=\tau\mbox{-}\lim_k p_k'=up'$.
By the last two paragraphs, $\tau\mbox{-}\lim_k f_k'(p_k')=f(p)$, and the proof is finished.
$\operatorname{{Aut}}(M/u)$ acts continuously on $u{{\mathcal M}}/H(u{{\mathcal M}})$, i.e. on the $\Delta$-definable generalized Bohr compactification of $G$ (see Theorem \[theorem: gen. Bohr comp.\]).
Note that $\operatorname{{Aut}}(M)$ also acts on $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$. Namely, for $f \in \operatorname{{Aut}}(M)$, take any $\bar f \in \operatorname{{Aut}}({{\mathfrak C}})$ extending $f$ and define $f \cdot (a/{G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}):= {\bar f}(a)/{G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$. (The fact that this action is well-defined follows easily from the observation that ${G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$ is invariant under $\operatorname{{Aut}}({{\mathfrak C}}/\{ M\})$ and contains all $a^{-1}b$ for $a \equiv_M b$.) By a similar argument to the proof of Proposition \[proposition: the action of aut(M) is continuous\], one can show
The action of $\operatorname{{Aut}}(M)$ on $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$ is continuous.
By the above observations, we get
\[corollary: Polish structures\] Assume that the model $M$ is countable. The following are Polish structures: $(\operatorname{{Aut}}(M), S_{G,\Delta}(M))$, $(\operatorname{{Aut}}(M), S_{G,\Delta}(M)/E_\Delta)$, $(\operatorname{{Aut}}(M/u), u{{\mathcal M}})$, $(\operatorname{{Aut}}(M/u), u{{\mathcal M}}/H(u{{\mathcal M}}))$, and $(\operatorname{{Aut}}(M), G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M})$. More precisely, all these are compact $G$-spaces (except the third one, which is not necessarily Hausdorff). Moreover, the second one is a compact $\operatorname{{Aut}}(M)$-semigroup with left-continuous semigroup operation, the fourth one is a compact $\operatorname{{Aut}}(M/u)$-group, and the last one is a compact $\operatorname{{Aut}}(M)$-group.
From now on, we always assume that $M$ is countable. In order to apply some knowledge on small Polish structures, first one would have to describe interesting classes of theories for which some of the above Polish structures are small. Conjecture \[conjecture: chernikov\] may provide such classes.
Using Proposition \[proposition: theta is onto\], we easily get
If $(\operatorname{{Aut}}(M), S_{G,\Delta}(M))$ is small, then all other Polish structures from Corollary \[corollary: Polish structures\] are small, too.
By Theorem \[theorem: factorization by H(uM)\], we easily get
If $(\operatorname{{Aut}}(M/u), u{{\mathcal M}}/H(u{{\mathcal M}}))$ is small, then $(\operatorname{{Aut}}(M), G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M})$ is small as well.
There are two kinds of possible applications of small Polish structures. First of all, [@Kr Corollary 5.9] tells us that small compact $G$-groups are profinite.
i\) If $(\operatorname{{Aut}}(M/u), u{{\mathcal M}}/H(u{{\mathcal M}}))$ is small, then $u{{\mathcal M}}/H(u{{\mathcal M}})$ is a profinite group.\
ii) If $(\operatorname{{Aut}}(M), G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M})$ is small, then $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$ is a profinite group.
Secondly, we would like to describe the algebraic structure of $u{{\mathcal M}}/H(u{{\mathcal M}})$ and $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$, but for this we would have to know that the corresponding Polish structures are not only small, but also $nm$-stable (e.g. to apply Fact \[fact: nm-stability implies nilpotency\]).
i\) If $(\operatorname{{Aut}}(M/u), u{{\mathcal M}}/H(u{{\mathcal M}}))$ is small and $nm$-stable, then $u{{\mathcal M}}/H(u{{\mathcal M}})$ is nilpotent-by-finite.\
ii) If $(\operatorname{{Aut}}(M), G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M})$ is small and $nm$-stable, then $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$ is nilpotent-by-finite.
We finish with a discussion on NIP and stable situations, but before that we need to make one general observation.
Recall that by ${G^*}^{00}$ we denote the smallest type-definable (over arbitrary parameters from ${{\mathfrak C}}$) subgroup of $G^*$ of bounded index, if it exists. Note if ${G^*}^{00}$ exists, then it is type-definable over $\emptyset$, so ${G^*}^{00}={G^*}^{00}_\emptyset$. Therefore, ${G^*}^{00}$ exists if and only if ${G^*}^{00}_A$ does not depend on the choice of the parameter set $A$.
\[rem:existence of G00\] If ${G^*}^{00}$ exists, then for any set $\Delta$ of formulas of the appropriate form, ${G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$ does not depend on the choice of the model $M$ and it is type-definable over $\emptyset$; in fact, ${G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$ is the smallest $\Delta$-type-definable (over arbitrary parameters from ${{\mathfrak C}}$) subgroup of $G^*$ of bounded index
By the existence of ${G^*}^{00}$, there exists the smallest $\Delta$-type-definable (over arbitrary parameters from ${{\mathfrak C}}$) subgroup of $G^*$ of bounded index, which we denote by ${G^*}^{00}_{\Delta}$. This component is clearly invariant under $\operatorname{{Aut}}({{\mathfrak C}})$, so it is type-definable over $\emptyset$ by a collection of formulas $\{\varphi_i(x): i \in I\}$ closed under (finite) conjunctions. We will show that ${G^*}^{00}_{\Delta}={G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$ for any model $M \prec {{\mathfrak C}}$.
The inclusion $(\subseteq)$ is clear. For the other inclusion it is enough to show that ${G^*}^{00}_{\Delta}$ is the intersection of a family of sets which are $\Delta$-definable over $M$. Consider any $i \in I$. We will be done if we show that there exist a $\Delta$-formula $\varphi(x)$ over $M$ and $j \in I$ such that $\varphi_j(G^*) \subseteq \varphi(G^*) \subseteq \varphi_i(G^*)$. By the definition of ${G^*}^{00}_{\Delta}$ and compactness, there is a $\Delta$-formula $\varphi^*(x)$ over ${{\mathfrak C}}$ such that ${G^*}^{00}_{\Delta} \subseteq \varphi^*(G^*) \subseteq \varphi_i(G^*)$. By compactness, there is $j \in I$ such that $\varphi_j(G^*) \subseteq \varphi^*(G^*) \subseteq \varphi_i(G^*)$. Since $M \prec {{\mathfrak C}}$, we can replace the parameters of $\varphi^*(x)$ by some parameters from $M$, obtaining a $\Delta$-formula $\varphi(x)$ over $M$ for which $\varphi_j(G^*) \subseteq \varphi(G^*) \subseteq \varphi_i(G^*)$.
When the theory $T:=\operatorname{{Th}}(M)$ has NIP, we know that ${G^*}^{00}$ exists (see [@Sh-1] or [@Si Theorem 8.4]). By Remark \[rem:existence of G00\], this implies that ${G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$ is type-definable over $\emptyset$. Thus, if we assume that the language of $T$ is countable, then $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$ is a compact, metrizable group and $\operatorname{{Aut}}({{\mathfrak C}})$ induces a compact group, say $\operatorname{{AUT}}$, acting continuously on $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$ as a group of automorphisms (see [@LaPi Lemma 3.11] and [@KrNe Fact 1.3]). So $(\operatorname{{AUT}}, G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M})$ is a compact structure interpretable in $T$ over $\emptyset$, according to [@Kr-1 Definition 1.3]. It is very easy to see that if $T$ is small, then this compact structure is also small, and then [@Kr-1 Remark 2.1] tells us that $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$ is a profinite space (i.e. a totally disconnected, compact, Hausdorff space (see [@RiZa Theorem 1.1.12] for equivalent definitions of a profinite space)) which implies that it is a profinite group (see [@RiZa Theorem 2.1.3]). In fact, the assumption that the language is countable can be dropped in the last conclusion, as each small theory is a definitional extension of its reduct to a certain countable sublanguage. Alternatively, in the very simple proof of [@Kr-1 Remark 2.1], the fact that the underlying space (in our case, $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$) of the small compact structure in question is metrizable is irrelevant to conclude that it is profinite, hence the countability of the language can be dropped. So we have justified the following
If $T:=\operatorname{{Th}}(M)$ is small and has NIP, then $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$ is a profinite group.
Assume that $T:=\operatorname{{Th}}(M)$ is stable. We will be using fundamental knowledge on stability and stable groups (e.g. see [@Pi Chapter 1]). By [@Pi Chapter 1, Lemma 2.2(i)] and the shape of the formulas in $\Delta$, one easily gets that the $G$-ambit $S_{G,\Delta}(M)$ is $\Delta$-definable, so it is the universal $\Delta$-definable $G$-ambit and the relation $E_\Delta$ is trivial (by Corollary \[cor: definable ambit is a quotient\] and Remark \[remark: uniqueness of E\]). Since (by stability) there is a generic type in $S_{G,\Delta}(M)$, Corollary 1.9 of [@Ne1] implies that there is a unique minimal left ideal (equivalently, minimal subflow) ${{\mathcal M}}$ of $S_{G,\Delta}(M)$ and it consists of all the generic types. Another consequence of stability and the shape of the formulas in $\Delta$ is that any coset of ${G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$ determines a unique generic type in $S_{G,\Delta}(M)$ (which is the $\Delta$-type over $M$ of some element of this coset). Together with Proposition \[proposition: formula for \*\], this implies that there is a unique idempotent $u \in {{\mathcal M}}$ which is exactly the unique generic type containing all $\Delta$-formulas over $M$ defining ${G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$. Thus, ${{\mathcal M}}=u{{\mathcal M}}$, $\theta \colon u{{\mathcal M}}\to G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$ is a topological isomorphism, the usual topology on ${{\mathcal M}}$ coincides with the $\tau$-topology on $u{{\mathcal M}}$, and $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$ is profinite.
By work of Newelski (e.g. see [@Ne-2 Proposition 1.6] and [@Ne-1 Example 3]), it follows that if the language is countable and $T$ is superstable with few countable models (so $T$ is small), then $(\operatorname{{AUT}}, G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M})$ is a small, $m$-stable profinite structure (in the sense of [@Ne-1]), which in turn implies, by [@Wa], that $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\Delta,M}$ is abelian-by-finite.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The author would like to thank the Referee for careful reading and comments which helped to improve presentation.
[lll]{} J. Auslander, [*Minimal flows and their extensions*]{}, Mathematics Studies 153, North-Holland, The Netherlands, 1988.
A. Chernikov, P. Simon. *Definably amenable NIP groups*, submitted.
A. Conversano, A. Pillay, *Connected components of definable groups and $o$-minimality I*, Adv. Math. 231 (2012), 605-623.
R. Ellis, *Lectures on topological dynamics*, W. A. Benjamin, New York, 1969.
R. Engelking, *General topology*, Sigma Series in Pure Mathematics, Heldermann Verlag, Berlin, 1989.
J. Gismatullin, *Model theoretic connected components of groups*, Israel J. Math. 184 (2011), 251-274.
J. Gismatullin, K. Krupiński, *On model-theoretic connected components in some group extensions*, J. Math. Log. 15 (2015), 1550009 (51 pages).
J. Gismatullin, D. Penazzi, A. Pillay, *On compactifications and the topological dynamics of definable groups*, Ann. Pure Appl. Logic, 165 (2014), 552-562.
S. Glasner, *Proximal Flows*, LNM 517, Springer, Germany, 1976.
G. Jagiella, *Definable topological dynamics and real Lie groups*, Math. Log. Quart. 61 (2015), 45-55.
K. Krupiński, [*Generalizations of small profinite structures*]{}, J. Symbolic Logic 75 (2010), 1147-1175.
K. Krupiński, *Some model theory of Polish structures*, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 362 (2010), 3499-3533.
K. Krupiński, L. Newelski, *On bounded type definable equivalence relations*, Notre Dame J. Form. Log. 43 (2002), 231-242.
K. Krupiński, A. Pillay, *Generalized Bohr compactification and model-theoretic connected components*, Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc., to appear. Published on-line, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305004116000967.
K. Krupiński, A. Pillay, T. Rzepecki, *Topological dynamics and the complexity of strong types*, submitted.
K. Krupiński, F. Wagner, *Small, nm-stable compact G-groups*, Israel J. Math. 194 (2013), 907-933.
D. Lascar, A.Pillay, *Hyperimaginaries and automorphism groups*, J. Symbolic Logic 66 (2001), 127-143.
L. Newelski, *${{\mathcal M}}$-gap conjecture and $m$-normal theories*, Israel J. Math. 106 (1998), 285-311.
L. Newelski, *Small profinite structures*, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 354 (2001), 925-943.
L. Newelski, *Topological dynamics of definable groups actions*, J. Symbolic Logic 74 (2009), 50-72.
L. Newelski, *Model theoretic aspects of the Ellis semigroup*, Israel J. Math. 190 (2012), 477-507.
A. Pillay, *Geometric stability theory*, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1996.
A. Pillay, *Type-definability, compact Lie groups, and $o$-minimality*, J. Math. Log. 4 (2004), 147-162.
L. Ribes, P. Zalesskii, [*Profinite groups*]{}, volume 40, Springer, 2000.
S. Shelah, *Minimal bounded index subgroup for dependent theories*, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 136 (2008), 1087-1091.
S. Shelah, *Dependent dreams: recounting types*, preprint Sh:950.
P. Simon, *A guide to NIP theories (Lecture Notes in Logic)*, Cambridge University Press, 2015.
F. Wagner *Small $m$-stable profinite groups*, Fund. Math. 176 (2003), 181-191.
N. Yao, D. Long, *Topological dynamics for groups definable in real closed field*, Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 166 (2015), 261–273.
|
---
abstract: 'We report on [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectra of three U Gem-type, long period, dwarf novae, UU Aql, BV Cen and CH UMa taken during their quiescence intervals. We discuss the line identifications in their spectra and attempt to characterize the source(s) of their FUV flux distribution. Archival [*[IUE]{}*]{} spectrum of CH UMa and BV Cen in quiescence were identified as having a matching flux level with the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectra and these were combined with each [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectrum to broaden the wavelength coverage and further constrain model fits. Multi-component synthetic spectral fits from our model grids, consisting of single temperature white dwarfs, two-temperature white dwarfs, accretion disks and white dwarfs plus accretion disks, were applied to the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectra alone and to the combined [*[FUSE]{}*]{} + [*[IUE]{}*]{} spectra. We present the results of our model analyses and their implications.'
author:
- 'Edward M. Sion, Patrick Godon, Fuhua Cheng'
- Paula Szkody
title: '[*[FUSE]{}*]{} Observations of the Dwarf Novae UU Aql, BV Cen, and CH UMa in Quiescence'
---
Introduction
============
Dwarf novae (DNe) are close interacting binaries in which a Roche-lobe filling main sequence-like dwarf transfers matter with angular momentum through a disk onto a white dwarf (WD). The rapid disk accretion during outburst, due to a thermal instability that causes cyclic changes of the accretion rate, releases gravitational potential energy identified as the DN outburst. The high accretion rate ($\sim 10^{-8}$ to $10^{-9}$ $M_{\odot}$/yr) outburst phase (which lasts a few days to weeks) is preceded and followed by a low accretion rate ($\sim 10^{-11}
M_{\odot}$/yr) quiescence stage. This DN behavior is believed to be punctuated every few thousand years or more by episodes of catastrophically unstable thermonuclear burning, the classical nova explosion. Perhaps the least understood topic in CV/DN research (along with what drives the wind outflow in outburst) is the state and structure of the boundary layer and accretion disk during quiescence and the physics of how long term accretion of mass, angular momentum and energy affects the WD. Our studies with archival [*[IUE]{}*]{}, and [*[HST]{}*]{}/STIS have found that $\sim$50% of the DNe in quiescence are dominated (i.e., $>$ 60% of UV flux) by a component of FUV flux other than the WD called the “accretion disk”; $\sim$25% are dominated by the WD and $\sim$25% have nearly equal contribution of WD and accretion disk (40-60% each) [@urb06].
A number of studies [@ara03; @sio91; @sio99; @urb06] have shown that CV WDs above the gap are typically on-average 10,000K hotter than CV WDs below the period gap (almost certainly a consequence of higher time-averaged accretion rates of systems above the gap but possibly with system total age also being a factor). Since the white dwarf surface temperature is crucial for understanding CV evolution and whether CVs evolve across the period gap, the use of cooling ages and long term evolutionary model sequences with accretion (including the effects of nova explosions, @tow03) must rely on the empirical WD temperature of the photosphere in equilibrium with long term compressional heating from accretion. The work of @tow02 [@tow03] allows measured T$_{eff}$’s of CV WDs to be converted to the accretion rate per unit WD surface area averaged over the thermal time of the WD envelope.
Unfortunately, there are far fewer systems with reliably known WD properties above the period gap compared with below the gap, thus impeding detailed comparisons between the two groups. For example, among CVs below the gap, there are now roughly 20 systems with reliable WD temperatures but only 5 systems above the gap with reliable WD temperatures. The primary reason for this disparity is that in long period CVs with higher mass transfer rates, the disks may remain optically thick even during quiescence, making the disk contribution to the total flux typically larger in systems above the gap. Hence, it is more difficult to disentangle the white dwarf flux contribution from that of the accretion disk.
As part of our effort to increase the sample of CV degenerates with known properties above the gap, we have used [*[FUSE]{}*]{} and [*[IUE]{}*]{} archival spectra to analyze three long period dwarf novae, UU Aql, BV Cen, and CH UMa. For UU Aql, system properties were adopted from @rit03 and from @szk87. For BV Cen parameters were adopted from @rit03. For CH UMa, we adopted values from @fri90. For all three systems, the distances were the same as those in @urb06 where the @war95 and @har04 M$_{v(max)}$ versus P$_{orb}$ relations, calibrated with trigonometric parallaxes, were used. The reddening values were the same as those quoted in @urb06 which were from @ver87, @lad91 and @bru94.
The dwarf nova systems analyzed in this work are UU Aql, BV Cen, and CH UMa. In Table 1, the observed properties of these dwarf novae are summarized by column as follows: (1) system name; (2) dwarf nova subclass with UG denoting a U Gem-type system; (3) orbital period in days; (4) the recurrence time of dwarf nova outbursts in days; (6) the apparent magnitude at minimum (quiescence); (7) the apparent magnitude in outburst; (8) secondary spectral type; (9) orbital inclination in degrees; (10) white dwarf mass in solar masses; (11) secondary star mass in solar masses; (12) adopted reddening value and ; (13) distance in parsecs.
Observations and Data Reduction
===============================
The instrumental setup and exposure details of the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectra of BV Cen, CH UMa and UU Aql in quiescence are provided in Table 2. The LWRS was used in all cases since it is least prone to slit losses due to the misalignment of the four [*[FUSE]{}*]{} telescopes. All the spectra were obtained in time tag (TTAG) mode, and each one of them consists of 7 individual exposures (corresponding to 7 [*[FUSE]{}*]{} orbits). It is clear that the relatively poor [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectral quality of the spectra speaks to the requirement for more observing time. Nevertheless, we deemed that there was sufficient S/N to warrant a first attempt multi-component FUV analysis of each system
All the data were reduced using CalFUSE version 3.0.7. In this version of CalFUSE the data are maintained as a photon list: the intermediate data file - IDF. Bad photons are flagged but not discarded, so the user can examine and combined data without re-running CalFUSE. For each target, we combined the individual exposures (using the IDF files) and channels to create a time-averaged spectrum weighted in the flux in each output datum by the exposure time and sensitivity of the input exposure and channel of origin. The details are given here. The spectral regions covered by the spectral channels overlap, and these overlap regions are then used to renormalize the spectra in the SiC1, LiF2, and SiC2 channels to the flux in the LiF1 channel. We then produce a final spectrum that covers almost the full [*[FUSE]{}*]{} wavelength range $905-1182$Å. The low sensitivity portions of each channel are discarded. In most channels there exists a narrow dark stripe of decreased flux in the spectra running in the dispersion direction. This stripe has been affectionately known as the ”worm” and it can attenuate as much as 50% of the incident light in the affected portions of the spectrum. The worm has been observed to move as much as 2000 pixels during a single orbit in which the target was stationary. The “worm” appears to be present in every exposure and, at this time, there is no explanation for it. Because of the temporal changes in the strength and position of the worm, CalFUSE cannot correct target fluxes for its presence. Here we take particular care to discard the portion of the spectrum where the so-called *worm* ’crawls’, which deteriorates LiF1 longward of 1125Å . Because of this the $1182 -
1187$Å region is lost. We then rescale and combine the spectra. When we combine, we weight according to the area and exposure time for that channel and then rebin onto a common wavelength scale with a $0.1$Å, $0.2$Å, and $0.5$Å resolution.
In the observing log given in Table 2, the entries are by column: (1) gives the target, (2) [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectral data ID, (3) the aperture used, (4) the date and time of observation, (5) the (good) exposure time in seconds, (6) central wavelength, and (7) S/N.
The [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectra for the three systems, UU Aql, BV Cen and CH Uma are displayed in Figures 1, 2, and 3 respectively. A quantitative sense of the relative data quality is provided by the signal to noise for the three [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectra. We binned the data by 0.1Å for which the S/N of UU Aql, BV Cen, and CH UMa is 5.15, 5.9, and 3.6, respectively.
For UU Aql, Fig. 1 reveals a rich line spectrum with numerous lines of molecular hydrogen, interstellar species and possible accretion disk or photospheric absorption features. The spectrum reveals a downturn in the continuum shortward of 1000Å. The spectrum does not exhibit any evidence of emission lines from the source, the only emission lines are from air glow and heliocoronal (e.g. sharp emissions lines from C[iii]{} (around 977Å) and the O[vi]{} doublet).
In figure 2, the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectrum of BV Cen has a variety of interstellar and stellar features but has a continuum shape distinctly different from UU Aql. The broad C[iii]{} absorption feature around 1175Å is definitely from the source, and the C[iii]{} (around 977Å) and the O[vi]{} doublet broad emission features could also possibly be associated with one of the FUV components in BV Cen. All the other sharp emission features are either heliocoronal or geocoronal in origin.
In figure 3, CH UMa reveals numerous absorption lines due to highly ionized and singly ionized metals. It has a continuum energy distribution similar to UU Aql. There are definitely some broad emission lines from the source itself. The most prominent one is the O[vi]{} doublet (the right component being strongly attenuated by molecular hydrogen sharp absorption lines), C[iii]{} (both around 977Å and 1175Å) which also seems to be in emission and a tentative identification of N[iv]{} emission in the short wavelengths. The source is also contaminated with sharp emission lines due to air glow. Here too the N[i]{} & N[ii]{} are geocoronal in origin, and the sharp peaks on top of the broad C[iii]{} (977Å) and O[vi]{} emissions are heliocoronal in origin. We note that ISM molecular hydrogen absorption is affecting the continuum.
Since the wavelength range covered by [*[FUSE]{}*]{} overlaps with [*[HST]{}*]{}/STIS or [*[IUE]{}*]{} in the region of C[iii]{} between 1170Å and 1180Å, a much broader FUV wavelength coverage is afforded by combining the spectra when the flux levels of the two spectra in the wavelength overlap region match closely enough. We found archival [*[IUE]{}*]{} spectra matching the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectra of two of the three systems (CH UMa and BV Cen) but unfortunately no [*[HST]{}*]{} spectra exist for the three systems.
The [*[FUSE]{}*]{} + [*[IUE]{}*]{} combination of spectra rests on the assumptions that (1) differences between the two spectra in orbital phase and (2) in time after the last outburst can be ignored. Given the long exposure times of the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} and [*[IUE]{}*]{} spectra, the questionable reliability of the orbital ephemerides, including UU Aql’s and (3) the limited S/N of the quiescent spectra, the influence of phase-dependent variations is not considered. However, the time since the last outburst as well as the brightness state of the system at the times of the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} and [*[IUE]{}*]{} observations for the three systems is considered in detail using AAVSO archival light curve data. For UU Aql, the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectrum was obtained approximately 50 days after its last major dwarf nova outburst, however, the [*[IUE]{}*]{} spectrum was obtained during the transition to a brightening that appeared not to be a major outburst. Therefore, we have excluded the [*[IUE]{}*]{} spectrum from use in combination with the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} data for UU Aql. For BV Cen both the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} and [*[IUE]{}*]{} spectra were obtained during quiescence but the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectrum was acquired approximately 159 days after the last outburst while the [*[IUE]{}*]{} spectrum was taken roughly 50 days after the last outburst. Thus, the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectrum probably recorded a greater degree of white dwarf cooling than the [*[IUE]{}*]{} spectrum obtained closer to the last outburst. Likewise for CH UMa, both the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} and [*[IUE]{}*]{} spectra were obtained during quiescence but the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectrum appears to have been obtained roughly 125 days after the last outburst while the [*[IUE]{}*]{} spectra were acquired about 83 days after the last outburst. Since the e-folding times for white dwarf cooling in both of these systems following the outburst heating episode is typically shorter than the above two post-outburst intervals, it is probably acceptable to combine the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} and [*[IUE]{}*]{} spectra for BV Cen and CH UMa.
In Table 3 we present the observing log of [*[IUE]{}*]{} observations which matched the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} flux level in the wavelength overlap region of these two systems. The entries by column are (1) the target name, (2) the observation ID, (3) aperture, (4) dispersion mode, (5) date of the observation, (6) time of mid-exposure, and (6) the exposure time in seconds.
Thus, our analysis was carried out first for the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectra of the three systems and then separately for the combined [*[FUSE]{}*]{} plus [*[IUE]{}*]{} data of BV Cen and CH UMa.
Multi-Component Synthetic Spectral Fitting
==========================================
Our data analysis and modeling involves the full suite of multi-component (accretion disk, white dwarf photosphere, accretion belt) synthetic spectral codes, which we have utilized in our spectral fitting of [*[FUSE]{}*]{} and [*[IUE]{}*]{} data. Based upon our expectation that the accreting white dwarf is an important source of FUV flux in these systems during quiescence, we carried out a high gravity photosphere synthetic spectral analysis first. The model atmosphere (TLUSTY200; @hub88), and spectrum synthesis codes (SYNSPEC48 and ROTIN4 @hub95) and details of our $\chi^{2}_{\nu}$ ($\chi^2$ per degree of freedom) minimization fitting procedures are discussed in detail in @sio95 and will not be repeated here. To estimate physical parameters, we generally took the white dwarf photospheric temperature T$_{eff}$, log $g$, and rotational velocity $v_{rot}$ and chemical abundances as free parameters.
We normalize our fits to 1 solar radius and 1 kiloparsec such that the distance of a source is computed from $d =
1000(pc)*(R_{wd}/R_{\sun})/\sqrt{S}$, or equivalently the scale factor $S
= \left( \frac{R_{wd}}{R_{\odot}} \right)^{2} \left( \frac{d}{kpc}
\right)^{-2}$, is the factor by which the theoretical flux (integrated over the entire wavelength range) has to be multiplied to equal the observed (integrated) flux.
The grid of WD models extended over the following range of parameters: log $g
= 7.0, 7.5, 8.0, 8.5, 9.0$; T$_{eff}/1000$ (K) = 22, 23, ..., 75; Si = 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 5.0; C = 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 5.0; and $v_{rot} \sin{i}$ (km s$^{-1}$) = 100, 200, 400, 600, 800.
For the synthetic accretion disk models, we used the latest accretion disk models from the optically thick disk model grid of @wad98. The range of disk model parameters varies as follows: WD mass (in solar units) value of 0.35, 0.55, 0.80, 1.03, and 1.21; orbital inclination (in degrees) of 18, 41, 60, 75 and 81. The accretion rate ranges from $10^{-10.5}M_{\odot}$yr$^{-1}$ to $10^{-8.0}M_{\odot}$yr$^{-1}$ by increments of 0.5 in $log{\dot{M}}$.
For each dwarf nova, we adopted the following procedure. First, we masked out all of the obvious emission features and artifacts in both the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} and [*[IUE]{}*]{} spectra of each object. Second, we carried out synthetic spectral fits using and/or combining model components in this order: a white dwarf model alone, accretion disk model alone, combination white dwarf plus accretion disk model, and two-temperature white dwarf model (the latter to simulate a hotter equatorial region as well as a cooler photosphere at higher latitudes). For accretion disk fits, we “fine-tuned” the derived accretion rate of the best-fitting disk model by changing the accretion rate in increments of 0.1 over the range 0.1 to 10, on the assumption that the disk fluxes scale linearly over that range.
In Table 4, we indicate where we masked any strong emission features, artifacts, or negative fluxes in the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} and [*[IUE]{}*]{} spectra of each object.
Synthetic Spectral Fitting Results
==================================
The noise level of the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectra precludes the opportunity to extract reliable parameters for the accreting white dwarfs in these three systems. This is especially true for deriving rotational velocities which rely on well-resolved, strong absorption lines arising in the photosphere. The rotational velocity is also affected by underlying emission filling of absorption features and by the chemical abundances one uses. With these caveats in mind, we proceeded to apply our grid of WD photosphere models (keeping the chemical abundance fixed at solar) and accretion disk synthetic spectra.
For any dwarf nova in quiescence, a single temperature white dwarf model should be a reasonable first approximation as the source of the FUV flux. For UU Aql, we adopted two possible distances, 150 pc and 350 pc and carried out detailed fits for both values. For a distance of 350 pc, the best-fit WD model to the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectrum gave T$_{eff} = 27,000$K, R$_{wd}$/R$_{\sun} = 1.13 \times
10^{-2}$ and a $\chi^{2} = 0.963$. This best-fitting model is shown in figure 4. The continuum of the model gives a fair representation of the observed continuum down to about 1060Å but there is a shortfall of model flux relative to the data at wavelengths shorter than 1030Å. For the same distance, an accretion disk alone yielded a best fit with $\chi^{2} =
1.14$, an accretion rate of $5\times 10^{-11} M_{\sun}$/yr and inclination $i = 41$ degrees, M$_{wd} = 0.8 M_{\sun}$. This disk fit is shown in figure 5. The model disk continuum, unlike the WD, fails to match the flux level of the data between about 1090Å and 1180Å and the solar abundance accretion disk model fails to provide a sharp absorption features.
A combination white dwarf plus accretion disk yielded a modest improvement with $\chi^{2} = 0.71$, $\dot{M} = 1.6 \times 10^{-11} M_{\sun}$/yr, $i =
41$ degrees and $M_{wd} = 0.8 M_{\sun}$. Finally we tried two temperature (WD + belt) fits. The best fit two temperature WD yields $\chi^{2} = 0.74$ with the cooler white dwarf portion ( T$_{eff} = 24,000$K) giving 57% of the flux and the hotter belt (T$_{belt} = 33,000$K) providing 43% (figure 6).
In general, for a distance d = 150 pc, the model fits to UU Aql’s [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectrum are worse than for 350 pc. Applying single temperature white dwarf fits, we obtained T$_{eff} = 17,000$K, $R_{wd}/R_{\sun} = 1.06
\times 10^{-2}$ and a $\chi^{2} = 1.13$. An accretion disk alone yielded a best fit with $\chi^{2} = 1.23$, an accretion rate of $1.3 \times 10^{-11}
M_{\sun}$/yr and inclination $i = 41$ degrees and M$_{wd} = 0.8 M_{\sun}$. A combination white dwarf plus accretion disk yielded a modest improvement with $\chi^{2} = 1.13$, $\dot{M} = 1.6\times10^{-11} M_{\sun}$/yr, $i =
41$ degrees and $M_{wd} = 0.8 M_{\sun}$. A two temperature white dwarf (WD + belt) gives a best-fit with a $\chi^{2} = 1.02$, with a 17,000K white dwarf providing 77% of the FUV flux and the belt giving 23% of the flux. In view of the much better agreement of the models with the observations of UU Aql for our assumed distance of 350 pc than for a distance of 150 pc, the closer distance can be ruled out.
For CH UMa, the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectrum is very noisy and underexposed. We took into account our adopted distance of 300 pc in the model fitting, we fixed the WD mass at M$_{wd} = 1.2 M_{\sun}$ (Log $g = 9.0$, with a radius of $\approx 4,000$km), and fixed the disk inclination at the published value of 18 degrees. A single temperature white dwarf fit to CH UMa had $\chi^{2} = 0.227$, and yielded a best fit T$_{eff} = 29,000$K, and a distance of 310pc. This model however did not fit very well in the shorter wavelengths ($<$1020Å). A lowest $\chi^{2}$ fit for this same WD mass was obtained for T=40,000K, with $\chi^{2} = 0.208$, but it yielded a distance of 600pc, twice the adopted estimate of the distance. Since the Ritter catalog give a mass of 1.95$M_{\odot}$ (well above the Chandraskhar mass limit for a WD), we decided to try a larger mass with a correspondingly smaller radius which lead to a smaller emitting surface area and therefore a shorter distance. We assumed $M=1.38M_{\odot}$ ($log {g} = 9.5$, with a radius of $\approx 2,000$km) and found that the best fit was for $T=40,000$K. This model yielded a distance of 307pc with $\chi^{2} = 0.199$. Since the absorption features around 1120Å - 1150Å are not pronounced in the observed spectrum, we decided to increase the rotational velocity to improve the fit of this model. However, a better result was obtained by simply reducing the abundances of Si and C to 0.01 their solar value. This low Si and C model had a $\chi^{2} = 0.184$ and a distance of 314pc. This model is shown in Figure 7. Because of the low S/N of the spectrum the assessment of the error on the temperature estimate is of the order of 5,000K, namely $T_{wd}=40,000\pm 5,000$K.
Though the WD fit yielded the lowest value of $\chi^2$, we tried accretion disk fits alone to CH UMa’s [*[FUSE]{}*]{} data. The best fit gave a $\chi^{2} = 0.213$, an accretion rate of $5 \times 10^{-12} M_{\sun}$/yr for $M_{wd} = 1.2 M_{\sun}$ and $i = 18$ degrees.
Various attempts to fit the combined [*[FUSE]{}*]{} + [*[IUE]{}*]{} spectra of CH UMa met with limited success as summarized in Table 5. The best combination fit was for an accretion disk plus WD with the disk contributing 79% of the FUV flux. However, these fits were less satisfactory than the fits to the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectrum alone.
Because the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectrum of CH UMa is very noisy, and because of the broad emission lines and the absence of strong absorption lines, it is difficult to assess which model (disk or WD) is the best solution. However, the absence of strong absorption lines would favor the accretion disk model because of Keplerian broadening. Also because of the poor quality of the spectrum, composite models (WD+accretion disk, two-temperature WD) did not improve the fit. In view of all of the above, we cannot be confident that we have determined the temperature of the white dwarf in CH UMa.
Next we analyzed the combined [*[FUSE]{}*]{} + [*[IUE]{}*]{} spectra of CH UMa. The best white dwarf-only fit yielded T$_{eff} = 31,000$K, log $g = 9$ a $\chi^{2} = 3.02$ and $R_{wd}/R_{\sun} = 6.02 \times 10^{-3}$. For accretion disk models only, the best fit occurred with a $\chi^{2} =
2.02$, corresponding to $\dot{M} = 3 \times 10^{-9} M_{\sun}$/yr. This disk fit is a modest improvement of the fit to CH UMa since the $\chi^{2}$ value was lowered to 2.02. The best-fitting white dwarf + accretion disk model resulted in only a modest, statistically insignificant improvement. The $\chi^{2}$ value was lowered to 1.87, the accretion rate was $6.4 \times 10^{-11} M_{\sun}$/yr with the WD T$_{eff}
= 22,000$K and the scale factor yielding a white dwarf radius of $5.84
\times 10^{-3} R_{\sun}$. In this composite disk plus white dwarf fit, the WD contributes 21% of the FUV flux while the accretion disk contributes 79% of the FUV flux. We also tried a two-temperature WD solutions with the best-fitting model consisting of a 26,000K WD providing 77% of the flux and a hot accretion belt/ring with T$_{belt} =
50,000$K giving 23% of the UV flux. However, this two-temperature fit was no better than the WD + accretion disk fit.
For BV Cen we dereddened the spectrum assuming E(B-V)=0.10, and first tried single temperature white dwarf fits with a white dwarf mass $= 0.83 M_{\sun}$, and used solar chemical abundances. We found the best-fitting white dwarf model to have T$_{eff} = 40,000\pm 1000$K, log $g= 8.3$, $V \sin i = 500$ km/s $\pm 100$ km/s. This fit yielded $\chi^{2} = 0.2701$ and a distance d=435pc (see figure 8). We note here that the WD solution fits the following absorption features quite accurately: C[ii]{} (1066Å), S[iv]{} (1073Å), N[ii]{} (1084Å), Si[iv]{} (1122.5Å, 1128.3Å), and Si[iii]{} (1140Å- 1146Å).
For an optically thick, steady state accretion disk alone, we chose $M_{wd} = 0.80 M_{\sun}$, $i = 60 $ degrees. The best fit we obtained has a mass accretion rate of $10^{-8.5}M_{\odot}$yr$^{-1}$, too large for dwarf nova quiescence. Moreover, the longer wavelength part of the spectrum is rather flat and unable to fit the absorption features around 1120Å and 1130Å. This fit, with i=60deg, leads to a distance of 1255pc. In order to fit these absorption features, one needs to assume an inclination of 18 degrees, inconsistent with the known inclination of the system (62 degrees). Such a model leads to a distance of more than 2000pc, again inconsistent with all estimates of the system distance (500pc). Therefore, based on the parameters of the system, the disk solution is completely inconsistent. We tried composite model fits, but they also led to very poor results. We also combined BV Cen’s [*[FUSE]{}*]{} + [*[IUE]{}*]{} spectra but they led to very poor fits, much worse than the fits to the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectrum alone. Since the WD solution is consistent with the parameters of the system and fits the absorption features of the spectra, it is clear that the favored solution of the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectrum of BV Cen is $T_{wd}=40,000\pm 2,000$K.
Discussion
==========
Our principal objective of determining the surface temperatures of the white dwarfs in these three dwarf novae during quiescence has met with mixed results. From synthetic spectral fits to the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectra of the three long period dwarf novae, UU Aql, CH UMa and BV Cen, and the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} + [*[IUE]{}*]{} archival SWP spectra of CH UMa we have presented preliminary evidence that during quiescence, their accreting white dwarfs all have surface temperatures hotter than 20,000K. Unfortunately, all three temperatures have considerable uncertainty due to the low S/N of the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectra and [*[IUE]{}*]{} spectra as well as the difficulty of disentangling the flux contribution of the second component of FUV flux or “accretion disk” during quiescence. Of the three systems in this study, we regard our estimate of the $T_{eff}$ of the WD in UU Aql to be the most reliable since that system appears to be dominated in the FUV by the white dwarf flux.
For UU Aql, we used both assumed distances, 150 pc and 350 pc, and tried the composite fits (WD + disk) to UU Aql’s [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectrum. However, the quality of the fits for WD-only, disk-only, WD + disk, and WD + “belt” were all roughly comparable and thus it is difficult to distinguish the best-fit case. For both distances, statistically insignificant improvements in the fits result when a white dwarf and accretion disk are combined or a two-temperature WD (WD + belt) is applied to the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} data. The results in Table 5 illustrate the difficulty. Qualitatively, the composite fits involving combinations of white dwarf plus accretion disk or accretion belt models look marginally more reasonable than the fits that involve single component (WD or Disk). It appears that for both distances, the white dwarf component is the dominant source of FUV flux and that the $T_{eff}$ of the WD is probably between 17,000K and 27,000K (say 22,000$\pm$5,000K).
For BV Cen, the WD model fit to the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectrum gave the best result, both in fitting actual features of the observed spectrum and in leading to consistent values of the system parameters. This was not the case for the disk model and the composite models. From the best WD model fit we obtained that the WD of BV Cen must have a temperature of about 40,000K.
For CH UMa, the broad and dominant emission lines together with the poor S/N (and possible detector noise at very short wavelengths) of the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} and [*[IUE]{}*]{} spectra precluded the opportunity to obtain conclusive results. However, the results for the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectrum were of a much higher quality than for the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} + [*[IUE]{}*]{} combined spectrum. Therefore we adopt the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} results for CH UMa with the possibility that the WD temperature could be as high as 40,000K.
In Table 6, we list the dwarf novae above the period gap whose white dwarfs have surface temperature determinations. In Column (1) we give the system name, column (2) the orbital period; column (3) the surface temperature and column (4) the temperature reference. As seen in Table 6, there is now a sample of eight long period dwarf novae of which roughly seven have relatively secure white dwarf temperatures obtained during quiescence. In the case of BV Cen, the inclination is expected to be high. Thus, it is plausible to expect that the quiescent accretion disk may be blocking the direct radiation from the accreting white dwarf.
The relatively poor [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectral quality of CH UMa underscores the need for re-observation with longer exposure times. However, analysis will remain hindered until more reliable information on white dwarf masses and distances becomes available. Until then, the conclusions in this work must be regarded as preliminary.
Acknowledgements
================
We thank an anonymous referee for helpful comments and corrections. PG wishes to thank the Space Telescope Science Institute for its kind hospitality. This work was supported by NSF grant AST05-07514 and NASA grants NAG5-12067 and NNG04GE78 to Villanova University. This research was based on observations made with the NASA-CNES-CSA Far Ultraviolet Spectroscopic Explorer. [*[FUSE]{}*]{} is operated for NASA by the Johns Hopkins University under NASA contract NAS5-32985.
Araujo-Betancor, S., et al. 2003, , 583, 437
Bruch, A., & Engel, A.1994, , 68, 41
Friend, M.T., Martin, J.S., Connon-Smith, R., & Jones, D.H.P. 1990, , 246, 654
Gilliland, R. 1982, , 263, 302
Godon, P., Seward, L., Sion, E.M., & Szkody, P. 2006, , 131, 2634
Harrison, T.E., Johnson, J.J., McArthur, B.E., Benedict, G.F., Szkody, P., Howell, S.B., Gelino, D.M. 2004, , 127, 460
Hartley, L.E., Long, K.S., Froning, C.S., & Drew, J.E. 2005, , 623, 425
Hubeny, I. 1988, Comput. Phys. Comm., 52, 103
Hubeny, I., & Lanz, T. 1995, , 439, 875
laDous, C. 1991, , 252, 100
Ritter, H., & Kolb, U. 2003, , 404, 301
Sion, E.M. 1991, , 102, 295
Sion, E.M. 1999, , 111, 532
Sion, E.M., Cheng, F., Godon, P., Urban, J.A., & Szkody, P. 2004, , 128, 1834
Sion, E.M., Cheng, F., Long, K.S., Szkody, P., Huang, M., Gilliland, R., Hubeny, I. 1995, , 439, 957
Sion, E.M., Cheng, F., Szkody, P., Sparks, W.M., Gänsicke, B.T., Huang, M., & Mattei, J. 1998, , 496, 449
Sion, E.M., Szkody, P., Gänsicke, B.T., Cheng, F., LaDous, C., Hassall, B. 2001, , 555, 834
Szkody, P. 1987, , 63, 685
Townsley, D., & Bildsten, L. 2002, , 565, 35
Townsley, D., & Bildsten, L. 2003, , 596, L227
Urban, J., & Sion, E.M. 2006, , 642, 1029
Verbunt, F. 1987, , 71, 339
Wade, R.A., & Hubeny, I. 1998, , 509, 350
Warner, B. 1995, Cataclysmic Variable Stars (Cambridge University Press)
[llllllcccc]{}\
System & $P_{orb}$ &$t_{rec}$&V$_{q}$ &V$_{o}$ & Sec. & i & $M_{wd}$ &$E_{B-V}$& Distance\
Name & (days) & (days) & & & & (deg) &$(M_{\odot})$& & (pc)\
BV Cen & 0.610108 & 150 & 12.6 & 10.5 & G5-8V &$62 \pm5$&$0.83\pm 0.1$ & 0.10 & 500\
CH UMa & 0.343 & 204 & 15.3 & 10.7 & K4-M0V&$21 \pm4$& & & 300\
UU Aql & 0.14049 & 71 & 16.0 & 11.0 & M2-4V & & & & 150-350\
[lccccccc]{} UU Aql & C1100301000 & LWRS 30x30 & 2004-05-16 & 13h:48m:00s & 16,121s & 1035Å& 5.15\
BV Cen & D1450301000 & LWRS 30x30 & 2003-04-13 & 20h:26m:00s & 26,545s & 1035Å& 5.9\
CH UMa & D1450201000 & LWRS 30x30 & 2003-04-02 & 22h:00m:00s & 17,311s & 1035Å& 3.6\
[lcccccc]{} BV Cen & 26623 & Lg & Low & 08/16/85& 17:17:00& 14,400\
CH UMa & 56270 & Lg & Low & 12/06/95& 12:15:49& 13,800\
[ll]{} UU Aql & for $ \lambda <$ 1050Å if $F_{\lambda}>6 \times 10^{-15}$ergs$~$s$^{-1}$cm$^{-2}$Å$^{-1}$\
& for 1050 Å $ < \lambda <$ 1185Å if $F_{\lambda}>1.8 \times 10^{-14}$ergs$~$s$^{-1}$cm$^{-2}$Å$^{-1}$\
& 975-985Å\
CH UMa & for $\lambda < 957$Å if $F_{\lambda} > 1 \times 10^{-14}$ergs$~$s$^{-1}$cm$^{-2}$Å$^{-1}$\
& 970-980, 987-994, 1023-1042, 1071-1090, 1107-1136, 1167-1180, 1200-1260,\
& 1285-1315, 1380-420, 1532-1560, 1630-1650, 1846-1940Å\
BV Cen & for $\lambda < 1185$Å if $F_{\lambda} > 2.5 \times 10^{-14}$ergs$~$s$^{-1}$cm$^{-2}$Å$^{-1}$\
& 1190-1220, 1320-1340, 1375-1415, 1530-1570, 1625-1650, 1835-1880Å\
[llclccccc]{} UU Aql & [*[FUSE]{}*]{} & 350 & 0.96 & 27 & - & - & 100(WD) & 4\
& [*[FUSE]{}*]{} & 150 & 1.13 & 17 & - & - & 100(WD) & -\
& [*[FUSE]{}*]{} & 350 & 1.13 & - & - & $5 \times 10^{-11}$ & 100(Disk) & 5\
& [*[FUSE]{}*]{} & 150 & 1.24 & - & - & $1 \times 10^{-11}$ & 100(Disk) & -\
& [*[FUSE]{}*]{} & 350 & 0.714 & 24 & - & $2 \times 10^{-11}$ & 73(WD)/27(Disk) & -\
& [*[FUSE]{}*]{} & 150 & 1.13 & 17 & - & $3 \times 10^{-11}$ & 60(WD)/40(Disk) & -\
& [*[FUSE]{}*]{} & 350 & 0.738 & 24 & 33 & - & 57(WD)/43(Belt) & 6\
& [*[FUSE]{}*]{} & 150 & 1.021 & 16 & 29 & - & 77(WD)/23(Belt) & -\
CH UMa & [*[FUSE]{}*]{} & 314 & 0.184 & 40 & - & - & 100(WD) & 7\
& [*[FUSE]{}*]{} & 313 & 0.213 & - & - & $5 \times 10^{-12}$ & 100(Disk) & -\
& [*[FUSE]{}*]{}+[*[IUE]{}*]{} & 300 & 3.02 & 31 & - & - & 100(WD) & -\
& [*[FUSE]{}*]{}+[*[IUE]{}*]{} & 300 & 2.02 & - & - & $3 \times 10^{-9}$ & 100(Disk) & -\
& [*[FUSE]{}*]{}+[*[IUE]{}*]{} & 300 & 1.87 & 22 & - &$6.4\times 10^{-11}$ & 21(WD)/79(Disk)& -\
& [*[FUSE]{}*]{}+[*[IUE]{}*]{} & 300 & 2.00 & 26 & 50 & - & 77(WD)/23(Belt)& -\
BV Cen & [*[FUSE]{}*]{} & 435 & 0.27 & 40 & - & - & 100(WD) & 8\
& [*[FUSE]{}*]{} & 1255& 0.27 & - & - & $3 \times 10^{-9}$ & 100(Disk) & -
------------- -------- ----------- ------------
System Name Period $T_{eff}$ References
(min) (Kelvin)
BV Cen 878.6 40,000: This paper
RU Peg 539.4 49,000 @sio04
Z Cam 417.4 57,000 @har05
RX And 302.2 34,000 @sio01
SS Aur 263.2 31,000 @sio04
U Gem 254.7 31,000 @sio98
WW Ceti 253.1 26,000 @god06
UU Aql 202.3 27,000: This paper
------------- -------- ----------- ------------
: Surface Temperatures of White Dwarfs in Dwarf Novae above the Period Gap
Figure Captions
the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} plus [*[IUE]{}*]{} spectrum of UU
|
---
abstract: 'The Klein group contains only four elements. Nevertheless this little group contains a number of remarkable entry points to current highways of modern representation theory of groups. In this paper, we shall describe all possible ways in which the Klein group can act on vector spaces over a field of two elements. These are called representations of the Klein group. This description involves some powerful visual methods of representation theory which builds on the work of generations of mathematicians starting roughly with the work of K. Weiestrass. We also discuss some applications to properties of duality and Heller shifts of the representations of the Klein group.'
address:
- |
Department of Mathematics\
Illinois State University\
Normal, IL 61761 USA
- |
Department of Mathematics\
University of Western Ontario\
London, ON, N6A 5B7, Canada
author:
- Sunil Chebolu
- Ján Minác
bibliography:
- 'lit.bib'
title: Representations of The miraculous Klein group
---
Introduction
============
Consider the familiar complex plane $\mathbb{C} = \{ x+ iy \, | \, x, y \text{ are real numbers} \}$ with two reflections $\sigma$ and $\tau$ in the standard axes $X$ and $Y$ respectively. Precisely, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma(x+iy) & = & x - iy, \text{ and } \\
\tau(x+iy) & = & -x+iy.
\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $\sigma$ is the complex conjugation and $\tau$ is like a real brother of $\sigma$. Note that if we apply $\sigma$ or $\tau$ twice, we get the identity map: $\sigma^{2} = 1 = \tau^{2}$. Also, we see that $\sigma \tau = \tau \sigma = - 1$. Geometrically, the maps $\sigma \tau$ and $\tau \sigma$ are rotations by $180$ degrees in the complex plane. The set of maps $$\{1, \sigma, \tau, \sigma \tau\}$$ forms a group under composition and is called the Klein four group or just Klein group, often denoted by $V_{4}$. One would guess that the letter $V$ here is a sign of victory but the reason is that “*Vier*” in German means “four.” “Klein” in German also means “small” and indeed Klein group $V_{4}$ having only four elements is quite small. It is an absolutely amazing fact that this small and ostensibly innocent group contains remarkable richness and that important mathematics can be developed by just studying this one group. The world’s smallest field is ${\mathbb{F}_2}= \{ 0, 1\}$, and one can think of this as a toy model of complex numbers. The problem to be investigated in this paper is the following: What are all the finite dimensional representations of $V_{4}$ over ${\mathbb{F}_2}$? That is, can one describe all possible actions of the group $V_{4}$ on finite dimensional vector spaces $W$ over ${\mathbb{F}_2}$. Although, we work over an arbitrary field of characteristic two, not much is lost if the reader assumes through out that the ground field $k$ is ${\mathbb{F}_2}$. The reason for restricting to fields of characteristic $2$ is due to the fact that when the characteristic of the ground field $k$ is either zero or odd, the finite dimensional representations $W$ of $V_{4}$ have a very simple nature. Namely, $W$ is a sum of one dimensional representations. One each of these one-dimensional subspaces, the generators $\sigma$ and $\tau$ act as multiplication by $1$ or $-1$. We therefore stick with fields of characteristic $2$. This bring us to the world of modular representations. (That is, the characteristic of the field is a positive divisor of the order of the group.)
Note that $V_4$ is a product of two cyclic groups of order two. In terms of generators and relations, $V_4$ has the following presentation. $$V_4 = \langle \sigma, \tau \; | \; \sigma^2 = \tau^2 = 1, \sigma \tau = \tau \sigma \rangle .$$ The group algebra $kV_4$ is then isomorphic to $$k[a , b]/(a^2, b^2),$$ where $a$ corresponds to $1+ \sigma$ and $b$ to $1+\tau$. We define an ideal $U$ of the $kV_4$ as the ideal generated by $a$ and $b$. This is an extremely important ideal called the augmentation ideal of our group ring. Sometime it will be convenient to divide $kV_4$ by ideal generated by $ab$. This simply amounts adding further relation $ab = 0$. The reason for this is that often $ab$ acts on our vector spaces as $0$ and therefore why not simplify our ring even further and add the relation $ab= 0$? We still call the image of $U$ in this new ring $U$ as we do not want to make our notation too complicated. In this paper we present a rather accessible proof of the well-known classification of all the finite dimensional representations of $V_{4}$, or equivalently, of the finitely generated indecomposable $kV_{4}$-modules. These are also known as the modular representations of $V_{4}$. Note that a $V_{4}$ representation where $ab$ acts as zero can be viewed as a finite dimensional $k$-linear space equipped with a pair commuting linear maps $a$ and $b$ both of which square to zero.
Having explained what a representation of $V_{4}$ is, the following two questions have to be answered.
1. Why do we care about the representations of $V_{4}$?
2. What is unique about our approach?
In answer to the first question, first note that groups act naturally on various algebraic objects including vector spaces, rings, algebraic varieties and topological spaces. These actions tend to be quite complex in general. Therefore it is important to find simple pieces of this action and find ways to glue these pieces together to reconstruct the original action. Often this is related to other invariants of the group or our given representation like cohomology groups and support varieties. Amazingly, this goal in modular representation theory turns out to be exceedingly difficult. It turns out that besides the cyclic groups whose representations are very easily understood, Klein four group is one of the very few (other groups are the dihedral groups) interesting yet non-trivial examples for which representation theorists are able to completely classify all the finite dimensional modular representations. There is a lot to be learned by studying the representation theory of this one group and it goes to tell how complex the study of modular representations can be for an arbitrary group.
Now we turn to the second question. Although the classification of the finite dimensional representations of $V_{4}$ is well-known and many proofs can be found in the literature, we could not find a proof to our heart’s content. This is what motivated us to write up one – one that is transparent and which takes a minimal background. Furthermore, our approach is diagrammatic, so the reader can see what is happening through pictures. These methods, besides making the statements of theorems and proofs elegant and conceptual, give a better insight into the subject. We mostly follow Benson’s approach [@ben-1] but we approach some parts of his proof from a different point of view and simplify them and in particular we make our proof accessible for a general reader. One ingredient that is new in our approach is Auslander-Reiten sequences which will be introduced later in the paper.
The subject of classifying the indecomposable representations of the Klein group has a long and rich history that can be traced all the way back to V. A. Bašev [@basev], a student of I.R. Šafarevič, who observed that an old result of L. Kronecker on pairs of matrices can be used effectively in the classification, but over algebraically closed fields. This result of L. Kronecker on pairs of matrices was actually a completion of the work of K. Weierstrass. Then later on I. M. Gelfand and V. Ponomarev [@Gel-Pon] observed in their analysis of the representations of the Lorentz group that quiver techniques were quite useful and they both knew that G.Szekeres had a result in this direction. However, they did not know enough details about Szekeres’s techniques and therefore they invented their new innovative and influencial quiver method which is influenced by Maclane’s notion of relations – a generalization of a linear map. In [@hell-rei] A. Heller and I. Reiner provided another nice approach to the classification where they also worked over fields that are not necessarily algebraically closed. Finally D. Benson [@ben-1] wrote a modern treatment of the classification of the indecomposable representations of the Klein group in which he combined some of the crucial ideas in the works of the aforementioned people. The diagrammatic methods in our paper are inspired by S. B. Conlon who introduced these in [@conlon]. It is quite remarkable that a complete understanding of an innocent looking group on four elements would take the works of some of the great minds of the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries.
Before going further, we remind the reader some basis facts and terminology. We refer the reader to Carlson lecture notes for basic representation theory [@carlson-modulesandgroupalgebras]. In the category of modules over a the Klein group (or more generally, over a $p$-group), the three terms “injective", “projective" and “free" are synonymous. Given a $V_{4}$-module $M$, its Heller shift $\Omega( M)$ is defined to be the kernel of a minimal projective cover of $M$. It can be shown that minimal projective covers are unique up to isomorphism and from that it follows that $\Omega(M)$ is well-defined. Inductively one defines $\Omega^n (M)$ to be $\Omega( \Omega^{n-1} M)$. Similarly, $\Omega^{-1} M$ is defined to be the cokernel of an injective envelope of $M$, and $\Omega^{-n}
(M)$ to be $\Omega^{-1}( \Omega^{-n+1} M)$. Again one can shown that these are well-defined modules. The modules $\Omega^i M$ are also known as the syzygies of $M$. By the classical Krull-Remak-Schmidt theorem, one knows that every representation of a finite group decomposes as a direct sum of indecomposable ones. Thus it suffices to classify the indecomposable representations.
Advice for the novice: some arguments in our paper are only sketched and some notions maybe still unfamiliar for a novice. If that is the case, we advice readers to skip these parts on the first reading as they may became more clear later on and they most likely will not influence the basic understanding of the key ideas. The main point of this article is to provide overview of the remarkable proof of classification of representations of Klein group $V_4$ with appreciation of the works of number of people and to show that this proof open doors to study modern group representation where Auslander-Reiten sequences play increasingly important role. We hope that after reading our article a reader will read more texts in the references and possibly go on to further exciting heights in group representation theory.
Indecomposable Representations of Klein’s four group
====================================================
We list all the indecomposable representations of $V_4$ below. Note that these are just the finitely generated modules over the group algebra $$kV_{4} \cong k[a, b]/(a^{2}, b^{2})$$ which cannot be written as a sum of strictly smaller modules (much the same way prime numbers cannot be written as product of smaller numbers). Since we take a diagrammatic approach, we first explain the diagrams that follow. Each bullet represents a one dimensional $k$ vector space, a southwest arrow “$\swarrow$” connecting two bullets corresponds to the action of $a$ and maps one bullet to the other in the indicated direction, and similarly the south east arrows “$\searrow$” correspond to the action of $b$. If no arrow emanates from a bullet in given direction, then the corresponding linear action is understood to be zero.
*(Kronecker, Weierstrass, Basev, Gelfand, Ponomarev, Conlon, Heller, Reiner, Benson)* [@Gel-Pon; @conlon; @hell-rei; @basev; @ben-1] Let $k$ be a field of characteristic $2$. Every isomorphism class of an indecomposable $V_4$ representation over $k$ is precisely one of the following.
1. The projective indecomposable module $kV_4$ of dimension 4. $$\xymatrix@=2em{
& \bullet \ar[dl]_a \ar[dr]^b & \\
\bullet \ar[dr]& & \bullet \ar[dl]\\
& \bullet &
}$$
2. The (non-projective) indecomposable even dimensional modules:
1. For each even dimension $2n$ and an indecomposable rational canonical from corresponding to the power of an irreducible monic polynomial $f(x)^l = \sum_{i=0}^n \theta_i x^i$, $(\theta_n = 1)$ there is an indecomposable representation given by $$\xymatrix@=1.5em{
& & \overset{g_{n-1}}{\bullet} \ar@{..>}[d] \ar[dr]& & \overset{g_{n-2}}{\bullet}\ar[dl]^a \ar[dr] & & \overset{g_{n-3}}{\bullet} \ar[dl] & \bullet \hspace{1 mm}
\bullet \hspace{1 mm} \bullet
& & \overset{g_0}{\bullet} \ar[dl] \ar[dr] \\
& & & \underset{f_{n-1}}{\bullet} & & \underset{f_{n-2}}{\bullet} & & & \underset{f_1}{\bullet} & &
\underset{f_0}{\bullet}
}$$ where $a(g_{n-1}) = \sum_{i = 0}^{n-1} \theta_i f_i$, as represented by the vertical dotted arrow emanating from $g_{n-1}$ above.
2. For each even dimension $2n$ there is an indecomposable representation given by $$\xymatrix@=2em{
& & \bullet \ar[dr]^b \ar[dl]_a & & \bullet \ar[dl] \ar[dr] & & &
\bullet \ar[dr] & & \bullet \ar[dl] \\
& \bullet & & \bullet & & \bullet & \bullet \hspace{1 mm}
\bullet \hspace{1 mm} \bullet & & \bullet &
}$$
3. The (non-projective) indecomposable odd dimensional modules:
1. The trivial representation $k$. $$\bullet$$
2. For each odd dimension $2n+1$ greater than one, there is an indecomposable representation given by $$\xymatrix@=2em{
& \bullet \ar[dr]_b & & \bullet\ar[dl]^a \ar[dr] & & \bullet \ar[dl] & \bullet \hspace{1 mm}
\bullet \hspace{1 mm} \bullet & \bullet \ar[dr]
& & \bullet \ar[dl] \\
& & \bullet & & \bullet & & & & \bullet &
}$$
3. For each odd dimension $2n+1$ greater than one, there is an indecomposable representation given by $$\xymatrix@=2em{
& & \bullet \ar[dr]^b \ar[dl]_a & & \bullet \ar[dl] \ar[dr] & &
& & \bullet \ar[dl] \ar[dr] & \\
& \bullet & & \bullet & & \bullet & \bullet \hspace{1 mm}
\bullet \hspace{1 mm} \bullet & \bullet & & \bullet
}$$
The reader may decide to make a pleasant check that the above diagrams are indeed representations of $V_{4}$. For each $V_{4}$-module $M$, one can define the dual $V_{4}$-module $M^{*}$, where $M^{*}$ is the dual $k$-vector space of $M$, and a group element $\sigma$ of $V_{4}$ acts on $f$ in $M$ via the rule $\sigma f(m) = f(\sigma^{-1} m)$. Then, as a fun exercise we ask the reader to verify that the diagrams in 3(a) and 3(b) are dual to each other. This will help the reader to get acquainted with some of the diagrammatic methods that will appear later on. We now begin by proving the easy part of the theorem.
\[lemma0\] All representations of $V_4$ that appear in the above theorem are indecomposable and pair-wise non-isomorphic.
Item (1) is not isomorphic to the rest because it is the only module that contains a non-zero element $x$ such that $(ab)x \ne 0$. Modules in item (2) are even dimensional and those in (3) are odd dimensional and hence there is no overlap between the two. To see that all the $2n$ dimensional representations of item $2(a)$ are distinct, it is enough to observe that the rational canonical forms of the linear transformations on the co-invariant submodules, $$b^{-1}a : M/UM {\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}M/UM$$ are distinct, where $U$ is the ideal generated by $a$ and $b$. To see that the $2n$ dimensional representation of item $2(b)$ does not occur in item $2(a)$ observe that kernel of the $b$-action in both cases have different dimensions: $n$ for the module in $2(a)$ and $n+1$ for that in 2$(b)$. The two $2n+1$ dimensional modules in items $3(b)$ and $3(c)$ are non-isomorphic because it is clear from the diagrams that the dimensions of the invariant submodules in both cases are different: $n$ for those in item $3(b)$, and $n+1$ for those in item $3(c)$.
Of course the hard thing is to show that every indecomposable representation of $V_4$ is isomorphic to one in the above list. Since projective modules over $p$-groups are free, there is only one indecomposable projective $V_4$-module, namely $kV_4$ which occurs as item (1) in the list. Therefore we only consider indecomposable projective-free (modules which do not have projective summands) $V_4$-modules.
One can get a better handle on the projective-free representations of $V_4$ by studying the representations of the so called Kronecker Quiver, which is a directed graph $Q$ on two vertices as shown below. $$\xymatrix{
u_1 \bullet \ar@/^10pt/[rr]^f \ar@/_10pt/[rr]_g & & \bullet u_2
}$$ A representations of the above quiver is just a pair of finite dimensional $k$-vector spaces $V$ and $W$ and a pair of $k$-linear maps $\psi_1$ and $\psi_2$ from $V$ to $W$. Such a representation will be denoted by the four tuple $[V, W ; \psi_1, \psi_2]$, and given two such representations, the notion of direct sum, and morphisms between them are defined in the obvious way. Thus it makes sense to talk about the isomorphism class of an indecomposable representation of $Q$. Let us call a representation of $Q$ special if the following conditions hold: $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{Ker}(\psi_1) \; \bigcap \; \operatorname{Ker}(\psi_2) & = & 0 \\
{\text{Image}}(\psi_1) + {\text{Image}}(\psi_2) & = & V_2.\end{aligned}$$
\[prop1\] [@hell-rei] There is a one-one correspondence between the isomorphism classes of (indecomposable) projective-free representations of $V_4$ and those of the special (indecomposable) representations of the Kronecker quiver. Under this correspondence, an (indecomposable) projective-free representation $M$ of $G$ corresponds to the (indecomposable) representation of $Q$ that is given by $[M/UM, UM; a, b]$. Conversely, given an (indecomposable) special representation $[V, W ; \psi_1, \psi_2]$ of $Q$, the corresponding (indecomposable) $G$-module $M$ is given by $M = V
\oplus W$ where $a(\alpha, \beta) := (0, \psi_1(\alpha))$ and $b(\alpha, \beta) := (0, \psi_2(\alpha)).$
We will use this translation between the representations of the Klein group and the Kronecker Quiver freely through out the paper.
If $M = [V_1, V_2; a, b]$ is an indecomposable projective-free representation, then we have $$\begin{aligned}
V_1 &= 0 \; \Leftrightarrow \; M = 0 \\
V_2 &= 0\; \Leftrightarrow \; M = k.\end{aligned}$$ So henceforth it will be assumed that the spaces $V_1$ and $V_2$ are non-zero, i.e., $M$ is an indecomposable projective-free and a non-trivial representation of $V_4$.
We begin with some lemmas that will help streamline the proof of the classification theorem. The proofs of these lemmas will be deferred to the last section. It should be noted that these lemmas are also of independent interest.
[@ben-1]\[lemma1\] Let $M$ be a projective-free $V_4$-module given by $[V_1, V_2; a, b]$. Then we have the following.
1. $M$ contains a copy of $\Omega^l(k)$ for some positive integer $l$ if and only if the transformation $$a + \lambda b : V_1 \otimes_k k[\lambda] {\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}V_2 \otimes_k k[\lambda]$$ is singular, i.e, $det( a + \lambda b) = 0$.
2. Dually, $\Omega^{-l} (k)$ is a quotient of $M$ for some positive integer $l$ if and only if the transformation $$a^* + \lambda b^* : V_2^* \otimes_k k[\lambda] {\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}V_1^* \otimes_k k[\lambda]$$ is singular.
The next lemma is very crucial to the classification. To the best of our knowledge, nowhere in the literature is this lemma stated explicitly, although it is secretly hidden in Benson’s proof of the classification [@ben-1]. We use Auslander-Reiten sequences to give a transparent proof of this lemma in the last section.
\[lemma2\] Let $M$ be a projective-free $V_4$-module. Then we have the following.
1. If $l$ is the smallest positive integer such that $\Omega^l(k)$ is isomorphic to a submodule of $M$, then $\Omega^l(k)$ is a summand of $M$.
2. Dually, if $l$ is the smallest positive integer such that $\Omega^{-l}(k)$ is isomorphic to a quotient module of $M$, then $\Omega^{-l}(k)$ is a $G$-summand of $M$.
[@johnson-1]\[lemma3\] For all integers $n$, $\Omega^n (k)$ is isomorphic to the dual representation $\Omega^{-n} (k) ^*$. Furthermore,
1. If $n$ is positive, then $\Omega^n (k)$ is a $2n+1$ dimensional indecomposable representation given by $$\xymatrix@=2em{
& \bullet \ar[dr]_b & & \bullet\ar[dl]^a \ar[dr] & & \bullet \ar[dl] & \bullet \hspace{4 mm}
\bullet \hspace{4 mm} \bullet & \bullet \ar[dr]
& & \bullet \ar[dl] \\
& & \bullet & & \bullet & & & & \bullet &
}$$
2. If $n$ is a negative integer, then $\Omega^n (k)$ is a $2n+1$ dimensional indecomposable representation given by $$\xymatrix@=2em{
& & \bullet \ar[dr]^b \ar[dl]_a & & \bullet \ar[dl] \ar[dr] & &
& & \bullet \ar[dl] \ar[dr] & \\
& \bullet & & \bullet & & \bullet & \bullet \hspace{4 mm}
\bullet \hspace{4 mm} \bullet & \bullet & & \bullet
}$$
We now give the proof of the classification theorem assuming these lemmas. The lemmas will be proved in the last section. Let $M = (V_1,
V_2; a, b)$ be an indecomposable projective-free representation of $V_4$. We will show that $M$ is isomorphic to one of the representation that appear in items (2) it is even dimensional, and to those in item (3) if it odd dimensional.
Even dimensional representations
--------------------------------
Let $M$ be an even dimensional ($2n$ say) indecomposable representation. We break the argument into cases for clarity.\
*Case 1:* $\det (a + \lambda b)$ is non-zero. We have two subcases. First assume that $\det b \ne 0$. Then consider the map $$b^{-1}a : V_1 \longrightarrow V_1.$$ We claim that this map is indecomposable. Suppose we have a decomposition $f \oplus g$ of $b^{-1}a$ as follows $$\xymatrix{ V_1 \ar[r]^{b^{-1}a} \ar[d]_{\cong} & V_1 \ar[d]^{\cong}\\
A \oplus B \ar[r]_{f \oplus g} & A \oplus B
}$$ Set $C:= b(A)$ and $D:= b(B)$. Then it is straightforward to verify that $M = (V_1, V_2; a, b)$ decomposes as $$(A, C; a|_{A}, b|_{A}) \; \bigoplus \; (B, D; a|_{B}, b|_{B}).$$ Since $M$ is indecomposable it follows that the map $b^{-1}a$ is indecomposable. Now since $b^{-1}a$ is indecomposable we can choose a basis $\{g_0, g_1, \cdots, g_{n-1}\} $ of $V_1$ such that the rational canonical form of $b^{-1}a$ has only one block which corresponds to some power of an irreducible polynomial $f(x)^r =
\sum_{i = 0}^{n-1} \theta_i x^i$. This means we have $$\begin{aligned}
b^{-1}a \; (g_i) &= & g_{i+1} \hspace{3 mm} \text{for} \;\; 0 \le i \le n-2, \\
b^{-1}a \; (g_{n-1}) &=& \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} \theta_i g_i. \hspace{3
mm} (*)\end{aligned}$$
Now the vectors $f_i := b(g_i)$ for $0 \le i \le n-1$ define a basis for $V_2$ because $b$ is non-singular. With respect to the bases $(g_i)$ of $V_1$ and $(f_i)$ of $V_2$, it is now clear that $M$ has the description $$\xymatrix@=1.9em{
\overset{g_{n-1}}{\bullet} \ar[dr]_b & & \overset{g_{n-2}}{\bullet}\ar[dl]^a \ar[dr] & &
\overset{g_{n-2}}{\bullet} \ar[dl] & \bullet \hspace{4 mm}
\bullet \hspace{4 mm} \bullet
& & \overset{g_0}{\bullet} \ar[dl] \ar[dr] \\
& \underset{f_{n-1}}{\bullet} & & \underset{f_{n-2}}{\bullet} & & & \underset{f_1}{\bullet} & &
\underset{f_0}{\bullet}
}$$ The action of $a$ on $g_{n-1}$ can be seen by applying $b$ on both sides of the equation (\*) above: $a(g_{n-1}) = \sum_{i=0}^{n-2}
b(g_i) = \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} f_i$. These representations are the exactly ones in item 3(a).
Now if $\det(b) = 0$, we do a change of coordinate trick. We assume that $k$ is an infinite field. If $k$ is finite, we can pass to an extension field and do a descent argument; see [@ben-1] for details. Then there exists some $\lambda_0$ in $k$ such that $\det(a + \lambda_0 b) \ne 0$. Now consider the tuple $(V_1, V_2; b, a+\lambda_0 b)$. By case (i), we know that there exist bases for $V_1$ and $V_2$ such that $a +
\lambda_0 b = I$ and $b = J_0$ (the rational canonical form [@LinearAlgebra] [^1] corresponding to any indecomposable singular transformation). This gives the representation in item 2(b).\
*Case 2:* $\det (a + \lambda b) = 0$. We will show that this case cannot arise. First suppose that there is a copy of $\Omega^{l} (k)$ in $M$ for some positive integer $l$. Now pick $l$ to be the smallest such integer, then by lemma \[lemma2\] we know that $\Omega^l (k)$ is a direct summand of $M$. Since $M$ is indecomposable, this means $M$ has to be isomorphic to $\Omega^l(k)$, which is impossible since the latter is odd dimensional while $M$ was assumed to be even dimensional. So the upshot is that $M$ does not contain $\Omega^l(k)$ for any positive $l$. By lemma \[lemma1\] this is equivalent to the fact $\det (a +
\lambda b) \ne 0$ in the ring $k[\lambda]$ which contradicts our hypothesis.
Odd dimensional representations
-------------------------------
If $M$ is odd dimensional, then clearly $\dim V_1 \ne \dim V_2$. We consider the two cases.\
*Case 1:* $\dim V_1 > \dim V_2$. Then there is a non-zero vector $\omega( \lambda)$ in $ V_1 \otimes_k K[\lambda]$ such that $(a + \lambda b) (\omega (\lambda)) = 0$ which then implies, by lemma \[lemma1\], the existence of a copy of $\Omega^l(k)$ inside $M$ for some $l > 0$. Picking $l$ to be minimal, we can conclude from lemma \[lemma2\] that $\Omega^l(k)$ is a direct summand of $M$. Since $M$ is indecomposable, we have $M \cong \Omega^l(k)$. This gives the modules in item 3(b).\
*Case 2 :* $\dim V_1 < \dim V_2$. Dualising $M = (V_1, V_2;
a , b)$, we get the dual representation $M^* = (V_2^*, V_1^*; a^*,
b^*)$ which is also indecomposable. Now $\dim V_2^* > \dim V_1^*$, so by Case(1) we know that $M^* \cong \Omega^l(k)$ for some $l$ positive. Taking duals on both sides and invoking lemma $\ref{lemma3}$, we get $M \cong \Omega^{-l}(k)$. This recovers the modules in item 3(c).
This completes the proof of the classification of the indecomposable representations of $V_4$.
Some applications
=================
Having a good classification of the indecomposable representations of a finite group helps a great deal in answering general module theoretic questions. In this section, we illustrate this by proving some facts about module over the Klein group. Note that we don’t know of any direct proofs of the statements below that do not depend on the classification of the indecomposable representations.
Heller Shifts of the $V_4$-representations.
-------------------------------------------
We will show how our knowledge of the representations of $V_4$ can be used to give a homological characterisation of the parity of the dimensions of the representations. Proofs of the propositions are given in the last section.
\[prop:heller\] [@ring] If $M$ is an even dimensional indecomposable projective-free representation of $V_4$, then $\Omega(M) \cong M$.
A finite dimensional projective-free representation $M$ of $V_4$ is even dimensional if and only if $\Omega(M) \cong M$.
We only have to show that if $M$ is an odd dimensional indecomposable then $\Omega(M) \ncong M$. By the classification theorem, we know that $M$ is isomorphic to $\Omega^l(k)$ for some integer $l$. Then $\Omega(M) \cong \Omega(\Omega^l(k)) \cong
\Omega^{l+1}(k)$, which is clearly not isomorphic to $M$ just for dimensional reasons: just note that dimension of $\Omega^{n} (k)$ is $2n+1$.
Dual representations of $V_4$
-----------------------------
We will use our knowledge of the representations of $V_4$ to characterise the parity of the dimension of a representation using the concept of self-duality.
Recall that if $M$ is a finite dimensional representation of a group $G$, then one can talk about the dual representation $M^* := \operatorname{Hom}(M,
k)$, where a group element $g$ acts on a linear functional $\phi$ by $(g \cdot \phi)(x) := \phi(x g^{-1})$. A representation of $G$ is self-dual if it is isomorphic to its dual.
When $G = V_4$, it is not hard to see that if $M = (V_1, V_2; a,
b)$ is a projective-free representation of $V_4$, then $M^* =
(V_2^*, V_1^*; a^*, b^*)$.
\[prop:dual\] Even dimensional indecomposable representations of $V_4$ are self-dual.
A non-trivial indecomposable representation of $V_4$ is even dimensional if and only if it is self-dual.
If $M$ is a non-trivial odd dimensional representation of $V_4$, then we know that $M \cong \Omega^l(k)$ for some $l \ne
0$. Then $M^* \cong (\Omega^l(k))^* \cong \Omega^{-l}(k)$. In particular, $M^* \ncong M$.
Proofs
======
In this section we give the proofs of the lemmas and propositions that were used in the classification theorem and applications.
Proof of proposition \[prop1\]
------------------------------
Let $M$ be a projective-free $V_4$ module. Then we have we have $ab(M) = 0$, it follows that $UM$ is included in $U^V_4$. Remarkably one can show that if $M$ is additionally not trivial representation and $M$ is indecomposable then $UM$ is actually equal $M^V_4$, the $V_4$ invariant submodule of $M$. Consider short exact sequence of $V_4$ modules $$0 {\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}UM {\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}M {\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}M/UM {\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}0.$$ Let $\pi: M {\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}UM$ be a vector space retraction of the inclusion $UM \hookrightarrow M$. Define a $V_4$ action on the vector space $M/UM \oplus M$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
a(x, y) := (0, ax) \\
b(x, y) := (0, by).\end{aligned}$$ Then it is easy to verify that the map $x \mapsto (x, \pi(x))$ establishes an isomorphism of $V_4$ modules between $M$ and $M/UM
\oplus UM$. Thus $M$ is determined by the vector spaces $M/UM$ and $UM$ and the linear maps $a, b: M/UM {\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}M$. This data amounts to giving a special representation of $Q$.
In the other direction, suppose $[V_1, V_2; \psi_1, \psi_2]$ is a special representation of $Q$. Define a $V_4$ action on the vector space $V_1 \oplus V_2$ by setting $a(x, y):=(0, \psi_1(x))$ and $b(x, y):= (0, \psi_2(x))$. This is easily shown to be a projective free $V_4$ module.
We leave it as an exercise to the reader to verify that the recipes are inverses to each other.
It is also clear that these recipes respect direct sum of representations. Thus the indecomposables are also in 1-1 correspondence.
Proof of lemma \[lemma1\]
-------------------------
Suppose $M$ contains a copy of $\Omega^{l}(k)$, for some $l \ge 1$. $$\xymatrix@=2em{
& \overset{g_0}{\bullet} \ar[dr]_b & & \overset{g_1}{\bullet} \ar[dl]^a \ar[dr] & & \overset{g_2}{\bullet} \ar[dl] & \bullet \hspace{1 mm}
\bullet \hspace{1 mm} \bullet & \overset{g_{l-1}}{\bullet} \ar[dr]
& & \overset{g_l}{\bullet} \ar[dl] \\
& & \underset{f_0}{\bullet} & & \underset{f_1}{\bullet} & & & & \underset{f_{l-1}}{\bullet} &
}$$ Define a vector $V(\lambda): = g_0 + g_1 \lambda + g_2 \lambda^2 +
\cdots + g_l \lambda^l$. A trivial verification shows that $(a +
\lambda b) (V(\lambda)) = 0$ and therefore $a + \lambda b$ is a singular transformation as desired.
Conversely, suppose $a + \lambda b$ is singular. Then there is a non-zero vector $V(\lambda) = g_0 + g_1 \lambda + g_2 \lambda^2
\cdots g_l \lambda^l$ of smallest degree $l$ in $V_1 \otimes
k[\lambda]$ (so $g_l \ne 0$) such that $(a + b \lambda) (V(\lambda))
= 0$. This means: $a(g_0) = 0$, $b(g_i) = a(g_{i+1})$ for $0 \le i
\le l-1$, and $b(g_l) = 0$. We now argue that these equations give a copy of $\Omega^l(k)$ inside $M$. To this end, it suffices to show that the vectors $\{g_0, g_1, g_2, \cdots, g_l \}$ are linearly independent. As a further reduction, we claim that it suffices to show that $\{ a(g_1), a(g_2), \cdots, a(g_l) \}$ are linearly independent. For, then it will be clear that $\{ g_1, g_2, \cdots,
g_l \}$is linearly independent, and moreover if $g_0 = \sum_{i=1}^l
c_i \, g_i$, applying $a$ on both sides we get $a(g_0) = 0 = \sum_{i
= 1}^l c_i \, a(g_i)$. Linear independence of $a(g_i)$ forces all the $c_i = 0$. Thus we will have shown that $\{g_0, g_1, g_2,
\cdots, g_l \}$ is linearly independent. So it remains to establish our claim that $\{ a(g_1), a (g_2), \cdots, a (g_l) \}$ is a linearly independent set. Suppose to the contrary that there is a non-trivial linear combination of $a(g_i)$’s which is zero: say $\sum_{i=1}^l \gamma_i \, a (g_i) = 0$ (\*). We will get a contradiction by showing that there is a vector of smaller degree ($
< l$) in $\operatorname{Ker}(a + \lambda b)$. It suffices to produce elements $(\tilde{g}_i)_{0 \le i \le l-1}$ such that $a(\tilde{g}_0) = 0 $, $b(\tilde{g_{l-1}}) = 0$, and for $0 \le i \le l-2$, $b(\tilde{g}_i)
= a (\tilde{g_{i+1}})$ ($\diamond$). For then the vector $\sum_{i=0}^{l-1} \tilde{g}_i \lambda^i$ will be of degree less than $l$ belonging to the kernel of $a + \lambda b$. To start, we set $\tilde{g}_0 = \sum_{i=0}^l \gamma_i\, g_i$. The condition $a
(\tilde{g}_0) = 0$ is satisfied by assumption (\*). Now define $\tilde{f_0} := b( \tilde{g}_0) = \sum_{i=1}^l \gamma_i \, b(g_i) =
\sum_{i = 1}^{l-1} \gamma_i \, b(g_i)$ (since $b(g_l) = 0$). Then we define $\tilde{g}_1 = \sum_{i=0}^{l-1} \gamma_i \, g_{i+1}$ so that we have the required condition $a(\tilde{g}_1) = b(\tilde{g}_0)$. Now we simply repeat this process: Inductively we define, for $ 0
\le t \le l-1 $, $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{g}_t &= &\sum_{i=1}^{l-t} \gamma_i \;g_{i+t}, \\
\tilde{f}_t &= & \sum_{i=1}^{l-t} \gamma_i\; b(g_{i+t}).\end{aligned}$$ When $t = l-1$, we have $\tilde{g}_{l-1} = \gamma_1 g_l$ and $\tilde{f}_{l-1} = 0$. So this inductive process terminates at $t=
l-1 (< l) $ and the requirements $(\diamond)$ are satisfied by construction. Thus we have shown that the vector $\sum_{i=0}^{l-1}
\tilde{g}_{i}\, \lambda^i$ is of smaller degree in the kernel of $a
+ \lambda b$ contradicting the minimality of $l$. Therefore the vectors $\{a(g_1), a(g_2), \cdots, a(g_l) \}$ should be linearly independent. This completes the proof of the first statement in the lemma. The second statement follows by a straightforward duality argument.
Proof of lemma \[lemma2\]
-------------------------
First note that the second part of this lemma follows by dualising the first part; here we also use the fact that $(\Omega^l\,k)^*\cong \Omega^{-l}\,k$ which will be proved in the next lemma. So it is enough to prove the first part. Although this lemma is secretly hidden in Benson’s treatment [@ben-1 Theorem 4.3.2], it is hard very to extract it. So we give a clean proof of this lemma using almost split sequences, a.k.a Auslander-Reiten sequences. Recall that a short exact sequence $$0 {\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}A {\stackrel{f}{\longrightarrow}} B {\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}C {\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}0$$ of finitely generated modules over a group $G$ is an almost split sequence if it is a non-split sequence with the property that every map out of $A$ which is not split injective factors through $f$. It has been shown in [@aus-rei-sma] that given an finitely generated indecomposable non-projective $kG$-module $C$, there exists a unique (up to isomorphism of short exact sequences) almost split sequence terminating in $C$. In particular, if $G = V_4$ and $C = \Omega^l\,k$, these sequences are of the form; see [@ben-trends Appendix, p 180]. $$0 {\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}\Omega^{l+2}\,k {\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}\Omega^{l+1}\, k \oplus \Omega^{l+1}\, k {\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}\Omega^l\,k {\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}0 \hspace{9 mm} l \ne -1$$ $$0 {\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}\Omega^1\,k {\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}kV_4 \oplus k \oplus k {\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}\Omega^{-1}\,k {\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}0 \hspace{20 mm}$$ To start the proof, let $l$ be the smallest positive integer such that $\Omega^l\,k$ embeds in a projective-free $V_4$-module $M$. If this embedding does not split, then by the property of an almost split sequence, it should factor through $\Omega^{l-1}\,k \oplus \Omega^{l-1}\,k$ as shown in the diagram below. $$\xymatrix{ 0 \ar[r] & \Omega^{l}\,k \ar[r] \ar@{^{(}->}[d] & \Omega^{l-1}\,k
\oplus \Omega^{l-1}\,k
\ar[r] \ar@{..>}[dl]^{f \oplus g} \ar[r]& \Omega^{l-2}\,k \ar[r] & 0 \\
& M & & & & }$$ Now if either $f$ or $g$ is injective, that would contradict the minimality of $l$, so they cannot be injective. So both $f$ and $g$ should factor through $\Omega^{l-2}\,k
\oplus \Omega^{l-2}\,k$ as shown in the diagrams below. $$\xymatrix{ 0 \ar[r] & \Omega^{l-1}\,k \ar[r] \ar[d]_f & \Omega^{l-2}\,k \oplus
\Omega^{l-2}\,k
\ar[r] \ar@{..>}[dl]^{(f_1 \oplus f_2)} \ar[r] & \Omega^{l-3}\,k \ar[r] & 0 \\
& M & & & & }$$ $$\xymatrix{ 0 \ar[r] & \Omega^{l-1}\,k \ar[r] \ar[d]_g & \Omega^{l-2}\,k \oplus
\Omega^{l-2}\,k
\ar[r] \ar@{..>}[dl]^{(g_1 \oplus g_2)} \ar[r] & \Omega^{l-3}\,k \ar[r] & 0 \\
& M & & & & }$$
Proceeding in this way we can assemble all the lifts obtained using the almost split sequences into one diagram as shown below. $$\xymatrix{
\Omega^l\, k \ar@{^{(}->}[rrrrrr] \ar@{^{(}->}[d] & &&&&& M \\
\Omega^{l-1}\,k \oplus \Omega^{l-1}\,k \ar@{..>}[urrrrrr] \ar@{^{(}->}[d]& &&&&& \\
(\Omega^{l-2}\,k \oplus \Omega^{l-2}\,k)\oplus(\Omega^{l-2}\,k \oplus
\Omega^{l-2}\,k) \ar@{..>}[uurrrrrr] \ar@{^{(}->}[d] \\
\vdots \ar@{^{(}->}[d] \\
(\Omega^1\, k \oplus \Omega^l\,k)\oplus \cdots \oplus(\Omega^1\, k \oplus
\Omega^l\,k) \ar@{..>}[uuuurrrrrr] \ar@{^{(}->}[dd]\\
\\
(kV_4 \oplus k \oplus k) \oplus \cdots \oplus (kV_4 \oplus k \oplus k)
\ar@{..>}[uuuuuurrrrrr]}$$ So it suffices to show that for a projective-free $M$ there cannot exist a factorisation of the form $$\xymatrix{
\Omega^l\, k \ar@{^{(}->}[r] \ar@{^{(}->}[d] & M \\
(kV_4)^s \oplus k^t \ar@{.>}[ur]_{\phi} & }$$ where $l$ is a positive integer. It is not hard to see that the invariance $(\Omega^l\,k)^G$ of $\Omega^l\,k$ maps into $((kV_4)^s)^G$. We will arrive at a contradiction by showing $((kV_4)^s)^G$ maps to zero under the map $\phi$. Since $((kV_4)^s)^G \cong
((kV_4)^G)^s$ it is enough to show that $\phi$ maps each $(kV_4)^G$ to zero. $(kV_4)^G$ is a one-dimensional subspace, generated by say $v$. It $v$ maps to a non-zero element, then it is easy to see that the restriction of $\phi$ on the corresponding copy of $kV_4$ is injective, but $M$ is projective-free, so this is impossible. In other words $\phi(v) = 0$ and that completes the proof of the lemma.
Proof of lemma \[lemma3\]
-------------------------
Recall that $\Omega^1(k)$ is defined to be the kernel of the augmentation map $kV_4 {\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}k$. Dualising the short exact sequence $$0 {\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}\Omega^1(k) {\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}kV_4 {\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}k {\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}0,$$ we get $$0 \leftarrow \Omega^1(k)^* \leftarrow kV_4 \leftarrow k \leftarrow 0$$ because $kV_4$ and $k$ are self-dual. This shows that $\Omega^{-1}(k
) \cong \Omega^1(k)^*$. Now a straightforward induction gives $\Omega^{-l}(k ) \cong \Omega^l(k)^*$ for all $l \ge 1$.
So it is enough to prove the part (1) of the lemma because it is not hard to see that the representations in part (2) are precisely the duals of those in part (1). We leave this as an easy exercise to the reader.
As for (1) we will prove the cases $n =1$ and $n=2$. The general case will then be abundantly clear. For $n=1$, we have to identify the kernel of the augmentation map $kV_4 {\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}k$ which is defined by mapping the generator $e_0$ of $kV_4$ to the basis element $g_0$ of $k$, so the kernel $\Omega^1(k)$ is a three dimensional representation as shown in the diagram below $$\xymatrix{ \\ 0 \\ } \xymatrix{\\ \longrightarrow \\}
\xymatrix@=2em{ \\
\overset{a_0}{\bullet} \ar[dr] & & \overset{b_0}{\bullet} \ar[dl] \\
& \underset{c_0}{\bullet} &
} \xymatrix{\\ \longrightarrow \\} \xymatrix@=2em{
& \overset{e_0}{\bullet} \ar[dl] \ar[dr] & \\
\overset{a_0}{\bullet} \ar[dr]& & \overset{b_0}{\bullet} \ar[dl]\\
& \underset{c_0}{\bullet} &
}
\xymatrix{\\ \longrightarrow \\} \xymatrix{\overset{g_0}{\bullet} \\ \\ } \xymatrix{\\
\longrightarrow
\\}
\xymatrix{\\ 0
\\}$$ Now consider the case $n=2$. Note the $\Omega^1(k)$ is generated by two elements $g_0$ and $g_1$. So a minimal projective cover will be $kV_4 \oplus kV_4$ generated by $e_0$ and $e_1$. The projective covering maps $e_i$ to $g_i$, $i = 0, 1$. The kernel $\Omega^2(k)$ of this projective covering will be $5$-dimensional and can be easily seen in the diagram below. $$\xymatrix@=0.5em{ \\ \\ 0 \\ \\ } \xymatrix@=0.5em{ \\ \\ {\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}\\
\\ }\xymatrix@=0.5em{ & & & & \\ \\
\overset{a_1}{\bullet} \ar[ddr] & & \overset{b_1 + a_0}{\bullet} \ar[ddl] \ar[ddr] & & \overset{b_0}{\bullet} \ar[ddl]
\\ \\
&\underset{c_1}{\bullet} & & \underset{c_0}{\bullet} &
} \xymatrix@=0.5em{\\ \\ {\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}\\ \\}
\xymatrix@=0.5em{
& \overset{e_1}{\bullet} \ar[ddl] \ar[ddr] & \\ \\
\overset{a_1}{\bullet} \ar[ddr]& & \overset{b_1}{\bullet}
\ar[ddl]\\ \\
& \underset{c_1}{\bullet} &
}
\xymatrix@=0.5em{\\ \\ \bigoplus \\ \\} \xymatrix@=0.5em{
& \overset{e_0}{\bullet} \ar[ddl] \ar[ddr] & \\ \\
\overset{a_0}{\bullet} \ar[ddr]& & \overset{b_0}{\bullet}
\ar[ddl]\\ \\
& \underset{c_0}{\bullet} & }
\xymatrix@=0.5em{\\ \\ {\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}\\ \\} \xymatrix@=0.5em{
\overset{g_1}{\bullet} \ar[ddr] & & \overset{g_0}{\bullet} \ar[ddl]
\\ \\
& \underset{f_0}{\bullet} & \\ \\
} \xymatrix@=0.5em{\\ \\ {\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}\\ \\}
\xymatrix@=0.5em{\\ \\ 0
\\ \\}$$ Now it is clear that in general $\Omega^l(k)$ for $l \ge 1$ will be a $2l+1$ dimensional representation and has the shape of the zig-zag diagram as shown in the statement of the lemma.
Proof of proposition \[prop:heller\].
-------------------------------------
We begin by showing the modules in item 2(b) are fixed by the Heller shift operator. Recall that these have the form $$\xymatrix@=2em{
& & \overset{g_{n-1}}{\bullet} \ar[dr]^b \ar[dl]_a & &
\overset{g_{n-2}}{\bullet} \ar[dl] \ar[dr] & & &
\overset{g_1}{\bullet} \ar[dr] & & \overset{g_0}{\bullet} \ar[dl] \\
& \bullet & & \bullet & & \bullet & \bullet \hspace{1 mm}
\bullet \hspace{1 mm} \bullet & & \bullet &
}$$ It is clear that the $\{g_0, g_1, g_2, \cdots g_{n-1} \}$ is a minimal generating set for the above module, $M$ say. So a minimal projective cover of this module will be a free $V_4$-module of rank $n$ generated by basis elements $\{e_0, e_1, e_2, \cdots ,e_{n-1}
\}$, and the covering map sends $e_i$ to $g_i$, for all $i$. Counting dimensions, it is then clear that the dimension of the kernel ($\Omega(M)$) of this projective cover is of dimension $2n$. We only have to show that the $V_4$-module structure on the kernel is isomorphic to the one on $M$. This will be clear from the following diagrams. We consider the cases $n=2$ and $3$, the general case will then be clear. $$\xymatrix{ \\ 0 \\ } \xymatrix{\\ \longrightarrow \\}
\xymatrix@=2em{ \\
& \overset{b_0}{\bullet} \ar[dl] \\
\underset{c_0}{\bullet} &
} \xymatrix{\\ \longrightarrow \\} \xymatrix@=2em{
& \overset{e_0}{\bullet} \ar[dl] \ar[dr] & \\
\overset{a_0}{\bullet} \ar[dr]& & \overset{b_0}{\bullet} \ar[dl]\\
& \underset{c_0}{\bullet} &
}
\xymatrix{\\ \longrightarrow \\} \xymatrix{& \overset{g_0}{\bullet} \ar[dl] \\ \underset{f_0}\bullet & \\ } \xymatrix{\\
\longrightarrow
\\}
\xymatrix{\\ 0
\\}$$ $$\xymatrix@=0.5em{ \\ \\ 0 \\ \\ } \xymatrix@=0.5em{ \\ \\ {\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}\\
\\ }\xymatrix@=0.5em{ & & & \\ \\
& \overset{b_1 + a_0}{\bullet} \ar[ddl] \ar[ddr] & & \overset{b_0}{\bullet} \ar[ddl]
\\ \\
\underset{c_1}{\bullet} & & \underset{c_0}{\bullet} &
} \xymatrix@=0.5em{\\ \\ {\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}\\ \\}
\xymatrix@=0.5em{
& \overset{e_1}{\bullet} \ar[ddl] \ar[ddr] & \\ \\
\overset{a_1}{\bullet} \ar[ddr]& & \overset{b_1}{\bullet}
\ar[ddl]\\ \\
& \underset{c_1}{\bullet} &
}
\xymatrix@=0.5em{\\ \\ \bigoplus \\ \\} \xymatrix@=0.5em{
& \overset{e_0}{\bullet} \ar[ddl] \ar[ddr] & \\ \\
\overset{a_0}{\bullet} \ar[ddr]& & \overset{b_0}{\bullet}
\ar[ddl]\\ \\
& \underset{c_0}{\bullet} & }
\xymatrix@=0.5em{\\ \\ {\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}\\ \\} \xymatrix@=0.5em{ &
\overset{g_1}{\bullet} \ar[ddl] \ar[ddr] & & \overset{g_0}{\bullet}
\ar[ddl]
\\ \\
\underset{f_1}{\bullet} & & \underset{f_0}{\bullet} & \\ \\
} \xymatrix@=0.5em{\\ \\ {\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}\\ \\}
\xymatrix@=0.5em{\\ \\ 0
\\ \\}$$ We now show that the modules in item 2(a) are fixed under the Heller. Recall that in each even dimension $2n$, these modules correspond to indecomposable rational canonical forms given by powers of an irreducible polynomials $f(x)^l = \sum_{i=0}^n \theta_i
x^i$, schematically: $$\xymatrix@=1.9em{
\overset{g_{n-1}}{\bullet} \ar[dr]_b & & \overset{g_{n-2}}{\bullet}\ar[dl]^a \ar[dr] & & \overset{g_{n-3}}{\bullet} \ar[dl] & \bullet \hspace{1 mm}
\bullet \hspace{1 mm} \bullet
& & \overset{g_0}{\bullet} \ar[dl] \ar[dr] \\
& \underset{f_{n-1}}{\bullet} & & \underset{f_{n-2}}{\bullet} & & & \underset{f_1}{\bullet} & &
\underset{f_0}{\bullet}
}$$ where $a(g_{n-1}) = \sum_{i = 0}^{n-1} \theta_i f_i$. It is again clear that $\{g_0, g_1, g_2, \cdots g_{n-1} \}$ is a minimal generating set, and hence a projective cover can be taken to be a free $V_4$-module of rank $n$ with basis elements $\{e_0, e_1, e_2,
\cdots e_{n-1} \}$, and the mapping sends the elements $e_i$ to the generators $g_i$. We will again convince the reader that these modules are fixed under the Heller by examining the cases $n=1$ and $n=2$. We begin with the case $n=1$. Here the rational canonical form is determined by constant $\theta_0$, and $a(g_0) = \theta_0
f_0$. The following diagram shows that the Heller fixes these two dimensional modules.
$$\xymatrix{ \\ 0 \\ } \xymatrix{\\ \longrightarrow \\}
\xymatrix@=2em{ \\
\overset{a_0 + \theta_0 b_0}{\bullet} \ar[dr] & \\
& \underset{c_0}{\bullet}
} \xymatrix{\\ \longrightarrow \\} \xymatrix@=2em{
& \overset{e_0}{\bullet} \ar[dl] \ar[dr] & \\
\overset{a_0}{\bullet} \ar[dr]& & \overset{b_0}{\bullet} \ar[dl]\\
& \underset{c_0}{\bullet} &
}
\xymatrix{\\ \longrightarrow \\} \xymatrix{ \overset{g_0}{\bullet} \ar[dr] & \\ & \underset{f_0}\bullet \\ } \xymatrix{\\
\longrightarrow
\\}
\xymatrix{\\ 0
\\}$$ Now consider the four dimensional modules: $n=2$ and the rational conical form corresponds to a polynomial $x^2 + \theta_1 x +
\theta_0$. In the diagram below $a(g_1) = \theta_0 f_0 + \theta_1
f_1.$ $$\xymatrix@=0.5em{ \\ \\ 0 \\ \\ } \xymatrix@=0.5em{ \\ \\ {\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}\\
\\ }
\xymatrix@=0.5em{ & & & \\ \\
\overset{\gamma}{\bullet} \ar[ddr] & & \overset{b_1 + a_0}{\bullet}
\ar[ddl] \ar[ddr] &
\\ \\
& \underset{c_1}{\bullet} & & \underset{c_0}{\bullet}
} \xymatrix@=0.5em{\\ \\ {\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}\\ \\}
\xymatrix@=0.5em{
& \overset{e_1}{\bullet} \ar[ddl] \ar[ddr] & \\ \\
\overset{a_1}{\bullet} \ar[ddr]& & \overset{b_1}{\bullet}
\ar[ddl]\\ \\
& \underset{c_1}{\bullet} &
}
\xymatrix@=0.5em{\\ \\ \bigoplus \\ \\} \xymatrix@=0.5em{
& \overset{e_0}{\bullet} \ar[ddl] \ar[ddr] & \\ \\
\overset{a_0}{\bullet} \ar[ddr]& & \overset{b_0}{\bullet}
\ar[ddl]\\ \\
& \underset{c_0}{\bullet} & }
\xymatrix@=0.5em{\\ \\ {\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}\\ \\} \xymatrix@=0.5em{
\overset{g_1}{\bullet} \ar[ddr] & & \overset{g_0}{\bullet} \ar[ddr]
\ar[ddl] &
\\ \\
& \underset{f_1}{\bullet} & & \underset{f_0}{\bullet} \\ \\
} \xymatrix@=0.5em{\\ \\ {\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}\\ \\}
\xymatrix@=0.5em{\\ \\ 0
\\ \\}$$ where $\gamma = a_1 + \theta_0 b_0 + \theta_1 b_1$. Note that $a(\gamma) = \theta_0 c_0 + \theta_1 c_1$, as desired.
Proof of proposition \[prop:dual\].
-----------------------------------
Note that it suffices to show that the indecomposable representations in item 2(a) are self-dual; for that forces the representations in item 2(b) to be self-dual, and it is well known that $kV_4$ is self-dual.
A $2n$ dimensional representation $M$ of item 2(a) can be chosen to be of the form (after a suitable choice of bases) $$M = (V, V; I, J)$$ where $V$ is an $n$-dimensional vector space, $I$ denotes the identity transformation, and $J$ an indecomposable rational canonical form. It is then clear that the dual of $M$ is given by $$M^* = (V^*, V^*; I , J^T )$$ It is a interesting exercise [^2] to show that a square matrix is similar to its transpose, so there exists an invertible matrix $D$ such that $J^T = D J D^{-1}$. The following commutative diagram then tells us that $M$ is isomorphic to $M^*$. $$\xymatrix{
V \ar[r]^J \ar[d]_D^{\cong} & V \ar[d]^D_{\cong} \\
V^* \ar[r]_{J^T} & V^* }$$
The quest continues
===================
In our paper we concentrated on Klein group but what about $C_{3} \oplus C_{3}$? What are all the representation of this group? Interestingly enough this is an extremely difficult question. Yet, some progress has be made very recently which involves more sophisticated machinery of representation theory. For the curious reader we refer to a recent paper [@CFP].
[^1]: Most readers are familiar with the Jordan canonical form of an operator acting on a vector space over $\mathbb{C}$ or other algebraically closed fields. These forms use critically the fact that non-constant polynomials have roots. However, a parallel and beautiful theory also exists when the field is not algebraically closed, and this is not so well-known. One often thinks about the base field as the field of rational numbers and the name “The rational canonical form” stick also to completely different fields including ${\mathbb{F}_2}$.
[^2]: Hint: Use Jordan decomposition
|
---
abstract: 'Weak gravitational lensing is one of the most promising cosmological probes to constrain dark matter, dark energy and the nature of gravity at cosmic scales. Intrinsic alignments (IA) of galaxies have been recognized as one of the most serious systematic effects facing gravitational lensing. Such alignments must be isolated and removed to obtain a pure lensing signal. Furthermore, the alignments are related to the processes of galaxy formation, so their extracted signal can help in understanding such formation processes and improving their theoretical modeling. We report in this letter the first detection of the gravitational shear–intrinsic shape (GI) correlation and the intrinsic shape–galaxy density (Ig) correlation in a photometric redshift survey using the self-calibration method. These direct measurements are made from the KiDS-450 photometric galaxy survey with a significance of 2.74$\sigma$ in the third bin for the Ig correlation, and 2.73$\sigma$ for the GI cross-correlation between the third and fourth bins. The self-calibration method uses the information available from photometric surveys without needing to specify an IA model and will play an important role in validating IA models and IA mitigation in future surveys such as LSST, Euclid and WFIRST.'
author:
- 'Eske M. Pedersen$^{1}$'
- 'Ji Yao$^{1,2}$'
- 'Mustapha Ishak$^{1}$'
- 'Pengjie Zhang$^{2}$'
bibliography:
- 'bibliography.bib'
title: 'First detection of the GI-type of intrinsic alignments of galaxies using the self-calibration method in a photometric galaxy survey'
---
[***Introduction.***]{} In the last few decades, cosmology has entered a flourishing era of high precision made possible by the advancement of astronomical surveys and missions. These will continue to provide large volume, high quality observational data that will allow the scientific community to put stringent constraints on cosmological models of the universe. With such an abundance of data, it has become clear that the challenges facing modern cosmology lie in systematic uncertainties associated with the data rather than statistical ones.
One of the most powerful cosmological probes of large-scale structure and matter in the universe is weak gravitational lensing, also known as cosmic shear. Weak gravitational lensing is the physical phenomenon where images of billions of background galaxies are distorted and harmonically aligned by the foreground dark matter and galaxies. These distorted images encode valuable cosmological information about the intervening cosmos that light traveled through. Depending on the position of the sources, lenses and the observer, gravitational lensing occurs: in a strong regime giving, astonishing multiple images; an intermediate regime, giving arcs and arclets; and a weak regime, giving small distortions of the images of background galaxies. For more details see the reviews [@1992grle.book.....S; @2015RPPh...78h6901K] and references therein.
-- --
-- --
\[fig:IAmodel\]
The effect in the weak regime is tiny but overwhelmingly abundant and is collected by surveys using statistical methods to build a powerful signal to constrain cosmological model parameters. Weak lensing is sensitive to the amount and distribution of matter in the universe as well as the parameters of the dark energy driving the acceleration of the universe. Weak lensing also probes the growth rate of large scale structures in the universe which allows it to test the theory of gravity at cosmological scales. A number of weak lensing surveys such as CFHTLens, KiDS-450, and Dark Energy Survey have already delivered – in combination with other probes – very tight constraints on the amount of matter, the amplitude of matter clustering, and equation of state of dark energy, see e.g. [@2012MNRAS.427..146H; @2017MNRAS.465.1454H; @2018PhRvD..98d3528T]. Weak lensing is thus found to be one of the most promising cosmological probes, and a number of ambitious surveys are being built and scheduled to start taking data in the upcoming decade, including LSST, Euclid, and WFIRST. Again, all these surveys will be dominated by systematic uncertainties and the scientific community is working on such systematics as uncertainties on photometric redshifts, intrinsic alignments of galaxies, baryonic effects, and modeling of non-linear regimes, among others, for more details see, for example, the reviews and references therein.
Undoubtedly, one of the most serious systematic effects that weak lensing surveys face is the so-called Intrinsic Alignments (IA) of galaxies that act as a contaminant to the weak gravitational lensing signal. Galaxies in the universe are not randomly aligned but rather possess an intrinsic alignment due to how they formed and the environment they formed into. More detail can be found in, for example, [@2015PhR...558....1T; @2015SSRv..193....1J] and references therein. indeed these IA generate additional signals that contaminate the pure cosmic gravitational shear and significantly affect the values of cosmological parameters. Studies have shown, e.g. [@2007NJPh....9..444B], that IA, if not accounted for in weak lensing cosmological analyses, leads to biases (shifts) of up to 30% in the amplitude parameter of matter fluctuations in the universe and up to 50% in the equation of state of dark energy.
To complicate the issue, there are two types of IA that require different methods of mitigation. First, a collection of galaxies formed around a massive dark matter structure will tend to be radially aligned toward such a structure. This type of IA is called the Intrinsic shape–Intrinsic shape correlation and is referred to as II. The other type of intrinsic alignment is slightly more subtle and comes from the fact that the same massive matter structure will not only radially align a galaxy close to it but also lenses the image of a background galaxy. This creates an anti-correlation between the images of the two galaxies on the observed sky. This effect is called the gravitational shear–intrinsic shape correlation and is referred to as GI (or IG) signal. The two effects, II and IG, are illustrated in Fig. \[fig:IAmodel\].
The scientific community working on weak lensing cosmology and the communities working on preparing software pipelines for upcoming photometric surveys have a strong need of efficient methods to mitigate and control the IA nuisance effect. While the effect of the II signal of IA can be reduced by not considering pairs of galaxies close to each other along the line of sight (i.e. not the same redshift bins), the GI signal cannot be reduced in the same way as it is present at long distances. One method used to try to account for GI is to assume a model of IA with a few parameters and then add those parameters to the cosmological analysis such that the parameters can be constrained from the photometric survey data. This technique relies on the knowledge and specification of an IA model which is still an area of active development itself; see, e.g., [@2017arXiv170809247B; @2019arXiv191008085V]. Another proposed mitigation method is the nulling technique that uses different redshift dependencies of lensing and intrinsic alignments but it was found to throw away too much of precious lensing signal [@2010arXiv1009.2024J]. A third scheme that was proposed in [@Zhang:2008pw] for the 2-point correlations and later re-studied and extended to 3-point correlations in [@Troxel:2011za] is called the self-calibration method. As we describe in the next section, we use all the observed correlations between shapes and densities of galaxies in a photometeric survey and put them into a procedure that will separate the GG and GI signals. This separation is based on using the dependencies of GG and GI on the respective positions of the sources and lenses in small redshift bins but still allowing the use of the whole redshift extent of the survey. Ref. [@2017JCAP...10..056Y] showed how such a method can mitigate biases on the dark energy parameters. Therefore, self-calibration complements the marginalization method as it does not rely on the specification of an IA model. It allows one to extract the GI signal that can be then subtracted from the GG signal before performing cosmological analyses. Additionally, self-calibration provides the extracted GI signal that can be fit to models of IA and help study and improve such models.
In this letter, we report first detections of intrinsic shape–gravitational shear (IG) and intrinsic shape–galaxy density (Ig) in a photometric redshift survey using the self-calibration method where no IA model has been assumed. We provide a concise description of intrinsic alignment, the self-calibration method, the steps that directly lead to the detections, and the results obtained. A more detailed description of the Ig part of the results and related methods, as well as other developments can be found in a companion paper [@JietAl2019].\
[***Intrinsic alignments of galaxies and basic elements of the self-calibration method.***]{} In photometric galaxy surveys, the total measured shear is given by $\gamma^{obs}=\gamma^G+\gamma^I+\gamma^N$, where the superscript G stands for gravitational shear, I for intrinsic alignment, and N for shot noise. Thus, the observed angular cross-correlation, $<\gamma^{obs,i},\gamma^{obs,j}>$, between two redshift bins $i$ and $j$ includes: a GG term that corresponds to the genuine gravitational shear signal; GI, II, and IG terms that represent intrinsic alignment components; and a noise term. This can be written in terms of the corresponding shape-shape power spectrum as follows: $$C^{\gamma\gamma}_{ij}(\ell)=C^{GG}_{ij}(\ell)+C^{IG}_{ij}(\ell)+C^{GI}_{ij}(\ell)+C^{II}_{ij}(\ell)+\delta_{ij}C^{GG,N}_{ii}.$$ Fig. \[fig:IAmodel\] shows the physical mechanisms behind the correlation giving the terms $C^{II}_{ij}(\ell)$ and $C^{IG}_{ij}(\ell)$. Note that we use here the convention that IG term represents the intrinsic alignment signal and that the GI term should become negligible.
The components $C^{GI}_{ij}(\ell)$ and $C^{II}_{ij}(\ell)$ can be minimized by choosing bins with $i<j$. $C^{GI}_{ij}(\ell)$ will be minimal due to G being in front of I so no such correlation can be present, while the $C^{II}_{ij}(\ell)$ term is negligible since it is present only for close galaxies but not between galaxies in distinct bins.
----------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------
[{width="48.00000%"}]{} [{width="48.00000%"}]{}
----------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------
Now, the self-calibration is used to separate the two remaining terms, $C^{GG}_{ij}(\ell)$ and $C^{IG}_{ij}(\ell)$. First, in the small redshift bin approximation, a scaling relation was derived to relate the IG term to the Ig term [@Zhang:2008pw]: $$\vspace{-0.2cm}
\label{eq:scaling}
C_{ij}^{IG}\left(\ell\right) \simeq \frac{W_{ij}\Delta_i}{b_i\left(\ell\right)} C_{ii}^{Ig}\left(\ell\right)
\vspace{-0.2cm}$$ where $W_{ij}$ is the weighted lensing kernel, $\Delta_i$ is the effective width of the $i$th bin, and $b_i$ is the galaxy bias in the $i$th bin.
We use the self-calibration method including the Hankel transform of Eq. \[eq:scaling\] to measure the $w_{GI}$ correlation signal in the KiDS-450 photometric survey. Following the approach outlined in [@Zhang:2008pw; @Troxel:2011za], we start by defining the selection function $(S)$, which selects only pairs of galaxies with photometric redshifts $z_G^P < z_g^P$, for the photometric bin. This leads to defining the parameter $Q$ for how well we can actually distinguish the galaxy shear–galaxy density signal Gg with or without the selection function: $$\vspace{-0.2cm}
\label{eq:Q}
Q\left( \ell \right) = \frac{\left.C^{Gg}_{ii}\left(\ell\right)\right|_S}{C^{Gg}_{ii}\left(\ell\right)}$$ To calculate this we use the following spectra: $$\begin{aligned}
C_{ii}^{Gg}\left(\ell\right) &= \int_0 ^\infty \frac{W_i\left(\chi\right)n_i\left(\chi\right)}{\chi^2}b_g P_\delta \left(k=\frac{\ell}{\chi};\chi\right) d\chi \label{eq:CGg}\\
\left.C^{Gg}_{ii}\left(\ell\right)\right|_S &= \int_0 ^\infty \frac{W_i\left(\chi\right)n_i\left(\chi\right)}{\chi^2}b_g P_\delta \left(k=\frac{\ell}{\chi};\chi\right) \eta_i\left(z\right)d\chi\label{eq:CGgS}
$$ where $W_i$ is the lensing efficiency, $n_i$ is the true redshift distribution, $\chi$ is the co-moving distance, $b_g$ is the galaxy bias that we assume is approximately constant over the bin, $P_\delta$ is the matter power-spectra, and $\eta_i$ is a function of the selection function that was defined in [@Zhang:2008pw] as:
$$\eta_i(z) =\frac
{2\int_{z^P_{ i, \rm min}}^{z^P_{ i, \rm max}}dz^P_{G}\int_{z^P_{ i, \rm min}}^{z^P_{ i, \rm max}}dz^P_g\int_{0}^{\infty}dz_G W_L(z,z_G)p(z_G|z^P_G)p(z|z^P_g)S(z^P_G,z^P_g)n^P_i(z^P_G)n^P_i(z^P_g)}
{\int_{z^P_{ i, \rm min}}^{z^P_{ i, \rm max}}dz^P_{G}\int_{z^P_{ i, \rm min}}^{z^P_{ i, \rm max}}dz^P_g\int_{0}^{\infty}dz_G W_L(z,z_G)p(z_G|z^P_G)p(z|z^P_g)n^P_i(z^P_G)n^P_i(z^P_g)} \label{eta}$$
where $W_L$ is the lensing kernel, the superscript $P$ denotes photometric redshift, $p(z_G|z^P_G)$ is the photometric probability distribution function (PDF), $n^P_i$ are the photometric redshift distribution in the $i$th tomographic bin, and $S$ is the selection function: $$\label{selection}
S(z^P_G,z^P_g)=\begin{cases}
1 &\text{for $z^P_G<z^P_g$}\\
0 &\text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$ For this work we have assumed that the PDF is Gaussian of the form: $$p(z|z^P) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma_z\left(1+z\right)}\exp\left( -\frac{\left(z-z^P\right)^2}{2\left(\sigma_z\left(1+z\right)\right)^2}\right)$$ In this paper we have used $\sigma_z = 0.082$. With these tools in mind, we can move on to the separation of the correlation functions. In [@Zhang:2008pw] the work is done in $\ell$ space, but here we will instead focus on real space, to do this we define a constant $\hat{Q}_i$ as the average of $Q\left(\ell\right)$ over a reasonable range of $\ell$. With this, we can then perform a Hankel transform as outlined in [@Joudaki:2017zdt] to get: $$\begin{aligned}
w^{Ig}\left(\theta\right) &= \frac{\left.w^{\gamma g}\right|_S \left(\theta\right) - \hat{Q}_i w^{\gamma g}\left(\theta \right)}{1-\hat{Q}_i}\\
w^{Gg}\left(\theta\right) &= \frac{ w^{\gamma g}\left(\theta \right)-\left.w^{\gamma g}\right|_S \left(\theta\right)}{1-\hat{Q}_i}\end{aligned}$$ The terms here can be obtained via the Treecorr code [@Jarvis:2003wq], and the $\hat{Q}_i$ can be obtained separately for each bin as seen in the right panel of Fig \[fig:IAmodel\].\
\
[***Detection of GI-type intrinsic alignment using the self-calibration method.*** ]{} We have designed two pipelines for the separation of the $Ig$ and $Gg$ signals, as a way to cross-validate our results. Pipeline-1 was designed as a tool using AstroPy and SciPy [@scipy] to calculate the integrals needed to obtain the Qs as given in . The correlations shown in the right panel of Fig. \[fig:IG-signal\] for this pipeline are calculated using version 3 of Treecorr [@Jarvis:2003wq], with jackknife-regions obtained using the tiles from KiDS-450 [@2017MNRAS.465.1454H]. A first separation of the Ig correlation using the self-calibration method was obtained with Pipeline-1 [@Yao_dissertation] in the third redshift bin of KiDS-450 data.
Pipeline-2 was designed to be compatible with future surveys as well. For the Q calculation, we use the Core Cosmology library (CCL) [@Chisari:2018vrw] for calculating the linear power-spectra needed in and . Single and double integrals, was calculated using SciPy [@scipy], to solve triple integrals we use Monte-Carlo integration to obtain a reliable result in a reasonable time, using the SciKit-Monaco code [^1]. Treecorr 4.0.8 [@Jarvis:2003wq] with jackknife regions obtained via the K-means algorithm designed by E. Sheldon [^2] were utilized for correlation functions. For the detection we used a fixed-size, random catalog containing $10^8$ objects generated with the help of Healpix\_Util [^3]. A measurement of the Ig correlation was obtained with a significance of 2.74$\sigma$ and 1.53$\sigma$ in the third and fourth bin of the KiDS-450 photometric galaxy survey, respectively. The two independent pipelines have been used to extract the Ig correlations separately.
We used the scaling relation to obtain a 2.73$\sigma$ measurement of the IG signal by cross-correlating bin 3 and bin 4. The IG result is depicted in the left panel of Fig. \[fig:IG-signal\]. For this, we used the Hankel transform of Eq. , where the scaling coefficient can be assumed to have very little variation throughout the bin with a constant averaged value. We used error-propagation as described in the appendix of Ref. [@Yao:2017dnt] to obtain the errors on IG correlation. To get an estimate of error on the galaxy bias, we have calculated the average bias over the bin as $b_{i\text{avg}} = \int b_i(z) n_i (z) dz$, using the galaxy bias model suggested in [@Yao:2018pgk]. We considered the error between this average and the bias obtained for the model over the bin width. We have also included the numerical errors on the $W_{ij}$ and $\Delta_i$. We find here a negative IA signal from the self-calibration method in the third and forth bins, using the best redshift estimate of [@2017MNRAS.465.1454H] from the Bayesian Photometric Redshift (BPZ) Code and stacking the PDF’s. This is in agreement with the negative IA amplitude found in KIDS450 [@2017MNRAS.465.1454H] where they used the marginalization method and their stacked estimated redshift distribution from BPZ method. But we concentrated here the analysis to the individual third bin and fourth bin and their cross-correlation where we obtained a better signal to noise than in the first and second bin.\
\
[***Conclusion.***]{} A first detection of Intrinsic shape–Gravitational shear (IG) and the Intrinsic shape–galaxy density (Ig) in a photometric redshift survey using the self-calibration method is reported. This was measured with a 2.74$\sigma$ and 1.53$\sigma$ significance in the third and fourth bin of the KiDS-450 photometric survey for the Ig correlations. The significance of the IG cross-correlation between the two bins is 2.73$\sigma$. The negative IA signal we find here from the self-calibration method in the third and forth bins, using the BPZ-determined best redshift estimate of [@2017MNRAS.465.1454H] is in agreement with the negative sign IA amplitude found there using the marginalization approach and the BPZ method. We focused here on the third and fourth bins in KiDS-450 and their cross-correlation where we found a better IA signal to noise than in the first and second bins. The self-calibration method has the advantage of not requiring the specification of an intrinsic alignment model. On the contrary, when an IA signal is extracted, it can be used to test and validate such models. It is worth noting that two independent pipelines have been used to derive the results for Ig correlations and were found to be in good agreement. These results also confirm that the self-calibration method works and shows that it provide a means of extracting intrinsic alignment signals from important future photometric surveys such as LSST, Euclid and WFIRST.\
\
[***Acknowledgment.***]{} We thank Anish Agashe, Hendrik Hildebrandt, Mike Jarvis, Lindsay King, Huanyuan Shan, Michael A. Troxel, and Haojie Xu for useful discussions. EP thanks his wife Shelbi Parker for proofreading the manuscript. MI acknowledges that this material is based upon work supported in part by the U.S. National Science Foundation under grant AST-1517768 and the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, under Award Number DE-SC0019206. The authors acknowledge the Texas Advanced Computing Center (TACC) at The University of Texas for providing HPC resources that have contributed to the research results reported within this paper. URL: http://www.tacc.utexas.edu.
[^1]: https://pypi.org/project/scikit-monaco/
[^2]: https://github.com/esheldon/kmeans\_radec
[^3]: https://github.com/esheldon/healpix\_util
|
---
abstract: |
We present 30GHz Sunyaev Zel’dovich observations of a statistically complete sample of galaxy clusters with OCRA-p. The clusters are the 18 most X–ray luminous clusters at $z > 0.2$ in the ROSAT Brightest Cluster Sample. We correct for contaminant radio sources via supplementary observations with the Green Bank Telescope, also at 30GHz, and remove a cluster that is contaminated by an unresolved X-ray source. All 17 remaining clusters have central SZ effects with Comptonisation parameter $y_0$ exceeding $1.9\times10^{-4}$, and 13 are detected at significance $\ge 3
\sigma$. We use our data to examine scalings between $y_0$ and X-ray temperature, X-ray luminosity, and the X-ray mass proxy $Y_\mathrm{X}$, and find good agreement with predictions from self–similar models of cluster formation, with an intrinsic scatter in $y_0$ of about 25%. We also comment on the success of the observations in the face of the contaminant source population, and the implications for upcoming cm-wave surveys.
author:
- |
Katy Lancaster$^1$, Mark Birkinshaw$^1$, Marcin P. Gawroński$^2$, Richard Battye$^3$, Ian Browne$^3$, Richard Davis$^3$, Paul Giles$^1$, Roman Feiler$^2$, Andrzej Kus$^2$, Bartosz Lew$^2$, Stuart Lowe$^3$, Ben Maughan$^1$, Abdulaziz Mohammad$^1$, Bogna Pazderska$^2$, Eugeniusz Pazderski$^2$, Mike Peel$^3$, Boud Roukema$^2$ and Peter Wilkinson$^3$\
$^1$ H. H. Wills Physics Laboratory, University of Bristol, Tyndall Avenue, Bristol BS8 1TL\
$^2$ Toruń Centre for Astronomy, Nicolaus Copernicus University, ul. Gagarina 11, 87-100 Toruń, Poland\
$^3$ Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics, The University of Manchester, Alan Turing Building, Manchester M13 9PL\
bibliography:
- 'ref\_lancaster.bib'
date: 'Received \*\*insert\*\*; Accepted \*\*insert\*\*'
title: 'Sunyaev Zel’dovich observations of a statistically complete sample of galaxy clusters with OCRA-p'
---
\[firstpage\]
cosmology: observations – cosmic microwave background – galaxies: clusters: individual (A1835, ZWCL1953, A689, ZWCL3146, RXJ1532.9+3021, A2390, A2219, RXJ2129.6+0005, A2261, A781, A697, A1763, A68, A520, A267, RXJ0439.0+0715, ZWCL7160, A773) – methods: observational
INTRODUCTION {#intro}
============
The thermal Sunyaev Zel’dovich (SZ) effect ([@SZ]) is a spectral distortion of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation due to inverse Compton scattering by the hot gas in galaxy clusters. It has long been exploited in cosmological and cluster studies in order to derive, for example, the Hubble constant (e.g. [@Hughes1998], [@Mason_obs], [@Reese2002], [@Saunders2003], [@Bonamente2006]) and the gas mass fraction (e.g. [@Grego2001], [@Lancaster2005], [@LaRoque2006]). Thanks to well developed techniques, detections are becoming routine although signal–to–noise remains quite poor. However, we are entering an era of purpose–built instruments so this is set to improve dramatically, enabling SZ research to reach its evident potential.
The main focus of the SZ community at present is to utilise the redshift–independence of the SZ surface brightness in order to perform blind surveys for galaxy clusters. While other techniques suffer from large intrinsic biases and complex selection effects, SZ surveys will produce almost *mass–limited* catalogues and thus far superior datasets for constraining cosmological models. The dedicated SZ surveys, for example Planck ([@Ade2011]), SPT ([@Stan2009], [@Vanderlinde2010s]), ACT ([@Menanteau2010], [@Marriage2010]) and the SZA [@Muchovej2011] are now generating results. Many more are expected in the near future, e.g. from AMI [@Zwart2008s]. In order to fully exploit the results of these surveys, it will be necessary to improve understanding of both the ‘selection effect’ due to the presence of unsubtracted radio sources, and also the scalings between cluster SZ observables and various physical quantities, especially the cluster mass. Various groups have undertaken similar studies (e.g. [@Benson2004], [@Morandi2007], [@Bonamente2008], [@Huang2010]). To make further advances, reliable observations of large, well–selected samples are required.
The One Centimetre Receiver Array prototype, OCRA-p, is a two–element receiver mounted on the 32-m telescope at the Toruń Centre for Astronomy of the Nicolaus Copernicus University, Poland. OCRA–p proved its SZ capabilities by detecting four well known clusters at high significance [@Lancaster2007]. We present the first in a series of papers discussing an X–ray selected sample of 33 clusters with well understood selection effects. This paper contains details of our OCRA–p observations of a statistically complete subsample of 18 clusters. The structure of the paper is as follows. In Section 2 we give a brief description of the Toruń 32-m telescope and the OCRA-p receiver. Section 3 contains details of the cluster sample. The observations and data reduction are described in Section 4, and the problem of radio source contamination is detailed in Section 5. Section 6 gives a brief overview of our X-ray analysis, and Section 7 presents our results. We discuss these results and conclude in Section 8. Throughout the paper we adopt the following cosmological parameter values: $H_0 = 70 \, \mathrm{km} \, \mathrm{s}^{-1} \,
\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$, $\Omega_{\mathrm{m}0} = 0.3$, $\Omega_{\Lambda 0}
= 0.7$.
THE TORUN TELESCOPE AND OCRA-p
==============================
The Toruń observatory is located in Piwnice, 15km outside Toruń in northern Poland. The telescope consists of a 32-m parabolic dish and 3.2-m sub-reflector, with a fully steerable classical Alt–Az mount. It has receivers operating at 1.4-1.7, 5, 6.8, 12 and 30GHz. The telescope is used for a variety of studies including interstellar molecular spectroscopy (e.g. [@Blaszkiewicz2004]) and VLBI (e.g. [@Bartkiewicz2005]).
OCRA is a planned 30GHz 100–element continuum receiver (see [@Browne2000]). A prototype receiver, OCRA-p, funded by a grant from the Royal Society Paul Instrument fund, has been on the telescope since 2004. The instrument is described in detail in [@LowePhD] and [@Lowe2007]; here we present a short summary. The basic radiometer design is based on the prototype for the Planck Low Frequency Instrument (LFI, [@Mandolesi2000]), and is similar to the WMAP K-band receivers [@Jarosik2003]. OCRA-p provides only two horn–feeds, the beams of which are separated by $3'.1$ and have FWHM $1'.2$. As the beam separation is small, it is possible to reduce the effects of atmospheric and gain fluctuations by switching between the beams and taking the difference. This can be improved upon by further levels of switching. The full switching strategy for SZ observations is described in Section \[sec:obs\]. In addition to the SZ program, OCRA–p has been used to study planetary nebulae ([@Pazderska2009]) and for various radio source studies including flux density measurements to support the Very Small Array CMB program (see [@Gawronski2010] for details of the OCRA measurements, and Genova–Santos et al. (in preparation) for the details of the CMB work). The next phase of the project is an 8–element array, OCRA–Faraday ([@Peel2009]), which was mounted on the telescope in late 2009. This is still in the commissioning phase but is expected to be fully operational in autumn 2011, and can be upgraded to 16 elements in the future.
THE CLUSTER SAMPLE {#sec:clusters}
==================
In order to derive meaningful cosmological results, or indeed to comment on universal cluster properties, it is necessary to use a ‘fair’ sample, or at least one where the selection biases are clear and well understood. Large samples fulfilling these criteria are rare in SZ astronomy, largely due to the various practical challenges which observers must overcome. In this work, we attempt to select and observe such a sample, and turn to the ROSAT All–Sky Survey in the first instance.
The Brightest Cluster Sample (BCS, [@Ebeling1998]) is derived from a careful analysis of the ROSAT All-Sky Survey (RASS, [@Voges1999]) data at $\delta > 0^{\circ}$. The resulting catalogue is 90% flux complete to a limit of $f_{\mathrm{X}} = 4.4
\times 10^{-12}$ergcm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$ in the 0.1-2.4keV energy band. Since the SZ surface brightness of a cluster is essentially unaffected by redshift, we select on luminosity, imposing a limit of $L_{\mathrm{X}} \geqslant 13.08\times10^{44}\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$ (the luminosity of A773 in the BCS catalogue). In addition, we impose the criterion $z>0.2$ due to the $3'.1$ beam–throw of OCRA; observations at lower redshift are inefficient with this instrument. Our basic sample then consists of 18 clusters. We do not reject any clusters based on their radio–source environments at this stage, even though we appreciate the difficulties which this policy may introduce. This has the advantage of allowing us to investigate any correlation between gas properties and those of a central radio galaxy.
We reject one cluster from the basic 18–cluster sample, A689, as on further investigation we have found that the ROSAT data are contaminated by a bright central point source (Giles et al., in preparation). After removing this source from the *Chandra* data, the luminosity is just $(1.66\pm0.24)\times10^{44} \mathrm{erg
\,s}^{-1}$, more than a factor 8 below the limiting luminosity of the cluster sample. The sample is summarised in Table \[tab:coord\]. These clusters appear not to be exceptional in their X–ray structures, and, indeed, follow the expected X-ray scaling relations (see Section \[sec:Xscale\]).
---------------- --------------- -------------- ------------ ------------- -------- ------------------------
Cluster RA Dec $\Delta$RA $\Delta$Dec $z$ $L_\mathrm{x}$
(J2000) (J2000) (arcmin) (arcmin) ($10^{44}$ergs$^{-1}$)
A1835 14 01 01.99 02 53 12.8 0.02 0.53 0.25 38.53
ZWCL1953 08 50 03.00 36 04 16.0 -0.80 -0.04 0.32 34.12
*A689* *08 37 25.01* *14 59 40.9* *-* *-* *0.28* *30.41 (1.66)*
ZWCL3146 10 23 35.98 04 11 56.0 -0.90 0.75 0.29 26.47
RXJ1532.9+3021 15 32 58.99 30 21 11.2 1.13 0.20 0.35 24.40
A2390 21 53 34.61 17 40 10.9 -0.50 -1.56 0.23 21.44
A2219 16 40 21.80 46 42 47.8 0.24 0.30 0.23 20.40
RXJ2129.6+0005 21 29 40.50 00 05 49.9 0.11 0.51 0.24 18.59
A2261 17 22 27.00 32 07 04.1 -0.03 -0.88 0.22 18.18
A781 09 20 25.99 30 29 57.8 -0.04 -0.11 0.30 17.22
A697 08 42 58.01 36 21 45.0 0.03 -0.20 0.28 16.30
A1763 13 35 23.21 41 00 04.0 0.04 0.08 0.22 14.93
A68 00 37 05.30 09 09 10.8 -0.20 -0.38 0.26 14.89
A520 04 54 19.01 02 56 48.1 0.00 0.00 0.20 14.44
A267 01 52 42.00 01 00 25.9 -0.02 -0.24 0.23 13.71
RXJ0439.0+0715 04 39 01.01 07 16 54.8 0.08 0.85 0.23 13.25
ZWCL7160 14 57 19.99 22 20 35.9 1.13 0.03 0.26 13.19
A773 09 17 51.00 51 43 19.9 -0.32 -0.34 0.22 13.08
---------------- --------------- -------------- ------------ ------------- -------- ------------------------
\[tab:coord\]
OCRA DATA
=========
Observing Strategy {#sec:obs}
------------------
The clusters were observed in good weather periods between September 2005 and January 2009. We aimed to achieve a uniform noise level $<0.5$mJy, which required $\sim 220$ minutes of data at each pointing centre. Trail fields, blank patches of sky separated from the target fields by 15–20m in RA, were observed over the same range of hour angle after each cluster observation, using the same position switching routine (described below) as for the cluster fields. The integration times for the target and trail fields are identical.
For each observation, whether the cluster or its corresponding trail field, we employ a position switching strategy to remove atmospheric contamination from our data. The feeds are positioned such that one beam, beam $B$, is coincident with the cluster centre and the other, beam $A$, provides a measure of the blank sky signal. (For extended sources, beam $A$ may measure a small signal itself. This must be properly accounted for - see Section \[sec:beta\].) We switch between the $A$ and $B$ beams at a rate of 277kHz, recording the $A-B$ difference every second. We integrate in this position for 25 seconds. The telescope then slews to reposition the beams such that beam $A$ measures the cluster and beam $B$ measures the sky background, and the differencing is repeated, this time integrating for 50 seconds. We then return to the starting position and integrate for another 25 seconds. The differenced signals from the first and third positions, $(A_1-B_1)$ and $(A_3-B_3)$ are summed, and then subtracted from the differenced signal from the second position $(A_2-B_2)$. This recovers twice the cluster signal relative to the background regions. The symmetric nature of the switching pattern ensures proper subtraction of most atmospheric emission and other contaminants such as ground pick-up, provided that the target region is not rapidly changing in azimuth and elevation.
Calibration
-----------
The data are calibrated against an internal noise source, which is itself calibrated via observations of the well–known bright radio source NGC7027 of flux density 5.37Jy. We observe significant changes in the level of the noise source in the form of: (a) sudden ‘jumps’, sometimes due to the telescope reconfiguration and (b) additional smaller amplitude fluctuations which appear random in nature. We note that other than the low–amplitude random fluctuations, the voltage level is generally stable on timescales of a few days. By performing regular calibration ($\approx$daily) we reduce the effects of the larger fluctuations. In addition, we adopt a conservative approach by comparing the total powers for the NGC7027 and cluster observations and rejecting any data for which they differ significantly, although a study suggests the calibration often stays virtually the same as the total power drifts. Residual uncertainties in the calibration of the system at the level of 5% may be expected.
The telescope pointing is calibrated via azimuth and elevation scans across a bright source close to each cluster. Where an acceptable pointing calibration does not exist within 60minutes of a cluster observation, the cluster data are rejected.
Statistical Data Analysis
-------------------------
After combination of the second-by-second average data into double–differenced measurements of the brightness of the sky, and calibration, the data are examined for periods of increased noise (which might arise from receiver instabilities or bad weather conditions) or individual anomalous points. The combination of the data into final averages was performed including statistical tests for outlier data. The fractions of the data points rejected by $3\sigma$ or $5\sigma$ cuts were small in all cases, and no cut-dependent changes larger than a small fraction of the error on the mean were seen. The distributions of data values in the double-difference data are close to Gaussian, with a slight tendency to show elevated wings in the distributions: the estimates of the error on the mean (Table \[tab:res\]) take account of the full distribution, and not the distribution after truncation of outliers.
RADIO SOURCE CONTAMINATION {#sec:src}
==========================
Radio source contamination remains a significant problem for observations of the Sunyaev Zel’dovich effect. If we know the positions and 30GHz flux densities of all sources near our observing locations, we can correct the data and establish the true magnitude of the SZ effect for each cluster. Ideally, we would consult a survey of the radio sky at a frequency close to 30GHz in order to identify contaminant radio sources. The only such survey currently available is the WMAP point source catalogue ([@Wright2009]), but this is complete only to the 2Jy level and so is three orders of magnitude too shallow for our purposes. We consult the all–sky NVSS ([@NVSS], 1.4GHz) and GB6 ([@GB6], 4.85GHz) catalogues and retain all sources within $5'$ of the pointing centre for each cluster. In addition, we include any sources found in similar projects and reported in the literature. The list of 58 contaminating sources is presented in Table \[table:sources\].
GBT observations
----------------
We observed the 58 sources over the course of several sessions at the Green Bank Telescope (GBT) in January 2008 (observations limited due to poor weather conditions), then January and May 2009 (re-scheduled time, again compromised in part by non-ideal conditions). We used the GBT Ka–band receiver and the Caltech Continuum Backend (CCB). For a detailed description of this configuration of equipment and the observing methods used, see [@Mason2009]; we will describe the salient points.
### Calibration
Every observing session included at least one flux calibration observation, using the most accessible of the GBT standard calibrators 3C 147, 3C 48 or 3C 286. We observed sources cluster by cluster, and thus they tend to lie in small regions. The GBT pointing is stable for up to 40minutes for night time observing, but we rarely required re-pointing near a field because slews tended to occur after only a few source integrations. We chose one pointing calibrator per cluster (and hence its associated sources). We took pointing calibrators from the GBT database, choosing the brightest available within 10degrees of the cluster centre. We also performed at least one sky dip per observing session to establish the sky temperature and opacity.
\[table:sources\]
---------------- ------- ----------------- ---------------- ---------- -------------- ------ ---------- ------- ----------- --------------- --------------- -----------
Cluster Src RA Dec Notes
\# (J2000) (J2000)
A1835 1\* 14 01 02.1 02 52 41.0 39.3 $\pm1.6$ - 3.31 $\pm0.14$ 2.93 $\pm0.18$ OB N
2.88 $\pm0.07$
2\* 14 01 00.5 02 51 53.0 1.6 $\pm0.1$ - 1.26 $\pm0.14$ 1.33 $\pm0.07$ OB F
1.36 $\pm0.08$
ZWCL1953 [1]{} [08 50 07.8]{} [36 04 21.7]{} [19.4]{} ${\pm1.2}$ - - [0.79]{} [$\pm0.70$]{} [GBT]{}
2 08 50 13.4 36 04 22.4 20.8 $\pm1.0$ 19.0 $\pm4.0$ 1.19 $\pm0.17$ 1.28 $\pm0.16$ GBT OB
ZW3146 1 10 23 37.2 04 09 06.4 31.5 $\pm1.0$ - 2.03 $\pm0.22$ 2.35 $\pm0.81$ GBT OB
2.12 $\pm0.15$
2 10 23 39.6 04 11 15.4 7.1 $\pm0.5$ - 0.41 $\pm0.07$ 0.33 $\pm0.07$ GBT OB
3 10 23 45.1 04 10 40.7 95.8 $\pm3.4$ 42.0 $\pm7.0$ 5.35 $\pm0.18$ 5.27 $\pm0.11$ GBT OB
5.70 $\pm0.10$
4 10 23 45.2 04 11 39.7 3.6 $\pm0.4$ - 0.85 $\pm0.10$ 0.80 $\pm0.10$ GBT OB
RXJ1532.9+0005 1 15 32 47.4 30 18 46.0 18.0 $\pm1.0$ - - 1.18 $\pm0.21$ GBT
2 15 32 50.7 30 19 47.6 7.9 $\pm0.5$ - 6.58 $\pm0.20$ 6.56 $\pm0.21$ OB N
3 15 32 53.8 30 20 59.8 22.8 $\pm0.8$ 20.0 $\pm4.0$ 3.25 $\pm0.18$ 3.27 $\pm0.12$ GBT OB
4 15 32 54.31 30 23 01.5 4.4 $\pm0.4$ - - 0.92 $\pm0.21$ GBT
5 15 33 03.42 30 23 47.2 2.6 $\pm0.4$ - - 1.12 $\pm0.50$ GBT
A2390 1 21 53 32.4 17 42 19.8 20.9 $\pm1.6$ - 0.23 $\pm0.12$ GBT
2 21 53 36.8 17 41 44.8 235.3 $\pm8.3$ 220 $\pm20$ 45.77 $\pm0.10$ GBT
*3* *21 53 40.3* *17 42 56.7* *12.2* $\it \pm1.0$ - -*0.14* $\it \pm0.09$ *GBT*
A2219 1 16 40 21.83 46 42 47.8 239.1 $\pm8.3$ 84.8 $\pm8.0$ 14.87 $\pm0.17$ 13.74 $\pm1.00$ GBT OB
2\* 16 40 23.83 46 41 47.3 7.9 $\pm1.0$ - 0.97 $\pm0.17$ 0.94 $\pm0.17$ OB N
3 16 40 14.98 46 42 28.7 6.1 $\pm0.5$ - - 0.42 $\pm0.09$ GBT
4 16 39 58.07 46 40 37.2 14.1 $\pm0.5$ - - 0.96 $\pm0.09$ GBT
RXJ2129.6+0005 *1* *21 29 36.61* *00 02 35.4* *2.2* $\it \pm0.4$ - - -*0.13* $\it \pm0.21$ *GBT*
2 21 29 40.00 00 05 22.9 25.4 $\pm1.2$ - 2.33 $\pm0.10$ 2.04 $\pm0.06$ GBT OB
[3]{} [21 29 40.14]{} [00 01 44.4]{} [4.5]{} $ \pm0.5$ - - [0.11]{} $ \pm0.13$ [GBT]{}
4 21 29 55.24 00 07 56.9 34.3 $\pm1.8$ - - 2.82 $\pm0.11$ GBT
A2261 1 17 22 16.9 32 09 10.5 23.0 $\pm1.5$ - 9.32 $\pm0.22$ 15.58 $\pm3.89$ GBT OB(V)
10.48 $\pm0.16$
2 17 22 27.7 32 07 57.8 5.3 $\pm0.5$ - - 0.13 $\pm0.08$ GBT
3 17 22 45.3 32 09 27.0 4.85 $\pm0.5$ - - 0.14 $\pm0.10$ GBT
4 17 22 06.55 32 07 01.7 5.8 $\pm0.4$ - - 0.14 $\pm0.08$ GBT
A781 1 09 20 08.51 30 32 14.3 19.9 $\pm0.9$ - - 1.42 $\pm0.60$ GBT
2 09 20 14.12 30 29 02.8 17.9 $\pm0.7$ - - 1.22 $\pm0.53$ GBT
3 09 20 21.75 30 32 27.0 2.7 $\pm0.5$ - - 0.11 $\pm0.18$ GBT
4 09 20 22.90 30 29 45.6 73.1 $\pm2.6$ 32.0 $\pm5.0$ 5.33 $\pm0.18$ 5.35 $\pm0.30$ GBT OB
*5* *09 20 30.83* *30 28 02.1* *15.8* $\it\pm1.6$ - - *-0.07* $\it\pm0.16$ *GBT*
6 09 20 47.35 30 28 21.3 5.4 $\pm0.6$ - - 0.08 $\pm0.17$ GBT
A697 1 08 42 40.22 36 19 16.4 5.4 $\pm0.5$ - - 1.64 $\pm0.54$ GBT
2 08 42 59.67 36 17 43.7 32.5 $\pm1.4$ - - 1.71 $\pm0.65$ GBT
---------------- ------- ----------------- ---------------- ---------- -------------- ------ ---------- ------- ----------- --------------- --------------- -----------
[llccr@lr@lr@lr@ll]{} Cluster &Src &RA &DEC & & & & &Notes\
&\# &(J2000) &(J2000) & & & &\
& & & & & & &\
A1763 &*1* &*13 35 15.60* &*41 00 25.8* &*7.9*&$\it\pm0.5$ &-& &-& &*-0.10*&$\it\pm0.14$ &*GBT*\
&2\* &13 35 19.86 &41 00 04.0 &859.2&$\pm29.5$ &225&$\pm20$ &31.30&$\pm0.41$ &29.49&$\pm0.38$ &OB G N\
A68 &1 &00 36 52.94 &09 05 21.7 &22.8&$\pm0.8$ &-& &-& &1.57&$\pm0.05$ &GBT\
&2 &00 37 05.21 &09 13 33.6 &4.4&$\pm0.4$ &-& &-& &0.60&$\pm0.05$ &GBT\
&3 &00 37 06.35 &09 07 30.4 &40.2&$\pm1.3$ &-& &1.20&$\pm0.12$ &1.21&$\pm0.06$ &GBT OB\
&4 &00 37 07.71 &09 08 24.0 &59.1&$\pm2.2$ &-& &1.60&$\pm0.10$ &1.65&$\pm0.05$ &GBT OB\
&*5* &*00 37 17.93* &*09 06 30.5* &*3.2*&$\it\pm0.6$ &-& &-& &*-0.05*&$\it\pm0.04$ &*GBT*\
&6\* &00 37 07.00 &09 07 58.7 &-& &-& &1.38&$\pm0.11$ &-& &OB\
A520 &1 &04 54 01.11 &02 57 45.6 &6.3&$\pm0.5$ &-& &7.83&$\pm0.25$ &5.75&$\pm1.74$ &GBT OB (V)\
&&&&&&& &4.42&$\pm0.88$ & &\
&2 &04 54 03.72 &02 56 01.9 &7.7&$\pm1.7$ &-& &-& &0.49&$\pm0.15$ &GBT\
&*3* &*04 54 12.41* &*02 57 52.3* &*7.1*&$\it\pm0.5$ &-& &-& &*-0.15*&$\it\pm0.16$ &*GBT*\
&4 &04 54 17.14 &02 55 33.5 &14.1&$\pm1.0$ &-& &0.84&$\pm0.11$ &0.90&$\pm0.08$ &GBT OB\
&&&&&&& &1.09&$\pm0.09$\
&5 &04 54 21.16 &02 55 01.4 &26.5&$\pm1.6$ &-& &1.00&$\pm0.13$ &0.63&$\pm0.10$ &GBT OB\
&&&&&&& &0.74&$\pm0.14$\
A267 &1 &01 52 29.46 &00 59 31.8 &30.0&$\pm1.0$ &-& &2.75&$\pm0.20$ &3.12&$\pm0.23$ &GBT OB\
&2 &01 52 54.58 &01 02 08.2 &4.2&$\pm0.5$ &-& &7.55&$\pm0.24$ &7.05&$\pm1.12$ &GBT OB(V)\
&&&&&&& &5.53&$\pm0.73$\
&3 &01 52 34.35 &01 01 20.5 &-& &-& &-& &0.59&$\pm0.32$ &GBT\
RXJ0439.0+0715 &1 &04 39 01.26 &07 15 42.6 &30.6&$\pm1.4$ &-& &1.18&$\pm0.16$ &0.89&$\pm0.22$ &GBT OB\
ZWCL7160 &1 &14 57 08.06 &22 20 11.2 &13.2&$\pm0.6$ &-& &0.95&$\pm0.05$ &0.90&$\pm0.06$ &GBT OB\
&2 &14 57 08.06 &22 20 11.2 &3.9&$\pm0.4$ &-& &0.99&$\pm0.07$ &0.91&$\pm0.08$ &GBT OB\
&3 &14 57 15.18 &22 20 36.0 &16.5&$\pm1.3$ &-& &0.96&$\pm0.04$ &0.90&$\pm0.06$ &GBT OB\
A773 &1\* &09 17 45.39 &51 43 11.2 &2.7&$\pm0.5$ &-& & &-& &*Negligible*\
&2\* &09 18 01.81 &51 44 11.4 &3.1&$\pm0.5$ &-& & &-& &*Negligible*\
\
### Differencing
We employed the standard GBT nodding strategy, which is similar to the OCRA differencing scheme, in order to remove atmospheric contamination. A complete nod (ie the sequence of beam 1 on source, beam 2 on source, beam 2 on source, beam 1 on source) takes 1.5minutes. Each source was observed for at least one complete nod. The number of nods was governed by telescope scheduling, though we tried to include extra nods for sources expected to have lower flux densities.
### GBT flux density determinations
The CCB has a 14GHz bandwidth, split into four frequency sub–bands centred at 27.75, 31.25, 34.75 and 38.25GHz. We can thus measure simultaneously four separate flux densities for each source, from which we can derive a 30GHz value by fitting a power law to the available data. We use a Monte–Carlo method to estimate the uncertainties on the interpolated flux densities. For poor–quality data, we were unable to derive accurate 30GHz flux densities from the GBT data alone, as discussed in Section \[sec:add\]
Determining the 30GHz flux densities {#sec:add}
------------------------------------
The quality of our GBT data is rather mixed due to the wide range of observing conditions experienced. As most sources were only observed once, we are also unable to constrain source variability with GBT data alone. In order to supplement our 30GHz measurements, we make use of the flux densities reported in [@Coble2007] who observed all of our clusters except Abell 2390 at 28.5GHz with the OVRO and BIMA interferometers. Such interferometric data not only measure the SZ effect but also enable identification of point sources via the longest baselines, where the SZ signal will be negligible. The uncertainties on the @Coble2007 flux densities are generally a few tenths of a mJy, so given the proximity of the two observing frequencies, we are able to place tighter constraints on our 30GHz source flux densities by fitting to both datasets, which is particularly useful for sources with poor GBT data. In addition, we are able to identify variable sources and estimate the effect on our SZ measurements.
Most source flux densities are well constrained by a combination of GBT and OVRO/BIMA data. We fit a power law to the measurements in the four GBT frequency sub-bands, plus the interferometer data at 28.5GHz. For sources with good GBT data, the @Coble2007 points serve as a valuable check for variability, but otherwise have minimal effect. In the three cases where significant variability is found, we take the two differing flux density measurements, and use half the difference as an estimate of the uncertainty in our measurement due to variability. We then add this in quadrature to the measurement error. The source exhibiting the greatest variability, source 1 in Abell 2261, has little effect on our results since it lies well away from the cluster centre and data where it lies close to a reference arc are flagged out (Section \[sec:corr\]). Where no 28.5GHz flux density is available, we proceed with the GBT data alone. Such cases are unlikely to be crucial, as the non detection by OVRO/BIMA suggests the source is either rather faint, or well away from the central regions of the cluster. Many sources have GBT data which are usable but rather noisy. In such cases, the 28.5GHz data are invaluable in tying down the 30GHz flux density due to their comparatively small uncertainties.
Seven sources have no usable GBT data: two in A1835, one in A2219, one in A1763, one in A68 and two in A773. We now discuss our method for each source in turn. Source 1 in A1835 was measured twice by OVRO/BIMA, and also appears in NVSS. We fit a power law to the three measurements. As our observing frequency is close to that of OVRO/BIMA, assuming a constant spectral index is unlikely to have a large impact. We rule out significant variability. Source 2 in A1835 was also measured twice at 28.5GHz, but does not appear in NVSS. We consult FIRST for a lower frequency measurement, and proceed as for source 1. For source 2 in A2219, we again fit a power law to the OVRO/BIMA and NVSS datapoints. Source 6 in A68 does not appear in any of the lower frequency catalogues but is well measured by OVRO/BIMA. It is outside the OCRA beams so its flux density has only a small effect on the SZ measurement. Both sources in A773 are faint in NVSS and are not detected by OVRO/BIMA. The noise on the OVRO map is $0.078$mJy, giving a $5 \sigma$ upper limit of $0.39$mJy. As the sources in A773 lie well away from the OCRA beams, we are confident that their effects on our data are negligible.
Source corrections {#sec:corr}
------------------
Due to OCRA-p’s position switching strategy, contaminant radio sources can affect the data by producing a *positive* signal when they lie close to the cluster centre, or a rogue *negative* signal when they lie in the reference beam of the telescope. We simulate the effects of the sources based on their measured positions and flux densities, and the OCRA beam response. We then use the resulting effective flux density to correct the SZ data. Contamination through sources at 30GHz is generally low for bright clusters, producing only small corrections to the SZ data, and thus introduces little bias as a result of the limitations of the method employed. Although we are confident that residual biases are below the level of our errors, we recognise that the absence of 30GHz data is a limitation in some cases, and there may be additional issues to do with source variability. For clusters where radio sources fall in the OCRA reference beams, we are able to perform an additional check by flagging out contaminated data based on the range of parallactic angles affected by the source in question. We compare the flagged data with the corrected data, and adjust our final measurement error accordingly.
We recognise that our strategy may miss sources which are important at 30GHz. The flux limit of NVSS is $\sim2.5$mJy. If we consider a source of flux density $\sim2.4$mJy at 1.4GHz, and assume a typical spectral index of $-0.7$, extrapolating to 30GHz gives a flux density of $0.34$mJy. Even if such a source were to be located in the central regions of a cluster, the effect on our measurement would still be small relative to random errors. Not all sources have typical spectral indices, but we note that in the 16 clusters additionally observed by [@Coble2007], only 1 ‘new’ source, i.e. a source not previously identified in NVSS, was found. However, the quality of our knowledge of the population of sources with mJy flux densities at 30GHz is poor. We were able to run an additional check for ‘new’ sources lying in OCRA–p’s reference arcs. We binned the data by parallactic angle to look for contaminating sources that might produce false SZ effects. Although this subdivides the data, and so leads to a noise level that is higher by a factor of $2 - 3$ than the central measured flux density averaged over all parallactic angles, no previously uncatalogued sources were detected.
X-RAY DATA
==========
Deriving cluster parameters {#sec:X}
---------------------------
Our sample has 15 clusters in common with an upcoming X-ray paper, Giles et al. (in prep), some results from which were made available in advance for this work. The remaining two clusters (ZWCL1953 and RXJ1532.9+3021, which lie outside Giles et al.’s specified redshift range of $0.15<z<0.30$) were analysed using an identical method. The authors use *Chandra* ACIS–I and ACIS–S imaging and spectroscopy for each cluster as available via the archive. For the data preparation, they follow closely the method outlined in @Maughan2008. The *Chandra* analysis package used was CIAO[^1] version 4.2 and calibration database CALDB 4.1.4. As in @Maughan2008, blank sky, rather than local, backgrounds are used because the clusters fill a large fraction of the field of view.
We fit a gas density model by converting the observed surface brightness profile into a projected emissivity profile, which was then modelled by projecting the modifed $\beta$–model of [@Vikhlinin2006] along the line of sight (see [@Maughan2008] for details). Gas parameters and errors were determined from Monte Carlo realisations of the projected emissivity profile. At each data point a new randomised point was drawn from a Gaussian distribution centered on the model value at that point, with a standard deviation equal to the fractional measurement error on the original data point, multiplied by the model value. The error bar on this new randomised point was set to the same fractional size as the error bar on the original observed point.
The cluster temperature, gas mass and $R_{500}$ (the radius enclosing a mean density of 500 times the critical density at the cluster’s redshift) were then determined iteratively. The procedure followed was to extract a spectrum from within an estimated $R_{500}$ (with the central $15\%$ of that radius excluded), integrate the gas density profile to determine the gas mass within the estimated $R_{500}$, and thus calculate $Y_\mathrm{X}$ which is the product of $kT$ and the gas mass, and a low scatter proxy for total mass [@Kravtsov2006]. A new value of $R_{500}$ was then estimated from the $Y_\mathrm{X}$-$M$ scaling relation of @Vikhlinin2009,
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{e.ym}
M_{500} & = & E(z)^{-2/5}\,A_\mathrm{YM}\left(\frac{Y_X}{3\times10^{14}
M_{\odot}\mathrm{keV}}\right)^{B_\mathrm{YM}},\end{aligned}$$
with $A_\mathrm{YM}=5.77\times10^{14}h^{1/2}M_{\odot}$ and $B_\mathrm{YM}=0.57$. Here, $M_{500}$ is the mass within $R_{500}$ (allowing $R_{500}$ to be trivially computed), and
$$E(z)=\sqrt{\Omega_{\mathrm{M}}(1+z)^3 +
(1-\Omega_{\mathrm{M}}-\Omega_\Lambda)(1+z)^2 + \Omega_\Lambda}
\label{eqn:E}$$
describes the redshift evolution of the Hubble parameter. This $Y_{\mathrm{X}}$–$M$ relation assumes self-similar evolution (as $E^{-2/5}$), which has been shown to be a good description of observed clusters to $z\approx0.6$ [@Maughan2007]. The process was repeated until $R_{500}$ converged. In these spectral fits, the source emission was modelled with an absorbed thermal plasma APEC model in the 0.6–9keV band, with the absorbing column fixed at the Galactic value. $N_\mathrm{H}$ values were taken from the HI map by @Kalberla2005.
Our final cluster parameters, with $T_\mathrm{X}$, $L_\mathrm{X}$ and $Y_\mathrm{X}$ determined within a radius of $R_{500}$ are given in Table \[tab:X\].
---------------- ------- ---------------------- ------ ------------- ------ ---------------------- ------
Cluster $R_{500}$
Mpc
A1835 8.41 ${}^{+0.32}_{-0.26}$ 2.14 $\pm0.01$ 1.20 ${}^{+0.05}_{-0.04}$ 1.40
ZW1953 6.05 $^{+0.51}_{-0.50}$ 1.45 $\pm0.05$ 0.58 ${}^{+0.05}_{-0.05}$ 1.19
ZW3146 7.09 $^{+0.35}_{-0.37}$ 1.62 $\pm0.02$ 0.77 $^{+0.04}_{-0.04}$ 1.27
RXJ1532.9+3021 5.62 $^{+0.72}_{-0.58}$ 1.23 $\pm{0.05}$ 0.45 $^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$ 1.11
A2390 10.20 $^{+0.35}_{-0.35}$ 2.87 $\pm0.05$ 1.79 $^{+0.06}_{-0.07}$ 1.53
A2219 10.33 $^{+0.43}_{-0.44}$ 3.32 $\pm0.04$ 2.10 $^{+0.09}_{-0.09}$ 1.58
RXJ2129.6+0005 6.04 $^{+0.53}_{-0.52}$ 1.03 $\pm0.04$ 0.52 $^{+0.05}_{-0.06}$ 1.20
A2261 6.56 $^{+0.28}_{-0.28}$ 1.46 $\pm0.02$ 0.77 $^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ 1.31
A781 5.32 $^{+0.66}_{-0.43}$ 1.02 $\pm0.05$ 0.53 $^{+0.06}_{-0.04}$ 1.18
A697 9.22 $^{+0.66}_{-0.65}$ 2.70 $\pm0.05$ 1.55 $^{+0.11}_{-0.11}$ 1.45
A1763 7.31 $^{+0.47}_{-0.47}$ 1.48 $\pm0.03$ 0.89 $^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$ 1.34
A68 7.14 $^{+0.88}_{-0.78}$ 1.09 $\pm0.04$ 0.60 $^{+0.07}_{-0.07}$ 1.23
A520 6.78 $^{+0.29}_{-0.16}$ 1.49 $\pm0.02$ 0.74 $^{+0.03}_{-0.02}$ 1.31
A267 4.53 $^{+0.49}_{-0.38}$ 0.75 $\pm0.05$ 0.29 $^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ 1.08
RXJ0439.0+0715 5.32 $^{+0.38}_{-0.29}$ 1.58 $\pm0.04$ 0.57 $^{+0.04}_{-0.04}$ 1.23
ZW7160 4.64 $^{+0.18}_{-0.18}$ 0.69 $\pm0.01$ 0.28 $^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$ 1.06
A773 6.75 $^{+0.40}_{-0.26}$ 1.13 $\pm0.02$ 0.65 $^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ 1.27
---------------- ------- ---------------------- ------ ------------- ------ ---------------------- ------
\[tab:X\]
$\beta$–model fitting {#sec:beta}
---------------------
As mentioned in Section \[sec:obs\], the small separation of the OCRA-p beams relative to the extent of a cluster’s SZ decrement implies that we subtract out a fraction of the SZ signal due to our differencing method. This significantly reduces the measured signal compared to the intrinsic central signal. This is further exaggerated in cases where we have adjusted the pointing centre to avoid bright radio sources. In order to remove this effect and recover the ‘true’ SZ signal, we model the cluster atmosphere and estimate the fraction of the signal ‘missed’. (Note: this analysis was conducted purely to correct the SZ measurements and is separate from the derivation of X–ray cluster parameters discussed in Section \[sec:X\]). In our previous work ([@Lancaster2007]), we assumed that the gas density distribution, $n_{\mathrm{e}}(r)$ was well fit by a standard spherical $\beta$–model [@beta1]:
$$n_{\mathrm{e}}(r) = n_{\mathrm{e0}}\left(1+ \frac{r^2}{r^2_c}
\right)^{-3\beta/2}
\label{eq:single}$$
Here, we improve on this approach by also considering the double $\beta$–model, which may provide a better fit to clusters which exhibit peaked central emission due to their cool cores. We follow @Bonamente2006 in adopting the form
$$n_{\mathrm{e}}(r) = n_{\mathrm{e0}} \left[p\left(1+
\frac{r^2}{r^2_{c1}}\right)^{-3\beta_1/2} +(1-p)\left(1+
\frac{r^2}{r^2_{c2}}\right)^{-3\beta_2/2} \right]
\label{eq:double}$$
although in our analysis, we allow different $\beta$ for the two components. Using the *SHERPA*[^2] modelling and fitting application for each set of cluster data, we fit the 1–D radial profiles of the X–ray surface brightness by three models:
1. [The standard single $\beta$–model]{}, (\[eq:single\])
2. [A double $\beta$–model, (\[eq:double\]), with $\beta_1 = \beta_2$]{}
3. [A double $\beta$–model, (\[eq:double\]), allowing $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$ to assume different values.]{}
Chi squared ($\chi ^2$) statistics are used to compare the fits, since each radial bin is based on a large number of X–ray counts. For each cluster, we accept the simplest model for which the fit statistic implies a probability of getting a greater $\chi ^2$ by chance, $Q \ge 6$ per cent. For some clusters, the gas distribution is sufficiently disturbed that $Q < 6 $ per cent for all models fitted: in such cases we adopt the best fit. This is not ideal, but we expect the additional error to be at a low level in comparison with the random errors on the SZ data. We do not observe any systematic effect on our results due to the type of $\beta$–model used to correct the SZ data.
$\beta$–model parameters are presented in Table \[tab:beta\]. We return briefly to the analysis of [@Bonamente2006], with whom we have eight clusters in common, for comparison of results. For A697, A68, A267 and A773, both groups find that a single $\beta$–model provides an acceptable fit, and the derived parameters are in broad agreement. For their double $\beta$–model fits, @Bonamente2006 fix the two values to $\beta$ to be equal, whereas ours were allowed to vary. For RXJ2129.6+0005 and A2261, we find that a model with $\beta_1=\beta_2$ gives the best fit, and the model parameters are again in broad agreement with @Bonamente2006 For ZWCL3146, our two $\beta$–values differ but are very similar, meaning the overall model fit is in broad agreement with @Bonamente2006, and indeed our $\beta_1=\beta_2$ fit is also consistent. The exception is A1835, where we find the best fitting model to be a double $\beta$–model with $\beta_1=0.675$, $\beta_2=1.059$, $\theta_1=35.6$arcsec and $\theta_2=13.2$arcsec, whereas @Bonamente2006 find $\beta=0.797$, $\theta_1=63.6$arcsec and $\theta_2=13.2$arcsec. Our model with $\beta_1=\beta_2$ is also slightly discrepant, as our best fit parameters are $\beta=0.695$, $\theta_1=92.1$arcsec and $\theta_2=19.1$arcsec. The source of discrepancy may well be in the use of differing data sets. We use ACIS-I observations totalling 200ks, whereas @Bonamente2006 only had access to 30ks of ACIS-S data which has a significantly smaller field of view.
We use the model gas distribution to simulate an OCRA observation. Many clusters were observed at positions slightly shifted from their X-ray maxima in order to avoid bright radio sources as far as possible. We consult our OCRA data for the range of parallactic angles sampled, and include the convolution with the OCRA beam response. We can thus estimate the fraction $F$ of the ‘true’ SZ signal measured in the real observations, and ‘correct’ our measurement (multiply by $1/F$) to recover the SZ surface brightness that would be measured by an ideal instrument with narrow beams at infinite separation. We note for clusters where the double $\beta$–model provides an improved fit, the value of F varies from the simpler single $\beta$–model by $\sim10$ per cent. This change is thus significant for the scientific interpretation of our results. Correction factors are presented in Table \[tab:res\]. Asymmetries in the SZ signal are assumed small in our analysis. Checks for such asymmetries by binning the SZ data by parallactic angle provide only a low signal–to–noise control against such effects which would cause our estimates of $F$ to be incorrect. The X–ray isophotes of these clusters are not always circular, but are most sensitive to asymmetry towards the cluster centre, where a relatively small fraction of the SZ effect originates. We estimate that the value of $F$ could be systematically uncertain by $20\%$ from this effect. This uncertainty dominates over that from varying the density model from $\beta$ or double-$\beta$ form to the [@Vikhlinin2006] form.
---------------- ------- ---------------------- ------- -------------------- ------- ---------------------- ------ ------------------ ------
Cluster $p$
A1835 0.675 $^{+0.001}_{-0.001}$ 35.6 $^{+0.6}_{-0.6}$ 1.059 $^{+0.010}_{-0.010}$ 13.2 $^{+0.1}_{-0.1}$ 0.10
ZWCL1953 0.972 $^{+0.147}_{-0.122}$ 171.6 $^{+22.3}_{-21.9}$ 0.972 $^{+0.147}_{-0.122}$ 43.3 $^{+5.7}_{-5.1}$ 0.04
ZWCL3146 0.700 $^{+0.008}_{-0.007}$ 23.6 $^{+0.9}_{-0.8}$ 0.652 $^{+0.032}_{-0.023}$ 4.8 $^{+0.3}_{-0.2}$ 0.14
RXJ1532.9+3021 0.650 $^{+0.011}_{-0.010}$ 12.0 $^{+3.6}_{-1.7}$ 0.650 $^{+0.011}_{-0.010}$ 6.3 $^{+1.6}_{-1.8}$ 0.40
A2390 0.831 $^{+0.010}_{-0.009}$ 92.9 $^{+1.6}_{-1.6}$ 0.831 $^{+0.010}_{-0.009}$ 18.5 $^{+0.3}_{-0.3}$ 0.10
A2219 0.725 $^{+0.015}_{-0.013}$ 85.6 $^{+6.2}_{-5.0}$ 0.725 $^{+0.015}_{-0.013}$ 42.0 $^{+5.4}_{-5.6}$ 0.58
RXJ2129.6+0005 0.609 $^{+0.011}_{-0.011}$ 24.4 $^{+2.9}_{-2.5}$ 0.609 $^{+0.011}_{-0.011}$ 5.0 $^{+0.8}_{-0.7}$ 0.12
A2261 0.598 $^{+0.003}_{-0.003}$ 30.7 $^{+1.4}_{-1.4}$ 0.598 $^{+0.003}_{-0.003}$ 11.8 $^{+0.8}_{-0.8}$ 0.33
A781 0.706 $^{+0.041}_{-0.035}$ 79.5 $^{+7.5}_{-6.6}$ - - -
A697 0.648 $^{+0.008}_{-0.008}$ 48.7 $^{+1.5}_{-1.5}$ - - -
A1763 0.586 $^{+0.007}_{-0.006}$ 48.0 $^{+1.6}_{-1.6}$ - - -
A68 0.742 $^{+0.003}_{-0.002}$ 54.5 $^{+3.5}_{-3.3}$ - - -
A520 0.831 $^{+0.003}_{-0.003}$ 117.5 $^{+0.6}_{-0.6}$ - - -
A267 0.633 $^{+0.011}_{-0.011}$ 34.4 $^{+1.5}_{-1.4}$ - - -
RXJ0439.0+0715 0.735 $^{+0.022}_{-0.020}$ 52.6 $^{+4.3}_{-3.9}$ 0.735 $^{+0.022}_{-0.020}$ 13.0 $^{+1.6}_{-1.5}$ 0.23
ZWCL7160 0.850 $^{+0.112}_{-0.077}$ 22.2 $^{+4.3}_{-3.4}$ 0.580 $^{+0.005}_{-0.006}$ 7.2 $^{+0.3}_{-0.4}$ 0.09
A773 0.769 $^{+0.041}_{-0.035}$ 129.6 $^{+14.3}_{-14.4}$ 0.769 $^{+0.041}_{-0.035}$ 48.2 $^{+2.7}_{-2.6}$ 0.11
---------------- ------- ---------------------- ------- -------------------- ------- ---------------------- ------ ------------------ ------
\[tab:beta\]
RESULTS AND SCALING RELATIONS {#sec:res}
=============================
Sunyaev Zel’dovich Results
--------------------------
We present our measurements for the Sunyaev Zel’dovich effects in our 17-cluster sample in Table \[tab:res\]. For each cluster, we first give the raw OCRA flux density as measured directly by the telescope, followed by the revised figure once all radio source contamination has been corrected for. We then give our estimate of the fraction of total signal measured due to the instrumental response. Finally, we give the fully–corrected temperature decrement expressed in brightness temperature units, and the corresponding central Comptonisation parameter, $y_0 = -0.19 \times (\Delta T/K)$. We detect 13 clusters at significance $\ge 3 \sigma$.
Our trail fields serve as a valuable test of our observing strategy. We present differential and cumulative distributions for both the source corrected cluster target and trail fields in Figure \[fig:hist\]. The flux densities of the trail fields are distributed around zero with small scatter, and their distribution is clearly distinct from that of the SZ data, confirming that our observing strategy is effective.
{width="0.6\linewidth"}
---------------- ------- ----------- ---------- ----------- -------------- ------- ----------- ---------------
Cluster Fraction $y_0$
Measured $\times10^4$
A1835 -2.05 $\pm0.46$ -3.82 $\pm0.47$ 0.363 -4050 $\pm500$ 7.70$\pm$0.95
ZW1953 -1.65 $\pm0.37$ -1.65 $\pm0.37$ 0.404 -1570 $\pm350$ 2.98$\pm$0.67
ZW3146 -1.06 $\pm0.39$ -0.78 $\pm0.41$ 0.181 -1660 $\pm870$ 3.15$\pm$1.65
RX1532.9+3021 -1.41 $\pm0.33$ -1.11 $\pm0.34$ 0.166 -2540 $\pm790$ 4.83$\pm$1.50
A2390 -0.78 $\pm0.20$ -1.02 $\pm0.22$ 0.176 -2230 $\pm480$ 4.24$\pm$0.91
A2219 11.10 $\pm0.38$ -2.76 $\pm0.40$ 0.379 -2810 $\pm400$ 5.34$\pm$0.76
RXJ2129.6+0005 -0.13 $\pm0.37$ -1.46 $\pm0.37$ 0.329 -1710 $\pm430$ 3.25$\pm$0.82
A2261 -3.19 $\pm0.30$ -1.35 $\pm0.32$ 0.321 -1610 $\pm390$ 3.06$\pm$0.74
A781 0.68 $\pm0.42$ -1.19 $\pm0.53$ 0.330 -1390 $\pm620$ 2.64$\pm$1.18
A697 -3.01 $\pm0.46$ -3.01 $\pm0.46$ 0.422 -2740 $\pm420$ 5.21$\pm$0.80
A1763 10.58 $\pm0.80$ -3.11 $\pm0.82$ 0.296 -4040 $\pm1070$ 7.68$\pm$2.03
A68 -0.89 $\pm0.48$ -1.22 $\pm0.48$ 0.451 -1040 $\pm410$ 1.98$\pm$0.78
A520 -1.97 $\pm0.47$ -1.80 $\pm0.48$ 0.268 -2580 $\pm680$ 4.90$\pm$1.29
A267 -2.73 $\pm0.43$ -1.99 $\pm0.57$ 0.471 -1620 $\pm470$ 3.08$\pm$0.89
RX0439.0+0715 -1.22 $\pm0.43$ -1.27 $\pm0.43$ 0.351 -1390 $\pm470$ 2.64$\pm0.89$
ZWCL7160 -1.10 $\pm0.34$ -1.14 $\pm0.34$ 0.188 -2330 $\pm700$ 4.43$\pm$1.33
A773 -1.20 $\pm0.32$ -1.21 $\pm0.32$ 0.382 -1210 $\pm330$ 2.30$\pm$0.63
---------------- ------- ----------- ---------- ----------- -------------- ------- ----------- ---------------
\[tab:res\]
SZ–X-ray scaling relations {#sec:scaling}
--------------------------
According to the self-similar model of galaxy cluster formation, which assumes evolution solely under gravity, we expect simple scalings between various cluster parameters. Following [@Morandi2007] we derive the following relations, each of which may be tested using OCRA data. We note that while it is advantageous to use the integrated Compton parameter for such studies (e.g. [@Benson2004], [@Bonamente2008]), deriving this from OCRA data would introduce further uncertainty since we have measured the cluster structures from the X–ray data alone. Thus, we restrict ourselves to discussing the central Comptonisation, $y_0$. The scalings of interest are first, the relation between central Comptonisation and X-ray temperature
$$y_0 \propto T_{\mathrm{X}}^{3/2} E(z),$$
second, that between the Comptonisation and X-ray luminosity
$$y_0 \propto L_{\mathrm{X}}^{3/4} E(z)^{1/4},
\label{eq:yL}$$
and finally, that between Comptonisation and $Y_{\mathrm{X}}$, the product of gas mass and X-ray temperature
$$y_0 \propto Y_{\mathrm{X}}^{3/5} E(z)^{8/5},$$
where $E(z)$ is as given in Equation \[eqn:E\]. Deviation from the expected scalings would suggest contributions from non-gravitational processes, and redshift dependence in the slope or amplitude of the scalings should provide evidence on the nature of these processes.
We present our scaling relations in figures \[yT\] to \[yY\]. For each plot, we colour–code the datapoints based on the reliability of the OCRA data. The most reliable points, i.e. those with no obvious issues, are shown as red circles. Points which have a signal to noise ratio of less than 3 are black squares. This is an arbitrary cut–off, and we see no reason to exclude these points from our analysis; however as an aid to the reader we choose to mark them clearly. Blue crosses represent clusters which may suffer from residual source contamination, i.e. those which contain a bright ($> 3$mJy) source, for which we have corrected, in their central regions. Due to the unavoidable 10 per cent uncertainty in the calibration of the GBT data, we cannot be confident that the effects of these sources have been accurately removed, and thus choose to ignore these three clusters in our subsequent analyses.
Correlation Expected slope Data used Best-fit slope Fit statistic
---------------------------------- ---------------- ---------------------------------- ---------------- --------------- --
$y_0, T_{\mathrm{X}}$ 1.5 SZ, X-ray $1.82\pm0.72$ 2.39
SZ (no source correction), X-ray $1.94\pm1.10$ 6.64
$y_0, L_{\mathrm{X}}$ 0.75 SZ, X-ray $0.77\pm0.21$ 2.46
SZ (no source correction), X-ray $0.71\pm0.19$ 6.86
$y_0, Y_{\mathrm{X}}$ 0.6 SZ, X-ray $0.65\pm0.21$ 2.50
SZ (no source correction), X-ray $0.55\pm0.21$ 7.23
$L_{\mathrm{X}}, T_{\mathrm{X}}$ 0.5 X-ray only $0.49\pm0.04$ 3.40
$Y_{\mathrm{X}}, T_{\mathrm{X}}$ 2.5 X-ray only $2.19\pm0.16$ 1.85
$Y_{\mathrm{X}}, L_{\mathrm{X}}$ 1.25 X-ray only $1.24\pm0.05$ 4.29
\[tab:summary\]
The fitting was performed in the linear space of observables, rather than log–log space, and involved the minimisation of the squared and error–weighted residuals from a power law of the form $y=Ax^{\mathrm{B}}$, where $A$ and $B$ are to be estimated. The space of acceptable values of $A$ and $B$ was sampled by taking $10^5$ datapoint realisations, distributed according to their errors, assumed Gaussian. The best–fit slopes are summarised in Table \[tab:summary\], with the values of the fit statistic. Figure \[yT\] shows the scaling between $y_0$ and $T_{\mathrm{X}}$. For this relation, the space of acceptable $(A,B)$ parameters extends over a wide range in both parameters, so that the slope should be regarded as essentially unconstrained, although the best fit value $B = 1.82\pm0.72$ is in agreement with the predicted value $B = 1.5$ from self–similar models. The other two relations show modest covariances between $A$ and $B$ and are more robust. Figure \[yL\] shows the scaling between $y_0$ and $L_{\mathrm{X}}$. We obtain a slope of $0.77\pm0.21$ in good agreement with self–similarity, for which Equation \[eq:yL\] predicts 0.75. Finally, Figure \[yY\] depicts the scaling between $y_0$ and $Y_{\mathrm{X}}$. We derive a slope of $0.65\pm0.21$ which is in good agreement with the predicted $B = 0.6$. For all three cases, the intrinsic scatter in $y_0$ can be estimated by the additional error required to bring the fit statistic down to a statistically acceptable level $\sim1.0$ We find that the intrinsic scatter in $y_0$ is about 25 per cent. The errors on $B$ are large for all fits because of the modest range of cluster masses in our sample, but we see no evidence for departure from self–similar models of cluster evolution. Our results for the $y_0/L_{\mathrm{X}}$ and $y_0/T_{\mathrm{X}}$ scalings are consistent with those obtained by [@Morandi2007], although their gas masses and temperatures were defined over significantly different regions of the clusters (within $R_{2500}$), and their scalings have smaller slope errors because of the wider range of $T_{\mathrm{X}}$ of their clusters.
It is interesting to compare our scalings with those that we would have obtained if source corrections were not available to us, since blank–sky surveys for cluster SZ effects could attempt to constrain the scalings with inadequate source data. We find that the scatter induced by the radio sources degrades the fit quality for each correlation significantly, as illustrated by the fit statistics shown in Table \[tab:summary\]. Although the results broadly agree with self–similar predictions, the residual contamination tends to cause the scalings to appear too flat. For instance, in the high signal to noise sub–sample where the effect of sources is clearest, the slope of the $y_0/L_\mathrm{X}$ relation is found to be flatter by 0.27 if a fit is attempted before source corrections are made. A similar result is found for the $y_0/Y_{\mathrm{X}}$ scaling relation.
X-ray only scaling relations {#sec:Xscale}
----------------------------
We check the consistency of the set of clusters with the more usual X–ray scaling relations between $L_{\mathrm{X}}$ and $T_{\mathrm{X}}$, $Y_{\mathrm{X}}$ and $T_{\mathrm{X}}$, and $Y_{\mathrm{X}}$ and $L_{\mathrm{X}}$ (e.g. [@Morandi2007]) in the same way as for the SZ / X–ray scaling relations (results also summarised in Table \[tab:summary\]). The slopes that we measure, of $0.49 \pm 0.04$, $2.19 \pm 0.16$, and $1.24 \pm 0.05$, are consistent with the similarity expectations of 0.5, 2.5 and 1.25. As the slight discrepancy for the correlation between $Y_{\mathrm{X}}$ and $T_{\mathrm{X}}$ is not of high statistical significance, this study shows our sample to be representative of the population of hot ($T
\gtrsim 6$keV) clusters.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
=========================
We have observed a complete sample of galaxy clusters using OCRA–p, and studied the scaling of the central Compton parameter, $y_0$, with various X–ray quantities. For each relation, we find slopes in good agreement with the predictions from self–similar models.
Our study has similarities to that of [@Morandi2007], and the two samples have 7 clusters in common, although we imposed stricter initial selection criteria. @Morandi2007 consider scalings with $y_0$, so we are able to perform a direct comparison. They find that the $y_0/T_{\mathrm{X}}$ relation deviates by $\sim3\sigma$ from the self–similar prediction, in the sense of being steeper. While our data are consistent with this result, we note that they are essentially unable to constrain this relation at any level. Regarding the $y_0/L_{\mathrm{X}}$ scaling, they find a slope of $0.61\pm0.05$, which is in good agreement with our work. Thus we see no sign of the flattening that would have resulted from the presence of an undetected set of contaminating sources (Section \[sec:scaling\]).
More recently, [@Bonamente2008] studied a sample of 38 clusters observed with OVRO/BIMA and *Chandra*. They considered the integrated Comptonisation, $Y$, and in particular its scaling with $T_{\mathrm{X}}$, $M_{\mathrm{tot}}$ and $M_{\mathrm{gas}}$. They find good consistency with predictions from self–similar models for all scaling relations.
Our analysis has been limited by the narrow region of parameter space sampled, particularly for the scalings with $T_{\mathrm{X}}$. Based on our results, a sample double the size would provide a good test of the $y_0/Y_{\mathrm{X}}$ scaling; this will be presented in an upcoming paper in which we extend our sample to 33 clusters. To fully test the other relations, a sample four times larger is required. Thinking forwards to the prospects for blind cluster surveys, it is interesting to note that in this study we would have detected Sunyaev Zel’dovich effects for 14 out of 17 clusters in our sample with no source information. Of course, to accurately determine the strength of the SZ effect in each case, and indeed to derive any cluster parameters, good knowledge of the radio source environment is essential, and any attempt to test the scaling relations without taking sources into account will fail (see Section \[sec:scaling\]). That this is true for sub–mm sources, as well as cm–wave studies, is clear from the large population of sub–mm sources known to be lensed by massive clusters (e.g. [@Johansson2010]).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We acknowledge support for the design and construction of OCRA-p from the Royal Society Paul Instrument Fund, and funds for the data acquisition system and operation on the telescope from the Ministry of Science in Poland via grant number N N203 39043 who, along with STFC, also supported the scientific exploitation of the completed system. The GBT is a National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) instrument, a facility of the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc. We extend special thanks to all the staff at the GBT, particularly Brian Mason and Carl Bignell, for their essential support and prompt re–scheduling.
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: http://cxc.harvard.edu/ciao/
[^2]: http://cxc.harvard.edu/sherpa/
|
---
abstract: 'The “classic” analogy of classical repulsive interactions via exchange of particles is revisited with a quantitative model and analyzed. This simple model based solely upon the principle of momentum conservation yields a nontrivial, conservative approximation at low energies while also including a type of “relativistic” regime in which the conservative formulation breaks down. Simulations are presented which are accessible to undergraduate students at any level in the physics curriculum as well as analytic treatments of the various regimes which should be accessible to advanced undergraduate physics majors.'
author:
- 'Jarrett L. Lancaster'
- Colin McGuire
- 'Aaron P. Titus'
title: 'Classical particle exchange: a quantitative treatment'
---
Introduction
============
Countless students in introductory physics learn that the “exchange of virtual particles” is responsible for the fundamental forces of nature. Several popular introductory textbooks contain diagrams which sketch how classical particle exchange could plausibly explain the qualitative nature of repulsive forces.[@BauerWestfall; @Mazur] Furthermore, some texts even attempt to construct analogies for how attractive forces could arise from complicated exchanges of classical objects.[@Giancoli; @YoungFreedman] In this paper, we wish to address the gaping hole in the literature regarding how such pictures may be quantitatively useful in understanding the connection between fundamental interactions and momentum transfer through mediating particles.
Just as physical theories are only useful within certain domains of validity, analogies are only helpful until their meanings are stretched to a point at which the usefulness breaks down. To properly analyze fundamental interactions, the methods of quantum field theory provide the tools necessary for obtaining quantitatively accurate results. Ref. provides a particularly illuminating discussion of how gravitational, electrostatic and nuclear potentials arise as either attractive or repulsive interactions by using the path integral formualtion of quantum field theory. Additionally, by casually invoking the energy-time version of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, one may obtain surprisingly accurate information regarding the force laws resulting from electromagnetic and nuclear interactions.[@Harney] The focus of the present work is not to require an idealized analysis within classical mechanics to describe the nature of fundamental interactions, but to explore how effective forces between particles which are spatially separated [*can*]{} arise within classical dynamics.
A student needs only very basic tools to explore the implications of a particular particle exchange model. With easily acquired numerical results, an advanced student may apply the mathematical analysis required to obtain both exact and asymptotic results. The goal of the present work is to present a quantitative approach, accessible at both introductory and advanced levels, which thoroughly analyzes a particular model for interactions based on classical physics.
In particular, we consider a system of two massive particles, each of mass $M$, which interact with each other via the exchange of two mediating particles, each of mass $m \ll M$, which are taken to always move at speed $c\,$ and interact with the heavier particles through inelastic collisions, always emerging with speed $c\,$ relative to a stationary lab (or “ground”) frame. Though this model is admittedly artificial compared to the quantum field theories describing the known fundamental interactions, the reasoning required for a careful, quantitative analysis are quite useful in understanding the realistic interactions that do occur in nature through mediating quantum fields.[@Zee]
A notable shortcoming of the classical particle-exchange analogy is its inability to describe attractive forces.[@GriffithsPart] While it is possible to invoke quantum fluctuations in energy to explain attractive nuclear forces in a qualitative manner,[@Dunne] we emphasize that attractive interactions emerge naturally from classical scalar field theory.[@Rubakov] Such a rigorous discussion of the origin of attractive forces implicitly requires a discussion of quantum theory, as these interactions rely on the wave-like nature of matter. Consequently, such treatment is beyond the scope of the present work, as we wish to present a model which may be thoroughly analyzed classically.
This paper is arranged as follows: in Sec. \[sec:model\] we present a model for classical particle exchange and explore some basic consequences through simulations and physical reasoning, both of which are appropriate for students in introductory physics courses. Sec. \[sec:analytic\] contains a thorough analysis of the model employing advanced physical reasoning and special functions to verify the speculative results obtained through careful estimation in Sec. \[sec:model\]. Finally, we summarize the results in Sec. \[sec:summary\].
Model {#sec:model}
=====
We wish to investigate the classical picture of particle exchange as a mechanism for interaction between two massive particles. We imagine two particles each of mass $M\,$ exchanging small particles, each of mass $m\ll M$ as shown in Fig. \[fig:collisionfig\]. The analogy is often made to a pair of ice skaters (or rollerbladers) tossing a ball back and forth.[@BauerWestfall; @Mazur; @Giancoli; @YoungFreedman] Each time one skater catches the ball and throws it back, a small amount of momentum is imparted to the skater, resulting in an effective repulsive force between the skaters which is mediated by the ball being tossed. We construct a quantitative model for this type of interaction by taking the smaller particle’s velocity to be a constant, given speed $c$. We choose the label $c\,$ with no reference whatsoever to the speed of light, though we will see that our $c\,$ plays a role in our model which is rather similar to that of the actual speed of light in electromagnetism, allowing us to explore a sort of “non-relativistic” limit of the model for speeds $v \ll c$. In order to keep the system’s center of mass at rest, we shall consider a symmetric setup in which two small particles are exchanged. When the smaller, mediating particles approach each other we assume that they pass through one another without interaction or collide elastically.[@note1]
![Two particles of mass $M\,$ experience a repulsive “force” which is mediated by the exchange of a smaller particle of mass $m\ll M$.[]{data-label="fig:collisionfig"}](collisionfig.pdf)
Since the mediating particles always move at speed $c$, the collisions involving the massive[@note1a] particles with the mediating particles would not result in momentum transfer if the collisions were elastic. To obtain nontrivial momentum transfer, we must consider inelastic collisions which result in an incremental increase in the system’s kinetic energy after each collision. We shall explore whether the work required for this change in kinetic energy may be associated with an effective potential energy for the system. Taking the large, right-moving particle to be moving at speed $v$, momentum conservation applied to a single collision gives $$Mv_{n} + mc = Mv_{n+1} - mc,
\label{Eq:momentumconservation}$$ or $\delta v \equiv v_{n+1}-v_{n} = 2\frac{mc}{M}$. With repeated collisions of this form, the two massive particles will accelerate away from their common center of mass in a manner qualitatively similar to the motion experienced by two like charges placed near each other and released. We employ two approaches to investigate the quantitative nature of this effective force law. First, we simulate the system as described, obtaining numerically an effective force law which decreases as $r^{-1}\,$ for small velocities $v\ll c$, where $r\,$ is the instantaneous separation between the two massive particles. Second, the discrete sequence of collisions leads to a recursion relation which allows us to obtain a closed-form expression for $r_{n}$, the separation distance immediately preceeding the $n^{\mbox{\scriptsize th}}\,$ collision. While exact, this closed-form expression for $r_{n}\,$ is less than transparent regarding the physics of the system. In the following section, we apply continuum approximation to uncover the effective dynamics analytically in various limits.
Full simulation
---------------
The full simulation consists of integrating the Newtonian equations of motion for free particles moving at constant speeds and monitoring for a “collision” at which point each massive particle is given a boost in speed $\delta v = 2mc/M\,$ and the mediating particles are reflected with equal momenta in the opposite directions. Letting $x^{(1)}\,$ ($x^{(2)}$) denote the position of the right-moving (left-moving) particle and $v^{(1)}\,$ ($v^{(2)}$) its velocity, we consider the following initial conditions: $$\begin{aligned}
x^{(1)}(0) & = & -x^{(2)}(0) = \frac{r_{0}}{2},\\
v^{(1)}(0) & = & v^{(2)}(0) = 0.\end{aligned}$$ The mediating particles are initially located at the origin and begin moving in opposite directions toward the massive particles at $t = 0\,$ with speed $c$. Letting the positions of the mediating particles be given by $X^{(i)}\,$ for $i=1,2$, it is an instructive exercise to numerically integrate the equations of motion $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dx^{(i)}}{dt} & = & v^{(i)},\\
\frac{dX^{(i)}}{dt} & = & V^{(i)}.\end{aligned}$$ with $V^{(1)} = +c\,$ and $V^{(2)} = -c\,$ at $t=0$. To monitor for collisions, at each time step $\Delta t\,$ we check for the following condition: $$\left| x^{(i)} - X^{(j)} \right| < \epsilon,$$ indicating that the mediating particle nearest the $i^{\mbox{\scriptsize th}}\,$ particle has come within a small distance $\epsilon\,$ of the massive particle’s location. When this occurs, we make the following adjustment to the equations of motion: $$\begin{aligned}
v^{(i)} & \rightarrow & v^{(i)} + \frac{2mc}{M}\mbox{sign}\left(V^{(j)}\right),\\
V^{(j)} & \rightarrow & - V^{(j)},\end{aligned}$$ indicating that a collision has occurred, resulting in momentum transfer. Results are generally insensitive to the time-step size, provided $\epsilon \precsim c\Delta t$. Fig. \[fig:loglog\] depicts the numerically computed average acceleration as a function of separation distance for $m = 0.005M$. For the computation of acceleration, we only use the separation distance and corresponding time just after collision events, since each massive particle’s acceleration is formally zero between collisions. Note that for position measurements which are taken at unequal time increments, we require the following discrete representation[@Abramowitz] of its second temporal derivative $$\left.\frac{d^{2}r}{dt^{2}}\right|_{r=r_{n}} \approx \frac{\frac{r_{n+1}-r_{n}}{t_{n+1}-t_{n}}-\frac{r_{n}-r_{n-1}}{t_{n}-t_{n-1}} }{t_{n+1}-t_{n-1}}.$$
![Numerically computed acceleration plotted against separation distance for the right-moving mass with logarithmic scales on axes. Also shown is a linear regression for the logarithmic data.[]{data-label="fig:loglog"}](loglog.pdf)
A strong linear trend on a log-log plot demonstrates the power-law nature of the force law, $$\frac{d^{2}x^{(2)}}{dt^{2}} \propto r^{b_{1}},$$ with $b_{1} \approx -1$. This result is consistent with a rough estimation of the rate of momentum transfer for $v \ll c$. Each collision is associated with transfer of momentum $$\delta p = 2mc.$$ For $v \ll c$, the massive particles do not move appreciably during one collision cycle. Let $r\,$ denote the instantaneous separation distance between the massive particles. Beginning with the mediating particles at the origin, one cycle requires each particle to cover a distance $\frac{r}{2}\,$ to collide with the massive particles and then another distance of $\frac{r}{2}\,$ to return to the origin. Thus, a single collision cycle associated with a momentum transfer $\delta p\,$ requires a time $$\delta t = \frac{r}{c}.$$ The average force experienced by each massive particle is then $$F_{\mbox{\scriptsize ave}} \simeq \frac{\delta p}{\delta t} = \frac{2mc^{2}}{r}.\label{eq:force}$$ The validity of this crude estimate will be examined more carefully in the next section, but for now it serves to make the results in Fig. \[fig:loglog\] appear rather plausible. One might worry about the implications of an inverse-linear force law, since this could potentially be associated with a logarithmic potential energy function, just as in the case of two uniformly charged wires of infinite length.[@GriffithsEM] In the case of point particles, the potential does not asymptotically approach a constant value at large distances and should result in ever-increasing speeds as the massive particles move farther away from each other. This does not appear consistent with the model, as the mechanism for momentum does not allow the mediating particles to travel faster than speed $c$, so the speeds of the massive particles should be bounded by this limit. The resolution of this apparent paradox will be addressed below where we must refine the simulation method in order to access much longer times.
Calculation of collision times
------------------------------
The results so far suggest a disconnect between the low-energy behavior of the model and the high-energy “speed limit” of $c$, which should be enforced by the mediating particles. To obtain some resolution, we must explore extremely large timescales, thus allowing the massive particles to approach high speeds, $v^{(1,2)}\sim c$. Because the time between subsequent collisions grows at an accelerated rate as the massive particles spread apart and speed up, the basic scheme outlined above becomes impractical. In fact, most of the computation is entirely unnecessary since all particles move with constant velocities until a collision occurs. Starting from one collision event, the time for the next collision may be computed using the instantaneous velocities of all particles, and this process may be repeated. Though the time between collisions grows rapidly, the computation time of this scheme grows linearly with number of collisions, not with the elapsed time as before.
To proceed, let us consider a single collision event shown in Fig. \[fig:collisionfig\]. With both mediating particles at the origin and instantaneous separation $r_{n}\,$ between the outwardly moving massive particles, the next collision will occur after the mediating particles have reached the massive particles, requiring a time $$\delta t_{n} = \frac{r_{n}/2}{c-v_{n}},\label{eq:dt}$$ corresponding to traveling a distance of $\frac{r_{n}}{2}\,$ with speed $c-v_{n}\,$ relative to the outwardly moving, massive particles. After time $\delta t_{n}\,$ has elapsed, collisions occur resulting in the mediating particles reversing directions and $$v_{n}\rightarrow v_{n+1} \equiv v_{n} + \frac{2mc}{M}.\label{eq:vn}$$ The cycle completes when the mediating particles return to the origin. By symmetry, this also requires time $\delta t_{n}$, so the entire elapsed time for a complete cycle is $2\delta t_{n}$, or $$t_{n+1} = t_{n} + \frac{r_{n}}{c-v_{n}}.\label{eq:tn}$$ To update the positions of the massive particles, we note that before the collision, each particle was moving away with speed $v_{n}$ with respect to the ground for time $\delta t_{n}$. After the collision, each particle moves away from the system’s center of mass for time $\delta t_{n}\,$ with the updated speed, $v_{n+1}$. Thus, the separation distance increases by an amount $2v_{n}\delta t_{n} + 2v_{n+1}\delta t_{n}$, or $$r_{n+1} = r_{n} + 2v_{n}\delta t_{n} + 2v_{n+1} \delta t_{n}.\label{eq:rn}$$ Eqs. (\[eq:dt\])-(\[eq:rn\]) constitute a closed recursion relation which may be iteratively advanced to obtain the velocity, separation distance and time corresponding to the beginning of each collision cycle.
![Long-time, large-distance behavior of massive particle speed (blue circles) computed from Eqs. (\[eq:dt\])-(\[eq:rn\]) and compared to low-speed, non-relativistic (NR) approximation in Eq. (\[eq:nrap\]), which provides excellent agreement with the simulation for $v \ll c$.[]{data-label="fig:logplot1"}](logplot1.eps)
For a point of comparison, we may take the approximate force law in Eq. (\[eq:force\]) and write Newton’s second law for the motion of the right-moving particle, $$M\frac{d^{2}x^{(1)}}{dt^{2}} = \frac{2mc^{2}}{r}.$$ Applying the symmetry of the system, we have $r = 2x^{(1)}\,$ and may change variables, $$\frac{d^{2}x^{(1)}}{dt^{2}} = \frac{d^{2}r}{dt^{2}} = \frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dr}\left(\dot{r}^{2}\right).$$ Writing $\dot{r} = 2v$, where $v\,$ represents the speed of each massive particle, we may integrate both sides to obtain $$v^{2}(r) = v_{0}^{2} + \frac{2mc^{2}}{M}\ln\frac{r}{r_{0}},\label{eq:nrap}$$ which represents a statement of conservation of energy with a potential energy given by $$U(r) = \frac{2mc^{2}}{M}\ln \frac{a}{r},
\label{Eq:potentialenergy}$$ for some arbitrary length scale $a$. We refer to Eq. (\[eq:nrap\]) as the [*non-relativistic approximation*]{}, as its derivation relies on assuming $v\ll c$. The term “non-relativistic” (NR) as used here does not refer to speeds much less than the actual speed of light but those significantly smaller than the mediating particle speed $c$. The role played by $c\,$ in this model is similar to that of the actual speed of light in electrodynamics, but we stress that special relativity and the actual speed of light play no role in this model. Improvements to this low-energy approximation will be explored in the next section, but we are in a position to compare its predictions to the full simulation. Fig. \[fig:logplot1\] depicts the predictions of Eq. (\[eq:nrap\]) compared to the actual simulation information contained in Eqs. (\[eq:dt\])-(\[eq:rn\]). As expected, the non-relativistic approximation breaks down as the massive particles’ speeds approach $c$. For large separation distances, the massive particle speeds do not increase as sharply with increasing distance as the non-relativistic approximation predicts. Indeed, once the massive particles reach a speed of $c$, the mediating particles, also traveling at speed $c$, are unable to catch up to the massive particles. Correspondingly the recursion relations break down and no more collisions are found. Specifically, as $v_{n}\rightarrow c\,$ from below, we have $\delta t_{n}\rightarrow \infty$. If the massive particle speed becomes exactly[@note2] $c$, $\delta t_{n}\,$ does not exist and no further collisions occur. Another possibility is that a single collision changes $v_{n}\,$ from just below $c\,$ to just above $c$. In this case, $\delta t_{n}\,$ formally becomes negative and we conclude similarly that no further collisions occur.
The behavior of the system explored thus far can be summarized as follows: for arbitrary initial separations, the massive particles are repelled from each other by the effective force provided by the mediating particles. At long times, the speeds (with respect to the ground) of the massive particles approach $c$, the speed of the mediating particles. While an approximate statement of energy conservation has been derived (see Eq. (\[eq:nrap\])) for low speeds $v \ll c$, the associated potential is problematic as it has no lower bound for $r\rightarrow \infty$. An unlimited amount of potential may be converted into the massive particle’s kinetic energy resulting in the erroneous prediction that for any initial separation, both massive particles will continue to accelerate rather than asymptotically approach finite speeds. That the initial separation distance has no effect on the final speeds of the massive particles suggests that the system is not conservative. In the next section, we will carefully examine this system using analytic tools to quantitatively explore some of these issues.
Analytic approach {#sec:analytic}
=================
Exact solution to recursion relation
------------------------------------
The discrete sequence of collisions described by Eqs. (\[eq:dt\])-(\[eq:rn\]) can be analyzed exactly, yielding a closed-form expression for $r_{n}$, the separation distance after $n\,$ collisions. Eq. (\[eq:vn\]) simply states that the velocity increases by a constant amount after each collision, or $$v_{n} = \frac{2mnc}{M}.\label{eq:vnsol}$$ Inserting Eq. (\[eq:vnsol\]) into Eq. (\[eq:rn\]) and using Eq. (\[eq:dt\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
r_{n+1} & = & r_{n} + 2\left[v_{n} + \frac{mc}{M}\right]\frac{r_{n}}{c-v_{n}},\\
& = & \left(\frac{1 + \frac{2m(n+1)}{M}}{1 - \frac{2mn}{M}}\right)r_{n}.\end{aligned}$$ Proceeding iteratively, $$\begin{aligned}
r_{1} & = & \left(1 + \frac{2m}{M}\right)r_{0},\\
r_{2} & = & \frac{\left(1 + \frac{4m}{M}\right)\left(1 + \frac{2m}{M}\right)}{\left(1-\frac{2m}{M}\right)}r_{0},\\
& \vdots & \\
r_{n} & = & \left(1 + \frac{2nm}{M}\right)\prod_{k=0}^{n-1}\left(\frac{1 + \frac{2km}{M}}{1 - \frac{2km}{M}}\right)r_{0}.\label{eq:rn1}\end{aligned}$$ By employing the Gamma function, which satisfies[@ArfkenWeber] $$\Gamma(x+1) = x\Gamma(x),\label{eq:gamma1}$$ and reduces to the factorial for integer arguments, $n! = \Gamma(n+1)$, we may write this as $$r_{n} = \frac{\Gamma\left(\frac{M}{2m} + n\right)\Gamma\left(\frac{M}{2m}-n\right)}{\left[\Gamma\left(\frac{M}{2m}\right)\right]^{2}}\left(1 - \left(\frac{2mn}{M}\right)^{2}\right)r_{0}.\label{eq:rn2}$$ The derivation of Eq. (\[eq:rn2\]) from Eq. (\[eq:rn1\]) requires use of Eq. (\[eq:gamma1\]), the property,[@ArfkenWeber] $$\Gamma(x)\Gamma(1-x) = \frac{\pi}{\sin(\pi x)},$$ and their mathematical offspring, $$\Gamma(x)\Gamma(-x) = -\frac{\pi}{x\sin(\pi x)}.$$
Limiting cases
--------------
As an exact, closed-form solution, Eq. (\[eq:rn2\]) contains all of the physics we have encountered up to this point. The low-energy force law in Eq. (\[eq:force\]) was previously derived using physical reasoning, but we can demonstrate that it also follows from the exact solution rather than appealing to comparisons such as Fig. (\[fig:loglog\]). To this end, let us define $\alpha \equiv \frac{M}{2m}\,$ and take the natural logarithm of Eq. (\[eq:rn2\]), obtaining $$\begin{aligned}
\ln \frac{r}{r_{0}} & = & \ln \Gamma\left(\alpha-n\right) + \ln \Gamma \left(\alpha - n\right) - 2\ln\Gamma \left(\alpha\right)\nonumber\\
& +& \ln\left[1 - \left(\frac{n}{\alpha}\right)^{2}\right].\end{aligned}$$ To investigate the dynamics for $m \ll M\,$ and $v \ll c$, we examine the limit $\alpha \rightarrow \infty\,$ with $n \ll \alpha$. We first apply Stirling’s approximation[@ArfkenWeber] to the Gamma functions, $$\begin{aligned}
\ln \Gamma\left(\alpha \pm n\right) & \simeq & \left(\alpha \pm n\right)\ln\left[\alpha \pm n\right],\\
\ln \Gamma (\alpha) & \simeq & \alpha \ln \alpha.\end{aligned}$$ Applying the limit $n \ll \alpha\,$ and expanding the logarithms according to $$\left(1\pm x\right)\ln \left[1 \pm x\right] \simeq x + \frac{x^{2}}{2},$$ we recover the result $$\ln \frac{r}{r_{0}} \simeq \frac{n^{2}}{\alpha},$$ which is equivalent to Eq. (\[eq:nrap\]) with $v_{0} = 0\,$ upon the identification $n\rightarrow \frac{M}{2m}\frac{v}{c}\,$ (see Eq. (\[eq:vnsol\])).
Alternatively, we may consider the limit $v\rightarrow c$. Note that Eq. (\[eq:rn2\]) diverges as $n\rightarrow \alpha$, indicating that this only occurs as $r\rightarrow \infty$. Implicit in this relation is the upper limit on number of collisions before the massive particles reach terminal velocity, $$n_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}} = \frac{M}{2m}.$$ We may probe the system at long times by letting $n = \alpha - \epsilon\,$ for $\epsilon \ll 1$. Eq. (\[eq:rn2\]) then becomes $$\frac{r_{n}}{r_{0}} = \frac{\Gamma\left(2\alpha\right)}{\left[\Gamma\left(\alpha\right)\right]^{2}}\Gamma\left(\epsilon\right)\cdot \frac{2\epsilon}{\alpha}.\label{eq:smallv1}$$ Employing the small-argument expansion[@PeskinSchroeder] $$\Gamma\left(\epsilon\right) = \frac{1}{\epsilon} - \gamma +\mathcal{O}(\epsilon),$$ where $\gamma \simeq 0.577\,$ is the Euler-Mascheroni constant, we may expand Eq. (\[eq:smallv1\]) to obtain $$\frac{r}{r_{0}} \simeq \frac{2\Gamma\left(2\alpha\right)}{\alpha\left[\Gamma(\alpha)\right]^{2}}\left(1-\gamma\epsilon\right).$$ Taking $\epsilon\rightarrow 0\,$ is equivalent to letting $v\rightarrow c$, and we obtain $$r \rightarrow r_{c}\equiv \frac{4m\Gamma\left(\frac{M}{m}\right)}{M\left[\Gamma\left(\frac{M}{2m}\right)\right]^{2}}r_{0}\;\;\;\;\;\mbox{ as }v\rightarrow c.\label{eq:rc}$$ For $r>r_{c}$, each massive particle is moving at the same speed as the mediating particles and experiences no subsequent collisions with the mediating particles. Some mystery may be removed from Eq. (\[eq:rc\]) by taking the natural logarithm of both sides and applying Stirling’s approximation, this time keeping several terms $$\ln \Gamma (x) \simeq x\ln x - x - \frac{1}{2}\ln \frac{x}{2\pi}.$$ When the smoke clears, we have the compact result $$r_{c} = \sqrt{\frac{2m}{\pi M}}2^{\frac{M}{m}}r_{0}.$$ That is, at a finite separation distance, the massive particles attain their maximum speeds $v = c$. We note that since the massive particles always evolve to this state regardless of initial separation ([*i.e.*]{}, various amounts of supposed “potential energy” in the initial state with no kinetic energy) energy cannot be conserved in this system. States with different energies all evolving into a single high-energy state requires sources or sinks in energy. However, the low-energy, non-relativistic approximation is quite useful for describing the dynamics at low energies. Unfortunately, unlike the Coulomb repulsion, there exist no initial conditions for which the relativistic limit is avoided.
Relativistic corrections
------------------------
The discrete relations in Eqs. (\[eq:vn\])-(\[eq:tn\]) may be formally interpreted as differential equations by applying the convention $$v_{n+1}-v_{n} = \frac{\Delta v}{\Delta n} \rightarrow \frac{dv}{dn},$$ with a similar relation for $t_{n}\rightarrow t(n)$. One then obtains $$\frac{dv}{dt} = \frac{\frac{dv}{dn}}{\frac{dt}{dn}} = \frac{2mc}{Mr}\left(c-v\right).$$ Note that this corresponds to an acceleration given by the force in Eq. (\[eq:force\]) with corrections which are first-order in $\beta \equiv \frac{v}{c}$. Unlike the non-relativistic limit, this acceleration explicitly drops to zero as $v\rightarrow c$. Furthermore the explicit appearance of $v\,$ in the force indicates a non-conservative nature to this force. Employing the chain rule as for the non-relativistic limit, we obtain the following equation for $\beta(r)$, $$r\beta \frac{d\beta}{dr} = \frac{m}{M}\left(1-\beta\right).\label{eq:ur}$$ Eq. (\[eq:ur\]) is separable and admits the closed-form solution $$\left(\frac{r}{r_{0}}\right)^{\frac{m}{M}} = \frac{e^{-\beta}}{1-\beta}.$$ This may be inverted to yield a formula for $v = \beta c\,$ $$v(r) = c\left[1 + W\left(-\frac{(r_{0}/r)^{m/M}}{e}\right)\right],\label{eq:ursol}$$ where $W(z)\,$ is the Lambert-W function,[@Corless] defined as the principal value of $$z = W(z)e^{W(z)}.$$ While the solution clearly satisfies $v(r_{0}) = 0$ and $$\lim_{r\rightarrow \infty}v(r) = c\left[1 + 0\right] = c,$$
![Comparison of Eq. (\[eq:ursol\]) to the simulation/exact solution and non-relativistic limit. Surprisingly, this “improved” approximation breaks down long before the NR limit ceases to accurately describe the physics.[]{data-label="fig:urlimit"}](urlimit.eps)
the time required for this to happen (rigorously, for $|c-v|<2mc/M$) is quite large, and unfortunately for the theory, this does not appear to agree very well with the simulation or exact solution (see Fig. \[fig:urlimit\]), breaking down even before the non-relativistic approximation breaks down. There is an equally curious situation that occurs in electromagnetism. The general solutions to Maxwell’s equations for known sources rely on fairly complex expressions involving evaluation of physical quantities at retarded times. However, by expanding these expressions the lowest-order term is the [*instantaneous*]{} Coulomb term. This appears to be a rather deep result also showing up in quantum electrodynamics[@Feynman1] and quantum gravity.[@FeynmanGrav] The refined approximation in this section is only part of the required correction to the non-relativistic limit, and some potentially “fortuitous” cancellation between this modification and the rest of the terms being neglected is required to obtain a result more accurate than the NR approximation. An example of this sort of fortunate cancellation from classical physics may be observed by considering the electric field due to an arbitrary configuration of currents and charges, given by one of Jefimenko’s equations,[@GriffithsEM] $${\bf E}\left({\bf r},t\right) = \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_{0}}\int \left[\frac{\rho\left({\bf r}',t_{r}\right)}{R^{2}}\hat{\bf R} + \frac{\dot{\rho}\left({\bf r}',t_{r}\right)}{cR}\hat{\bf R} - \frac{\dot{\bf J}\left({\bf r}',t_{r}\right)}{c^{2}R}\right]d\tau ',
\label{eq:efield}$$ where $\rho\,$ is charge density, ${\bf J}\,$ is current density, $R = \left|{\bf r} - {\bf r}'\right|$, and the retarded time is given by $t_{r} \equiv t - R/c$. Following an exercise in a popular text on electrodynamics,[@GriffithsEM] one may consider constant currents for which $\dot{\bf J} =0\,$ ([*i.e.*]{}, the third term in Eq. (\[eq:efield\]) disappears). In this case, a miraculous cancellation occurs, yielding $${\bf E}({\bf r},t) = \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_{0}}\int \frac{\rho({\bf r}',t)}{R^{2}}d\tau'$$ where the correction to the instantaneous Coulomb potential and the second term in Eq. (\[eq:efield\]) cancel perfectly. That is, despite the explicit appearance of corrections of order $\beta\,$ and evaluation of functions at $t_{r}\,$ instead of instantaneous time $t$, the field turns out to be the instantaneous Coulomb-like contribution. The “relativistic correction” in the particle-exchange model appears to be analogous to evaluating the field at retarded times without including the additional corrections, resulting in a less-accurate result at short times.
Summary {#sec:summary}
=======
In this paper we thoroughly examined a simple model for classical interactions through the exchange of mediating particles in which momentum conservation is enforced for each collision. As demonstrated in simulations and analytic reasoning, the resulting interactions yield an effectively conservative theory at low energies with a $1/r$ force. The conservative approximation breaks down at high energies, and regardless of initial separation, the massive particles both eventually reach the maximum speed allowed by the physical mechanism of energy transfer within the system.
The classical particle exchange analogy of ice skaters throwing a ball back and forth has typically been used as an illustration in public outreach presentations and in teaching, from general education science courses to introductory and advanced physics courses. However, the analogy has value as a physical system for students to investigate quantitatively. The phenomenon can be used in various contexts including homework, an in-class activity, a computational physics exercise, or assessment. Furthermore, it can be used at both the introductory and advanced level in the undergraduate curriculum.
In introductory physics, students learning computational modeling[@Chabay] can investigate the phenomenon numerically. Derivation of the change in speed of a massive particle, $\delta v = 2mc/M\,$, using Conservation of Momentum (Eq. \[Eq:momentumconservation\]) is a straightforward exercise in introductory physics. Students can also explore and describe the position-time and velocity-time graphs. Because position and velocity change abruptly, introductory students have the opportunity to fit a smooth function to values that change discretely. Furthermore, teachers can use this system to assess understanding of potential energy functions (Eq. \[Eq:potentialenergy\]) and conservation of energy. Having already studied systems of particles interacting via the inverse-square law, students can practice applying a similar analysis to the $1/r$ force, possibly preparing them for similar forces that arise in an E&M course. Finally, as shown in this paper, teachers can also use the system as an application in a junior/senior level course in mechanics[@Timberlake] or mathematical physics where students are expected to explore the model in its limit using more advanced computational and analytical techniques.
[15]{}
W. Bauer and G. D. Westfall, [*University Physics with Modern Physics*]{}, 1st ed., (McGraw-Hill, New York, 2011).
E. Mazur, [*Principles and Practice of Physics*]{}, (Pearson, Boston, 2015).
D. C. Giancoli, [*Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics*]{}, 3rd ed., (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2000).
H. D. Young and R. A. Freedman, [*Sears and Zemansky’s University Physics*]{}, 12th ed., (Pearson, San Francisco, 2008).
A. Zee, [*Quantum field theory in a nutshell*]{}, 2$^{nd}\,$ ed., (Princeton U Press, Princeton, NJ, 2010).
R. C. Harney, “A Method for Obtaining Force Law Information by Applying the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle,” Am. J. Phys. [**41**]{}, 67 (1973).
D. J. Griffiths, [*Introduction to Elementary Particles*]{}, (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 1987).
P. Dunne, “A reappraisal of the mechanism of pion exchange and its implications for the teaching of particle,” Phys. Ed. [**37**]{}(3), 211-222 (2002).
V. Rubakov, [*Classical Theory of Gauge Fields*]{}, (Princeton U Press, Princeton, NJ, 2002).
The physics is unchanged if we interpret this lack of interaction as a perfectly elastic collision between the mediating particles. In fact, in one dimension energy conservation and momentum conservation only allow for exchange of incoming momenta in two-particle scattering events.[@Sutherland]
We use the term “massive” to describe the particles of mass $M \gg m$, but this convenient terminology is not meant to suggest that the mediating particles are massless. While we take $m \ll M$, the model [*requires*]{} a nonzero mediating particle mass $m$.
B. Sutherland, [*Beautiful Models: 70 Years of Exactly Solved Quantum Many Body Problems*]{}, (World Scientific, Hackensack, NJ, 2004).
Note that the ultimate fate of the massive particles is determined by the mass ratio $\frac{2m}{M}\,$ and initial conditions. For $v_{0}=0$, if $M\,$ divides $2m\,$ exactly, then the massive particles will ultimately be accelerated to exactly $v=c$. If $M\,$ does not exactly divide $2m$, then the final collisions will propel each mass to a speed larger than $c$, but with a difference bounded by $v_{\infty} - c < \frac{2mc}{M}$.
, ed. M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, pp. 877, (Dover, New York, 1965).
D. J. Griffiths, [*Introduction to Electrodynamics*]{}, 3$^{rd}\,$ ed., (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 1999).
G. B. Arfken and H. J. Weber, [*Mathematical Methods for Physicists*]{}, 7th ed., (Academic Press, Waltham, MA, 2012).
M. E. Peskin and D. V. Schroeder, [*An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory*]{}, (Perseus, New York, 1995).
R. M. Corless, G. H. Gonnet, D. E. G. Hare, D. J. Jeffrey and D. E. Knuth, “On the Lambert W function,” Adv. Comp. Math. [**5**]{} 329-359 (1996).
R. P. Feynman, [*The Theory of Fundamental Processes*]{}, (Westview Press, Boulder, C.O., 1998).
R. P. Feynman, F. B. Morinigo and W. G. Wagner, [*Feynman Lectures on Gravitation*]{}, (Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 2002).
R. Chabay and B. Sherwood, “Computational physics in the introductory calculus-based course,” Am. J. Phys. [**76**]{}, 307 (2008).
T. Timberlake and J. Hasbun, “Computation in classical mechanics,” Am. J. Phys. [**76**]{}, 334 (2008).
|
---
abstract: 'We present an experimental and theoretical investigation of spontaneous pattern formation in the transverse section of a single retro-reflected laser beam passing through a cloud of cold Rubidium atoms. In contrast to previously investigated systems, the nonlinearity at work here is that of a 2-level atom, which realizes the paradigmatic situation considered in many theoretical studies of optical pattern formation. In particular, we are able to observe the disappearance of the patterns at high intensity due to the intrinsic saturable character of 2-level atomic transitions.'
author:
- 'A. Camara, R. Kaiser, G. Labeyrie[^1]'
- 'W.J. Firth, G.-L. Oppo, G.R.M. Robb, A.S. Arnold, T. Ackemann'
title: 'Optical pattern formation with a 2-level nonlinearity'
---
Spontaneous pattern formation from a homogeneous state is a widespread phenomenon in nonlinear systems out of equilibrium [@Cross1993; @Meinhardt1992]. Originating from fields such as chemistry [@Turing1952; @Ouyang1991] and hydrodynamics [@Rayleigh1916; @Benard1900; @Cross1993], the study of pattern formation has known a rapid development in optics starting from the 80’s [@Lugiato1999; @Arecchi1999]. Paradigmatic examples such as a Kerr medium [@Yariv1977; @Firth1990] or a collection of 2-level atoms at rest [@GrynbergTh1988] were considered in early theoretical studies. Various nonlinear systems, either active such as lasers or photorefractive oscillators [@Tamm1988; @Arecchi1999; @Arecchi1990], or passive such as liquid crystals [@LiquidCrystals; @Neubecker1995], were used to realize the first experiments. In some range of experimental conditions, these nonlinear materials mimic ideal systems such as the Kerr medium but one usually lacks a complete theoretical description of the light-matter interaction. Hot atomic vapors were also extensively employed to study various optical instabilities [@GrynbergExp1988; @Grynberg1994; @Ackemann1994; @Ackemann2001; @Dawes2005]. There, a theoretical description of the light-atom interaction is available, but the specific experimental conditions (Doppler broadening, hyperfine structure, ballistic or diffusive motion of the atoms) considerably complicate the interpretation. Finally, cold atomic samples started recently to be employed in optical pattern formation [@Greenberg2011; @Greenberg2012; @Labeyrie2014].
![(Color on line) Observation of patterns. (a) Experimental scheme. (b) Typical single-shot light distributions observed in the transverse instability regime, in the near (left) and far (right) field. The pump parameters are: $ I = 0.47$ W/cm$^2$ and $\delta = + 6.5~\Gamma$.[]{data-label="fig1"}](fig1.eps){width="1\columnwidth"}
We have identified in our single feedback mirror experiments three distinct mechanisms that lead to the spontaneous formation of patterns. The first one, the optomechanical mechanism, is specific to cold atoms and relies on the spatial bunching of the atoms under the action of dipole forces. This mechanism is very efficient at ultracold temperature and leads to spectacular self-organization phenomena [@Baumann2010]. The presence of a Zeeman structure in the atomic ground state (spin degree of freedom) allows for optical pumping, i.e. a redistribution between populations or creation of coherences between Zeeman substates, in particular within the ground-state. This mechanism is responsible for the polarization instabilities studied in hot atomic vapors [@Gauthier1988; @Grynberg1994; @Aumann1997; @Ackemann2001; @Dawes2005]. Finally, under specific experimental conditions the atoms behave as 2-level systems and the optical nonlinearity is only due to the saturation of the electric dipole transition i.e population transfer between ground and excited states. This is the situation studied in this paper, which realizes the paradigmatic theoretical description of a homogeneously-broadened 2-level atomic transition [@GrynbergTh1988]. To our knowledge, the only previous experimental investigation of patterns due to a saturable nonlinearity was achieved in a hot sodium vapor [@GrynbergExp1988], and did not report the observation of the vanishing of the effect at large saturations. We present in this paper a detailed experimental investigation of this 2-level instability, and obtain a qualitative and quantitative agreement with a theoretical model based only on the microscopic description of the atom-light interaction.
The experimental setup, sketched in Fig. \[fig1\](a), exploits the single-mirror feedback scheme [@Firth1990] (see [@Labeyrie2014] for details). A Gaussian laser beam (referred to as “the pump” in the following) of waist $w = 1.47$ mm and wavelength $\lambda = 780.2$ nm is sent through a cold ($T = 200~\mu$K) cloud of Rb$^{87}$ atoms, released from a large magneto-optical trap (MOT). The cloud has a typical size of 9 mm FWHM along the pump propagation axis and contains 10$^{11}$ atoms. The resulting optical density (OD), for a weak beam on resonance with the $F = 2 \rightarrow F^{\prime} = 3$ transition, is around 210. The linearly-polarized pump beam is retro-reflected by a mirror located at a distance $d$ after the cloud (the vertical arrows in Fig. \[fig1\](a) indicate the polarization of the beams). We use an imaging telescope (not represented in Fig. \[fig1\](a)) located between the MOT and the mirror to create a “virtual mirror”, which provides an access to negative values of $d$ [@Ciaramella1993]. The overall reflectivity of the feedback system is around $95\%$ (cloud absorption not included).
By selecting a short (duration $\leq 1~\mu$s) pump pulse, we can neglect the optomechanical nonlinearity which requires tens of $\mu$s since the atoms have to move over distances of the order of $\approx 100 \mu$m [@Labeyrie2014]. Other mechanisms, relying on Zeeman internal degrees of freedom, also lead to a transverse instability and are currently under study in our groups. However, in the setup studied in the present paper a polarizer placed inside the feedback loop (Fig. \[fig1\](a)) guarantees that the feedback only occurs in the polarization channel parallel to the incident pump polarization, and prevents the occurrence of a polarization instability linked to Zeeman degrees of freedom. This is confirmed by the fact that almost no light is detected in the polarization channel orthogonal to the pump polarization. Throughout this work we are thus left with the simplest, 2-level nonlinearity corresponding to the following expression for the refractive index of our cloud of cold atoms: $$n = 1 - \frac{3\lambda^3}{4\pi^2} \, \frac{\delta/\Gamma}{1+ (2\delta/\Gamma)^2} \, \frac{\rho}{1+s}
\label{index}$$ where $\delta = \omega_l -\omega_0$ is the detuning between the laser and atomic frequencies, $\Gamma = 2\pi \times 6.06$ MHz is the natural width and $\rho$ denotes the spatial atomic density. The nonlinearity arises from the presence in this expression of the saturation parameter $s = \frac{I}{I_{sat}} \frac{1}{1+4 (\delta / \Gamma)^2}$, where $I_{sat} = 1.67$ mW/cm$^2$ is the saturation intensity. For $s \ll 1$, the gas exhibits a Kerr-like behavior $n \simeq n_0 + n_2~I$, where $n_0$ is the linear refractive index and $n_2$ the nonlinear one. Importantly, for $s \gg 1$ the nonlinearity vanishes and the instability is expected to disappear. In the Kerr regime, the nonlinearity is “self-focusing” ($n_2 > 0$) for $\delta > 0$ and “self-defocusing” for $\delta < 0$. Note that Eq. \[index\] only describes the real part of the complex refractive index, which is responsible for the instability. However, (nonlinear) absorption is also present and included in our theoretical analysis.
Fig. \[fig1\](b) shows images of the transverse intensity distribution of the transmitted pump beam, in the near field (left) and the far-field (right). We observe for these parameters contrasted patterns with a clear hexagonal symmetry. However, here the near-field patterns are always divided into several domains with different orientations of the hexagons, and we never observe the long-range order typically associated with the optomechanical nonlinearity [@Labeyrie2014]. Using parameters different from the optimal set increases the number of such domains, rendering the hexagonal symmetry less obvious (see Fig. \[fig2\]).
A key feature of the observed instability is the disappearance of the patterns for large pump intensity (typically $> 2$ W/cm$^2$). This behavior is illustrated in Fig. \[fig2\]. Just above threshold (a), the patterns appear in a restricted area around beam center. When the pump power is increased, the patterns gain in contrast and spatial extent (b). A further increase of the intensity leads to a progressive blurring of the patterns inside an area around beam center, (c) and (d). Note that heating effects due to the increase of pump intensity are negligible because of the short duration of the pump pulse. This pattern blurring is qualitatively different from what is observed e.g. for the polarization instabilities in hot vapors where no saturation is observed [@Lange1998]. In our situation, this saturation is intrinsic to the 2-level description of the atom-light interaction as can be seen in Eq. \[index\] where $n \rightarrow 1$ as $s \rightarrow \infty$.
We have investigated the range of parameters where the instability can be observed. The result of this study is summarized in Fig. \[fig3\](a), where we plot the “diffracted power” $P_d$ as a function of pump detuning ($\delta > 0$) and intensity. $P_d$ is obtained through the following procedure. We first record 30 successive near-field images of the patterns like that shown in Fig. \[fig1\](b), to collect a representative sample of shot-to-shot pattern fluctuations. We then select an area around beam center (of diameter $w/2$) and perform a 2D numerical Fourier Transform (FT). The FT images are then summed, and we extract from the resulting averaged FT image the power in the pattern mode. This quantity is normalized to the power inside the undiffracted beam (central peak in the FT image). We then perform the same operation on images of the pump beam, obtained without atoms. This yields the background power in the pattern mode, due to the residual rugosity in the pump’s intensity profile, which is subtracted from the data obtained in the presence of atoms. In addition, in Fig. \[fig3\] $P_d$ values are scaled such that the maximal value (obtained for $\delta = 6.5~\Gamma$ and $ I = 0.47$ W/cm$^2$) is 1.
On the blue side of the transition, we observe the patterns between roughly $\delta = 3.5~\Gamma$ and $17~\Gamma$ (Fig. \[fig3\](b)). For smaller values of $\delta$, the patterns vanish quite abruptly. In this small-$\delta$ regime, the cloud is optically-thick with two important consequences: first, the strong absorption considerably reduces the magnitude of the feedback; second, there is a large amount of *scattered light* with a quite homogeneous spatial distribution, which is expected to blur the transverse field modulation responsible for the instability. For large detunings the patterns also disappear but much more gradually, because of the decrease $\propto 1/\delta$ of the refractive index. We observe a well-defined lower-intensity threshold for the instability, around 0.16 W/cm$^2$ for $\delta = 6.5~\Gamma$ (Fig. \[fig3\](c)). This threshold is substantially higher than observed for longer pump pulses, where the optomechanical mechanisms sets in [@Labeyrie2014]. Also, we found that a minimum OD of around 100 is required to observe the 2-level patterns, while this threshold can be considerably lower for optomechanical patterns [@Labeyrie2014]. The saturation of the nonlinearity results in a gradual vanishing of the instability for large pump intensity ($I > 2$ W/cm$^2$ for $\delta = 6.5~\Gamma$, which corresponds to $s \approx 7$).
We compare in Fig. \[fig3\](a) our experimental data with the theoretical instability threshold (dots) as obtained using a 2-level, thin-medium model. This model is based on the approach of [@Muradyan2005], extended to the case of the feedback mirror configuration and with the inclusion of absorption. We also included in our model the longitudinal intensity modulation due the interference of the incident and retro-reflected pumps, but without the approximation used in [@Muradyan2005]. As can be seen, the qualitative and quantitative agreement is rather satisfactory. We speculate that the discrepancy at small $\delta$ may come from the scattered light (not included in the model), as discussed above.
On the red side of the transition ($\delta < 0$), we only observe poorly-contrasted structures without clear symmetry. The characteristic spatial scale of these structures is roughly twice that on the blue side. Their domain of observation in ($\delta$, $I$) space approximately mirrors that of the patterns on the blue side. A full theoretical explanation for this red-blue asymmetry is still lacking. We believe that its origin lies in nonlinear propagation effects taking place *inside* the cloud. This may not come as a surprise since such effects have been observed in the past in such large cold atom clouds [@Labeyrie2011]. In that work, we investigated the self-trapping of a Gaussian beam of small waist (20 $\mu$m) for $\delta > 0$, which resulted in a roughly constant transverse size of the beam as it propagated inside the cloud. It is thus reasonable to speculate that if an array of bright spots such as seen in the transverse intensity distribution of Fig. \[fig1\](b) forms inside the medium, it will be stabilized by self-focusing for $\delta > 0$. On the contrary, for $\delta < 0$ self-defocusing will tend to blur these structures. For these effects to play a role, one requires the Rayleigh length corresponding to the transverse size of the bright intensity spots to be smaller than the length of the medium. This condition imposes a size for the spots of a few tens of microns, which is what we typically observe.
The Talbot effect and the associated periodic passage between phase and intensity modulation [@d'Alessandro1991] is at the heart of the transverse instability discussed in this paper. Since we operate well detuned from resonance, a transverse intensity pattern mainly induces a transverse phase modulation. Propagation to the mirror and back can convert this into transverse intensity modulation of the backward field, hence phase-modulating the forward field, and so on. For a mirror distance $d$, the transverse pattern wavelength $\Lambda$ for which this is optimum obeys $\Lambda^2 = \lambda d / (N + 1/4)$ in the case of a thin medium and of a self-focusing nonlinearity [@Firth1990; @Ciaramella1993]. In this expression, $N$ is an integer of same sign as $d$. Furthermore, the Talbot effect implies that instability thresholds are periodic in mirror distance $d$ with period $\Lambda^2 / \lambda$.
This tunability and $d$-periodicity of the pattern scale, features specific to the single-mirror feedback scheme, are illustrated with Fig. \[fig4\] where we plot $\Lambda$ (measured by far-field imaging of the transmitted pump, see Fig. \[fig1\](b)) versus $d$. The dots correspond to the lowest-q mode, where $q = 2 \pi / \Lambda$. The circles correspond to the next higher-q mode, which is observed only for large $\left|d\right|$. The bold lines are predictions of a thick-medium model, similar to that of Fig. \[fig3\](a) but including the propagation inside the cloud and neglecting absorption. The Talbot periodicity appears through the fact that the same $q$, and hence $\Lambda$, is observed for periodically-spaced values of $d$, the $d$-period being $\Lambda^2 / \lambda$. This is verified in the insert, where the experimentally observed $d$-period is plotted against $\Lambda$ (dots) and compared to the expression above (line). The overall agreement between experiment and theory is very satisfactory, for all instability branches, confirming the validity of the Talbot picture in our situation.
We demonstrated in this paper the existence of a pattern-forming optical instability in a cloud of cold atoms, based only on the 2-level electronic nonlinearity. In this paradigmatic situation, we were able to observe the disappearance of the instability at high optical power, due to the saturation of the nonlinearity. This work demonstrates the interest of cold atomic samples for the field of nonlinear optics and pattern formation, motivated by the fact that several nonlinear mechanisms coexist and can be selected and studied independently. Understanding and controlling these various mechanisms constitutes an important step in the future prospect of extending these experiments to degenerate quantum gases, where the simultaneous self-organization of light and matter can lead to a rich class of physical phenomena [@Gopalakrishnan2009].
[10]{}
M.C. Cross and P.C. Hohenberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. **65**, 851 (1993).
M. Meinhardt, Rep. Prog. Phys. **55**, 797 (1992).
A.M. Turing, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. B **237**, 37 (1952).
Q. Ouyang and H.L. Swinney, Nature **352**, 610 (1991).
Lord Rayleigh, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A **93**, 148 (1916).
H. Bénard, Ann. Chim. Phys. **7**, 62 (1900).
L.A. Lugiato, M. Brambilla and A. Gatti, Adv. Atom. Mol. Opt. Phys. **40**, 229 (1999).
F.T. Arecchi, S. Boccaletti and P.L. Ramazza, Phys. Rep. **318**, 1 (1999).
A. Yariv and D.M. Pepper, Opt. Lett. **1**, 16 (1977).
W.J. Firth, J. Mod. Opt. **37**, 151 (1990).
G. Grynberg, Optics Comm. **66**, 321 (1988).
F.T. Arecchi, G. Giacomelli, P.L. Ramazza and S. Residori, Phys. Rev. Lett. **65**, 2531 (1990).
Chr. Tamm, Phys. Rev. A **38**, R5960 (1988).
R. Macdonald and H.J. Eicher, Opt. Commun. **89**, 289 (1992); M. Tamburrini, M. Bonavita, S. Wabnitz and E. Santamato, Opt. Lett. **18**, 855 (1993); E. Pampaloni, S. Residori and F.T. Arecchi, Europhys. Lett. **24**, 647 (1993).
R. Neubecker, G.-L. Oppo, B. Thuering and T. Tschudi, Phys. Rev. A **52**,791 (1995).
G. Grynberg, E. Le Bihan, P. Verkerk, P. Simoneau, J.R.R. Leite, D. Bloch, S. Le Boiteux and M. Ducloy, Optics Comm. **67**, 363 (1988).
G. Grynberg, A. Maître and A. Petrossian, Phys. Rev. Lett. **72**, 2379 (1994).
T. Ackemann and W. Lange, Phys. Rev. A **50**, R4468 (1994).
T. Ackemann and W. Lange, Appl. Phys. B **21**, 21 (2001).
A.M.C. Dawes, L. Illing, S.M. Clark and D.J. Gauthier, Science **308**, 672 (2005).
J.A. Greenberg, B.L. Schmittberger and D. Gauthier, Opt. Exp. **19**, 22535 (2011).
J.A. Greenberg and D.J. Gauthier, Phys. Rev. A **86**, 013823 (2012); J.A. Greenberg and D.J. Gauthier, EPL **98**, 24001 (2012).
G. Labeyrie, E. Tesio, P.M. Gomes, G.-L. Oppo, W.J. Firth, G.R.M. Robb, A.S. Arnold, R. Kaiser and T. Ackemann, Nature Photonics **8**, 321 (2014).
K. Baumann, C. Guerlin, F. Brennecke and T. Esslinger, Nature **464**, 1301 [2010]{}.
D.J. Gauthier, M.S. Malcuit and R.W. Boyd, Phys. Rev. Lett. **61**, 1827 (1988).
A. Aumann, E. Büthe, Yu.A. Logvin, T. Ackemann and W. Lange, Phys. Rev. A **56**, R1709 (1997).
E. Ciaramella, M. Tamburrini and E. Santamato, Appl. Phys. Lett. **63**, 1604 (1993).
W. Lange, A. Aumann, T. Ackemann and E. Büthe, Quantum Semiclass. Opt. **10**, R23 (1998).
G.A. Muradyan, Y. Wang, W. Williams and M. Saffman, Nonlinear Guided Waves topical meeting technical digest, paper ThB29 (2005).
G. Labeyrie and U. Bortolozzo, Opt. Lett. **36**, 2158 (2011).
G. d’Alessandro and W.J. Firth, Phys. Rev. Lett. **66**, 2597 (1991).
S. Gopalakrishnan, B.L. Lev and P.M. Goldbart, Nature Phys. **5**, 845 (2009); S. Gopalakrishnan, B.L. Lev and P.M. Goldbart, Phys. Rev. A **82**, 043612 (2010).
[^1]: To whom correspondence should be addressed.
|
---
abstract: 'In this paper we will consider new bounds on the smallest primitive root modulo a prime. we will make more judicious use of the Pólya–Vinogradov and Burgess inequalities, and use them to prove that the smallest primitive root is smaller than $p^{0.68}$ for all primes $p$.'
author:
- |
Jana Pretorius\
School of Physical, Environmental and Mathematical Sciences\
The University of New South Wales Canberra, Australia\
[email protected]
title: The smallest primitive root modulo a prime
---
Introduction
============
This paper will detail new research on upper bounds on the smallest primitive root modulo a prime, which will be referred to at $g(p)$. In [@B], Burgess showed that the smallest possible bound is $$\label{sweep}
g(p) \ll p^{1/4+\epsilon} \quad \textrm{for any} \quad \epsilon>0.$$
Since any case of $\epsilon< \frac{1}{4}$ has been too difficult to prove to date, some previous research has focused on the Grosswald conjecture,
$$g(p)< \sqrt{p}-2,$$
which Cohen, Oliveira e Silva and Truigian proved for all $409<p<2.5\times10^{15}$ and $p>10^{71}$ (Theorem 1.1 in [@COT]). Others, including Hunter, have instead attempted to find the lowest value of $\epsilon$ for which (\[sweep\]) holds for all primes. This paper will lower the universal bound.
Current literature has focused primarily on using the Pólya–Vinogradov inequality and Burgess bound on Dirichlet characters separately, but never in conjunction. We will be using both in order to minimise the bounds further. The smallest power $\alpha$ of $p$ which could possibly be proven for all primes is $\alpha =\log2/\log3 = 0.63093...$ as this corresponds to the smallest primitive root of $3$, which is $2$.
This paper will prove two main theorems.
Let $g(p)$ denote the least primitive root modulo $p$, prime. Then $$\label{single} g(p)<p^{0.6309}\quad \textrm{for all}\quad p>2.67\times10^{32}.$$
The first theorem takes the power of $p$ slightly smaller that the minimum possible ($\log2/\log3$), $0.6309$, and identifies the range of $p$ over which we can prove that the bound holds. As we cannot prove that this holds for all $p$, we have found the lowest exponent which can be proven for all $p$, given in Theorem 2.
$$g(p)<p^{0.68}\quad \textrm{for all primes}\quad p.$$
This new bound represents significant improvement on previous findings. Hunter proved that the bound on the least *square-free* primitive root was $p^{0.88}$ for all primes $p$, and showed that $\alpha=0.6309$ holds for all $p> 9.63\times 10^{65}$ (Theorems 0.1 and 0.2 in [@H]).
These bounds will be shown using the same methods employed by Hunter. In §2 and §3, we will the Pólya–Vinogradov and Burgess inequalities to establish over which values of $p$ each bound is most useful. We will also identify the ranges of $p$ over which various values of $\alpha$ hold. A sieving inequality will be used in §5 to tighten these bounds further. Finally, in §6, computations using a prime divisor tree will provide some small improvements.
Comparing the Pólya–Vinogradov and Burgess inequalities
=======================================================
The first step towards lowering the bound on primitive roots is to use improved bounds on the Pólya–Vinogradov and Burgess Inequalities. Both inequalities place an upper bound on the sum on $\chi (p)$, the non-principal Dirichlet characters modulo $p$, defined as $$\label{bound}
{S_H(N)} = \abs{\sum_{n=N+1}^{N+H}\chi(n)} \quad \text{for some} \quad H<p.$$ Theorem 2.1 in [@COT], quoting Treviño [@T] gives the Burgess bound: $$\label{burgess}
C(r)H^{1-\frac{1}{r}}p^{\frac{r-1}{4r^{2}}}(\log{p})^{\frac{1}{2r}},$$ where $r$ is an integer of our own choosing. Below, we will discuss which value of $r$ returns the tightest bound. Hunter gives the Pólya–Vinogradov inequality as follows (Theorem 1.2 in [@H]): $$\label{PV}
c\sqrt{p}\log{p},$$ where $c$ is a constant. The Burgess bound (\[burgess\]), unlike Pólya–Vinogradov, is dependent on the length of the sum, $H$.
In order to compare these two inequalities, it is first necessary to determine what value of $r$ to use in the Burgess bound. The values of $C(r)$ were taken from §1 of Treviño for the case of $H=10^{15}$ [@T]. This value of $H$ was chosen as this was the closest value to $2.5\times10^{15}$, below which Theorem 1.1 in [@COT] holds.
By substituting $H=p^\alpha$, we can compute that as $\alpha$ increases, $r=2$ gives the smallest bound for an increasing range of primes. At $\alpha=0.7$, $r=2$ is the preferred value of $r$ for all $p>1.5\times 10^{6}$.
Since $r=2$ provides the smallest Burgess bound within the desired range of $\alpha$’s under consideration, this value will be used to compare the Burgess and Pólya–Vinogradov bounds, by solving: $$\label{kimmyb}
C(2)p^{\frac{\alpha}{2}+\frac{3}{16}}(\log p)^{\frac{1}{4}} \leq cp^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}\log p.$$
From this, it follows that for values of $\alpha>\frac{5}{8}$, the Pólya–Vinogradov inequality (on the right hand side of the above equation) will always give a smaller bound than Burgess. i.e. The equation is not true for any $p$. Below $\frac{5}{8}$, Burgess becomes the better bound for a range of $p$ dependent on $\alpha$. For example, at $\alpha=0.6$, Burgess gives a smaller bound for all $p>10^{22}$.
From this, it is clear that for the range of $\alpha$ under consideration in this paper, the Pólya–Vinogradov bound is the better choice. recall that the smallest $\alpha$ which may be proven for all primes is $\frac{\log2}{\log3}>\frac{5}{8}$.
Results without sieving
=======================
Using the Pólya–Vinogradov inequality, we now make use of improvements to the constant, $c$. While Hunter used $c=\frac{1}{2\pi}+\frac{1}{\log p}+\frac{1}{\sqrt p \log p}$, Frolenkov and Soundararajan found an improved constant (§4 of [@FS]):
$$\label{redgrave}
c(p)=\frac{1}{2\pi}+\frac{0.8203}{\log p}+\frac{1.0284}{\log p\sqrt p}.$$
Frolenkov and Soundararajan, however, optimised their constant to be the smallest over all primes. For the purposes of this research, it is better to optimise the constant for $p=2.5 \times 10^{15}$. Following the derivation in §4 of [@FS], we chose a generic value for the constant $L$ of the form $\alpha q^{\beta}$ and find the values of each variable which give the minimum bound. From this, we ascertain that the smallest, and hence best, $c$ to use is:
$$c(p)=\frac{1}{2\pi}+\frac{1}{\pi \log p}\left(0.4325+\frac{10.15 + \sqrt{p}}{1+ \sqrt{p}}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{p}}\right).$$
Since $c(p)$ is slowly decreasing in $p$, we can set $c=c(p_0)$ which will hold for all $p>p_0$ Following the derivation in §2 of [@H], we sum the following indicator function over $x$.
given a prime $p$, and provided that $p\nmid x$, we can define the function $$\label{pair}f(x)=\frac{\phi(p-1)}{p-1}\left\{1+\sum_{d|p-1,d>1}\frac{\mu(d)}{\phi(d)}\sum_{\chi_d}\chi_d(x)\right\} = \begin{cases}&1\, \textrm{if n is a primitive root}\\&0\, \textrm{otherwise,} \end{cases}$$ where $\phi$ is Euler’s function, $\mu$ is the Möbius function, and $\chi_d$ are the characters of order $d$ (Lemma 2.1 in [@H]).
This sum will be greater than $0$ once we have found a primitive root. We apply the Pólya-Vinogradov inequality to (\[pair\]) and proceed according to the derivations in [@COT],[@H],[@CST]. We conclude that a primitive root exists below $g(p)=p^{\alpha}$ if and only if
$$p^{\alpha} -(2^{\omega (p-1)}-1)c \sqrt{p} \log p > 0.$$
We make use of the following estimate for the value of $\omega(n)$ from Robin (Theorem 16 in [@R]) to obtain an equation wholly in terms of $p$ and $\alpha$
$$\label{pinsent}
\omega(n) \leq \frac{\log n}{\log\log n} \left(1 + \frac{1}{\log\log n} + \frac{2.8973}{(\log\log n)^2}\right),$$
where $\omega (n)$ denotes the number of distinct prime divisors of $n$. Following this substitution, we compute the value $p$ above which the inequality holds for a range of $\alpha$. We then calculate the corresponding value of $\omega(p)$. For $\alpha=0.7$, the inequality holds for all $p>5\times 10^{1295}$, and so $\omega(n)=554$. From this we calculate the smallest product of primes (the smallest $\omega(n)$) which exceeds $p=5\times 10^{1295}$, knowing that it must be smaller than 554. Any values up to and including this $\omega(n)$ cannot make the inequality hold, and hence must be checked through other means.
Table 1 identifies the values of $w(n)$ which remain to be checked after initial use of the Pólya–Vinogradov inequality.
--------------- ------------------------- -------------------------
$\alpha$ Lower bound on $w(p-1)$ Upper bound on $w(p-1)$
\[0.5ex\] 0.8 5 30
0.75 5 46
0.7 5 85
0.65 5 237
0.6309 5 437
\[1ex\]
--------------- ------------------------- -------------------------
: Exceptions of $\omega (p-1)$
Improvements using a sieve
==========================
The sieve used in [@COT], [@CST], [@H], and [@MTT] makes use of the number of small primes dividing $p-1$ in order to eliminate most values of $\omega(n)$ identified as possible exceptions in §3. The sieve relies on the use of e-free integers:
Let $p$ be a prime and let $e$ be a divisor of $p-1$. Suppose $p\nmid n$ then $n$ is **e-free** if, for any divisor $d$ of $e$, such that $d>1$, $n\equiv y^{d}$ (mod $p$) is insoluble.
Following Proposition 3.2 in §3 of [@H], it can be shown that $n$ is a primitive root if and only is it is $(p-1)$ free.
Consequently, an indicator function has been developed to test whether any particular number $n$ is $p-1$ free (§3 of [@H]).
$$\label{efree} f(x) = \frac{\phi(e)}{e} \sum_{d|e}\frac{\mu(d)}{\phi(d)} \sum_{\chi \in \Gamma_{d}}{\chi (n)}=\begin{cases}&1\quad \textrm{if n is e-free}\\&0\quad \textrm{otherwise.} \end{cases}$$
Again, we apply the Pólya–Vinogradov bound the indicator function. Following the derivation in §3 of [@H], we obtain a new inequality (Theorem 3) to solve. This inequality differs from that in [@H] as the square-free conditions on the primitive roots are removed.
Let $\delta>0$ be defined as $$\delta = 1-\sum_{i=1}^{s}p_i^{-1}$$ and let $\Delta$ be defined as $$\Delta = \frac{s-1}{\delta}+2,$$ where $1 \leq s \leq \omega (p-1)$. Then we are able to find a primitive root $g(p)<p^{\alpha}$ if the following inequality holds: $$\frac{p^{\alpha-0.5}}{\log(p)}>c(2^{n-s}\Delta -1).$$
The value of $s$ denotes the number of sieving primes $p_1,p_2,p_3,\ldots ,p_s$ which divide $p-1$ but not $e$, an integer of our own choosing. This $e$ is an even divisor of $p-1$ and must be chosen so that $\delta>0$ and $(2^{n-s}\Delta -1)$ is minimised. Once this $e$ is chosen to give our optimal value of $s$, we can proceed to solve the inequality for $p$.
Firstly, for each value of $\omega(p-1)$, $p-1=\prod_{i \leq \omega(p-1)}{p_i}$, the product of the first $\omega(p-1)$ primes, is checked to see if it satisfies the inequality. For values of $p-1=\prod_{i \leq \omega(p-1)}{p_i}<2.5 \times 10^{15}$, the larger value is used as we know all primes below $2.5 \times 10^{15}$ satisfy the values of $\alpha$ being tested. The values of $\omega(p-1)$ which still do not satisfy this equality must be tested further using the prime divisor tree.
For each of these, the value of $p$ which does make the inequality true is set as an upper bound $p_u$, leaving all $p \in[{2.5 \times 10^{15}, p_u}]$ as exceptions which must be checked to see if they have sufficiently small primitive roots. After use of the sieve, we have proven \[single\]. $\alpha=0.6309$ holds for all values of $\omega(p-1) <22$, and the minimum value of $p$ with $\omega(p-1)=23$ is $p=2.67 \times 10^{32}$. Applying the prime divisor tree (described in §6) to $\alpha=0.6309$ generated too many exceptions for the computation to be completed on a standard laptop, and so no further investigation into $\alpha=0.6309$ was completed.
---------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
$\alpha$ Lower bound on $w(n)$ Upper bound on $w(n)$
\[0.5ex\] 0.69 - -
0.68 13 13
0.65 5 18
0.6309 5 22
\[1ex\]
---------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
: Exceptions of $\omega (p-1)$ after use of sieve
Computation: the prime divisor tree
===================================
The prime divisor tree relies on the same sieve developed in §4, but recalculates the optimal $s$ and $\delta$ at each node on a tree. This tree splits up the remaining primes $p$ to be checked according to the specific primes dividing $p-1$. The program was run in SageMath, based on code developed by McGown, Treviño and Trudgian [@MTT], and Hunter [@H].
The prime divisor tree branches off from each point according to whether the next sequential prime divides $p-1$. Since we know $2$ already divides, the first two branches of the tree split up primes according to whether $3$ does or does not divide $p-1$. Each of these nodes may branch further according to whether $5$ does or does not divide $p-1$, and so on.
At the nodes where the prime does not divide $p-1$, this prime can be removed from the calculation of $\delta$, and the next sequential prime, the $\omega(p-1)+1$th prime is included. This increases $\delta$ and so the upper bound on the primes which must still be checked is reduced. In some cases, the upper and lower bounds overlap, and so all possible exceptions are eliminated. In this case, this particular branch of the tree terminates and no further nodes are introduced. If the bounds do not overlap, we check how many prime numbers are in the new reduced interval, and hence how many times we need to check for a primitive root.
At nodes where the prime in question *does* divide $p-1$, we know that all primes must be of the form $(p-1)= k \times m$ where $k$ is the product of those primes that *do* divide $p-1$, and $m$ is the product of the still unknown prime divisors of $p-1$. For example, if we know that $2,3$ and $5$ all divide $p-1$, then $k= 2 \times 3 \times 5 = 30$ Since the first few prime divisors are now known, this eliminates many of the primes within the interval determined by the sieve, reducing the number of primes where we must search for a small primitive root.
Through this process, each branches reduces the number of primes to be checked. If the number to be checked is sufficiently small ($<10^{5}$), the primes are enumerated and primitive roots found using the inbuilt primitive root finder in SageMath. If the interval of exceptions is still too large, the tree branches further until all exceptions have been enumerated.
Through the use of the prime divisor tree, the value of $\alpha$ that holds for all $p$ can be reduced slightly to $0.68$. This improvement is the last step in establishing Theorem 2. Like Hunter, I found that the number of exceptions to be checked increases very rapidly with small reductions in $\alpha$ below $0.68$, and so run times for the code expand to impractical lengths. Below $\alpha=0.68$, my computer unable to run the code to completion, and hence could not lower the value of $\alpha$ further.
Future work
===========
Through the combined use of the Pólya–Vinogradov and Burgess bounds, we have improved the bounds on the least primitive root modulo a prime. Specifically, we have reduced the universal bound on the smallest primitive roots for all primes to $g(p) = p^{0.68}$ (Theorem 2). We have also lowered the minimum prime for which $g(p)=p^{0.6309}$ holds, to $p=2.67 \times 10^{32}$ (Theorem 1). While this marks a significant improvement on previous results, as discussed above, it leaves room for future work to lower the bound further.
The largest improvements are likely to come from a tighter constant for the Pólya–Vinogradov Inequality, as this will increase the strength of the sieve. Due to the number of computations required to run the prime divisor tree, it is only capable of eliminating $2-4$ value of $\omega(p-1)$ in a reasonable time frame. It is therefore preferable to eliminate as many values of $\omega(p-1)$ as possible before we reach the prime divisor tree. One possible source of improvement would be to develop a means of splitting the Dirichlet character sum into odd and even cases. As outlined in Theorem 2 of [@FS], different bounds exist for odd and even Dirichlet characters. In this paper, the weaker bound was taken for all characters as we had no means to systematically split the character sum.
Running the code on a more powerful computer would likely also deliver some benefit. If the values of $\omega(p-1)$ that could be easily checked could be increased, proving that $\alpha = 0.6309$ holds for all $p$ could become feasible.
Acknowledgments
===============
I’d like to thank Dr Tim Trudgian for his help developing a research topic and providing invaluable guidance as my supervisor. I’d also like to thank UNSW Canberra for providing funding through the Summer Scholarship program and Dr Kevin McGowan for providing feedback on the Sage code.
[9]{} D.A. Burgess, *On character sums and primitive roots*, Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. 12(3) (1962), 179-192. S.D. Cohen, T. Oliveira e Silva, T. Trudgian, *On Grosswald’s conjecture on primitive roots*, Acta Arith., 172(3) (2016), 263-270. S.D. Cohen and T. Trudgian, *On the least square-free primitive root modulo p*, J. Number Theory, 170 (2017), 10-16. D.A. Frolenkov and K. Soundararajan, *A generalization of the Pólya–Vinogradov inequality*, Ramanujan J. 31(3) (2013), 271-279. M. Hunter, *The Least Square-free Primitive Root Modulo a Prime*, ANU, Honours Thesis, (2016). K. McGown, E. Treviño, and T. Trudgian, *Resolving Grosswald’s conjecture on GRH*, Funct. Approx. Comment. Math. 55(2), (2016), 215-225. G. Robin, *Estimation de la fonction de Tchebychef* $\theta$ *sur le k-ième nombre premier et grandes valeurs de la fonction* $\omega(p-1)$ *nombre de diviseurs premiers de n*, Acta Arith. 42 (1983), 367-369. E. Treviño, *The Burgess inequality and the least* k*th power non-residue*, Intl. Journal of Number Theory 11(5) (2015) 1653-1678.
|
---
abstract: 'We have obtained Fourier-resolved spectra of the black-hole binary u in the canonical states (high/soft, very high, intermediate and low/hard) observed in this source during the decay of an outburst that took place in 2002. Our objective is to investigate the variability of the spectral components generally used to describe the energy spectra of black-hole systems, namely a disk component, a power-law component attributed to Comptonization by a hot corona and the contribution of the iron line due to reprocessing of the high energy ($E \simmore 7$ keV) radiation. We find that [*i)*]{} the disk component is not variable on time scales shorter than $\sim$ 100 seconds, [*ii)*]{} the reprocessing emission as manifest by the variability of the Fe K$\alpha$ line responds to the primary radiation variations down to time scales of $\sim 70$ ms in the high and very-high states, but longer than 2 s in the low state, [*iii)*]{} the low-frequency QPOs are associated with variations of the X-ray power law spectral component and not to the disk component and [*iv)*]{} the spectra corresponding to the highest Fourier frequency are the hardest (show the flatter spectra) at a given spectral state. These results question models that explain the observed power spectra as due to modulations of the accretion rate alone, as such models do not provide any apparent reason for a Fourier frequency dependence of the power law spectral indices.'
author:
- 'P. Reig and I. E. Papadakis'
- 'C. R. Shrader and D. Kazanas'
title: Fourier resolved spectroscopy of u during the 2002 outburst
---
Introduction
============
u belongs to the group of black-hole X-ray novae [@tana96; @cher00]. These are transient X-ray binaries in which the compact companion is a black hole and the optical companion a late-type star. They owe their name to the fact that they occasionally exhibit a large increase of their X-ray luminosity (i.e. outbursts), presumably due to a sudden increase of the mass accretion rate onto the black hole. At the peak of the outburst the X-ray luminosity may reach the Eddington limit. In u these outbursts are recurrent with a quasiperiod of 10-12 years. Previous outbursts have been observed in 1971 [@mati72], 1983 [@kita84; @woer89], 1992 [@harm92] and 2002 [@park04; @kale05].
The first report on the observation of the optical counterpart to u was given by @pede83. @oros98 measured the radial velocity curve of the system and derived a mass function $f(M)=0.22\pm0.02$, an orbital period of $P_{\rm orb}=1.123\pm0.008$ days and estimated the distance to be 9.1$\pm$0.1 kpc. They argued that if the secondary star has a mass near the main sequence values for early A stars [@chev92] then the mass of the primary must be in the range 2.7-7.5 $\msun$. Recently, @park04 gave a value of $9.4\pm 2 \msun$ (based on work in preparation by J. Orosz). Thus u is very likely to contain a black hole.
Additional evidence of the presence of a black hole in u is provided by the specific sequence of X-ray spectral states that the system follows as its outbursts evolve, usually associated with accretion onto black holes. At the peak of its recent outburst, while the $2-10$ keV flux was a large fraction of the Eddington luminosity, the source exhibited a soft, thermally dominated spectrum and little variability, i.e. it was in the High/Soft or thermally dominated state (HS; @klis05 [@mcli04]). As the flux decreased, the source entered the Very High or steep power-law dominated state (VHS), characterized by broad-band variability, increased contribution of the power-law flux and the presence of QPOs. At the end of the VHS the source showed a sharp increase in the power-law flux and rms amplitude of variability without a noticeable change in the photon index. According to @kale05, u entered the intermediate state (IS). Just before the quiescent state the source went through the Low/Hard state (LS). At this state the thermal component was almost absent, the spectrum was dominated by the power-law, and the power spectrum displayed a simple broken power-law shape with rms of $\sim$20-30%.
The X-ray spectral and timing evolution of the source during its 2002 outburst has been studied in detail by @park04 (HS, VHS and IS), @kale05 (IS and LS) and @palo05 (quiescent state). The outburst started around June 15, 2002, and lasted for over one and a half months. @park04 used 49 RXTE observations that were obtained during the first 35 days of the outburst, while @kale05 used 39 observations that were taken $\sim 25$ days after the onset of the outburst.
In the present work we use archival RXTE data collected at various epochs during the latest outburst of u. Our aim is to study its Fourier resolved spectra at various frequency bands during the different spectral states which the source attains during the evolution of the outburst. This latter fact provides the opportunity of studying the variability properties of the different spectral components of accreting compact objects (i.e. power law, disk emission and iron line) in different spectral states of the same object, thus eliminating the ambiguities of referring to specific states at different objects with different masses and different Eddington ratios at specific luminosities.
Our study explores the variability properties on short time scales ($\sim 100$ sec) compared to those of recent studies [@park04; @kale05] that investigated the variability properties of the above spectral components on time scales of $\sim 1$ day (the typical time interval between successive RXTE observations). Our work follows the lines of a similar study by @revn99 and @gilf00 who explored the spectral variability of Cyg X-1 over similar time scales ($\sim 0.01 - 100$ sec) during the different spectral states of the source. A similar approach was also used by @papa05, who studied the spectra of the AGN MCG 6-30-15.
While we examine the variability properties of the entire spectrum, we pay particular emphasis on those of the Fe K$\alpha$ line; the variation of this feature, due almost exclusively to the reprocessing of the harder X-ray radiation, is most sensitive to the geometry of reprocessing matter in the vicinity of the accreting object and it can be used to infer its structure.
In §2 we outline the details of our observations and data reduction procedure, while in §3 we present the results of our analysis. In §4 we discuss in detail the results of the variability of each spectral component and we comment on its significance and implications on the dynamics and geometry of the accreting matter while in §5 we outline our general conclusions.
Observations and Data Reduction
===============================
We obtained a total of approximately 60 ksec of data from the RXTE archives spanning June 18 to August 4, 2002, thus sampling the outburst from near its peak to well into the late decline stages. Typical count rates (PCA instrument) ranged $\sim 10^4$ near outburst peak to $\sim10^2$ at the late decline phase. All the data were obtained from RXTE program IDs P70133 and P70124, the latter covering the decline phase of the outburst.
Data recording and packing in RXTE can be done in many different ways depending on the brightness of the source and the spectral and timing resolution requested. The specific observational modes are selected by the observer and may change during the overall observation. In order to ensure homogeneity in the reduction process the energy resolution was restricted to be 16 channels covering the energy band 2-15 keV, as this configuration could be achieved during the entire duration of the outburst.
Fig. \[lc\] shows a plot of the daily average, $2-12$ keV, ASM light curve of the source during its outburst. For the purposes of the present work we have selected five observing intervals corresponding to four different spectral states of the source, according to the classification of @park04 and @kale05. These are shown with the shaded boxes in Fig. \[lc\].
The first interval includes the two time ranges MJD 52443.7-52446.1 and MJD 52453.5-52455.1 (which we refer to as HS1 and HS2, respectively), during which the source was in its HS. The total on-source times were $\sim 18.4$ ksec and $\sim 7.6$ ks respectively. Note that the HS2 period is rather close to the chosen VHS time interval, while the HS1 period covers part of the rise. In this way we can investigate possible differences in the variability behavior of the source while in its high state. The second interval spans MJD 52457.8-52460.5 and corresponds to a period when the source was at its VHS. It contained 6 observations, amounting to 10.9 ks. We also considered four observations between MJD 52474.2 and 52477.2, which correspond to the IS between the VHS and the LS. Note, however, that the three observing intervals on July 21 2002 (MJD 52476; program ID P70132) were not included in our analysis because a different onboard spectral (and time) binning was used. Finally, ten observations between MJD 52481.1 and 52491.5 which corresponds to the LS of the source. The observing time for the IS and LS were 6.9 and 13.3 ksec, respectively.
Light curves were extracted for each onboard channel range using the current RXTE software[^1], binned at a resolution of 0.015625 s. We then divided the data into 128-s segments and, following the prescription of @revn99, we obtained the Fourier resolved spectra of the source in the following broad frequency bands: 0.008-0.5 Hz, 0.5-5 Hz and 5-15 Hz.
Contrary to typical temporal studies which provide the Power Spectral Densities (PSD) of the source in an entire energy band, Fourier resolved spectra provides instead the source spectra at different Fourier frequency ranges. This method consists of producing the PSD for every energy bin of the spectrum (i.e. the energy-dependent rms amplitude) and then weighing each bin in the energy spectrum with the corresponding rms amplitude.
Energy spectral analysis
------------------------
Fig. \[sp\] shows typical $2-20$ keV energy spectra of the source corresponding to the observational periods selected. The spectra were extracted from PCA [*Standard 2*]{} mode data. The response matrix and background models were created using the standard HEADAS software, version 5.3. The number of detectors (PCU) that were switched on varied for each observation, and, in order to be able to compare the spectra, they were divided by the respective number of PCUs.
The filled squares and open circles in Fig. \[sp\] show the spectrum of the source in the HS (HS1 and HS2, respectively), using data from the observations June 19 (when the source reached its maximum flux) and June 28, 2002 [Obs. No. 5 and 16 in @park04]. Open circles and open squares in the same figure show representative spectra of the source during the VHS and IS, respectively, using data from the observations performed in July 4 and 19, 2002 [Obs. No. 22 and 44 in @park04]. Finally, the open triangles show a representative LS spectrum, using data taken in August 1, 2002 [Obs. No. 19B in @kale05]. The spectral evolution with time is apparent in this figure. The HS spectra are characterized by a dominant thermal black body and a weak, steep power law component. The power-law flux increases during the VHS, and becomes the dominant component in the LS. As the total flux of the source decreases, the power-law slope becomes harder.
Although the spectral evolution of the source has been studied extensively in the past, we fitted the spectra using the same model components as in @park04 [@kale05], i.e. a [wabs]{} model, to take account of the interstellar absorption effects (with $N_H=4.1 \times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ that was kept fixed, @park04), a multicolor blackbody accretion disk model [@mits84; @maki86], a power-law model, a narrow Gaussian line (i.e. $\sigma$ fixed at 0.1 keV, smaller than the spectral resolution of RXTE) to account for the iron K$\alpha$ line emission, and a broad smeared absorption edge model ([smedge]{} in [XSPEC]{}, with the width fixed at 7 keV, like in @park04). The main reason to analyze the energy spectra is to reduce the spectral resolution of the [*Standard 2*]{} spectra to match that of our Fourier-resolved spectra (i.e. 16 bins, in the 2-15 keV band, compared to $\sim$ 50 of the [*Standard 2*]{} mode). This is a necessary step in order to be able to compare the results from the model fitting of the energy spectra with those from the model fitting of the Fourier-resolved spectra (presented in the following section).
The spectral analysis was performed using XSPEC version 11.3.1. We have added systematic errors of 1% to all channels and have restricted our analysis to the 2-15 keV band only (to match the energy band used in the case of the Fourier-resolve spectra). Our results are listed in Table \[enespec\]. The errors quoted for the best fit values correspond to the 90% confidence limit for one interesting parameter. In the case when the error is large enough and the best-fit parameter value is consistent with being zero, we simply note the best-fit value plus upper error, and we accept it as the upper 90% limit for the respective parameter.
Our results are entirely consistent with those reported by @park04 [@kale05] for the respective observations. In the case of the HS, VHS and IS spectra, our best-fit estimate of the equivalent width (EW) of the iron emission line is systematically smaller than that reported by @park04, the main reason being the use of a narrow Gaussian line model in our case (which fits well the reduced resolution spectra that we are using).
Note that in the case of the LS spectrum, the addition of a narrow Gaussian line at $\sim 6.4$ keV to the single power-law fit reduces the $\chi^{2}$ by 9.7 (for two additional parameters), which is significant at the 91% level.
Fourier resolved spectral analysis
==================================
The usefulness of the frequency-resolved spectra lies on the fact that they receive significant contribution only from the spectral components that are variable on the time scales sampled by the observations. Therefore by performing Fourier-resolved spectroscopy we can investigate whether the various spectral components in the overall spectrum of the source (i.e. disk black-body, power-law, iron line) are variable at each frequency range considered. In general, the interpretation of the Fourier resolved spectra is not unique and requires additional assumption about the cause of variability. However, for the case of the iron Fe K$\alpha$ line and the Compton reflection components which are thought to result from the reprocessing of higher energy ($E \ge 7$ keV) radiation and are filtered by the well understood light travel-time effects, the Fourier-resolved analysis can provide meaningful constraints on the geometry of reprocessing matter with respect to the source of the hard radiation.
In this section we present the results of our Fourier spectral fitting analysis for each spectral state and compare the resulting best-fit parameters to those of the previous section (i.e, those obtained from the average energy spectra). As before, [XSPEC]{} version 11.3.1 was used for the model fitting. Most spectral fits yielded residuals attributable to absorption from the Xenon L edge at 4.78 keV. In order to account for this instrumental feature, we included in all model fits a Gaussian line model with central peak at 4.5–5 keV and fixed width ($\sigma=0.1$). We have also added, in all cases, an absorption component ($N_H=4.1 \times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$). A uniform systematic error of 1% was added quadratically to the statistical error of all Fourier spectra in each energy channel. Errors quoted for the best-fit values correspond to the 90% confidence limit for one interesting parameter (or to 90% upper limits in the case when the errors are too large). We describe the results of our analysis for each of the source’s spectral states below.
The High/Soft State
-------------------
We first fitted the HS1 and HS2 Fourier spectra with a simple power-law model. We found that this model did not provide an acceptable fit to any of the Fourier spectra (note that, due to the low variability amplitude during the high state, we could not estimate a high frequency Fourier spectrum for the HS1 data). In both cases, the residuals reveal the presence of an emission and absorption feature at $\sim 6-7$ and $\sim 7-9$ keV, respectively. We then fitted the Fourier spectra with a model that consists of a power law, a Gaussian line and an edge (a simple [*edge*]{} model provided a better fit than the [*smedge*]{} that was used in the case of the energy spectrum). The energy and depth of the edge and the line energy were allowed to float as free parameters, but were forced to be identical in all three Fourier spectra. The line normalization was allowed to float in the three spectra.
The best-fit parameter values for this model in the case of the HS1/HS2 spectra are listed in Table \[simulfit\]. Since they are consistent within the errors, we combined the individual HS1 and HS2 Fourier spectra and estimated the overall HS Fourier spectra. A simple power law model does not fit the data well ($\chi^2$ of 517 for 37 dof). The left panel in Fig. \[hs\] shows the overall HS Fourier spectra, with the best-fit power-law model and the model residuals. The residuals clearly indicate the presence of a line emission and absorption edge features in the spectra. When these components are added to the model (see Fig. \[hs\], right panel) the fit improves considerably ($\chi^2=31$ for 24 dof). The best-fit parameter values for this model are also listed in Table \[simulfit\].
When the presence of the iron line is significant the equivalent width measured in the frequency-resolved spectra is larger than that found in the corresponding HS energy spectrum (listed in Table \[enespec\]). Similarly, the best-fit edge energy of $\sim 9$ keV (a value representative of material with a high degree of ionization) appears to be significantly higher than the estimate of $7.5-8$ keV, reported in Table \[enespec\].
As for the best-fit power-law slopes, we observe a significant hardening with increasing frequency. Compared to the overall spectral slope of $\sim
2.5$ that characterizes the power-law component in the high state [@park04], the low- and medium-frequency spectra are significantly steeper, while the high-frequency Fourier-spectrum slope is consistent with it.
The Very High State
-------------------
The left panel of Fig. \[vhs\] shows the best-fit power-law model to the VHS Fourier spectra. As with the HS spectra, it does not fit the data well ($\chi^2=210$ for 33 dof). Significant emission and absorption features appear at energies above $\sim 5-6$ keV. The right panel in Fig. \[vhs\] shows the three VHS frequency-resolved spectra with the best-fit “power-law+Gaussian+absorption edge” model, which does provide a significantly better fit to the data ($\chi^2=29$ for 24 dof). The best-fit parameter values are listed in Table \[simulfit\].
The iron line is clearly detected in the medium- and high-frequency spectra. Interestingly, the line energy is larger than the corresponding value in both the HS Fourier-spectra, and the VHS energy spectrum. The best-fit edge energy value is also larger than that in the VHS energy spectrum. In contrast, the edge optical depth in the VHS Fourier spectra appears to be smaller than in the VHS energy spectrum.
The power-law slope becomes harder as the frequency of the Fourier spectra increases. Compared to the overall power-law spectral slope, the low- and medium-frequency values are steeper by $\Delta\Gamma\sim 0.9-1$, while the high-frequency spectral slope is harder by $\Delta\Gamma\sim 0.2$.
The Intermediate and Low States
-------------------------------
The right and left panels in Fig. \[lhis\] show the best power-law model fits to the IS and LS Fourier spectra. In these cases, the model provides an acceptable fit ($\chi^2=30$ for 30 dof, and 32.6 for 24 dof, respectively). During the IS and LS observations the strength of the power law component increased, while its slope flattened reaching $\Gamma\sim 1.7$ during the LS period. Although the iron line and absorption edge are still present in the IS energy spectrum of the source, and the line may also be detectable in the energy spectrum during the LS (Table \[enespec\]), these features are no longer evident in the Fourier resolved spectra, in marked contrast with the Fourier resolved spectra of the HS and VHS described above.
Looking at the residuals in the left panel of Fig. \[lhis\], one can see the same structure as in the HS and VHS, namely, the characteristic “wiggle” in the 5-12 keV energy range (i.e., an excess of flux at about $6-8$ keV and a deficit at about 9 keV). For that reason we added a Gaussian line component in the IS model spectrum and we repeated the model fitting, keeping the line energy fixed to 6.4 keV. However, the quality of the fit did not improve significantly. We conclude that, if present, the strength of the iron line and the absorption edge must be significantly decreased, compared to that of the same features in the HS and VHS Fourier-spectra.
The spectral slope of the IS Fourier spectra is significantly steeper than the power-law slope in the respective Fourier spectra of the HS and VHS (by a factor of $\Delta \Gamma \sim 0.5-1$). The low- and medium-frequency IS Fourier spectra are steeper than the overall spectrum by $\Delta\Gamma\sim 1.5$. The high-frequency slope is flatter, but still steeper than the overall spectrum by $\Delta\Gamma\sim 0.6$. Finally, in the LS case, the flux of the source is too low to obtain a meaningful high-frequency (5–15 Hz) Fourier spectrum. The low- and medium-frequency spectra are slightly steeper than the overall energy spectrum ($\Delta\Gamma\sim 0.3-0.5$).
Discussion
==========
In the previous sections we discussed our analysis and results of the Fourier Resolved Spectroscopy of 4U 1543-73 during the entire evolution of its 2002 outburst. The main goal of our work is to enlarge the sample of objects analyzed in this specific way, in an attempt to uncover and establish systematics associated with their spectro-temporal properties, different from the usual ones provided by simply their power spectral density (PSD). We found that a single power-law component does not provide good fits to most of the Fourier-resolved spectra and that the signatures typical of X-ray radiation reprocessing (such as iron line and edge) were required in order to obtain acceptable fits. In addition, no disk component was found in the Fourier-resolved spectra whose hardening with increasing frequency appears to be a general characteristic in all states. In this section we discuss the implications of these results and investigate the temporal properties of the model components that are generally used in black-hole spectral analysis.
The disk component
------------------
One of the most striking results of our analysis is the absence of variability in the multicolor blackbody disk component that provides the dominant flux in the observed HS and VHS spectra. The absence of variability in this component is manifest by the fact that the Fourier-resolved spectra are well fitted by a power law component only (plus an iron line and edge) when the system is in the HS and VHS. The fact that the contribution of the disk multicolor blackbody component is negligible in all Fourier-resolved spectra suggests that the disk is not variable on time scales shorter than $\sim$ 100 s. Even in the HS, when the disk is believed to extend down to the last stable orbit (and the variability time scales could indeed be short), the disk component is not required in the Fourier-resolved spectra at any of the frequency bands we examined.
This absence of variability is consistent with the magnitude of the viscous time scale of a disk with temperature $\simeq 1$ keV, estimated to be $$\begin{aligned}
\tau_{\rm vis} & \simeq & \frac{R_S}{c} x^{5/2} \frac{m_pc^2}{kT} \alpha^{-1} \\
&\simeq & 1.5 \times 10^3 \left(\frac{M}{10 M_{\odot}}\right)
\left(\frac{T}{1\; {\rm keV}}\right)^{-1} \alpha^{-1} \, {\rm sec}\end{aligned}$$
where $x \simeq 3$ is the disk inner edge radius in units of the Schwarzschild radius ($R_S$) and $m_p$ is the proton mass. We conclude therefore that although the disk blackbody flux changes from day to day [see Fig. 2 in @park04], the disk is stable on much shorter time scales (i.e. less than 100 sec). A similar result was also reported in the case of Cyg X–1 [@gilf00], who found that the Fourier-resolved spectra of Cyg X–1 too are well fitted by a simple power-law component at all frequency bins, with no indication for a multi-color disk component, both when the system is in the High and Low States. The absence of rapid variability of the disk component, a result already noted by @miya94, appears to be a general trend in this class of objects.
This lack of disk variability puts constraints on models that attempt to attribute the observed PSDs as due to modulation of the accretion rate onto the compact object alone. At a minimum one would expect some variability of this component due to the reprocessing of the variable X-ray component on the disk and its re-emission as disk radiation. However, since the variable power law component represents only a small fraction of the disk luminosity, such variations, while presumably present, are hard to discern because of their small amplitude. For the same reason, we also believe that, at least in HS1, variations intrinsic to the disk, necessary for the dissipation of its kinetic energy, are too small to cause significant variations in its flux over the sampled time scales.
The iron line and edge
----------------------
The results presented in §2.1 indicate the presence of a fluorescent K$\alpha$ iron line at $\sim$ 6.4 keV and an edge at $\sim 7-7.5$ keV in the HS, VHS and IS energy spectra, in agreement with the results of @park04. These features constitute the main signatures for reflection in cold material of the primary source of X-rays. Our results presented in §3 exhibit the presence of similar features in the Fourier spectra for all frequencies (even the highest), when the source is in the HS and VHS (the fact that the line is not clearly detected in the low-frequency Fourier spectrum is almost certainly due to the fact that this spectrum has the lowest signal-to-noise among the three Fourier spectra). The Fourier-resolved spectra in the IS and LS are well fitted by a single power law model only. This implies that either the reflection features are absent or, if present, their strength must be significantly reduced when the system is in these states.
In the case of a conventional (i.e. non-Fourier resolved) energy spectrum, the equivalent width of the iron line (assuming that the reprocessing matter is neutral) is proportional to the ratio of the reflection component amplitude to that of primary radiation. However, the equivalent width of the iron line determined from a Fourier frequency resolved spectrum corresponds to the ratio of the rms variability amplitude of the reflected component to that of the primary emission variations in a given Fourier frequency range $\Delta \nu$, i.e., to the solid angle of the X-ray source subtended by reprocessing surface up to a length scale $L \simless c/ \Delta \nu$.
Our results show that the equivalent width of the line is $\sim 250-450$ eV at all frequency bins when the system is in the HS and VHS. This suggests that the reflected emission is fully responding to the primary radiation variations up to frequencies $\sim 15$ Hz, or to to time scales of $\simeq 70$ ms. On the other hand, our results also show that, when the system is in the IS and LS, the reflected component does not follow the primary emission variations on time scales shorter than 2 s (and perhaps even longer).
@gilf00 reported similar results for Cyg X–1, when the source was in its HS and LS. They suggested that the most straightforward explanation of their results (and hence of ours as well) is in terms of a finite light-crossing time to the distance of the reflector. The equivalent width of the line in the Fourier-resolved spectra should remain roughly constant up to a frequency which corresponds to the inverse of the light travel time between the hard X-ray emitting corona and the inner radius of the disk that can reprocess the X-ray radiation into Fe K$\alpha$. Using Fig. 6 in @gilf00, and the fact that the line equivalent width remains roughly constant up to frequencies $\sim 15$ Hz when the system is in the HS and VHS, we conclude that the innermost radius of the reflective material could be as low as $\sim 10 R_{g}$ for a 10 M$_{\odot}$ black hole. The decrease of the line equivalent width in the IS and LS is consistent with the assumption that the accretion disk does not extend to small radii any longer.
In addition to the light travel time effect on the response of the iron line, the latter can be also influenced by the ionization sate of the reprocessing medium. As the latter increases, the energy of the iron line and associated edge increases [@geor91 and references therein]. The larger values of the line energy in the VHS Fourier-spectra, $\sim 6.8$ keV, with respect to the VHS energy spectrum and the HS Fourier-spectra ($\sim 6.4$ keV in both cases) could then imply a higher degree of ionization in the innermost parts of the disk when the system is in the VHS. This is perhaps expected, since the power law component, which presumably illuminates the disk, has a larger luminosity during the VHS. Eventually, for sufficiently large values of the X-ray flux (more correctly of the ionization parameter) the reprocessing medium becomes highly ionized, resulting in suppression of both the Fe K$\alpha$ line and the Compton reflection features [@naya00].
The QPO
-------
During the time interval MJD 52456–52461 [@park04] reported the detection of a QPO. The central frequency of the QPO varied in the range 7–10 Hz and the Q (coherence) parameter in 5-9 (i.e, a FWHM of $\simless$ 2 Hz). However, when obtaining the average over the entire period when the QPO is present, the QPO extends over a wider frequency interval. In fact, we chose the high-frequency interval, namely 5–15 Hz, so as to cover all the frequency range of the QPO that appeared when the system was in the VHS. Therefore, the High-Frequency Fourier-resolved spectrum when the system is in the VHS should be representative of the energy spectrum of the variability components that “produce" the QPO in the system. The fact that no disk component is statistically required to fit this spectrum, implies that the QPO is not associated with the disk emission.
This result is in accordance with the behavior seen in most black hole systems [see e.g. @swan01; @mcli04; @klis05], namely that the QPO usually appears when the flux is dominated by the hard power-law component (there are no detected QPOs in the HS). The association between the QPO and the hard power-law is substantiated by the fact that the QPO amplitude increases with photon energy, when energy bands beyond the characteristic energy range of a multicolor blackbody with $kT\sim 1$ keV are considered [@bell97; @morg97]. @muno99 found that when the QPO is present, the power-law flux is much more variable than the disk flux. Only when the QPO is absent, the blackbody component is much more variable than the power law. In the case of u, @kale05 show that the QPO frequency does depend on the power law slope, and decreases with decreasing $\Gamma$, a correlation found to be generally present in accretion powered sources [@titfior04].
The power-law component
-----------------------
A common effect seen in all three spectral states is the hardening of the power-law component with increasing frequency. That is, the X-ray emission associated with the variability of the shortest time scales is harder than that associated with the variability at longer time scales. Such a behavior is at first glance inconsistent with a model that attributes all variations to modulation of the accretion rate in a fashion that reproduces the observed PSDs. We do not see any obvious reason for such a behavior in the context of this type of model. This type of behavior is consistent with that observed by @revn99 and [@gilf00] in Cygnus X-1 in its low-hard state. However, as pointed out in the latter work, the variable power law component of this source in its soft state is independent of the Fourier frequency, a fact not in complete agreement with the results of the present work.
A closer look at the results listed in Table 2 shows that at all states (except HS1) the high-frequency (HF) spectra are the hardest, while the power-law index of the low-frequency (LF) spectra is similar to that of the medium-frequency (MF) spectra, that is, $\Gamma_{\rm LF}\sim \Gamma_{\rm
MF}$, while $\Gamma_{\rm {LF,MF}} > \Gamma_{\rm HF}$. In other words, we observe a rather large $\Delta \Gamma$ jump at frequencies higher than 5 Hz. This is the frequency at which the QPO appears. Furthermore, the 2-30 keV power spectrum during the HS and LS show a slope change at $\sim 5$ Hz - see upper left and bottom right plots in Fig.8 of @park04. This feature is probably related to the dynamics of accretion, whose significance we are not able to assess at this point. However, it appears that the frequency range where the QPO lies presents a characteristic scale for this system that provides a demarcation of its spectral and timing properties.
Finally, we also observe that $\Gamma_{\rm LS}<\Gamma_{\rm{HS,VHS}}$ in the low and medium frequency bins. This correlation is generally observed among the different spectral states of accreting black holes, and is attributed to cooling of the corona temperature with the increased soft photon flux associated with the HS and VHS.
Conclusions
===========
u is the third (besides Cygnus X-1 and GX 339-4, @revn01) source amongst Galactic Black-Hole binaries for which Fourier resolved spectra have been calculated. The results from the energy spectral analysis of the three sources reveal several common characteristics, most importantly different spectral states characterized by soft and hard components, the former at higher luminosity than the latter.
Their Fourier resolved spectra at the corresponding spectral states exhibit also similarities: a) in the low/hard state the Fourier spectra tend to be harder with increasing Fourier frequency, while the Fe K$\alpha$ line is more prominent at lower Fourier frequencies. This result has been attributed to the size of the accretion disk inner radius, which may be set at distances $R \simeq 100 R_S$ when the systems are in their LS. While this explanation can account for the absence of Fe line at high frequencies, it cannot account for the large value of the Fe line EW (in the case of Cyg X-1 for example) if the size of the X-ray emitting region is $\sim 10R_S$, as it is usually assumed. b) In the soft spectral states, the Fe line is present independent of the Fourier frequency. In the case of u, we also observe a general hardening of the spectra with Fourier frequency in these states (different to Cyg X-1). c) A common characteristic of all Fourier resolved spectra (in all states) is the absence of the multicolor disk component in the Fourier resolved spectra, indicating that this component, while present, is not variable on time scales as short as a few hundred seconds. This results is in agreement with the viscous time scales of such disks.
In the case of u, we also find evidence of an increased ionization state of the reflector when the system is in the VHS, while the absence of the disk component even in the QPO frequency range during the VHS, implies that the QPO emission is not associated with the disk emission.
The FRS technique provides a novel look at the structure of accretion powered sources. The general trends observed in the to-date analyses suggest common underlying systematics which are not fully yet understood. We believe that further analysis and modeling along the same lines for other sources is highly warranted.
Part of this work was supported by the General Secretariat of Research and Technology of Greece.
Belloni, T., van der Klis, M., Lewin, W. H. G., et al. 1997, A&A, 322, 857
Cherepashchuk A.M. 2000, SSRv, 93, 473
Chevalier, C. & Ilovaisky, S. A 1992, IAUC, 5520
George, I.M. & Fabian, A.C. 1991, MNRAS, 249, 352
Gilfanov, M., Churazov, E. & Revnivtsev, M. 2000, MNRAS, 316, 923
Harmon, B. A., Wilson, R. B., Finger, M. H., Paciesas, W. S., Rubin, B. C., & Fishman, G. J. 1992, IAUC, 5504, 1
Homan, J, Wijnands, R., van der Klis et al. 2001, ApJSS, 132, 377
Kalemci, E., Tomsick, J. A., Buxton, M. M., Rothschild, R. E., Pottschmidt, K., Corbel, S., Brocksopp, C., & Kaaret, P. 2005, APJ, 622, 508
Kitamoto, S., Miyamoto, S., Tsunemi, H., Makishima, K., & Nakagawa, M. 1984, PASJ, 36, 799
La Palombara, N. & Mereghetti, S. 2005, A&A, 430, L53
Makishima, K, Maejima, Y., Mitsuda, K., brandt, H.V., Remillard, R.A., Tuohy, I.R., Hoshi, R., & Nakagawa, M. 1986, ApJ, 308, 635
Matilsky, T. A., Giacconi, R., Gursky, H., Kellogg, E. M., & Tananbaum, H. D. 1972, ApJ, 174, L53
McClintock, J.E. & Remillard, R. A, 2004, in [*Compact stellar X-ray sources*]{}, ed. W.H.G. Lewin, & M. van der Klis, Cambridge University Press.
Mitsuda, K.,Inoue, H., Koyama, K. et al. 1984, PASJ, 36, 741
Miyamoto, S., Kitamoto, S., Iga, S., Hayashida, K., & Terada, K. 1994, ApJ, 435, 398
Morgan, E.H., Remillard, R.A., & Greiner, J. 1997, ApJ,482, 993
Muno, M.P., Morgan, E.H., & Remillard, R.A. 1999, ApJ, 527, 321
Nayakshin, S., Kazanas, D. & Kallman, T. R. 2000, ApJ, 537, 833
Orosz, J. A., Jain, R. K., Bailyn, C. D., McClintock, J. E., & Remillard, R. A. 1998, ApJ, 499, 375
Park, S.Q., Miller, J.M., McClintock, R.A., et al. 2004, ApJ, 610, 378
Pedersen, H. 1983, Messenger, 34, 21
Papadakis, I. E., Kazanas, D., & Akylas, A. 2005, ApJ, 631, 727
Revnivtsev, M., Gilfanov, M., & Churazov, E. 1999, A&A, 347, L23
Revnivtsev, M., Gilfanov, M., & Churazov, E. 2001, A&A, 380, 502
Swank, J. 2001, ApSSS, 276, 201
Tanaka, Y., & Shibazaki, N. 1996, ARA&A, 34, 607
Titarchuk, L. G. & Fiorito, R. 2004, ApJ, 612, 988
van der Klis, M. 2005, in Compact Stellar X-ray sources, eds. W.H.G. Lewin, M. van der Klis,CUP, astro-ph/0410551
van der Woerd, H., White, N. E., & Kahn, S. M. 1989, ApJ, 344, 320
[lccccc]{} $T_{\rm col}$ (keV) &$0.99\pm 0.01$ & $0.88\pm0.02$ &$0.87^{+0.02}_{-0.05}$ &$0.6\pm 0.1$ &$0.35^b$\
$\Gamma$ &$3.6\pm 0.2$ &$2.6^{+0.2}_{-0.1}$ &$2.7\pm0.2$ &$2.5\pm 0.1$ &$1.73^{+0.04}_{-0.03}$\
E$_{\rm Fe}$ (keV) &$6.2\pm 0.2$ &$6.4\pm 0.2$ &$6.3^{+0.2}_{-0.3}$ &$6.5^{+0.1}_{-0.2}$ & $6.3^{+0.2}_{-0.4}$\
E$_{\rm edge}$ (keV) &$7.5\pm 0.1$ &$7.8^{+0.7}_{-0.5}$ &$7.5^{+0.6}_{-0.5}$ &$7.1^{+0.3}_{-0.0}$ & –\
$\tau$ &$1.4^{+0.1}_{-0.2}$ &$0.8\pm 0.4$ &$1.3^{+0.9}_{-0.2}$ & $1.9^{+0.5}_{-1.2}$ & –\
EW(Fe) (eV) &$92\pm 8$ &$91^{+8}_{-11}$ &$90^{+22}_{-17}$ &$210^{+195}_{-120}$ & $<260$\
$\chi^2_{\rm red}$/dof/prob &1.5/6/0.16 &0.69/6/0.66 &1.3/6/0.75 & 2.4/6/0.025 &1.5/9/0.14\
[lcccccc]{}\
$\Gamma$ &3.8$^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$ &3.2$^{+0.3}_{-0.4}$ &3.6$^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$ &3.6$^{+0.1}_{-0.2}$ &4.0$^{+1.2}_{-0.9}$ &2.2$^{+0.3}_{-0.2}$\
E$_{\rm Fe}$ (keV) &6.8$^{+ 0.4}_{-0.6}$ &6.4$^{+0.4}_{-0.2}$ &6.4$^{+0.3}_{-0.2}$ &6.8$^{+0.1}_{-0.2}$ & – & –\
norm ($\times 10^{-4}$) &4$^{+3}_{-3}$ &$<4.7$ &$<3.5$ &$<7.3$ & – & –\
E$_{\rm edge}$ (keV) &9.2$^{+0.3}_{-0.4}$ &9.0$^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$ &9.0$^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$ &9.1$^{+0.5}_{-0.3}$ & – & –\
$\tau$ &0.8$^{+0.5}_{-0.5}$ &$<1.4$ &1.1$^{+0.5}_{-0.5}$ &0.6$^{+0.4}_{-0.2}$ & – & –\
EW(Fe) (eV) &$<1000$ &$<1350$ &$<575$ &$<900$ & – & –\
\
$\Gamma$ &3.1$^{+0.3}_{-0.2}$ &2.8$^{+0.1}_{-0.1}$ &3.0$^{+0.1}_{-0.1}$ &3.7$^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$ &4.2$^{+0.1}_{-0.1}$ &2.0$^{+0.2}_{-0.1}$\
E$_{\rm Fe}$ (keV) &6.8$^b$ &6.4$^b$ &6.4$^b$ &6.8$^b$ &– &–\
norm ($\times 10^{-4}$) &9$^{+7}_{-8}$ &13$^{+5}_{-5}$ &19$^{+6}_{-5}$ &9$^{+6}_{-6}$ &– &–\
E$_{\rm edge}$ (keV) &9.2$^b$ &9.0$^b$ &9.0$^b$ &9.1$^b$ &– &–\
$\tau$ &1.0$^{+0.7}_{-0.6}$ &1.1$^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$ &1.4$^{+0.3}_{-0.3}$ &$<0.56$ &– &–\
EW(Fe) (eV) &$<1000$ &450$^{+175}_{-175}$ &435$^{+205}_{-175}$ &270$^{+190}_{-165}$ &– &–\
\
$\Gamma$ &– &2.4$^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$ &2.5$^{+0.5}_{-0.7}$ &2.5$^{+0.1}_{-0.1}$ &3.1$^{+0.1}_{-0.1}$ &–\
E$_{\rm Fe}$ (keV) &– &6.4$^b$ &6.4$^b$ &6.8$^b$ &– &–\
norm ($\times 10^{-4}$) &– &10$^{+8}_{-7}$ &$<25$ &20$^{+5}_{-5}$ &– &–\
E$_{\rm edge}$ (keV) &– &9.0$^b$ &9.0$^b$ &9.1$^b$ &– &–\
$\tau$ &– &1.0$^{+0.4}_{-0.4}$ &1.0$^{+0.4}_{-0.4}$ &0.3$^{+0.1}_{-0.2}$ &– &–\
EW(Fe) (eV) &– &600$^{+690}_{-390}$ &– &390$^{+160}_{-150}$ &– &–\
$\chi^2_{\rm red}$/dof/prob &0.54/17/0.93 &1.30/24/0.15 &1.22/25/0.21 & 1.21/24/0.22 & 1.01/30/0.45 &1.36/24/0.11\
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
[^1]: http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/software/lheasoft/
|
---
abstract: 'We report here a study of the long term properties of Quasi Periodic Oscillations (QPO) in an unusual accreting X-ray pulsar, 4U 1626–67. This is a unique accretion powered X-ray pulsar in which we have found the QPOs to be present during all sufficiently long X-ray observations with a wide range of X-ray observatories. In the present spin-down era of this source, the QPO central frequency is found to be decreasing. In the earlier spin-up era of this source, there are only two reports of QPO detections, in 1983 with EXOSAT and 1988 with GINGA with an increasing trend. The QPO frequency evolution in 4U 1626–67 during the last 22 years changed from a positive to a negative trend, somewhat coincident with the torque reversal in this source. In the accretion powered X-ray pulsars, the QPO frequency is directly related to the inner radius of the accretion disk, as per Keplerian Frequency Model (KFM) and Beat Frequency Model (BFM). A gradual depletion of accretion disk is reported earlier from the X-ray spectral, flux and pulse profile measurements. The present QPO frequency evolution study shows that X-ray flux and mass accretion rate may not change by the same factor, hence the simple KFM and BFM are not able to explain the QPO evolution in this source. This is the only X-ray pulsar to show persistent QPOs and is also the first accreting X-ray pulsar in which the QPO history is reported for a long time scale relating it with the long term evolution of the accretion disk.'
author:
- 'Ramanpreet Kaur, Biswajit Paul, Brijesh Kumar, Ram Sagar'
title: 'A study of the long term evolution of quasi periodic oscillations in the accretion powered X-ray pulsar 4U 1626–67'
---
\[firstpage\]
Introduction
============
The X-ray source 4U 1626–67 was discovered with the Uhuru satellite (Giacconi et al. 1972) in 2-6 keV band. Pulsations, with a period of 7.68 s were first discovered by Rappaport et al. (1977) with SAS-3 observations and has been extensively monitored since then, especially with the BATSE detectors onboard CGRO (Chakrabarty et al 1997; Bildsten et al 1997). Optical counterpart of the pulsar was identified as KZ TrA, a faint blue star (V $\approx$ 18.5) with little or no reddening (McClintock et al. 1977; Bradt and McClintock 1983). Optical pulsations with 2% amplitude were detected at the same frequency as the X-ray pulsations (Ilovaisky, Motch, & Chevalier 1978) and are understood to be due to reprocessing of the pulsed X-ray flux by the accretion disk (Chester 1979). A faint optical counterpart and the observed optical pulsed fraction requires the companion star to be of very small mass (McClintock et al. 1977, 1980). The X-ray light curve does not show any orbital modulation or eclipse. However, from the reprocessed pulsed optical emission and a close sideband in the power-spectrum of optical light curve, an orbital period of 42 minutes was inferred (Middleditch et al. 1981). Therefore, it falls under the category of ultra compact binaries (P$_{orb}$ $<$ 80 minutes), which have hydrogen-depleted secondaries to reach such short periods (Paczynski & Sienkiewicz 1981; Nelson et al. 1986).
Despite extensive searches, the orbital motion of this binary has never been detected in the X-ray pulse timing studies (Rappaport et al, 1977; Levine et al. 1988; Jain et al. 2007). A very low mass secondary, in a nearly face on orbit can possibly account for the lack of pulse arrival time delay. Recently Jain et al (2007) have also proposed this source to be a candidate for a neutron star with a supernova fall back accretion disk. From the extensive timing and spectral observations both in optical and X-ray bands, it has not yet been possible to establish the presence of a binary companion, and the upper limit of the companion mass has been determined to be very low. However, the presence of an accretion disk in 4U 1626–67 is beyond any doubt. Optical spectral and timing studies confirm that most of the optical emission is strongly dominated by the accretion disk (Grindlay 1978; McClintock et al. 1980). The X-ray spectrum also shows bright hydrogen-like and helium-like oxygen and neon emission lines with red and blue shifted components, a certain sign for accretion disk origin (Schulz et al. 2001, Krauss et al. 2007). Another direct evidence of an accretion disk in 4U 1626–67 is found from the detection of quasi-periodic oscillations, at a frequency of 40 mHz, from Ginga observations (Shinoda et al. 1990) and subsequently at a higher frequency of about 48 mHz from Beppo-SAX, ASCA, RXTE and XMM-Newton (Owens et al. 1997; Angelini et al. 1995; Kommers et al. 1998, Krauss et al. 2007). The QPOs have also been detected in reprocessed optical emission from both ground based and HST observations (Chakrabarty et al. 1998, 2001).
For more than a decade since its discovery, 4U 1626–67 was found to be spinning up with a characteristic timescale P/P $\approx$ 5000 yr. It was found to be spinning down at about the same rate by BATSE onboard CGRO in the beginning of 1991 (Chakrabarty et al. 1997). Even though the torque reversal was abrupt, the decrease in bolometric X-ray flux has been gradual and continuous over the past $\approx$ 30 yr (Chakrabarty et al. 1997, Krauss et al 2007). Recently, from a set of Chandra monitoring observations Krauss et al (2007) have established that the bolometric X-ray flux and various emission line fluxes have decreased continuously over the last few years, indicating a gradual depletion of the accretion disk. The X-ray flux and mass accretion rate are directly related and these are likely to be related to the mass and extent of the material in the accretion disk. Therefore, the observed gradual decrease in X-ray flux indicates a depletion of material in the accretion disk of the pulsar. Another signature of this is seen by Krauss et al. (2007) as a change in the pulse profile of the pulsar as compared to the earlier observations.
In the present work, we have investigated the QPO frequency evolution of 4U 1626–67 over a long period and discuss the relation of the change in QPO frequency with the a possible recession of the inner accretion disk.
Observations and Analysis
=========================
4U 1626–67 has been observed with various X-ray telescopes over different epochs of time. Table 1 lists the log of observations of 4U 1626–67 that were found to be useful for the present study. Details of individual observations described below are in chronological order. Detection of QPOs at around 48 mHz have been mentioned from some of these observations, sometimes from a different instrument also (Ginga - Shinoda et al. 1990; ASCA - Angelini et al. 1995; Beppo-SAX - Owens et al. 1997, RXTE - Kommers et al. 1998, Chakrabarty 1998; XMM-Newton - Krauss et al. 2007). However, the QPO frequencies measured from these observations are often not reported with good enough accuracy to investigate a slow frequency evolution. For the present study, we have therefore reanalysed the data and measured the QPO parameters with the highest possible accuracy.\
EXOSAT Medium Energy (ME) proportional counter lightcurve of 4U 1626–67 was obtained from HEASARC archive with the time resolution of 0.3125 s for an observations made on August 30, 1983 for 27 ks. ME lightcurve of another observations made by EXOSAT on March 30, 1986 for $\approx$ 84 ks that was reported earlier by Levine et al. (1988) is not available in the HEASARC Archive.\
ASCA observations of 4U 1626–67 were made on August 11, 1993 with the two Gas Imaging Spectrometers (GIS2 and GIS3) and the two Solid-state Imaging Spectrometers (SIS0 and SIS1) and light curves with total useful exposures of 40 ks and 25 ks were obtained for the GIS and SIS respectively. During the ASCA observation, the GIS detectors were operated in Pulse Height mode and SIS detectors were operated in Fast mode and the lightcurves were extracted from the unscreened high bit mode data with the minimum time resolution of 0.125 s for both GIS and SIS detectors. The light curves from the pairs of GIS and SIS instruments were added and a single power spectra is generated with the summed lightcurves.\
4U 1626–67 was observed with BeppoSAX on August 09, 1996 for 116 ks by the three units of Medium Energy Concentrator Spectrometer (MECS) and for 35 ks by the Low Energy Concentrator Spectrometer (LECS). Lightcurves were extracted from all the instruments with 0.125 s. Single summed lightcurve was generated from three lightcurves of the MECS instruments to increase the signal-to-noise ratio.\
RXTE-PCA pointed observations of the source were made from February 1996 to August 1998. In 1996, the observations were made in the beginning of the year and at the end of the year under obs ID P10101 and P10144 respectively. The observations made under obs IDs P10101 covers time span of almost 5 days from MJD 50123 to 50128. There were nine observations in this obs ID each lasting for 4-8 hrs. A single observation was made under obs ID P10144 for $\approx$ 5 hrs on MJD 50445. In 1997, all the observations were made under obs ID P20146 covers a time range of almost a year from MJD 50412 to MJD 50795 but individual observations were made only for a few minutes. In 1998, RXTE-PCA made observations under two obs ID P30058 and P30060. There were three observations made under obs ID P30058, out of which two observations were made on MJD 50926 and the third observation was made on MJD 51032. In obs ID P30060, there were 10 short observations each for about an hour. For almost all the observations of RXTE, all five PCUs were on. Lightcurves were extracted from observations of 4U 1626–67 with a time resolution of 0.125 s using the Standard-1 data that covers the entire 2-60 keV energy range of the PCA detectors. We divided the whole RXTE-PCA observations from 1996 to 1998 into three segments from MJD 50123 to 50128, 50412 to 50795 and 50926 to 51032. The signal-to-noise ratio of the power spectra generated from the individual observations made between MJD 50412 to 50795 was poor to detect QPO except on MJD 50445, thus a single power spectrum was produced by combining powerspectra of all observations made between MJD 50412 to 50795.\
XMM-Newton has observed 4U 1626–67 four times, but significant amount of science data was present only in two of these observations, made under obs IDs 0111070201 and 0152620101, listed in Table 1. We have analysed data only from PN detector of European Photon Imaging Camera (EPIC) onboard XMM-Newton. PN operates in the energy band of 0.15-15 keV. Lightcurves were extracted with a time resolution of 0.125 s for both the observations.\
All the lightcurves were divided into small segments each of length 1024 s and a power density spectrum of each segment was generated. The power spectra were normalized such that their integral gives the standard rms fractional variability and the expected white noise was subtracted. Final power spectra was generated with the average of all the power spectra generated for each of the observations listed in Table 1. Flares with duration of 1000 s are clearly seen in the EXOSAT data as mentioned by Levine et al. (1988). However these flares are not detected in rest of the data mentioned in Table 1. QPO at a frequency of $\sim$ 48 mHz is clearly seen in the power spectra of all the data sets except from EXOSAT observations during which it is detected at $\sim$ 36 mHz. Figure 1 shows the QPO detection from the EXOSAT observations made on August 30, 1983 in the range of 15 mHz to 100 mHz. A Gaussian model is fitted to the QPO feature to determine its central frequency and width (FWHM of Gaussian) for all the datasets. The continuum of the power spectrum in the band of 20 mHz to 80 mHz is fitted with a constant or a linear model. The uncertainty of the Gaussian model peak at 1 $\sigma$ confidence interval is quoted as an error on the Gaussian centre.
The QPO feature detected in the power spectrum of EXOSAT data is quite narrow $\sim$ 2 mHz as compared to the QPOs seen in rest of the data with a width of $\sim$ 4 to 5 mHz. Figure 2 shows powerspectra in the frequency range 26 mHz to 72 mHz for the observations listed in Table 1 except the EXOSAT observations. Different constant numbers were added to each plot for clarity. A best-fitted Gaussian model for the QPOs and a constant model or a linear model for the continuum is shown on each plot with a solid line. A dotted vertical line at the best fitted Gaussian center to the ASCA 1993 data is plotted in the same figure. A shift of $\sim$ 2 mHz is clearly seen from bottom to the top plot shown in Figure 2.
The evolution of the QPO central frequency as observed by various X-ray telescopes in both spin-up and spin down era is shown in Figure 3. An error bar plotted on each point in Fig 3 represents 1$\sigma$ error estimates. We couldn’t find GINGA observations of 4U 1626–67 made in July, 1988 from archive data, thus the central frequency of QPOs and error estimate on it is taken from Shinoda et al. 1990 and is also shown in Fig 3. To confirm the consistency of QPO frequency for each data set listed in Table 1, the QPO frequencies were measured from smaller segments of the data, 10 each for the 1996 RXTE observation and the 2004 XMM observation. The values determined from smaller segments have larger uncertainties but within uncertainties, these values are consistent with the QPO frequency measured using the complete data sets in each case. It can be clearly seen in Figure 3 that the QPO central frequency has increased from 1983 to 1993 and after that it gradually decreased from 1993 to 2004. However the lack of observations doesn’t allow us to define an exact time when the QPO frequency evolution changed from an increasing trend to a decreasing trend. The observations from 1993 to 2004 showed frequency decrease of $\sim$ 2.3 mHz while the error bars on all the data points during this era are within 0.4 mHz except the ASCA 1993 data point for which the error bar is 0.6 mHz, confirms the real decrease in QPO frequency with time. The QPO frequency derivative during spin-down era is $\sim$ (0.2 $\pm$ 0.05) mHz/yr. A linear fit is shown on the data points with a solid line in the spin-down era in Figure 3. The reduced $\chi^2$ of the linear fit is 1.07 for 5 degrees of freedom. To further confirm the linearity, a constant model is also fitted to the data from 1993 to 2004. The reduced $\chi^2$ for a constant model is 3.22 for 6 degrees of freedom, indicates poor fit as compared to the linear fit.
Discussion
==========
In high magnetic field X-ray pulsars, the QPO frequency is in the range of a few mHz to a few Hz (Kaur et al. 2007). The QPOs are known to occur sporadically, only in a few percent of the X-ray observations. For example, QPOs are detected in only 15% of the out-of-eclipse observations of Cen X-3 (Raichur et al. 2007). Our independent investigation of the RXTE-PCA lightcurves of several persistent sources show that the QPOs are quite rare. Exception to this are some of the transient sources, like 3A 0535+262 (Finger et al. 1996), and XTE J1858+034 (Paul & Rao 1998) which showed QPOs during most of the observations made during their outbursts. In the present study, using lightcurves of 4U 1626–67 taken with various observatories over a period of more than 20 years we have detected QPOs in every single observation of sufficient length. This is the first accretion powered pulsar for which the QPO study has been made over a long time scale. In this regard, 4U 1626–67 is unique among persistent high magnetic field accreting X-ray pulsars. It shows that the accretion disk of the pulsar is quite stable to hold this feature for years. However, in a few cases, the observation duration was not long enough to make accurate measurement of the QPO parameters.
QPOs in accretion powered X-ray sources are widely believed to arise due to inhomogeneities near the inner accretion disk. The QPO frequency is the Keplerian frequency at the inner disk radius and is therefore positively related to the mass accretion rate or the X-ray luminosity. If the compact object is a neutron star, the inner disk is coupled with the central object through the magnetic field lines and QPOs corresponding to the beat frequency between the spin frequency and the Keplerian frequency of the inner disk can also be seen. In accretion powered high magnetic field X-ray pulsars, the two different QPOs are never seen to occur in the same source. In some of the sources, like 4U 1626–67, the QPO frequency is lower than the spin frequency and therefore the QPOs can only be explained by the BFM.
According to both KFM and BFM, the radius of the QPO production area, r$_{qpo}$, is defined as $$r_{qpo} = \left(\frac{GM_{NS}}{4\pi^2\nu_k^2}\right)^{1/3}$$ where G is the Gravitational constant, M$_{NS}$ is the mass of the neutron star and $\nu_k$ is the keplerian frequency of the inner accretion disk.
The radius of the inner accretion disk, r$_M$ can be defined as $$r_M = 3 \times 10^8 L_{37}^{-2/7}\mu_{30}^{4/7}$$ where L$_{37}$ is the X-ray luminosity in units of 10$^{37}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ and $\mu_{30}$ is magnetic moment in units of 10$^{30}$ cm$^3$Gauss. If the QPOs are as per Keplerian frequency model ($\nu_k$ = $\nu_{qpo}$, where $\nu_{qpo}$ is QPO frequency of the pulsar), then we expect $\nu_k$ $\propto$ $L_{37}^{3/7}$ or $\nu_{qpo}$ $\propto$ $L_{37}^{3/7}$. The flux of 4U 1626–67 has decreased from 0.32 to 0.15 units from 1993 to 2004 (Krauss et al. 2007), implies that the change in QPO frequency is expected to be $\sim$ 27% from 1993 to 2004. The present QPO observations have shown only 4 % decrease in QPO frequency during the same time. However, Keplerian frequency model is not valid in this source. In the BFM ($\nu_k$ = $\nu_{qpo}$ + $\nu_s$, where $\nu_s$ is pulsar spin frequency), the inner disk frequency is higher as compared to KFM, and the relative change in QPO frequency is expected to be even larger. Therefore, we see that the evolution of QPO frequency and the decrease of X-ray flux cannot be explained in the standard QPO generation mechanism and usual relation between inner disk and X-ray luminosity. We can consider two possibilities : One is that the QPOs are not generated from the inner disk, these are generated due to reprocessing in some outer structure of the disk. This is not very likely due to the large (upto 15%) rms in the QPO feature. Second possibility is that the observed X-ray flux change is not due to change of mass accretion rate by the same factor. Many X-ray sources show X-ray flux variation at long time scale upto a few months due to obstruction provided by complex accretion disk mechanism.
The earlier study by Chakrabarty et al. (1997) has concluded that there was an abrupt torque reversal in 1990 and the system moved from spin-up to spin-down era with a characteristic time scale P/P of $\sim$ 5000 yr. The two QPO detections with EXOSAT (35 mHz in 1983) and GINGA (40 mHz in 1988) are during the spin-up era of this pulsar, with increasing trend while the observations from 1993 to 2004, in the spin-down era, showed a slow decreasing trend in QPO frequency with time, somewhat coincident with the torque reversal in this source, shown in Fig 3. QPO frequency is found to be decreasing in the spin-down era with a frequency derivative of $\sim$ (0.2 $\pm$ 0.05) mHz/yr. The X-ray spectral and flux evolution study along with pulse profile changes of 4U 1626–67 by Krauss et al (2007) have concluded that the accretion disk in this source is depleting with a time scale of 30-70 years. Krauss et al. (2007) has also estimated the long term average accretion rate to be 3 $\times$ 10$^{-11}$ M$_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ for a distance $\ge$ 3kpc. However, a gradual change in mass accretion rate can not explain the unique torque reversal phenomena of this source (Li et al. 1980).
Conclusions
===========
- We have detected very persistent quasi-periodic oscillations in the unique accretion powered X-ray pulsar 4U 1626–67.
- Using data from several observatories, we have detected a gradual evolution of the oscillation frequency over a period of 22 years.
- The frequency evolution indicates a possible recession of the accretion disk of the pulsar during the present spin-down era.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This research has made use of data obtained through the High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center Online Service, provided by the NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center.
Angelini, L., White, N. E., Nagase, F., Kallman, T. R., Yoshida, A., Takeshima, T., Becker, C. M., & Paerels, F. 1995, ApJ, 449, L41 Bildsten, L., Chakrabarty, D., Chiu, J., et al. 1997, ApJS, 113, 367 Bradt, H. V. D., McClintock, J. E. 1983, 21, 13 Chakrabarty, D., Bildsten, L., Grunsfeld J.M. et al. 1997 ApJ, 474, 414 Chakrabarty, D. 1998, ApJ, 492, 342 Chakrabarty, D., Homer. L., Charles, P. A., & O’Donoghue, D. 2001, ApJ, 562, 985 Chester, T. J. 1979, ApJ, 227, 569 Finger, M.H., Wilson, R.B., Harmon, B.A. 1996, ApJ, 459, 288 Giacconi, R., Murray, S., Gursky, H., Kellogg, E., Schreier, E., & Tananbaum, H. 1972, ApJ, 178, 281 Grindley, J.E. 1978, ApJ, 225, 1001 Ilovaisky, S. A., Motch, C., & Chevalier, C. 1978, A&A, 70, L19 Jain, C., Paul, B., Joshi, K., Dutta, A., & Raichur, H. 2007, Submitted to JApA Joss, P. C., Avni, Y., & Rappaport, S. 1978, ApJ, 221, 645 Kaur, R., Paul, B., Raichur, H., Sagar, R. 2007, ApJ, 660, 1409 Kommers, J. E., Chakrabarty, D., & Lewin, W. H. G. 1998, 497, L33 Krauss, M.I., Schulz, N.S., Chakrabarty, D. 2007, ApJ, 660, 605 Levine, A., Ma, C. P., McClintock, J., Rappaport, S., van der Klis, M., & Verbunt, F. 1988, ApJ, 327, 732 Li, F. K., Joss, P.C., McClintock, J. E., Rappaport, S., & Wright, E. L. 1980, ApJ, 240, 628 McClintock, J. E., Bradt, H. V., Doxsey, R. E., Jernigan, J. G., Canizares, C. R., & Hiltner, W. A. 1977, Nature, 270, 320 McClintock, J. E., Li, F. K., Canizares, C. R., & Grindlay, J. E. 1980, ApJ, 235, L81 Middleditch, J., Mason, K. O., Nelson, J. E., & White, N. E. 1981, ApJ, 244, 1001 Nelson, L. A., Rappaport, S. A., & Joss, P. C. 1986, ApJ, 311, 226 Owens, A., Oosterbroek, T., Parmar, A.N. 1997, A&A, 324, L9 Paczynski, B., & Sienkiewicz, R. 1981, ApJ, 248, L27 Paul. B., Rao, A.R. 1998, A&A, 337, 815 Raichur, H., & Paul, B. 2007, Submitted to ApJ Rappaport, S., Markert, T., Li, F. K., Clark, G. W., Jernigan, J. G., & McClintock, J. E. 1977, ApJ, 217, L29 Schulz, N.S., Chakrabarty, D., Marshall, H.L., Canizares, C.R., Lee, J.C., Houck, J. 2001, ApJ, 563, 941 Shinoda, K., Kii, T., Mitsuda, K., Nagase, F., Tanaka, Y., Makishima, K., & Shibazaki, N. 1990, PASJ, 42, L27
|
---
abstract: '[ Image reconstruction from computed tomography (CT) measurement is a challenging statistical inverse problem since a high-dimensional conditional distribution needs to be estimated. Based on training data obtained from high-quality reconstructions, we aim to learn a conditional density of images from noisy low-dose CT measurements. To tackle this problem, we propose a hybrid conditional normalizing flow, which integrates the physical model by using the filtered back-projection as conditioner. We evaluate our approach on a low-dose CT benchmark and demonstrate superior performance in terms of structural similarity of our flow-based method compared to other deep learning based approaches. ]{}'
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
Many important applications in medical imaging, such as computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), can be formulated as an inverse problem. The inverse problem consists in the reconstruction of an internal image of a patient based on radiological data. Many of these applications are ill-posed inverse problems, as small measurement errors can result in large errors in the reconstruction. In a classical way, an inverse problem is often formulated as follows: A forward operator $A: X \rightarrow Y$ maps the image $x^\dagger$ to (noisy) measurements $$\begin{aligned}
y^\delta = Ax^\dagger + \mu,
\label{eq:inverse_problem}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu$ describes the noise. The research in inverse problems is focused in particular on developing algorithms for obtaining stable approximations of the true solution $x^\dagger$. In order to cover the uncertainties that occur especially with ill-posed problems, the theory of Bayesian inversion considers the posterior distribution $p(x|y^\delta)$ [@Dashti.2272013]. This posterior is the conditional density of the image $x$ conditioned on the measurements $y^\delta$.
The main task in statistical inverse problems is to approximate this high-dimensional conditional distribution. For high-dimensional, structured images, like they arise in CT, this is a challenging process. In the field of density estimation, conditional normalizing flows (NF) [@Winkler.11292019; @Ardizzone.742019] allow to learn expressive conditional densities by maximum likelihood training. Since the physical model is known in CT (Eq. \[eq:radon\_trafo\]), we propose a hybrid approach which integrates model-based reconstruction with conditional NFs.
![Ground truth samples from the LoDoPaB-CT dataset containing artifacts. These errors stem from the reconstruction technique that was used on the normal-dose measurements.[]{data-label="fig:ArtifactSamples"}](figures/lodopab_artifact_samples.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
In many CT image reconstruction tasks the mean squared error (MSE) is used [@chen2017convnet_ct; @he2020iradon], which, however, has many known limitations [@Zhao.2017]. In the context of maximum likelihood estimation (MLE), the MSE loss arises from the assumption of i.i.d. standard Gaussian noise. However, this assumption is violated in CT training data since they are often obtained from reconstructions of high-dose or normal-dose measurements. E.g. the choice of the reconstruction algorithm can lead to artifacts, as shown in Figure \[fig:ArtifactSamples\]. This implies that the reconstruction error for individual pixels is no longer independent. We argue that these dependencies can be better captured by a flow-based model.
Our contributions are twofold: 1) We apply conditional normalizing flows to CT image reconstruction. 2) We propose a hybrid approach, which integrates the physical model by using the filtered back-projection as conditioner.
There are several deep learning approaches for implementing conditional generative models. Besides conditional generative adversarial networks (cGANs, [@Mirza.1162014]) and conditional variational autoencoders (cVAE, [@cVAE]) there are conditional normalizing flows [@Ardizzone.14.08.2018; @Winkler.11292019], which we will explore in this paper. These models can be understood as an extension of normalizing flow models [@Papamakarios.1252019]. Normalizing flows define a bijective mapping and have a tractable Jacobian determinant. Depending on the specific implementation, the inverse can be determined analytically (e.g. [@Dinh.27.05.2016], [@Kingma.792018]) or numerically (e.g. [@Behrmann.], [@Chen.20191207]). These models have in common that they define an invertible, differentiable transformation of the complex distribution $p(x)$ in image space into a base distribution $p(z)$. Using the change of variables formula, it is possible to evaluate the density of $p(x)$ using this transformation. This allows for training the model with the exact likelihood.
Related Work
------------
Deep learning methods have been successfully applied to many ill-posed inverse problems such as CT [@Arridge.2019]. In particular, end-to-end learned methods have been used. Those methods can be classified in three main groups: post-processing [@chen2017convnet_ct], fully-learned [@he2020iradon] and learned iterative algorithms [@adler2017]. These end-to-end methods have in common that they learn a parameterized operator ${T_\theta:Y \rightarrow X}$ by optimizing the parameters $\theta$ using training data $\{ (y_i^\delta, x_i^\dagger) \}_{i=1}^N$. Usually, this is done by minimizing the MSE between the ground truth data $x_i^\dagger$ and the reconstruction $T_\theta(y_i^\delta)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\theta} \in \arg \min_{\theta \in \Theta} \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N \Vert T_\theta(y_i^\delta) - x_i^\dagger \Vert^2.\end{aligned}$$
Recently, Deep Image Priors were used for CT, achieving promising results in the low-data regime [@baguer2020computed]. Similar to our approach is the work of [@Adler.11142018], who employed a Wasserstein GAN to draw samples from the conditional distribution. However, in this approach it is not possible to evaluate the likelihood of the generated samples. [@Ardizzone.14.08.2018] have used invertible neural networks to approximate the conditional distribution and to analyze inverse problems. In a subsequent paper this concept was extended to conditional invertible neural networks (cINNs) which yielded good performance in the field of conditional image generation [@Ardizzone.742019].
Background on Computed Tomography {#sec:Background}
=================================
Computed tomography allows for a non-invasive acquisition of the inside of the human body, which makes it one of the most important tools in modern medical imaging [@buzug2008computed_tomography]. CT is a primary example of an inverse problem. The determination of the interior distribution cannot be achieved directly. It has to be inferred from the measured attenuation of X-rays sent through the body.
Current research focuses on reconstruction methods for low-dose CT measurements to reduce the health risk from radiation [@shan2019nn_vs_vendor_ct; @baguer2020computed]. One strategy to reduce the dose is to measure at fewer angles. This can result in undersampled measurements and therefore in the existence of ambiguous solutions to the inverse problem. Another option is to lower the intensity of the X-ray. This leads to increased Poisson noise on the measurements and adds to the instability of the inversion. In this paper, we test our reconstruction model for the lower intensity case.
The basic principle of a CT machine with a parallel beam geometry can be described by the 2D Radon transform [$A: X \rightarrow Y$]{} [@radon1986radon_trafo]: $$A x(s,\varphi) = \int_{\mathbb{R}} x\left( s \begin{bmatrix} \cos(\varphi) \\ \sin(\varphi) \end{bmatrix} + t \begin{bmatrix} -\sin(\varphi) \\ \phantom{-}\cos(\varphi) \end{bmatrix} \right) \, \mathrm{d}t.
\label{eq:radon_trafo}$$ It is an integration along a line, which is parameterized by the distance $s \in \mathbb{R}$ and angle $\varphi \in [0,\pi]$ (cf. Figure \[fig:parallel\_beam\]). For a fixed pair $(s,\varphi)$ this results in the log ratio of initial and final intensity at the detector for a single X-ray beam (Beer-Lambert’s law). The whole measurement, called *sinogram*, is the collection of the transforms for all pairs $(s,\varphi)$. The task in CT is to invert this process to get a reconstruction of the body. The inversion of the Radon transform is an ill-posed problem since the operator is linear and compact [@natterer2001math_tomography]. The consequences is an instable inverse mapping, which amplifies even small measurement noise.
A common inversion model is the filtered back-projection (FBP) [@Shepp1974FBP]. The reconstruction for position $(i,j)$ is calculated by a convolution over $s$ and an integration along $\varphi$ as $$\begin{aligned}
x(i,j) = \int_0^{\pi} y(s, \varphi) \star h(s) \vert_{s = i \cos(\varphi) + j \sin(\varphi)} \, \mathrm{d}\varphi.\end{aligned}$$ In general, $h$ is chosen as a high-pass filter such as the Ram-Lak filter [@Ramachandran2236]. In reality, we can only measure for a finite number of angles and distances. In this discrete setting the FBP only works well for a high number of measurement angles. Otherwise severe streak artifacts can appear in the reconstruction.
Normalizing Flow
----------------
Normalizing flows are a special class of probabilistic models, which transform a simple base distribution via a number of invertible transformations into a desired target density [@Papamakarios.1252019]. They have been used for variational inference [@Rezende.5212015], density estimation [@Dinh.27.05.2016] and generative modeling [@Kingma.792018; @Chen.20191207]. Recently the field of application was extended to inverse problems [@Ardizzone.14.08.2018]. Normalizing flows offer the possibility of exact likelihood training.
Normalizing flows can be implemented using deep invertible neural networks. Research on these invertible networks has developed a number of different building blocks. [@Behrmann.] define a class of invertible transformations based on the architecture of residual networks [@He.10.12.2015]. We focus on models based on affine coupling layers [@Dinh.30.10.2014; @Dinh.27.05.2016]. In particular, we focus on the Glow architecture [@Kingma.792018]. This model extends the coupling layer approach by two components, ActNorm and invertible 1x1 Convolutions. These components are arranged in a multi-scale architecture [@Dinh.27.05.2016]: Every $L$ layers an invertible squeeze operation is applied to reduce the spatial dimension, and a part of the channels is split off to reduce the computational cost.
Methods {#sec:methods}
=======
Problem Setting {#sec:probSetting}
---------------
To estimate conditional densities, data pairs from measurements $y^\delta$ and ground truth images $x^\dagger$ are required. In computed tomography (CT) it is not possible to obtain actual ground truth data, because no picture can be taken of the interior of the human body. Instead of using ground truth images we use reconstructions based on high-dose measurements $y^{\delta_1} = A x^\dagger + \mu_1$, i.e. $x^{\delta_1} = T_\text{FBP}(y^{\delta_1})$. Because $x^{\delta_1}$ is the output of an reconstruction algorithms, it can contain artifacts and differ from the actual image $x^\dagger$, see Figure \[fig:ArtifactSamples\] for an example. In the next step we simulate low-dose CT measurements using this reconstruction as $y^{\delta_2} = A x^{\delta_1} + \mu_2$, where $\mathrm{Var}[\mu_2] \geq \mathrm{Var}[\mu_1]$, since low-dose measurements are more prone to measurement noise. The training set then consists of data pairs $\{y^{\delta_2}, x^{\delta_1} \}$. An example of such a dataset is LoDoPaB-CT [@leuschner2019lodopabct], which we use to benchmark our proposed conditional flow.
Normalizing Flow with FBP Conditioning
--------------------------------------
From a statistical point-of-view, an inverse problem can also be seen as a generating process $x \sim p(x|y)$ [@Dashti.2272013; @Arridge.2019]. The task in such a statistical inverse problem is to estimate this conditional distribution. We are using conditional normalizing flows (NF) [@Winkler.11292019] to approximate the target density $p(x|y)$. The conditional NF is composed of a series of invertible transformations $F= f_K \circ \dots \circ f_1$. Here, every individual transformation is parameterized by $\theta$ and receives a conditional input $y$: $f_i = f_{\theta_i}(\cdot, y)$. This transformation defines a transport map, which converts the initial density into a simple, easy-to-sample density $p_Z$. This model defines a conditional density $q(x|y,\theta)$ and using the change-of-variables formula the conditional density can be calculated: $$\begin{aligned}
q(x|y;\theta) = p_{Z}(F_\theta(x;y)) \left\vert \det\left(\frac{\partial F_\theta(x;y)}{\partial x}\right) \right\vert.\end{aligned}$$ We denote the Jacobian for one data point $x_i, y_i$ with $J_i = \frac{\partial F_\theta(x_i;y_i)}{\partial x}$. Instead of directly using the measurements $y_i$ as conditional inputs, we propose to employ a reconstruction, e.g. the filtered back-projection $\hat{x}_i = T_{\text{FBP}}(y)$.
Assume a dataset $\{(x_i, y_i)\}_{i=1}^N$ of measurements $y_i$ and reconstructions $x_i$. To approximate the target density $p(x|y)$ a conditional NF $q(x|y, \theta)$ can be trained using the negative log-likelihood as a loss function. Using a standard normal distribution, i.e. $p_Z \sim \mathcal{N}(0, I)$, this amounts to minimizing $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}(\theta) = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N \frac{\Vert F_\theta(x_i;T_{\text{FBP}}(y_i))\Vert_2^2}{2} - \log \left\vert \det J_i \right\vert .\end{aligned}$$
Conditional coupling layers
---------------------------
We are using the conditional coupling layer from [@Ardizzone.742019] to construct a conditional invertible neural network (cINN), which is an extension of the affine coupling layer from [@Dinh.27.05.2016]. We propose to integrate the model-driven approach of inverse problems by using the filtered back-projection $\hat{x} = T_\text{FBP}(y)$ as conditional input instead of the raw sinogramm measurements $y$. The input $u=[u_1, u_2]$ to an affine coupling layer is split into two parts and both parts are transformed individually: $$\begin{aligned}
v_1 &= u_1 \odot \exp(s_1(u_2, \hat{x})) + t_1(u_2, \hat{x}) \\ \newline
v_2 &= u_2 \odot \exp(s_2(v_1, \hat{x})) + t_2(v_1, \hat{x}).\end{aligned}$$ The transformations $s_1, s_2, t_1, t_2$ do not need to be invertible and are modelled as convolutional neural networks (CNNs). The inverse of an affine coupling layer is: $$\begin{aligned}
u_1 &= (v_1 - t_1(u_2,\hat{x})) \odot \exp(-s_1(u_2, \hat{x})) \\ \newline
u_2 &= (v_2 - t_2(v_1,\hat{x})) \odot \exp(-s_2(v_1,\hat{x})).\end{aligned}$$ The log-determinant of the Jacobian for one affine coupling layer can be calculated as the sum over $s_i$, i.e. $\sum_j s_1(u_2, \hat{x})_j + \sum_j s_2(v_1, \hat{x})_j$. A deep invertible network can be built as a sequence of multiple such layers, with a permutation of the dimensions after each layer.
The conditional input $\hat{x}$ is added as an extra input to each transformation in the coupling layer. In practice, an additional conditioning network $H$ is added, so instead of $\hat{x}$ the output $H(\hat{x})$ is used. This conditioning network $H$ is under no architectural constraints and can contain all usual elements (i.e. BatchNorm, pooling layer, etc.) of a CNN.
![Reconstruction and standard deviation of cINN. $1000$ Samples were used for the reconstruction. The top row shows the ground truth image and the corresponding FBP.[]{data-label="fig:Reconstruction"}](figures/ConditionedMean.pdf)
Results {#sec:results}
=======
Sampling from the model is a two-step process: First, a sample $z$ is drawn from the base density $p_Z$. Second, this sample is transformed by the inverse to obtain an image. By repeatedly sampling $z_j$ for a fixed input $y^\delta$ we thus estimate the conditional mean as $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{x} = \mathbb{E}_{z}[F^{-1}(z,T_{\text{FBP}}(y^\delta))] \approx \frac{1}{n} \sum_{j=1}^n F^{-1}(z_j, T_{\text{FBP}}(y^\delta)).\end{aligned}$$ We evaluate our model on the LoDoPaB-CT dataset [@leuschner2019lodopabct]. For this dataset we are in the case of oversampling, so we expect a uni-modal distribution. This enables the choice of the conditional mean as the reconstruction method. If a highly multi-modal distribution is expected, the conditional mean is not the optimal choice. To measure the error between reconstruction and ground truth, the PSNR and the SSIM [@wang2004ssim] are evaluated. Both are common quality metrics for the evaluation of CT and MRI reconstructions [@joemai2017ssim_in_ct; @adler2017; @zbontar2018dataset_fastmri]. The PSNR is a pixel-wise metric which is defined via the MSE. The SSIM is a structural metric, which compares local patterns of pixels and is not calculated on a per pixel basis.
Implementation {#subsec:implementation}
--------------
We follow the multi-scale architecture design of RealNVP [@Dinh.27.05.2016]. After each block, consisting of 6 coupling layers, downsampling is performed. The downsampling is done using the Haar downsampling from [@Ardizzone.742019] and the variant used in [@Jacobsen.2018]. The dimensions have to be permuted after each coupling layer. This is done using the invertible 1x1 convolutions from [@Kingma.792018]. The model is implemented using the library FrEIA[^1]. A conditioning network was used to further extract features from the filtered back-projection. This conditioning network was trained together with the full flow-based model. Details on the implementation can be found in the supplementary material.
LoDoPaB-CT Dataset {#subsec:lodopab}
------------------
We evaluate our method on the low-dose parallel beam (LoDoPaB) CT dataset [@leuschner2019lodopabct], which contains over two-dimensional CT images and corresponding simulated low photon count measurements. The ground truth images $x^{\delta_1}$ are human chest CT reconstructions from the LIDC/IDRI database [@armato2011lidc_idri], cropped to $\num{362}\times\num{362}$ pixels. Projections are computed using parallel beam geometry with angles and beams. Poisson noise is applied to model a low photon count ($\mu_2$ in Section \[sec:probSetting\]).
Evaluation on LoDoPaB-CT
------------------------
We have evaluated our model on the LoDoPaB-CT dataset. First we examined the dependence of PSNR and SSIM on the number of samples for the conditional mean. The results are shown in Figure \[fig:SSIMPSNR\] (appendix). Both PSNR and SSIM increase with a higher number of samples. This allows for a trade-off between quality of reconstruction and time. For our evaluation we have chosen a conditional mean with 1000 samples. Table \[tab:results\_lodopab\] shows the scores on the test dataset. The comparison includes several classical and deep learning approaches.
The Filtered Backprojection (FBP), TV regularization and Deep Image Prior (DIP) + TV [@baguer2020computed] work without additional training. The FBP can also be combined with a U-Net, which acts as post-processing network [@jin2017cnn_imaging]. The approach to fully learn the inversion process is followed by the iRadonMap [@he2020iradon]. Learned Primal Dual [@adler2017] and Learned Gradient Descent [@adler2017iterative_nn] are learned iterative schemes.
In terms of PSNR our model is comparable to other state-of-the-art deep learning approaches, despite not explicitly trained to minimize the MSE between the prediction and the ground truth images. Regarding the SSIM our model outperforms all other approaches. This further underlines our hypothesis that using the more flexible flow objective enable to incorporate structural properties.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
We have investigated how flow-based models can be applied as a conditional density estimator for the reconstruction of low-dose CT images. Using this generative approach, we were able to obtain high-quality reconstructions that outperformed all other deep learning approaches in terms of structural similarity. So far only coupling-based INNs were used, but future work should explore other architectures such as i-ResNets [@Behrmann.] for this conditional density estimation task. Furthermore, our hybrid approach that integrates the physical model into the conditioning could enable the use of more advanced reconstruction algorithms. Thus, conditional flows are a promising avenue for statistical model-based inverse problems such as CT reconstruction.
Acknowledgements {#sec:acknowledgements}
================
Johannes Leuschner and Maximilian Schmidt acknowledge the support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) within the framework of GRK 2224/1 “$\pi^3$: Parameter Identification – Analysis, Algorithms, Applications”.
Appendix
========
Model Architecture
------------------
The model was trained for stochastic gradient steps of batchsize with the Adam-Optimizer [@kingma2014adam] using a weight decay of . The last layer in the subnetworks of each coupling layer is initialized with zero. This initializes the model as a whole with the identity.
A multiscale architecture was used for implementation of the cINN. The model includes 6 resolution levels. After each level a part of the channels is split off and passed on to the output. After each resolution level downsampling is performed. Downsampling was performed using the iRevNet variant [@Jacobsen.2018] as well as the Haar Downsampling by [@Ardizzone.742019]. The input size of the CT-images is $1 \times 352 \times 352$. The full cINN was build as follows.
cINN Output size
------------------------------------------- ---------------------------
iRevNet-Downsampling $4 \times 176 \times 176$
level 1 conditional section $4 \times 176 \times 176$
iRevNet-Downsampling $16 \times 88 \times 88$
Split: $8 \times 88 \times 88$ to output $8 \times 88 \times 88$
level 2 conditional section $8 \times 88 \times 88$
iRevNet-Downsampling $32 \times 44 \times 44$
Split: $16 \times 44 \times 44$ to output $16 \times 44 \times 44$
level 3 conditional section $16 \times 44 \times 44$
iRevNet-Downsampling $64 \times 22 \times 22$
Split: $32 \times 22 \times 22$ to output $32 \times 22 \times 22$
level 4 conditional section $32 \times 22 \times 22$
Haar-Downsampling $128 \times 11 \times 11$
Split: $96 \times 11 \times 11$ to output $32 \times 11 \times 11$
level 5 conditional section $32 \times 11 \times 11$
Split: $28 \times 11 \times 11$ to output $4 \times 11 \times 11$
level 6 Dense-conditional section $484$
A conditioning network was used to extract features from the conditional input. Similar to the cINN, this network consists of 6 resolution levels. The output from the resolution level of the conditioning network is used as the conditioning input for the respective resolution level in the cINN. If not specified otherwise, a kernel size of $k=3$ is used. In addition, batch normalization (BN) is applied.
Conv2d: $1 \rightarrow 3$, stride=2 + LeakyReLU
-----------------------------------------------------------
Conv2d: $32 \rightarrow 64$ + LeakyReLU
Conv2d: $64 \rightarrow 128$ + BN + LeakyReLU
Conv2d: $128 \rightarrow 64$ + BN + LeakyReLU
Conv2d: $64 \rightarrow 32$ + BN + LeakyReLU
Conv2d: $32 \rightarrow 4$ + BN ($\rightarrow$ level $1$)
LeakyRelu
-----------------------------------------------------------
Conv2d: $4 \rightarrow 32$, stride=2 + BN + LeakyReLU
Conv2d: $32 \rightarrow 32$ (k=1) + LeakyReLU
Conv2d: $32 \rightarrow 32$ + BN + LeakyReLU
Conv2d: $32 \rightarrow 8$ + BN ($\rightarrow$ level $2$)
LeakyRelu
------------------------------------------------------------
Conv2d: $8 \rightarrow 32 $ (k=1) + LeakyReLU
Conv2d: $32 \rightarrow 64$, stride = 2+ LeakyReLU
Conv2d: $64 \rightarrow 16$ + BN ($\rightarrow$ level $3$)
LeakyRelu
------------------------------------------------------------
Conv2d: $16 \rightarrow 64 $ (k=1) + LeakyReLU
Conv2d: $64 \rightarrow 64$, stride = 2+ LeakyReLU
Conv2d: $64 \rightarrow 32$ + BN ($\rightarrow$ level $4$)
LeakyRelu
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Conv2d: $32\rightarrow 96 $ (k=1) + LeakyReLU
Conv2d: $96 \rightarrow 128$, stride = 2+ LeakyReLU
Conv2d: $128 \rightarrow 32$ (k=1) + BN ($\rightarrow$ level $5$)
LeakyRelu
----------------------------------------------------------
Conv2d: $32\rightarrow 64 $, stride=2 + LeakyReLU
Conv2d: $64 \rightarrow 256$, stride = 2+ LeakyReLU
Average Pooling + Flatten + BN ($\rightarrow$ level $6$)
To implement the subnetworks in the coupling layers a CNN variant and a fully connected variant were used. The input channels are denoted by $c_{in}$ and the output channels by $c_{out}$.
CNN-subnetwork (k=1) or (k=3)
----------------------------------------------
Conv2d: $c_{in}\rightarrow 64 $, + LeakyReLU
Conv2d: $64 \rightarrow 92$ + LeakyReLU
Conv2d: $92 \rightarrow c_{out}$
Dense-subnetwork
----------------------------------------------
Dense: $c_{in}\rightarrow 512 $, + LeakyReLU
Dense: $512 \rightarrow 512$ + LeakyReLU
Dense: $512 \rightarrow c_{out}$
Using this two variants of subnetworks the conditional sections are implemented as follows.
[|l|l|]{}\
Coupling (CNN-subnet k=1) &\
Glow $1 \times 1$ convolution &\
Coupling (CNN-subnet k=3) &\
Glow $1 \times 1$ convolution &\
[|l|l|]{}\
Random permutation &\
Dense-subnetwork &\
After each downsampling a small unconditioned subnetwork is used:
CNN-subnetwork (without conditional input)
---------------------------------------------------
Conv2d: $c_{in}\rightarrow 64$ (k=1), + LeakyReLU
Conv2d: $64 \rightarrow 64$ (k=1) + LeakyReLU
Conv2d: $64 \rightarrow c_{out}$ (k=1)
The downsampling section is built as follows:
Downsample section (Haar or iRevNet)
-----------------------------------------
Haar or iRevNet downsampling
Glow $1 \times 1$ convolution
Coupling (unconditional CNN-subnetwork)
Glow $1 \times 1$ convolution
Coupling (unconditional CNN-subnetwork)
Evaluation of the Conditional Mean
----------------------------------
We have used the conditional mean as a reconstruction for the CT image. Figure \[fig:SSIMPSNR\] shows the performance in relation to the number of samples used.
![ PSNR and SSIM for the validation set of the LoDoPaB-CT dataset. The PSNR is colored in red and the SSIM is colored in blue.[]{data-label="fig:SSIMPSNR"}](figures/PSNR_SSIM_bySample.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Additional Examples
-------------------
 \[fig:Reconstruction2\]
[^1]: https://github.com/VLL-HD/FrEIA
|
---
abstract: 'We use the complexity equals action proposal to calculate the rate of complexity growth for field theories that are the holographic duals of asymptotically flat spacetimes. To this aim, we evaluate the on-shell action of asymptotically flat spacetime on the Wheeler-DeWitt patch. This results in the same expression as can be found by taking the flat-space limit from the corresponding formula related to the asymptotically AdS spacetimes. For the bulk dimensions that are greater than three, the rate of complexity growth at late times approaches from above to Lloyd’s bound. However, for the three-dimensional bulks, this rate is a constant and differs from Lloyd’s bound by a logarithmic term.'
---
``
****
[Reza Fareghbal, Pedram Karimi ]{}
[*Department of Physics, Shahid Beheshti University, G.C., Evin, Tehran 19839, Iran.* ]{}\
Introduction
============
It was proposed in [@Bagchi:2010zz; @Bagchi:2012cy] that the holographic dual of asymptotically flat spacetimes in $d+1$ dimensions is a $d$-dimensional field theory that has BMS symmetry. These field theories are known as BMSFT. From the point of view of the bulk theory, BMS symmetry is the asymptotic symmetry of the asymptotically flat spacetimes [@BMS]-[@aspects]. In three and four dimensions these symmetries are infinite dimensional. In the one-dimension lower boundary theory, this symmetry is given by contraction of conformal symmetry. In this view, one can study flat-space holography by starting from AdS/CFT and takeing the appropriate limit. The flat-space limit of the bulk theory corresponds to the ultrarelativistic limit of the boundary CFT [@Bagchi:2012cy].
Since BMS symmetry is infinite dimensional, it is possible to find the universal aspects of BMSFTs that are independent of the action and details of the theory. In [@Bagchi:2012xr], a Cardy-like formula has been proposed for BMSFT$_2$. This formula gives an estimation for the degeneracy of the states of this field theory. The interesting point is that this formula yields the entropy of three-dimensional flat space cosmology (FSC), which is given by taking the flat space limit from the BTZ black holes. The universal structure of the correlation functions of BMSFT$_2$ and BMSFT$_3$ has been studied in [@Bagchi:2015wna]-[@Fareghbal:2018xii]. The entanglement entropy formula and also the holographic interpretation of this formula in the context of flat/BMSFT have been studied in [@Bagchi:2014iea]-[@Hijano:2018nhq] . In all of the above mentioned works, the calculations that are done in asymptotically flat spacetimes nicely fit to the results given by taking the ultrarelativistic limit of CFTs. For an almost complete list of papers related to the flat-space holography see the references of [@Riegler:2017fqv] and [@Prohazka:2017lqb].
After the remarkable work of Ryu and Takayanagi [@Ryu:2006bv] (which proposes a holographic description for the entanglement entropy of CFT in the context of AdS/CFT), it seems that we can translate all of the information physics to the gravitational counterpart by the virtue of holography. There are other aspects of information physics that seem natural to find their holographic picture. One of the most important physical quantities in information physics is complexity (see [@complexity; @1; @Aaronson:2016vto] for reviews). The complexity measures the number of gates that are needed to achieve a desirable state from an initial state. There are two different proposals for the holographic complexity. Here, we will focus on the complexity equals action (CA) conjecture that was proposed in [@Brown:2015bva; @Brown:2015lvg]. According to this proposal, the boundary complexity is given by the bulk gravitational action that is evaluated on a region of spacetime known as the Wheeler-DeWitt (WDW) path. It is a portion of space-time bounded by null surfaces anchored at the related time on the boundary. There is a different proposal that relates the complexity to the volume of an anchored region [@Stanford:2014jda; @Alishahiha:2015rta; @Barbon:2015ria; @Barbon:2015soa] (complexity=volume (CV) proposal) . Both of these conjectures have been proposed in the context of AdS/CFT correspondence.
In this paper, we want to use the CA conjecture and calculate the rate of complexity growth in BMSFT by using flat-space holography. As mentioned above, an approach for improving flat-space holography is given by taking the flat-space limit from the AdS/CFT calculations[^1]. The corresponding computation of the rate of complexity growth in the context of AdS/CFT has been done in [@Carmi:2017jqz] (see also [@Cai:2016xho]-[@Moosa:2017yiz]). Therein, the gravitational action is evaluated in the background of eternal two-sided black holes. It was assumed that these geometries are the holographic duals of thermofield double states in the boundary theory [@Maldacena:2001kr].
The final answer of [@Carmi:2017jqz] for the rate of complexity growth is given in terms of bulk parameters. It is not difficult to take the flat-space limit from these results. One can check that taking the flat-space limit from the results of [@Carmi:2017jqz] yields the following expressions for the rate of complexity growth: [^2]
$$\label{result for d4}
\dot{\mathcal{C}} = \frac{1}{\pi}\frac{d I}{d \mu}=\frac{1}{\pi}\left[ 2 M - \frac{r_M^{d-2} \Omega_{d-1} (d-1)}{16 \pi G_{N} }f(r_M)\log \frac{-\mathfrak{a}^2}{f(r_M)}\right], \qquad d\geq 3,$$
$$\label{result d3}
\dot{\mathcal{C}}= \frac{1}{\pi} \left( 2 M+ M \log \frac{\mathfrak{a}^2}{8 G_{N} M}\right), \qquad d=2.$$
The parameters appearing in these formulas are explained in section 3. According to flat/BMSFT correspondence, Eq. is the rate of complexity growth for BMSFT$_{d}$, $d \geq 3$, and Eq. is the same rate for BMSFT$_2$. Our goal in this paper is to directly calculate both of these formulas by using the CA proposal in asymptotically flat spacetimes. The background geometries that we use in this paper are asymptotically flat two-sided black holes in spacetime dimensions greater than three and two-sided FSC in three dimensions. All of these geometries are given by taking the flat-space limit from their corresponding asymptotically AdS counterparts. The on-shell action in the flat case is evaluated on a particular region of spacetime, which is given by the intersection of two WDW patches. The null surfaces bounding these patches are anchored on the future or past null infinity. However, their intersection points meet neither past nor future null infinity. We show that despite the vanishing bulk term in the on-shell action, the results and are deducible from the boundary and joint terms.
The paper is organized as follows: In section two we start from preliminaries. Section three and four include the main part of our calculations, and we directly evaluate the rate of complexity growth in BMSFTs by using flat space holography in, respectively, $d\geq 3$ and $d=2$ dimensions. The last section is devoted to discussions.
Preliminaries
=============
In this section we use the flat-space holography to compute the rate of complexity growth of BMSFT. We use the CA proposal for BMSFT$_2$ and BMSFT$_3$, which requires computation of the on-shell action for, respectively, three- and four- dimensional asymptotically flat geometries. In this paper we consider static solutions with line element $$ds^2 = - f(r) dt^2+\frac{dr^2}{f(r)} +r^2 d \Omega^2_{d-1},$$ where $f(r)=-8 G_N M$ for $d=2$ and for $d\geq 3$ it is given by $$\label{schwmet}
f(r) = 1 - \frac{\omega^{d-2}}{r^{d-2}}, \qquad M= \frac{d-1}{16 \pi G_{N}} \Omega_{d-1} \omega^{d-2},$$ where M is the mass parameter and $\Omega_{d-1}$ is the volume of a $(d-1)$-dimensional unit sphere. It will prove convenient to use $(u,r^{\ast})$ or $(v,r^{\ast})$ coordinates instead of $(t,r)$ where
$$\label{tort}
r^{\ast}(r) = \int \frac{dr}{f(r)},\qquad v= t + r^{\ast}, \qquad u= t-r^{\ast}.$$
$v$ and $u$ are, respectively, the advanced and retarded times, and $r^{\ast}$ is the tortoise coordinate. It is important to note here that at $r=r_{h}$ where $r_h$ is the root of $f(r)$, $r^{\ast}$ gets its minimum value, $$\label{rmin}
r^{\ast}(r_h) = r_{min} \simeq -\infty.$$
According to the proposal of [@Brown:2015lvg], the complexity of dual theory is given by the gravitational action evaluated on a region of spacetime known as the WDW patch. The WDW patch is given by the union of all the spatial slices anchored at a given boundary time [@Susskind:2014rva]. Here we use this definition and impose it in the flat space. In the flat space, as it was shown in figure 1, the WDW patch is the intersection of spatial slices anchored at future or null infinity. It is clear that the WDW patch in the flat scenario connects to the infinity via the null geodesics and does not reach it. A similar situation happens in the holographic description of the BMSFT entanglement entropy where the minimal surface does not reach the boundary and connects to it via two null geodesics [@Jiang:2017ecm]. Thus our prescription is a natural extension of the WDW patch definition and also is consistent with the holographic description of the entanglement entropy in flat spacetimes.
In this paper we consider asymptotically flat geometries which are given by taking the flat space limit from the asymptotically AdS eternal two-sided black holes. Thus we have right and left null infinities in the Penrose diagram of these spacetimes. In order to control divergent terms we need to restrict the WDW patch by using some cutoffs. Therefore the boundary of space-time on which the on-shell action must be computed consists of null surfaces besides timelike ones and their joint points. A complete computation requires that we accompany boundary terms to the bulk action. Hence we use the following generic action: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
I =& \frac{1}{16 \pi G_{N}} \int_{\mathcal{M}} d^{d+1} x \sqrt{-g}~\mathcal{R}
\\\nonumber
&+ \frac{1}{8 \pi G_{N}} \int_{\mathcal{B}} d x^d \sqrt{|h|} ~K + \frac{1}{8 \pi G_{N}} \int _{\Sigma}d^{d-1}x \sqrt{\sigma} ~\eta
\\\label{action}
&+\frac{1}{8 \pi G_{N}} \int_{\mathcal{B'}} d x^d \sqrt{\gamma} ~\kappa + \frac{1}{8 \pi G_{N}} \int _{\Sigma}d^{d-1}x \sqrt{\sigma} ~a\end{aligned}$$ The first term is related to the volume of the WDW patch and is vanishing in the flat scenario. The Vanishing of the bulk term in the on-shell action is the most important technical difference between the AdS case and the flat case.
The second line of action belongs to the non-null boundaries. The first term is known as the Gibbons-Hawking-York (GHY) term in the spacelike and timelike sector of the boundary. The GHY term guarantees a well-defined variation principle with the Dirichlet boundary term. The second term belongs to the joint term that is evaluated at the intersection of two non-null hypersurfaces.
In the third line, we encounter null hypersurfaces. The null boundary term gained some attention recently. The first term is the counterpart of the GHY term in the null boundary. This term can always be ignored by assuming an affine null parameter. The second term evaluates joint terms in the intersection of two hypersurfaces where at least one of the hypersurfaces is null.
We use the instruction of [@Carmi:2016wjl] to evaluate terms of . The boundary terms for null hypersurfaces were discussed in several works [@Parattu:2015gga; @Lehner:2016vdi]. The joint terms first introduced by Hayward [@Hayward:1993my] for spacelike and timelike boundaries were extended by [@Lehner:2016vdi] to the null hypersurfaces. It is notable that neither the boundary terms nor the joint terms depends on the cosmological constant. It is worth mentioning that in the context of holographic renormalization the counterterms that cancel the divergent terms in the action are related extremely to the existence of the cosmological constant[@Skenderis:2002wp; @Costa:2013vza]. As [@Costa:2013vza] observed, local counterterms in asymptotically AdS spacetimes become nonlocal in the asymptotically flat spacetimes. To our knowledge, the holographic renormalization of asymptotically flat spacetimes is still an open problem.
Using we can calculate the terms of . The null boundary term vanishes because we can always choose a null parameter to be affine, and then the null boundary terms in do not contribute to the on-shell action. It remains the GHY term that has its contribution from the timelike or the spacelike surfaces $$\begin{aligned}
\label{GHYspace}
I_{GHY}^{spacelike} &= -\int dt~ \frac{r^{d-1}~ \Omega_{d-1}}{16 \pi G_{N}} \left( f'(r) +\frac{2(d-1)}{r} f(r) \right)\Bigg|_{\text{r=const}},
\\
\label{GHYtime}
I_{GHY}^{timelike} &= \int dt~ \frac{r^{d-1} ~\Omega_{d-1}}{16 \pi G_{N}} \left( f'(r) +\frac{2(d-1)}{r} f(r) \right)\Bigg|_{\text{r=const}}.\end{aligned}$$ In our calculation in the rest of this paper, all of the joint terms have at least one null part. Hence, it is adequate to compute the last term of , $$\begin{aligned}
\label{jointspace}
I_{J}^{spacelike} &= \frac{\Omega_{d-1} ~r^{d-1}}{16 \pi G_{N}} \log |f(r)|,
\\
\label{jointtime}
I_{J}^{timelike} &= \frac{-\Omega_{d-1}~ r^{d-1}}{16 \pi G_{N}} \log |f(r)|,
\\
\label{jointnull}
I_{J}^{null} &= \frac{-\Omega_{d-1} ~r^{d-1}}{8 \pi G_{N}} ~\text{Sign}(f(r)) ~\log \frac{\mathfrak{a}^2}{|f(r)|},\end{aligned}$$ where all of the joint points are labeled by their second non-null leg. The null joint term has an ambiguity due to the normalization constant of the null vectors $\mathfrak{a}$. This ambiguity is the same as the ambiguity in the AdS case [@Carmi:2017jqz] and reveals the existence of the new length in BMSFT.
BMSFT Complexity Gowth in $d\geq3$
===================================
Initial time
------------
The Penrose-Cartan diagram of the asymptotically flat two sided black hole is depicted in figure 1. The region of spacetime on which gravitational action is evaluated is shown by the gray color. We impose some cutoffs to the problem. The first type is a cutoff surface at $r^{\ast}=\epsilon_{0}$, which takes place near two singularities. The second type of cutoffs mentioned as UV cutoffs take place at $r^{\ast}= r_\text{max}$ near the position of the dual field theories. It is clear from the Penrose-Cartan diagram that the intersection of WDW patches (depicted by gray) never meets UV cutoffs. This is another difference between the computation of the complexity growth in the AdS holography and the flat-space holography.
The geometry of the Penrose diagram reveals that the boundary times on the left- and right-hand sides are minus each other. We denote the times of relevant points in the null infinities as $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathscr I}}^{+} \Rightarrow\begin{cases}
\beta= u^{+}_{R},
\\
\alpha= v^{+}_{L}
\end{cases} \qquad {{\mathscr I}}^{-} \Rightarrow\begin{cases}
\lambda= v^{-}_{R},
\\
\sigma= u^{-}_{L}.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ From now on the indices $\pm$ refer, respectively, to ${{\mathscr I}}^+$ and ${{\mathscr I}}^-$.
In order to compute the complexity growth, we need to consider evolution of the gray region. Since we want to compare our results with which is given by taking the flat-space limit from the AdS case, we assume that the BMSFT on the right- and left-hand sides develop symmetrically. This requires a symmetric evolution of the advanced and retarded coordinates on the different null infinities as $$u^{+}_{R}= - v^{+}_{L} =\mu^+,
\qquad v^{-}_{R}= - u^{-}_{L} = \mu^-.$$
There is a critical time when the gray region leaves the cutoff near the past singularity. For the simplicity of calculation and avoiding unnecessary shifts in the origin of boundary times, we assume that this cross occurs at $t=0$. The symmetric evolution guarantees that the last crossing point remains permanently on $t=0$. The initial times are those before this time. It is clear from the Penrose diagram that for the symmetric evolution the initial and late times are, respectively, given by $\mu^{\pm} < \mu^{\pm}_{c}$ and $\mu^{\pm} > \mu^{\pm}_{c}$ where $$\label{criticaltime}
\mu^+_{c} =- r^{\ast}(\epsilon_{0}).$$
All of the relevant points in the Penrose diagram are collected in the next table:\
[ |p[3cm]{}|p[3cm]{}|p[3cm]{}|p[2cm]{}|p[3.7cm]{}| ]{}
\
& && [[Sign of $f(r)$]{}]{}\
X &$r^{\ast}(\epsilon_{0}) - \mu^-$ & $r^{\ast}(\epsilon_{0})$ &-\
W &$-r^{\ast}(\epsilon_{0}) +\mu^-$ &$r^{\ast}(\epsilon_{0})$ &-\
Y &$r^{\ast}(\epsilon_{0}) + \mu^+$ & $r^{\ast}(\epsilon_{0})$ &-\
Z &$-r^{\ast}(\epsilon_{0}) - \mu^+$ &$r^{\ast}(\epsilon_{0})$ &-\
P &$\frac{-1}{2}( \mu^+ + \mu^-)$ &$\frac{1}{2}( \mu^- - \mu^+)$ &+\
Q &$\frac{1}{2}(\mu^+ + \mu^-)$ &$\frac{1}{2}( \mu^- - \mu^{+})$ &+\
In the calculation of [@Carmi:2017jqz] for the asymptotically AdS black holes the complexity growth is evaluated in the time that is given by adding left and right times. For the asymptotically flat cases, besides left and right development, the lower and upper sides of the WDW path can develop independently. The origin of this difference is that the times of past and future null infinities are given by advanced and retarded times. In order to reproduce the results that are given by taking the flat space limit, we have to consider symmetric evolution on the future and past null infinities. Precisely, we need to calculate the rate of complexity growth with respect to $\mu$ where $$\label{symmetricquantity}
\mu^+ = \mu^- + \chi, \qquad \mu^+ +\mu^- =\mu,$$ where $\chi$ is a constant. In Appendix A we calculate the nonsymmetric evolution by considering the $\mu^+ = \gamma \mu^-+\chi$ case. The results of taking the flat space limit are given when $\gamma=1$.
At this point, we have all of the requirements to evaluate on-shell action for the gray part of figure 1. There are six different GHY terms and four different joint terms:
\[fig:fig1\]
- Both of the surfaces at $r^{\ast}=\epsilon_{0}$ are spacelike. Using we find $$\begin{aligned}
I_{GHY}^{XW} &= \frac{-r^{d-1} ~\Omega_{d-1}}{16 \pi G_{n}} ~\left( f'(r) +\frac{2(d-1)}{r} f(r) \right) ~\left(t(W)-t(X)\right),
\\
I_{GHY}^{YZ} &= \frac{-r^{d-1} ~\Omega_{d-1}}{16 \pi G_{n}} ~\left( f'(r) +\frac{2(d-1)}{r} f(r) \right) ~\left(t(Z)-t(Y)\right).\end{aligned}$$ Summing these two terms results in the contribution of $r^{\ast} = r^{\ast}(\epsilon_{0})$ surfaces, $$I_{GHY}^{sing}= \frac{r^{d-1} ~\Omega_{d-1}}{16 \pi G_{n}} ~\left( f'(r) +\frac{2(d-1)}{r} f(r)\right) ~ (4 r^{\ast}(\epsilon_{0})+ 2 \mu^+-2\mu^-).$$ Using and we have $$\frac{d I_\text{GHY}^\text{sing}}{d \mu}=0.$$ Thus, in the symmetric case, the GHY terms of the near singularities cancel each other and are independent of the boundary time.
- Null joint terms take place at $P$ and $Q$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pointP}
I_{J}^{P} &= \frac{-\Omega_{d-1}~ r_P^{d-1}}{8 \pi G_{N}} ~\log \frac{\mathfrak{a}^2}{|f(r_P)|},
\\
\label{pointQ}
I_{J}^{Q} &= \frac{-\Omega_{d-1} ~r_Q^{d-1}}{8 \pi G_{N}} ~\log \frac{\mathfrak{a}^2}{|f(r_Q)|}.\end{aligned}$$ Using $r_P^{\ast}=r_Q^{\ast}=0$ and we have $\frac{d~ r_P}{d \mu}=\frac{d~ r_Q}{d \mu}=0$. Therefore the time derivative of null-joint terms at these points vanishes $$\frac{d I_{J}^\text{null}}{d \mu}=0.$$
- There are four spacelike joint terms. All of these joint terms take place near the singularities and are independent of the boundary time $$\begin{aligned}
I_{J}^{X}&= \frac{\Omega_{d-1}~ r^{\ast}(\epsilon)^{d-1}}{16 \pi G_{N}} ~\log \big| f(r^{\ast}(\epsilon))\big|,
\\
I_{J}^{W}&=I_{J}^{Y}=I_{J}^{Z}=I_{J}^{X}.\end{aligned}$$
Putting all together we find $$\frac{d I}{d \mu}=0 \Rightarrow \dot{\mathcal{C}}=0.$$ Hence the rate of complexity growth for the initial time is zero.
Late time
---------
For the late times that are after critical time , the Penrose diagram is depicted in figure 2. Similar to the initial time we want to calculate on-shell action in a region of spacetime that is determined by the gray area in figure 2. This region is still the intersection of four WDW patches with UV and IR cutoffs. The distinct difference with the initial time is that the cutoff surface at the past singularity does not exist, and we have to consider the null joint term in the action at a new point $M$:
\[fig:a1\]
- The only GHY term that contributes to our problem takes place near the future singularity $$\label{GHYlate}
I_{GHY}^{sing}=\frac{\Omega_{d-1} ~d ~\omega^{d-2}}{16 \pi G_{N}}~ (\mu - \chi)$$
- The contribution of points $P$ and $Q$ is similar to the initial time, and it is vanishing.
- For the null joint term at point $M$ we have $$\label{jointM}
I_{J}^{null}(M) = \frac{r_M^{d-1} ~\Omega_{d-1}}{8 \pi G_{N}} \log \left| \frac{\mathfrak{a}^2}{f(r_M)} \right|$$ It is assumed that $t(M)=0$ at this point, which yields $r ^{\ast}(M)=-\mu^+ = -\frac{\mu+\chi}{2}$. The sign of $f(r_M)$ is negative, and using it is not hard to find $$\label{mtime}
\frac{d r_M}{d \mu} = -\frac{ f(r_M)}{2}.$$ Using the previous equation we find $$\frac{d I_{J}^\text{null}(M)}{d\mu} = \frac{r_M^{d-2} ~\Omega_{d-1} }{16 \pi G_{N}} \left( r_M ~f'(r_M)-(d-1)f(r_M) \log \frac{-\mathfrak{a}^2}{f(r_M)}\right).$$ Using we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pointM}
\frac{d I_{J}^\text{null}(M)}{d\mu} = \frac{(d-2) ~\omega^{d-2}~ \Omega_{d-1}}{16 \pi G_{N}}-\frac{r_M^{d-2} ~\Omega_{d-1} }{8 \pi G_{N}} \left((d-1)~f(r_M) ~\log \frac{-\mathfrak{a}^2}{f(r_M)}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Using , the boundary contribution is given by $$\label{lateboundary}
\frac{d I_\text{GHY}^\text{sing}(M)}{d\mu} =\frac{\Omega_{d-1} ~d ~\omega^{d-2}}{16 \pi G_{N}}.$$ Finally, the rate of complexity growth in the flat case can be found by adding the last two terms and , $$\label{Scwlate}
\dot{\mathcal{C}} = \frac{1}{\pi}\frac{d I}{d \mu}=\frac{1}{\pi}\left[ 2 M - \frac{r_M^{d-2} ~\Omega_{d-1} (d-1)}{16 \pi G_{N} }~f(r_M)\log \frac{-\mathfrak{a}^2}{f(r_M)}\right]$$ This is exactly which is given by taking the flat-space limit.
In the symmetric evolution $r_M$ is always less than the horizon radius and $-\infty<f(r_M)<0$. Using this fact, we find that $\dot{\mathcal{C}}$ given by starts from $-\infty$ and increases to a maximum value that is greater than $2M/\pi$ but finally at late times approaches $2M/\pi$. In this view, the Lloyd’s bound [@Lloyd:limit; @Margolus:1997ih] is approached from above for all values of parameter $\mathfrak{a}$.
### Numerical results for the Schwarzschild black hole
In this subsection we present the numerical analysis of the complexity growth for the four-dimensional Schwarzschild metric. The critical time in this case can be found through the relations , and , $$\mu_c = -\omega \log( \omega ).$$ $r_M$ can be calculated using where for $d=3$ we have $$r_{M} + \omega ~\log ( r_{M} - \omega ) = -\frac{\mu+\chi }{2}.$$ Using this equation we find $r_M$ as $$r_{M} = \omega ~\left( 1 + W\left( \frac{-1}{\omega ~e^{1+ \frac{\mu + \chi}{2\omega}}}\right ) \right),$$ where $W$ is the Lambert $W$ function. The rate of complexity growth at late time can be read from by putting $d=3$, $$\dot{\mathcal{C}} =\frac{1}{\pi}\left( 2 M - \frac{r_{M}}{2 G_{N}} f(r_M) \log \frac{-\mathfrak{a}^2}{f(r_M)}\right).$$ For a fixed value of horizon parameter $\omega$ but different values of $\mathfrak{a}$ the complexity growth with respect to the boundary time is plotted in figure 3. For all values of the parameters, the rate of the complexity growth at late time approaches Lloyd’s bound [@Lloyd:limit; @Margolus:1997ih] from above.
BMSFT Complexity Growth in $d=2$
=================================
Asymptotically flat black hole solutions, which were studied in the previous section, are given by taking the flat-space limit from the asymptotically AdS black holes. In the three-dimensional Einstein gravity, there is no black hole solution [@Ida:2000jh]. The flat space limit of BTZ black holes are three-dimensional cosmological spacetimes [@Cornalba:2002fi; @Cornalba:2003kd]. These solutions, which are known as flat space cosmology (FSC), have recently been studied in the context of flat-space holography [@Bagchi:2012xr; @Barnich:2012xq]. In this section, we find the exact formula for the growth rate of the BMSFT complexity in $d=2$ [^3]. To do so, we apply the CA conjecture for the nonrotating FSC given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{FSCmetric}
ds^2 &= \hat{r}_{+}^2 d t^2 - \frac{d r^2}{\hat{r}_{+}^2} +r^2 d \phi^2,
\\
M&=\frac{\hat{r}_{+}^2}{8 G_{N}},\end{aligned}$$ where $M$ is the mass parameter. For this metric the tortoise coordinate is given by $$\label{tortoisefsc}
r^{\ast} = - \frac{r}{\hat{r}_{+}^2}.$$ The Penrose-Cartan diagram of FSC has been shown in figure 4. We note that all of the $r=\text{const}$ surfaces are spacelike in FSC. Similar to the higher dimensional cases, we impose a symmetric dynamic for the right- and left-hand sides of the Penrose-Cartan diagram. The necessary information for all of the relevant points in FSC are collected in the following table:
[ |p[3cm]{}|p[3cm]{}|p[3cm]{}|p[2cm]{}|p[3.7cm]{}| ]{}\
Point name & $t$ &$r ^{\ast}$ & Sign of $f(r)$\
X &$r^{\ast}(\epsilon_{0}) - \mu^-$ & $r^{\ast}(\epsilon_{0})$ &-\
W &$-r^{\ast}(\epsilon_{0}) + \mu^-$ &$r^{\ast}(\epsilon_{0})$ &-\
Y &$r^{\ast}(\epsilon_{0}) + \mu^+$ &$r^{\ast}(\epsilon_{0})$ &-\
Z &$-r^{\ast}(\epsilon_{0}) - \mu^{+}$ &$r^{\ast}(\epsilon_{0})$ &-\
The bulk action and also the boundary terms and the joint terms are exactly the same as in . The definition of the initial and the late times are also the same as for higher dimensional cases.
Initial time
------------
\[fig:22\]
The GHY term for the spacelike surfaces in the FSC are $$I_{GHY}^{FSC}= \int \frac{\hat{r}_{+}^2}{4 G_{N}} dt \Bigg{|}_{r^{\ast} = \text{const}}.$$ For the surfaces near $r^{\ast} = \epsilon_{0}$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
I_{GHY}(WX) &= \frac{\hat{r}_{+}^2}{4 G_{N}} \left( t(W)- t(X)\right ),
\\
I_{GHY}(ZY) &= \frac{\hat{r}_{+}^2}{4 G_{N}} \left( t(Z)- t(Y)\right ).\end{aligned}$$ Adding these two terms yields $$I_{GHY}^{sing} = \frac{\hat{r}_{+}^2}{4 G_{N}}\left ( -4 r^{\ast}(\epsilon_0) + 2 \mu^- -2 \mu^+ \right).$$ Hence for the symmetric evolution where $\mu^+ - \mu^-$ is fixed, the rate of complexity growth for the initial time vanishes, $$\dot{\mathcal{C}}_{initial}^{FSC} = 0.$$
Late time
---------
\[fig:22\]
At the late time a new null joint term appears at the point $M$ (Figure 5). At this point $t(M)=0$, $r ^{\ast}(M)=- \mu^+$, and the sign of $f(r_M)$ is negative. Thus we have $$\frac{d I_{J}(M)}{d \mu^+} = -\frac{\hat{r}_{+}^2}{8 G} \log |\frac{\hat{r}_{+}}{\mathfrak{a}}|.$$ Imposing the symmetric evolution, $$\mu^+ - \mu^- = \text{const}, \qquad \mu^+ + \mu^-={\mu},$$ the complexity growth at the late time is found, $$\label{final FSC}
\dot{\mathcal{C}}=\frac{1}{\pi}\frac{d I}{d \mu} = \frac{1}{\pi} \left( \frac{\hat{r}_{+}^2}{4 G_{N}} + \frac{\hat{r}_{+}^2}{4 G_{N}} \log |\frac{\mathfrak{a}}{\hat{r}_{+}}|\right).$$ We can rewrite in terms of the FSC mass as $$\dot{\mathcal{C}}= \frac{1}{\pi} \left( 2 M+ M \log \frac{\mathfrak{a}^2}{8 G_{N} M}\right).$$ It is a constant and differs from Lloyd’s bound by a logarithmic term. This result is exactly the same as , which is given by taking the flat space limit. Similar to the higher dimensional cases, $\mathfrak{a}$ is a new length parameter in the field theory. However, if we demand that Lloyd’s bound [@Lloyd:limit] is not violated, then $\mathfrak{a}$ must be restricted by $\mathfrak{a}< \hat{r}^{+}$.
Discussion
===========
In this paper we calculate the rate of complexity growth for BMSFT$_d$. Our main goal is generalizing the CA proposal for the flat/BMSFT correspondence. To do so, we need to define a portion of spacetime in which the gravitational action is evaluated. Since the final formulas for the growth rate are simply given by taking the flat space limit from the AdS/CFT calculation, we can check the results of various potential regions. Our main achievement in this paper is that the evaluation of the gravitational action must be done on a region that is given by the intersection of four WDW patches. The boundary of two of these patches connects past singularity to the future one by crossing from past null infinity. The boundary of other patches starts from past null infinity and using future null infinity eventually reaches to the future singularity. Using this portion of spacetime we show that the rate of complexity growth is zero for the initial times and for the late times is exactly the same as what one finds by taking the flat-space limit from the AdS/CFT calculation.
Despite CFT$_2$, the rate of complexity growth is a constant for the BMSFT$_2$ and differs from Lloyd’s bound [@Lloyd:limit] by a logarithmic term. In higher dimensions, this rate is not a constant and approaches Lloyd’s bound from above. This result is similar to the higher dimensional asymptotically AdS black holes and different from the Lifshitz and the hyperscaling violating geometries that this bound has violated [@Alishahiha:2018tep]. This shows that although BMSFTs are ultrarelativistic theories, they are more similar to the relativistic theories than to the nonrelativistic ones.
The idea presented in this paper for the definition of the suggested spacetime region on which the gravitational action is evaluated may help us to study the complexity of formation [@Brown:2015bva; @Brown:2015lvg; @Chapman:2016hwi] in the context of flat/BMSFT correspondence. This is a potentional open problem that could be addressed in future works.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The authors thank S. M. Hosseini and Sh. Karimi for useful comments on the manuscript. We are also grateful to M. R. Mohammadi Mozaffar, A. Faraji Astaneh and Yang Run Qiu for the useful comments. We have used xAct [@xAct] and its package[@Nutma:2013zea] during this work and for Penrose-Cartan diagrams we have used the code by E. Gourgoulhon [@sage].
Non-symmetric evolutions in past and future null infinities
============================================================
In this appendix, we discuss the nonsymmetric scenario when the boundary times on future and past null infinities develop individually. We show the parameter that render nonsymmetricity by $\gamma$. Hence we define $$\mu^+ = \gamma \mu^- + \chi \qquad \mu^+ + \mu^- =\mu,$$ where $\chi$ is a constant. Using nonsymmetric parametrization, the rate of complexity growth is given by $$\label{deriv}
\dot{\mathcal{C}}=\frac{1}{\pi}\left(\frac{d I}{d \mu}\right) = \frac{1}{\pi}\left(\frac{\gamma}{1+\gamma}\frac{d I}{d \mu^+} + \frac{1}{1+\gamma}\frac{d I}{d \mu^-}\right).$$
A1 Initial time {#a1-initial-time .unnumbered}
---------------
In this case the GHY terms near the singularities change as $$I_{GHY}^{sing}=\frac{\Omega_{d-1} ~d~ \omega^{d-2}}{8 \pi G_{N}}\left( \mu^{-} - \mu^+\right).$$ Using the fact that $r_P=r_Q$ and also and the null joint terms become $$I_{J}^{null} = -\frac{\Omega_{d-1} ~(r_P )^{d-1}}{4 \pi G_{N}} \log \frac{\mathfrak{a}^2}{|f(r_P)|}.$$ Using the definition of the tortoise coordinate , one can find $$\frac{d r_P}{d \mu^+}= \frac{-f(r_P)}{2}, \qquad \frac{d r_P}{d \mu^-}= \frac{f(r_P)}{2}.$$ Hence we find the rate of complexity growth for nonsymmetric boundary times as $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\mathcal{C}} =\frac{1}{\pi} ~\frac{d I}{d \mu}=\frac{1-\gamma}{1+\gamma} ~\frac{1}{\pi} ~ \left(4 M+ \frac{\Omega_{d-1} ~(d-1)~r_P^{d-2}}{8 \pi G_{N}} f(r_P) ~\log \frac{\mathfrak{a}^2}{f(r_P)}\right).\end{aligned}$$ It is clear that for the symmetric case, i.e., $\gamma=1$, the growth rate is zero.
A2 Late time {#a2-late-time .unnumbered}
------------
Now the boundary term near the future singularity results in $$\label{GHYlateap}
I_{GHY}^{sing}=\frac{\Omega_{d-1} ~d~ \omega^{d-2}}{8 \pi G_{N}}( \mu^-).$$ The contribution of the joint terms at $P$ and $Q$ is similar to the initial time where we have $$I_{J}^{null} = -\frac{\Omega_{d-1} ~r_P ^{d-1}}{4 \pi G_{N}} \log \frac{\mathfrak{a}^2}{|f(r_P)|}.$$ The contribution of the null-joint term at point $M$ is given by . Using it is not hard to find that for the nonsymmetric case we have $$\frac{d r_M}{d \mu^+} = -f(r_M).$$ Hence we find $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d I_{J}^\text{null}(M)}{d \mu^+} = \frac{(d-2) ~\omega^{d-2} ~\Omega_{d-1}}{8 \pi G_{N}}-\frac{r_M^{d-2}~\Omega_{d-1}}{8 \pi G_{N}} ~\left((d-1)f(r_M) \log \frac{-\mathfrak{a}^2}{f(r_M)}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Finally using we find the rate of complexity growth as $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber\dot{\mathcal{C}} = \frac{1}{\pi} ~\Big[ \frac{4 M}{1+\gamma} &- \frac{r_M^{d-2}~ \Omega_{d-1}}{8 \pi G_{N}} \frac{\gamma}{1+\gamma}~(d-1)f(r_M) \log \frac{-\mathfrak{a}^2}{f(r_M)}
\\
&+\frac{1-\gamma}{1+\gamma} \frac{\Omega_{d-1} ~(d-1)~r_P^{d-2}}{8 \pi G_{N}} f(r_P) \log \frac{\mathfrak{a} ^2}{f(r_P)} \Big].\end{aligned}$$ For $\gamma=1$ the result is exactly the same as the symmetric case. Moreover, in the nonsymmetric case, the complexity growth depends not only on $r_M$ but also on $r_P$.
A. Bagchi, “Correspondence between Asymptotically Flat Spacetimes and Nonrelativistic Conformal Field Theories,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**105**]{}, 171601 (2010). A. Bagchi, “The BMS/GCA correspondence,” arXiv:1006.3354 \[hep-th\]. A. Bagchi and R. Fareghbal, “BMS/GCA Redux: Towards Flatspace Holography from Non-Relativistic Symmetries,” \[arXiv:1203.5795 \[hep-th\]\].
H. Bondi, M. G. van der Burg, and A. W. Metzner, “Gravitational waves in general relativity. 7. [W]{}aves from axisymmetric isolated systems,” [ *Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A*]{} [**269**]{} (1962) 21. R. K. Sachs, “Gravitational waves in general relativity. 8. [W]{}aves in asymptotically flat space-times,” [*Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A*]{} [ **270**]{} (1962) 103. R. K. Sachs, “Asymptotic symmetries in gravitational theory,” [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**128**]{} (1962) 2851.
A. Ashtekar, J. Bicak and B. G. Schmidt, “Asymptotic structure of symmetry reduced general relativity,” Phys. Rev. D [**55**]{}, 669 (1997) \[gr-qc/9608042\].
G. Barnich and G. Compere, “Classical central extension for asymptotic symmetries at null infinity in three spacetime dimensions,” Class. Quant. Grav. [**24**]{}, F15 (2007) \[gr-qc/0610130\].
G. Barnich and C. Troessaert, “Symmetries of asymptotically flat 4 dimensional spacetimes at null infinity revisited,” arXiv:0909.2617 \[gr-qc\].
G. Barnich and C. Troessaert, “Aspects of the BMS/CFT correspondence,” JHEP [**1005**]{}, 062 (2010) \[arXiv:1001.1541 \[hep-th\]\].
A. Bagchi, S. Detournay, R. Fareghbal and J. Simón, “Holography of 3D Flat Cosmological Horizons,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**110**]{}, no. 14, 141302 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.141302 \[arXiv:1208.4372 \[hep-th\]\].
A. Bagchi, D. Grumiller and W. Merbis, “Stress tensor correlators in three-dimensional gravity,” Phys. Rev. D [**93**]{}, no. 6, 061502 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.061502 \[arXiv:1507.05620 \[hep-th\]\]. M. Asadi, O. Baghchesaraei and R. Fareghbal, “Stress tensor correlators of CCFT$_2$ using flat-space holography,” Eur. Phys. J. C [**77**]{}, no. 11, 737 (2017) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5333-4 \[arXiv:1701.00063 \[hep-th\]\].
O. Baghchesaraei, R. Fareghbal and Y. Izadi, “Flat-Space Holography and Stress Tensor of Kerr Black Hole,” Phys. Lett. B [**760**]{}, 713 (2016) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.07.062 \[arXiv:1603.04137 \[hep-th\]\].
R. Fareghbal and I. Mohammadi, “Flat-space Holography and Correlators of Robinson-Trautman Stress tensor,” arXiv:1802.05445 \[hep-th\].
A. Bagchi, R. Basu, D. Grumiller and M. Riegler, Entanglement entropy in Galilean conformal field theories and flat holography, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**114**]{}, no. 11, 111602 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.111602 arXiv:1410.4089 \[hep-th\].
S. M. Hosseini and Á. Véliz-Osorio, Gravitational anomalies, entanglement entropy, and flat-space holography, Phys. Rev. D [**93**]{}, no. 4, 046005 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.046005 arXiv:1507.06625 \[hep-th\].
R. Basu and M. Riegler, Wilson Lines and holographic entanglement entropy in galilean conformal field theories, Phys. Rev. D [**93**]{}, no. 4, 045003 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.045003 arXiv:1511.08662 \[hep-th\].
H. Jiang, W. Song and Q. Wen, “Entanglement Entropy in Flat Holography,” JHEP [**1707**]{}, 142 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2017)142 \[arXiv:1706.07552 \[hep-th\]\].
R. Fareghbal and P. Karimi, “Logarithmic Correction to BMSFT Entanglement Entropy,” Eur. Phys. J. C [**78**]{}, no. 3, 267 (2018) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5760-x \[arXiv:1709.01804 \[hep-th\]\]. E. Hijano and C. Rabideau, “Holographic entanglement and Poincaré blocks in three-dimensional flat space,” JHEP [**1805**]{}, 068 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2018)068 \[arXiv:1712.07131 \[hep-th\]\].
M. Asadi and R. Fareghbal, “Holographic Calculation of BMSFT Mutual and 3-partite Information,” arXiv:1802.06618 \[hep-th\].
E. Hijano, “Semi-classical BMS$_3$ blocks and flat holography,” arXiv:1805.00949 \[hep-th\]. M. Riegler and C. Zwikel, “Canonical Charges in Flatland,” PoS Modave [**2017**]{}, 004 (2018) doi:10.22323/1.323.0004 \[arXiv:1709.09871 \[hep-th\]\].
S. Prohazka and M. Riegler, “Higher Spins Without (Anti-)de Sitter,” Universe [**4**]{}, no. 1, 20 (2018) doi:10.3390/universe4010020 \[arXiv:1710.11105 \[hep-th\]\].
S. Ryu and T. Takayanagi, “Holographic derivation of entanglement entropy from AdS/CFT,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 181602 (2006) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.181602 \[hep-th/0603001\].
J. Watrous, “Quantum Computational Complexity,” pp 7174-7201 in Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science, ed., R. A. Meyers (Springer, 2009) quant-ph/0804.3401.
S. Aaronson, “The Complexity of Quantum States and Transformations: From Quantum Money to Black Holes,” arXiv:1607.05256 \[quant-ph\].
A. R. Brown, D. A. Roberts, L. Susskind, B. Swingle and Y. Zhao, “Holographic Complexity Equals Bulk Action?,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**116**]{}, no. 19, 191301 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.191301 \[arXiv:1509.07876 \[hep-th\]\]. A. R. Brown, D. A. Roberts, L. Susskind, B. Swingle and Y. Zhao, “Complexity, action, and black holes,” Phys. Rev. D [**93**]{}, no. 8, 086006 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.086006 \[arXiv:1512.04993 \[hep-th\]\].
D. Stanford and L. Susskind, “Complexity and Shock Wave Geometries,” Phys. Rev. D [**90**]{}, no. 12, 126007 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.126007 \[arXiv:1406.2678 \[hep-th\]\]. M. Alishahiha, “Holographic Complexity,” Phys. Rev. D [**92**]{}, no. 12, 126009 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.126009 \[arXiv:1509.06614 \[hep-th\]\]. J. L. F. Barbon and E. Rabinovici, “Holographic complexity and spacetime singularities,” JHEP [**1601**]{}, 084 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2016)084 \[arXiv:1509.09291 \[hep-th\]\]. J. L. F. Barbon and J. Martin-Garcia, “Holographic Complexity Of Cold Hyperbolic Black Holes,” JHEP [**1511**]{}, 181 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2015)181 \[arXiv:1510.00349 \[hep-th\]\].
L. Susskind, “Entanglement is not enough,” Fortsch. Phys. [**64**]{}, 49 (2016) doi:10.1002/prop.201500095 \[arXiv:1411.0690 \[hep-th\]\].
D. Carmi, S. Chapman, H. Marrochio, R. C. Myers and S. Sugishita, “On the Time Dependence of Holographic Complexity,” JHEP [**1711**]{}, 188 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2017)188 \[arXiv:1709.10184 \[hep-th\]\].
R. G. Cai, S. M. Ruan, S. J. Wang, R. Q. Yang and R. H. Peng, “Action growth for AdS black holes,” JHEP [**1609**]{}, 161 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2016)161 \[arXiv:1606.08307 \[gr-qc\]\]. R. Q. Yang, “Strong energy condition and complexity growth bound in holography,” Phys. Rev. D [**95**]{}, no. 8, 086017 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.086017 \[arXiv:1610.05090 \[gr-qc\]\].
R. Q. Yang, C. Niu, C. Y. Zhang and K. Y. Kim, “Comparison of holographic and field theoretic complexities for time dependent thermofield double states,” JHEP [**1802**]{}, 082 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2018)082 \[arXiv:1710.00600 \[hep-th\]\].
M. Moosa, “Evolution of Complexity Following a Global Quench,” JHEP [**1803**]{}, 031 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2018)031 \[arXiv:1711.02668 \[hep-th\]\]. M. Moosa, “Divergences in the rate of complexification,” Phys. Rev. D [**97**]{}, no. 10, 106016 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.106016 \[arXiv:1712.07137 \[hep-th\]\].
J. M. Maldacena, “Eternal black holes in anti-de Sitter,” JHEP [**0304**]{}, 021 (2003) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2003/04/021 \[hep-th/0106112\].
L. Susskind, “Computational Complexity and Black Hole Horizons,” \[Fortsch. Phys. [**64**]{}, 24 (2016)\] Addendum: Fortsch. Phys. [**64**]{}, 44 (2016) doi:10.1002/prop.201500093, 10.1002/prop.201500092 \[arXiv:1403.5695 \[hep-th\], arXiv:1402.5674 \[hep-th\]\].
D. Carmi, R. C. Myers and P. Rath, “Comments on Holographic Complexity,” JHEP [**1703**]{}, 118 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2017)118 \[arXiv:1612.00433 \[hep-th\]\].
K. Parattu, S. Chakraborty, B. R. Majhi and T. Padmanabhan, “A Boundary Term for the Gravitational Action with Null Boundaries,” Gen. Rel. Grav. [**48**]{}, no. 7, 94 (2016) doi:10.1007/s10714-016-2093-7 \[arXiv:1501.01053 \[gr-qc\]\].
L. Lehner, R. C. Myers, E. Poisson and R. D. Sorkin, “Gravitational action with null boundaries,” Phys. Rev. D [**94**]{}, no. 8, 084046 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.084046 \[arXiv:1609.00207 \[hep-th\]\].
G. Hayward, “Gravitational action for space-times with nonsmooth boundaries,” Phys. Rev. D [**47**]{}, 3275 (1993). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.47.3275 K. Skenderis, “Lecture notes on holographic renormalization,” Class. Quant. Grav. [**19**]{}, 5849 (2002) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/19/22/306 \[hep-th/0209067\]. R. N. Caldeira Costa, “Aspects of the zero $\Lambda$ limit in the AdS/CFT correspondence,” Phys. Rev. D [**90**]{}, no. 10, 104018 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.104018 \[arXiv:1311.7339 \[hep-th\]\]. S. Lloyd, “Ultimate physical limits to computation,” Nature 406 (2000), no. 6799 1047–1054
N. Margolus and L. B. Levitin, “The Maximum speed of dynamical evolution,” Physica D [**120**]{}, 188 (1998) doi:10.1016/S0167-2789(98)00054-2 \[quant-ph/9710043\].
D. Ida, “No black hole theorem in three-dimensional gravity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 3758 (2000) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.3758 \[gr-qc/0005129\].
L. Cornalba and M. S. Costa, “A New cosmological scenario in string theory,” Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{}, 066001 (2002) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.66.066001 \[hep-th/0203031\]. L. Cornalba and M. S. Costa, “Time dependent orbifolds and string cosmology,” Fortsch. Phys. [**52**]{}, 145 (2004) doi:10.1002/prop.200310123 \[hep-th/0310099\].
G. Barnich, “Entropy of three-dimensional asymptotically flat cosmological solutions,” JHEP [**1210**]{}, 095 (2012) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2012)095 \[arXiv:1208.4371 \[hep-th\]\].
M. Alishahiha, A. Faraji Astaneh, M. R. Mohammadi Mozaffar and A. Mollabashi, “Complexity Growth with Lifshitz Scaling and Hyperscaling Violation,” arXiv:1802.06740 \[hep-th\].
S. Chapman, H. Marrochio and R. C. Myers, “Complexity of Formation in Holography,” JHEP [**1701**]{}, 062 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2017)062 \[arXiv:1610.08063 \[hep-th\]\].
J. M. Martin-Garcia, “xAct: Efficient tensor computer algebra for Mathematica,” 2002-2015. \[http://www.xact.es\].
T. Nutma, “xTras : A field-theory inspired xAct package for mathematica,” Comput. Phys. Commun. [**185**]{}, 1719 (2014) doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2014.02.006 \[arXiv:1308.3493 \[cs.SC\]\]. E. Gourgoulhon, “Carter-Penrose diagram of Schwarzschild spacetime.” \[http://nbviewer.jupyter.org/github/sagemanifolds/SageManifolds/blob/master/Worksheets/ v1.1/SMCarter-Penrosediag.ipynb\]
[^1]: For the CV conjecture in $d>2$, the flat-space limit was already shown to work by Susskind (see [@Susskind:2014moa]). Consequently, one may expect that the CA conjecture admits a regular flat-space limit.
[^2]: For obtaining we have assumed that $R=L$ where $L$ is the AdS radius and $R$ is the radius of periodic coordinate in the boundary geometry. Without this choice for the parameter $R$, the flat space limit of (2.60) in [@Carmi:2017jqz] is not well-defined.
[^3]: As mentioned in section 1, for $d>2$ the flat-space limit of the complexity growth rate has already been discussed in the context of the CV conjecture [@Susskind:2014moa]. Consequently, this section is the most original part of the paper where the details of the calculations are quite different from those of the AdS case.
|
---
abstract: 'We consider the original $\beta$-Fermi-Pasta-Ulam-Tsingou ($\beta$-FPUT) system; numerical simulations and theoretical arguments suggest that, for a finite number of masses, a statistical equilibrium state is reached independently of the initial energy of the system. Using ensemble averages over initial conditions characterized by different Fourier random phases, we numerically estimate the time scale of equipartition and we find that for very small nonlinearity it matches the prediction based on exact wave-wave resonant interactions theory. We derive a simple formula for the nonlinear frequency broadening and show that when the phenomenon of overlap of frequencies takes place, a different scaling for the thermalization time scale is observed. Our result supports the idea that Chirikov overlap criterium [ identifies]{} a transition region between two different relaxation time scaling.'
author:
- 'Yuri V. Lvov$^{1}$'
- 'Miguel Onorato$^{2,3}$'
title: 'Double scaling in the relaxation time in the $\beta$-FPUT model'
---
In 1923 at the age of 22 E. Fermi published one of his first papers [@fermi1923dimostrazione] in which the goal was to show that Hamiltonian systems are in general quasi-ergodic. At that time, the paper was considered interesting by the scientific community; however, it appeared later that the hypotheses needed for the proof are very restrictive ([@fermi1962collected; @gallavotti2001meccanica]). About thirty years later Fermi, in collaboration with Pasta, Ulam and Tsingou (see [@dauxois2008fermi] for a discussion on the role played by Tsingou), came back to the problem using a numerical approach. The goal was to study a simple mechanical system and verify that a small nonlinearity would be enough to let the system reach a thermalized state. Their research was also motivated by the work of Debye who in 1914 conjectured that normal (in accordance to the macroscopic Fourier law) heat conduction in solids could be obtained only in the presence of nonlinearity, see [@lepri2016thermal] for recent developments. They simulated a system of harmonic oscillators perturbed by a cubic ($\alpha$-FPUT) or quartic potentials ($\beta$-FPUT). The results they obtained numerically [@fermi1955studies] were very different from expectations: instead of observing the equipartition of linear energy, they observed a recurrent phenomena known as the FPUT-recurrence. This unexplained result triggered a surge of scientific activity and lead to the discovery of solitons [@zabusky1965] and integrability in infinite dimensional systems [@gardner1967method]. However, the FPUT system is only close to an integrable one [@benettin2013fermi] and soliton interactions are not elastic.
At the same time the simulations of the FPUT system were performed, Kolmogorov enunciated the KAM theorem which loosely speaking describes how in a perturbed integrable Hamiltonian system the KAM tori survive if the perturbation is sufficiently small. Chirikov and Izraielev [@izrailev1966statistical] developed a method for estimating the threshold of initial energy above which the KAM tori are destroyed. The basic idea is the following: in the presence of nonlinearity, linear frequencies are perturbed and, if the perturbation is larger than the frequency spacing (distance between two adjacent linear frequencies), then the trajectory may oscillate chaotically between the two frequencies. This idea, known also as the Chirikov overlap criterium, is very helpful but not rigorous. Indeed, for example, there exists a counter example: for the Toda lattice (or other integrable system) a threshold can be derived but the system is integrable, therefore never chaotic. The idea of Chirikov and Izrailev has been followed and different numerical studies confirmed the presence of a threshold above which the FPUT system reaches a fast thermalized state (see for example [@livi1985equipartition; @casetti1997fermi; @DeLuca1999] for a study on $\beta$-FPUT). However, more recently, numerical simulations of the $\alpha$-FPUT [@ponno2011two; @onorato2015] have shown that even for small nonlinearity the system does reach a thermalized state. The explanation of this result was given in [@onorato2015] where it has been shown that for the finite dimensional system of certain size, six-wave resonant interactions are responsible for equipartition and only after very long time the system reaches a thermalized state.
In this Letter we perform a detailed study of the $\beta$-FPUT with a finite number of masses and, as a first result, we show that, as for the $\alpha$-FPUT, the weak nonlinear regime is dominated by discrete six-wave resonant interactions which are responsible for thermalization. Such thermalization seems to occurs for any, even extremely small, levels of nonlinearity. We then estimate the time scale it takes to reach equipartition, and we confirm the result numerically. Moreover, we construct numerically the dispersion relation curve and show that equipartition is observed also in the condition of no-overlap of frequencies. By writing the equation of motion in angle-action variables and by using the Wick decomposition, we find an explicit formula for the broadening of the frequencies. When such broadening is larger than the spacing between frequencies, the Chirikov regime is observed. Therefore, the Chirikov criteria [ identifies a threshold for a more effective mechanism of thermalization.]{} Consequently, there is a double time scaling to reach equipartition as a function of the nonlienarity parameter. Our results are fully supported by numerical simulations.
[*The model-*]{} We consider the Hamiltonian for a chain of $N$ identical particles of mass $m$ of the type: $$H=H_2+H_4$$ with $$\begin{split}
&H_2=\sum_{j=1}^N\left(\frac{1}{2 }p_j^2+\frac{1}{2}(q_j-q_{j+1})^2\right),\\
&H_4=\frac{\beta}{4}\sum_{j=1}^N(q_j-q_{j+1})^4.
\label{H_FPU}
\end{split}$$ $q_j(t)$ is the displacement of the particle $j$ from its equilibrium position and $p_j(t)$ is the associated momentum; $\beta$ is the nonlinear spring coefficient (without loss of generality, we have set the masses and the linear spring constant equal to 1).
[*Analytical Results-*]{} Before performing numerical simulations of the equations associated to the Hamiltonian (\[H\_FPU\]), we first outline the derivation of some important theoretical predictions: i) the nonlinear correction to the linear frequency, ii) the broadening of the frequencies in the presence of nonlinearity, iii) the time scale of equipartition. Those ingredients will help us in interpreting the numerical results.
Assuming periodic boundary conditions and the standard definition of the Discrete Fourier Transform, we introduce the following normal variable as $$a_k=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \omega_k}}(\omega_k Q_k+i P_k),\label{NormalMode}$$ where $\omega_k=2|\sin(\pi k/{N})|$ and $Q_k$ and $P_k$ are the Fourier coefficients of $q_j$ and $p_j$. Then, assuming small nonlinearity, we perform a near identity transformation to remove nonresonant four-wave interactions (such procedure, is well documented in the general case in [@falkovich1992kolmogorov] and in the $\alpha$-FPUT case in [@onorato2015]). The following reduced Hamiltonian is obtained (the new variable has been renamed $a_k$ and higher order terms have been neglected):
$$\begin{split}
&\tilde H_{2}=N \sum_{k=0}^{N-1}\omega_k|a_k|^2 \\
&\tilde H_4=\frac{N}{2}\beta \sum_{k_1 k_2 k_3 k_4}^{N-1} T_{k_1,k_2,k_3,k_4}a_{k_1}^*a_{k_2}^* a_{k_3} a_4 \delta_{1+2,3+4},
\end{split}$$
[where all wave numbers $k_1, k_2, k_3$ and $k_4$ are summed from $0$ to $N-1$]{}; $$T_{k_1,k_2,k_3,k_4}= \frac{3 }{4} e^{i \pi \Delta k/N}\prod_{j=1}^{4}
\frac{2 \sin(\pi k_j/N)}{\sqrt{\omega(k_j)} }
\label{eq:coup_coef}$$ with $\Delta k=k_1+k_2-k_3-k_4$ and $\delta_{i,j}$ is the generalized Kronecker Delta that accounts for a periodic Fourier space. [ We then introduce scaled amplitudes $a_k'=a_k/\sqrt{H_2(t=0)/N}$ so that the equation of motion in the new variable read]{}: $$i \frac{d a_{k_1}}{\partial t}=\omega_{k_1} a_{k_1}+
{\epsilon} \sum_{k_i}^{N-1}T_{k_1,k_2,k_3,k_4}a_{k_2}^*a_{k_3}a_{k_4}\delta_{1+2,3+4},
\label{zakh_eq}$$ where primes have been omitted for brevity, the sum on $k_i$ implies a sum on $k_2, k_3, k_4$ from 0 to $N-1$ and [ $$\epsilon = \beta H_2(t=0)/N,$$ that implies that our nonlinear parameter is proportional to the linear energy density of the system at time $t=0$ and to the nonlinear spring constant $\beta$.]{} In terms of the angle-action variables $
a_k=\sqrt{I_k}\phi_k\;\;\; {\rm with}\;\;\; \phi_k=\exp[-i \theta_k],
$ the equation for $\theta$ reads: $$\begin{split}
&\frac{d \theta_{k_1}}{\partial t}=\omega_{k_1}
+ {\epsilon}\sum_{k_i}T_{k_1,k_2,k_3,k_4}\frac{\sqrt{I_{k_2}I_{k_3}I_{k_4}}}{\sqrt {I_{k_1}}}\times\\
&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \Re[\phi_{k_1}^*\phi_{k_2}^*\phi_{k_3}\phi_{k_4}]\delta_{1+2,3+4},
\label{angle}
\end{split}$$ where $\Re[...]$ implies the real part. From this equation we obtain the frequency by applying the averaging operator $\langle...\rangle$ over random frequencies and using the Wick’s contraction rule,
$$\langle\phi_{k_1}^*\phi_{k_2}^*\phi_{k_3}\phi_{k_4}\rangle=\delta_{1,3}\delta_{2,4}+\delta_{1,4}\delta_{2,3},
%-
%\delta_{1,2}\delta_{1,3}\delta_{1,4},$$
we get the instantaneous frequency: $$\tilde \omega_{k_1}=\langle
\frac{d\theta_k}{dt}\rangle\simeq\omega_{k_1}+ {\epsilon}
2\sum_{k_2\neq k_1}T_{k_1,k_2,k_1,k_2}I_{k_2}
%-\beta T_{k_1,k_1,k_1,k_1}I_{k_1},
\label{eq:nonlindisprel}$$ i.e. the nonlinear dispersion relation given by the linear dispersion relation plus amplitude corrections (recall that $I_k=|a_k|^2$), see also [@gershgorin2005; @gershgorin2007interactions]. More interestingly, one can estimate half-width $\Gamma_k$ of the frequency by calculating the second centred moment of the equation (\[angle\]) as: $$\Gamma_{k}=\sqrt{\big\langle\left(\frac{d \theta_{k_1}}{\partial t}-\tilde \omega_{k}\right)^2\big\rangle}.
\label{eq:width}$$ [ Using equations (\[angle\]), (\[eq:nonlindisprel\]), the Wick’s decomposition and under the assumption of thermal equilibrium (equipartition of linear energy), we obtain: $$\Gamma_k= \frac{3}{4}\epsilon \omega_k=\frac{3}{4}\frac{1}{N} \beta
H_2(t=0) \omega_k$$ ]{}
[ Once the broadening of the frequency is estimated, the Chirikov overlap parameter can be defined as: $$R_k=2 \frac{\Gamma_k}{\tilde\omega_{k+1}-\tilde\omega_{k}} \eqsim
\frac{3}{2} \frac{\omega_k}{\omega_{k+1}-\omega_k} \epsilon.$$ According to Chirikov, the stochastization takes place when $R_k=1$. If we define $\epsilon_{\rm cr}$ as the value for which $R_k=1$, then it is straightforward to observe that $\epsilon_{\rm
cr}$ is $k$ dependent and $\epsilon_{\rm cr}$ becomes large for small values of $k$. This implies that a transition region between two regimes cannot be sharp. In the long wave limit the critical energy takes the following form $H_{2\rm cr}(t=0)= {2 N}/({3\beta k})$. Full stochasticization of all wave numbers takes place for $\epsilon_{\rm
cr}\simeq0.6$ (as we will see below, for this value of $\epsilon$ we observe a new scaling of the equipartition time as a function of time). ]{}
We now turn our attention to the estimation of the time scale needed to reach equipartition. The theoretical predictions that follows are based on the assumption that an irreversible dynamics can be obtained only if waves interact in a resonant manner, i.e. for some $n$ and $l$ the following system has solution for integer values of $k$: $$\begin{split}
k_1+k_2+...+ k_l=k_{l+1}+k_{l+2}+...+k_n\\
\omega_{k_1}+\omega_{k_2}+...+ \omega_l=\omega_{l+1}+\omega_{l+2}+...+\omega_n.\\
\end{split}$$ Just like for a forced harmonic oscillator, non resonant interactions lead to periodic solutions, i.e. to recurrence. Based on the methodology developed in [@onorato2015], we can state that for $N=32$ (the number of masses in original simulations of Fermi et al) there are four-wave resonant interactions; however, those resonances are isolated and can not lead to thermalization (see also [@henrici2008results; @rink2006proof]). Following the results in [@onorato2015], efficient resonant interactions for the $\beta$-FPUT take place for $l=3$ and $n=6$, i.e. six-wave resonant interactions is the lowest order resonant process for the discrete system. This implies that a new canonical transformation needs to be performed to remove non resonant four-wave interactions and obtain a deterministic six-wave interaction equation whose time scale is $1/\epsilon^2$, see [@laurie2012one] for details on the canonical transformation.
An estimation of the time scale of such interactions can be obtained following the argument developed in [@onorato2015] based on the construction of an evolution equation for the wave action spectral density $ N_k=\langle |a_k|^2 \rangle$, $a_k$ being the new canonical variable [@onorato2015]. Using the Wick’s rule to close the hierarchy of equations, it turns out $ \partial N_k/\partial t\sim
\epsilon^4$ The result is that the time of equipartition scales like $t_{eq}\sim 1 / \epsilon^4$ (this coincides precisely with the time scale, $1/\alpha^8$, given in [@onorato2015] for the $\alpha$-FPUT model). In the continuum limit (thermodynamic limit) in which the number of particles $N$ and the length of the chain both tend to infinite, keeping constant the linear density of masses, then it can be shown that [ the Fourier space becomes dense ($k \in
\mathbb{R}$): four-wave exact resonances exists and the standard four-Wave Kinetic Equation can be recovered (see [@Spohn2006; @lukkarinen2016kinetic; @aoki2006energy; @pereverzev2003fermi]). In this latter case the time scale for equipartition should be $1/\epsilon^2$.]{}
[*Numerical experiments-*]{} We now consider numerical simulations of the $\beta$-FPUT system in the original $q_j$ and $p_j$ variables to verify our predictions. We integrate the equations with $N=32$ particles using the sixth order symplectic integrator scheme described in [@yoshida1990construction]. We run the simulations for different values of $\beta$, keeping always the same initial conditions which is formulated in Fourier space in normal variables as $$a_k(t=0)=
\begin{cases}
e^{i \phi_k}/(N \sqrt{\omega_k}) & \text{if}\ k=\pm 1,\pm 2,\pm 3,\pm 4,\pm 5 \\
0 & \text{otherwise},
\end{cases}$$ related to the original variables by equation (\[NormalMode\]). $\phi_k$ are uniformly distributed phases. By changing $\beta$, different values of the nonlinear parameter $\epsilon$ are experienced.
We found out that a successful way of estimating the time of equipartition is to run, for each initial condition, different simulations characterized by a different set of random phases: our typical ensemble is composed by 2000 realizations. In order to establish the time of thermalization, we have considered the following entropy [@livi1985equipartition]: $$s(t)={-}\sum\limits_{k} f_k \log f_k\;\; {\rm with}\;\;\; f_k = \frac{N-1}{H_2}\omega_k \langle |a_k(t)|^2 \rangle,\;\;\;$$ and $\langle...\rangle$ defines the average over the realizations. Note that the larger is the number of the members of the ensemble, the lower is the stationary values reached by $s$. In our numerics we have followed the procedure outlined in [@onorato2015] to identify the time of equipartition. We present in Figure \[fig:scaling\] such time, $t_{eq}$, as a function of $\epsilon$ for the simulations considered in a Log-Log plot.
![Equilibrium time $t_{eq}$ as a function of $\epsilon$ in Log-Log coordinates. Dots represent numerical experiments The straight line corresponds to power law of the type $1/\epsilon^{4}$, red line, and $1/\epsilon$, black dashed line.[]{data-label="fig:scaling"}](figure_1){width="0.9\linewidth"}
![$\langle |a(k,\Omega)|^2 \rangle$ for a) $\epsilon$=0.12 and b) $\epsilon$=1 obtained from numerical simulations.[]{data-label="fig:disp_rel"}](figure_2.png){width="1\linewidth"}
![$\langle |a(\Omega)|^2 \rangle$ for $k=4$ and $5$ for a) $\epsilon$=0.12 where there is no overlapping of the resonances of two nearby wave numbers and b) $\epsilon$=1 where there is a [ noticeable]{} overlapping of the resonances of the nearby wave numbers[]{data-label="fig:freq_overlap"}](figure_3.png){width="1\linewidth"}
The figure also shows two straight lines (power laws) with slope -4 and -1. The steepest one (in red color) is consistent with the six-wave interaction theory, while the blue one corresponds to the time scale associated with the nonlinearity in the dynamical equation. A clear transition between the two scalings is observed. Similar transition has also been observed in [@Danieli2017] where the $\alpha$-FPUT has been integrated.
In order to understand such behaviour, we build the dispersion relation curve from numerical data and measure the shift and the width of the frequencies as a function of the parameter $\epsilon$. After reaching the thermalized state, the procedure adopted consists in constructing the variable $a_k(t)$ from eq. (\[NormalMode\]) and let the simulation run on a time window over which, for each mode, a Fourier transform (from variable $t$ to $\Omega$) is taken. This is done for all the members of the ensemble. Then $\langle
|a(k,\Omega)|^2 \rangle$ is normalized by its maximum for each value of $k$ and then plotted as a function of $k$ and $\Omega$.
![Frequency shift as a function of the nonlinear parameter $\epsilon$ for $k$=15. The solid line corresponds to equation (\[eq:nonlindisprel\]), dots correspond to the position of the peak of the distribution $\langle |a(\Omega)|^2 \rangle$ for $k=15$ computed numerically.[]{data-label="fig:shift"}](figure_4){width="0.8\linewidth"}
![Width of the distribution of the frequencies shift as a function of the nonlinear parameter $\epsilon$ for $k$=15. The solid line corresponds to equation (\[eq:width\]), dots correspond to the standard deviation of the distribution $\langle |a(\Omega)|^2
\rangle$ for $k=15$ computed numerically.[]{data-label="fig:width"}](figure_5){width="0.8\linewidth"}
Would the system be linear, only discrete Kronecker Deltas would appear, placed exactly on the linear dispersion relation curve, i.e. $\langle |a(k,\Omega)|^2 \rangle=\delta_{\Omega,\omega_k}$. In Figure \[fig:disp\_rel\] we show two examples of the ($\Omega-k$) plot: the first is calculated on the transition region, $\epsilon=0.12$, and the other one in stronger nonlinear regime, $\epsilon=1$. The plots appear to be very different: first we notice that for the stronger nonlinear case the dispersion curved is shifted towards higher frequencies. The shift is less pronounced for the smaller nonlinearity case, $\epsilon=0.12$ (in the linear case, the curve touches $\Omega=2$).
The other important aspect is that a [ noticeable]{} frequency broadening is observed for $\epsilon=1$; that implies that for a single wavenumber, there is a distribution of frequencies characterized by some width. Due to such width, for two adjacent discrete wavenumbers, the frequencies overlaps (Chirikov criterium). In order to have a clearer picture of such overlap, we show a slice of Figure \[fig:disp\_rel\] taken at $k=4$ and $k=5$ for both cases, see Figure \[fig:freq\_overlap\]. The distribution of the frequencies are separated for the weakly nonlinear case and visibly overlap for the stronger nonlinear case. Note that also for the weakly nonlinear case, for larger wave numbers an overlap starts to appear (not shown in the figure). This is the reason why the prediction made on exact six-wave resonant interaction starts failing and an other scaling is observed (see Figure \[fig:disp\_rel\]).
We compare the shifts and the broadening of the frequencies of our theoretical predictions with the one obtained from numerical simulations, see Figures \[fig:shift\] and \[fig:width\]. Results are overall in agreement in the very weak nonlinear regime: the predictions are obtained by assuming the random phase approximation which does not hold as soon as the nonlinearity starts creating correlation between wave numbers. Such departure of the theory is consistent also with the one observed in Figure \[fig:scaling\].
[*Conclusions-*]{} In this Letter we have considered the original $\beta$-FPUT model and found that the system reaches a thermalized state, even for very small nonlinearity. In this regime and for small number of modes, three time scales may be identified: the linear time scale $1/\omega_k$, the nonlinear time scale of four wave interactions, and the time scale of irreversible six wave interactions, $1/\epsilon^4$. In order to observe equipartition one needs to wait up to the $1/\epsilon^4$ time scale. If one is observing the system on a shorter time scale, using the original variables, then only reversible dynamics is seen, which might be an explanation for the celebrated FPUT recurrence. Such reversible dynamics can be possibly captured directly as is done in [@guasoni2017incoherent], where a nonequilibrium spatiotemporal kinetic formulation that accounts for the existence of phase correlations among incoherent waves is developed.
For $\epsilon\gtrsim0.1$ a different scaling, $t_{eq}\sim \epsilon^{-1}$, starts which is consistent with the time scale of the nonlinearity of the dynamical equation. The transition region has been investigated by measuring the broadening of the frequencies: we observe that the phenomenon of frequency overlap suggested by Chirikov starts in the transition region; the breakdown of the prediction of the discrete weak wave turbulence theory is then observed for such values of nonlinearities. [Chirikov criterion approximately separates regimes of slow equipartition due to six-wave resonant interactions to the other, more effective mechanism for reaching thermal equilibrium. ]{} The mechanism that leads to equipartition for weakly nonlinear initial conditions seems to be universal; indeed, the $\alpha$-FPUT behaves exactly in the same way and we expect that the same mechanism be responsible for explaining the equipartition in systems where metastable states has been observed as in the Nonlinear Klein-Gordon equation [@fucito1982approach].
[**Acknowledgments**]{} M.O. has been funded by Progetto di Ricerca d’Ateneo CSTO160004 . The authors are grateful to D. Proment and Dr. B. Giulinico for discussions.
[29]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, ****, ().
, **, vol. (, ).
, p. ().
, pp. ().
, **, vol. (, ).
, , , , ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , pp. ().
, in ** (), vol. , pp. .
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, (), ISSN , .
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , **** (), ISSN .
, , , ** (, ).
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, (), ISSN , .
, in ** (, ), pp. .
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, (), ISSN .
, , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , ****, ().
|
---
author:
- 'Davide G. Cavezza'
- Dalal Alrajeh
bibliography:
- 'MyCollection.bib'
title: 'Interpolation-Based GR(1) Assumptions Refinement[^1] '
---
### Acknowledgments
The support of the EPSRC HiPEDS CDT (EP/L016796/1) and Imperial College Junior Research Fellowship is gratefully acknowledged.
[^1]: To appear in TACAS 2017
|
\#1
Introduction
============
The dynamics of supercooled liquids approaching the glass transition remains one of the most fundamental problems in condensed matter physics [@review]. Some of the prominent dynamic features in supercooled liquids include the enormous increase in relaxation time scale with lowering temperature, and the nonexponential relaxation in the response to an external perturbation. In addition to these features, an anomaly in transport properties such as breakdown of the Stokes-Einstein (SE) relation in highly supercooled liquids has been observed in experiments [@fujara] and simulations [@mount; @harrowell; @onuki]. Although there exist some theoretical attempts [@stilinger; @tarkiv; @liuopp; @bb; @xia], the underlying microscopic mechanism for the violation of the SE relation is not well understood. Recently, there have been many experimental and simulational studies of supercooled liquids that demonstrate the existence of kinetic heterogeneity which was often invoked to explain the origin of the non-exponential relaxation as well as the breakdown of the SE relation [@sillescu].
In relation to these questions on microscopic slow dynamic features in supercooled liquids, we deemed it worthwhile to investigate whether similar dynamic features can be found in simpler lattice spin systems or lattice gas systems. In this work, we show that the aforementioned features of supercooled liquids, [*i.e.*]{}, slowing-down, non-exponential relaxation and the (analogue) of the breakdown of the SE relation, are also observed in a two-dimensional (2D) lattice Coulomb gas (LCG) system. We also find that the relaxation of the system exhibits a spontaneous appearance of spatial heterogeneity, which we argue is the underlying cause for the non-exponential relaxation and the breakdown of the SE relation.
In recent years, there have been some efforts to find glassy dynamic features in the lattice spin systems with nonrandom interactions [@bulbul]. One of the well-known examples of disorder-free lattice model system is uniformly frustrated XY (UFXY) models in two dimensions, which serve as a model for two dimensional arrays of Josephson junctions under the influence of uniform transverse magnetic fields. Recent work [@kl] has shown that, irrespective of the true nature of the low temperature phase of this system, the equilibrium dynamics of UFXY model in the intermediate range of the temperature for frustration parameter $f$ near $1-g \equiv (3-\sqrt{5})/2 \simeq 0.382$, exhibits a close analogy to that of supercooled liquids. Both spin and vortex dynamics show stretched exponential relaxations with temperature dependent stretched exponents. In order to investigate the dynamics of this system in more detail, we attempted to calculate the self diffusion properties of vortices. However, it turned out to be numerically ambiguous and tricky to trace the trajectories of individual vortices. This is beacause individual vortex around a plaquette is defined in terms of phase angles and one probes the movement of individual vortices not directly but only indirectly through changes of phases, which, at times especially when multi-vortex motion occurs, makes it ambiguous to determine the original position of a vortex corresponding to a new neighboring vortex.
One way to overcome this difficulty was to map the UFXY model onto a LCG via Villain transformation [@villain], where the positive charges in the LCG correspond to the positive current vortices in UFXY models. One can readily probe the diffusive dynamics of charges without ambiguity in the LCG unlike the case of UFXY model. Hence we can investigate both the structural relaxation dynamics and self diffusion dynamics of individual vortices in LCG with relative ease.
With this advantage, we have numerically investigated the equilibrium relaxation dynamics and diffusion characteristics of LCG with charge density factor $f$ near $1-g \simeq 0.382$. We observe that for some range of temperatures above the first order transition, the equilibrium relaxation exhibits slow dynamic features such as stretched exponential relaxation and breakdown of proportionality between diffusive time scale and structural relaxation time scale.
It was a common belief that the 2D UFXY model and the corresponding LCG belong to the same universality class with essentially the same phase transition properties, ground state symmetry, for example. However, recent work on LCG by Gupta, Teitel, and Gingras (GTG)[@gtg] and also another work on UFXY model by Denniston and Tang (DT)[@dt], showed that there exist some difference between the two model systems especially in the case of dense frustration. Both model systems exhibit first order transition but the low temperature vortex configurations in UFXY models are different from the charge configurations of the corresponding LCG for $f$ near $1-g \simeq 0.382$. The underlying cause for this breakdown of Villain approximation in the limit of dense frustration is not known, but probably it is related to application of spin-wave integration to systems having many metastable states with similar energies, that may cause neglect of multi-vortex correlations.
Special interest has been given to the case of $f$ approaching $1-g$ [@halsey; @mychoi]. Consider a system where $f$ equals $p_0 /q_0$ ($p_0$ and $q_0$ are relative primes) which is a rational approximant to $1-g$. Here, in the case of UFXY model, DT argues that the low temperature vortex configuration has lattice periodicity which is of order $q_{0}^{2}$, [*i.e.*]{}, much larger than $q_0$. On the other hand, in the case of LCG, GTG [@gtg] showed, via Monte Carlo (MC) simulations, that the low temperature charge configurations are characterized by arrangements of diagonal stripes that are either completely filled, completely empty, or partially filled with charges that are quite different from those vortex configurations in the corresponding UFXY model. However, GTG did not enumerate the exact patterns of low temperature charge configurations (such as spatial periodicity) for general cases of dense charge filling. In this work, we find that, for the values of $f$ between $1/3$ and $2/5$, there exist a simple regularity in the low temperature charge configuration which consists of periodic arrangements of combinations of two out of three types of striped charge patterns (see Section III).
For wide range of quenching temperatures above the first order transition $T_c$, the equilibrium relaxation continues to slow down with lowering temperature, and the form of the relxations are characterized by the stretched exponential with temperature-dependent exponents. Moreover, we observe that the model exhibits a separation of the two characteristic time scales, i.e., the time scale of single particle diffusion and that of structural relaxation. This feature is quite analogous to the breakdown of the SE relation observed in supercooled liquids. Stretched exponential relaxation is observed to be accompanied by interesting dynamic heterogeneity in the system. It appears that the kinetic heterogeneity is the underlying reason for both the stretched exponetial relaxation and the separation of the relaxation and diffusion time scales.
A convenient measure for dynamic heterogeneity is the so called dynamic cooperativity [@doliwa] of the particle motions. This measures reduction of the effective degrees of freedom. One interesting result from our simulations is that the magnitude of the velocity (or displacement vector) exhibits strong increase in cooperativity of the particle motions. On the other hand, the displacement vector itself shows cooperativity a little smaller than unity due to anti-correlations in the direction of particle motions. This means that the system can be divided into highly mobile regions and relatively inert regions resulting in highly inhomogeneous local mobility distribution. However, there is no macroscopic flow of particles that will generate long range positive correlations between the directions of flows of particles.
When quenched to a temperature below $T_c$, the system is always found to undergo phase ordering via slow coarsening processes. The system therefore does not remain in a supercooled state. Rather it becomes slowly crystalized. It should be emphasized that in this system it is the relaxation for the temperatures [*above*]{} $T_c$ that exhibits slow dynamic behavior which shares some common features with that of supercooled liquids.
Model and Simulation Methods
============================
General 2D LCG [@teitel] is described by the following Hamiltonian that can be mapped from UFXY model by means of Villain transformation [@villain],
$${\cal H}_{CG}={1 \over 2}\sum_{ij}Q_iG(r_{ij})Q_j \label{eq:Hcg}$$
where $r_{ij}$ is the distance between the sites $i$ and $j$, and the magnitude of charge $Q_i$ at site $i$ can take either $1-f$ or $-f$ , where $f$ corresponds to the frustration parameter in the related XY models. Charge neutrality condition $\sum_iQ_i=0$ implies that the number density of the positive charges is equal to $f$. As was mentioned above, we can thus view the system as a lattice gas of $N \cdot f$ charges of unit magnitude upon uniform negative background charges of charge density $-f$ ($N= L^2$ is the total size of the system with the linear dimension $L$). The lattice Green’s function $G(r_{ij})$ solves the equation
$$(\Delta^2 - { 1 \over {\lambda^2}}) G(r_{ij})=-2\pi\delta_{r_{ij},0}$$
where $\Delta^2$ is the discrete lattice Laplacian and $\lambda$ is the screening length which, in normal case of no screening, is set to an infinity. For the case of usual Villain transformation of UFXY model, we have $\lambda = \infty$. But it is included in this equation for generality. Since, in this work, we restrict our attention to only square lattice with periodic boundary conditions, $G(r)$ is given by
$$G(\vec{r})={\pi \over N} \sum_{\vec k \neq 0} { e^{i\bf{k} \cdot r}-1 \over
{2 - \cos k_x -\cos k_y + 1/\lambda^2} } ,$$
where $\bf{k}$ are the allowed wave vectors with $k_{\mu} = (2 \pi n_{\mu}/ L)$, with $n_{\mu} = 0, 1, \dots, L-1 $. In the case of infinite screening length, for large separation $r$, one gets $G(\vec r)\simeq -\ln r$ [@jrl]. In this work, we consider the limiting case of $ \lambda \rightarrow \infty $ only.
In our MC simulations, the initial disordered random configuration is updated according to the standard Metropolis algorithm by selecting a positive charge at random and moving it over to one of the [*nearest neighbor (NN)*]{} or [*next nearest neighbor (NNN)*]{} sites [@gtg]. We find that this [*NNN*]{} hopping algorithm is particularly effective in terms of simulation time as compared with [*NN*]{} hopping alone, as was emphasized in [@gtg]. Moreover, at low temperature, [*NN*]{} hopping alone presented severe energy barriers to the motions of charges in the case of relatively dense Coulomb gas, [*i.e.*]{}, $f$ approximately larger than $1/3$.
The presented results are averages over $100 \sim 500$ different random initial configurations depending on the temperature. In order to ensure that equilibration is achieved, we calculate the two-time charge density autocorrelation function and locate the waiting time beyond which the autocorrelation function no longer depends on the waiting time. As for the values of the charge density parameter $f$, we chose $f = 55/144 \simeq 0.3819$ that is close to $f=1-g$, and square lattices of linear size $L=36$ is chosen with periodic boundary conditions. This value of $f$ is chosen as a simple rational value that satisfies the two conditions of both being close to $1-g$ and being commensurate with the lattice periodicity $12$ as explained in Section III. We found that qualitative features of relaxation dynamics are the same for other nearby values of the frustration $f$.
Simulation Results and Discussions
==================================
First order transition and low temperature configuration
--------------------------------------------------------
We first discuss the equilibrium phase transition and charge configuration of the system. As was first shown by GTG, we also find that there exist a first order transition in LCG with $f$ near $1-g$. Figure 1 shows temporal snapshots of charge configurations evolving from disordered state into ordered configuration after being quenched to a temperature $T=0.026$. First order nature of the phase transition can easily be confirmed by enumerating the histogram of energies $P(E)$ near the transition temperature [@sw]. $P(E)$ is obtained by counting the occurrences of energies for each of the equally spaced energy bins while performing the equilibrium Monte Carlo simulations (via simple Metropolis algorithm). For a system with first order transition, the energy histogram $P(E)$ becomes bimodal near the transition temperature corresponding to a mixture of ordered state (with lower energy) and a disordered state (with higher energy). The transition temperature $T_c$ can be determined by locating the temperature where the subareas under the two peaks are equal. Figure 2 shows two histograms near the transition temperature, where we could estimate the transition temperature approximately as $T_c \simeq 0.0316$. Since we did not attempt a detaled analysis (including a finite size scaling) of the histogram, we think that this estimate value of the transition temperature should not be considered too seriously for its precision.
We find empirically that there exist a simple regularity in the low temperature charge configuration in LCG (Fig. 3). For the case of values of $f$ in the range $1/3 \leq f \leq 2/5$, it is found that the low temperature configuration becomes quasi-one-dimensional with periodic striped patterns. In the cases of $f=1/3$ and $f=2/5$ the ground state configurations are identical to the low temperature vortex configurations in the UFXY model. However, for values of $f$ in between $1/3$ and $2/5$, the low temperature patterns are found to be, unlike the case of corresponding UFXY model, consisting of periodic arrangements of combinations of two out of three types of striped charge patterns as follows.
First component pattern (type I pattern) is a sequence of three diagonals which are [*empty, filled*]{}, and [*empty*]{} respectively (that may be denoted by [**(010)**]{} in our notation where [**1**]{} refers to a filled diagonal and [**0**]{} refers to an empty diagonal). In other words, it is a pattern with single isolated diagonal filled with charges, that is neighbored by empty diagonals on both sides. Repetition of this pattern alone produces the ground state configuration for the case of $f=1/3$ with spatial periodicity three.
Second component pattern (type II pattern) consists of a sequence of five diagonals that are [*empty, filled, empty, filled*]{}, and [*empty* ]{} respectively, or [**(01010)**]{} in our notation. This may be termed as a double filled diagonal because two filled diagonals are positioned in parallel at second neighbor. This forms the basis of the ground state configuration for the case of $f=2/5$ with lattice periodicity five.
Lastly, the third component pattern (type III pattern) consists of a sequence of seven diagonals that are sequentially [*empty, filled, empty, partially filled, empty, filled*]{}, and [*empty* ]{} [*i.e.*]{}, [**(010p010)**]{} in our notation where [**p**]{} refers to a partially filled diagonal where only part of the diagonal sites are occupied by positive charges. This pattern is essentially a partially filled diagonal enveloped by two filled diagonals on both sides at second neighbor diagonal position, which may be termed as a [*channel*]{} structure. This can form a basis with spatial lattice periodicity seven.
We leave the detailed description of the low temperature charge patterns for the full range of $f$ values between $1/3$ and $2/5$ to the forthcoming publication [@config_cg]. And we describe in this work the low temperature ordered patterns for values of $f$ around $1-g$ only. Near the value of the filling ratio $f=1-g \simeq 0.382$, we find that, among the three patterns above, only two types (type II and type III patterns) participate in the stable charge configurations with the resulting spatial lattice periodicity depending on the combination of the two component patterns.
We find that there exist a value $f=f_c \simeq 0.381$ which separates two regimes with distinct low temperature striped patterns. For values of $f$ in the range $0.36 \lsim f \lsim 0.381$, the stable striped patterns turn out to have periodicity $l_p = 7$ which consists of simple repetitions of channel structures (type III pattern). Note that this periodicity seven refers to the periodicity of the filled diagonals only (neglecting the true periodicity including the charge configurations within the partially filled diagonals).
On the other hand, for values of $f$ in the range $0.381 \lsim f \lsim 0.39$, the stable configuration exhibits a periodicity $l_p=12$, which consists of double filled diagonals (type II) and channels (type III) alternatingly placed. As the value of $f$ continuously increases within the two regimes (in the above), the system in the low temperature stable configuration simply adjusts itself by accomodating the extra charges into the partially filled diagonal channels and thereby changing the charge filling within the channels. The dividing value of $f=f_c \simeq 0.381$ between the two regimes appears to correspond to the value $8/21$ in which case the partially filled diagonals have filling density exactly equal to $2/3$. Our simulations show that the filling density $2/3$ inside the partially filled diagonal plays as a stability limit for the channel structures. Beyond this limit, electrostatic instability probably begins to set in, and rearrangement of the whole charge configuration occurs in order to form a new stable ordered patterns. As was also argued by GTG, in general, at much lower temperature $T_p$ (below $T_c$) the charges within the partially filled channels are expected to exhibit ordering, which would depend sensitively on rationality of the exact filling ratio of charges inside the partially filled diagonals.
An important aspect of our simulations is that one has to choose the lattice size appropriately in order to match the periodicity of the true low temperature configuration in the thermodynamic limit. If, otherwise, one chooses a lattice size that is incommensurate with the periodicity (of striped patterns), then one ends up with defective charge configurations with patches of local ground state configurations. We think that this is probably why GTG got two different equilibrium configurations when two different lattice sizes $L=26$ and $L=52$ are used for $f=5/13$ since these $L$’s turn out to be incommensurate with the true periodicity $l_p =12$.
When the screening length $\lambda$ is finite, then we find the low temperature configuration becomes different from the case of no screening ($\lambda \rightarrow \infty$) in such a way that the partially filled diagonals gets rarer. The influence of the screening effect on the statics and the relaxation dynamics needs further study.
Equilibrium relaxation dynamics
-------------------------------
We now discuss the equilibrium relaxation dynamics of the model above first order transition. In order to probe the structural relaxation of charges, we measured the on-site charge autocorrelation functions,
$$C(t)=\langle \sum_{i=1}^{N} Q_i(0)Q_i(t) \rangle / N,$$
where the bracket $< \cdots >$ represents an average over different random initial configurations.
Shown in Fig. 4a is the on-site charge autocorrelation function $C(t)$ for temperatures from $T=0.1$ down to $T=0.033$. From this figure, we observe a slowing down in the structural relaxation for this temperature range. One can extract a characteristic time scale $\tau(T)$ which, for example, is defined as $C(t=\tau(T))=1/e$ for each temperature $T$. As Fig. 4b clearly shows, the temperature dependence of the relaxation time exhibits a non-Arrhenius behavior. We also checked whether the so-called time-temperature superposition holds for the above autocorrelation functions, which is shown in Fig. 4c. We clearly see that time-temperature superposition is systematically broken by the autocorrelation functions. This is consistent with the fact that the stretched exponents have dependence on temperature as is shown just below.
We find that the relaxation pattern of the correlation function $C(t)$ can be characterized by a power law relaxation $C(t)=1-A t^{b(T)}$ (known as the von Schweidler relaxation) in the early time regime and a stretched exponential relaxation $C(t)=C_0(T) \exp(-A't^{\beta(T)})$ in the late time regime. However, as the temperature gets higher, the regime of validity for early time power law relaxation was significantly reduced and we could better fit the early time relaxation with another stretched exponential form $C(t)=\exp(-A''t^{b'(T)})$. Of course for low temperature regime, we could get $b(T) \simeq b'(T)$.
Fig. 4d shows the temperature dependence of the fitted exponents. We see that non-exponentiality increases as the temperature decreases. These results clearly indicate that the equilibrium relaxation in the 2D LCG above $T_c$ closely resembles the primary relaxation of typical fragile liquids.
One of the main characteristic features of the single particle dynamics is described by the mean square displacement $\langle (\Delta \vec r)^2 \rangle$, which is defined as
$$\langle (\Delta \vec r)^2 \rangle = \langle \sum_{j=1}^{N_Q}
(\vec{r}_j(t)-\vec{r}_j(0))^2 \rangle / N_Q,$$
where $\vec{r}_j(t)$ is the position vector of the $j$-th charge at time $t$ and $N_Q$ the total number of charges. Figure 5 shows $ \langle (\Delta \vec r)^2 \rangle $ for various temperatures. It exhibits an early time subdiffusive regime and crosses over into late time diffusive regime. Early time subdiffusive behavior is thought to be coming from local frustrated motions of charges before reaching an average displacement of unit lattice spacing. To test the proportionality of the two time scales, the structural relaxation time scale $\tau$ and the diffusion time scale $D^{-1}$, we plot the temperature dependence of the product $4 D\tau$ in Fig. 6. Here, we clearly see that the breakdown of the proportionality between the two time scales is observed for wide range of temperatures below $T=0.1$ and becomes stronger as the temperature is lowered. This separation of the two time scales is due to the weaker temperature dependence of the diffusion coefficient. That is, diffusion is relatively enhanced at lower temperatures. This is quite analogous to the violation of the SE relation ($D=T/a \eta$, where $a$ is a molecular length and $\eta$ is the viscosity of the liquid) observed in experiments on supercooled liquids [@fujara]. Here, we mention that there exists a correlation between the increase of non-exponentiality (as the temperature is lowered) and the increase of the product $4 D\tau$ at low temperatures [@ediger].
If we suppose that there exists a single dominant relaxation mode in the system (and hence one relaxation time scale $\tau$), then we would obtain a simple exponential behavior for the relaxation function $C(t) \sim e^{-t/\tau}$. On the other hand, if the system consists of many regions with different relaxation times, then the relaxation function would be roughly some superposition of exponentials with a broad distribution of relaxation times, which would be in general not expressible in a simple exponential form, but in stretched exponetial form or other more complicated forms.
The fact that there exists a breakdown of proportionality between $\tau$ and $D^{-1}$ can be interpreted in the following way that invokes dynamic heterogeneity. As the temperature is lowered, the system consists of many regions with different relaxation time that comes from different local mobilities. We can easily see that the structural relaxation time is dominated by the least mobile regions, that is, by the regions with the longest relaxation time. On the contrary, the average (long time) diffusion characteristics is dominated by the most mobile regions. In other words, the structural relaxation function and the self-diffusion function, respectively, are probing more or less opposite aspects of the relaxation behavior of the system. For an extreme example, one can imagine a system where half of the whole system is frozen (no motion of the component particles) while the remaining half of the system has finite relaxation time with uniformly distributed mobile particles. For this system, the structural relaxation time $\tau$ would be infinite due to the frozen half of system, but inverse of the average diffusion constant $D^{-1}$ is finite due to the mobile part of the system, leading to an extreme breakdown of SE relation. Above simulation result, thus, can be interpreted as an evidence pointing toward the existence of a kinetic heterogeneity in the relaxation dynamics and mobility of the system.
In fact, the kinetic heterogeneity can be visualized in our system. Typical charge configuration at $T=0.033$, as shown in Fig. 7, exhibits local striped patterns (ordered domains) and interfacial regions due to mismatch between adjacent domains. For a fixed quenching temperature, the average size of these local domains reaches a certain length scale when the system equilibrates. After equilibration, the system structurally rearranges itself going from one configuration to another with local domains of similar length scale. Figure 8 shows the trajectories of moving positive charges over a time interval of 500 MC steps for $T=0.033$ (corresponding to Fig. 7). We can see that there exist local regions with actively moving charges and other regions with relatively immobile charges. Among the active regions, we can find those charges moving along partially filled diagonal channels. We also find some extended interfacial regions where no discernible local order can be identified, that exhibit relatively high mobility. Enhancement of particle diffusion is probably due to the motions of charges along the partially filled diagonals as well as those fluidized motions in the extended interfacial regions. These fastly moving regions in surroundings of very slowly moving regions offer a specific example for spatial heterogeneity in glassy systems [@harrowell; @onuki], which was often thought of as the physical mechanism for breakdown of the SE relation.
One simple way to quantify the degree of dynamic heterogeneity directly from the local motions of particles is to calculate the dynamic cooperativity [@doliwa] for one particle dynamic quantities such as [*e.g.*]{}, displacement vectors $X_i \equiv |\vec{r}_i (t+ \Delta t) - \vec{r}_i (t) | $ between the time $t$ and $t+\Delta t$ for some fixed time interval $\Delta t$. We can also choose $X_i$ to be the vector displacement itself $X_i \equiv \vec{r}_i (t+ \Delta t) - \vec{r}_i (t) $. If there are no correlations between the motions of particles, then the variations of the $X_i$’s will satisfy
$$\sigma [ \sum_{i} X_i ] = \sum_{i} \sigma [X_i ],$$
where $\sigma[x]$ denotes the mean square deviations of the random number $x$, $\sigma [x] \equiv \langle (x-<x>)^2 \rangle$. However, some correlations between the particle motions will increase $\sigma [ \sum_{i} X_i ]$ or anti-correlations will decrease it. Following Doliwa and Heuer, we can define the dynamic cooperativity as $$N_{X}^{coop} \equiv {{\sigma [ \sum_{i} X_i ] } \over
{ \sum_{i} \sigma [X_i ]}}.$$ In the case of no correlations between the motions of particles, as in (6), we get $N_X^{coop} =1$. If there exist some positive correlated motions between particles, we would get $N_X^{coop} > 1$, while anti-correlations between the motions of particles would result in $N_X^{coop} < 1$. Doliwa and Heuer investigated the dynamic cooperativity of hard sphere systems in 2D and 3D, where they found finite cooperativity ($N_X^{coop} > 1$) for both vector displacement and the scalar magnitude of the displacement, which is consistent with the snapshots of the particle motions in their work. They argue that the dynamic cooperativity measures the total reduction of degrees of freedom due to the correlations. Here we also studied the dynamic cooperativity of the lattice gas particles by calculating $N_{X}^{coop}$ for both the scalar displacement and the vector displacement itself. Interestingly, we found that the scalar displacement exhibited finite dynamic cooperativity (Fig. 9a), while the vector displacement itself showed weak anti-correlations between particles. as shown in Fig. 9b. In the case of scalar displacement, the cooperativity increases at first as the time interval $\Delta t$ increases and reaches its maximum near the $\alpha$-relaxation time scale $\tau$. Then it decrease back to values around unity (corresponding to no correlations) at large $\Delta t$.
Contrasting features of cooperativity for our LCG system and that for the hard sphere systems may be interpreted as follows. In the case of hard sphere systems near the glass transition, the packing density is very high and the inter-particle interaction is a short ranged one. Therefore, the local motions of particles in hard sphere systems are naturally highly correlated in both its direction and magnitude due to the continuity constraint of particles resulting in a large scale flow with directional correlations.
In contrast, in the case of the LCG, the density of particles is relatively low ($f \simeq 0.38 $) as compared with the case of hard sphere systems near the glass transition. In addition to that, charge motions in the LCG is driven by thermal effect. From the snapshots of charge configurations, we see that there exist locally mobile regions as well as locally immobile regions. Locally immobile regions consist of charge configurations that are close to the low temperature striped patterns. Mobile regions, however, consist of charges that are agitated in random directions due to the thermal effect. Thus we do not observe positive dynamic cooperativity in vector displacement, but only the scalar displacement exhibits appreciable positive cooperativity due to the local regions with high mobilities. Hence, heterogeneity still exists in our lattice Coulomb gas in terms of local mobility distribution, but unlike the case of hard sphere systems, there is no appreciable average local flow.
Also, we may look into the nature of the equilibrium dynamics of the system in wave-vector space. Figure 10 shows the structure factor $S(q) \equiv \langle |\rho_q|^2 \rangle $ at equilibrium where $\rho_q \equiv \sum_j \exp [i
\vec{q} \cdot \vec{r}_j ]/N $ where $q= {{2 \pi } \over L} n $, $n=1,2, \cdots 2/L $. We see that the structure factor of our LCG shows some similarity to those of dense liquids with first peak corresponding roughly to the inverse of the average distance between charges. Due to the lattice nature of the LCG, the wave vector has cutoff value at $q_{max}=\pi$ as in the figure.
The diffusive properties of the system can be probed by calculating the incoherent scattering function (ISF) $F_S(q,t)$ which is defined as in our model of LCG
$$F_S (q,t) \equiv \langle \sum_{j=1}^{N_Q} \exp i \vec q
\cdot [\vec r_j(t)- \vec r_j (0)]
\rangle / N_Q,$$
where $\vec r_j(t)$ denotes the position of $j$-th particle on the lattice. Due to the discrete lattice nature of our model sytem, we need to consider the wave-vectors within the first Brillouin zone $q= {{2 \pi } \over L} n $, $n=0,1,2, \cdots L-1 $. Figure 11 shows the $q$-dependence of $F_S(q,t)$ at temperature $T=0.033$. We find that the long-time behavior of $F_S(q,t)$ also can be fitted to stretched exponential form. For low $q$, the late time $\beta$ exponents were close to one (pure exponential relaxation) but as $q$ increases the exponents decreased down to $\beta \approx 0.73$ for $q = 18 \times 2 \pi /36 $, and $T=0.033$ (Fig. 12). As can be seen from the definition of $F_S(q,t)$, for gaussian distribution for the displacement vector $\Delta \vec{r}_i$, we would get $$F_{G} (q,t) \equiv \langle \exp iq [\Delta r ] \rangle
= \exp [ -{{q^2} \over 2} \langle (\Delta r )^2 \rangle ].$$ Figure 13 shows that the gaussian approximation is quite good for low $q$. That is, for long distance diffusion, the distribution gets closer to gaussian. However, as $q$ becomes larger, the gaussian approximation gets worse as shown in the figure. Similar features were reported in molecular dynamics simulations on the dynamics of supercooled water [@sciortino].
In summary, we have shown that the 2D LCG with fractional filling of charges exhibits an equilibrium relaxation behavior, above first order melting transition, characterized by two time-regimes of stretched exponetial form with temperature dependent exponents, which is quite similar to the primary relaxation of typical supercooled liquids. We found a strong deviation from proportionality between the diffusive time scale and the structural relaxation time scale resembling the breakdown of SE relation in supercooled liquids. This is accompanied by a characteristic dynamic cooperativity, where the scalar displacement exhibits positive cooperativity while the vector displacement shows anti-correlations leading to the vector cooperativity less than unity. We have identified the microscopic heterogeneous structure which is responsible for this phenomena.
We thank M. D. Ediger, P. Harrowell, K. Kawasaki and S. Teitel for discussions. This work was supported by the Korea Research Foundation Grant (KRF-1999-015-DP0098) (SJL, BK) and (KRF-1998-15-D00089) (JRL).
[99]{} M. D. Ediger, C. A. Angell, and S. R. Nagel, J. Phys. Chem. [**100**]{}, 13200 (1996); most recent developments on the subject can be found in the collection of papers in the conference proceedings such as J. Non-Cryst. Solids [**235-237**]{} (1998), J. Phys. C: Condens. Matter [**10A**]{} (1999), and J. Phys. C: Condens. Matter [**12**]{} (2000).
F. Fujara, B. Geil, H. Sillescu, and G. Fleischer, Z. Phys. B [**88**]{}, 195 (1992); N. Menon, S. R. Nagel, and D. C. Venerus, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**73**]{}, 963 (1994); M. T. Cicerone and M. D. Ediger, J. Chem. Phys. [**104**]{}, 7210 (1996) and references therein.
D. Thirumalai and R. D. Mountain, Phys. Rev. E [**47**]{}, 479 (1993).
D. N. Perera and P. Harrowell, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 120 (1998).
R. Yamamoto and A. Onuki, Phys. Rev. E [**58**]{}, 3515 (1998); Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 4915 (1998).
J. A. Hodgdon, and F. H. Stillinger, Phys. Rev. E [**48**]{}, 207 (1993); F. H. Stillinger and J. A. Hodgdon, [ibid]{}, [**50**]{}, 2064 (1994).
G. Tarjus and D. Kivelson, J. Chem. Phys. [**103**]{}, 3071 (1995).
C. Z.-W. Liu and I. Oppenheim, Phys. Rev. E [**53**]{}, 799 (1996).
S. Bhattacharyya and B. Bagchi, J. Chem. Phys. [**107**]{}, 5852 (1997).
X. Xia and P. G. Wolynes, cond-mat/0101053.
For recent review on the heterogeneity, see H. Sillescu, J. Non-Cryst. Solids [**243**]{}, 81 (1999) and references therein.
For some of the most recent works, see B. Chakraborty, L. Gu, and H. Yin, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**12**]{}, 6487 (2000); A. Lipowski and D. A. Johnson, Phys. Rev. E [**61**]{}, 6375 (2000); M. Swift, H. Bokil, R. D. M. Travasso, and A. J. Bray, Phys. Rev. B [**62**]{}, 11494 (2000).
B. Kim and S. J. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 3709 (1997); S. J. Lee and B. Kim, Phys. Rev. E [**60**]{}, 1503 (1999).
J. Villain, J. Phys. (Paris) [**36**]{}, 581 (1975); J. V. José, L. P. Kadanoff, S. Kirkpatrick, and D. R. Nelson, Phys. Rev. B [**16**]{}, 1217 (1977).
P. Gupta, S. Teitel, and M. J. P. Gingras, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 105 (1998).
C. Denniston and C. Tang, Phys. Rev. B [**60**]{}, 3163 (1999).
T. C. Halsey, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**55**]{}, 1018 (1985); Physica B [**152**]{}, 22 (1988).
M. Y. Choi and D. Stroud, Phys. Rev. B [**32**]{}, 7532 (1985); Phys. Rev. B [**35**]{}, 7109 (1987); J. S. Chung, M. Y. Choi, and D. Stroud, Phys. Rev. B [**38**]{}, 11476 (1988); S. Y. Park, M. Y. Choi, B. J. Kim, G. S. Jeon, and J. S. Chung, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 3484 (2000).
B. Doliwa and A. Heuer Phys. Rev. E [**61**]{}, 6898 (2000).
S. Teitel, [*Equilibrium Phase Transitions in Josephson Junction Arrays*]{} in Proceedings of the Sitges Conference on Glassy Systems, E. Rubi, Springer, Berlin (1996); J. P. Straley and G. M. Barnett, Phys. Rev. B [**48**]{}, 3309 (1993).
For further details, see J.-R. Lee and S. Teitel, Phys. Rev. B [**46**]{}, 3247 (1992).
A. M. Ferrenberg and R. H. Swendsen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**61**]{}, 2635 (1988); C. Borgs and R. Kotecký, J. Stat. Phys. [**61**]{}, 79 (1990).
S. J. Lee, B. Kim, and J.-R. Lee unpublished.
M. Cicerone and M. D. Ediger, J. Chem. Phys. [**104**]{}, 7210 (1996).
F. Sciortino, L. Fabbian, S. H. Chen, and P. Tartaglia, Phys. Rev. E [**56**]{}, 5397 (1997).
**FIGURE CAPTIONS**
1. Snapshots of charge configuration at time steps (a) t=16 MCS, (b) t=4096 MCS, (c) t=65536 MCS, and (d) t=1048576 MCS, for temperature $T = 0.026$ and $f=55/144$, exhibiting coarsening toward an ordered striped state. Positive charges are represented by filled squares.
<!-- -->
1. Energy histogram near the first order transition temperature (for $T = 0.03165$ and $T=0.0317$).
<!-- -->
1. Regimes of charge patterns for the range of value of $f$ between $1/3$ and $2/5$. See the text for details.
<!-- -->
1. \(a) The charge autocorrelation functions for temperatures $T = 0.1$, $0.08$, $0.06$, $0.05$, $0.042$, $0.037$, $0.035$, $0.033$. (b) Arrhenius plot for the relaxation time ($\log (\tau)$ versus $1/T$). (c) Charge autocorrelation functions in (a) replotted in terms of the rescaled time $t/ \tau (T)$ which shows that the time-temperature superposition is broken. (d) Temperature dependence of the $b$ and $\beta$ exponents for charge autocorrelation functions.
<!-- -->
1. Squared displacement $W(t)$ versus time $t$ for the same temperatures as in Fig. 4a.
<!-- -->
1. Comparison of the two time scales $D^{-1}$ and $\tau$ ($4D \tau $ versus $T$), which clearly shows that the diffusive time scale increases slowly (as the temperature is lowered) as compared with the structural relaxation time.
<!-- -->
1. Typical charge configurations at $T=0.033$. Positive charges are represented by filled squares.
<!-- -->
1. Trajectories of moving positive charges at $T=0.033$ over a time interval of $500$ MC steps. Arrows indicate the directions of single charge motions.
<!-- -->
1. Dynamic cooperativity for (a) scalar displacement and (b) vector displacement respectively for varying time intervals at various temperatures.
<!-- -->
1. The structure factor $S(q)$ at $T=0.033$ and $T=0.037$.
<!-- -->
1. The incoherent intermediate scattering functions at temperature $T = 0.033$ for various wave vectors $q$.
<!-- -->
1. $q$-dependence of the $b$ and $\beta$ exponents for the intermediate scattering functions at temperature $T = 0.033$.
<!-- -->
1. Comparison of the Gaussian approximations and the incoherent intermediate scattering functions at temperature $T = 0.033$ for various wave vectors $q$. We can see that the gaussian approximation is worse at large wave vectors.
|
---
abstract: 'We theoretically study the proximity spin-orbit coupling in graphene on transition-metal dichalcogenides monolayer stacked with arbitrary twist angles. We find that the relative rotation greatly enhances the spin splitting of graphene, typically by a few to ten times compared to the non-rotated geometry, and the maximum splitting is achieved around $20^\circ$. The induced SOC can be changed from the Zeeman-type to the Rashba-type by rotation. The spin-splitting is also quite sensitive to the gate-induced potential, and it sharply rises when the graphene’s Dirac point is shifted toward the TMDC band. The theoretical method does not need the exact lattice matching and it is applicable to any incommensurate bilayer systems. It is useful for the twist-angle engineering of a variety of van der Waals proximity effects.'
author:
- Yang Li
- Mikito Koshino
bibliography:
- 'reference.bib'
title: 'Twist-angle dependence of the proximity spin-orbit coupling in graphene on transition-metal dichalcogenides'
---
The physical properties of 2D material are generally sensitive to the interference with other materials placed in contact. In recent years, a great deal of experimental and theoretical efforts have been made to explore the proximity-induced phenomena in van der Waals heterostructures consisting of different 2D crystals.[@geim2013van] In particular, it was shown that the negligibly small spin-orbit coupling (SOC) of intrinsic graphene can be significantly enhanced by superimposing on the surface of transition-metal dichalcogenides (TMDC), [@avsar2014spin; @kaloni2014quantum; @gmitra2015graphene; @wang2015strong] and it is expected to be useful to realize spintronic manipulation in graphene. In the studies on the proximity effect on 2D materials, however, the importance of the relative lattice orientation has often been overlooked. The previous theoretical calculations of proximity spin-orbit effects of graphene/TMDC system are limited to the non-rotated geometry. [@kaloni2014quantum; @gmitra2015graphene; @wang2015strong] On the other hand, the sensitive dependence on the relative twist angle $\theta$ was noticed in various 2D hetrostructures, and controlling $\theta$ is expected to be powerful means of manipulating their electronic properties. [@carr2017twistronics; @palau2018twistable] In graphene on hexagonal BN system, for instance, the moiré interference pattern gives rise to the formation of the secondary Dirac points and the miniband structure. [@kindermann2012zero; @wallbank2013generic; @mucha2013heterostructures; @jung2014ab; @moon2014electronic; @dean2013hofstadter; @ponomarenko2013cloning; @hunt2013massive; @yu2014hierarchy] The twisted bilayer graphene also exhibits the dramatic angle-dependent phenomena, such as the flat band formation [@lopes2007graphene; @mele2010commensuration; @trambly2010localization; @shallcross2010electronic; @morell2010flat; @bistritzer2011moire; @moon2012energy; @de2012numerical] and the emergent superconductivity. [@cao2018unconventional; @cao2018mott] For graphene/TMDC hetrostructure, the twist-angle dependent band structure was theoretically simulated for several commensurate angles by the density functional theory (DFT) [@wang2015electronic; @di2017angle; @hou2017robust], and it is also experimentally probed. [@jin2015tuning; @pierucci2016band; @du2017h; @lu2017moire] However, the $\theta$-dependence of spin-orbit coupling induced on graphene remains still unclear. It is generally hard to consider arbitrary twist angles in the DFT calculation, because it requires exact lattice matching to have a finite unit cell.
In this letter, we theoretically study the proximity SOC effect in graphene-TMDC heterostructures with arbitrary twist angles $\theta$, and reveal the angle dependence of SOC for various different TMDCs. Using the tight-binding model and the perturbational approach, which do not need the commensurate lattice matching, we obtain the effective Hamiltonian of graphene as a continous function of $\theta$. We find that the relative rotation greatly enhances the spin splitting, typically by a few to ten times compared to the non-rotated geometry $(\theta=0)$, and the maximum splitting is achieved around $\theta \sim 20^\circ$. We also show that the induced SOC is composed of the Zeeman-like term and the rotated Rashba-like term, and the relative magnitude can be controlled by rotation. Finally, we demonstrate that the spin-splitting is quite sensitive to the relative band energy between graphene and TMDC, and it sharply rises when the graphene’s Dirac point is shifted toward TMDC band by applying the gate voltage. The theoretical method proposed here is applicable to any incommensurate bilayer systems where the DFT calculation cannot be used, and therefore it considerably extends the applicability of the theoretical framework to a wide variety of van der Waals heterostructures.
We consider monolayer graphene placed on the top of a TMDC monolayer. Graphene and TMDC are two dimensional honeycomb lattices with different lattice periods, $a_G = 2.46$Å for graphene and $a_T$ for TMDC given in table \[tab:table1\]. We define the stacking geometry starting from non-rotated arrangement with parallel bond directions, and then rotating TMDC by the twist angle $\theta$ around the common center of hexagon as in Fig. \[fig:atomic structure\](a). The lattice structure has the $C_3$ (120$^\circ$) rotational symmetry with respect to the rotation center. We neglect the degree of freedom of the in-plane parallel translation between TMDC and graphene, since in an incommensurate system it can always be incorporated with the shift of the origin. [@koshino2015interlayer]
The lattice vectors of graphene are then given by $\mathbf{a}_1 = a_G(1, 0)$ and $\mathbf{a}_2 = a_G(1/2, \sqrt{3}/2)$, and those of TMDC are by $\tilde{\mathbf{a}}_1 = R a_T(1, 0)$ and $\tilde{\mathbf{a}}_2 = R a_T(1/2, \sqrt{3}/2)$, where $R= R(\theta)$ is the rotation matrix. The unit cell area is $S = |\mathbf{a}_1 \times \mathbf{a}_2|$ and $\tilde{S} = |\tilde{\mathbf{a}}_1 \times \tilde{\mathbf{a}}_2|$ for graphene and TMDC, respectively. The reciprocal lattice vectors, $\mathbf{a}^*_1, \mathbf{a}^*_2, \tilde{\mathbf{a}}^*_1, \tilde{\mathbf{a}}^*_2$, are defined by $\mathbf{a}_i \cdot \mathbf{a}^*_j = \tilde{\mathbf{a}}_i \cdot \tilde{\mathbf{a}}^*_j = 2 \pi \delta_{ij}$. We define $d$ as the distance between the graphene layer and the top chalcogen layer, and $w$ as the distance between top and bottom chalcogen layers. The values of $d$ and $w$ depend on TMDCs as shown in table \[tab:table1\].
We model graphene by the tight-binding model of carbon $p_z$ orbitals, where the sublattice is labeled as $X= p_z^{A}, p_z^{B}$ for A and B sites, respectively. For TMDC, we adopt the tight-binding model including three $p$ orbitals for a chalcogen atom and five $d$ orbitals for a transition metal atom [@fang2015ab]. The orbitals in a TMDC unit cell is labeled by $\tilde{X}= d_{z^2},d_{xy},d_{x^2-y^2},d_{xz},d_{yz}, p_x^{t}, p_y^{t}, p_z^{t}, p_x^{b}, p_y^{b}, p_z^{b}$, where $t$ and $b$ represent top and bottom chalcogen layers. The positions of the orbitals are given by $$\begin{aligned}
&\Vec{R}_{X}=n_1\Vec{a}_{1}+n_2\Vec{a}_{2}+\GVec{\tau}_X
\quad (\mbox{graphene}), \nonumber\\
&\Vec{R}_{\tilde{X}}=\tilde{n}_1\tilde{\Vec{a}}_{1}+\tilde{n}_2\tilde{\Vec{a}}_{2}+\GVec{\tau}_{\tilde{X}}
\quad (\mbox{TMDC}),\end{aligned}$$ where $n_i$ and $\tilde{n}_i$ are integers, and $\GVec{\tau}_X$ and $\GVec{\tau}_{\tilde{X}}$ are the sublattice position inside the unit cell. Specifically, they are expressed as $\boldsymbol{\tau}_{p_z^{A}} = - \boldsymbol{\tau}_1$, $\boldsymbol{\tau}_{p_z^{B}} = \boldsymbol{\tau}_1 $ for graphene, and $\boldsymbol{\tau}_{\tilde{X}} = -\tilde{\boldsymbol{\tau}}_1 - (d+w/2) \Vec{e}_z$ for the transition metal $d$-orbitals and $\boldsymbol{\tau}_{\tilde{X}} = \tilde{\boldsymbol{\tau}}_1 -d \Vec{e}_z, \tilde{\boldsymbol{\tau}}_1 -(d+w) \Vec{e}_z$ for the top and bottom charcogen $p$-orbitals, respectively, where $\boldsymbol{\tau}_1=(-\mathbf{a}_1 + 2 \mathbf{a}_2)/ 3$ and $\tilde{\boldsymbol{\tau}}_1=(-\tilde{\mathbf{a}}_1 + 2 \tilde{\mathbf{a}}_2)/ 3$.
The Hamiltonian is spanned by the Bloch bases, $$\begin{aligned}
& |\Vec{k},X,s\rangle =
\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_{\Vec{R}_{X}} e^{i\Vec{k}\cdot\Vec{R}_{X}}
|\Vec{R}_{X}, s \rangle\quad (\mbox{graphene}), \nonumber\\
& |\tilde{\Vec{k}},\tilde{X},\tilde{s}\rangle =
\frac{1}{\sqrt{\tilde{N}}}\sum_{\Vec{R}_{\tilde{X}}} e^{i\tilde{\Vec{k}}\cdot\Vec{R}_{\tilde{X}}}
|\Vec{R}_{\tilde{X}},\tilde{s}\rangle \quad (\mbox{TMDC}),
\label{eq_bloch_base}\end{aligned}$$ where $s, \tilde{s}$ are the spin indexes, $\Vec{k}$ and $\tilde{\Vec{k}}$ are the two-dimensional Bloch wave vectors parallel to the layer, and $N = S_{\rm tot}/S$ and $\tilde{N}=S_{\rm tot}/\tilde{S}$ are the number of unit cells of TMDC and graphene, respectively, in the total system area $S_{\rm tot}$.
--------------- --------------------------- -------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------------------------------
$a_T$(Å) 3.18[@fang2015ab] 3.32[@fang2015ab] 3.18[@fang2015ab] 3.32[@fang2015ab]
$w$(Å) 3.13[@fang2015ab] 3.34[@fang2015ab] 3.14[@fang2015ab] 3.35[@fang2015ab]
$d$(Å) 3.37[@fang2015ab] 3.41[@ma2011first] 3.41[@kaloni2014quantum] 3.42[@kaloni2014quantum]
$E_T-E_G$(eV) 0.02[@gmitra2015graphene] 0.6[@ma2011first] 0.12[@kaloni2014quantum] 1.06[@agnoli2018unraveling; @kaloni2014quantum]
--------------- --------------------------- -------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------------------------------
: \[tab:table1\] List of parameters for TMDCs and graphene-TMDC bilayers used in this work (see the text).
![Spin-orbit parameters $\lambda$, $\lambda_R$, the central energy gap $E_{\rm gap}$ and the spin splitting $E_{\rm split}$, as a function of the twist angle $\theta$ in graphene-TMDC bilayers.[]{data-label="fig_lambda"}](fig_lambda.png){width="1.\hsize"}
The total tight-binding Hamiltonian is expressed as $H = H_{\rm G} + H_{\rm T} + H_{\rm int},$ where $H_{\rm G}$ and $H_{\rm T}$ are the Hamiltonian for the intrinsic graphene monolayer and TMDC monolayer, respectively, and $H_{\rm int}$ is for the coupling between graphene and TMDC. For $H_{\rm T}$, we adopt the hopping parameters based on the first principles calculation [@fang2015ab] where the spin-orbit coupling is included by on-site $\Vec{L}\cdot\Vec{S}$ term for each atom. The on-site energy of the TMDC atoms relative to the carbon atoms is extracted from the relative energy $E_T-E_G$ from the graphene Dirac point to TMDC conduction band edges in the first principles calculations[@gmitra2015graphene; @agnoli2018unraveling; @ma2011first; @ma2011first; @kaloni2014quantum], which are listed in Table \[tab:table1\].
For the interlayer interaction, we assume that the transfer integral from $\Vec{R}_{X}$ to $\Vec{R}_{\tilde{X}}$ is expressed as $-T_{\tilde{X}X}(\Vec{R}_{\tilde{X}} - \Vec{R}_{X})$, with the Slater-Koster parameterization [@slater1954simplified] and the exponential decay in the distance. Here the hopping amplitude and the decay length are determined to fit the first principles calculations. The detailed method is described in the supplementary materials. The coupling between the Bloch state of graphene and that of TMDC is then given by [@bistritzer2011moire; @koshino2015interlayer] $$\begin{aligned}
&& \braket{\tilde{\mathbf{k}}, \tilde{X}, \tilde{s} | H_{\rm int} | \mathbf{k}, X, s} = \nonumber\\
&& -\sum_{\mathbf{G}, \tilde{\mathbf{G}}} t_{\tilde{X}X}(\mathbf{k} + \mathbf{G}) e^{-i \mathbf{G} \cdot \boldsymbol{\tau}_X + i \tilde{\mathbf{G}} \cdot \boldsymbol{\tau}_{\tilde{X}}} \delta_{\mathbf{k} + \mathbf{G}, \tilde{\mathbf{k}} + \tilde{\mathbf{G}}} \delta_{\tilde{s}s} .
\label{eq:interlayer coupling hamiltonian}
\end{aligned}$$ Here $\Vec{G}=m_1\Vec{a}^*_1+m_2\Vec{a}^*_2$ and $\tilde{\Vec{G}}=\tilde{m}_1\tilde{\Vec{a}}^*_1+\tilde{m}_2\tilde{\Vec{a}}^*_2$ are reciprocal lattice vectors of graphene and TMDC, respectively, ${t}_{\tilde{X}X}(\Vec{q})$ is the in-plane Fourier transform of the transfer integral defined by $$\begin{aligned}
{t}_{\tilde{X}X}(\Vec{q}) =
\frac{1}{\sqrt{S\tilde{S}}} \int
T_{\tilde{X}X}(\Vec{r}+ z_{\tilde{X}X}\Vec{e}_z)
e^{-i \Vec{q}\cdot \Vec{r}} d^2r,
\label{eq_ft}\end{aligned}$$ where $z_{\tilde{X}X} = (\GVec{\tau}_{\tilde{X}}-\GVec{\tau}_{X})\cdot\Vec{e}_z$.
![Band structures for graphenes on (a)MoS$_2$, (b)WS$_2$, (c)MoSe$_2$ and (d)WSe$_2$ at the twist angles $\theta =0^\circ, 15^\circ$, and $30^\circ$, where color indicates the expectation value of $s_z$. In the band plots of MoS$_2$ and WS$_2$ at $\theta =0^\circ$, the dotted green line indicates the DFT calculations.[]{data-label="fig_band_all"}](fig_band_all.png){width="1.\hsize"}
The Hamiltonian of graphene including the TMDC proximity effect can be obtained by the second order perturbation as $H_{\rm eff} (\Vec{k})= H_G (\Vec{k}) + V_{\rm eff} (\Vec{k})$, where $$\begin{aligned}
& [V_{\rm eff} (\Vec{k})]_{X's',Xs} =
\nonumber\\
&\quad
\sum_{\tilde{n},\tilde{\Vec{k}}}
\frac{
\braket{\mathbf{k}, X', s' | H_{\rm int} | \tilde{n},\tilde{\Vec{k}}}
\braket{\tilde{n},\tilde{\Vec{k}} | H_{\rm int} | \mathbf{k}, X, s}
}
{E_G - E_{\tilde{n},\tilde{\Vec{k}}}}.
\label{eq_V_eff}\end{aligned}$$ Here $E_G$ is the energy of the graphene’s Dirac point, and $E_{\tilde{n},\tilde{\Vec{k}}}$ and $|\tilde{n},\tilde{\Vec{k}}\rangle$ are the eigen energy and eigen state of $H_{\rm T}$, respectively, with the band index $\tilde{n}$ (including the spin degree of freedom) and the Bloch vector $\tilde{\Vec{k}}$. Note that $|\tilde{n},\tilde{\Vec{k}}\rangle$ is written as a linear combination of $|\tilde{\mathbf{k}}, \tilde{X}, \tilde{s} \rangle$ of the same $\tilde{\Vec{k}}$. The summation over $\tilde{\Vec{k}}$ in Eq. (\[eq\_V\_eff\]) is taken according to the condition Eq. (\[eq:interlayer coupling hamiltonian\]).
The low-energy Hamiltonian is obtained by expanding $H_{\rm eff} (\Vec{k})$ around the valley center $\mathbf{K}_\xi \equiv -\xi(2\mathbf{a}^*_1 + \mathbf{a}^*_2) / 3$, where $\xi = \pm 1$ is the valley index. Within the linear term, $H_{\rm G}$ is approximated by $H^{(\xi)}_G(\Vec{k}) = -\hbar v (\mathbf{k} - \mathbf{K}_\xi) \cdot (\xi \sigma_x, \sigma_y)$, where $v$ is the band velocity of graphene, and $\sigma_x$ and $\sigma_y$ are Pauli matrices for the sublattice space $X= p_z^{A}, p_z^{B}$. [@ando2009electronic]. For the proximity SOC term, we only take the zero-th order $V_{\rm eff}(\Vec{K}_\xi) \equiv V^{(\xi)}_{\rm eff}$. Now that the transfer integral $T_{\tilde{X}X}(\Vec{R})$ attenuates exponentially and so does its Fourier transform $t_{\tilde{X}X}(\mathbf{q})$, it suffices to keep only a few $\tilde{\Vec{k}}$’s in the summation of Eq. (\[eq\_V\_eff\]). For $\Vec{k}=\Vec{K}_\xi$, the dominant contribution comes from three points, $\tilde{\mathbf{k}} = \mathbf{K}_\xi + \xi \tilde{\Vec{a}}^*_1, \mathbf{K}_\xi + \xi (\Vec{a}^*_1 + \tilde{\Vec{a}}^*_2),
\mathbf{K}_\xi + \xi (\Vec{a}^*_1 + \Vec{a}^*_2 - \tilde{\Vec{a}}^*_1 - \tilde{\Vec{a}}^*_2)$, while the effect of other $\tilde{\Vec{k}}$’s are negligibly small. In this way, the effective proximity potential can be obtained by considering TMDC Bloch states at only three wave points, and the corresponding computing cost is considerably low.
We can show that $V^{(\xi)}_{\rm eff}$ can be written as, $$V^{(\xi)}_{\rm eff} = \frac{\lambda}{2} \xi s_z + \frac{\lambda_R}{2} e^{-i \phi s_z/2}(\xi \sigma_x s_y - \sigma_y s_x)e^{i \phi s_z/2},
\label{eq:V_eff_short}$$ where $s_i \, (i=x,y,z)$ is the Pauli matrix for spin. It is explicitly written in a matrix form, $$\begin{aligned}
&V^{(+)}_{\rm eff}
= \left( \begin{array}{cccc}
\lambda/2 & & & \\
& \lambda/2 & -i \lambda_R e^{-i\phi} & \\
& i \lambda_R e^{i\phi} & - \lambda/2 & \\
& & & - \lambda/2
\end{array} \right),
\nonumber\\
&V^{(-)}_{\rm eff} = \left( \begin{array}{cccc}
- \lambda/2 & & & i \lambda_R e^{-i\phi} \\
& - \lambda/2 & & \\
&& \lambda/2 & \\
-i \lambda_R e^{i\phi} & & & \lambda/2
\end{array} \right),
\label{eq: effective hamiltonian-2}
\end{aligned}$$ where the bases are arranged by order of $(X,s)=(A, \uparrow)$, $(B, \uparrow)$, $(A, \downarrow)$ and $(B, \downarrow)$. The difference in the diagonal elements $\lambda$ leads to the spin splitting between spin up and spin down, and the off-diagonal term $\lambda_R$ mixes the different spins. The term with $\lambda_R$ is similar to the Rashba spin-orbit coupling [@kane2005quantum; @wang2015strong] but here the spin axis can be rotated by an angle $\phi$ on $xy$-plane. The energy gap at the charge neutral point is given by $E_{\rm gap} = |\lambda\lambda_R|/(\lambda^2+\lambda_R^2)^{1/2}$. The spin splitting width in large $k$ is given by $E_{\rm split} = (\lambda^2+\lambda_R^2)^{1/2}$. The effective Hamiltonian $H^{(\xi)}_{\rm eff} = H^{(\xi)}_G(\Vec{k}) + V^{(\xi)}_{\rm eff}$ is formally equivalent with that of the asymmetric bilayer graphene, [@mccann2006asymmetry; @mccann2013electronic] where the spin up and down correspond to layer 1 and 2, respectively, and $\lambda_R$ and $\lambda$ to the interlayer coupling and the interlayer asymmetric potential, respectively.
The form of Eq. (\[eq:V\_eff\_short\]) is forced by the symmetry of the system. The terms in Eq. (\[eq:V\_eff\_short\]) are generally allowed in the time reversal symmetry $\cal{T}$ and the $C_3$ symmetry. Actually, the term proprotional to $\sigma_z$ (different on-site energies at $A$ and $B$ sites) is also possible under $\cal{T}$ and $C_3$ [@wang2015strong], while it is prohibited by the incommesurability between graphene and TMDC, as explained in Supplementary Material. An additional space symmetry imposes a constraint on $V^{(\xi)}_{\rm eff}$. At $\theta =0$, the reflection symmetry $R_x:(x,y,z)\to (-x,y,z)$ requires $e^{i\phi}$ is real. At $\theta =30^\circ$, the reflection symmetry $R_y:(x,y,z)\to (x,-y,z)$ requires real $e^{i\phi}$ and also $\lambda = 0$, i.e., the SOC is dominated by the Rashba term. The detailed argument of the symmetry consideration is presented in Supplementary Material.
![(Top) Position of three dominant $\tilde{\mathbf{k}}$ points for $\xi = +$, in WS$_2$ with $\theta = 0^\circ, 17.9^\circ$, and $30^\circ$. Blue (green) hexagon represents the first Brillouin zone of graphene (WS$_2$). (Bottom left) Band structure of WS$_2$, where the vertical dashed lines indicate the $\tilde{\mathbf{k}}$ for the three rotation angles, and the black horizontal line is the energy of graphene’s Dirac cone without gate voltage. (Bottom Right) Plot similar to Fig. \[fig\_lambda\], calculated for WS$_2$ with $E_T-E_G = -0.08$ eV, indicated by the blue dashed horizontal line in (b)[]{data-label="fig_WS2_band"}](fig_WS2_band.png){width="\hsize"}
We numerically calculate $V^{(\xi)}_{\rm eff}$ for MoS$_2$, WS$_2$, MoSe$_2$ and WSe$_2$. Figure \[fig\_lambda\] summarizes the results, where $\lambda$, $\lambda_R$, the central energy gap $E_{\rm gap}$ and the spin splitting $E_{\rm split}$ are plotted against the twist angle $\theta$. In Fig. \[fig\_band\_all\], we present the band structures for each system at the rotation angles $\theta =0^\circ, 15^\circ$, and $30^\circ$. In the band plots of MoS$_2$ and WS$_2$ at $\theta =0^\circ$, the dotted green line indicates the first DFT calculations, from which we extract the interlayer hopping parameters. For the DFT calculation, we assume the approximate commensurate lattice structure of which unit cell is comprised of 3$\times$3 supercell of MoS$_2$ and 4$\times$4 of graphene, and use Quantum Espresso[@giannozzi2009quantum; @giannozzi2017advanced] with the generalized gradient approximation[@perdew1996generalized]. We can see that the effective model well reproduces the DFT band structure. For the angle dependence, we find that $\lambda$ and $\lambda_R$ are greatly enhanced by rotation, and they take the maximum around $\theta \sim 20^\circ$. For WS$_2$, in particular, the maximum splitting is about 5 times as large as that of 0$^\circ$. At 30[$^{\circ}$]{}, the parameter $\lambda$ vanishes and the $V_{\rm eff}$ is dominated by $\lambda_R$ as expected. There the band structure is formally equivalent to the symmetric AB-stacked bilayer graphene, and the expectation value of spin lies on the $xy$-plane.
The enhancement of the spin-splitting near $20^\circ$ can be understood by considering the second-order process, Eq. (\[eq\_V\_eff\]). The amplitude of $V_{\rm eff}$ is related to the spin splitting of the TMDC bands at $\tilde{\mathbf{k}}$ points which are hybridized with the graphene’s Dirac point. Figure \[fig\_WS2\_band\](a) illustrates the positions of the three dominant $\tilde{\mathbf{k}}$’s for $\xi = +$, in WS$_2$ with $\theta = 0^\circ, 17.9^\circ$, and $30^\circ$. Figure \[fig\_WS2\_band\](b) presents the band structure of WS$_2$ with the vertical dashed lines indicating the $\tilde{\mathbf{k}}$’s for the three rotation angles. Now the lowest valence band of TMDC makes the greatest contribution to $V_{\rm eff}$, as it is the closest to the graphene’s Dirac point energy (black horizontal line), leading to a small denominator in Eq. (\[eq\_V\_eff\]). We can see that the $\tilde{\mathbf{k}}$ point for $17.9^\circ$ happens to be very close to the $Q$-valley, where the magnitude of the spin splitting much greater than in other angles. This qualitatively explains the sharp rise of $\lambda$ and $\lambda_R$ around $20^\circ$. Actually, the spin splitting can be even enhanced by shifting the relative energy between graphene and TMDC. Figure \[fig\_WS2\_band\](c) plots the angle dependence of the spin-splitting of WS$_2$ with $E_T-E_G = -0.08$ eV, where the graphene’s Fermi energy (blue horizontal line) hits the bottom of the Q-valley. Although the Fermi energy is just a little higher than in Fig. \[fig\_lambda\](b), the maximum spin splitting sharply increases to 20 meV, about 10 times as big as in $\theta =0$, because the denominator in Eq. (\[eq\_V\_eff\]) becomes very small. This suggests that tuning of the spin-orbit coupling would be possible using the external gate voltage.
Finally, the graphene under the proximity potential has the non-zero valley Hall conductivity when the Fermi energy lies in the central gap. The Hall conductivity of each valley sector can be calculated using the Berry curvature as $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma^{(\xi)}_{xy} = \frac{e^2}{h} \sum_{n \in {\rm occ.}} \int \frac{d^2\Vec{k}}{2\pi} \nabla_\Vec{k}\times \Vec{a}_n(\Vec{k})
= -\frac{e^2}{h} \, \xi \, {\rm sgn}(\lambda),\end{aligned}$$ where $\Vec{a}_n(\Vec{k}) = -i \langle u_{n\Vec{k}}| \nabla_\Vec{k} | u_{n\Vec{k}}\rangle$ is the Berry connection, $u_{n\Vec{k}}$ is the Bloch function (eigenvector of $H^{(\xi)}_{\rm eff}$) of the band $n$, and occ. stands for the occupied valence bands ($n=1,2$). As a result, the valley Hall conductivity becomes $\sigma^{(+)}_{xy} - \sigma^{(-)}_{xy} = -(2e^2/h){\rm sgn}(\lambda)$.
To conclude, we have studied the proximity spin-orbit interaction in graphene-TMDC bilayers stacked with arbitrary twist angles. By using the perturbational approach based on the tight-binding model, we derived the effective Hamiltonian of graphene as a continuous function of the twist angle $\theta$, and found that the magnitude of SOC is greatly enhanced by the rotation. We also show that the SOC sharply rises when the graphene’s Dirac point is shifted toward TMDC band, by applying the gate voltage. The theoretical method proposed here does not need the exact lattice matching, so that it is applicable to any incommensurate bilayer systems which cannot be treated by the DFT calculation. It would be useful for the twist-angle engineering of a wide variety of van der Waals proximity effects, including ferromagnetism and superconductivty. M. K. acknowledges the financial support of JSPS KAKENHI Grant No. JP17K05496.
|
\
[**Dois Problemas em Equações Diferenciais Parciais**]{}\
[\
]{}\
[Paulo R. Zingano]{}\
\
[Departamento de Matemática Pura e Aplicada]{}\
\
[Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul]{}\
\
[Porto Alegre, RS 91509-900, Brazil]{}\
[\
]{}\
*Trabalho inédito submetido para avaliação*\
*para fins de progressão funcional à Classe E*\
[\
]{}\
[**Abstract**]{}\
\
[ In this work, we examine two important problems in the theory of nonlinear partial differential equations. In [Part I]{}, we propose and solve a more general and complete version of the celebrated Leray’s problem for the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations in $ \mathbb{R}^{3} \!$, which in its simplest form was suggested by J.$\;$Leray in 1934 (and solved only in the 1980s by T.$\;$ Kato, K.$\;$Masuda and other authors). A number of related new results of clear interest to the theory of Leray’s solutions are also given here.\
In [Part II]{}, which is independent of [Part I]{} and can be read separately, we introduce an important new collection of problems concerning global existence results and blow-up phenomena for solutions of conservative advection-diffusion equations in $ \mathbb{R}^{n} $ where heterogeneities in the lower order terms tend to destabilize the solution (everywhere or in certain regions), strongly competing with the viscous dissipation effects to determine the overall solution behavior. This work extends some recent contributions led by the author [@Zingano2010; @Zingano2011] (see also [@BarrionuevoOliveiraZingano2014; @BrazMeloZingano2015]) where the analysis was confined to one-dimensional problems, primarily in the case of linear advection, for which solutions are automatically global and can only misbehave by increasing unboundedly as $ t \rightarrow \infty $. Here, we consider the much more challenging case of superlinear advection (and arbitrary dimension), which may cause finite-time blow-up in several important spaces. We then point out a new kind of phenomena — one that may be properly named “anti-Fujita" for its vivid contrast to the type of blow-up behavior discovered by Fujita in the 1960s, and which has been investigated ever since — that has apparently been completely overlooked in the literature. For better clarity, we restrict ourselves here to the case of linear nondegenerate diffusion, but similar properties and behavior are also to be found in much more general diffusion phenomena, as will be reported shortly. ]{}
\
[**Índice**]{}\
[\
]{}[Parte I: Problema de Leray]{}\
\
1. Introdução $\;$1\
2. Preliminares, I $\;$7\
3. Preliminares, II $\;$12\
4. Prova de (1.12$a$) $\;$16\
5. Prova de (1.12$b$) $\;$23\
Apêndice A $\;$28\
[\
]{}[Parte II: Problema de Existência Global para Equações de Advecção-Difusão Conservativas]{}\
\
1. Introdução $\;$31\
2. Preliminares $\;$35\
3. Prova de (1.10) $\;$40\
4. Condições de existência global $\;$48\
[\
]{}[Referências]{} $\;$51\
[\
]{}[\
]{}[**Contribuições Principais**]{}\
[\
]{}[Parte I]{}\
\
Teorema 3.1 $\;$12\
Teorema 4.1 $\;$16\
Teorema 5.1 $\;$23\
Teorema A.1 $\;$30\
[\
]{}[Parte II]{}\
\
Teorema A $\;$33\
Teorema B $\;$34\
Teorema 3.1 $\;$40\
Teorema 4.1 $\;$48\
\
[Parte I]{}\
[\
]{}\
[**Problema de Leray**]{}\
\
[**1. Introdução**]{}\
Em seu trabalho seminal [@Leray1934], Leray construiu soluções (fracas) globais de energia finita $ \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \in $ $ {\displaystyle
L^{\infty}([\;\!0, \infty), \:\!L^{2}_{\sigma}(\mathbb{R}^{3}))
\cap
C_{\!\;\!w}([\;\!0, \infty), \:\!L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3}))
\cap
L^{2}([\;\!0, \infty), \;\!\dot{H}^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{3}))
} $ para as equações de Navier-Stokes em $ \mathbb{R}^{3} \!\:\!$,\
\
$$\tag{1.1$a$}
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}_{t} +\,
\mbox{\boldmath $u$} \!\;\!\cdot\!\;\! \nabla\;\!
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}
\,+\,
\nabla p
\,=\;
\nu \,
\Delta \mbox{\boldmath $u$},
\qquad
\nabla \!\cdot\!\;\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t)
\,=\,0,$$\
$$\tag{1.1$b$}
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,0) \,=\,
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0 \in L^{2}_{\sigma}(\mathbb{R}^{3}),
$$\
onde $ \nu > 0 $ é constante, e $ {\displaystyle
L^{2}_{\sigma}(\mathbb{R}^{3})
} $ denota o espaço de funções $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\mbox{\bf u} =
(\:\! \mbox{u}_{\mbox{}_{1}} \!\:\!,
\:\! \mbox{u}_{\mbox{}_{2}} \!\:\!,
\:\! \mbox{u}_{\mbox{}_{3}} \!\;\!)
\in L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})
\;\!
} $ com $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\nabla \!\cdot \mbox{\bf u}
= 0
} $ em $ {\cal D}^{\prime}(\mathbb{R}^{3}) $. Ademais, estas soluções reproduzem o estado inicial $ \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0 \!\;\!$ em $ L^{2} \!\;\!$ (i.e., $ {\displaystyle
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) - \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_{0} \;\!
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\!\!\,\!\rightarrow 0
\;\!
} $ ao $\;\! t \mbox{\footnotesize $\,\searrow\,$} 0 $) e satisfazem a desigualdade de energia\
\
$$\tag{1.2}
\|\,\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!2}
\:\!+\;
2 \;\!\nu \!\!\;\!
\int_{0}^{\;\!\mbox{\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}}} \!
\|\, D \:\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!2}
\;\!ds
\;\leq\;
\|\,\mbox{\boldmath $u$}_{0} \;\!
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!2}
$$\
para todo $ t > 0 $ [@Galdi2000; @KreissLorenz1989; @Leray1934; @Serrin1963]. Enquanto a [*unicidade*]{} das soluções de Leray correspondentes a um estado inicial $ \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0 \in L^{2}_{\sigma}(\mathbb{R}^{3}) $ qualquer permanece fundamentalmente em aberto até hoje, Leray mostrou que existe um instante de tempo $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
0 < \mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\:\!\ast\ast}
\!\;\!< \infty
\:\!
} $ (dependendo dos dados $ \nu, \;\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0 $ fornecidos) tal que $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\mbox{\boldmath $u$} \in
C^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{3} \!\times\!\:\!
[\,\mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\:\!\ast\ast}\!\;\!, \infty))
} $[^1] e\
\
$$\tag{1.3}
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \in
L^{\infty}_{\tt loc}
([\;\!\mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\:\!\ast\ast},\infty),
H^{m}(\mathbb{R}^{3}))
$$\
para cada $ m \geq 0 $, onde $ H^{m}(\mathbb{R}^{3}) $ denota o espaço de Sobolev das funções (neste caso, com valores em $ \mathbb{R}^{3} $) em $ L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3}) $ com derivadas (espaciais) fracas de ordem até $m$ em $ L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3}) $. Um problema básico importante deixado aberto por Leray em 1934 foi (denotando $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
W(t) := \|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!2}
\!\:\!
} $, como em [@Leray1934]):\
\
\
ou seja, se vale (ou não) que\
\
$$\tag{1.4}
\lim_{t\,\rightarrow\,\infty}
\:
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
=\; 0.$$\
Esta questão somente foi resolvida (positivamente) 50 anos mais tarde por Kato [@Kato1984] e subsequentemente também por outros autores [@KajikiyaMiyakawa1986; @Masuda1984; @Wiegner1987]. Vários desenvolvimentos e extensões importantes de (1.4) vem sendo estabelecidos (ver e.g.$\;$[@BenameurSelmi2012; @BrazLorenzMeloZingano2014; @KreissHagstromLorenzZingano2003; @OliverTiti2000; @SchonbekWiegner1996; @SchutzZinganoZingano2014] e a discussão abaixo). Em particular, uma prova extremamente simples para (1.4) foi obtida em [@SchutzZinganoZingano2014], com base no método em [@KreissHagstromLorenzZingano2003], utilizando somente técnicas já conhecidas em 1934!$\:\!$[^2] $\!$($\,\!$Para uma descrição detalhada do método em [@SchutzZinganoZingano2014], ver [@Perusato2014].)\
Dado $ t_0 \!\geq 0 $, é natural que se tente aproximar as soluções $ \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) $ de (1.1) para $ t > t_0 $ pelas soluções $ {\displaystyle
\mbox{\boldmath $v$}(\cdot,t) =
e^{\nu \:\! \Delta \:\!(t - t_0)} \;\!
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_0)
} $ dos problemas lineares associados\
\
$$\tag{1.5}
\mbox{\boldmath $v$}_{t}
\,=\;
\nu \,
\Delta \mbox{\boldmath $v$},
\qquad
\mbox{\boldmath $v$}(\cdot,t_0) \,=\,
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_0).$$\
Para estas soluções, é fácil obter várias estimativas de decaimento, como e.g.\
\
$$\tag{1.6$a$}
\lim_{t\,\rightarrow\,\infty}
\:
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $v$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\,=\;
0,$$\
$$\tag{1.6$b$}
\lim_{t\,\rightarrow\,\infty}
\:
t^{\mbox{}^{\;\! \frac{\scriptstyle n}{\scriptstyle 4}}}
\,\!
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $v$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\,=\;
0,$$\
$$\tag{1.6$c$}
\lim_{t\,\rightarrow\,\infty}
\:
t^{\mbox{}^{\;\! \frac{\scriptstyle s}{\scriptstyle 2}}}
\,\!
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $v$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \dot{H}^{\!\;\!s}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\,=\;
0,
\qquad
s \geq 0,$$\
válidas para todo $n$. (Em (1.6$c$) acima, $ \!\:\!\dot{H}^{\!\;\!s}\!\;\!(\mathbb{R}^{n}) $ denota o espaço de Sobolev homogêneo formado pelas funções $ {\displaystyle
\mbox{\boldmath $v$} = (v_{\scriptscriptstyle 1}\!\;\!,\!...,v_{n})
\in L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{n})
} $ tais que $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
| \cdot |^{\,\!s}_{\mbox{}_{2}} \:\!
|\,\hat{\mbox{\boldmath $v$}}(\cdot)\,|_{\mbox{}_{2}}
\in\!\;\! L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{n})
} $, onde $ \hat{\mbox{\boldmath $v$}}(\cdot) $ denota a transformada de Fourier de $ \mbox{\boldmath $v$}(\cdot) $, com norma $ {\displaystyle
\,\!
\| \cdot
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \dot{H}^{\!\:\!s}\!\;\!(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!
} $ dada por\
\
$$\tag{1.7}
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $v$} \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \dot{H}^{\!\:\!s}\!\;\!(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
=\,
\Bigl\{\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}} \!\!
|\,\xi\,|_{\mbox{}_{2}}^{\:\!2\:\!s}
\;\!
|\, \hat{\mbox{\boldmath $v$}}(\xi)\,|_{\mbox{}_{2}}^{2}
\,d\xi
\:\Bigr\}^{\!\!\;\!1/2}
\!\!.$$\
Podemos assim esperar que estimativas similares a (1.6) sejam também válidas para as soluções de Leray $ \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) $ de (1.1), ao menos para $ n = 3 $, dado $ \mbox{\boldmath $ u $}_0 \in L^{2}_{\sigma}(\mathbb{R}^{n}) $ qualquer. Este é essencialmente o [Problema de Leray]{} para as equações de Navier-Stokes, com sua versão mais básica dada em (1.4) acima. Outras questões se põem aqui naturalmente; por exemplo, a respeito do comportamento da diferença (ou erro) $ \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) - \mbox{\boldmath $v$}(\cdot,t) $ para $ t \gg 1 $. Na norma $L^{2}\!\;\!$, esta questão sobre o erro foi respondida por Wiegner [@Wiegner1987], tendo-se, para $ t_0 \geq 0 $ qualquer,\
\
$$\tag{1.8}
\lim_{t\,\rightarrow\,\infty}
\,
t^{\;\! \frac{\scriptstyle n - 2}{\scriptstyle 4}}
\;\!
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) -\,
e^{\:\!\nu \:\! \Delta \:\!(t - t_0)}
\;\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_0) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\:\!=\;
0.$$\
Como com (1.4), uma prova mais simples para (1.8) foi recentemente dada em [@SchutzZinganoZingano2014], supondo $ n \leq 3 $, tendo-se também mostrado os resultados correspondentes a (1.6$b$):\
$$\tag{1.9$a$}
\lim_{t\,\rightarrow\,\infty} \,
t^{\;\! \frac{\scriptstyle n}{\scriptstyle 4}}
\;\!
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\:\!=\;
0,$$\
$$\tag{1.9$b$}
\lim_{t\,\rightarrow\,\infty}
\,
t^{\;\! \frac{\scriptstyle n - 1}{\scriptstyle 2}}
\;\!
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) -\,
e^{\:\!\nu \:\! \Delta \:\!(t - t_0)}
\;\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_0) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\:\!=\;
0,$$\
em dimensão $ n = 2, 3 $ (cf.$\;$[@SchutzZinganoZingano2014], Section 4). No presente trabalho, vamos estabelecer as estimativas (mais difíceis) correspondentes a (1.6$c$) no caso das soluções de Leray do problema (1.1), além de estimativas similares sobre o erro (ver (1.10$b$) abaixo). Os resultados são simples de descrever: dados $ \mbox{\boldmath $ u $}_0 \!\;\!\in L^{2}_{\sigma}(\mathbb{R}^{n}) $, $ t_0 \!\;\!\geq 0 $ quaisquer,\
\
$$\tag{1.10$a$}
\lim_{t\,\rightarrow\,\infty}
\:
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{\scriptstyle s}{2} }}
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \dot{H}^{\!\:\!s}\!\;\!(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\;\!=\:0,$$\
$$\tag{1.10$b$}
\lim_{t\,\rightarrow\,\infty}
\:
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle
\frac{{\scriptstyle n} - 2}{4} \;\!+\;\!\frac{\scriptstyle s}{2}
}}
\;\!
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \:\!-\:\!
e^{\:\!\nu \:\!\Delta (t - t_0)} \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_0) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \dot{H}^{\!\:\!s}\!\;\!(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\;\!=\:0,$$\
para todo $ s \geq 0 $ ($s$ real), e $ \;\!n = 2, 3 $. Note-se que (1.4), (1.8) e (1.9) tornam-se agora consequências simples de (1.10), que pode assim ser considerada como a forma geral completa do problema de Leray, resolvida neste trabalho (exceto que, no caso especial $ n = 2 $, tem-se (1.10$a$) derivada previamente em [@BenameurSelmi2012], usando um procedimento diferente). A obtenção de (1.10$b$) é particularmente delicada, e utiliza a estimativa\
\
$$\tag{1.11}
\|\, e^{\:\!\nu \:\!\Delta (t - t_0)}
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_0) \;\!-\,
e^{\:\!\nu \:\!\Delta (\:\!t - t_1\!\;\!)}
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_1) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \dot{H}^{\!\:\!s}\!\;\!(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\;\!\leq\;\!
K\;\! \nu^{\scriptstyle \,-\,
\frac{1}{2} \,-\, \gamma} \,
( t_1 \!\;\!-\;\! t_0 )^{\scriptstyle \!\;\!\frac{1}{2}}
\;\!
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0 \;\!
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}^{\:\!2}
(t - t_{1} \!\;\!)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!\;\!-\, \gamma}}
$$\
para $ t > t_1 > t_0 \geq 0 $ arbitrários, derivada na Seção 3 abaixo, onde $ \gamma = n/4 \;\!+\;\! s/2 $, e $ \:\!K \!= K\!\;\!(n,s) > 0 \;\!$ é uma constante (cujo valor depende apenas dos parâmetros $\;\!n, s $ considerados). Leitores interessados prioritariamente nas novas contribuições do presente trabalho podem neste ponto consultar diretamente os seguintes resultados: Teorema 3.1, Teorema 4.1 (e Lema 4.1), Teorema 5.1 e Teorema A.1 (Apêndice A). Também pode ser conveniente rever rapidamente os Teoremas 4.2 e 4.3 e os resultados revisados na Seção 2 a seguir.\
[\
]{}[**Observação 1.1.**]{} Tomando-se $ s = m $ (inteiro) em (1.10), resulta (por (1.7) e do fato de se ter$\;\!$[^3] $ {\displaystyle
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \dot{H}^{\!\:\!m}\!\;\!(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\;\!=\;\!
\|\, D^{m} \:\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\:\!
} $, por Parseval):\
\
$$\tag{1.12$a$}
\lim_{t\,\rightarrow\,\infty}
\:
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} }}
\|\, D^{m} \:\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\;\!=\:0,$$\
$$\tag{1.12$b$}
\lim_{t\,\rightarrow\,\infty}
\:
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle
\frac{{\scriptstyle n} - 2}{4} \;\!+\;\!\frac{|\;\!{\scriptstyle \alpha}\;\!|}{2}
}}
\;\!
\|\, D^{\alpha} \:\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \:\!-\:\!
D^{\alpha} \:\![\:
e^{\:\!\nu \:\!\Delta (t - t_0)} \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_0)
\;\!] \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\;\!=\:0,$$\
para todo $ m \geq 0 $, $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\alpha = (\:\! \alpha_{\mbox{}_{1}}\!\,\!, \:\!
\alpha_{\mbox{}_{2}}\!\;\!,\!\;\!...,\alpha_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle n}})
} $, sendo $ {\displaystyle
|\,\alpha\,| =
\alpha_{\mbox{}_{1}}\!\:\!+
\alpha_{\mbox{}_{2}}\!\:\!+ ... +
\alpha_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle n}}
\!\;\!
} $ a ordem de $ \alpha $. Assim, (1.10) descreve o comportamento de $ \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) $, $ \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) - \mbox{\boldmath $v$}(\cdot,t) $ e suas derivadas (espaciais) de qualquer ordem. Na verdade, (1.10) e (1.12) são equivalentes: tendo-se (1.12), obtém-se (1.10) aplicando-se a propriedade de interpolação\
\
$$\tag{1.13}
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \dot{H}^{\!\:\!s}\!\;\!(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\leq\:
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \dot{H}^{\!\:\!s_{\mbox{}_{1}}}\!\;\!(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \:\!\alpha_{\mbox{}_{1}}}}
\:\!
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \dot{H}^{\!\:\!s_{\mbox{}_{2}}}\!\;\!(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
^{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \:\!\alpha_{\mbox{}_{2}}}}
\!,
\qquad
s_{\mbox{}_{1}} <\:\! s <\:\! s_{\mbox{}_{2}}
\!\;\!,$$\
onde $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\alpha_{\mbox{}_{1}} \!=\:\!
\theta_{\mbox{}_{1}} \:\!s \:\!/
s_{\mbox{}_{1}}
\!\;\!
} $, $ {\displaystyle
\:\!
\alpha_{\mbox{}_{2}} \!=\:\!
\theta_{\mbox{}_{2}} \:\!s \:\!/
s_{\mbox{}_{2}}
\!\;\!
} $, sendo $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\theta_{\mbox{}_{1}} \!\:\!,
\:\!\theta_{\mbox{}_{2}}
\in (\:\!0, 1)
\:\!
} $ dados por $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
s^{-\;\!1} \!\:\!=
\theta_{\mbox{}_{1}}
s_{\scriptscriptstyle 1}^{-\;\!1}
\!\;\!+\;\!
\theta_{\mbox{}_{2}}
s_{\scriptscriptstyle 2}^{-\;\!1}
\!\:\!
} $. A obtenção de (1.10) nas Seções 2, 3 abaixo será feita considerando-se a forma (1.12) destas propriedades. Se desejado, seria também suficiente derivar o resultado no caso particular $ \nu = 1 $; uma vez obtido, os resultados (1.10), (1.11), (1.12) para $ \nu > 0 $ geral decorreriam então de argumentos simples de escala (dado que, sendo $ \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(x,t) $, $ p(x,t) $ uma solução de Leray do sistema (1.1) para dado $ \nu > 0 $, então $ {\displaystyle
\mbox{\boldmath $U$}(x,t) :=
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\nu \;\!x, \nu \;\!t)
} $, $ {\displaystyle
P(x,t) := p(\nu \;\!x, \nu \;\!t)
} $ definem uma solução de Leray para (1.1) com $ \nu = 1 $).\
[\
]{}[**Observação 1.2.**]{} A análise e resultados a seguir podem também ser adaptados/estendidos para o problema de Navier-Stokes com forças externas, ou seja,\
\
$$\tag{1.14$a$}
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}_{t} +\,
\mbox{\boldmath $u$} \!\;\!\cdot\!\;\! \nabla\;\!
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}
\,+\,
\nabla p
\,=\;
\nu \,
\Delta \mbox{\boldmath $u$}
\,+\,
\mbox{\boldmath $f$}(\cdot,t),
\qquad
\nabla \!\cdot\!\;\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t)
\,=\,0,$$\
$$\tag{1.14$b$}
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,0) \,=\,
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0 \in L^{2}_{\sigma}(\mathbb{R}^{3}),
$$\
onde se supõe, no caso mais simples, $ {\displaystyle
\mbox{\boldmath $f$} \in
C^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{n} \!\times \!\:\![\,0, \infty))
\cap\,
L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{n} \!\times \!\:\![\,0, \infty))
} $ satisfazendo (1.15) abaixo: considerando-se a projeção de Helmholtz $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\mbox{\boldmath $g$}(\cdot,t)
\:\!=\,
\mathbb{P}_{\mbox{}_{\!H}}[\;\!\mbox{\boldmath $f$}(\cdot,t)\,]
\;\!
} $ de $ \mbox{\boldmath $f$}(\cdot,t) $ em $ L^{2}_{\sigma}(\mathbb{R}^{n}) $, a suposição\
\
$$\tag{1.15}
\int_{\:\!0}^{\infty}
\!\!\!\;\!
(1 + t)^{\:\!m/2} \:
\|\,D^{m} \,\!\mbox{\boldmath $g$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\;\!dt
\;<\, \infty,
\qquad
\forall \;\, m \geq 0$$\
permite a validade de (1.6), (1.10), (1.11), (1.12) acima, onde agora $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\mbox{\boldmath $v$}(\cdot,t)
\equiv
\mbox{\boldmath $v$}(\cdot,t\:\!; \:\! t_0)
} $ deve ser definida como a solução (única) em $ L^{\infty}(\:\![\,t_0,\infty), L^{2}_{\sigma}(\mathbb{R}^{n})) $ do problema\
\
$$\tag{1.16}
\mbox{\boldmath $v$}_{t}
\;=\;
\nu \;\! \Delta \mbox{\boldmath $v$}
\,+\,
\mbox{\boldmath $g$}(\cdot,t),
\qquad
\mbox{\boldmath $v$}(\cdot,t_0) \,=\,
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_0).$$\
Hipóteses mais fracas sobre $ \mbox{\boldmath $g$}(\cdot,t) $ podem também ser adotadas no lugar de (1.15), com resultados correspondentes mais fracos; por exemplo, tendo-se apenas\
\
$$\tag{1.17}
\int_{\:\!0}^{\infty}
\!\!\!\;\!
(1 + t)^{\:\!m/2} \:
\|\,D^{m} \,\!\mbox{\boldmath $g$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\;\!dt
\;<\, \infty,
\qquad
m = 0, 1,$$\
obtém-se (adaptando-se a prova em [@SchutzZinganoZingano2014], como feito em [@BrazLorenzMeloZingano2014]) que as estimativas (1.4), (1.6$a$), (1.6$b$), (1.8) e (1.9) acima permanecem válidas. Para mais detalhes, ver [@BrazLorenzMeloZingano2014]. Em [@Wiegner1987], obtém-se (1.4) e (1.8) para as soluções de (1.14) supondo-se (1.17) para $ m = 0 $ apenas, e adicionalmente\
\
$$\tag{1.18}
\limsup_{t\,\rightarrow\,\infty}
\;
t^{\;\!n/4 \,+\, 1/2} \:
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $g$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{n}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\;\!<\;
\infty.$$\
[\
]{} Descrevendo sucintamente o conteúdo das seções seguintes, apresentamos na Seção 2 vários resultados conhecidos que serão relevantes na derivação das estimativas (1.10), (1.11) e (1.12) a seguir. Esta discussão é baseada em [@KreissHagstromLorenzZingano2002; @KreissHagstromLorenzZingano2003; @Leray1934]. Na Seção 3, estabelecemos (1.11), que será importante para simplificar a prova de (1.10$b$), (1.12$b$) mais adiante. A Seção 4 é inteiramente voltada à obtenção das estimativas (1.10$a$) e (1.12$a$), enquanto a Seção 5 é dedicada a (1.10$b$), (1.12$b$). Com exceções ocasionais, apresentaremos os detalhes no caso específico $ n = 3 $ apenas, já que as provas correspondentes em dimensão $ n = 2 $ podem ser feitas seguindo um procedimento inteiramente análogo (e, em alguns casos, bem mais simples).\
[\
]{}\
[**Notação.**]{} Como já visto acima, usaremos (em geral) letras em negrito para grandezas vetoriais, e.g. $ {\displaystyle
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(x,t)
=
} $ $ {\displaystyle
(\:\! u_{\mbox{}_{\!\:\!1}}\!\;\!(x,t),...,
\:\! u_{\mbox{}_{\!\;\!\scriptstyle n}}\!\;\!(x,t) \:\!)
} $, denotando por $ | \cdot |_{\mbox{}_{2}} $ (ou simplesmente $ | \cdot | $) a norma Euclideana em $ \mathbb{R}^{n}\!\;\!$, ver e.g.$\;$(1.7). $\!$Como é usual, $ \nabla p \equiv \nabla p(\cdot,t) $ denota o gradiente (espacial) de $ \;\!p(\cdot,t) $, $ D_{\!\;\!j} \!\;\!=\:\! \partial / \partial x_{\!\;\!j} \!\;\! $, e $ {\displaystyle
\:\!
\nabla \!\cdot \mbox{\boldmath $u$}
\:\!=
D_{\mbox{}_{\!\:\!1}} u_{\mbox{}_{\!\:\!1}} \!\;\!+
... +
D_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\;\!n}} \:\! u_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\;\!n}} )
} $ é o divergente (espacial) de $ \:\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) $; analogamente, $ {\displaystyle
\mbox{\boldmath $u$} \cdot \nabla \mbox{\boldmath $u$}
\;\!=\;\!
u_{\mbox{}_{\!\:\!1}} D_{\mbox{}_{\!\:\!1}} \mbox{\boldmath $u$}
+ ... +
u_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\:\!n}}
D_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\:\!n}} \mbox{\boldmath $u$}
} $, etc. $ {\displaystyle
\| \;\!\cdot\;\!
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\;\!
} $, $ 1 \leq q \leq \infty $, denota a norma tradicional do espaço de Lebesgue $ L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^{n}) $, pondo-se, para $ 1 \leq q < \infty $:
\
$$\tag{1.19$a$}
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\;\!=\;
\Bigl\{\,
\sum_{i\,=\,1}^{n} \int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}} \!
|\:u_{i}(x,t)\,|^{q} \;\!dx
\,\Bigr\}^{\!\!\:\!1/q}$$\
$$\tag{1.19$b$}
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\;\!=\;
\Bigl\{\,
\sum_{i, \,j \,=\,1}^{n} \int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}} \!
|\, D_{\!\;\!j} \;\!u_{i}(x,t)\,|^{q} \;\!dx
\,\Bigr\}^{\!\!\:\!1/q}$$\
$$\tag{1.19$c$}
\|\, D^{2} \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\;\!=\;
\Bigl\{\!\!
\sum_{\mbox{} \;\;i, \,j, \,\ell \,=\,1}^{n}
\!\;\! \int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}} \!
|\, D_{\!\;\!j} \:\!D_{\ell} \, u_{i}(x,t)\,|^{q} \;\!dx
\,\Bigr\}^{\!\!\:\!1/q}$$\
e, mais geralmente, para $ m \geq 1 $ qualquer:\
\
$$\tag{1.19$d$}
\|\, D^m \:\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot, t)\,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
=
\biggl(\;\! \sum_{i\,=\,1}^{n}
\sum_{\;\!j_{\mbox{}_{1}}=\,1}^{n}
\!\cdots\!
\sum_{j_{\mbox{}_{m}}=\,1}^{n}
\int_{\mbox{}_{\mbox{\scriptsize $\!\;\!\mathbb{R}^{n}$}}}
\!\!\!\!\;\!
|\;\!D_{\scriptstyle \!\;\!j_{\mbox{}_{1}}}
\!\!\:\!\cdots
D_{\scriptstyle \!\;\!j_{\mbox{}_{m}}}
u_{i}(x,t)\:|^q\, dx\:\!\biggr)^{\!\!\:\!1/q}\!\!\!\!,$$\
denotando-se por $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!=\;\!
\max \, \bigl\{\,
\|\,u_{i}(\cdot,t)\,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\!: \, 1 \leq i \leq n
\,\bigr\}
} $ o supremo (essencial) de $ \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) $, e similarmente para $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\, D \;\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\,\!
} $, $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\, D^{2} \:\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\,\!
} $, etc. (Com estas definições, tem-se $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\;\!\rightarrow\;\!
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\;\!
} $ ao $ q \rightarrow \infty $, assim como, mais geralmente, $ {\displaystyle
\|\, D^m \:\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\;\!\rightarrow \;\!
\|\, D^m \:\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\;\!
} $, para todo $m$.)$\:\!$[^4] Ocasionalmente, resulta também conveniente usar a seguinte definição alternativa para a norma do sup de $ \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) $,\
\
$$\tag{1.20}
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \infty}}
=\;
\mbox{ess}\,\sup\; \bigl\{\:
|\,\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(x,t) \,|_{\mbox{}_{2}}
\!\!\:\!: \: x \in \mathbb{R}^{n}
\,\bigr\}.$$\
Podemos também utilizar $ \|\,\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t)\,\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^q}}\!\;\!$ no lugar de $\;\! \|\,\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t)\,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^q(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\!\;\!$, etc, por simplicidade. Constantes serão usualmente representadas pelas letras $ C \!\,\!$, $\!\:\!c$, $\!\:\!K$; escrevemos $ \:\!C(\lambda_{\mbox{}_{1}}\!\;\!, ...,
\lambda_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle k}})\!\;\! $ para observar que o valor da constante $C$ em questão depende apenas dos parâmetros $ \;\!\{\;\!\lambda_{\mbox{}_{1}}\!\;\!, ...,
\lambda_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle k}} \}\;\!$ indicados (a menos que explicitamente mencionado em contrário). Por conveniência e economia, usamos tipicamente o mesmo símbolo para denotar constantes com diferentes valores numéricos (por exemplo, escrevemos $ C^2 \!\;\!$ ou $ 10 \,C + 1 $, $ \mbox{cosh}\;C $, etc, novamente como $C\!\;\!$, e assim por diante), como usualmente feito na literatura.\
\
[\
]{}[**Agradecimentos.**]{} Parte das contribuições feitas na [Parte I]{} não teria provavelmente sido possível sem várias ideias e métodos introduzidos em [@KreissHagstromLorenzZingano2002; @KreissHagstromLorenzZingano2003]. O autor é especialmente grato a Thomas Hagstrom e Jens Lorenz pelas inúmeras discussões ocorridas durante sua visita à Universidade do Novo México em 2001$\;\!$-$\;\!$2002.
\
[**2. Preliminares, I**]{}\
\
Nesta seção, reunimos por conveniência vários resultados básicos dados em [@KreissHagstromLorenzZingano2002; @KreissHagstromLorenzZingano2003; @Leray1934] que terão papel relevante na derivação das estimativas (1.10), (1.11), (1.12) nas seções seguintes. No texto, restringiremos nossa atenção ao caso (fundamental) de dimensão $ n = 3 $, mas todos os argumentos usados podem ser facilmente estendidos/adaptados de modo a se aplicarem a $ n = 2 $ igualmente, com apenas pequenas mudanças óbvias. Em todo o texto, $ \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) $ sempre denotará uma solução de Leray (dada, qualquer) para as equações (1.1), mesmo que nada seja dito explicitamente.\
Para a construção das soluções de Leray $ \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) $ do problema (1.1), ver e.g.$\;$[@Galdi2000; @Leray1934] e a discussão abaixo. Estas soluções foram obtidas em [@Leray1934] usando um procedimento de regularização engenhoso revisado a seguir. Tomando $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
G \in C^{\infty}_{0}(\mathbb{R}^{n})
\;\!
} $ não negativa (qualquer) com $ \!\;\!\int_{\mathbb{^R}^{3}} \!\:\!G(x) \,dx \:\!=\:\! 1 $, e definindo $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\bar{\mbox{\boldmath $u$}}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\;\!0, \,\delta}}
\!\;\!(\cdot)
\in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{3})
} $ pela convolução de $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}_{0}(\cdot)
\;\!
} $ com $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
G_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\delta}}(x)
\:\!=\:\!
\delta^{\;\!-\,n} \;\!G(x/\delta)
} $, $ \;\!\delta > 0 $, introduz-se $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\;\!\delta}},
\,
p_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\;\!\delta}}
\in
C^{\infty}(\:\!\mathbb{R}^{3} \!\times\!\;\! [\,0, \infty\:\!)\:\!)
} $ como a solução (única, clássica, globalmente definida e em $L^{2}$) do problema regularizado\
\
$$\tag{2.1$a$}
\mbox{\small $ {\displaystyle \frac{\partial}{\partial \;\!t} }$}
\,\mbox{\boldmath $u$}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\;\!\delta}}
\:\!+\:
\bar{\mbox{\boldmath $u$}}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\;\!\delta}}
(\cdot,t) \!\;\!
\cdot\!\;\! \nabla\;\!
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\;\!\delta}}
\:\!+\,
\nabla \:\!p_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\;\!\delta}}
\;=\;
\nu \,
\Delta \:\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\;\!\delta}},
\qquad
\nabla \!\cdot\!\;\!
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\;\!\delta}}(\cdot,t)
\,=\,0,$$\
$$\tag{2.1$b$}
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\;\!\delta}}(\cdot,0)
\,=\,
\bar{\mbox{\boldmath $u$}}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\;\!0, \,\delta}}
\!\;\!:=\,
G_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\delta}}
\!\:\!\ast
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}_{0}
\;\!
\in\!
\bigcap_{m\,=\,1}^{\infty}
\! H^{m}(\mathbb{R}^{3}),$$\
onde $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\bar{\mbox{\boldmath $u$}}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\;\!\delta}}
\!\;\!(\cdot,t)
\!\;\!:=\:\!
G_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\delta}} \!\,\!\ast
{\mbox{\boldmath $u$}}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\;\!\delta}}
\!\;\!(\cdot,t)
} $. Em [@Leray1934], Leray logrou mostrar que, para uma sequência $ {\displaystyle
\delta^{\;\!\prime}
\!\rightarrow
\:\!0
} $ apropriada, tem-se a convergência fraca (em $L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})$)\
\
$$\tag{2.2}
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\;\!\delta^{\;\!\prime}}}(\cdot,t)
\,\rightharpoonup \,
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t)
\quad \;\,
\mbox{as } \;\,\delta^{\;\!\prime}
\!\rightarrow
\:\!0,
\qquad \;\;\;
\forall \;\, t \geq 0,$$\
i.e., $ {\displaystyle
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\;\!\delta^{\;\!\prime}}}(\cdot,t)
\,\rightarrow \,
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t)
\;\!
} $ fracamente em $L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3}) $, para cada $ \;\! t \geq 0 $ (ver [@Leray1934], p.$\;$237), com $ {\displaystyle
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t)
\in
L^{\infty}([\;\!0, \infty \:\!), L^{2}_{\sigma}(\mathbb{R}^{3}))
\cap
L^{2}([\;\!0, \infty \:\!), \mbox{$\stackrel{.}{H}$}\mbox{}^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{3}))
\cap
C^{0}_{w}([\;\!0, \infty \:\!), L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3}))
\:\!
} $ contínua em $L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})\!\;\! $ no instante $ t = 0 $ e resolvendo a equação (1.1$a$) no sentido de distribuições. Ademais, (1.2) é satisfeita para todo $ t \geq 0 $, de modo que, em particular, tem-se\
\
$$\tag{2.3}
\int_{0}^{\:\!\infty} \!\!\!
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!2}
\:\!dt
\;\leq\;
\mbox{\small $ {\displaystyle
\frac{1}{\:\!2\;\!\mbox{\normalsize $\nu$}\:\!} }$} \:
\|\: \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0 \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!2}
\!.
$$\
Outra propriedade importante obtida em [@Leray1934] é que $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\mbox{\boldmath $u$} \in
C^{\infty}(\:\!\mathbb{R}^{3} \!\times \!\;\!
[\,\mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\;\!\ast\ast}\!\;\!, \infty\:\!)\:\!)
\;\!
} $ para certo $ \mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\:\!\ast\ast} \!\gg 1 $, com $ {\displaystyle
D^{m} \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t)
\in L^{\infty}_{\tt loc}
(\:\![\, \mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\:\!\ast\ast}\!\;\!,
\infty \:\!), L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})\:\!)
\;\!
} $ para cada $ \:\! m \geq 1 $. Este fato permite simplificar significativamente o argumento desenvolvido para (1.10)$\,-\,$(1.12) mais adiante. Outros resultados importantes referem-se à projeção de Helmholtz de $ {\displaystyle
-\,
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t)
\!\;\!\cdot\!\;\! \nabla \:\!
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t)
} $ em $ L^{2}_{\sigma}(\mathbb{R}^{3}) $, ou seja, o campo $ \:\!\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}(\cdot,t) \in L^{2}_{\sigma}(\mathbb{R}^{3}) \:\!$ dado por\
\
$$\tag{2.4}
\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}(\cdot,t)
\;\! := \;
-\:
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t)
\!\;\!\cdot\!\;\! \nabla \:\!
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t)
\,-\;\! \nabla \:\!p\:\!(\cdot,t),
\qquad
\mbox{a.e. }\;\! t > 0.$$ As estimativas que precisaremos de $ \:\!\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}(\cdot,t) \in L^{2}_{\sigma}(\mathbb{R}^{3}) \:\!$ acima são revisadas a seguir. [\
]{}[**Proposição 2.1.**]{} *Para quase todo $ \;\! s > 0 $ $($e todo $\;\!s \geq \mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\;\!\ast\ast})$, tem-se*\
\
$$\tag{2.5}
\|\: e^{\;\!\nu \,\!\Delta
(\:\!\mbox{\footnotesize $t$} \;\!-\, \mbox{\footnotesize $s$})}
\,\! \mbox{\boldmath $Q$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\leq\:
K \,
\nu^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!-\,\frac{3}{4} }}
\:\!
( t - s )^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \! -\,\frac{3}{4} }}
\:\!
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\:\!
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}$$\
*para todo $ \,t > s $, onde $ \:\!K \!\:\!=\:\! (\:\! 8 \:\!\pi )^{-\,3/4} \!\:\!$.*\
[\
]{}[[**Prova:**]{} O argumento a seguir é adaptado de [@KreissHagstromLorenzZingano2002; @KreissHagstromLorenzZingano2003]. Seja $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\mathbb{F}\:\![\;\!f\;\!]
\equiv
\hat{f}
\;\!
} $ a transformada de Fourier de uma dada função $ \!\;\!f \!\;\!\in L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{3}) $, viz.,\
\
$$\tag{2.6}
\mathbb{F}\:\![\;\!f\;\!]\:\!(k)
\:\equiv\;
\hat{f}(k)
\,:=\;
(\:\!2\:\!\pi)^{-\,3/2} \!\!
\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\:\!\mathbb{R}^{3}}}
\!\!\:\!
e^{\mbox{\scriptsize $- \!\;\!
\stackrel{\mbox{\tiny $\circ$}}{\mbox{\sf \i$\!\;\!$\i}}
\!\:\! k \!\;\!\cdot\!\;\! x$}}
f(x) \: dx,
\qquad
k \in \mathbb{R}^{3}
$$\
(onde $ {\displaystyle
\:\!
\stackrel{\mbox{\tiny $\circ$}}{\mbox{\sf \i$\!\;\!$\i}}
\mbox{}\!\!\;\!\mbox{}^{2}
\!\;\!=\;\! - \;\!1
} $). Dada $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\mbox{\bf v}(\cdot,s) =
(\:\! \mbox{v}_{\mbox{}_{\!\;\!1}}\!\;\!(\cdot,s),
\mbox{v}_{\mbox{}_{\!\;\!2}}\!\;\!(\cdot,s),
\mbox{v}_{\mbox{}_{\!\;\!3}}\!\;\!(\cdot,s)\:\! )
\in
L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{3}) \cap L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})
\:\!
} $ arbitrária, obtém-se, pela identidade de Parseval,\
\
$$\notag
\begin{split}
\|\: e^{\;\!\nu \:\!\Delta \mbox{\scriptsize $(t-s)$}} \;\!
\mbox{\bf v}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!2}
\;\!&=\;\;\!
\|\; \mathbb{F}\;\![\, e^{\;\! \nu \:\!\Delta \mbox{\scriptsize $(t-s)$}}
\;\!\mbox{\bf v}(\cdot,s) \: ] \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!2} \\
&=\,
\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}} \!\!
e^{-\,2\,\nu \;\!|\,\mbox{\scriptsize $k$}\,
|_{\mbox{}_{\!\;\!2}}^{\:\!\scriptstyle 2} \:\!(t \,-\, s)}
\;\!
|\, \hat{\mbox{\bf v}}(k,s) \,
|_{\mbox{}_{\!\;\!2}}^{\:\!2}
\, dk \\
&\leq\;
\|\, \hat{\mbox{\bf v}}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \infty}}^{\:\!2} \!\!\;\!
\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}} \!\!
e^{-\,2\,\nu \;\!|\,\mbox{\scriptsize $k$}\,
|_{\mbox{}_{\!\;\!2}}^{\:\!\scriptstyle 2} \:\!(t \,-\, s)}
\, dk \\
&=\;
\Bigl(\;\! \frac{\;\!\pi\;\!}{2} \,\Bigr)^{\!\!\;\!3/2}
\!\;\!
\nu^{-\,3/2}
\,( t - s )^{- \,3/2}
\,
\|\, \hat{\mbox{\bf v}}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \infty}}^{\:\!2}
\!\;\!,
\end{split}
$$\
ou seja,\
\
$$\tag{2.7}
\|\: e^{\;\!\nu\:\!\Delta \mbox{\scriptsize $(t-s)$}} \;\!
\mbox{\bf v}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\!\leq\;\;\!
\Bigl(\;\! \frac{\;\!\pi\;\!}{2} \,\Bigr)^{\!\!\;\!3/4}
\!\;\!
\nu^{-\,3/4} \,( t - s )^{- \,3/4}
\,
\|\, \hat{\mbox{\bf v}}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \infty}}
\!\;\!,$$\
onde $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
|\;\!\cdot\;\!|_{\mbox{}_{2}}
} $ denota a norma Euclideana em $ \mathbb{R}^{3}\!\;\!$, e $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\, \hat{\mbox{\bf v}}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \infty}}
\!=\,
\sup \;\{\:
|\, \hat{\mbox{\bf v}}(k,s) \,|_{\mbox{}_{2}}
\!: \, k\,\in\,\mathbb{R}^{3} \:\!\}
} $. Como será mostrado abaixo, (2.5) segue de uma aplicação direta de (2.7) a $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\mbox{\bf v}(\cdot,s) =
\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}(\cdot,s)
} $. Para isso, é preciso que se estime $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\, \hat{\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \infty}}
\!\;\!
} $: como tem-se $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\mathbb{F}\:\![\,\nabla \!\:\!
P(\cdot,s)\,]\:\!(k) \;\!=\;\;\!
\stackrel{\mbox{\tiny o}}{\mbox{\sf \i$\!\;\!$\i}} \!\:\!
\hat{p}(k,s) \;\!k
\,
} $ e $ {\displaystyle
\:\!
\mbox{\small $\sum$}_{j\,=\,1}^{3} k_{j}
\hat{Q}_{j}(k,s)
=\;\!0
} $ (pois $ \nabla \!\:\!\cdot \mbox{\boldmath $Q$}(\cdot,s) =\;\! 0 $), segue que $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\mathbb{F}\:\![\,\nabla \!\:\!
P(\cdot,s)\,]\:\!(k)
} $ e $ {\displaystyle
\:\!
\hat{\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}}(k,s)
\;\!
} $ são vetores ortogonais em $\mathbb{C}^{3}\!$, para todo $k \in \mathbb{R}^{3}\!$. Lembrando, por (2.4), que $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\hat{\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}}(k,s)
+\:\!
\mathbb{F}\:\![\,\nabla \!\:\!
P(\cdot,s)\;\!]\:\!(k)
=
} $ $ {\displaystyle
-\:
\mathbb{F}\;\![\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \!\;\!\cdot \!\;\!\nabla
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s)\;\!]\:\!(k)
} $, obtém-se\
\
$$\tag{2.8}
|\,\hat{\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}}(k,s) \,|_{\mbox{}_{2}}
\,\leq\;\,\!
|\: \mathbb{F}\;\![\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s)\!\;\!\cdot \!\;\!\nabla
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}\;\!(\cdot,s)\;\!]\:\!(k)
\:|_{\mbox{}_{2}}
$$\
para todo $\;\! k \in \mathbb{R}^{3}\!$, de modo que\
\
$$\tag{2.9}
\|\:
\hat{\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}}(\cdot,s)
\,\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \infty}}
\;\!\leq\;
\|\;
\mathbb{F}\;\![\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}
\!\;\!\cdot \!\;\!\nabla
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}\,]\:\!(\cdot,s)
\:\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \infty}}.$$\
Por outro lado, tem-se, para $ 1 \leq i \leq 3 $,\
\
$$\notag
\begin{split}
|\; \mathbb{F}\;\![\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s)
\!\;\!\cdot \!\;\!\nabla
\;\!u_{{\scriptstyle i}}(\cdot,s)\,]\:\!(k) \:|
\;\,&\leq\;
\sum_{j\,=\,1}^{3} \;\!
|\; \mathbb{F}\;\![\, u_{{\scriptstyle j}}(\cdot,s) \;\!
D_{{\scriptstyle \!\;\!j}} \:\! u_{{\scriptstyle i}}(\cdot,s)
\,]\:\!
(k) \:| \\
&\leq\;
(\:\!2\:\!\pi)^{-\,3/2} \;\!
\sum_{j\,=\,1}^{3} \;\!
\|\, u_{{\scriptstyle j}}(\cdot,s) \;\!
D_{{\scriptstyle \!\;\!j}} \:\! u_{{\scriptstyle i}}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}} \\
&\leq\;
(\:\!2\:\!\pi)^{-\,3/2} \,
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\!
\|\, \nabla \!\;\! u_{{\scriptstyle i}}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\!\;\!,
\end{split}
$$\
usando Cauchy-Schwarz. $\!$($\;\!$Aqui, como sempre, $ D_{\!\;\!j} \!\;\!=\,\! \partial/\partial x_{\!\;\!j} \!\;\!$.) Isso fornece\
\
$$\tag{2.10}
\|\; \mathbb{F}\;\![\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$} \!\;\!\cdot \!\;\!\nabla
\;\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}\,]\:\!(\cdot,s) \:\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \infty}}
\:\leq\;
(\:\!2\:\!\pi)^{-\,3/2} \,
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\!
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\!\:\!.$$\
De (2.7), (2.9) and (2.10), obtém-se (2.5), concluindo a prova da Proposição 2.1. ]{} $\Box$\
\
Note-se que, repetindo o argumento acima para as soluções das equações regularizadas (2.1), obtém-se de modo análogo que\
\
$$\tag{2.11}
\|\: e^{\;\!\nu \:\!
\mbox{\scriptsize $\Delta$} \mbox{\scriptsize $(t - s)$}} \;\!
\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\delta}}\!\;\!(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\leq\,
K \,
\nu^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!-\, \frac{3}{4}}}
(t - s)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!\!-\, \frac{3}{4}}}
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\:\!\delta}}
\!\;\!(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\!
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\:\!\delta}}
\!\;\!(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}$$\
para cada $\;\!t > s > 0 $, sendo $ K \!\;\!=\:\! (\:\!8 \:\!\pi)^{-\,3/4} \!$, como antes, e\
\
$$\tag{2.12}
\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\delta}}
\!\:\!(\cdot,s)
\;=\; -\:
\bar{\mbox{\boldmath $u$}}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\:\!\delta}}\!\:\!(\cdot,s)
\!\;\!\cdot \!\;\!\nabla
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\:\!\delta}}\!\:\!(\cdot,s)
\,-\;\!
\nabla p_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\delta}}\!\;\!(\cdot,s).$$\
A estimativa (2.11) é muito útil, visto que as soluções regularizadas $ {\displaystyle
\:\!
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\:\!\delta}}\!\:\!(\cdot,t)
\:\!
} $ definidas em (2.1) satisfazem a desigualdade de energia\
\
$$\tag{2.13}
\|\,\mbox{\boldmath $u$}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\:\!\delta}}
\!\:\!(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!2}
+\;
2 \, \nu \!\!\;\!
\int_{0}^{\;\!\mbox{\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}}} \!\!\;\!
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\:\!\delta}}
\!\:\!(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!2}
\;\!ds
\;\;\!\leq\:
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_{0} \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!2}
$$\
para todo $\;\! t > 0 $ (e todo $ \delta > 0 $), de modo que $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\,\mbox{\boldmath $u$}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\:\!\delta}}
\!\:\!(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\!\;\!
} $, $
\int_{0}^{\;\!\mbox{\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}}} \!
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\:\!\delta}}
\!\:\!(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!2}
\!\;\!ds
$\
podem ser estimadas independentemente de $ \:\!\delta > 0 $. Isso será usado no Teorema 3.1 (Seção 3) para mostrar que a escolha particular de $\;\!t_0 \!\;\!\geq 0 \;\!$ ao se definir as aproximações (1.5) não é relevante com respeito às propriedades (1.10$b$), (1.12$b$). Convém também generalizar a estimativa (2.5) para derivadas de ordem superior. No caso da equação do calor, será útil lembrarmos a seguinte estimativa (bem conhecida):\
\
$$\tag{2.14}
\|\, D^{\alpha} \:\![\,
e^{\;\!\nu \:\!\Delta \tau} \,\!
\mbox{u} \,]\,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\;\!\leq\;
K\!\;\!(n,\:\!m)
\;
\|\: \mbox{u} \:
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{r}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\:\!
(\;\!\nu \;\!\tau\:\!)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle
\!\! -\, \frac{\scriptstyle n}{2}
\left( \frac{1}{\scriptstyle r} \;\!-\;\! \frac{1}{2} \right)
\,-\, \frac{|\:\!{\scriptstyle \alpha}\:\!|}{2} }}
$$\
para todo $ \tau > 0 $, e quaisquer $ \alpha $ (multi-índice), $ 1 \leq r \leq 2 $, $ \mbox{u} \in L^{r}(\mathbb{R}^{n}) $ considerados, $ n \geq 1 $ arbitrário, e onde $ \;\!m = |\;\!\alpha\:\!| $. ($\:\!$Para uma derivação de (2.14), ver e.g.$\;$[@KreissLorenz1989; @LorenzZingano2012].) [**Proposição 2.2.**]{} *Para quase todo $ \;\! s > 0 $ $($e todo $\;\!s \geq \mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\;\!\ast\ast})$, tem-se*\
\
$$\tag{2.15}
\|\, D^{\alpha} \{\, e^{\;\!\nu \,\!\Delta
(\:\!\mbox{\footnotesize $t$} \;\!-\, \mbox{\footnotesize $s$})}
\,\! \mbox{\boldmath $Q$}(\cdot,s) \,\}\,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\leq\:
K\!\;\!(m) \,\;\!
\nu^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!-\,\gamma }}
\:\!
( t - s )^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \! -\,\gamma}}
\:\!
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\:\!
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}$$\
*para todo $ \,t > s $, onde $ m = |\;\!\alpha\;\!| $, $ \gamma = m/2 + 3/4 $, e $ \:\!K\!\;\!(m) $ depende apenas de $\;\!m$.*\
\
[[**Prova:**]{} Este resultado é uma consequência direta de (2.5) e (2.14) acima. De fato, tem-se:\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\|\, D^{\alpha} \{\, e^{\;\!\nu \,\!\Delta
(\:\!\mbox{\footnotesize $t$} \;\!-\, \mbox{\footnotesize $s$})}
\,\! \mbox{\boldmath $Q$}(\cdot,s) \,\}\,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\leq
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq \:
K\!\:\!(m)
\,\;\!
\nu^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!-\, \frac{m}{2} }}
(t - s)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!-\, \frac{m}{2} }}
\|\: e^{\;\!\nu \,\!\Delta
(\:\!\mbox{\footnotesize $t$} \;\!-\, \mbox{\footnotesize $s$})/2}
\,\! \mbox{\boldmath $Q$}(\cdot,s) \,\}\,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
} $ $\;\!$por (2.14)$\;\!$\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq \:
K\!\:\!(m)
\,\;\!
\nu^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!-\, \frac{m}{2} \,-\, \frac{3}{4} }}
(t - s)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!-\, \frac{m}{2} \,-\, \frac{3}{4} }}
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\!
\|\, D \:\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\!\;\!
} $. $\;\!$(2.5)$\;\!$\
]{} $ \Box $\
\
Para fins do próximo resultado a ser revisado nesta seção, dado na Proposição 2.3, precisaremos das seguintes desigualdades elementares de Nirenberg-Gagliardo () para funções $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\mbox{u} \in H^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})
} $ quaisquer:\
\
$$\tag{2.16$a$}
\|\: \mbox{u} \:\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \infty}}
\;\!\leq\,
K_{\mbox{}_{\!\;\!0}} \,
\|\: \mbox{u} \:
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!1/4}
\;\!
\|\: D^{2} \mbox{u} \:
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!3/4}
\!\:\!,
\qquad
K_{\mbox{}_{\!\;\!0}} \!\;\!<\;\! 0.678,$$\
ver e.g.$\;$$\,$[@Taylor2011], Proposition 2.4, p.$\;$5$\,$, ou $\,$[@Schutz2008], Teorema 4.5.1, p.$\;$52$\,$; $\;\!$e\
\
$$\tag{2.16$b$}
\|\, D \:\!\mbox{u} \:
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\leq\,
K_{\mbox{}_{\!\;\!1}} \;\!
\|\: \mbox{u} \:
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!1/2}
\;\!
\|\: D^{2} \mbox{u} \:
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!1/2}
\!\!\;\!,
\qquad
K_{\mbox{}_{\!\;\!1}} \!\;\!=\;\! 1,$$\
facilmente obtida usando a transformada de Fourier. De (2.16$a$), (2.16$b$), obtém-se\
\
$$\tag{2.17}
\|\: \mbox{u} \:\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \infty}}
\;\!
\|\, D \,\!\mbox{u} \:
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!1/2}
\leq\,
K_{\mbox{}_{\!\;\!2}} \;\!
\|\: \mbox{u} \:
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!1/2}
\;\!
\|\: D^{2} \mbox{u} \:
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\!\:\!,
\quad \;\,
K_{\mbox{}_{\!\;\!2}} \!\;\!=\;\!
K_{\mbox{}_{\!\;\!0}} \;\!
K_{\mbox{}_{\!\;\!1}}^{\:\!1/2}
\!\:\!< 1.$$\
Lembramos também a definição de $ \mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\:\!\ast\ast} $ dada pela propriedade (1.3) na Seção 1.\
[\
]{}[**Proposição 2.3.**]{} *Seja $ \,\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) $ solução de Leray para $\;\!(1.1)$. Então, existe $ \,t_{\!\;\!\ast\ast} \!\;\!\geq \mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\:\!\ast\ast}$ $($com $\:\!t_{\!\;\!\ast\ast}\!\:\!$ dependendo da solução $\;\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}$$)$ suficientemente grande tal que $ {\displaystyle
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\!\:\!
} $ é uma função suave e monotonicamente decrescente de $ \, t $ no intervalo $\:\! [\,t_{\!\;\!\ast\ast}\!\;\!, \:\!\mbox{\small $\infty$}\:\!)$.*\
\
[**Prova:**]{} O argumento abaixo é adaptado da prova de $\,$[@KreissHagstromLorenzZingano2002], Lemma 2.2$\,$. Considere-se $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
t_{0}
\geq\;\!
\mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\:\!\ast\ast}
} $ (a ser escolhido abaixo), e seja $ \;\! t > t_{0} $. Aplicando $ {\displaystyle
D_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\ell}} \!\;\!=\:\!
\partial/\partial \:\!x_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\ell}}
} $ à primeira equação em (1.1$a$), tomando o produto escalar com $ {\displaystyle
\:\!D_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\ell}}
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t)
} $ e integrando em $ {\displaystyle
\mathbb{R}^{3} \!\times\!\;\!
[\, t_{0}, \;\!t\;\!]
} $, obtém-se, somando em $ 1 \leq \ell \leq 3 $,\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!2}
+\:
2 \: \nu
\!\!\:\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $ t_{0} $}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\:\!t$}}
\!
\|\, D^{2} \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!2}
ds
\;\;\!=
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
=\;\:\!
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_{0}) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!2}
\!\;\!+\:
2
\sum_{i, \, j, \, \ell}
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $ t_{0} $}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\:\!t$}}
\!
\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}
\!\!\!\;\!
u_{i}(x,s) \;\!
D_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\!\;\!\ell}} u_{j}(x,s)
\;\!
D_{\scriptstyle \!j}
D_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\!\;\!\ell}}
u_{i}(x,s) \,
dx \: ds
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\;
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_{0}) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!2}
+\:
2 \!\!\:\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $ t_{0} $}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\:\!t$}}
\!
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \infty}}
\:\!
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\|\, D^{2} \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\!
ds
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\;
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_{0}) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!2}
+\:
2 \!\!\:\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $ t_{0} $}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\:\!t$}}
\!
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!1/2}
\:\!
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!1/2}
\|\, D^{2} \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!2}
\;\!
ds
} $,\
\
por (2.17), lembrando (1.19) e (1.20). Em particular, tem-se\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!2}
+\:
2 \, \nu \!\!\;\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $ t_{0} $}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\:\!t$}}
\!
\|\, D^{2} \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!2}
ds
\;\;\!\leq
} $\
\
(2.18)\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\;
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}
(\cdot,t_{0}) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!2}
+\:
2 \!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $ t_{0} $}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\:\!t$}}
\Bigl[\;
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_{0} \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\:\!
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\!
\Bigr]^{\!1/2}
\|\, D^{2} \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!2}
ds
} $\
\
para todo $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
t \geq t_{0}
} $. $\!$Seja então $ \;\! t_{0} \geq t_{\!\;\!\ast} \;\!$ tal que, por (1.2): $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_{0} \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\,\!
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_{0}) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\!\!\;\!< \nu
} $.\
De fato, com esta escolha, segue de (2.18) que\
\
$$\tag{2.19$a$}
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_{0} \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\,\!
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
<\;\! \nu
\qquad
\forall \;\;\!s \geq t_0.$$\
Prova de (2.19$a$): sendo falso, existiria $\;\! t_{1} \!\;\!> t_{0} \;\!$ tal que $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_{0} \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\,\!
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\!< \nu
} $\
para todo $ \;\!t_0 \leq s < t_{1}$, com $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_{0} \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\,\!
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_{1}) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\!= \;\!\nu
} $. Tomando $\;\! t = t_{1} $ em (2.18),\
resultaria $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_1) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\!\;\!\leq
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_0) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\!\:\!
} $, e, então, $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0 \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\!\;\!
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_1) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\!\,\!\leq
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0 \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_0) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\!< \;\!\nu
} $. $\!$Esta contradição mostra (2.19$a$), como afirmado. $\,]$\
De (2.18) e (2.19$a$), segue que\
\
$$\tag{2.19$b$}
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!2}
+\:
2 \, \gamma
\!\!\;\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $ t_{2} $}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\:\!t$}}
\!
\|\, D^{2} \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!2}
ds
\;\;\!\leq\;
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}
(\cdot,t_{2}) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!2}$$\
para todo $\;\! t \geq t_{2} \geq t_{0} $, onde $ {\displaystyle
\,
\gamma \:\! := \:
\nu \,-\: \|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_0) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!1/2}
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_0) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!1/2}
\!
} $ é uma constante positiva. Isto conclui a prova, em vista de resultados clássicos de regularidade de $ \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) $ (ver e.g.$\;$[@KreissLorenz1989; @Leray1934; @LorenzZingano2012]), tendo-se $ \:\!t_{\!\;\!\ast\ast} \!\:\!=\;\! t_{0} \:\!$ com $\;\!t_{0} \geq \mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\:\!\ast\ast} $ escolhido em (2.19$a$) acima.
$\Box$\
\
[\
]{}[**Observação 2.1.**]{} Como mostrado em [@KreissHagstromLorenzZingano2002], uma consequência da prova acima é que tem-se $ {\displaystyle
\,
t_{\ast\ast} \!\;\!<
0.212 \cdot\:\! \nu^{-\;\!5} \;\!
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_{0} \;\!
\|_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}
^{\:\!4}
\!\;\!
} $ sempre. Um argumento mais elaborado desenvolvido no do presente texto produz a estimativa mais fina\
\
\
(2.20)\
[**3. Preliminares, II**]{}\
Nesta seção, vamos utilizar os resultados revisados acima para estabelecer (1.11). Além disso, vamos também obter (1.12$a$) para $ m = 1 $ (Teorema 3.2 abaixo) e $ m = 0 $ (Teorema 3.3), revisando as provas dadas em [@KreissHagstromLorenzZingano2002; @KreissHagstromLorenzZingano2003] e [@SchutzZinganoZingano2014], respectivamente.\
\
[\
]{}\
[[**Prova:**]{} Começamos escrevendo $ \:\!\mbox{\boldmath $v$}(\cdot,t) \:\!$ na forma\
\
$$\notag
\mbox{\boldmath $v$}(\cdot,t)
\;=\;\:\!
e^{\;\!\nu \,\!\Delta \:\!
(\;\!\mbox{\footnotesize $t$} \;\!-\,\mbox{\footnotesize $t_0$})} \;\!
[\,\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_0) -
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\:\!\delta}}
\!\;\!(\cdot,t_0) \,]
\:+\:
e^{\;\!\nu \,\!\Delta \:\!
(\;\!\mbox{\footnotesize $t$} \;\!-\,\mbox{\footnotesize $t_0$})} \;\!
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\:\!\delta}}
\!\;\!(\cdot,t_0),
\qquad
t > t_0,
$$\
sendo $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\:\!\delta}}
\!\;\!(\cdot,t)
\;\!
} $ dada em (2.1), $ \delta > 0 $. Como\
\
$$\notag
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\:\!\delta}}
\!\;\!(\cdot,t_0)
\;=\;\:\!
e^{\;\!\nu \,\!\Delta \:\!\mbox{\footnotesize $t_0$}}
\;\!\bar{\mbox{\boldmath $u$}}_{0, \,\delta}
\:+\!\:\!
\int_{\:\!\mbox{\footnotesize $0$}}^{\;\!\mbox{\footnotesize $t_0$}}
\!\!
e^{\;\!\nu \,\!\Delta \:\!(\;\!\mbox{\footnotesize $t_0$} \;\!-\,
\mbox{\footnotesize $s$})} \;\!
\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\delta}}
\!\;\!(\cdot,s)
\,ds,
$$\
onde $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\bar{\mbox{\boldmath $u$}}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\;\!0, \,\delta}}
\!\;\!=\;\!
G_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\delta}}
\!\:\!\ast
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}_{0}
} $, $ {\displaystyle
\:\!
\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\delta}}
\!\:\!(\cdot,s)
= -\,
\bar{\mbox{\boldmath $u$}}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\:\!\delta}}\!\:\!(\cdot,s)
\!\;\!\cdot \!\;\!\nabla
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\:\!\delta}}\!\:\!(\cdot,s)
\;\!-\:\!
\nabla p_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\delta}}\!\;\!(\cdot,s)
} $, dados em (2.1$b$) e (2.12), obtém-se\
\
$$\notag
\mbox{\boldmath $v$}(\cdot,t)
\;=\;\:\!
e^{\;\!\nu \,\!\Delta \:\!(\;\!\mbox{\footnotesize $t$} \;\!-\,
\mbox{\footnotesize $t_0$})} \;\!
[\,\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_0) -
\:\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\:\!\delta}}
\!\;\!(\cdot,t_0) \,]
\;+\;
e^{\;\!\nu \,\!\Delta \mbox{\footnotesize $t$}} \:\!
\bar{\mbox{\boldmath $u$}}_{0,\,\delta}
\;+
\int_{\:\!\mbox{\footnotesize $0$}}^{\;\!\mbox{\footnotesize $t_0$}}
\!\!
e^{\;\!\nu \,\!\Delta \:\!(\;\!\mbox{\footnotesize $t$} \;\!-\,
\mbox{\footnotesize $s$})} \;\!
\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\delta}}
\!\:\!(\cdot,s)
\; ds,
$$\
para $ \;\!t > t_0 $. Analogamente, tem-se, para $\;\! t > \tilde{t}_0 $:\
\
$$\notag
\tilde{\mbox{\boldmath $v$}}(\cdot,t)
\;=\;\:\!
e^{\;\!\nu \,\!\Delta \:\!(\;\!\mbox{\footnotesize $t$} \;\!-\,
\mbox{\footnotesize $\tilde{t}_0$})} \;\!
[\,\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,\tilde{t}_0) -
\:\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\:\!\delta}}
\!\;\!(\cdot,\tilde{t}_0) \,]
\;+\;
e^{\;\!\nu \,\!\Delta \mbox{\footnotesize $t$}} \:\!
\bar{\mbox{\boldmath $u$}}_{0,\,\delta}
\;+
\int_{\:\!\mbox{\footnotesize $0$}}^{\;\!\mbox{\footnotesize $\tilde{t}_0$}}
\!\!
e^{\;\!\nu \,\!\Delta \:\!(\;\!\mbox{\footnotesize $t$} \;\!-\,
\mbox{\footnotesize $s$})} \;\!
\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\delta}}
\!\:\!(\cdot,s)
\; ds.
$$\
Segue então, para a diferença $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\mbox{\boldmath $v$}(\cdot,t)
\;\!-\;\!
\tilde{\mbox{\boldmath $v$}}(\cdot,t)
} $, sendo $\:\! t > \tilde{t}_0 $ qualquer, que\
\
$ {\displaystyle
D^{\alpha} \:\!
\tilde{\mbox{\boldmath $v$}}(\cdot,t)
\,-\,
D^{\alpha} \:\!
\mbox{\boldmath $v$}(\cdot,t)
\;\;\!=\;\;\;\!
D^{\alpha} \:\!
\bigl\{\,
e^{\;\!\nu \,\!\Delta \:\!(\;\!\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}
\;\!-\,
\mbox{\footnotesize $\tilde{t}_0$})} \;\!
[\,\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,\tilde{t}_0) -
\:\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\:\!\delta}}
\!\;\!(\cdot,\tilde{t}_0) \,]
\,\bigr\}
\;\,+
} $\
\
(3.2)\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\;-\;
D^{\alpha} \:\!\bigl\{\,
e^{\;\!\nu \,\!\Delta \:\!(\;\!\mbox{\footnotesize $t$} \;\!-\,
\mbox{\footnotesize $t_0$})} \;\!
[\,\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_0) -
\:\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\:\!\delta}}
\!\;\!(\cdot,t_0) \,]
\,\bigr\}
\:+\,
D^{\alpha} \!\!
\int_{\:\!\mbox{\footnotesize $t_0$}}
^{\;\!\mbox{\footnotesize $\tilde{t}_0$}}
\!\!
e^{\;\!\nu\,\!\Delta \:\!(\;\!\mbox{\footnotesize $t$} \;\!-\,
\mbox{\footnotesize $s$})} \;\!
\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\delta}}
\!\:\!(\cdot,s)
\; ds
} $.\
\
Portanto, dado $ {\displaystyle
\;\!\mathbb{K} \subset \mathbb{R}^{3}
\!\:\!
} $ compacto qualquer, tem-se, para cada $ \;\! t > \tilde{t}_0 $, $ \;\! \delta > 0 $:\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\|\, D^{\alpha} \tilde{\mbox{\boldmath $v$}}(\cdot,t)
\,-\, D^{\alpha} \mbox{\boldmath $v$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{K})}}
\,\leq\;
J_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\alpha, \;\!\delta}}(t)
\;+\:\!
\int_{\:\!\mbox{\footnotesize $t_0$}}
^{\;\!\mbox{\footnotesize $\tilde{t}_0$}}
\!\!
\|\, D^{\alpha} \bigl\{\;\!
e^{\;\!\nu \Delta \:\!(\;\!\mbox{\footnotesize $t$} \;\!-\,
\mbox{\footnotesize $s$})} \;\!
\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\delta}}
\!\:\!(\cdot,s)
\;\!\bigr\}
\;\!\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{K})}}
\, ds
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\;
J_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\alpha, \;\!\delta}}(t)
\;+\,
K\!\;\!(m)
\:
\nu^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!-\, \frac{m}{2} }}
\!\!\!\:\!
\int_{\:\!\mbox{\footnotesize $t_0$}}
^{\;\!\mbox{\footnotesize $\tilde{t}_0$}}
\!
\Bigl(\, \frac{t - s}{\mbox{\scriptsize $2$}}
\;\!\Bigr)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!\!\!\!-\,\frac{m}{2}}}
\!\;\!
\|\: e^{\;\!\nu \Delta \:\!(\;\!\mbox{\footnotesize $t$} \;\!-\,
\mbox{\footnotesize $s$})/2} \,
\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\delta}}
\!\:\!(\cdot,s)
\;\!\bigr\}
\;\!\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\, ds
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\;
J_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\alpha, \;\!\delta}}(t)
\;+\,
K\!\;\!(m)
\:
\nu^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!-\, \frac{m}{2} \,-\, \frac{3}{4} }}
\!\;\!
(\,\!t - \tilde{t}_0
)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!\!-\,\frac{m}{2}}}
\!\!\!
\int_{\:\!\mbox{\footnotesize $t_0$}}
^{\;\!\mbox{\footnotesize $\tilde{t}_0$}}
\!
\Bigl(\, \frac{t - s}{\mbox{\footnotesize $2$}}
\;\!\Bigr)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!\!\!-\,\frac{3}{4}}}
\|\,\mbox{\boldmath $u$}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\:\!\delta}}
\!\:\!(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\:\!
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\:\!\delta}}
\!\:\!(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\! ds
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\;
J_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\alpha, \;\!\delta}}(t)
\;+\;
K\!\;\!(m)
\:
\nu^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!-\, \frac{m}{2} \,-\, \frac{5}{4} }}
\!\;\!
\bigl(\;\!t - \tilde{t}_0
\bigr)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!\!-\,\frac{m}{2} \,-\, \frac{3}{4}}}
\bigl(\;\! \tilde{t}_0 \!\;\!-\;\! t_0
\bigr)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!\:\! \frac{1}{2} }}
\:\!
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0 \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \:\! 2}}
} $ (3.3)\
\
por (2.11), (2.13) e (2.14) acima (e Cauchy-Schwarz), onde\
\
$ {\displaystyle
J_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\alpha, \;\!\delta}}(t)
\;=\;
\|\, D^{\alpha} \bigl\{\;\!
e^{\;\!\nu \Delta \:\!(\;\!\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}
\;\!-\, \mbox{\footnotesize $\tilde{t}_0$})} \;\!
[\,\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,\tilde{t}_0) -
\:\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\:\!\delta}}
\!\;\!(\cdot,\tilde{t}_0) \,]
\;\!\bigr\}
\;\!\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{K})}}
\;+
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
+\;\;\!
\|\, D^{\alpha} \bigl\{\;\!
e^{\;\!\nu \Delta \:\!(\;\!\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}
\;\!-\, \mbox{\footnotesize $t_0$})} \;\!
[\,\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_0) -
\:\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\:\!\delta}}
\!\;\!(\cdot,t_0) \,]
\;\!\bigr\}
\;\!\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{K})}}
\!\:\!
} $.\
\
Tomando $ \;\!\delta = \delta^{\prime} \!\rightarrow 0 \;\! $ conforme (2.2), obtém-se $ J_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\alpha, \;\!\delta}}(t) \rightarrow 0 $, pois, pelo teorema da convergência dominada e (2.2), tem-se, para cada $ \sigma \!\:\!, \, \tau > 0 \:\!$:\
\
$$\tag{3.4}
\|\: D^{\alpha} \bigl\{\;\!
e^{\;\! \nu \Delta \mbox{\footnotesize $\tau$}}
[\,\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,\sigma) -
\:\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\:\!\delta^{\prime}}}
\!\;\!(\cdot,\sigma) \,]
\;\!\bigr\}
\;\!\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{K})}}
\rightarrow\; 0
\qquad
\mbox{ao }
\;\; \delta^{\prime} \!\rightarrow 0.$$\
$\,$De fato, sendo $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
F_{\mbox{}_{\!\delta}}(\cdot,\tau) :=
D^{\alpha} \bigl\{\;\!
e^{\;\! \nu \Delta \mbox{\footnotesize $\tau$}}
[\,\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,\sigma) -
\:\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\:\!\delta}}
\!\;\!(\cdot,\sigma) \,]
\;\!\bigr\}
} $, tem-se\
\
$$\notag
F_{\mbox{}_{\!\;\!\delta}}(\cdot,\tau)
\,=\,
H_{\mbox{}_{\!\;\!\alpha}}(\cdot,\tau) \ast
[\,\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,\sigma) -
\:\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\:\!\delta}}
\!\;\!(\cdot,\sigma) \,]$$\
onde $ {\displaystyle
H_{\mbox{}_{\!\alpha}}(\cdot,\tau)
\in
L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{3}) \cap L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{3})
\;\!
} $ é independente de $ \delta $. Como $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,\sigma) -
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\:\!\delta^{\prime}}}
\!\;\!(\cdot,\sigma)
\;\!\rightharpoonup \;\!0
\;\!
} $ em $ L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3}) $, ver (2.2), segue que $ {\displaystyle
F_{\mbox{}_{\!\:\!\delta^{\prime}}}(x,\tau)
\rightarrow 0
} $ (ao $ \delta^{\prime} \rightarrow 0 $) para cada $ x \in \mathbb{R}^{3} \!\;\!$; por outro lado, por (2.13) e Cauchy-Schwarz, tem-se\
\
$$\notag
\begin{split}
|\, F_{\mbox{}_{\!\;\!\delta}}(x,\tau) \,|
\;&\leq\;
\|\, H_{\mbox{}_{\!\;\!\alpha}}(\cdot,\tau) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\!
\|\,\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,\sigma) -
\:\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\:\!\delta}}
\!\;\!(\cdot,\sigma) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}} \\
&\leq\;
2 \:
\|\, H_{\mbox{}_{\!\;\!\alpha}}(\cdot,\tau) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\!
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0 \;\!
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\end{split}
$$\
para todo $ x \in \mathbb{R}^{3} \!\;\!$. Por convergência dominada, segue então que $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\, F_{\mbox{}_{\!\:\!\delta^{\prime}}}(\cdot,\tau) \,
\|_{{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{K})}}
\!\rightarrow\;\! 0
\;\!
} $ ao $ \delta^{\:\!\prime} \!\;\!\rightarrow 0 $, visto que $ \mathbb{K} $ é compacto, o que conclui a demonstração da afirmação (3.4) acima.$\;\!$ Assim, fazendo $ \;\! \delta = \delta^{\prime} \!\rightarrow 0 \;\!$ em (3.3), resulta\
\
$$\notag
\|\, D^{\alpha} \:\! \tilde{\mbox{\boldmath $v$}}(\cdot,t)
\;\!-\;\! D^{\alpha} \:\!\mbox{\boldmath $v$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{K})}}
\leq\:
K\!\;\!(m)
\:
\nu^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!-\, \frac{m}{2} \,-\, \frac{5}{4} }}
\;\!
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0 \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \:\! 2}}
\bigl(\;\! \tilde{t}_0 \!\;\!-\;\! t_0
\bigr)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!\:\! \frac{1}{2} }}
\bigl(\;\!t - \tilde{t}_0
\bigr)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!\!-\,\frac{m}{2} \,-\, \frac{3}{4}}}$$\
para todo $ \;\! t > \tilde{t}_0 $ (sendo $ \;\!\mathbb{K} \subset \mathbb{R}^{3} \!\;\!$ compacto [*arbitrário*]{}), o que é equivalente a (3.1). ]{} $\Box$\
\
O Teorema 3.1 estabelece (1.11) para todo $ s = m \geq 0 $ inteiro. Utilizando (1.13), segue a validade de (1.11) para todo $ \;\!s \geq 0 $ ($s$ real), como afirmado.
Para a obtenção das estimativas (1.12), que será feito nas Seções 4 e 5 a seguir, precisaremos ter anteriormente estabelecido (1.12$a$) nos casos particulares $ m = 0, 1 $. Estes dois resultados já foram obtidos por outros autores; as provas mais simples são fornecidas em [@SchutzZinganoZingano2014] ($ m = 0 $) e [@KreissHagstromLorenzZingano2002; @KreissHagstromLorenzZingano2003] ($ m = 1 $), repetidas abaixo por conveniência. O resultado mais fácil é o segundo, por seguir imediatamente da desigualdade de energia (1.2) e do fato de $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\!\;\!
} $ ser eventualmente monotônica, conforme a Proposição 2.3 da Seção 2 acima:\
[\
]{}[**Teorema 3.2.**]{} *Sendo $ \,\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) $ solução de Leray para as equações $\;\!(1.1)$, tem-se*\
\
$$\tag{3.5}
\lim_{\;t\,\rightarrow\,\infty}
\,
t^{\:\!1/2}
\,
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
=\; 0.
$$ [\
]{}\
[[**Prova:**]{} O argumento seguinte é obtido de [@KreissHagstromLorenzZingano2002; @KreissHagstromLorenzZingano2003]. Se a propriedade (3.5) fosse falsa, existiria uma sequência crescente $ \;\! t_{\ell} \;\!\mbox{\scriptsize $\nearrow$}\;\! \infty $ (com $ \:\! t_{\ell} \geq t_{\!\;\!\ast\ast} $ e $ \;\! t_{\ell} \geq 2 \;\! t_{\ell - 1} $ para todo $\ell $, digamos) e algum $ \;\!\eta > 0 \;\!$ fixo tais que\
\
$$\notag
\mbox{} \;\;\;
t_{\ell} \:
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_{\ell}) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!2}
\:\!\geq\; \eta
\qquad
\forall \;\;\! \ell.$$\
Em particular, teríamos de ter\
\
$$\notag
\int_{\mbox{}_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\!\:\!t_{\ell - 1}$}}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\:\!t_{\ell}$}}
\!\!\!\!\!
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!2}
\:\!dt
\:\,\!\geq\:
(\:\!t_{\ell} -\;\! t_{\ell - 1})
\,
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_{\ell}) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!2}
\!\:\!\geq\,
\mbox{\footnotesize $ {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2} }$}
\: t_{\ell} \,
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_{\ell}) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!2}
\!\:\!\geq\,
\mbox{\footnotesize $ {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2} }$}
\, \eta$$\
para todo $\ell $, em contradição com (1.2), (2.3). Portanto, (3.5) tem de ser verdadeira. ]{} $\Box$\
[\
]{}\
[**Teorema 3.3**]{} ([Solução do Problema Clássico de Leray]{}). *Tem-se*\
\
$$\tag{3.6}
\lim_{t\,\rightarrow\,\infty}
\,
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
=\;0.$$ [\
]{}\
[[**Prova:**]{} Seguindo o argumento em [@SchutzZinganoZingano2014], seja $ t_{\ast\ast} \!\;\!$ definido na Proposição 2.3 da Seção 2. Dado $ \:\!\epsilon > 0 $, tomemos $ \;\!t_0 \!\;\!\geq t_{\ast\ast} $ suficientemente grande tal que, pelo Teorema 3.2, tenha-se\
\
$$\tag{3.7}
\mbox{} \hspace{+0.500cm}
t^{\:\!1/2} \,
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\leq\: \epsilon
\qquad
\forall \;\;\!
t \geq t_0.$$\
Como $ \:\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \:\!$ é suave em $ [\,t_0, \infty) $, podemos escrever (pelo princípio de Duhamel)\
\
$$\tag{3.8}
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t)
\;=\;
e^{\;\!\nu \Delta (\mbox{\footnotesize $t$} \;\!-\, \mbox{\footnotesize $t_0$})}
\:\!
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_0)
\;+
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\!\;\!t_0$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\:\!t$}}
\!\!\;\!
e^{\;\!\nu \Delta (\mbox{\footnotesize $t$} \;\!-\, \mbox{\footnotesize $s$})}
\:\!
\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}(\cdot,s)
\: ds,
\qquad
t \geq t_0,$$\
onde $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}(\cdot,s)
\;\!
} $ é dada em (2.4), Seção 2.. Usando a representação (3.8) para $ \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) $, obtém-se\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\!\leq\;
\|\: e^{\;\!\nu \Delta (t \;\!-\, t_0)} \:\!
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_0) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\:\!+
\int_{\mbox{\scriptsize $t_0$}}
^{\mbox{\scriptsize $t$}}
\!
\|\: e^{\;\!\nu \Delta (t \;\!-\, s)} \:\!
\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\:\!
ds
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\:
\|\: e^{\;\!\nu \Delta (t \;\!-\, t_0)} \:\!
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_0) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\:\!+\:
K \;\!
\nu^{-\,3/4} \!\!
\int_{\mbox{\scriptsize $t_0$}}
^{\mbox{\scriptsize $t$}}
\!
(t - s)^{-\,3/4} \:
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\:\!
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\:\!
ds
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\:
\|\: e^{\;\!\nu \Delta (t \;\!-\, t_0)} \:\!
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_0) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\:\!+\:
K \;\!
\nu^{-\,3/4} \,
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0 \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\!\!\;\!
\int_{\mbox{\scriptsize $t_0$}}
^{\mbox{\scriptsize $t$}}
\!\;\!
(t - s)^{-\,3/4} \:
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\:\!
ds
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\:
\|\: e^{\;\!\nu \Delta (\mbox{\scriptsize $t$} \;\!-\, t_0)} \:\!
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_0) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
+\,
K \;\! \nu^{-\,3/4} \,
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0 \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\!
\epsilon
\!\:\!
\int_{\mbox{\scriptsize $t_0$}}
^{\mbox{\scriptsize $t$}}
\!\;\!
(t - s)^{-\,3/4} \, s^{-\,1/2}
\,ds
} $ \[$\,$por (3.7)$\;\!$\]\
\
para todo $ \:\!t > t_0 $, onde $ \:\!K \!\:\!=\:\! (\:\!8 \:\!\pi )^{-\,3/4} \!\:\!$, usando (1.2) e (2.5). Observando que\
\
$$\notag
\int_{\mbox{\scriptsize $t_0$}}
^{\mbox{\scriptsize $t$}}
\!\;\!
(t - s)^{-\,3/4} \, s^{-\,1/2}
\,ds
\;\leq\;
6 \: \sqrt[4]{\;\!2\;}
\qquad
\forall
\;\,
t \;\!\geq\;\! t_0 + 1,$$\
obtém-se, então, para todo $ \:\! t \geq\;\! t_0 +\;\! 1 $:\
\
$$\notag
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\!\leq\;
\|\: e^{\;\! \nu \Delta (t \;\!-\, t_0)} \:\!
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_0) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\:\!+\:
\nu^{-\,3/4} \,
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0 \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\epsilon.$$\
Como, para o semigrupo do calor, tem-se que $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\: e^{\;\!\nu \Delta (t \;\!-\, t_0)} \:\!
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_0) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\!\rightarrow \;\!0
\;\!
} $ ao $ \;\!t \rightarrow \infty $,\
segue que\
\
$$\notag
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\!\leq\;
(\;\! 1 \,+\, \nu^{-\,3/4} \,
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0 \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}})
\: \epsilon$$\
para todo $ \;\! t \gg 1 $. Dado que $ \;\!\epsilon > 0 \;\!$ é arbitrário, isto mostra (3.6), como afirmado. ]{} $\Box$\
[\
]{}\
[**Observação 3.1.**]{} De modo similar, poderíamos também estabelecer (1.8), ou seja,\
\
$$\tag{3.9}
\lim_{t\,\rightarrow\,\infty}
\,
t^{\;\! \frac{\scriptstyle 3}{\scriptstyle 4}}
\;\!
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) -\,
e^{\:\!\nu \:\! \Delta \:\!(t - t_0)}
\;\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_0) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\:\!=\;
0,$$\
mas este resultado não será necessário na análise a seguir. (Para uma prova de (3.9), ver [@SchutzZinganoZingano2014], Section 3.) O mesmo vale para as propriedades (1.9), i.e.,\
\
$$\tag{3.10$a$}
\lim_{t\,\rightarrow\,\infty} \,
t^{\;\! \frac{\scriptstyle 3}{\scriptstyle 4}}
\;\!
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\:\!=\;
0,$$\
$$\tag{3.10$b$}
\lim_{t\,\rightarrow\,\infty}
\,
t
\:
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) -\,
e^{\:\!\nu \:\! \Delta \:\!(t - t_0)}
\;\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_0) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\:\!=\;
0,$$\
obtidas em [@SchutzZinganoZingano2014], Section 4. Um ponto a destacar sobre as provas de (3.6), (3.9), (3.10) apresentadas em [@SchutzZinganoZingano2014] é que *elas utilizam apenas resultados obtidos por Leray* [@Leray1934] [*e*]{} *métodos matemáticos conhecidos até aquela época*. O mesmo [*não*]{} vale para as estimativas (bem mais difíceis) em (1.10) ou (1.12), como se verá nas Seções 4 e 5 seguir.\
[**4. Prova de (1.12[*a*]{})**]{}\
Nesta seção, vamos demonstrar o seguinte resultado, dada uma solução de Leray (qualquer) $ \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) $ para as equações de Navier-Stokes (1.1).\
\
[\
]{}\
A prova do Teorema 4.1 ocupará toda a discussão a seguir. Novamente, o ponto de partida é dado pela representação (3.8) para $ \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) $, ou seja: considerando $ t_0 \geq \mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\:\!\ast\ast} $ ($ \:\!\mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\:\!\ast\ast} $ dado em (1.3), Seção 1), podemos escrever, como $ \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) $ é suave em $ [\,t_0, \infty ) $:\
\
$$\tag{4.2}
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t)
\;=\;
e^{\;\!\nu \Delta (\mbox{\footnotesize $t$} \;\!-\, \mbox{\footnotesize $t_0$})}
\:\!
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_0)
\;+
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\!\;\!t_0$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\:\!t$}}
\!\!\;\!
e^{\;\!\nu \Delta (\mbox{\footnotesize $t$} \;\!-\, \mbox{\footnotesize $s$})}
\:\!
\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}(\cdot,s)
\: ds,
\qquad
\forall \;\,
t \geq t_0,$$\
onde $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}(\cdot,s)
\;\!
} $ é dada em (2.4), Seção 2. Em particular, segue que, para cada $\alpha$,\
\
$$\tag{4.3$a$}
\|\, D^{\alpha} \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\,\leq\:
I_{\alpha}(\:\!t\:\!; t_0)
\;+
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $t_0$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\!
\|\, D^{\alpha} \:\![\:
e^{\;\!\nu \Delta (\mbox{\footnotesize $t$} \;\!-\, \mbox{\footnotesize $s$})}
\:\!
\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}(\cdot,s)
\,] \:
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\! ds$$\
para todo $ \;\!t \geq t_0 $, onde\
\
$$\tag{4.3$b$}
\mbox{} \;\;
I_{\alpha}(\:\!t\:\!; t_0)
\;=\;
\|\: D^{\alpha} \;\![\;\!\;\!
e^{\;\!\nu \Delta (\mbox{\footnotesize $t$} \;\!-\, \mbox{\footnotesize $t_0$})}
\:\!
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_0)
\,] \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\!\:\!,
\quad \;\;
t \;\!\geq\;\! t_{0}.$$\
Note-se que (4.1) já foi obtido se $ m = 0 $ (Teorema 3.3) e $ m = 1 $ (Teorema 3.2), seguindo [@KreissHagstromLorenzZingano2002; @KreissHagstromLorenzZingano2003; @SchutzZinganoZingano2014]. Em particular, tem-se\
\
$$\tag{4.4}
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{1}{2} }}
\:\!
\|\, D \:\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\!\leq\:
M_{\mbox{}_{1}}
\!\:\!,
\qquad
\forall \;\,
t \,\geq\, \mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\:\!\ast\ast}$$\
para certa constante $ M_{\mbox{}_{1}} \!\;\!> 0 $ dependendo da solução $ \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) $ considerada. Mais geralmente, tem-se o seguinte resultado.\
[\
]{}[**Lemma 4.1.**]{} *Sendo $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
U_{m}(t) :=\,
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} }}
\!\;\!
\|\, D^{m} \,\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\!\;\!
} $, tem-se, para cada $\;\!m \geq 0 \!\!\;\!:$*\
\
$$\tag{4.5}
U_{m} \in
L^{\infty}(\:\![\,\mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\:\!\ast\ast}, \infty)\,\!).$$. [\
]{}
[**Prova:**]{} Para $ m = 0, 1 $, (4.5) segue de (1.2), (4.4); assim, resta provar (4.5) para $ m \geq 2 $. Dados $ \;\! t_0 \!\;\!\geq \mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\:\!\ast\ast} \:\!$ e $ \;\!\alpha \;\!$ multi-índice com $ \;\!|\;\!\alpha\;\!| = m $, tem-se, de (4.3) acima, para $ \;\! t \geq t_0 $:\
\
$$\tag{4.6}
V_{\alpha}(t) \;\equiv\;
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} }}
\!\;\!
\|\, D^{\alpha} \,\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\!\leq\;
I_{1}(\alpha, \:\!t) \,+\,
I_{2}(\alpha, \:\!t) \,+\,
J_{\alpha}(t),$$\
onde\
\
$$\tag{4.7$a$}
I_{1}(\alpha, \:\!t)
\;=\;\;\!
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} }}
\,\!
\|\: D^{\alpha} \;\![\;\!\;\!
e^{\;\!\nu \Delta (\mbox{\footnotesize $t$} \;\!-\, \mbox{\footnotesize $t_0$})}
\:\!
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_0)
\,] \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\!\:\!,$$\
$$\tag{4.7$b$}
I_{2}(\alpha, \:\!t)
\;=\;\;\!
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} }}
\!\!\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t_0$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!\mu(t)$}}
\!\!
\|\, D^{\alpha} \:\![\:
e^{\;\!\nu \Delta (\mbox{\footnotesize $t$} \;\!-\, \mbox{\footnotesize $s$})}
\:\!
\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}(\cdot,s)
\,] \:
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\! ds,$$\
$$\tag{4.7$c$}
J_{\alpha}(t)
\;=\;\;\!
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} }}
\!\!\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\!
\|\, D^{\alpha} \:\![\:
e^{\;\!\nu \Delta (\mbox{\footnotesize $t$} \;\!-\, \mbox{\footnotesize $s$})}
\:\!
\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}(\cdot,s)
\,] \:
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\! ds,$$\
sendo $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\mu(t) = (\:\!t_0 + \;\!t)/2
} $. Estimar $ I_{1}(t) $, $ I_{2}(t) $ é simples: obtém-se, de (2.14) e (4.7$a$),\
\
$$\tag{4.8}
|\: I_{1}(\alpha, \:\!t) \,|
\;\leq\:
K\!\;\!(m,\;\!\nu) \:
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_0) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\,\!
(\:\! t - t_0)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle
\!\!-\, \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} }}
\;\!
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} }}
\leq\;
K\!\;\!(m,\;\!\nu, \;\!t_0) \:
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0 \;\!
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}$$\
para todo $ \;\! t \geq t_0 + 1 $, enquanto, por (2.15), (4.4) e (4.7$b$),\
\
$$\notag
\begin{split}
|\: I_{2}(\alpha, \:\!t) \,|
\;&\leq\:
K\!\;\!(m,\;\!\nu) \:
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} }}
\!\!\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t_0$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!\mu(t)$}}
\!\!
(\:\! t - s)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!\!
-\, \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} \,-\, \frac{3}{4} }}
\;\!
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\!
\|\, D \:\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\! ds \\
&\leq\:
K\!\;\!(m,\;\!\nu) \:
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0 \;\!
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\!
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} }}
\!\!\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t_0$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!\mu(t)$}}
\!\!
s^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!- \, \frac{1}{2} }}
\;\!
(\:\! t - s)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!\!
-\, \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} \,-\, \frac{3}{4} }}
\;\!
\bigl\{\, s^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{1}{2} }}
\;\!
\|\, D \:\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\!\bigr\}
\, ds \\
&\leq\:
K\!\;\!(m,\;\!\nu) \:
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0 \;\!
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\,
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} }}
\:\!
(\:\! t - t_0)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!\!
-\, \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} \,-\, \frac{3}{4} }}
\,
M_{\mbox{}_{1}}
\!\!\;\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t_0$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\:\!\mu(t)$}}
\!\!
s^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle -\, \frac{1}{2} }}
\;\!
ds \\
&\leq\:
K\!\;\!(m,\;\!\nu, \;\!t_0)
\:
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0 \;\!
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\,
M_{\mbox{}_{1}}
\;\!
(\:\! t - t_0)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!\!-\, \frac{3}{4} }}
\:\!
(\:\! t + t_0)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{1}{2} }} \\
\end{split}
$$\
(4.9$a$)\
\
para todo $ \;\! t \geq t_0 + 1 $, ou seja,\
\
$$\tag{4.9$b$}
|\: I_{2}(\alpha, \:\!t) \,|
\;\leq\:
K\!\;\!(m,\;\!\nu, \;\!t_0, \;\!M_{\mbox{}_{1}}\!\:\!, \;\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0),
\qquad
\forall \;\;
t \,\geq\, t_0 \;\!+\;\! 1,$$\
onde $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
K\!\;\!(m,\;\!\nu, \;\!t_0, \:\!M_{\mbox{}_{1}}\!\:\!,
\:\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0) > 0
\;\!
} $ depende dos dados $ (m,\;\!\nu, \;\!t_0, \:\!M_{\mbox{}_{1}}\!\:\!,
\:\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0) $. Assim, por (4.6), (4.8) e (4.9), tem-se\
\
$$\tag{4.10}
V_{\alpha}(t)
\;\leq\:
K\!\:\!(m,\;\!\nu, \;\!t_0, \:\!M_{\mbox{}_{1}}\!\:\!,
\:\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0)
\,+\;\!
J_{\alpha}(t),
\qquad
\forall \;\;
t \,\geq\, t_0 \;\!+\;\! 1,$$\
onde $ J_{\alpha}(t) $ é dada em (4.7$c$). Para estimar $ J_{\alpha}(t) $, que é o termo mais complicado, podemos proceder do modo seguinte. Ilustraremos o método considerando inicialmente o caso mais simples $ |\,\alpha\,| = 2 $, ou seja, $ D^{\alpha} \!\;\!=\,\! D_{j} \:\!D_{\ell} $, procedendo depois por indução em $ \;\!m = |\,\alpha\,| $.
Considerando $ D^{\alpha} = D_{j} \:\!D_{\ell} $, tem-se, por (4.7$c$) e (2.14),\
\
$$\notag
\begin{split}
J_{j,\,\ell}(t)
\;&\equiv\;\;\!
t \!\;\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\!
\|\, D_{j} \:\!D_{\ell} \;\![\:
e^{\;\!\nu \Delta (\mbox{\footnotesize $t$} \;\!-\, \mbox{\footnotesize $s$})}
\:\!
\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}(\cdot,s)
\,] \:
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\! ds, \\
&=\;\;\!
t \!\;\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\!
\|\, D_{j} \:\![\:
e^{\;\!\nu \Delta (\mbox{\footnotesize $t$} \;\!-\, \mbox{\footnotesize $s$})}
\:\!
D_{\ell} \;\! \mbox{\boldmath $Q$}(\cdot,s)
\,] \:
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\! ds, \\
&\leq\,
K\!\;\!(\nu) \;\;\!
t \!\;\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\!
(\:\!t - s)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!-\, \frac{7}{8} }}
\,\!
\|\, D_{\ell} \;\! \mbox{\boldmath $Q$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{4/3}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\! ds.
\end{split}
$$\
Para prosseguir, é preciso estimar $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\, D_{\ell} \;\! \mbox{\boldmath $Q$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\scriptstyle L^{4/3}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}
\!\;\!
} $, o que é feito usando a teoria de Calderon-Zygmund de operadores integrais singulares (ver e.g.$\;\!$[@Stein1970], Ch.$\;$2, ou [@DunfordSchwartz1963], Ch.$\;$11). Por conveniência, revisamos brevemente como isso é feito, considerando o caso geral em $ \mathbb{R}^{n} \!\;\!$. Por (2.4), Seção 2, tem-se $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
D_{\ell} \;\! \mbox{\boldmath $Q$}(\cdot,t)
\;\!=\;\!
-\, D_{\ell} \,[\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$} \cdot
\nabla \:\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}\;\!(\cdot,t) \,]
\;\!-\;\! \nabla \:\! q_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \ell}}(\cdot,t)
} $, $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
q_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \ell}}(\cdot,t)
=
D_{\ell} \,p(\cdot,t)
} $. Tomando o divergente em $x$, resulta que $ \;\!q_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \ell}}(\cdot,t) \;\!$ é a solução (única) do problema de Poisson\
\
$$\notag
-\, \Delta \;\!
q_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \ell}}(\cdot,t)
\;=\;
\mbox{div}\;
\bigl\{\, D_{\ell} \,[\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$} \cdot
\nabla \:\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}\;\!(\cdot,t) \,]
\,\bigr\},
\quad \;\;
q_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \ell}}(\cdot,t)
\in L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{n}).$$\
Aplicando a teoria de Calderon-Zygmund (cf.$\;$[@Guterres2014], Ch.$\;$5), obtém-se, para cada $ 1 < r < \infty $:\
\
$$\notag
\|\, \nabla \:\!
q_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \ell}}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{r}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\,\leq\;
K\!\;\!(r,n) \:
\|\, D_{\ell} \,[\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$} \cdot
\nabla \:\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}\;\!(\cdot,t) \,] \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{r}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}$$\
para certa constante $ K\!\;\!(r,n) > 0 $ dependendo de $ \;\!r, \;\!n $ somente. Isso implica, por (2.4), que\
\
$$\tag{4.11}
\|\, D_{\ell} \;\!
\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{r}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\,\leq\;
K\!\;\!(r,n) \:
\|\, D_{\ell} \,[\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$} \cdot
\nabla \:\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}\;\!(\cdot,t) \,] \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{r}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}$$\
para cada $ 1 < r < \infty $, onde, novamente, $ K\!\;\!(r,n) $ depende de $ \;\!r, \;\!n $. (Por exemplo, repetindo o argumento usado na prova da Proposição 2.1, tem-se $ K\!\;\!(2,n) = 1 $, para todo $n$.) Assim, com $ \;\!r = 4/3 $, $ n = 3 $, obtém-se $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\, D_{\ell} \, \mbox{\boldmath $Q$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{4/3}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\!\;\!\leq\;\!
K \:
\|\, D_{\ell} \,[\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \cdot
\nabla \:\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,] \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{4/3}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\!
} $, de modo que\
\
$ {\displaystyle
J_{j,\,\ell}(t)
\;\leq\;
K\!\;\!(\nu) \;
t \!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\!
(\:\!t - s)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!-\, \frac{7}{8} }}
\,\!
\|\, D_{\ell} \;\![\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \cdot
\nabla \:\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,]\,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{4/3}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\! ds
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\;
K\!\;\!(\nu) \;
t \!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\!
(\:\!t - s)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!-\, \frac{7}{8} }}
\;\!
\Bigl\{\,
\|\, D_{\ell} \;\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s)
\;\!\cdot\;\!
\nabla \:\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{4/3}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\:+
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
+\;\;\!
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s)
\;\!\cdot\;\!
\nabla \:\! D_{\ell} \;\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{4/3}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\! \Bigr\}
\;\! ds
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\;
K\!\;\!(\nu) \;
t \!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\!
(\:\!t - s)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!-\, \frac{7}{8} }}
\;\!
\Bigl\{\,
\|\, D \:\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{4}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\:\!
\|\, D \:\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\:+
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
+\;\;\!
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{4}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\:\!
\|\, D^{2} \,\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\! \Bigr\}
\;\! ds
} $,\
\
pela desigualdade de Hölder (no último passo acima). Utilizando agora a desigualdade de Nirenberg-Gagliardo\
\
$$\tag{4.12}
\|\, \mbox{u} \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{4}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\!\leq\;
K \,
\|\, \mbox{u} \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
^{1/4}
\:\!
\|\, D \:\! \mbox{u} \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
^{3/4}$$\
para $ \;\!\mbox{u} \in H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{3}) \;\!$ arbitrária, obtém-se, então,\
\
$ {\displaystyle
J_{j,\,\ell}(t)
\;\leq\;
K\!\;\!(\nu) \;
t \!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\!
(\:\!t - s)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!-\, \frac{7}{8} }}
\;\!
\Bigl\{\,
\|\, D \:\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{4}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
^{\:\!5/4}
\:\!
\|\, D^{2} \,\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
^{\:\!3/4}
\:+
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
+\;\;\!
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{4}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
^{\:\!1/4}
\:\!
\|\, D \:\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
^{\:\!3/4}
\:\!
\|\, D^{2} \,\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\! \Bigr\}
\;\! ds
} $,\
\
$ {\displaystyle
=\:
K\!\;\!(\nu) \;
t \!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\!\!\!\!\;\!
s^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!-\, \frac{11}{8} }}
(\:\!t - s)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!-\, \frac{7}{8} }}
\;\!
\Bigl\{\;\!
\bigl[\, s^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{1}{2} }}
\:\!
\|\, D \:\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\:\!\bigr]^{\:\!5/4}
\;\!
\bigl[\, s \,
\|\, D^{2} \,\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\bigr]^{\:\!3/4}
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
+\;\;\!
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{4}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
^{\:\!1/4}
\:\!
\bigl[\, s^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{1}{2} }}
\:\!
\|\, D \:\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\bigr]^{\:\!3/4}
\:\!
\bigl[\, s \,
\|\, D^{2} \,\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\bigr]
\;\! \Bigr\}
\;\! ds
} $,\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq \:
K\!\;\!(\nu) \,
M_{\mbox{}_{1}}^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{5}{4} }}
\;\!
t \;\!\;\!
(\:\!t + t_0)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!\!-\, \frac{11}{8} }}
\!\!\!\!\;\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\!\!
(\:\!t - s)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!-\, \frac{7}{8} }}
\;\!
U_{\mbox{}_{2}}(s)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{3}{4} }}
\;\! ds
\;\,+
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
+\;\;\!
K\!\;\!(\nu) \,
M_{\mbox{}_{1}}^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{3}{4} }}
\;\!
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0 \;\!
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{1}{4} }}
\:\!
t \;\!\;\!
(\:\!t + t_0)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!\!-\, \frac{11}{8} }}
\!\!\!\!\;\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\!\!
(\:\!t - s)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!-\, \frac{7}{8} }}
\;\!
U_{\mbox{}_{2}}(s)
\;\!\;\! ds
} $,\
\
onde $ {\displaystyle
U_{\mbox{}_{2}}(t)
\;\!=\;\!
t \;
\|\,D^{2} \:\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
} $. Portanto, para cada $ 1 \leq j, \;\!\ell \leq 3 $ (e cada $ t \geq t_0 + 1$), obtém-se\
\
$ {\displaystyle
J_{j,\,\ell}(t)
\;\leq \;\!\;\!
K\!\;\!(\nu) \,
M_{\mbox{}_{1}}^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{5}{4} }}
\,\!
(\:\!t + t_0)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!\!-\, \frac{3}{8} }}
\!\!\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\!\!
(\:\!t - s)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!-\, \frac{7}{8} }}
\;\!
U_{\mbox{}_{2}}(s)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{3}{4} }}
\;\! ds
\;\,+
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
+\;\;\!
K\!\;\!(\nu) \,
M_{\mbox{}_{1}}^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{3}{4} }}
\;\!
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0 \;\!
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{1}{4} }}
\:\!
(\:\!t + t_0)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!\!-\, \frac{3}{8} }}
\!\!\!\!\;\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\!\!
(\:\!t - s)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!-\, \frac{7}{8} }}
\;\!
U_{\mbox{}_{2}}(s)
\;\!\;\! ds
} $,\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq \;\!\;\!
K\!\;\!(\nu) \,
M_{\mbox{}_{1}}^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{5}{4} }}
\,\!
(\:\!t + t_0)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!\!-\, \frac{1}{4} }}
+\;
K\!\;\!(\nu, M_{\mbox{}_{1}}\!\:\!, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0)
\,
(\:\!t + t_0)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!\!-\, \frac{3}{8} }}
\!\!\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\!\!
(\:\!t - s)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!-\, \frac{7}{8} }}
\;\!
U_{\mbox{}_{2}}(s)
\: ds
} $,\
\
pelo fato de se ter $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
U_{\mbox{}_{2}}(s)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \:\!\frac{3}{4} }}
\!\:\!\leq\,\! 1 + U_{\mbox{}_{2}}(s)
} $, e onde $ \;\!K\!\;\!(\nu, M_{\mbox{}_{1}}\!\:\!, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0) > 0 \;\!$ depende apenas de $ \nu $, $ M_{\mbox{}_{1}}\!\:\! $ e $ \;\!\|\,\mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0 \;\! \|_{L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})} $. Assim, por (4.6) e (4.10), obtém-se, para $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
V_{j,\;\!\ell}(t)
\;\!=\;\!
t \:
\|\, D_{j} \:\! D_{\ell} \, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\!\:\!
} $:\
\
$$\notag
V_{j,\;\!\ell}(t)
\;\leq\;
K\!\;\!(m,\;\!\nu, \;\!t_0, \;\!M_{\mbox{}_{1}}\!\:\!, \;\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0)
\;+\;
K\!\;\!(\nu, M_{\mbox{}_{1}}\!\:\!, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0)
\,
(\:\!t + t_0)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!\!-\, \frac{3}{8} }}
\!\!\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\!\!
(\:\!t - s)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!-\, \frac{7}{8} }}
\;\!
U_{\mbox{}_{2}}(s)
\: ds$$\
para todos $ j, \;\!\ell $ (e todo $ \;\! t \;\!\geq\;\! t_0 + 1 $), de modo que\
\
$$\tag{4.13}
U_{\mbox{}_{2}}(t)
\;\leq\;
K_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \ast}}\!\;\!
(m,\;\!\nu, \;\!t_0, \;\!M_{\mbox{}_{1}}\!\:\!, \;\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0)
\;+\;
K_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \ast\ast}}\!\;\!
(\nu, M_{\mbox{}_{1}}\!\:\!, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0)
\,
(\:\!t + t_0)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!\!-\, \frac{3}{8} }}
\!\!\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\!\!
(\:\!t - s)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!-\, \frac{7}{8} }}
\;\!
U_{\mbox{}_{2}}(s)
\: ds$$\
para todo $ \;\! t \geq t_0 + 1 $, onde $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
K_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \ast\ast}}\!\;\!
(\nu, M_{\mbox{}_{1}}\!\:\!, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0) > 0
\;\!
} $ depende apenas de $ \nu $, $ M_{\mbox{}_{1}}\!\:\! $ e $ \;\!\|\,\mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0 \;\! \|_{L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})} $. Tomemos então $ \;\!t_{2} $, $ \mathbb{M}_{2} $ dados por\
$$\tag{4.14}
t_{2}\;\!:=\;
1 +\;\! t_0 +\, 2^{16} \;\!
K_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\;\!\ast\ast}}^{\:\!4}
\!\;\!,
\qquad
\mathbb{M}_{2} \;\!\!:=\;
\sup \,\{\, U_{\mbox{}_{2}}(s) \!:\;
t_0 \leq s \leq t_2 \;\!\},$$\
onde $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
K_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\;\!\ast\ast}}
\!\;\!=\;\!
K_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\;\!\ast\ast}}\!\:\!
(\nu, M_{\mbox{}_{1}}\!\:\!, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0)
\;\!
} $ é a constante definida em (4.13) acima. Afirmamos que\
\
$$\tag{4.15}
U_{\mbox{}_{2}}(t) \;\leq\;
2 \, K_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \ast}}\!\;\!
(m,\;\!\nu, \;\!t_0, \;\!M_{\mbox{}_{1}}\!\:\!, \;\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0)
\;+\;
16 \: K_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \ast\ast}}\!\;\!
(\nu, M_{\mbox{}_{1}}\!\:\!, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0) \,
\mathbb{M}_{\mbox{}_{2}},
\qquad
\forall \;\,
t \;\!\geq\;\! t_{2},$$\
onde $ \;\! K_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\;\!\ast}} \!\;\! $, $ K_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\;\!\ast\ast}} $ são as constantes dadas em (4.13). $\,$De fato, sendo $ t \geq t_{2} $, definamos $ \mathbb{U}_{\mbox{}_{2}}(t) $ pondo $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\mathbb{U}_{\mbox{}_{2}}(t) :=\,
\sup\,\{\;\! U_{\mbox{}_{2}}(s) \!:\; t_{2} \leq s \leq t \,\}
} $. Se $ \;\!\mu(t) \geq t_{2} $, então, por (4.13), obtém-se\
\
$$\notag
\begin{split}
U_{\mbox{}_{2}}(t)
\;&\leq\;
K_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \ast}}\!\;\!
(m,\;\!\nu, \;\!t_0, \;\!M_{\mbox{}_{1}}\!\:\!, \;\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0)
\;+\;
K_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \ast\ast}}\!\;\!
(\nu, M_{\mbox{}_{1}}\!\:\!, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0)
\,
(\:\!t + t_0)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!\!-\, \frac{3}{8} }}
\!\!\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\!\!
(\:\!t - s)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!-\, \frac{7}{8} }}
\;\!
ds
\;
\mathbb{U}_{\mbox{}_{2}}(t) \\
&\leq\;
K_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \ast}}\!\;\!
(m,\;\!\nu, \;\!t_0, \;\!M_{\mbox{}_{1}}\!\:\!, \;\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0)
\;+\;
8 \, K_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \ast\ast}}\!\;\!
(\nu, M_{\mbox{}_{1}}\!\:\!, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0)
\,
(\:\!t + t_0)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!\!-\, \frac{1}{4} }}
\;\!
\mathbb{U}_{\mbox{}_{2}}(t),
\end{split}
$$\
de modo que, pela definição de $\;\!t_{2} $, tem-se $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
U_{\mbox{}_{2}}(t) \;\!\leq\;\!
K_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \ast}}
\!\;\!+\;\! \mathbb{U}_{\mbox{}_{2}}(t)/2
} $. Se $ \;\!\mu(t) < t_{2} $, então\
\
$$\notag
\begin{split}
U_{\mbox{}_{2}}(t)
\;&\leq\;
K_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \ast}}\!\;\!
\;\!+\,
K_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \ast\ast}}\!
\cdot
(\:\!t + t_0)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!\!-\, \frac{3}{8} }}
\!\!\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\!\!
(\:\!t - s)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!-\, \frac{7}{8} }}
\;\!
ds
\;
\bigl(\, \mathbb{M}_{\mbox{}_{2}} \;\!+\,
\mathbb{U}_{\mbox{}_{2}}(t) \;\!\bigr) \\
&\leq\;
K_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \ast}}\!\;\!
\;\!+\;
8 \, K_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \ast\ast}}\;\!
\mathbb{M}_{\mbox{}_{2}}
\,+\,
8 \, K_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \ast\ast}}\;\!
(\:\!t + t_0)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!\!-\, \frac{1}{4} }}
\;\!
\mathbb{U}_{\mbox{}_{2}}(t),
\end{split}
$$\
de modo que, pela definição de $\;\!t_{2} $, obtém-se neste caso $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
U_{\mbox{}_{2}}(t)
\;\!\leq\;\!
K_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \ast}}
\!\;\!+\;\!
8 \, K_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \ast\ast}} \,
\mathbb{M}_{\mbox{}_{2}}
+\;\!
\mathbb{U}_{\mbox{}_{2}}(t)/2
} $. Portanto, tem-se sempre\
\
$$\notag
U_{\mbox{}_{2}}(t)
\;\leq\;
K_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \ast}}
\!\;\!+\,
8 \, K_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \ast\ast}}
\;\!
\mathbb{M}_{\mbox{}_{2}}
\;\!+\,
\frac{1}{2} \;
\mathbb{U}_{\mbox{}_{2}}(t),
\qquad
\forall \;\,
t \;\!\geq\;\! t_{2}.$$\
Logo, $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\mathbb{U}_{\mbox{}_{2}}(t)
\;\!\leq\;\!
K_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \ast}}
\!\,\!+\;\!
8 \, K_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \ast\ast}}
\;\!
\mathbb{M}_{\mbox{}_{2}}
+\;\!
\mathbb{U}_{\mbox{}_{2}}(t)/2
\;\!
} $ para todo $ \;\!t \geq t_{2} $, que é equivalente a (4.15).$\;\!$ De (4.15), segue imediatamente que $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
U_{\mbox{}_{2}} \in L^{\infty}(\:\![\, t_2, \infty) )
} $. Como, por (1.3), tem-se também $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
U_{\mbox{}_{2}} \in L^{\infty}(\:\![\, \mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\;\!\ast\ast}, \;\!t_2\;\!]\:\! )
} $, resulta que $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
U_{\mbox{}_{2}} \in L^{\infty}(\:\![\,\mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\;\!\ast\ast}, \infty) )
} $, provando assim (4.5) no caso $ m = 2 $.\
\
Mais geralmente, podemos mostrar (4.5) para $ m \geq 2 $ qualquer usando indução em $m$. Assim, dado $ m \geq 3 $, suponha-se que (4.5) já tenha sido obtida para os valores anteriores de $m$. Tomando-se, então, $ \alpha $ (multi-índice) com $ \;\!|\,\alpha\,| = m $, e escrevendo-se $ D^{\alpha} \!\;\!= D_{j} \;\! D^{\alpha^{\prime}} \!$ (para certo multi-índice $ \alpha^{\prime} $ com $ |\,\alpha^{\prime} \,| = m - 1 $), tem-se, lembrando (4.7$c$) acima,\
\
$$\notag
\begin{split}
J_{\alpha}(t)
\;&=\;\;\!
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} }}
\!\!\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\!
\|\, D^{\alpha} \;\![\:
e^{\;\!\nu \Delta (\mbox{\footnotesize $t$} \;\!-\, \mbox{\footnotesize $s$})}
\:\!
\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}(\cdot,s)
\,] \:
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\! ds, \\
&=\;\;\!
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} }}
\!\!\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\!
\|\, D_{j} \,[\:
e^{\;\!\nu \Delta (\mbox{\footnotesize $t$} \;\!-\, \mbox{\footnotesize $s$})}
\:\!
D^{\alpha^{\prime}} \!\;\! \mbox{\boldmath $Q$}(\cdot,s)
\,] \:
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\! ds, \\
&\leq\,
K\!\;\!(\nu) \;\;\!
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} }}
\!\!\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\!
(\:\!t - s)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!-\, \frac{7}{8} }}
\,\!
\|\, D^{\alpha^{\prime}} \!\;\! \mbox{\boldmath $Q$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{4/3}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\! ds \\
&\leq\,
K\!\;\!(\nu) \;\;\!
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} }}
\!\!\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\!
(\:\!t - s)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!-\, \frac{7}{8} }}
\,\!
\|\, D^{\alpha^{\prime}} \!\;\![\,
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \cdot
\nabla \:\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,]\,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{4/3}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\! ds \\
\end{split}
$$\
usando (2.14) e a estimativa (4.16) abaixo (que segue novamente por Calderon-Zygmund),
\
$$\tag{4.16}
\|\, D^{\beta} \,\!\,\!\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{r}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\,\leq\;
K\!\;\!(r,n) \:
\|\, D^{\beta} \:\! [\,
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \cdot
\nabla \:\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,]\,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{r}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\;\!,$$\
para cada $ 1 < r < \infty $, e qualquer multi-índice $ \beta $, que é mostrada de modo análogo a (4.11). Resulta, então, por Hölder e (4.12), como antes,\
\
$$\notag
\begin{split}
J_{\alpha}(t)
\;\;\!&\leq
\hspace{-1.250cm}
\sum_{\mbox{} \hspace{+1.250cm} |\,\beta\,| \,+\, |\,\gamma\,| \:=\:
m \,-\, {\scriptscriptstyle 1}}
\hspace{-1.400cm}
K\!\;\!(\nu) \;\;\!
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} }}
\!\!\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\!
(\:\!t - s)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!-\, \frac{7}{8} }}
\,\!
\|\, D^{\beta} \,\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \cdot
\nabla \:\! D^{\gamma} \,\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,]\,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{4/3}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\! ds \\
&\leq\;\;
K\!\;\!(\nu) \!
\sum_{\ell \,=\,0}^{m\,-\,{\scriptscriptstyle 1}}
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} }}
\!\!\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\!
(\:\!t - s)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!-\, \frac{7}{8} }}
\,\!
\|\, D^{\ell} \,\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{4}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\:\!
\|\, D^{m - \ell} \,\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\! ds \\
&\leq\;\;
K\!\;\!(\nu) \!
\sum_{\ell \,=\,0}^{m\,-\,{\scriptscriptstyle 1}}
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} }}
\!\!\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\!
(\:\!t - s)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!-\, \frac{7}{8} }}
\,\!
\|\, D^{\ell} \,\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2} }}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{1}{4} }}
\:\!
\|\, D^{\ell + 1} \,\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2} }}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{3}{4} }}
\:\!
\|\, D^{m - \ell} \,\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2} }}
\, ds, \\
\end{split}
$$\
ou seja, $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
J_{\alpha}(t)
\;\!\leq\;\!
J_{\mbox{}_{1}}(t) \;\!+
J_{\mbox{}_{2}}(t) \;\!+
J_{\mbox{}_{3}}(t)
} $, onde\
\
$$\tag{4.17$a$}
J_{\mbox{}_{1}}(t)
\;=\;
K\!\;\!(\nu) \;
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} }}
\!\!\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\!
(\:\!t - s)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!-\, \frac{7}{8} }}
\,\!
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2} }}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{1}{4} }}
\:\!
\|\, D \:\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2} }}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{3}{4} }}
\:\!
\|\, D^{m} \,\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2} }}
\, ds,$$\
$$\tag{4.17$b$}
J_{\mbox{}_{2}}(t)
\;=\;
K\!\;\!(\nu) \!\;\!
\sum_{\ell \,=\,1}^{m\,-\,{\scriptscriptstyle 2}}
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} }}
\!\!\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\!
(\:\!t - s)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!-\, \frac{7}{8} }}
\,\!
\|\, D^{\ell} \,\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2} }}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{1}{4} }}
\:\!
\|\, D^{\ell + 1} \,\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2} }}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{3}{4} }}
\:\!
\|\, D^{m - \ell} \,\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2} }}
\, ds,$$\
$$\tag{4.17$c$}
J_{\mbox{}_{3}}(t)
\;=\;
K\!\;\!(\nu) \;
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} }}
\!\!\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\!
(\:\!t - s)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!-\, \frac{7}{8} }}
\,\!
\|\, D^{m - 1} \,\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2} }}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{1}{4} }}
\:\!
\|\, D \:\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2} }}
\:\!
\|\, D^{m} \,\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2} }}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{3}{4} }}
\, ds.$$\
Escrevendo $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\, D \:\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2} }}
\!=\;\!
s^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle -\, \frac{1}{2} }}
U_{\mbox{}_{1}}(s)
\;\!\leq\;\!
M_{\mbox{}_{1}} \,\!
s^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle -\, \frac{1}{2} }}
\!\!\;\!
} $, $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\, D^{m} \,\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2} }}
\!\;\!=\;\!
s^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!-\, \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} }}
U_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle m}}\!\;\!(s)
} $, obtém-se\
\
$$\tag{4.18$a$}
\begin{split}
J_{\mbox{}_{1}}(t)
\;&\leq\;
K\!\;\!(\nu) \:
M_{\mbox{}_{1}}^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{3}{4} }}
\;\!
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0 \;\!
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3}) }}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{1}{4} }}
\,
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} }}
\!\!\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\!
(\:\!t - s)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!-\, \frac{7}{8} }}
\;\!
s^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!-\, \frac{3}{8} \,-\, \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} }}
\;\!
U_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle m}}(s)
\: ds \\
&\leq\;
K\!\;\!(\nu) \:
M_{\mbox{}_{1}}^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{3}{4} }}
\;\!
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0 \;\!
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3}) }}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{1}{4} }}
\,
(\:\!t + t_0)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!-\, \frac{3}{8} }}
\!\!\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\!
(\:\!t - s)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!-\, \frac{7}{8} }}
\;\!
U_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle m}}(s)
\: ds.
\end{split}
$$\
Analogamente, tem-se\
\
$$\tag{4.18$b$}
\begin{split}
J_{\mbox{}_{2}}(t)
\;&\leq\;
K\!\;\!(\nu) \:\!
\sum_{\ell\,=\,{\scriptscriptstyle 1}}^{m - {\scriptscriptstyle 2}}
\;\!
M_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \ell}}^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{1}{4} }}
\;\!
M_{\mbox{}_{{\scriptstyle \ell} + 1}}^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{3}{4} }}
\;\!
M_{\mbox{}_{{\scriptstyle m} - {\scriptstyle \ell}}}
\:
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} }}
\!\!\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\!
(\:\!t - s)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!-\, \frac{7}{8} }}
\;\!
s^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!-\, \frac{3}{8} \,-\, \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} }}
\, ds \\
&\leq\;
K\!\;\!(\nu)
\:\!
\sum_{\ell\,=\,{\scriptscriptstyle 1}}^{m - {\scriptscriptstyle 2}}
\;\!
M_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \ell}}^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{1}{4} }}
\;\!
M_{\mbox{}_{{\scriptstyle \ell} + 1}}^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{3}{4} }}
\;\!
M_{\mbox{}_{{\scriptstyle m} - {\scriptstyle \ell}}}
\,
(\:\!t + t_0)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!-\, \frac{1}{4} }}
\end{split}
$$\
e\
\
$$\tag{4.18$c$}
\begin{split}
J_{\mbox{}_{3}}(t)
\;&\leq\;
K\!\;\!(\nu) \:
M_{\mbox{}_{1}}
\,
M_{\mbox{}_{{\scriptstyle m} - 1}}^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{1}{4} }}
\,
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} }}
\!\!\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\!
(\:\!t - s)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!-\, \frac{7}{8} }}
\;\!
s^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!-\, \frac{3}{8} \,-\, \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} }}
\;\!
U_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle m}}(s)
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{3}{4} }}
\: ds \\
&\leq\;
K\!\;\!(\nu) \:
M_{\mbox{}_{1}}
\,
M_{\mbox{}_{{\scriptstyle m} - 1}}^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{1}{4} }}
\,
(\:\!t + t_0)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!-\, \frac{3}{8} }}
\!\!\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\!
(\:\!t - s)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!-\, \frac{7}{8} }}
\;\!
U_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle m}}(s)
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{3}{4} }}
\: ds.
\end{split}
$$
\
Observando novamente que $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
U_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle m}}(s)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \:\!\frac{3}{4} }}
\!\:\!\leq\,\! 1 + U_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle m}}(s)
} $, resulta de (4.6), (4.10), (4.17) e (4.18) que, para todo $ \;\! t \geq t_0 + 1 $, tem-se ($\:\!$sendo $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
M_{\mbox{}_{0}} \!\;\!\equiv\;\!
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0 \;\!
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\!\;\!
} $):\
\
$$\notag
V_{\alpha}(t)
\,\leq\,
K\!\;\!(m,\;\!\nu, \;\!t_0, M_{\mbox{}_{0}}\!\;\!,
M_{\mbox{}_{1}}\!\;\!, ...,
M_{\mbox{}_{{\scriptstyle m} - 1}}\!\;\!)
\,+\,
K\!\;\!(\nu, M_{\mbox{}_{0}}\!\;\!, M_{\mbox{}_{1}}\!\;\!)
\,
(t + t_0)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!\!-\, \frac{3}{8} }}
\!\!\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\!\!
(t - s)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!-\, \frac{7}{8} }}
\,\!
U_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle m}}(s)
\, ds$$\
para todo $ \;\!\alpha \;\!$ com $ \;\!|\;\!\alpha\;\!|\;\!=\;\!m $, $\;\!$onde $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
V_{\alpha}(t)
\;\!=\,
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!\!-\, \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} }}
\,\!
\|\, D^{\alpha} \,\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\!\;\!
} $. Portanto, tem-se\
\
$$\tag{4.19}
U_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle m}}(t)
\,\leq\,
K_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \ast}}\!\;\!
(m,\;\!\nu, \;\!t_0, M_{\mbox{}_{0}}\!\;\!, ...,
M_{\mbox{}_{{\scriptstyle m} - 1}}\!\;\!)
\;+\;
K_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \ast\ast}}\!\;\!
(\nu, M_{\mbox{}_{0}}\!\;\!, M_{\mbox{}_{1}}\!\;\!)
\,
(\,\!t + t_0)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!\!-\, \frac{3}{8} }}
\!\!\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\!\!
(\,\!t - s)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!-\, \frac{7}{8} }}
\;\!
U_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle m}}(s)
\: ds$$\
para todo $ \;\! t \geq t_0 + 1 $, onde $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
K_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \ast\ast}}\!\;\!
(\nu, M_{\mbox{}_{0}}\!\:\!, M_{\mbox{}_{1}}\!\;\!) > 0
\;\!
} $ depende apenas de $ \nu $, $ M_{\mbox{}_{1}}\!\:\! $ e $ {\displaystyle
M_{\mbox{}_{0}} \!\;\!=\,\!
\|\,\mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0 \;\! \|_{L^{2}}
} $. Como no caso $ m = 2 $, tomemos agora $ \;\!t_{m} $, $ \mathbb{M}_{{\scriptstyle m}} \!\;\!$ dados por\
$$\tag{4.20}
t_{m}\;\!:=\;
1 +\;\! t_0 +\, 2^{16} \;\!
K_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\;\!\ast\ast}}^{\:\!4}
\!\;\!,
\qquad
\mathbb{M}_{{\scriptstyle m}} \;\!\!:=\;
\sup \,\{\, U_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle m}}(s) \!:\;
t_0 \leq s \leq t_{m} \;\!\},$$\
onde $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
K_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\;\!\ast\ast}}
\!\,\!=\;\!
K_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\;\!\ast\ast}}\!\:\!
(\nu, M_{\mbox{}_{0}}\!\:\!, M_{\mbox{}_{1}}\!\:\!)
\;\!
} $ é a constante definida em (4.19) acima. Obtém-se, então,\
\
$$\tag{4.21}
U_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle m}}\!\;\!(t)
\:\leq\:
2 \, K_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \ast}}\!\;\!
(m,\;\!\nu, \;\!t_0, M_{\mbox{}_{0}}\!\;\!,
M_{\mbox{}_{1}}\!\;\!, ...,
M_{\mbox{}_{{\scriptstyle m} - 1}}\!\,\!)
\;+\;
16 \: K_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \ast\ast}}\!\;\!
(\nu, M_{\mbox{}_{0}}\!\;\!, M_{\mbox{}_{1}}\!\,\!) \,
\mathbb{M}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle m}},
\quad \;\;
\forall \;\,
t \;\!\geq\;\! t_{m},$$\
onde $ \;\! K_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\;\!\ast}} \!\;\! $, $ K_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\;\!\ast\ast}} $ são as constantes dadas em (4.19). $\,$A prova de (4.21) é exatamente análoga à de (4.15).$\;\!$ Isso mostra que $ U_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle m}}\!\;\! $ é limitada em $\,[\,t_{m}, \infty) $; como $ U_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle m}}\!\;\! $ é limitada em $\,[\,t_{0}, \;\!t_{m}\;\!] $ (por (1.3)), segue então que $ U_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle m}}\!\;\! \in L^{\infty}(\:\![\,t_0, \infty)\,\!) $, concluindo a prova do Lema 4.1.
$\Box$\
\
Usando o Lema 4.1, obtém-se o Teorema 4.1 sem dificuldade. De fato, sendo $ m \geq 2 $, $ t_0 \geq \mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\;\!\ast\ast} \!\;\!$ quaisquer, pode-se proceder como segue. Dado $ \;\!\epsilon > 0\;\!$ (arbitrário), seja $ \;\! t_{\epsilon} \gg t_0 $ suficientemente grande tal que, por (1.6$c$) e (4.7$b$), (4.9$a$) acima, tenha-se, para todo $ \;\! t \geq t_{\epsilon} $:\
\
$$\tag{4.22$a$}
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \:\!\frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} }}
\:\!
\|\, D^{m} \:\![\:
e^{\;\!\nu \Delta (\mbox{\footnotesize $t$} \;\!-\, \mbox{\footnotesize $t$}_0)}
\:\!
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_0)
\,] \:
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\:\leq\;
\mbox{\small $ {\displaystyle \frac{1}{3} }$} \:
\epsilon$$\
e\
\
$$\tag{4.22$b$}
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} }}
\!\!\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t_0$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!\mu(t)$}}
\!\!
\|\, D^{m} \;\![\:
e^{\;\!\nu \Delta (\mbox{\footnotesize $t$} \;\!-\, \mbox{\footnotesize $s$})}
\:\!
\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}(\cdot,s)
\,] \:
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\! ds
\;\;\! \leq\;\;\!
\mbox{\small $ {\displaystyle \frac{1}{3} }$} \,
\epsilon,$$\
onde, como antes, $ \;\!\mu(t) = (\:\!t + t_0)/2 $. Por (4.5), Lema 4.1, e lembrando (4.6), (4.7$c$) e (4.18), obtemos (aumentando $ \:\!t_{\epsilon}$ se necessário)\
\
$$\tag{4.22$c$}
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} }}
\!\!\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\!\!\;\!
\|\, D^{m} \;\![\:
e^{\;\!\nu \Delta (\mbox{\footnotesize $t$} \;\!-\, \mbox{\footnotesize $s$})}
\:\!
\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}(\cdot,s)
\,] \:
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\! ds
\;\;\! \leq\;\;\!
\mbox{\small $ {\displaystyle \frac{1}{3} }$} \,
\epsilon$$\
para todo $ \;\! t \geq t_{\epsilon} $. $\!$Por (4.2), vê-se que (4.22) implica termos $ {\displaystyle
\,
t^{\:\!m/2} \;\!
\|\, D\:\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\!\,\!\leq\,\! \epsilon
} $ para todo $ \:\! t \geq t_{\epsilon} $, estabelecendo (4.1), como afirmado. $\Box$
[\
]{}\
[**5. Prova de (1.12[*b*]{})**]{}\
Nesta seção, provaremos a estimativa (1.12$b$), para todo $ m \geq 0 $. Este fato, combinado com a propriedade de interpolação (1.13) $\,$tomando-se, por exemplo, $ s_{\mbox{}_{1}} = m $, $ s_{\mbox{}_{2}} = m + 1\,$, estabelece o resultado mais geral dado em (1.10$b$), válido para todo $ s \in \mathbb{R} $ não negativo. Como sempre, $ \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) $ denota uma solução de Leray (qualquer) para as equações de Navier-Stokes (1.1); tal solução é suave em $ \mathbb{R}^{3} \!\times \!\;\!
[\,\mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\;\!\ast\ast}\!\;\!, \infty) $, para certo $ \mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\;\!\ast\ast} \!\;\! \gg 1 $, e satisfaz: $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t)
\in L^{\infty}_{\tt loc}
(\:\![\,\mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\;\!\ast\ast} \!\;\!, \infty),
H^{m}(\mathbb{R}^{3})\:\!)
} $, para todo $ m $ $\,$ver (1.3)$\,$. O ponto de partida para obter (1.12$b$) envolve vários resultados anteriores, particularmente (2.5), (2.14), (2.15) e os Teoremas 3.1, 3.2 e 4.1 acima.\
\
[\
]{}\
[**Prova:**]{} Pelo Teorema 3.1, é suficiente mostrar (5.1) supondo-se $ t_0 \geq \mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\;\!\ast\ast} \!\;\!$. $\!$$\,$Com efeito, tendo-se já estabelecido o resultado neste caso, então se poderia estendê-lo para $ t_0 < \mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\;\!\ast\ast} \!\;\!$ do seguinte modo: tomando-se $ t_0^{\;\!\prime} \geq \mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\;\!\ast\ast} \!\;\!$, teríamos\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\limsup_{t\,\rightarrow\,\infty}
\;
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle
\frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} \,+\, \frac{1}{4} }}
\:\!
\|\, D^{\alpha} \,\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t)
\;\!-\;\!
D^{\alpha} \:\![\:
e^{\:\! \nu \Delta (t - t_0)} \:\!
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_0) \,] \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\!\leq
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\;
\limsup_{t\,\rightarrow\,\infty}
\;
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle
\frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} \,+\, \frac{1}{4} }}
\:\!
\|\, D^{\alpha} \,\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t)
\;\!-\;\!
D^{\alpha} \:\![\:
e^{\:\! \nu \Delta (t - t_0^{\;\!\prime})} \:\!
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_0^{\;\!\prime}) \,] \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\!+
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
+\;
\limsup_{t\,\rightarrow\,\infty}
\;
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle
\frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} \,+\, \frac{1}{4} }}
\:\!
\|\,
D^{\alpha} \:\![\:
e^{\:\! \nu \Delta (t - t_0^{\;\!\prime})} \:\!
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_0^{\;\!\prime})
\;\!-\,
e^{\:\! \nu \Delta (t - t_0)} \:\!
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_0) \,] \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
=\;
\limsup_{t\,\rightarrow\,\infty}
\;
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle
\frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} \,+\, \frac{1}{4} }}
\:\!
\|\, D^{\alpha} \,\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t)
\;\!-\;\!
D^{\alpha} \:\![\:
e^{\:\! \nu \Delta (t - t_0^{\;\!\prime})} \:\!
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_0^{\;\!\prime}) \,] \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
} $ $\,$por (3.1)$\,$\
\
$ {\displaystyle
=\; 0
} $,\
\
onde no último passo se teria usado o resultado (5.1), já mostrado neste caso ($ \:\!t_0^{\;\!\prime} \geq
\mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\;\!\ast\ast}$).$\;\!$\
Supondo-se, então, $ \:\!t_0 \geq
\mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\;\!\ast\ast} \!\;\!$, podemos escrever $ \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) $ na forma (4.2), para $ t \geq t_0 $, ou seja,\
\
$$\tag{5.2}
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t)
\;=\;
e^{\;\!\nu \Delta (\mbox{\footnotesize $t$} \;\!-\, \mbox{\footnotesize $t_0$})}
\:\!
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_0)
\;+
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\!\;\!t_0$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\:\!t$}}
\!\!\;\!
e^{\;\!\nu \Delta (\mbox{\footnotesize $t$} \;\!-\, \mbox{\footnotesize $s$})}
\:\!
\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}(\cdot,s)
\: ds,
\qquad
\forall \;\,
t \geq t_0,$$\
onde $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}(\cdot,s)
\;\!
} $ é dada em (2.4), Seção 2. Considerando inicialmente os casos $ m = 0 $ e $ m = 1 $, podemos proceder do seguinte modo. Dado $ \;\!\epsilon > 0 $, seja $ \:\!t_{\!\;\!\epsilon} \!\:\!> t_{0} \!\;\!$ suficientemente grande tal que, pelo Teorema 3.2, se tenha\
\
$$\tag{5.3}
\mbox{} \hspace{+0.500cm}
t^{\:\!1/2} \,
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\leq\: \epsilon
\qquad
\forall \;\;\!
t \geq t_{\!\;\!\epsilon}.$$\
Por (5.2) e (1.2), (2.5), tem-se\
\
$ {\displaystyle
t^{\:\!1/4} \,
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,-\:
e^{\:\!\nu \Delta (t \;\!-\, t_0)} \:\!
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_0) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\,\leq\;\:\!
t^{\:\!1/4}
\!\!
\int_{\mbox{\scriptsize $\!\;\!t_0$}}
^{\mbox{\scriptsize $t$}}
\!\!\:\!
\|\: e^{\:\!\nu \Delta (t \;\!-\, s)} \:\!
\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\:\!
ds
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\;
I(\:\!t, \:\!t_{\!\;\!\epsilon})
\;+\:
K\!\;\!(\nu) \: t^{\:\!1/4}
\!\!
\int_{\mbox{\scriptsize $\!\;\!t_{\epsilon}$}}
^{\mbox{\scriptsize $t$}}
\!
(t - s)^{-\,3/4} \,
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\:\!
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\:\!
ds
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\;
I(\:\!t, \:\!t_{\!\;\!\epsilon})
\;+\:
K\!\;\!(\nu) \:
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0 \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\epsilon
\:
t^{\:\!1/4}
\!\!
\int_{\mbox{\scriptsize $\!\;\!t_{\epsilon}$}}
^{\mbox{\scriptsize $t$}}
\!
(t - s)^{-\,3/4} \, s^{-\,1/2}
\,ds
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\;
I(\:\!t, \:\!t_{\!\;\!\epsilon})
\;+\:
K\!\;\!(\nu) \:
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0 \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\:\!
\epsilon
\;
t^{\:\!1/4}
\,
(\:\! t - t_{\!\;\!\epsilon})^{-\,1/4}
} $\
\
para todo $ \;\! t > t_{\!\;\!\epsilon}$, onde $ \:\!K\!\;\!(\nu) > 0 \;\! $ é independente de $ \epsilon $, e\
\
$ {\displaystyle
I(\:\!t, \:\!t_{\!\;\!\epsilon})
\;\!:=\:
K\!\;\!(\nu) \; t^{\:\!1/4}
\!\!
\int_{\mbox{\scriptsize $\!\;\!t_{0}$}}
^{\mbox{\scriptsize $t_{\epsilon}$}}
\!
(t - s)^{-\,3/4} \,
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\:\!
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\:\!
ds
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\:
K\!\;\!(\nu) \;
t^{\:\!1/4}
\,
(\:\!t - t_{\!\;\!\epsilon})^{-\,3/4}
\!\!
\int_{\mbox{\scriptsize $\!\;\!t_{0}$}}
^{\mbox{\scriptsize $t_{\epsilon}$}}
\!
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\:\!
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\:\!
ds
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\:
K\!\;\!(\nu) \:
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0 \;\!
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!2}
\,
( t_{\epsilon} -\;\! t_0 )^{1/2}
\:
t^{\:\!1/4}
\,
(\:\!t - t_{\!\;\!\epsilon})^{-\,3/4}
} $\
\
Portanto, temos\
\
$$\notag
t^{\:\!1/4} \,
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,-\:
e^{\:\! \nu \,\!\Delta (t \;\!-\, t_0)} \:\!
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_0) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\:\!\leq\
K\!\;\!(\nu) \;
(\;\! 1 \,+\,
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0 \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}})
\: \epsilon$$\
para todo $ \;\! t > t_{\epsilon} $ grande, com $ \:\!K\!\;\!(\nu) \:\!$ independente de $ \epsilon $. Isto mostra (5.1) no caso $ m = 0 $.\
Considerando, agora, $ m = 1 $, seja novamente $ \;\!t_{\epsilon} > t_0 $ como em (5.3), para $ \;\!\epsilon > 0 \;\!$ dado. Por (5.2), tem-se, para cada $ \:\!1 \leq \ell \leq 3 \;\!$ e $ \;\! t > t_{\epsilon} $:\
\
$$\tag{5.4}
\;\!
{\cal V}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \ell}}(t)
\:\equiv\;
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{3}{4} }}
\!\;\!
\|\, D_{\ell} \;\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t)
\;\!-\;\!
D_{\ell} \;\![\;\!\;\!
e^{\;\!\nu \Delta (\mbox{\footnotesize $t$} \;\!-\, \mbox{\footnotesize $t_0$})}
\:\!
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_0) \,]
\,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\leq\;
{\cal I}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle 1}}(t) \,+\,
{\cal I}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle 2}}(t) \,+\,
{\cal J}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \ell}}(t),$$\
onde\
\
$$\tag{5.5$a$}
{\cal I}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle 1}}(t)
\;=\;\;\!
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{3}{4} }}
\!\!\!\;\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\:\!t_0$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t_{\epsilon}$}}
\!\!\;\!
\|\, D_{\ell} \,[\:
e^{\:\!\nu \Delta (\mbox{\footnotesize $t$} \;\!-\, \mbox{\footnotesize $s$})}
\:\!
\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}(\cdot,s)
\,] \:
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\! ds,$$\
$$\tag{5.5$b$}
{\cal I}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle 2}}(t)
\;=\;\;\!
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{3}{4} }}
\!\!\!\;\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\:\!t_{\epsilon}$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!\mu_{\epsilon}(t)$}}
\!\!
\|\, D_{\ell} \,[\:
e^{\:\!\nu \Delta (\mbox{\footnotesize $t$} \;\!-\, \mbox{\footnotesize $s$})}
\:\!
\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}(\cdot,s)
\,] \:
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\! ds,$$\
$$\tag{5.5$c$}
{\cal J}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \ell}}(t)
\;=\;\;\!
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{3}{4} }}
\!\!\!\;\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu_{\epsilon}(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\!
\|\, D_{\ell} \,[\:
e^{\:\!\nu \Delta (\mbox{\footnotesize $t$} \;\!-\, \mbox{\footnotesize $s$})}
\:\!
\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}(\cdot,s)
\,] \:
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\! ds,$$\
sendo $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\mu_{\epsilon}(t) := (\:\!t_{\epsilon} + \;\!t)/2
} $. Começando com $ {\cal I}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle 1}}(t) $, tem-se, por (1.2), (2.3) e (2.15):\
\
$ {\displaystyle
{\cal I}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle 1}}(t)
\;\leq\:
K\!\;\!(\nu) \; t^{\:\!3/4}
\!\!\:\!
\int_{\mbox{\scriptsize $\!\;\!t_{0}$}}
^{\mbox{\scriptsize $t_{\epsilon}$}}
\!
(t - s)^{-\,5/4} \,
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\:\!
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\:\!
ds
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\:
K\!\;\!(\nu) \;
t^{\:\!3/4}
\:
(\:\!t - t_{\!\;\!\epsilon})^{-\,5/4}
\!\!\:\!
\int_{\mbox{\scriptsize $\!\;\!t_{0}$}}
^{\mbox{\scriptsize $t_{\epsilon}$}}
\!
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\:\!
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\:\!
ds
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\:
K\!\;\!(\nu) \:
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0 \;\!
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!2}
\,\!
( t_{\epsilon} -\;\! t_0 )^{1/2}
\;
t^{\:\!3/4}
\,
(\:\!t - t_{\!\;\!\epsilon})^{-\,5/4}
} $ (5.6$a$)\
\
para todo $\;\!t > t_{\epsilon} $, onde $ \:\!K\!\;\!(\nu) $ independe de $ \:\!\epsilon $. Para $ {\cal I}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle 2}}(t) $, tem-se, por (1.2), (2.15) e (5.3):\
\
$ {\displaystyle
{\cal I}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle 2}}(t)
\;\leq\:
K\!\;\!(\nu) \; t^{\:\!3/4}
\!\!\:\!
\int_{\mbox{\scriptsize $ t_{\epsilon}$}}
^{\mbox{\scriptsize $\:\!\mu_{\epsilon}(t)$}}
\hspace{-0.350cm}
(t - s)^{-\,5/4} \,
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\:\!
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\:\!
ds
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\:
K\!\;\!(\nu) \;
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0 \;\!
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\:\!
\epsilon \;\;\!
t^{\:\!3/4}
\,
(\:\!t - t_{\!\;\!\epsilon})^{-\,3/4}
\!\!\:\!
\int_{\mbox{\scriptsize $\!\;\!t_{\epsilon}$}}
^{\mbox{\scriptsize $\mu_{\epsilon}(t)$}}
\hspace{-0.350cm}
( t - s )^{-\,1/2}
\:
s^{-\,1/2}
\:
ds
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\:
K\!\;\!(\nu) \;
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0 \;\!
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\:\!
\epsilon \;\;\!
t^{\:\!3/4}
\,
(\:\!t - t_{\!\;\!\epsilon})^{-\,3/4}
} $ (5.6$b$)\
\
para todo $\;\!t > t_{\epsilon} $, onde $ \:\!K\!\;\!(\nu) $ independe de $ \:\!\epsilon $. Finalmente, considerando $ {\cal J}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \ell}}(t) $, tem-se\
\
$ {\displaystyle
{\cal J}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \ell}}(t)
\;=\;\;\!
t^{\:\!3/4}
\!\!\:\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu_{\epsilon}(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\hspace{-0.325cm}
\|\, D_{\ell} \,[\:
e^{\;\!\nu \Delta (\mbox{\footnotesize $t$} \;\!-\, \mbox{\footnotesize $s$})}
\:\!
\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}(\cdot,s)
\,] \:
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\! ds
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\:
K\!\;\!(\nu)
\;\:\!
t^{\:\!3/4}
\!\!\:\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu_{\epsilon}(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\hspace{-0.300cm}
(\:\!t - s)^{-\, 7/8}
\:
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $Q$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{4/3}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\! ds
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\:
K\!\;\!(\nu)
\;
t^{\:\!3/4}
\!\!\:\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu_{\epsilon}(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\hspace{-0.300cm}
(\:\!t - s)^{-\, 7/8}
\:
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \cdot
\nabla \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{4/3}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\! ds
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\:
K\!\;\!(\nu)
\;
t^{\:\!3/4}
\!\!\:\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu_{\epsilon}(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\hspace{-0.300cm}
(\:\!t - s)^{-\, 7/8}
\:
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{4}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\!
\|\, D \:\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\! ds
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\:
K\!\;\!(\nu)
\;
t^{\:\!3/4}
\!\!\:\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu_{\epsilon}(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\hspace{-0.300cm}
(\:\!t - s)^{-\,7/8}
\:
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
^{\:\!1/4}
\;\!
\|\, D \:\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
^{\:\!7/4}
\;\! ds
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\:
K\!\;\!(\nu)
\:
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0 \;\!
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
^{\:\!1/4}
\:\!
\epsilon^{\:\! 7/4}
\!\!\;\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu_{\epsilon}(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\hspace{-0.300cm}
(\:\!t - s)^{-\,7/8}
\:
s^{-\,7/8}
\:
ds
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\:
K\!\;\!(\nu)
\:
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0 \;\!
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
^{\:\!1/4}
\:\!
\epsilon^{\:\! 7/4}
\;
t^{\:\! 3/4}
\,
(\:\! t + t_{\epsilon})^{-\,3/4}
\!\!\;\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu_{\epsilon}(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\hspace{-0.300cm}
(\:\!t - s)^{-\,7/8}
\:
s^{-\,1/8}
\:
ds
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\:
K\!\;\!(\nu)
\;
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0 \;\!
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
^{\:\!1/4}
\;\!
\epsilon^{\:\! 7/4}
} $ (5.6$c$)\
\
para todo $ \:\! t > t_{\epsilon} $, usando (2.14), (4.16), desigualdade de Hölder, (4.12) e o fato de se ter\
\
$$\notag
\int_{t_0}^{\:\!t}
(t - s)^{-\,7/8}
\,
s^{-\,1/8}
\:
ds
\;\;\!\leq\;
K \,=\;
\frac{\pi}{\,\mbox{sen}\,(\pi/8)\,}
\;\!.$$
\
Claramente, obtemos de (5.4) e (5.6$a$), (5.6$b$), (5.6$c$) acima que\
\
$$\notag
t^{\:\!3/4}
\,
\|\, D_{\ell} \,\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t)
\;\!-\;\!
D_{\ell} \,[\;\!\;\!
e^{\;\!\nu \Delta (\mbox{\footnotesize $t$} \;\!-\, \mbox{\footnotesize $t_0$})}
\:\!
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_0) \,]
\,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\leq\:
\bigl(\;\! 1 + \epsilon +
K\!\;\!(\nu)
\;
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0 \;\!
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\!
\bigr)
\,
\epsilon
$$\
para todo $ t > t_{\epsilon} $ suficientemente grande, para cada $ \;\! 1 \leq \ell \leq 3 $, o que prova (5.1) se $ m = 1 $.\
\
Finalmente, consideramos o caso geral $ m \geq 2 $, procedendo de modo similar ao caso anterior. Dado $ \epsilon > 0 $ (arbitrário), tomamos $ t_{\epsilon} > t_0 $ suficientemente grande tal que, por (4.1) $\,$Teorema 4.1$\,$, tenhamos\
\
$$\tag{5.7}
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle
\frac{\scriptstyle k}{2} }}
\:\!
\|\, D^{k} \:\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\,\leq\;
\epsilon,
\qquad
\forall \;\,
t \geq t_{\epsilon}$$\
para todo $ \;\!0 \leq k \leq m $. Dado $\;\!\alpha\;\!$ multi-índice com $ \;\!|\;\!\alpha\;\!| = m $, definimos (para $ t > t_{\epsilon} $)\
\
$$\tag{5.8}
{\cal V}_{\alpha}(t)
\;\equiv\;\;\!
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} \,+\, \frac{1}{4} }}
\:\!
\|\, D^{\alpha} \:\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t)
\;\!-\;\!
D^{\alpha} \;\![\:
e^{\:\!\nu \Delta (\mbox{\footnotesize $t$} \;\!-\, \mbox{\footnotesize $t_0$})}
\:\!
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_0)
\,] \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}},$$\
escrevendo $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
{\cal V}_{\alpha}(t)
\;\!\leq\,
{\cal I}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle 1}}(\alpha, \:\!t) \,+\,
{\cal I}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle 2}}(\alpha, \:\!t) \,+\,
{\cal J}(\alpha, t)
} $, onde\
\
$$\tag{5.9$a$}
{\cal I}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle 1}}(\alpha, \:\!t)
\;=\;\;\!
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} \,+\, \frac{1}{4} }}
\!\!\!\;\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t_0$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t_{\epsilon}$}}
\!\!
\|\, D^{\alpha} \:\![\:
e^{\;\!\nu \Delta (\mbox{\footnotesize $t$} \;\!-\, \mbox{\footnotesize $s$})}
\:\!
\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}(\cdot,s)
\,] \:
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\! ds,$$\
$$\tag{5.9$b$}
{\cal I}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle 2}}(\alpha, \:\!t)
\;=\;\;\!
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} \,+\, \frac{1}{4} }}
\!\!\!\;\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t_0$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!\mu_{\epsilon}(t)$}}
\hspace{-0.570cm}
\|\, D^{\alpha} \:\![\:
e^{\;\!\nu \Delta (\mbox{\footnotesize $t$} \;\!-\, \mbox{\footnotesize $s$})}
\:\!
\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}(\cdot,s)
\,] \:
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\! ds,$$\
$$\tag{5.9$c$}
{\cal J}(\alpha, t)
\;=\;\;\!
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} \,+\, \frac{1}{4} }}
\!\!\!\;\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu_{\epsilon}(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\hspace{-0.350cm}
\|\, D^{\alpha} \:\![\:
e^{\;\!\nu \Delta (\mbox{\footnotesize $t$} \;\!-\, \mbox{\footnotesize $s$})}
\:\!
\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}(\cdot,s)
\,] \:
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\! ds,$$\
sendo $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\mu_{\epsilon}(t) = (\:\!t_{\epsilon} + \;\!t)/2
} $. Com relação a $ {\cal I}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle 1}}(\alpha, t) $, tem-se, por (1.2), (2.3) e (2.15):\
\
$ {\displaystyle
{\cal I}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle 1}}(\alpha, t)
\;\leq\:
K\!\;\!(\nu) \;
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} \,+\, \frac{1}{4} }}
\!\!\!\;\!
\int_{\mbox{\scriptsize $\!\;\!t_{0}$}}
^{\mbox{\scriptsize $t_{\epsilon}$}}
\!
(t - s)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!\! -\, \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} \,-\, \frac{3}{4} }}
\,
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\:\!
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\:\!
ds
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\:
K\!\;\!(\nu) \;\;\!
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} \,+\, \frac{1}{4} }}
\,\!
(t - t_{\epsilon})^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!\! -\,
\frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} \,-\, \frac{3}{4} }}
\!\!\!\;\!
\int_{\mbox{\scriptsize $\!\;\!t_{0}$}}
^{\mbox{\scriptsize $t_{\epsilon}$}}
\!
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\:\!
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\:\!
ds
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\:
K\!\;\!(\nu) \:
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0 \;\!
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!2}
\:\!
( t_{\epsilon} -\;\! t_0 )^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{1}{2} }}
\,
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} \,+\, \frac{1}{4} }}
\,\!
(t - t_{\epsilon})^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!\! -\,
\frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} \,-\, \frac{3}{4} }}
} $ (5.10$a$)\
\
para todo $\;\!t > t_{\epsilon} $, onde $ \:\!K\!\;\!(\nu) $ independe de $ \:\!\epsilon $. Para $ {\cal I}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle 2}}(\alpha, t) $, tem-se, de (1.2), (2.15) e (5.7):\
\
$ {\displaystyle
{\cal I}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle 2}}(\alpha, t)
\;\leq\:
K\!\;\!(\nu) \;\;\!
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} \,+\, \frac{1}{4} }}
\!\!\!\;\!
\int_{\mbox{\scriptsize $ t_{\epsilon}$}}
^{\mbox{\scriptsize $\:\!\mu_{\epsilon}(t)$}}
\hspace{-0.425cm}
(t - s)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!\! -\,\frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} \,-\, \frac{3}{4} }}
\,
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\:\!
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\:\!
ds
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\:
K\!\;\!(\nu) \;
\:\!
\epsilon^{\:\!2}
\;
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} \,+\, \frac{1}{4} }}
\;\!
(\:\!t - t_{\!\;\!\epsilon})^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!\!- \,
\frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} \,-\, \frac{1}{4} }}
\!\!\:\!
\int_{\mbox{\scriptsize $\!\;\!t_{\epsilon}$}}
^{\mbox{\scriptsize $\mu_{\epsilon}(t)$}}
\hspace{-0.350cm}
( t - s )^{-\,1/2}
\:
s^{-\,1/2}
\:
ds
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\:
K\!\;\!(\nu) \;
\:\!
\epsilon^{\:\!2}
\;
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} \,+\, \frac{1}{4} }}
\;\!
(\:\!t - t_{\!\;\!\epsilon})^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!\!- \,
\frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} \,-\, \frac{1}{4} }}
} $ (5.10$b$)\
\
para todo $\;\!t > t_{\epsilon} $, onde $ \:\!K\!\;\!(\nu) $ independe de $ \:\!\epsilon $. Finalmente, para $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
{\cal J}(\alpha,t)
} $, tem-se, escrevendo $ D^{\alpha} \!\;\!= D_{j} \;\! D^{\alpha^{\prime}} \!\!$, sendo $ \alpha^{\prime} $ multi-índice de ordem $ m - 1 $,\
\
$ {\displaystyle
{\cal J}(\alpha, t)
\;=\;\:\!
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} \,+\, \frac{1}{4} }}
\!\!\!\;\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu_{\epsilon}(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\hspace{-0.325cm}
\|\, D^{\alpha} \;\![\:
e^{\;\!\nu \Delta (\mbox{\footnotesize $t$} \;\!-\, \mbox{\footnotesize $s$})}
\:\!
\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}(\cdot,s)
\,] \:
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\! ds
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
=\;\:\!
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} \,+\, \frac{1}{4} }}
\!\!\!\;\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu_{\epsilon}(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\hspace{-0.325cm}
\|\, D_{j} \,[\:
e^{\;\!\nu \Delta (\mbox{\footnotesize $t$} \;\!-\, \mbox{\footnotesize $s$})}
\:\!
D^{\alpha^{\prime}} \!\:\!\mbox{\boldmath $Q$}(\cdot,s)
\,] \:
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\! ds
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\:
K\!\;\!(\nu)
\;\:\!
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} \,+\, \frac{1}{4} }}
\!\!\!\;\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu_{\epsilon}(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\hspace{-0.300cm}
(\:\!t - s)^{-\, 7/8}
\:
\|\, D^{\alpha^{\prime}} \!\:\! \mbox{\boldmath $Q$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{4/3}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\! ds
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\:
K\!\;\!(\nu)
\;\;\!
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} \,+\, \frac{1}{4} }}
\!\!\!\;\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu_{\epsilon}(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\hspace{-0.300cm}
(\:\!t - s)^{-\, 7/8}
\:
\|\, D^{\alpha^{\prime}} \!\;\![\,
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \cdot
\nabla \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,] \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{4/3}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\! ds
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq
\hspace{-1.350cm}
\sum_{\mbox{} \hspace{+1.250cm} |\,\beta\,| \,+\, |\,\gamma\,| \:=\:
m \,-\, {\scriptscriptstyle 1}}
\hspace{-1.400cm}
K\!\;\!(\nu) \;\;\!
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} \,+\, \frac{1}{4} }}
\!\!\!\;\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu_{\epsilon}(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\hspace{-0.300cm}
(\:\!t - s)^{-\, 7/8}
\:
\|\, D^{\beta} \,\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \cdot
\nabla \:\! D^{\gamma} \,\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,]\,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{4/3}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\;\! ds
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\;
K\!\;\!(\nu) \!
\sum_{\ell \,=\,0}^{m\,-\,{\scriptscriptstyle 1}}
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} \,+\, \frac{1}{4}}}
\!\!\!\;\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu_{\epsilon}(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\hspace{-0.300cm}
(\:\!t - s)^{-\, 7/8}
\:
\|\, D^{\ell} \,\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{4}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\:\!
\|\, D^{m - \ell} \,\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\;
K\!\;\!(\nu) \!
\sum_{\ell \,=\,0}^{m\,-\,{\scriptscriptstyle 1}}
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} \,+\, \frac{1}{4} }}
\!\!\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu_{\epsilon}(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\hspace{-0.300cm}
(\:\!t - s)^{- \,7/8}
\:
\|\, D^{\ell} \,\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2} }}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{1}{4} }}
\:\!
\|\, D^{\ell + 1} \,\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2} }}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{3}{4} }}
\:\!
\|\, D^{m - \ell} \,\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2} }}
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\;
K\!\;\!(\nu) \!
\sum_{\ell \,=\,0}^{m\,-\,{\scriptscriptstyle 1}}
\!\;\!
\epsilon^{\:\!2}
\;\;\!
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} \,+\, \frac{1}{4} }}
\!\!\!\;\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu_{\epsilon}(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\hspace{-0.300cm}
(\:\!t - s)^{-\,7/8}
\:
s^{-\,m/2 \,-\, 9 \,\ell/8 \,-\, 3/8}
\:
ds
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\:
K\!\;\!(m, \nu)
\;
\epsilon^{\:\! 2}
\;
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} \,+\, \frac{1}{4} }}
\,
(\:\! t + t_{\epsilon})^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle
\!\! -\, \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} \,-\, \frac{1}{4} }}
\!\!\;\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $\mu_{\epsilon}(t)$}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\;\!t$}}
\hspace{-0.300cm}
(\:\!t - s)^{-\,7/8}
\:
s^{-\,1/8}
\:
ds
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\:
K\!\;\!(m, \nu)
\;
\epsilon^{\:\! 2}
} $ (5.10$c$)\
\
para todo $ \:\! t > t_{\epsilon} $, usando-se (2.14), (4.16), desigualdade de Hölder, (4.12) e (5.7), tendo-se que a constante $ K\!\;\!(m, \nu) > 0 \;\!$ em (5.10$c$) independe de $ \;\!\epsilon\:\! $ (e $\;\!t_{\epsilon}$). $\,$Foi suposto também, no penúltimo passo acima, que $ \;\!t_{\epsilon} $ tenha sido tomado em (5.7) de modo a satisfazer: $ \:\!t_{\epsilon} \geq 1 $.$\;\!$\
Por (5.8) e (5.10$a$), (5.10$b$), (5.10$c$), segue em particular que se tem\
\
$$\notag
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{\scriptstyle m}{2} \,+\, \frac{1}{4} }}
\:\!
\|\, D^{\alpha} \:\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t)
\;\!-\;\!
D^{\alpha} \;\![\:
e^{\:\!\nu \Delta (\mbox{\footnotesize $t$} \;\!-\, \mbox{\footnotesize $t_0$})}
\:\!
\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_0)
\,] \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\,\leq\;
(\;\! 1 + K\!\;\!(m,\nu) \,\epsilon \,)
\; \epsilon
$$\
para todo $ t > t_{\epsilon} $ suficientemente grande, para cada $ \alpha $ com $ |\;\!\alpha\;\!| = m $, sendo $ \epsilon > 0 $ arbitrário, e $ m \geq 2 $ qualquer (com $ K\!\;\!(m,\nu) $ independente de $\:\!\epsilon $). Somado aos casos $m = 0$ e $ m = 1 $ considerados antes, isso conclui a prova de (5.1) para todo $ m \geq 0 $, como afirmado.
$\Box$\
Deixamos em aberto a obtenção de (1.10), (1.12) para $ n \geq 4 $, $ m \geq 0 $ arbitrários.
\
[Apêndice A]{}\
\
Neste apêndice, vamos mostrar como obter a estimativa (2.20) para o valor $ t_{\ast\ast} $ dado na Proposição 2.3 da Seção 2. O ponto de partida é a seguinte estimativa,\
\
$$\tag{A.1}
\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \mathbb{R}^{3}}}
\!\!\;\!\Bigl\{\!\!\!\!\:\!
\sum_{\mbox{}\;\;\,i, \,j, \,\ell \,=\,1}^{3}
\!\!\!\!
|\, D_{\ell} \;\!u_{i} \;\!| \:
|\, D_{\ell} \;\!u_{j} \;\!| \:
|\, D_{j} \;\!u_{i} \;\!|
\,\Bigr\}
\;\!dx
\:\leq\,
K_{\mbox{}_{\!\:\!3}}^{3} \;\!
\|\, D \:\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$} \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
^{3/2}
\;\!
\|\, D^{2} \mbox{\boldmath $u$} \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
^{3/2}
\!\:\!,$$\
onde $ \:\!K_{\mbox{}_{\!\:\!3}} \!< 0.581\,862\,001\,307 $ (ver [@Agueh2008], Theorem 2.1) é a constante na desigualdade de Nirenberg-Gagliardo [@Agueh2008]\
\
$$\tag{A.2}
\|\: \mbox{u} \:
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{3}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\!\leq
K_{\mbox{}_{\!\:\!3}}
\;\!
\|\: \mbox{u} \:
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{1/2}
\|\, D \:\!\mbox{u} \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{1/2}
\!\:\!.$$\
$\,$Prova de (A.1): aplicando-se repetidamente a desigualdade de Cauchy-Schwarz, tem-se\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\sum_{\mbox{}\;\;\,i, \,j, \,\ell \,=\,1}^{3}
\!\!\!\!\!\;\!
|\, D_{\ell} \;\!u_{i} \;\!| \:
|\, D_{\ell} \;\!u_{j} \;\!| \:
|\, D_{j} \;\!u_{i} \;\!|
\,\Bigr\}
\:\leq\!
\sum_{\mbox{}\;\, i, \,\ell \,=\,1}^{3}
\!\!\:\!
|\, D_{\ell} \;\!u_{i} \;\!|
\:
\Bigl\{\;\!
\sum_{j\,=\,1}^{3}
|\, D_{\ell} \;\!u_{j} \;\!|^{2}
\;\!\Bigr\}^{\!\!\:\!1/2}
\!\;\!
\Bigl\{\,
\sum_{j\,=\,1}^{3}
|\, D_{j} \:\!u_{i} \;\!|^{2}
\;\!\Bigr\}^{\!\!\:\!1/2}
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\:
\sum_{i\,=\,1}^{3}
\;
\Bigl\{\,
\sum_{j\,=\,1}^{3}
|\, D_{j} \:\!u_{i} \;\!|^{2}
\;\!\Bigr\}^{\!\!\:\!1/2}
\,\!
\Bigl\{\,
\sum_{\ell\,=\,1}^{3}
|\, D_{\ell} \;\!u_{i} \;\!|^{2}
\;\!\Bigr\}^{\!\!\:\!1/2}
\,\!
\Bigl\{\!
\sum_{\mbox{}\;\,j,\,\ell\,=\,1}^{3}
\!\!\!\;\!
|\, D_{\ell} \;\!u_{j} \;\!|^{2}
\;\!\Bigr\}^{\!\!\:\!1/2}
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\;
\Bigl\{\!
\sum_{\mbox{}\;j,\,\ell\,=\,1}^{3}
\!\!\!\;\!
|\, D_{\ell} \;\!u_{j} \;\!|^{2}
\;\!\Bigr\}^{\!\!\:\!1/2}
\:\!
\Bigl\{\!
\sum_{\mbox{}\;i,\,j\,=\,1}^{3}
\!\!\!\;\!
|\, D_{j} \:\!u_{i} \;\!|^{2}
\;\!\Bigr\}^{\!\!\:\!1/2}
\:\!
\Bigl\{\!
\sum_{\mbox{}\;i,\,\ell\,=\,1}^{3}
\!\!\!\;\!
|\, D_{\ell} \;\!u_{i} \;\!|^{2}
\;\!\Bigr\}^{\!\!\:\!1/2}
\!\!\!\!
} $, $\;\!$\
\
de modo que\
\
$$\notag
\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \mathbb{R}^{3}}}
\!\!\;\!\Bigl\{\!\!\!\!\:\!
\sum_{\mbox{}\;\;\,i, \,j, \,\ell \,=\,1}^{3}
\!\!\!\!
|\, D_{\ell} \;\!u_{i} \;\!| \:
|\, D_{\ell} \;\!u_{j} \;\!| \:
|\, D_{j} \;\!u_{i} \;\!|
\,\Bigr\}
\;\!dx
\:\leq\;
\|\: \mbox{w} \:
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{3}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{3}
\!,
\quad \;\,
\mbox{w}(x) :=
\Bigl\{\!\!\;\!
\sum_{\mbox{} \;i, \,j, \,=\,1}^{3}
\!\!
|\, D_{j} \;\!u_{i} \;\!|^{\:\!2}
\,
\Bigr\}^{\!\!\;\!1/2}
\!\!\!\!.$$\
Isso fornece\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\notag
\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \mathbb{R}^{3}}}
\!\!\;\!\Bigl\{\!\!\!\!\:\!
\sum_{\mbox{}\;\;\,i, \,j, \,\ell \,=\,1}^{3}
\!\!\!\!
|\, D_{\ell} \;\!u_{i} \;\!| \:
|\, D_{\ell} \;\!u_{j} \;\!| \:
|\, D_{j} \;\!u_{i} \;\!|
\,\Bigr\}
\;\!dx
\:\leq\:
K_{\mbox{}_{\!\:\!3}}^{3}
\;\!
\|\: \mbox{w} \:
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{3/2}
\|\, D \:\!\mbox{w} \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{3/2}
} $ $\;\!$por (A.2)$\;\!$\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\;\!
K_{\mbox{}_{\!\:\!3}}^{3}
\;\!
\|\, D \:\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$} \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{3/2}
\|\, D^{2} \mbox{\boldmath $u$} \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{3/2}
} $\
\
pois, por (1.19), tem-se $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\,\mbox{w}\,\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\!\!\;\!=
\|\,D\:\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}\,\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
} $ e $ {\displaystyle
\,
\|\,D\:\!\mbox{w}\,\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\!\!\;\!\leq\;\!
\|\,D^{2}\mbox{\boldmath $u$}\,\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\!\;\!
} $.$\;\!$\
Agora, considere $ \;\!\hat{t} > 0 \;\!$ qualquer satisfazendo\
\
$$\tag{A.3}
\hat{t} \;>\:
\frac{\;\!1\;\!}{2} \,
K_{\mbox{}_{\!\:\!3}}^{12}
\,
\nu^{-\,5}
\;\!
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_{0} \;\!
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{4}
\!\!:$$\
Como (por (1.2)) $ {\displaystyle
\!
\int_{0}^{\:\!\mbox{\footnotesize $\hat{t}$}}
\!\!\:\!
\|\, D \:\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{2}
dt
\;\!\leq\;\!
\mbox{\small $ {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\;\!\nu} }$}
\:
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0 \;\!
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{2}
\!
} $, $\;\!$tem de existir $ \;\!t^{\prime} \!\in (\:\!0,\;\!\hat{t}\,] $\
tal que\
\
$$\tag{A.4}
\|\, D \:\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t^{\prime}) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\,\leq\;
\frac{1}{\sqrt{\:\!2\:\!\nu\,}\,}
\:
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_{0} \;\!
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\!\cdot\;\!
\frac{\mbox{} \;1\,}{\!\sqrt{\:\!\hat{t}^{\mbox{}}\:}\;}
.
$$\
Portanto, por (A.3), tem-se\
\
$$\tag{A.5}
K_{\mbox{}_{\!\:\!3}}^{3}
\,
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{1/2}
\:\!
\|\, D\:\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{1/2}
<\, \nu$$\
para todo $ \;\!s \geq t^{\prime} $ próximo do ponto $ t^{\prime} \!\:\!$. Isso fornece, diferenciando (1.1$a$) com respeito à variàvel $ x_{\ell} $, tomando o produto escalar com $ D_{\ell}\;\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) $ e somando para $ \ell = 1, 2, 3$,\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!2}
+\:
2 \,\nu \!\!\;\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $ t^{\prime} $}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\:\!t$}}
\!
\|\, D^{2} \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!2}
ds
} $\
\
(A.6)\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\;\:\!
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t^{\prime}) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!2}
\!\;\!+\:
2
\sum_{i, \, j, \, \ell}
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $ t^{\prime} $}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\:\!t$}}
\!
\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}
\!\!\!\;\!
|\, D_{\ell} \:\! u_{i}(x,s) \,|
\;
|\, D_{\ell} \:\! u_{j}(x,s) \,|
\;
|\, D_{\scriptstyle \!j} \:\!u_{i}(x,s) \,|
\;
dx \: ds
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\;
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t^{\prime}) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!2}
+\:
2 \!\!\;\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $ t^{\prime} $}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\:\!t$}}
\!
K_{\mbox{}_{\!\:\!3}}^{3}
\:\!
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!3/2}
\|\, D^{2} \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!3/2}
\,\!
ds
} $ $\,$por (A.1)$\,$\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\;
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t^{\prime}) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!2}
\!+\,
2 \!\!\;\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $ t^{\prime} $}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\:\!t$}}
\!
\bigl[\,
K_{\mbox{}_{\!\:\!3}}^{3}
\,
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!1/2}
\|\, D \:\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!1/2}
\:\!
\bigr]
\:
\|\, D^{2} \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}}}^{2}
ds
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\:
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t^{\prime}) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!2}
\!+\,
2 \, \nu \!\!\;\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $ t^{\prime} $}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\:\!t$}}
\!
\|\, D^{2} \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{2}
ds
} $ $\,$por (A.5)$\,$\
\
para todo $ \;\!t \geq t^{\prime} \!\;\!$ próximo a $ t^{\prime} \!\:\!$, onde na quarta linha acima usamos a desigualdade (2.16$b$) da Seção 2. Segue daí que $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\, D \:\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}
\!
} $ é limitada por $ {\displaystyle
\|\, D \:\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t^{\prime}) \,
\|_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}
\!\;\!
} $, e como $ {\displaystyle
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}
\!\;\!
} $ não pode crescer (por (1.2)), resulta que\
\
$$\tag{A.7}
K_{\mbox{}_{\!\:\!3}}^{3}
\,
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{1/2}
\:\!
\|\, D\:\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{1/2}
\;\!<\: \nu,
\qquad
\forall \;\,
t \geq t^{\prime}
\!\:\!.$$\
Em particular, podemos repetir a derivação de (A.6) acima no intervalo $ [\;\!t_0, t\;\!] $, para $ t_0 < t \in [\,t^{\prime}\!\:\!, \infty) $ arbitrário, obtendo\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!2}
+\:
2 \, \nu \!\!\;\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $ t_0 $}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\:\!t$}}
\!
\|\, D^{2} \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!2}
ds
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\,
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t^{\prime}) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!2}
\!+\,
2 \!\!\;\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $ t_0 $}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\:\!t$}}
\!\!\;\!
\bigl[\,
K_{\mbox{}_{\!\:\!3}}^{3}
\,
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!1/2}
\|\, D \:\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!1/2}
\:\!
\bigr]
\:
\|\, D^{2} \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}}}^{2}
ds
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\:
\|\, D \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t_0) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!2}
\!+\,
2 \, \nu \!\!\;\!
\int_{\mbox{\footnotesize $ t_0 $}}
^{\mbox{\footnotesize $\:\!t$}}
\!\!\;\!
\|\, D^{2} \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,s) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{2}
ds
} $. $\,$por (A.7)$\,$\
\
Portanto, $ {\displaystyle
\|\, D\:\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}
\!
} $ é monotonicamente decrescente em $ {\displaystyle
[\,t^{\prime}\!, \:\!\infty\:\!)
\supseteq
[\,\hat{t}, \:\!\infty\:\!)
} $, de modo que, pela teoria clássica de Leray [@Leray1934], tem-se de ter $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\mbox{\boldmath $u$} \in
C^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{3} \!\times \!\;\!
(\;\!t^{\:\!\prime} \!\;\!, \:\! \infty))
} $. Lembrando a desigualdade (A.3) definindo $ \;\!t^{\:\!\prime} \!\;\!$, isto completa a prova de (2.20), visto que tem-se $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
1/2
\:
K_{\mbox{}_{\!\:\!3}}^{12}
\!\;\!<\:\!
0.000\,753\,026
} $. $\Box$\
\
Em resumo, pelo argumento acima, tem-se demonstrado o seguinte resultado:\
\
[\
]{}
\
[Parte II]{}\
[\
]{}\
[**Problema de Existência Global para**]{}\
\
[**Equações de Advecção-Difusão Conservativas**]{}\
\
\
[**1. Introdução**]{}\
Na segunda parte deste trabalho, estenderemos um procedimento de análise introduzido pelo autor para a derivação de várias estimativas básicas importantes para as soluções $ u(\cdot,t) $ de equações de advecção-difusão conservativas em meios heterogêneos [@Zingano2010]. O método foi inicialmente aplicado a equações (ou sistemas de equações) em uma dimensão espacial ($ n = 1 $), no caso mais simples de velocidades advectivas limitadas (i.e., $ \kappa = 0 $ em (1.1) a seguir), ver [@BarrionuevoOliveiraZingano2014; @BrazMeloZingano2015; @Melo2011; @Oliveira2013]. Posteriormente, o autor estendeu os resultados para equações mais gerais\
\
$$\notag
u_t \,+\;
\bigl(\;\! b(x,t,u) \, |\;\!u\;\!|^{\:\!\kappa} \:\! u \;\!
\bigr)_{\!x}
\;\!=\;
u_{xx},
\qquad
x \in \mathbb{R}, \;\, t > 0,$$\
com $ \kappa > 0 $ constante, $ b(x,t,u) $ limitada [@Zingano2011], tendo orientado trabalhos de doutorado na aplicação do método a equações unidimensionais similares no caso de difusão não linear [@Chagas2015; @Diehl2015; @Fabris2013; @Guidolin2015]. No presente trabalho, consideraremos finalmente o desenvolvimento destas técnicas em dimensão $n$ arbitrária, adotando (por simplicidade) como protótipo o problema\
\
$$\tag{1.1$a$}
u_t \,+\;
\mbox{div}\,
\bigl(\;\! \mbox{\boldmath $b$}(x,t,u) \, |\;\!u\;\!|^{\:\!\kappa} \:\! u \;\!
\bigr)
\:+\:
\mbox{div} \,
\mbox{\boldmath $f$}(t,u)
\;=\;
\mbox{div}\,\bigl(\;\!
A(x,t,u) \;\! \nabla u \;\!\bigr),
$$\
$$\tag{1.1$b$}
u(\cdot,0) \,=\,
u_0 \in L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})
\cap L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{n}),$$\
sendo $ A(x,t,\mbox{u}) $ matriz suave satisfazendo $ A(x,t,\mbox{u}) \geq \mu(t) \:\!I $ para $ \mu \in C^{0}([\,0, \infty)) $ positiva, ou seja,\
\
$$\tag{1.2}
\left<\;\! A(x,t,\mbox{u}) \;\! \mbox{\bf v},
\, \mbox{\bf v} \;\!\right>
\;\geq\;
\mu(t) \, |\:\mbox{\bf v} \,|_{\mbox{}_{2}}^{\:\!2}
\quad \;\;
\forall \;\,
\mbox{\bf v} \in \mathbb{R}^{n}$$\
para todo $ x \in \mathbb{R}^{n} \!\;\!$, $ t \geq 0 $, $ \mbox{u} \in \mathbb{R} $, e onde $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\mbox{\boldmath $b$} = (\;\! b_{\mbox{}_{1}} \!\;\!,
..., b_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle n}} )
} $, $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\mbox{\boldmath $f$} = (\:\! f_{\mbox{}_{1}} \!\;\!,
..., f_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle n}} )
} $ são funções suaves, com $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\mbox{\boldmath $b$}
\;\!
} $ satisfazendo\
\
$$\tag{1.3}
\mbox{} \hspace{+3.500cm}
\mbox{\boldmath $b$} \in
L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{n} \!\times\!\;\!
[\,0,\mbox{\small $T$}\:\!] \!\;\!\times\:\! \mathbb{R})
\qquad
\mbox{\mbox{[}$\,$para cada $\;\!\mbox{\small $T$} > 0 \,]$.}$$
\
É conhecido (ver e.g.$\;$[@LadyzhenskayaSolonnikovUralceva1968; @Serre1999] e Seção 2 abaixo) que o problema (1.1)-(1.3) possui solução (clássica, limitada, única) $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
u(\cdot,t) \in
C^{0}([\,0, \mbox{\small $T$}\:\!],
L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n}))
\cap
L^{\infty}([\,0, \mbox{\small $T$}\:\!],
L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{n}))
} $ para certo $ 0 < \mbox{\small $T$} < \infty $ (ou seja, existência [*local*]{} está bem estabelecida); esta solução pode ser continuada (i.e., estendida) a intervalos de existência mais amplos enquanto permanecer limitada. Assim, é importante examinar o comportamento das normas altas (especialmente $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\, u(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\scriptstyle L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}
} $) no intervalo de existência da solução. Porém, sob hipóteses tão gerais como (1.3) acima, esta questão pode tornar-se [*muito*]{} difícil, como explicamos intuitivamente a seguir. Considere-se, por exemplo, soluções $ v(\cdot,t) $ não negativas da equação\
\
$$\tag{1.4}
v_t \,+\; \mbox{div}\,(\;\!
\mbox{\boldmath $b$}(x) \, v^{\kappa \;\!+\;\! 1}
\:\!)
\,=\,
\Delta \;\!v,$$\
que reescrevemos na forma\
\
$$\tag{$1.4^{\prime}$}
v_t \,+\: (\kappa + 1) \,
v^{\kappa} \,
\mbox{\boldmath $b$}(x) \cdot \nabla v
\;=\;
\Delta \;\!v
\,+\, \beta(x) \, v^{\kappa \;\!+\;\! 1}$$\
onde $ \beta(x) \!\:\!:= -\,\mbox{div}\:\mbox{\boldmath $b$}(x) $. Supondo que $ {\displaystyle
\Omega \equiv
\{\, x \in \mathbb{R}^{n} \!\!\;\!:\;\!\beta(x) > 0 \,\}
} $ seja não vazio, vê-se de (1.4$^\prime$) que $ v(x,t) $ é estimulada a crescer nos pontos $ x \in \Omega $, particularmente onde ocorrer $ \;\!\beta(x) \gg 1 $. Como (1.4) conserva massa, se $ v(\cdot,t) $ crescer pronunciadamente em alguma parte de $ \Omega $ então o perfil de $ v(\cdot,t) $ terá de afinar-se, tornando-se assim mais suscetível aos efeitos dissipativos do termo difusivo presente em (1.4). O efeito final sobre a solução (i.e., ocorrência de blow-up ou não, supondo $ \kappa > 0 $) resultante desta competição entre os termos do lado direito em (1.$4^{\prime}$) é difícil de ser previsto. A situação pode à primeira vista parecer (equivocadamente) similar à das soluções não negativas da equação\
\
$$\tag{1.5}
w_t \,=\; \Delta \:\!w
\,+\, w^{\kappa \;\!+\;\!1}
\!,
\qquad
x \in \mathbb{R}^{n} \!\;\!, \;\, t > 0,$$\
examinada originalmente por Fujita [@Fujita1966] e subsequentemente generalizada por outros (ver e.g.$\;$[@BandleBrunner1998; @DengLevine2000; @Levine1990; @Pinsky1997; @QuittnerSouplet2007]), onde [*todas as soluções não negativas*]{} (exceto $ w(\cdot,t) \equiv 0 $) [*explodem em tempo finito se*]{} $ \:\!0 < \kappa \leq 2/n $ (e também para $ \kappa > 2/n \:\!$ se $ w(\cdot,0) $ for apropriadamente grande) [@Fujita1966; @Hayakawa1973]. Como ficará mostrado nos resultados a seguir, a situação em (1.4) tem natureza oposta: [*todas as soluções de*]{} (1.4) [*são globalmente de- finidas se*]{} $ \;\!0 \leq \kappa < 1/n $ (e também para $ \kappa \geq 1/n \;\!$ se $ v(\cdot,0) $ for apropriadamente pequena). Esta diferença notável entre os dois sistemas é devida ao fato de (1.4) conservar massa, o que não acontece com (1.5). Considerações análogas podem ser feitas no caso geral do problema (1.1)-(1.3): todas as soluções vão existir globalmente se $ \;\!0 \leq \kappa < 1/n $ (pela razão de se ter conservação de massa e, melhor ainda, no caso de soluções $ u(\cdot,t) $ sem sinal definido, a propriedade dada em (1.11) abaixo).
\
Como sugerido em (1.4$^{\prime}$), a [*magnitude*]{} do coeficiente $ \mbox{\boldmath $b$}(x,t,u) $ não deve desempenhar papel importante, ao contrário de suas derivadas — ou, mais propriamente, a [*variação*]{} de $ \mbox{\boldmath $b$}(x,t,u) $ em $ \mathbb{R}^{n} \!\,\!$, dada pela quantidade $ B(t) $ definida do seguinte modo. Para cada $ 1 \leq j \leq n $, introduzimos $ B_{j}(t) $ dada por\
\
$$\tag{1.6$a$}
B_{j}(t) \;\!:= \;
\mbox{\small $ {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2} } $}
\:
\Bigl[\,
\sup_{\;x \,\in\, \mathbb{R}^{n}}
\!b_{j}(x,t,u(x,t))
\;\;\!-\!\;\!
\inf_{\;x \,\in\, \mathbb{R}^{n}}
\!\!\:\!b_{j}(x,t,u(x,t))
\;\Bigr],
\qquad
0 \leq t < \mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\;\!\ast} \!\;\!,$$\
e então definimos\
\
$$\tag{1.6$b$}
B(t) \:=\:
|\: (\:\!
B_{\mbox{}_{1}}\!\;\!(t), ..., B_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle n}}\!\;\!(t)
\:\!) \,|_{\mbox{}_{2}}
\;\!=\:
\Bigl\{\:\! B_{\mbox{}_{1}}\!\;\!(t)^{\:\!2} \!\;\!+ ... +
B_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle n}}\!\;\!(t)^{\:\!2} \:\!
\Bigr\}^{\!1/2}$$\
para cada $ \:\! 0 \leq t < \mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\;\!\ast} $ $\,$acima, e em todo o texto que segue, $ [\,0, \:\!\mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\;\!\ast}\!\;\!) $ denota sempre o intervalo máximo de existência da solução $ u(\cdot,t) $ considerada$\,$. Para a descrição dos resultados principais a serem obtidos neste trabalho, precisamos ainda introduzir as quantidades $ \;\!\mathbb{B}_{\mu}\!\;\!(0\:\!; \:\!t) \;\!$ e $ \;\!\mathbb{U}_{p}(0\:\!; \:\!t) $, $ 1 \leq p \leq \infty $, definidas por\
\
$$\tag{1.7}
\mathbb{B}_{\mu}\!\;\!(0\:\!; \:\!t)
\,:=\;
\sup \;\Bigl\{\,
\frac{B(\tau)}{\mu(\tau)} \!\;\!:
\; 0 \,\leq\,\tau \,\leq\, t
\,\Bigr\},$$\
$$\tag{1.8}
\mathbb{U}_{p}(0\:\!; \:\!t)
\,:=\;
\sup \;\Bigl\{\:
\|\, u(\cdot,\tau) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\!\;\!:
\; 0 \,\leq\,\tau \,\leq\, t
\,\Bigr\},$$\
para $ \;\!0 \leq t < \mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\;\!\ast} \!\;\!$, $ \:\!1 \leq p \leq \infty $. Na Seção 3, após alguns preliminares coletados (por conveniência) na Seção 2 anterior, as seguintes propriedades fundamentais das soluções do problema (1.1)$\;\!$-$\;\!$(1.3) serão mostradas. A primeira delas estabelece o importante fato de suas soluções serem todas globais quando $ \kappa > 0 $ não for grande (sendo o valor crítico, no caso do problema (1.1), dado por $ 1/n $).\
\
[\
]{}\
No caso $ \kappa \geq 1/n $, uma solução será garantidamente global quando conseguir ser mostrado que alguma (e então todas) de suas normas altas $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\, u(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\;\!
} $, $ \;\! p > n \:\!\kappa $, não puder explodir em tempo finito, como consequência do seguinte resultado:\
\
[\
]{}\
Note-se que o [Teorema A]{} é um corolário do [Teorema B]{} acima (tomando-se $ p = 1 $), em virtude da seguinte propriedade básica (conhecida) das soluções da equação (1.1):\
\
$$\tag{1.11}
\|\, u(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\;\!\leq\;
\|\, u_0 \;\!
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\;\!,
\qquad
\forall \;\,
t > 0,$$\
ou seja, $ {\displaystyle
\|\, u(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\:\!
} $ decresce monotonicamente em $\:\!t$. Esta propriedade é também satisfeita pelas demais normas $ {\displaystyle
\|\, u(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\:\!
} $, $ \,\!p > 1 $, quando o termo $ \mbox{\boldmath $b$} $ em (1.1$a$) não depender explicitamente de $\:\!x$, ou, mais geralmente, se tivermos [@SchutzZinganoZingano2014]\
\
$$\tag{1.12$a$}
\sum_{j\,=\,1}^{n}
\;\!
\frac{\partial \:\!b_{\:\!j}}
{\partial \:\!x_{\!\;\!j}}
\:\!
(x,t,\mbox{u})
\;\geq\;0,
\qquad
\forall \;\,
x \in \mathbb{R}^{n} \!, \;
t \geq 0, \;
\mbox{u} \in \mathbb{R}.$$\
Neste caso, não apenas estarão as soluções de (1.1$a$), (1.1$b$) definidas para todo $t > 0 $, como também decairão ao $ \;\!t \rightarrow \infty $, tendo-se ([@BrazSchutzZingano2013], Theorem 3.2)\
\
$$\tag{1.12$b$}
\|\, u(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\;\!\leq\:
(\;\! 2 \:\!e \;\!)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!-\,
\frac{\scriptstyle n}{2} }}
\:\!
\|\, u_0 \;\!
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\;\!
t^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!-\,
\frac{\scriptstyle n}{2} }}
\qquad
\forall \;\,
t > 0.$$\
Neste trabalho, estamos justamente interessados na situação (muito mais difícil) em que (1.12$a$) não é válida, quando (em geral) não se tem decaimento, podendo existir soluções estacionárias, etc. Mesmo quando $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\, u(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!
\rightarrow 0
} $, a taxa de decaimento não é conhecida, em geral. Experimentos numéricos parecem indicar o seguinte comportamento, quando $ \:\!\mbox{\boldmath $b$}, \,\!\mbox{\boldmath $f$} \,\!$ na equação (1.1$a$) independem do tempo $\:\!t\;\!$:\
\
[*Conjectura A*]{}: as soluções estacionárias, quando existem, são estáveis (atratoras);\
[*Conjectura B*]{}: na ausência de soluções estacionárias (exceto $ u \equiv 0$) tem-se sempre $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\, u(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!
\rightarrow 0
\;\!
} $ ao $ \:\! t \rightarrow \infty $.\
\
Como estas, muitas questões de interesse para (1.1)$\;\!$-$\;\!$(1.3) permanecem em aberto.
\
[**2. Preliminares**]{}\
Nesta seção, revisaremos resumidamente alguns resultados básicos para as soluções $ u(\cdot,t) $ do problema (1.1)$\;\!$-$\;\!$(1.3), que serão usadas na análise a seguir (Seção 3). Estas propriedades podem ser estabelecidas, sem esforço adicional, para o problema levemente mais geral\
\
$$\tag{2.1$a$}
u_t \,+\;
\mbox{div}\,
\bigl(\;\! \mbox{\boldmath $b$}(x,t,u) \, |\;\!u\;\!|^{\:\!\kappa} \:\! u \;\!
\bigr)
\:+\:
\mbox{div} \,
\mbox{\boldmath $f$}(t,u)
\;=\;
\mbox{div}\,\bigl(\;\!
A(x,t,u) \;\! \nabla u \;\!\bigr),
$$\
$$\tag{2.1$b$}
u(\cdot,0) \,=\,
u_0 \in L^{p_{\mbox{}_{0}}}(\mathbb{R}^{n})
\cap L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{n}),$$\
para $ \:\! 1 \leq p_{\mbox{}_{0}} \!< \infty \;\!$ dado (e não somente $ \:\! p_{\mbox{}_{0}} \!= 1 $, como em (1.1$b$)), onde a matriz $A$ satisfaz a condição de elipticidade (1.2) acima (para certa $ \mu \in C^{0}([\,0,\infty)) $ positiva) e $ \mbox{\boldmath $b$} $ satisfaz (1.3).[^5] $\!\!\;\!$Em (2.1), a condição (2.1$b$) é entendida no sentido de $ L^{1}_{\tt loc}(\mathbb{R}^{n}) $, ou seja,\
\
$$\tag{2.2}
\|\, u(\cdot,t) \;\!-\;\! u_0 \;\!
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{1}(\mathbb{K})}}
\!\;\!\rightarrow\, 0
\quad \;\;
\mbox{ao }\,
t \rightarrow 0$$\
para cada conjunto compacto $ \:\!\mathbb{K} \subset \mathbb{R}^{n} \!\:\!$ considerado. Por [*solução*]{} de (2.1$a$), (2.1$b$) em um dado intervalo $ \,\![\,0, \,\!\mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\,\!\ast}\!\;\!) $ entende-se uma função suave $ {\displaystyle
u(\cdot,t)
\in
L^{\infty}_{\tt loc}(\:\!
[\;\!0, \:\!\mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\,\!\ast}\!\;\!),
\:\!
L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{n})
\,\!)
} $ que satisfaz a equação (2.1$a$) classicamente para $ 0 < t < \mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\;\!\ast} \!\;\!$ e verifica (2.2) ao $ t \rightarrow 0 $. A [*existência*]{} (local) de tais soluções decorre da teoria geral de equações parabólicas (ver e.g.$\;$[@LadyzhenskayaSolonnikovUralceva1968], ou [@Serre1999], Ch.$\;$7); sabe-se também que as soluções são [*únicas*]{}, como pode ser mostrado usando princípios de comparação (ver e.g.$\;$[@DiehlFabrisZingano2014], Theorem 2.1).\
[\
]{}[**Proposição 2.1.**]{} *Sendo $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
u(\cdot,t)
\in
L^{\infty}_{\tt loc}(\:\!
[\,0, \:\!\mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\;\!\ast}),
\:\!
L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{n})
\,\!)
} $ solução do problema $\;\!(2.1)$, onde $ 0 < \mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\;\!\ast}\!\;\!\leq \infty $, então tem-se $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
u(\cdot,t) \in
C^{0}(\:\!
[\,0, \:\!\mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\;\!\ast}),
\:\!
L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{n})
\,\!)
} $ para cada $ \;\! p_{\mbox{}_{0}} \!\;\!\leq p < \infty $. Além disso, tem-se, para cada $ \;\! p_{\mbox{}_{0}} \!\;\!\leq p < \infty \!\!\;\!:$*\
\
$$\tag{2.3}
\|\, u(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\;\!\leq\;
\|\, u_0 \;\!
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\cdot\;\!\;\!
\exp\,\Bigl\{\:
\mbox{\small $ {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4} }$} \,
(p - 1) \:
\mathbb{B}_{\mu}\!\;\!(0\:\!;\:\!t)^{\:\!2} \:
\mathbb{U}_{p}\!\;\!(0\:\!;\:\!t)^{\:\!2\;\!\kappa}
\!\!\!\;\!
\int_{0}^{\;\!\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}}
\!\!\:\!
\mu(\tau) \, d\tau
\;\!\Bigr\}$$\
*para todo $\;\! 0 \leq t < \mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\;\!\ast} \!\;\!$, com $ \;\! \mathbb{B}_{\mu}\!\;\!(0\:\!;\:\!t) $, $ \mathbb{U}_{p}\!\;\!(0\:\!;\:\!t) $ definidas em $\;\!(1.7) $, $(1.8)$ acima.\
*\
A prova da Proposição 2.1 pode ser feita adaptando-se o argumento usado em ([@BarrionuevoOliveiraZingano2014], Theorem 1), ou ([@BrazSchutzZingano2013], Theorem 2.1). Em particular, com $ \;\!p_{\mbox{}_{0}} \!\;\!= 1 $, $ p = 1 $ em (2.3), obtém-se a estimativa (1.11) referida na Seção 1, ou seja,\
\
$$\tag{2.4}
\mbox{} \hspace{+0.750cm}
\|\, u(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\;\!\leq\;
\|\, u_0 \;\!
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\;\!,
\qquad
\forall \;\,
t > 0.$$
\
[\
]{}[**Proposição 2.2.**]{} *Sendo $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
u(\cdot,t)
\in
L^{\infty}_{\tt loc}(\:\!
[\,0, \:\!\mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\;\!\ast}),
\:\!
L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{n})
\,\!)
} $ solução do problema $\;\!(2.1) \!\;\!$ em um dado intervalo $ \:\![\,0, \:\!\mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\;\!\ast}) $, então tem-se, para cada $ \;\! q \;\!\geq\;\! p_{\mbox{}_{0}} \!\:\!+ 1 \!\!\:\!:$\
*\
$$\tag{2.5}
\int_{0}^{\;\!\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}}
\!\!
\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}
\!\!\;\!
|\, u(x,\tau)\,|^{\:\!q \;\!-\;\! 2}
\,
|\, \nabla u \,|^{\:\!2}
\:dx\, d\tau
\;<\; \infty,
\qquad
\forall \;\,
0 < t < \mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\;\!\ast}
\!\;\!.$$\
[\
]{}[[**Prova:**]{} Para $ q > 2 $, considere $ \;\!\Phi(\mbox{u}) \!\:\!:= L_{\delta}(\mbox{u})^{q} \!\;\!$, onde $ L_{\delta}(\cdot) $ é uma função sinal regularizada (ver e.g.$\;$[@BrazSchutzZingano2013; @DiehlFabrisZingano2014; @KreissLorenz1989]), sendo $ \delta > 0 $ dado. Seja também, para $ R > 0 $ grande, $ \zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}} \in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{n}) $ uma função de corte satisfazendo $ \zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}(x) = 1 $ se $ |\,x\,| \leq R - 1 $, $ \zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}(x) = 0 $ se $ |\,x\,| \geq R $, $ 0 \leq \zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}(x) \leq 1 $ para todo $x$, $ |\,\nabla \zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}(x) \,| \leq C $ para certa constante $C$ independente de $x$ e $R$. Multiplicando-se a equação (2.1$a$) por $ \;\!\Phi^{\prime}(u(x,t)) \, \zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}(x) $ e integrando-se em $ [\,t_0, \:\!t\;\!] $ (dado $ 0 < t_0 < t $ arbitrário), obtém-se, integrando-se por partes e fazendo $ \delta \rightarrow 0 $:\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle |\,x\,| \,<\,R}}
\hspace{-0.750cm}
|\, u(x,t) \,|^{q} \,
\zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}(x)
\: dx
\:+\:
q \,(q - 1) \!
\int_{\mbox{}_{\!\;\!\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}_0}}
^{\,\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}}
\!\!\;\!
\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle |\,x\,| \,<\,R}}
\hspace{-0.750cm}
|\, u(x,\tau) \,|^{q - 2} \,
\bigl<\,A(x,\tau,u) \, \nabla u, \;\! \nabla u \;\!\bigr>
\: \zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}(x)
\: dx \, d\tau
\;=
} $\
\
(2.6)\
\
$ {\displaystyle
=
\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle |\,x\,| \,<\,R}}
\hspace{-0.750cm}
|\, u(x,t_0) \,|^{q} \,
\zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}(x)
\: dx
\:+\:
q \,(q - 1) \!
\int_{\mbox{}_{\!\;\!\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}_0}}
^{\,\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}}
\!\!\;\!
\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle |\,x\,| \,<\,R}}
\hspace{-0.750cm}
|\, u \,|^{q - 2 + \kappa} \, u \,
\bigl<\;\!\mbox{\boldmath $b$}(x,\tau,u) -
\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}(\tau), \;\! \nabla u \;\!\bigr>
\: \zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}(x)
\: dx \, d\tau
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
-\;
q \,(q - 1) \!
\int_{\mbox{}_{\!\;\!\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}_0}}
^{\,\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}}
\!\!\;\!
\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\:\!R - 1 \,<\, |\,x\,| \,<\,R}}
\hspace{-1.675cm}
G_{q}(u) \:
\bigl<\;\!\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}(\tau),
\;\! \nabla \zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}(x)
\,\bigr>
\: dx \, d\tau
\;\!+\,
q \!
\int_{\mbox{}_{\!\;\!\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}_0}}
^{\,\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}}
\!\!\;\!
\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\:\!R - 1 \,<\,|\,x\,| \,<\,R}}
\hspace{-1.675cm}
|\,u\,|^{q + \kappa} \,
\bigl<\;\!\mbox{\boldmath $b$}(x,\tau,u),
\;\! \nabla \zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}(x)
\,\bigr>
\: dx \, d\tau
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
-\;
q \,(q - 1) \!
\int_{\mbox{}_{\!\;\!\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}_0}}
^{\,\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}}
\!\!\;\!
\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\:\!R - 1 \,<\, |\,x\,| \,<\,R}}
\hspace{-1.675cm}
\bigl<\;\!\mbox{\boldmath $F$}_{\!\!\;\!q}(\tau,u),
\;\! \nabla \zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}(x)
\,\bigr>
\: dx \, d\tau
\;\!+\,
q \!
\int_{\mbox{}_{\!\;\!\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}_0}}
^{\,\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}}
\!\!\;\!
\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\:\!R - 1 \,<\,|\,x\,| \,<\,R}}
\hspace{-1.675cm}
|\,u\,|^{q - 2} \;\!u \:
\bigl<\;\!\mbox{\boldmath $f$}(\tau,u),
\;\! \nabla \zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}(x)
\,\bigr>
\: dx \, d\tau
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
-\;
q \!
\int_{\mbox{}_{\!\;\!\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}_0}}
^{\,\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}}
\!\!\;\!
\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\:\!R - 1 \,<\, |\,x\,| \,<\,R}}
\hspace{-1.675cm}
|\,u\,|^{q - 2} \;\!u \:
\bigl<\,A(x,\tau,u) \,\nabla u,
\;\! \nabla \zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}(x)
\,\bigr>
\: dx \, d\tau
} $,\
\
onde\
\
$$\tag{2.7$a$}
G_{q}(\mbox{u})
\,:=\:\!
\int_{0}^{\:\!\mbox{\scriptsize u}}
\!
|\,\mbox{v}\,|^{\:\!q - 2 + \kappa}
\;\! \mbox{v} \:
d\mbox{v},
\qquad
\mbox{\boldmath $F$}_{\!\!\;\!q}(t,\mbox{u})
\,:=\:\!
\int_{0}^{\:\!\mbox{\scriptsize u}}
\!
|\,\mbox{v}\,|^{q - 2} \;\!
\mbox{\boldmath $f$}(t,\mbox{v}) \:
d\mbox{v},$$\
e $ {\displaystyle
\,
\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}(t)
\;\!=\;\!
(\;\!\beta_{\mbox{}_{1}}(t),\!\;\!..., \beta_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle n}}(t)
\:\!)
} $, com $ \beta_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle j}}(t) $, $ 1 \leq j \leq n $, dado por\
\
$$\tag{2.7$b$}
\beta_{\scriptstyle j}(t) \;\!:= \;
\mbox{\small $ {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2} } $}
\:
\Bigl[\,
\sup_{\;x \,\in\, \mathbb{R}^{n}}
\!b_{j}(x,t,u(x,t))
\;\;\!+\!\;\!
\inf_{\;x \,\in\, \mathbb{R}^{n}}
\!\!\:\!b_{j}(x,t,u(x,t))
\;\Bigr].$$\
Para obter (2.6), observamos que\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle |\,x\,| \,<\,R}}
\hspace{-0.750cm}
|\, u \,|^{q - 2 + \kappa} \, u \,
\bigl<\,\mbox{\boldmath $b$}(x,\tau,u), \;\! \nabla u \;\!\bigr>
\: \zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}(x)
\: dx
\;=
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
=\;\!
\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle |\,x\,| \,<\,R}}
\hspace{-0.750cm}
|\, u \,|^{q - 2 + \kappa} \, u \,
\bigl<\,\mbox{\boldmath $b$}(x,\tau,u) -
\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}(\tau), \;\! \nabla u \;\!\bigr>
\: \zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}(x)
\: dx
\;+\;\!
\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle |\,x\,| \,<\,R}}
\hspace{-0.750cm}
\bigl<\,\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}(\tau),
\;\! \nabla G_{q}(u) \;\!\bigr>
\: \zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}(x)
\: dx
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
=\;\!
\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle |\,x\,| \,<\,R}}
\hspace{-0.750cm}
|\, u \,|^{q - 2 + \kappa} \, u \,
\bigl<\,\mbox{\boldmath $b$}(x,\tau,u) -
\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}(\tau), \;\! \nabla u \;\!\bigr>
\: \zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}(x)
\: dx
\;-\;\!
\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\:\!R - 1 \,<\, |\,x\,| \,<\,R}}
\hspace{-1.675cm}
G_{q}(u) \:
\bigl<\,\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}(\tau),
\;\! \nabla \zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}(x) \;\!\bigr>
\: dx
} $\
e também\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle |\,x\,| \,<\,R}}
\hspace{-0.750cm}
|\, u \,|^{q - 2} \,
\bigl<\;\!\mbox{\boldmath $f$}(\tau,u), \;\! \nabla u \;\!\bigr>
\: \zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}(x)
\: dx
\;=\;\!
\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle |\,x\,| \,<\,R}}
\hspace{-0.715cm}
[\; \mbox{div} \,
\mbox{\boldmath $F$}_{\!\!\;\!q}(\tau,u) \:]
\:
\zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}(x)
\: dx
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
=\;
-\!\;\!
\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\:\!R - 1 \,<\, |\,x\,| \,<\,R}}
\hspace{-1.650cm}
\bigl<\,\mbox{\boldmath $F$}_{\!\!\;\!q}(\tau,u),
\;\! \nabla \zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}(x) \;\!\bigr>
\: dx
} $.\
\
Como, por (1.6), tem-se\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle |\,x\,| \,<\,R}}
\hspace{-0.750cm}
|\, u \,|^{q - 2 + \kappa} \, u \,
\bigl<\,\mbox{\boldmath $b$}(x,\tau,u) -
\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}(\tau), \;\! \nabla u \;\!\bigr>
\: \zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}(x)
\: dx
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\;
B(\tau) \!
\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle |\,x\,| \,<\,R}}
\hspace{-0.750cm}
|\, u \,|^{q - 1 + \kappa} \,
|\, \nabla u \,|
\: \zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}(x)
\: dx
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\;
\frac{1}{2} \;
\mu(\tau) \!
\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle |\,x\,| \,<\,R}}
\hspace{-0.750cm}
|\, u \,|^{q - 2} \,
|\, \nabla u \,|^{\:\!2}
\: \zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}(x)
\: dx
\;+\;
\frac{1}{2} \:
\frac{\,B(\tau)^{2}}{\mu(\tau)}
\!
\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle |\,x\,| \,<\,R}}
\hspace{-0.750cm}
|\, u \,|^{q + 2\;\! \kappa}
\: \zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}(x)
\: dx
} $,\
\
resulta de (1.2), (2.6) que\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle |\,x\,| \,<\,R}}
\hspace{-0.750cm}
|\, u(x,t) \,|^{q} \,
\zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}(x)
\: dx
\:+\:
\frac{1}{2} \;
q \,(q - 1) \!
\int_{\mbox{}_{\!\;\!\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}_0}}
^{\,\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}}
\!\!
\mu(\tau)
\!\!\;\!
\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle |\,x\,| \,<\,R}}
\hspace{-0.750cm}
|\, u(x,\tau) \,|^{q - 2} \:
|\, \nabla u \,|^{2}
\: \zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}(x)
\: dx \, d\tau
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq
\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle |\,x\,| \,<\,R}}
\hspace{-0.750cm}
|\, u(x,t_0) \,|^{q} \,
\zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}(x)
\: dx
\:+\:
\frac{1}{2} \;
q \,(q - 1) \!
\int_{\mbox{}_{\!\;\!\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}_0}}
^{\,\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}}
\!\!\;\!
\frac{\,B(\tau)^{2}}{\mu(\tau)}
\!
\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle |\,x\,| \,<\,R}}
\hspace{-0.750cm}
|\, u \,|^{q + 2\;\! \kappa}
\: \zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}(x)
\: dx \, d\tau
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
-\;
q \,(q - 1) \!
\int_{\mbox{}_{\!\;\!\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}_0}}
^{\,\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}}
\!\!\;\!
\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\:\!R - 1 \,<\, |\,x\,| \,<\,R}}
\hspace{-1.675cm}
G_{q}(u) \:
\bigl<\;\!\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}(\tau),
\;\! \nabla \zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}(x)
\,\bigr>
\: dx \, d\tau
\;\!+\,
q \!
\int_{\mbox{}_{\!\;\!\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}_0}}
^{\,\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}}
\!\!\;\!
\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\:\!R - 1 \,<\,|\,x\,| \,<\,R}}
\hspace{-1.675cm}
|\,u\,|^{q + \kappa} \,
\bigl<\;\!\mbox{\boldmath $b$}(x,\tau,u),
\;\! \nabla \zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}(x)
\,\bigr>
\: dx \, d\tau
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
-\;
q \,(q - 1) \!
\int_{\mbox{}_{\!\;\!\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}_0}}
^{\,\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}}
\!\!\;\!
\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\:\!R - 1 \,<\, |\,x\,| \,<\,R}}
\hspace{-1.675cm}
\bigl<\;\!\mbox{\boldmath $F$}_{\!\!\;\!q}(\tau,u),
\;\! \nabla \zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}(x)
\,\bigr>
\: dx \, d\tau
\;\!+\,
q \!
\int_{\mbox{}_{\!\;\!\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}_0}}
^{\,\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}}
\!\!\;\!
\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\:\!R - 1 \,<\,|\,x\,| \,<\,R}}
\hspace{-1.675cm}
|\,u\,|^{q - 2} \;\!u \:
\bigl<\;\!\mbox{\boldmath $f$}(\tau,u),
\;\! \nabla \zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}(x)
\,\bigr>
\: dx \, d\tau
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
-\;
q \!
\int_{\mbox{}_{\!\;\!\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}_0}}
^{\,\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}}
\!\!\;\!
\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!\:\!R - 1 \,<\, |\,x\,| \,<\,R}}
\hspace{-1.675cm}
|\,u\,|^{q - 2} \;\!u \:
\bigl<\,A(x,\tau,u) \,\nabla u,
\;\! \nabla \zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}(x)
\,\bigr>
\: dx \, d\tau
} $,\
\
para todo $ R > 1 $. Fazendo $ R \rightarrow \infty $, obtém-se, então,\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\|\, u(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}^{\:\!q}
\,\!+\;
\frac{1}{2} \;
q \,(q - 1) \!
\int_{\:\!\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}_0}
^{\,\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}}
\!\!\;\!
\mu(\tau)
\!
\int_{\scriptstyle \;\!\mathbb{R}^{n}}
\!\!
|\, u(x,\tau) \,|^{q - 2} \:
|\, \nabla u \,|^{2}
\: dx \, d\tau
} $\
\
(2.8)\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\;
\|\, u(\cdot,t_0) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}^{\:\!q}
\,\!+\;
\frac{1}{2} \;
q \,(q - 1) \!
\int_{\:\!\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}_0}
^{\,\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}}
\!
\frac{\,B(\tau)^{2}}{\mu(\tau)}
\!\;\!
\int_{\scriptstyle \;\!\mathbb{R}^{n}}
\!\!
|\, u \,|^{q + 2\;\! \kappa}
\: dx \, d\tau
} $,\
\
de onde (2.5) pode ser derivado sem dificuldade. De fato, (2.8) produz\
\
$$\notag
\int_{\:\!\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}_0}
^{\,\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}}
\!
\mu(\tau)
\!
\int_{\scriptstyle \;\!\mathbb{R}^{n}}
\!\!\;\!
|\, u(x,\tau) \,|^{q - 2} \,
|\, \nabla u \,|^{2}
\: dx \, d\tau
\;\leq\;\!
\int_{\:\!\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}_0}
^{\,\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}}
\!
\frac{\,B(\tau)^{2}}{\mu(\tau)}
\!\;\!
\int_{\scriptstyle \;\!\mathbb{R}^{n}}
\!\!\;\!
|\, u \,|^{q + 2\;\! \kappa}
\: dx \, d\tau,$$ de modo que, fazendo $\:\!t_0 \!\;\!\rightarrow\;\!0 $, tem-se\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\int_{\:\!0}
^{\,\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}}
\!
\mu(\tau)
\!
\int_{\scriptstyle \;\!\mathbb{R}^{n}}
\!\!\;\!
|\, u \,|^{q - 2} \,
|\, \nabla u \,|^{2}
\: dx \, d\tau
\;\leq\;\!
\int_{\:\!0}
^{\,\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}}
\!\!\;\!
\frac{\,B(\tau)^{2}}{\mu(\tau)}
\!\;\!
\int_{\scriptstyle \;\!\mathbb{R}^{n}}
\!\!\;\!
|\, u(x,\tau) \,|^{q + 2\;\! \kappa}
\: dx \, d\tau
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\;\:\!
\mathbb{U}_{\infty}(0\:\!;\:\!t)^{\:\!2 \;\!\kappa}
\!\!
\int_{\:\!0}
^{\,\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}}
\!\!\;\!
\frac{\,B(\tau)^{2}}{\mu(\tau)}
\!\;\!
\int_{\scriptstyle \;\!\mathbb{R}^{n}}
\!\!
|\, u(x,\tau) \,|^{q}
\: dx \, d\tau
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\;\:\!
\mathbb{U}_{q}(0\:\!;\:\!t)^{\:\!q} \;
\mathbb{U}_{\infty}(0\:\!;\:\!t)^{\:\!2 \;\!\kappa}
\!\!
\int_{\:\!0}
^{\,\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}}
\!\!\;\!
\frac{\,B(\tau)^{2}}{\mu(\tau)}
\; d\tau
} $,\
\
para cada $ \;\!0 < t < T_{\!\;\!\ast} \!\;\!$, o que conclui a prova de (2.5) se $ \;\!q > 2 $. Considerando, agora, $ q = 2 $, pode-se obter (2.5) de modo inteiramente análogo, com a diferença de se multiplicar desta vez a equação (2.1$a$) por $ \;\! u(x,t) \: \zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}(x) $, em vez de $ \;\! \Phi_{\delta}^{\prime}(u(x,t)) \: \zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}(x) $ como feito antes. Integrando-se, então, o resultado em $\;\![\,t_0, \;\!t\;\!] $, para $ 0 < t_0 < t $ dado, obtém-se, seguindo marcha inteiramente similar a (2.6)$\;\!$-$\;\!$(2.8) acima,\
\
$$\tag{2.$8^{\prime}$}
\|\, u(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}^{\:\!2}
\!\;\!+
\int_{\:\!\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}_0}
^{\,\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}}
\!\!\;\!
\mu(\tau)
\!
\int_{\scriptstyle \;\!\mathbb{R}^{n}}
\!\!
|\, \nabla u \,|^{2}
\: dx \, d\tau
\;\leq\;
\|\, u(\cdot,t_0) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}^{\:\!2}
\!\;\!+
\int_{\:\!\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}_0}
^{\,\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}}
\!
\frac{\,B(\tau)^{2}}{\mu(\tau)}
\!\;\!
\int_{\scriptstyle \;\!\mathbb{R}^{n}}
\!\!
|\, u \,|^{2 + 2\;\! \kappa}
\: dx \, d\tau$$\
(sendo $ q = 2 $, $ p_{\mbox{}_{0}} \!\:\!= 1 $), de onde resulta, como antes,\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\int_{\:\!0}
^{\,\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}}
\!
\mu(\tau)
\!
\int_{\scriptstyle \;\!\mathbb{R}^{n}}
\!\!\;\!
|\, \nabla u \,|^{2}
\: dx \, d\tau
\;\;\!\leq\;\!
\int_{\:\!0}
^{\,\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}}
\!\!\;\!
\frac{\,B(\tau)^{2}}{\mu(\tau)}
\!\;\!
\int_{\scriptstyle \;\!\mathbb{R}^{n}}
\!\!\;\!
|\, u(x,\tau) \,|^{2 + 2\;\! \kappa}
\: dx \, d\tau
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\;\:\!
\mathbb{U}_{\scriptscriptstyle 2}(0\:\!;\:\!t)^{\:\!2} \;
\mathbb{U}_{\infty}(0\:\!;\:\!t)^{\:\!2 \;\!\kappa}
\!\!
\int_{\:\!0}
^{\,\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}}
\!\!\;\!
\frac{\,B(\tau)^{2}}{\mu(\tau)}
\; d\tau
} $,\
\
o que estabelece (2.5) no caso $ \:\!q = 2 $. Isso conclui a demonstração da Proposição 2.2. ]{} $\Box$\
[\
]{}Observe-se que, da Proposição 2.2, segue imediatamente que, para todo $ \;\!0 < t < \mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\;\!\ast} \!\;\!$:\
\
$$\tag{2.9$a$}
\int_{0}^{\;\!\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}}
\!\!\;\!
\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}
\!\!\;\!
\bigl<\, A(x,\tau,u) \, \nabla u, \;\! \nabla u \,\bigr>
\:dx\, d\tau
\;<\; \infty$$\
se $ \;\!p_{\mbox{}_{0}} \!\:\!= 1 $ ($ q = 2 $), e\
\
$$\tag{2.9$b$}
\int_{0}^{\;\!\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}}
\!\!\;\!
\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}
\!\!\;\!
|\, u(x,\tau)\,|^{\:\!q \;\!-\;\! 2}
\,
\bigl<\, A(x,\tau,u) \, \nabla u, \;\! \nabla u \,\bigr>
\:dx\, d\tau
\;<\; \infty$$\
sendo $ \:\! q \;\!\geq\;\! p_{\mbox{}_{0}} \!\:\!+ 1 $, $ \:\!q > 2 $. Outra consequência importante de (2.5) acima é dada na Proposição 2.3 a seguir, que representa o ponto de partida para a análise na Seção 3 estabelecendo o resultado principal ([Teorema B]{}) anunciado na Seção 1.
\
[**Proposição 2.3.**]{} *Sendo $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
u(\cdot,t)
\in
L^{\infty}_{\tt loc}(\:\!
[\,0, \:\!\mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\;\!\ast}),
\:\!
L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{n})
\,\!)
} $ solução do problema $\;\!(2.1) \!\;\!$ em um dado intervalo $ \:\![\,0, \:\!\mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\;\!\ast}) $, tem-se, para cada $ \;\! q \;\!\geq\;\! p_{\mbox{}_{0}}\!\:\!+ 1 \!\!\:\!:$\
*\
$ {\displaystyle
\frac{d}{d \:\!t} \;
\|\, u(\cdot,t) \,\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}^{\:\!q}
\:\!+\;
q \, (q - 1)
\!\!\;\!
\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}
\!\!\;\!
|\, u(x,t) \,|^{\:\!q - 2}
\:
\bigl<\, A(x,t,u) \, \nabla u, \;\! \nabla u \,\bigr>
\:dx
} $\
\
(2.10)\
\
$ {\displaystyle
=\;
q \, (q - 1)
\!\!\;\!
\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}
\!\!\;\!
|\, u(x,t) \,|^{\:\!q - 2 + \kappa}
\;\!
u(x,t) \:
\bigl<\, \mbox{\boldmath $b$}(x,t,u) \;\!-\;\!
\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}(t), \;\! \nabla u \,\bigr>
\:dx
} $\
\
*para todo $ \;\! t \in (\,0, \;\!\mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\;\!\ast})
\,\mbox{\footnotesize $\setminus$}\, E_{q} $, sendo $ E_{q} \!\;\!\subset\!\;\! (\;\!0, \infty) $ de medida zero e $ \mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}(t) $ dada em $(2.7b)$.*\
[\
]{}[[**Prova:**]{} Na notação da prova anterior, multiplicando-se (2.1$a$) por $ u(x,t) \, \zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}(x) $ se $ q = 2 $, e por $ \;\! \Phi_{\delta}^{\prime}(u(x,t)) \:
\zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}(x) \;\!$ se $ q > 2 $, e integrando-se o resultado em $ \:\![\,t_0, \;\!t\;\!] $, obtém-se, fazendo $ \delta \rightarrow 0 $, $ t_0 \!\;\!\rightarrow 0 $ e $ R \rightarrow \infty $, por (2.5), (2.6) e (2.7),\
\
$$\notag
\|\, u(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}^{\:\!q}
\:\!+\;
q \, (q - 1)
\!\!\;\!
\int_{\:\!0}^{\;\!\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}}
\!\!\;\!
\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}
\!\!\;\!
|\, u \,|^{\:\!q - 2}
\:
\bigl<\, A(x,\tau,u) \, \nabla u, \;\! \nabla u \,\bigr>
\;dx
\, d\tau
\;=$$\
$$\notag
=\;
\|\, u_0 \;\!
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}^{\:\!q}
\:\!+\;
q \, (q - 1)
\!\!\;\!
\int_{\:\!0}^{\;\!\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}}
\!\!\;\!
\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}
\!\!\;\!
|\, u(x,\tau) \,|^{\:\!q - 2 + \kappa}
\;\!
u(x,\tau) \:
\bigl<\, \mbox{\boldmath $b$}(x,\tau,u) \;\!-\;\!
\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}(\tau), \;\! \nabla u \,\bigr>
\;dx
\,d\tau$$\
se $ \;\!q > 2 $, para todo $ \;\! 0 < t < T_{\!\;\!\ast} \!\;\!$. Sendo $\;\!q = 2 $, o resultado correspondente obtido é\
\
$$\notag
\|\, u(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}^{\:\!2}
+\;
2
\!\!\;\!
\int_{\:\!0}^{\;\!\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}}
\!\!\;\!
\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}
\!
\bigl<\, A(x,\tau,u) \, \nabla u, \;\! \nabla u \,\bigr>
\;dx
\, d\tau
\;=$$\
$$\notag
=\;
\|\, u_0 \;\!
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}^{\:\!2}
\:\!+\;
2
\!\!\;\!
\int_{\:\!0}^{\;\!\mbox{\footnotesize $t$}}
\!\!\;\!
\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}
\!\!\;\!
|\, u(x,\tau) \,|^{\:\!\kappa}
\;\!
u(x,\tau) \:
\bigl<\, \mbox{\boldmath $b$}(x,\tau,u) \;\!-\;\!
\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}(\tau), \;\! \nabla u \,\bigr>
\;dx
\,d\tau,$$\
para todo $ \;\! 0 < t < T_{\!\;\!\ast} \!\;\!$. Nas expressões acima, todas as integrais são bem definidas e finitas $\,$por (2.5), Proposição 2.2, e (2.9)$\,$, envolvendo funções integráveis (no sentido de Lebesgue) nas regiões indicadas. $\!$($\,\!$Para o termo $ {\displaystyle
\:\!
z(x,t)
\:\!=\:\!
|\, u(x,t) \,|^{\:\!q - 2 + \kappa}
\,\!
u(x,t) \,
\bigl<\, \mbox{\boldmath $b$}(x,t,u) \;\!-\;\!
\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}(t), \,\! \nabla u \,\bigr>
} $, por exemplo, tem-se, por (1.6) e (2.7$b$):\
\
$ {\displaystyle
|\, z(x,t) \,|
\;\leq\;
|\, u(x,t) \,|^{\:\!q - 1 + \kappa}
\;\!
|\, \mbox{\boldmath $b$}(x,t,u) \;\!-\;\!
\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}(t) \,|_{\mbox{}_{2}}
\;\!
|\, \nabla u \,|_{\mbox{}_{2}}
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\;
B(t) \:
|\, u(x,t) \,|^{\:\!q - 1 + \kappa}
\;\!
|\, \nabla u \,|_{\mbox{}_{2}}
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\;
\frac{\,B(t)^{2}}{\mu(t)} \;
|\, u(x,t) \,|^{\:\!q + 2 \;\!\kappa}
\,+\;
\mu(t) \:
|\, u(x,t) \,|^{\:\!q - 2}
\;\!
|\, \nabla u \,|_{\mbox{}_{2}}^{\:\!2}
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\;\:\!
\mu(t) \:
\mathbb{B}_{\mu}\!\;\!(0\:\!;\:\!t)^{2}
\:
\mathbb{U}_{\infty}\!\;\!(0\:\!;\:\!t)^{2\;\!\kappa}
\,
|\, u(x,t) \,|^{\:\!q}
\,+\:
\mu(t) \:
|\, u(x,t) \,|^{\:\!q - 2}
\,
|\, \nabla u \,|_{\mbox{}_{2}}^{\:\!2}
\!\:\!
} $,\
\
de modo que $ {\displaystyle
z \in L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n}
\!\!\;\!\times\!\;\! [\,0, \;\!t\;\!])
} $ para cada $ \;\! 0 < t < T_{\!\;\!\ast} \!\;\!$, como afirmado.) O resultado (2.10) segue, então, aplicando o teorema de diferenciação de Lebesgue, para cada $ \;\!q \:\!\geq\;\! p_{\mbox{}_{0}}\!\:\!+ 1 $. ]{} $\Box$\
[\
]{}[**Observação 3.1.**]{} Na verdade, por (2.1), tem-se (2.10) válida para todo $ 0 < t < \mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\;\!\ast} \!\;\!$.
\
[**3. Prova de (1.10)**]{}\
Nesta seção, vamos obter o resultado principal ([Teorema B]{}), reescrito na forma mais geral a seguir para as soluções do problema (2.1), sob as hipóteses de trabalho (1.2) e (1.3) descritas na Seção 1.\
\
[\
]{}\
A prova do Teorema 3.1 será feita a partir da Proposição 2.3, com o auxílio de vários resultados auxiliares apresentados nos lemas abaixo. Também serão necessárias diversas desigualdades de Nirenberg-Gagliardo, incluindo a desigualdade de Nash [@Nash1958]\
\
$$\label{Nash}
\tag{3.2}
\|\:\mbox{v}\:
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\;\!\leq\;\!\;\!
K\!\;\!(n) \:
\|\:\mbox{v}\:
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{2}{{\scriptstyle n} \;\!+\;\! 2} }}
\;\!
\|\, \nabla \mbox{v}\:
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{\scriptstyle n}{{\scriptstyle n} \;\!+\;\! 2} }}
\qquad
\forall \;\,
\mbox{v} \in
L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})
\cap
\dot{H}^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n}),$$\
para certa constante $ \:\!K\!\;\!(n) < 1 $ (ver [@CarlenLoss1993] para a determinação de seu valor optimal). Esta desigualdade será importante mais adiante para se estimar $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\, u(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\scriptstyle L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}
} $ em termos de $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\, u(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\scriptstyle L^{q/2}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}
\!\;\!
} $, dado $ \:\!q \:\!\geq\:\! p_{\mbox{}_{0}}/2 $ (Lema 3.2), na versão desenvolvida pelo autor para o clássico método $ L^{p}$-$\,\!L^{q}$ em ordem a se aplicar à investigação de problemas da forma (2.1) acima. Em particular, dado $ \;\!q \;\!\geq\;\! 2 \;\!p_{\mbox{}_{0}}\!\;\! $, resulta desde já conve- niente introduzir a função auxiliar $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
v^{[\,q\,]}(\cdot,t)
\in
L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})
\cap
L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{n})
\:\!
} $ definida por\
\
$$\label{vq}
\tag{3.3}
v^{[\,q\,]}(x,t)
\,:=\:
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\!\;\,u(x,t) \; &
\mbox{se }\, q = 2, \\
\mbox{} \vspace{-0.200cm} \\
\! |\, u(x,t) \,|^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle q/2}} \; &
\mbox{se }\, q > 2.
\end{array}
\right.
$$\
Em termos de $ v^{[\,q\,]}(\cdot,t) $, tem-se\
\
$$\tag{3.4$a$}
\|\, u(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}^{\;\!q}
\:\!=\;
\|\, v^{[\,q\,]}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}^{\;\!2}
\!\;\!,$$\
$$\tag{3.4$b$}
\|\, u(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{q/2}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}^{\;\!q/2}
=\;
\|\, v^{[\,q\,]}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\;\!,$$\
e também\
\
$$\tag{3.5}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}
\!\!\;\!
|\, u(x,t) \,|^{\:\!q - 2}
\:
|\, \nabla u\;\!(x,t) \,|_{\mbox{}_{2}}^{\:\!2}
\: dx
\;=\;
\mbox{\small $ {\displaystyle \frac{4}{\,q^{2}} }$}
\:
\|\, \nabla v^{[\,q\,]}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}^{\:\!2}
\!.$$\
[\
]{}[**Lema 3.1.**]{} *Seja $\;\! q \:\!\geq\:\!2 \;\! p_{\mbox{}_{0}} \!\;\!$. Sendo $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
v^{[\,q\,]}(\cdot,t)
\in
L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})
\cap
L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{n})
} $ dada em $\;\!(3.3) $ acima, tem-se\
*\
$ {\displaystyle
\frac{d}{d \:\!t} \:
\|\, v^{[\,q\,]}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}^{\:\!2}
\!\:\!+\;
\mbox{\small $ {\displaystyle
4 \;\! \Bigl(\:\! 1 - \frac{1}{q} \,\Bigr)
\, \mu(t)
} $}
\:
\|\, \nabla v^{[\,q\,]}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}^{\:\!2}
} $\
\
(3.6)\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\;
\mbox{\small $ {\displaystyle
2 \, q \;\!
\Bigl(\;\! 1 - \frac{1}{q} \,\Bigr) \,
B(t)
} $}
\:
\|\, v^{[\,q\,]}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\scriptstyle L^{2 \;\!+\;\!\frac{4\:\!\kappa}{q}}\!(\mathbb{R}^{n})}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle 1 \;\!+\;\! \frac{2\:\!\kappa}{q} }}
\;\!
\|\, \nabla v^{[\,q\,]}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
} $\
\
*para todo $ \;\! t \in (\,0, \;\!\mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\;\!\ast})
\,\mbox{\footnotesize $\setminus$}\, E_{q} $, sendo $ E_{q} \!\;\!\subset\!\;\! (\;\!0, \infty) $, $ |\,E_{q} \;\!|_{\mbox{}_{1}} \!\;\!=\;\! 0 $, dado na Proposição $2.3$.* [\
]{}[[**Prova:**]{} De (2.10), tem-se, por (1.2) e (1.3), (1.6), (2.7$b$), para $ t \in (\,0, \;\!\mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\;\!\ast})
\,\mbox{\footnotesize $\setminus$}\, E_{q} $:\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\frac{d}{d \:\!t} \;
\|\, u(\cdot,t) \,\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}^{\:\!q}
\:\!+\;
q \, (q - 1)
\:
\mu(t)
\!\!\;\!
\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}
\!\!\;\!
|\, u(x,t) \,|^{\:\!q - 2}
\:
|\, \nabla u \,|_{\mbox{}_{2}}^{\:\!2}
\:dx
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\;
q \,(q - 1)\,
B(t) \!
\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}
\!\!\;\!
|\, u(x,t) \,|^{\:\!q - 1 + \kappa}
\:
|\, \nabla u \,|_{\mbox{}_{2}}
\:dx
} $ $\,$por (1.2), (1.6), (2.10)$\,$\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\;
q \,(q - 1)\,
B(t) \;
\biggl\{\:\!
\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}
\!\!\;\!
|\, u(x,t) \,|^{\:\!q \;\!+\;\! 2\;\! \kappa}
\:dx
\;\!\biggr\}^{\!\!\;\!1/2}
\;\!
\biggl\{\:\!
\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}
\!\!\;\!
|\, u(x,t) \,|^{\:\!q \;\!-\;\! 2}
\,
|\, \nabla u \,|_{\mbox{}_{2}}^{\:\!2}
\:dx
\;\!\biggr\}^{\!\!\;\!1/2}
\!\!\!\!,
} $\
\
que, em termos da função $ \:\!v^{[\,q\,]}(\cdot,t) \:\!$ definida em (3.3), equivale a (3.6), como afirmado. ]{} $\Box$\
[\
]{}De (3.6), resulta a importante estimativa (3.8) abaixo, para $ \:\!q \:\!\geq\:\! 2 \;\!p_{\mbox{}_{0}} \!\;\!$ com $ \:\! q > 2 \;\!n\;\!\kappa $, usando-se as desigualdades de Nirenberg-Gagliardo\
\
$$\tag{3.7}
\|\:\mbox{v}\:
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{r}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\:\!\leq\;
\|\:\mbox{v}\:
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
^{1 - \theta}
\|\, \nabla \mbox{v}\:
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
^{\:\!\theta}
\!\;\!,
\qquad
\theta \;=\;
\frac{\mbox{\small 1} \:\mbox{\small $-$}\: \mbox{\small 1/}r}
{\mbox{\small 1/2} \;\mbox{\small +}\:\mbox{\small 1/}n}$$\
(ver e.g.$\;$[@Friedman1969], p.$\;$24), nos casos $ \;\!\mbox{\small $2$} \leq r < \mbox{\small $2$} + \mbox{\small $2$}/n $. Aplicando-se (3.7) para estimar $ {\displaystyle
\|\, v^{[\,q\,]}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\scriptstyle L^{2 \;\!+\;\!\frac{4\:\!\kappa}{q}}\!(\mathbb{R}^{n})}
\!
} $ no lado direito da desigualdade (3.6), Lema 3.1, obtém-se\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\frac{d}{d \:\!t} \:
\|\, v^{[\,q\,]}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}^{\:\!2}
\!\:\!+\;
\mbox{\small $ {\displaystyle
4 \;\! \Bigl(\:\! 1 - \frac{1}{q} \,\Bigr)
\, \mu(t)
} $}
\:
\|\, \nabla v^{[\,q\,]}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}^{\:\!2}
} $\
\
(3.8)\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\;
\mbox{\small $ {\displaystyle
2 \, q \;\!
\Bigl(\:\! 1 - \frac{1}{q} \,\Bigr)
\;\!
B(t)
} $}
\:
\|\, v^{[\,q\,]}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \:\!
\frac{2}{{\scriptstyle n}\;\!+\;\!2} \:
\frac{{\scriptstyle q} \;\!-\;\!
({\scriptstyle n} - 2) \;\!
{\scriptstyle \kappa}}
{{\scriptstyle q}} }}
\|\, \nabla v^{[\,q\,]}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \:\!
\frac{2}{{\scriptstyle n}\;\!+\;\!2} \:
\frac{({\scriptstyle n} + 1)\,{\scriptstyle q}
\,+\, 2 \;\!{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}}
{{\scriptstyle q}} }}
\hspace{-1.625cm},
} $\
\
para $ \:\! q \:\!\geq\:\! 2 \;\!p_{\mbox{}_{0}} \!\:\!$ satisfazendo $ \;\! q > 2 \;\!n \;\!\kappa $. (Esta última condição foi feita de modo a (3.8) poder ser útil: ela torna o expoente do termo $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\, \nabla v^{[\,q\,]}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!
} $ no lado direito da expressão (3.8) menor que 2 $\,$que é o expoente do mesmo termo no lado esquerdo$\,$. Posto de outra forma (equivalente): vamos deste ponto em diante supor sempre que se tenha $ q $ verificando $ \;\!q \geq 2 \;\!p $, com $ p \:\!\geq\:\! p_{\mbox{}_{0}} \!\;\!$ dado (fixo) satisfazendo$\;\!$[^6] [\
]{}\
$$\tag{3.9}
p \;\!\geq\;\! p_{\mbox{}_{0}}
\!\;\!,
\quad
\;\,
p \;\!>\;\!
n \;\! \kappa.$$\
Esta condição sobre $q$ permite que se prossiga a análise além da estimativa (3.8), como mostram os seguintes resultados.\
[\
]{}[**Lema 3.2.**]{} *Seja $\;\! q \:\!\geq\:\!2 \;\! p$, com $ \;\!p $ dado em $\;\!(3.9)$. Sendo $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
v^{[\,q\,]}(\cdot,t)
\in
L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})
\cap
L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{n})
} $ definida em $\;\!(3.3) $, tem-se\
*\
$ {\displaystyle
\frac{d}{d \:\!t} \;
\|\, v^{[\,q\,]}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}^{\:\!2}
\!\:\!+\;
\mbox{\small $ {\displaystyle
\frac{4}{n + 2} \,
\Bigl(\:\! 1 - \frac{1}{q} \,\Bigr) \;\!
\Bigl(\:\! 1 - \frac{2 \;\!n \:\! \kappa}{q} \;\!\Bigr)
} $}
\,
\mbox{\small $\mu(t)$}
\,
\|\, \nabla v^{[\,q\,]}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}^{\:\!2}
} $\
\
(3.10)\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\;
\mbox{\small $ {\displaystyle
\frac{4}{n + 2} \,
\Bigl(\:\! 1 - \frac{1}{q} \,\Bigr) \;\!
\Bigl(\:\! 1 - \frac{2 \;\!n \:\! \kappa}{q} \;\!\Bigr)
} $}
\,
\mbox{\small $ {\displaystyle
\Bigl(\;\! \frac{\;\!q\;\!}{2} \;\! \Bigr)
} $}^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!\!
\frac{({\scriptstyle n} + 2) \,{\scriptstyle q}}
{{\scriptstyle q} \;\!-\;\! 2 \;\!{\scriptstyle n \;\!\kappa}} }}
\hspace{-0.700cm}
\cdot
\hspace{+0.300cm}
\mbox{\small $\mu(t)$}
\;\!\;\!
\mbox{\small $ {\displaystyle
\Bigl(\, \frac{B(t)}{\mu(t)} \,\Bigr)
} $}^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!\!\!
\frac{({\scriptstyle n} + 2) \;\!{\scriptstyle q}}
{{\scriptstyle q} \;\!-\;\! 2 \;\!{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}} }}
\hspace{-0.650cm}
\cdot
\hspace{+0.300cm}
\|\, v^{[\,q\,]}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \:\! 2 \,\cdot\,
\left[\,
\frac{{\scriptstyle q} \;\!-\;\!
({\scriptstyle n} - 2) \;\!{\scriptstyle \kappa}}
{{\scriptstyle q} \;\!-\;\! 2 \;\!{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}}
\,\right]}}
\hspace{-1.200cm},
} $\
\
*para todo $ \;\! t \in (\,0, \;\!\mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\;\!\ast})
\,\mbox{\footnotesize $\setminus$}\, E_{q} $, sendo $ E_{q} \!\;\!\subset\!\;\! (\;\!0, \infty) $, $ |\,E_{q} \;\!|_{\mbox{}_{1}} \!\;\!=\;\! 0 $, dado na Proposição $2.3$.* [\
]{}[[**Prova:**]{} Considerando o termo no lado direito de (3.8), tem-se\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\mbox{\small $ {\displaystyle
2 \, q \;\!
\Bigl(\:\! 1 - \frac{1}{q} \,\Bigr)
\;\!
B(t)
} $}
\:
\|\, v^{[\,q\,]}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \:\!
\frac{2}{{\scriptstyle n}\;\!+\;\!2} \:
\frac{{\scriptstyle q} \,-\,
({\scriptstyle n} - 2) \;\!
{\scriptstyle \kappa}}
{{\scriptstyle q}} }}
\|\, \nabla v^{[\,q\,]}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \:\!
\frac{2}{{\scriptstyle n}\;\!+\;\!2} \:
\frac{({\scriptstyle n} + 1)\,{\scriptstyle q}
\,+\, 2 \;\!{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}}
{{\scriptstyle q}} }}
\hspace{-1.625cm}
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
=\;
\mbox{\small $ {\displaystyle
4 \,
\Bigl(\:\! 1 - \frac{1}{q} \,\Bigr)
} $}
\;
\Bigl[\;\,
\mbox{\small $ {\displaystyle
\frac{q}{2} \:
B(t) \;
\mu(t)}$}^{\scriptstyle \!\!-\,
\frac{({\scriptstyle n} + 1)\;\!{\scriptstyle q}
\,+\, 2 \;\!{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}}
{({\scriptstyle n} + 2)\;\!{\scriptstyle q}} }
\,
\|\, v^{[\,q\,]}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \:\!
\frac{2}{{\scriptstyle n}\;\!+\;\!2} \:
\frac{{\scriptstyle q} \,-\,
({\scriptstyle n} - 2) \;\!
{\scriptstyle \kappa}}
{{\scriptstyle q}} }}
\;\Bigr]
\;\times
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\times \;
\Bigl[\;\;\!
\mbox{\small $\mu(t)$}^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!\!
\frac{({\scriptstyle n} + 1)\;\!{\scriptstyle q}
\,+\, 2 \;\!{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}}
{({\scriptstyle n} + 2)\;\!{\scriptstyle q}} }}
\,
\|\, \nabla v^{[\,q\,]}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \:\!
\frac{2}{{\scriptstyle n}\;\!+\;\!2} \:
\frac{({\scriptstyle n} + 1)\,{\scriptstyle q}
\,+\, 2 \;\!{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}}
{{\scriptstyle q}} }}
\;\Bigr]
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq \;
\mbox{\small $ {\displaystyle
\frac{4}{n + 2} \,
\Bigl(\:\! 1 - \frac{1}{q} \,\Bigr) \;\!
\Bigl(\:\! 1 - \frac{2 \;\!n \:\! \kappa}{q} \;\!\Bigr)
} $}
\,
\mbox{\small $ {\displaystyle
\Bigl(\;\! \frac{\;\!q\;\!}{2} \;\! \Bigr)
} $}^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!\!
\frac{({\scriptstyle n} + 2) \,{\scriptstyle q}}
{{\scriptstyle q} \;\!-\;\! 2 \;\!{\scriptstyle n \;\!\kappa}} }}
\hspace{-0.700cm}
\cdot
\hspace{+0.300cm}
\mbox{\small $\mu(t)$}
\;\!\;\!
\mbox{\small $ {\displaystyle
\Bigl(\, \frac{B(t)}{\mu(t)} \,\Bigr)
} $}^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!\!\!
\frac{({\scriptstyle n} + 2) \;\!{\scriptstyle q}}
{{\scriptstyle q} \;\!-\;\! 2 \;\!{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}} }}
\hspace{-0.650cm}
\cdot
\hspace{+0.300cm}
\|\, v^{[\,q\,]}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \:\! 2 \,\cdot\,
\left[\,
\frac{{\scriptstyle q} \;\!-\;\!
({\scriptstyle n} - 2) \;\!{\scriptstyle \kappa}}
{{\scriptstyle q} \;\!-\;\! 2 \;\!{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}}
\,\right]}}
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
+ \;\,
\mbox{\small $ {\displaystyle
4 \,
\Bigl(\:\! 1 - \frac{1}{q} \,\Bigr)
\;
\frac{(n + 1)\;\!q \,+\, 2 \;\!n\;\!\kappa}
{(n + 2)\;\!q}
\;
\mu(t)
} $}
\:
\|\, \nabla v^{[\,q\,]}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}^{\:\!2}
} $\
\
aplicando-se (no último passo) a desigualdade elementar de Young (ver e.g.$\;$[@Evans2002], p.$\;$622). Estimando-se em (3.8) seu termo direito como realizado nesta prova, obtém-se (3.10). ]{} $\Box$ [\
]{}\
[**Lema 3.3.**]{} *Seja $\;\! q \:\!\geq\:\!2 \;\! p$, com $ \;\!p $ dado em $\;\!(3.9)$, e seja $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
v^{[\,q\,]}(\cdot,t)
\in
L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})
\cap
L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{n})
} $ dada em $\;\!(3.3) $. Se $ \;\! \hat{t} \in (\,0, \;\!\mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\;\!\ast})
\,\mbox{\footnotesize $\setminus$}\, E_{q} $ for tal que\
*\
$$\tag{3.11$a$}
\frac{d}{d \:\!t} \;
\|\, v^{[\,q\,]}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}^{\:\!2}
{\mbox{}_{\bigr|}}_{\mbox{}_{\mbox{\footnotesize $t = \:\!\hat{t}$}}}
\hspace{-0.700cm}
\geq\: 0,$$\
*então*\
\
$$\tag{3.11$b$}
\|\, v^{[\,q\,]}(\cdot,\hat{t}) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\;\!\leq\;
\mbox{\small $ {\displaystyle
K\!\;\!(n) } $}
\:
\mbox{\small $ {\displaystyle
\Bigl(\;\! \frac{\;\!q\;\!}{2} \;\! \Bigr)
} $}^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!\!\!\;\!
\frac{\scriptstyle n}{2} \,
\frac{\scriptstyle q}
{{\scriptstyle q} \;\!-\;\! 2 \;\!{\scriptstyle n \;\!\kappa}} }}
\hspace{-0.810cm}
\cdot
\hspace{+0.445cm}
\mbox{\small $ {\displaystyle
\Bigl(\, \frac{B(\hat{t})}{\mu(\hat{t})} \,\Bigr)
} $}^{\scriptstyle \!\!\!\;\!
\frac{\scriptstyle n}{2} \,
\frac{\scriptstyle q}
{{\scriptstyle q} \;\!-\;\! 2 \;\!{\scriptstyle n \;\!\kappa}} }
\hspace{-0.775cm}
\cdot
\hspace{+0.500cm}
\|\, v^{[\,q\,]}(\cdot,\hat{t}) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \:\!
\frac{{\scriptstyle q} \;\!-\;\!{\scriptstyle n \:\! \kappa}}
{{\scriptstyle q} \;\!-\;\! 2 \;\!{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}} }}
\hspace{-0.100cm},$$\
*onde $\,\!K\!\;\!(n) > 0 $ é a constante de Nash dada em $\;\!(3.2) $.\
* [\
]{}[[**Prova:**]{} De (3.10), Lema 3.2, obtém-se, usando a hipótese (3.11$a$) acima, a estimativa\
\
$$\tag{3.12}
\|\, \nabla v^{[\,q\,]}(\cdot,\hat{t}) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\;\!\leq\;
\mbox{\small $ {\displaystyle
\Bigl(\;\! \frac{\;\!q\;\!}{2} \;\! \Bigr)
} $}^{\scriptstyle \!
\frac{{\scriptstyle n} + 2}{2} \,
\frac{\scriptstyle q}
{{\scriptstyle q} \;\!-\;\! 2 \;\!{\scriptstyle n \;\!\kappa}} }
\;\!
\mbox{\small $ {\displaystyle
\Bigl(\, \frac{B(\hat{t})}{\mu(\hat{t})} \,\Bigr)
} $}^{\scriptstyle \!\!\!\!
\frac{{\scriptstyle n} + 2}{2} \,
\frac{\scriptstyle q}
{{\scriptstyle q} \;\!-\;\! 2 \;\!{\scriptstyle n \;\!\kappa}} }
\;\!
\|\, v^{[\,q\,]}(\cdot,\hat{t}) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \:\!
\frac{{\scriptstyle q} \;\!-\;\!({\scriptstyle n} - 2) \;\! {\scriptstyle \kappa} }
{{\scriptstyle q} \;\!-\;\! 2 \;\!{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}} }}
\hspace{-0.500cm},$$\
de onde segue o resultado (3.11$b$) aplicando-se a desigualdade (3.2) para $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\mbox{v} = v^{[\,q\,]}(\cdot,\hat{t})
} $. ]{} $\Box$\
[\
]{}Em termos da solução $ u(\cdot,t) $ do problema (2.1), o Lema 3.3 é escrito como segue.\
[\
]{}[**Lema 3..**]{} *Seja $\;\! q \:\!\geq\:\!2 \;\! p$, com $ \;\!p $ dado em $\;\!(3.9)$. Se $ \;\! \hat{t} \in (\,0, \;\!\mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\;\!\ast})
\,\mbox{\footnotesize $\setminus$}\, E_{q} $ for tal que\
*\
$$\tag{3.13$a$}
\frac{d}{d \:\!t} \;
\|\, u(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}^{\:\!q}
{\mbox{}_{\bigr|}}_{\mbox{}_{\mbox{\footnotesize $t = \:\!\hat{t}$}}}
\hspace{-0.700cm}
\geq\: 0,$$\
*então*\
\
$$\tag{3.13$b$}
\|\, u(\cdot,\hat{t}) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\;\!\leq\:
\mbox{\small $ {\displaystyle
K\!\;\!(n) } $}^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!
\frac{2}{\scriptstyle q} }}
\!\;\!
\mbox{\small $ {\displaystyle
\Bigl(\;\! \frac{\;\!q\;\!}{2} \;\! \Bigr)
} $}^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!\!\!\;\!
\frac{\scriptstyle n}
{{\scriptstyle q} \;\!-\;\! 2 \;\!{\scriptstyle n \;\!\kappa}} }}
\hspace{-0.700cm}
\cdot
\hspace{+0.300cm}
\mbox{\small $ {\displaystyle
\Bigl(\, \frac{B(\hat{t})}{\mu(\hat{t})} \,\Bigr)
} $}^{\scriptstyle \!\!\!\;\!
\frac{\scriptstyle n}
{{\scriptstyle q} \;\!-\;\! 2 \;\!{\scriptstyle n \;\!\kappa}} }
\hspace{-0.630cm}
\cdot
\hspace{+0.350cm}
\|\, u(\cdot,\hat{t}) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{q/2}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \:\!
\frac{{\scriptstyle q} \;\!-\;\!{\scriptstyle n \:\! \kappa}}
{{\scriptstyle q} \;\!-\;\! 2 \;\!{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}} }}
\hspace{-0.050cm},$$\
*onde $\,\!K\!\;\!(n) > 0 $ é a constante de Nash dada em $\;\!(3.2) $.\
*\
Os lemas acima indicam intuitivamente um caminho básico para a obtenção de resultados como (3.1) usando argumentos tipo $ L^{p}$-$\;\!L^{q}$: para cada $ \;\!q \geq 2 \,p_{\mbox{}_{0}} \!\;\!$, $ \:\!q > 2 \;\! n \:\!\kappa $, examina-se o comportamento (local) em $t$ de $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\, u(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}
\!\;\!
} $. Caso esteja [*crescendo*]{}, então $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\, u(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}
} $ pode ser estimada (localmente) em termos de $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\, u(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{L^{q/2}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}
\!\;\!
} $, por meio da desigualdade de energia (3.10), de acordo com o Lema 3.3$^{\prime}$; se estiver [*decrescendo*]{}, então (3.10) torna-se neste caso inútil, mas possivelmente esta situação possa ser compensada pelo fato de se saber que $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\, u(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{L^{q/2}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}
\!\;\!
} $ não esteja crescendo (momentaneamente, pelo menos). Em qualquer dos casos, sempre se possui alguma informação aparentemente importante sobre $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\, u(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}
\!\;\!
} $, embora varie (de modo complicado, provavelmente) com $q $ e $t$. Assim, não é evidente uma estratégia simples que indique como utilizar a informação disponível de modo eficaz. O próximo lema mostra precisamente como isso pode ser feito.
\
[**Lema 3.4.**]{} *$\!$Seja $\;\! q \:\!\geq 2 \;\! p$, com $ \:\!p $ dado em $\:\!(3.9)$. $\!$Sendo $\:\!u(\cdot,t) $, $ 0 \leq t < \mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\;\!\ast}\!\;\!$, $\!\;\!$solução do problema $\,\!(2.1) $, tem-se*\
\
$$\tag{3.14}
\mathbb{U}_{q}(0; t)
\;\!\leq\,
\max\,\biggl\{\,
\|\, u_0 \;\!\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\,\!;
\;\!\,\!
K\!\;\!(n)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!\frac{2}{\scriptstyle q} }}
\!\;\!
\Bigl(\;\! \mbox{\small $ {\displaystyle \frac{q}{2} }$}
\;\!\Bigr)^{\!\!\;\! \frac{\scriptstyle n}
{{\scriptstyle q} \;\!-\;\! 2\;\!{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}} }
\,
\mathbb{B}_{\mu}\!\;\!(0; t)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!
\frac{{\scriptstyle n}}{{\scriptstyle q} \;\!-\;\! 2 \;\!
{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}} }}
\;\!
\mathbb{U}_{\mbox{}_{\!\frac{\scriptstyle q}{2}}}\!
(0; t)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!
\frac{{\scriptstyle q} \;\!-\;\! {\scriptstyle n\:\!\kappa} }
{{\scriptstyle q} \;\!-\;\! 2 \;\!
{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}} }}
\:\!
\biggr\}$$\
*para todo $ \:\!0 \leq t < \mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\;\!\ast}\!\;\!$, $\!\;\!$onde $ \;\!\mathbb{B}_{\mu}\!\;\!(0\:\!; \:\!t) $, $ \!\;\!\mathbb{U}_{q}\!\;\!(0\:\!; \:\!t) $, $ \!\;\!\mathbb{U}_{\frac{\scriptstyle q}{2}}\!\;\!(0\:\!; \:\!t) $ são definidas em $\:\!(1.7)$ e $(\:\!1.8)$,\
e $K\!\;\!(n) $ é dada na desigualdade $\:\!(3.2)$.\
* [\
]{}\
[**Prova:**]{} Dado $ \;\!0 \leq t < \mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\;\!\ast}$, fixo no que segue, seja (por conveniência) $ \,\!\gamma_{q} \in \mathbb{R}^{\mbox{}^{+}}\!\!\;\!$ definido por\
\
$$\notag
\gamma_{q}
\,=\:
K\!\;\!(n)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!\frac{2}{\scriptstyle q} }}
\!\;\!
\Bigl(\;\! \mbox{\small $ {\displaystyle \frac{q}{2} }$}
\;\!\Bigr)^{\!\!\;\! \frac{\scriptstyle n}
{{\scriptstyle q} \;\!-\;\! 2\;\!{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}} }
\,
\mathbb{B}_{\mu}\!\;\!(0; t)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!
\frac{{\scriptstyle n}}{{\scriptstyle q} \;\!-\;\! 2 \;\!
{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}} }}
\;\!
\mathbb{U}_{\mbox{}_{\!\frac{\scriptstyle q}{2}}}\!
(0; t)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!
\frac{{\scriptstyle q} \;\!-\;\! {\scriptstyle n\:\!\kappa} }
{{\scriptstyle q} \;\!-\;\! 2 \;\!
{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}} }}$$\
e consideremos os casos possíveis para os valores de $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\, u(\cdot,\tau) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\:\!
} $ no intervalo $ 0 \leq \tau \leq t $:\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\, u(\cdot,\tau) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\:\!
>\;\!
\gamma_{q}
} $ para todo $ \;\!0 \leq \tau < t $.\
\
Neste caso, segue do Lema 3.$3^{\prime}$ que temos de ter $ {\displaystyle
\,
d/d\tau \,
\|\, u(\cdot,\tau) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}^{\:\!q}
\!\!\;\!<\:\!0
\;\!
} $ para quase todo\
$ \tau \in I \equiv [\,0, \:\!t\,] $, de modo que $ {\displaystyle
\,
\|\, u(\cdot,\tau) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\!\;\!
} $ é (estritamente) decrescente neste intervalo. Em particular, segue que $ {\displaystyle
\,
\|\, u(\cdot,\tau) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\;\!\leq\;\!
\|\, u_0 \;\!
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\;\!
} $ para todo $ \tau $ em $I$, ou seja, tem-se\
neste caso\
\
$$\notag
\mathbb{U}_{q}(0; t)
\,=\,
\|\, u_0 \;\!
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\;\!.$$\
$ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\, u_0 \;\!
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\:\!
>\;\!
\gamma_{q}
} $, $\;\!$tendo-se $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\, u(\cdot,t_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \ast}}\!\;\!) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\:\!
\leq\;\!
\gamma_{q}
} $ para algum $ \;\!0 < t_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \ast}} < t $.\
\
Neste caso, existe $ \;\!0 < t_{\mbox{}_{1}} \!\:\! \leq t_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \ast}} $ tal que $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\, u(\cdot,\tau) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\:\!
>
\gamma_{q}
} $ em $ [\,0, \:\!t_{\mbox{}_{1}} \!\;\!) $, $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\, u(\cdot, t_{\mbox{}_{1}} \!\;\!)\,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\:\!
=
\gamma_{q}
} $. Pelo Lema 3.$3^{\prime}\!\;\!$, segue repetindo o argumento acima que $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\, u(\cdot,\tau) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!
} $ tem de ser decrescente em $[\,0, \:\!t_{\mbox{}_{1}}] $. Por outro lado, no intervalo $ J \equiv [\, t_{\mbox{}_{1}} \!\;\!, \:\! t\;\!] \;\!$ temos de ter $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\, u(\cdot,\tau) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\leq
\gamma_{q}
} $ para todo $ \tau \in J $. $\,$De fato, se assim não fosse, teriam de existir $ \;\!t_{\mbox{}_{2}} \!\:\!< t_{\mbox{}_{3}} \in
[\;\!\:\!t_{\mbox{}_{1}}\!\;\!, \:\!t\,] $ tais que $ {\displaystyle
\|\, u(\cdot, \tau) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!>
\gamma_{q}
} $ para todo $ t_{\mbox{}_{2}} \!< \tau \leq t_{\mbox{}_{3}} \!\;\!$, tendo-se $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\, u(\cdot,t_{\mbox{}_{2}}\!\;\!) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!=
\gamma_{q}
} $. Assim, teria de existir $ t_{\mbox{}_{\ast\ast}} \!\!\:\!\in
(\,t_{\mbox{}_{2}}\!\;\!, \;\! t_{\mbox{}_{3}})
\setminus E_{q} $ com $ {\displaystyle
\,
d/d\tau \,
\|\, u(\cdot, \tau) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
^{\:\!q}
\!
} $ positiva em $ \:\!\tau = t_{\mbox{}_{\ast\ast}} \!\:\!$, de modo que, pelo\
Lema 3.$3^{\prime}\!\;\!$, valeria $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\, u(\cdot, t_{\mbox{}_{\ast\ast}}\!) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\leq \gamma_{q}
\!\;\!
} $, contradizendo o fato de ter-se $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\, u(\cdot, \tau) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!> \gamma_{q}
\!\;\!
} $ em todo o intervalo $ (\;\!t_{\mbox{}_{2}}\!\;\!, \:\!t_{\mbox{}_{3}}) $.$\,$ $\;\!$Portanto, tem-se também aqui $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\, u(\cdot,\tau) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\;\!\leq\;\!
\|\, u_0 \;\!
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\;\!
} $ para todo $ \tau \in [\,0, \:\!t\;\!] $, ou seja, obtém-se novamente $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\mathbb{U}_{q}(0; t)
\,=\,
\|\, u_0 \;\!
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\;\!
} $.\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\, u_0 \;\!
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\:\!
\leq\;\!
\gamma_{q}
} $.\
\
Neste caso, repetindo-se o argumento aplicado no [Caso]{} [II]{} acima para o intervalo $J\!\;\!$, resulta que se tem $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\, u(\cdot,\tau) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\,\!\leq
\gamma_{q}
\:\!
} $ em todo o intervalo $ \;\![\;\!0, \;\!t\;\!\,\!] $, de modo que, neste caso, tem-se
\
$$\notag
\mathbb{U}_{q}\!\;\!(0\:\!; \:\!t)
\:\leq\:
K\!\;\!(n)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!\frac{2}{\scriptstyle q} }}
\!\;\!
\Bigl(\;\! \mbox{\small $ {\displaystyle \frac{q}{2} }$}
\;\!\Bigr)^{\!\!\;\! \frac{\scriptstyle n}
{{\scriptstyle q} \;\!-\;\! 2\;\!{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}} }
\,
\mathbb{B}_{\mu}\!\;\!(0; t)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!
\frac{{\scriptstyle n}}{{\scriptstyle q} \;\!-\;\! 2 \;\!
{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}} }}
\;\!
\mathbb{U}_{\mbox{}_{\!\frac{\scriptstyle q}{2}}}\!
(0; t)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!
\frac{{\scriptstyle q} \;\!-\;\! {\scriptstyle n\:\!\kappa} }
{{\scriptstyle q} \;\!-\;\! 2 \;\!
{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}} }}
\hspace{-0.960cm}.$$\
Em todos os casos, tem-se sempre (3.14) acima, o que conclui a prova do Lema 3.4.
$\Box$\
\
Para os resultados seguintes, será conveniente introduzir, para cada $ 1 \leq j \leq m $, $ p \geq p_{\mbox{}_{0}} \!\;\!$, $ p > n \:\!\kappa $, a constante $ \:\!C(j,m) \,\equiv\, C(j,m\:\!; n,p,\kappa) > 0 \;\!$ definida por\
\
$$\tag{3.15$a$}
C(j,m)
\,:=\;
\prod_{\ell\,=\,j}^{m}
\,
\lambda(\,\!2^{\ell}p\,\!)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!\!\;\!
\frac{\,{\scriptstyle p} \:-\:
2^{\mbox{}^{-\;\!m}} \!\:\!{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}}
{{\scriptstyle p} \;-\;
2^{\mbox{}^{-\;\!\ell}} \!\;\!{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}}
}}
$$\
sendo\
\
$$\tag{3.15$b$}
\lambda(q)
\,\equiv\,
\lambda(n, \:\!\kappa, \:\!q)
\;\!:=\;
K\!\;\!(n)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!\frac{2}{\scriptstyle q} }}
\Bigl(\;\! \mbox{\small $ {\displaystyle \frac{\mbox{\normalsize $q$}}{2} }$}
\;\!\Bigr)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!\!
\frac{\scriptstyle n}
{{\scriptstyle q} \;\!-\;\! 2\;\!{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}}
}}
$$\
para todo $ q \geq 2 \,\!\,\!p $, onde $ K\!\;\!(n) > 0 $ denota a constante de Nash na desigualdade (3.2).\
[\
]{}[**Lema 3.5.**]{} *$\!$Seja $\;\! p \:\!\geq\;\! p_{\mbox{}_{0}} \!\;\!$, $ \:\!p > n \:\! \kappa $. $\!$Sendo $\:\!u(\cdot,t) $, $ 0 \leq t < \mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\;\!\ast}\!\;\!$, $\!\;\!$solução de $\,\!(2.1) $, tem-se*\
\
$$\tag{3.16$a$}
\mathbb{U}_{2\:\!p}(0; t)
\;\!\leq\,
\max\,\biggl\{\,
\|\, u_0 \;\!\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2\:\!p}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\,\!;
\;\!\,\!
\lambda(2\:\!p)
\:
\mathbb{B}_{\mu}\!\;\!(0; t)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!
\frac{{\scriptstyle n}}{2\;\!{\scriptstyle p} \;\!-\;\! 2 \;\!
{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}} }}
\;\!
\mathbb{U}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!p}}
(0; t)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!
\frac{2 \;\!{\scriptstyle p} \;\!-\;\! {\scriptstyle n\:\!\kappa} }
{2\;\!{\scriptstyle p} \;\!-\;\! 2 \;\!
{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}} }}
\:\!
\biggr\}$$\
*e, mais geralmente, para todo $ \;\! m \geq 2 \!:$*\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\mathbb{U}_{2^{\mbox{}^{m}}\!p}(0; t)
\;\!\leq\,
\max\;\biggl\{\;\!\;\!
\|\, u_0 \;\!
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2^{m}p}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\:\!;
\;\;\!
C(j,m)
\;\:\!
\mathbb{B}_{\mu}\!\;\!(0; t)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle
\!\!\!
\frac{\;\!{\scriptstyle p} \:-\;
{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}\:\!/\;\!2^{m}}
{{\scriptstyle p}}
\;\!
\left[\;
\frac{2\;\!{\scriptstyle n}}{\;\!2^{j}{\scriptstyle p}
\,-\, 2{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}}
\:-\;
\frac{\scriptstyle n}{2^{m}{\scriptstyle p}
\,-\, {\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}} \,
\right] }}
\,
\times
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\times
\;\;\!
\|\, u_0 \;\!
\|_{{\scriptstyle L^{2^{j}p/2}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle
\frac{\;\!{\scriptstyle p} \:-\;
{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}\:\!/\;\!2^{m}}
{\;\!{\scriptstyle p} \:-\; 2 \;\!
{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}\:\!/\;\!2^{\:\!j}}
}}
\!\!\:\!,
\hspace{+0.400cm}
2 \;\!\leq\;\! j \;\!\leq\;\! m
\;\!;
} $ (3.16$b$)\
\
$ {\displaystyle
C(1,m)
\;\:\!
\mathbb{B}_{\mu}\!\;\!(0; t)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle
\!\!\!\;\!
\frac{\;\!{\scriptstyle n}
\,(\;\!1 \:-\; 2^{-\;\!m})}
{\;\!{\scriptstyle p} \,-\: {\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}}
}}
\:\!
\mathbb{U}_{p}(0; t)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle
\!\!\!\;\!
\frac{\;\!{\scriptstyle p} \:-\;
{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}\:\!/\;\!2^{m}}
{{\scriptstyle p} \:-\; {\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}}
}}
\;
\biggr\}
\:\!
} $,\
\
*onde $\:\! C(j,m) $, $ 1 \leq j \leq m $, são as constantes dadas em $\;\!(3.15)$, com $ \;\!\mathbb{B}_{\mu}\!\;\!(0; t) $, $ \mathbb{U}_{q}\!\;\!(0; t) $ definidas em $\;\!(1.7) $, $(1.8)$.\
* [\
]{}[[**Prova:**]{} A expressão (3.16$a$) corresponde a (3.14) do Lema 3.4 acima, tomando-se simplesmente $ q = 2 p $; a prova de (3.16$b$) é realizada por indução em $m$, como indicado a seguir. Para $ m = 2 $, (3.16$b$) é obtida combinando-se (3.16$a$) e $\,$(3.14), com $ q = 4 \:\!p \,$. Dado $ m \geq 3 $ arbitrário, supondo-se que (3.16$b$) seja válida para inteiros menores que $m$, obtém-se, pelo Lema 3.4, tomando-se $ q = 2^{m} p $ em (3.14),\
\
$$\notag
\mathbb{U}_{2^{m}p}(0; t)
\;\!\leq\,
\max\,\biggl\{\,
\|\, u_0 \;\!\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2^{m}p}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\,\!;
\;\:\!
\lambda(2^{m}p)
\;
\mathbb{B}_{\mu}\!\;\!(0\:\!; \:\!t)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!
\frac{{\scriptstyle n}}{\;\!2^{m}p \;\!-\;\! 2 \;\!
{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}} }}
\;\!
\mathbb{U}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!2^{m-1}p}}\!
(0\:\!; \:\!t)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \!
\frac{\;\!{\scriptstyle p} \:-\;
{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}\:\!/\;\!2^{m}}
{\;\!{\scriptstyle p} \:-\; 2 \;\!
{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}\:\!/\;\!2^{m}}
}}
\:\!
\biggr\},$$\
de onde a expressão (3.16$b$) segue aplicando-se a hipótese de indução para $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\mathbb{U}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle \!2^{m-1}p}}\!
(0\:\!; \:\!t)
} $. ]{} $\Box$\
\
Antes de prosseguir, será útil estimar as constantes $ C(j,m) $ definidas em (3.15). Observando as somas elementares abaixo,\
\
$$\tag{3.17$a$}
\sum_{\ell \,=\, 1}^{m}
\;\!
\mbox{\small $ {\displaystyle
\frac{2^{\ell} \:\!p}
{\;\!(\:\!2^{\ell}\:\!p \:\!-\;\! 2 \;\! n \:\! \kappa\:\!)
\, (\:\!2^{\ell}\:\!p \:\!-\;\! n \:\! \kappa\:\!)\;\!}
\;\;\!=\;\;\!
\frac{1}{\;\!p \:\!-\;\! n \:\!\kappa \;\!}
\;-\;
\frac{1}{\;\!2^{m}\:\! p \:\!-\;\! n \:\!\kappa \;\!}
} $}
\;\!,
\mbox{} \hspace{+0.200cm}$$
\
$$\tag{3.17$b$}
\sum_{\ell \,=\, 1}^{m}
\;\!
\mbox{\small $ {\displaystyle
\frac{\ell \;\!\cdot\, 2^{\ell} \:\!p}
{\;\!(\:\!2^{\ell}\:\!p \:\!-\;\! 2 \;\! n \:\! \kappa\:\!)
\, (\:\!2^{\ell}\:\!p \:\!-\;\! n \:\! \kappa\:\!)\;\!}
\;\;\!=\;\;\!
\frac{1}{\;\!p \:\!-\;\! n \:\!\kappa \;\!}
\;-\;
\frac{m \;\!+\;\!1}{\;\!2^{m}\:\! p \:\!-\;\! n \:\!\kappa \;\!}
} $}
\;+\,
\sum_{\ell \,=\, 1}^{m}
\;\!
\mbox{\small $ {\displaystyle
\frac{1}{\;\!2^{j}\:\! p \:\!-\;\! n \:\!\kappa \;\!}
} $}
\;\!,
\mbox{} \hspace{+0.200cm}$$\
resulta a seguinte estimativa básica para os coeficientes $ C(j,m) $ em (3.15), (3.16).\
[**Lema 3.6.**]{} *$\!$Sejam $ \;\!p > n \:\! \kappa $, $ m \geq 2 $. Então, para $\:\!C(j,m) $ dado em $\;\!(3.15)$, tem-se\
*\
$$\tag{3.18}
C(j,m)
\;\leq\;
\bigl(\;\! 2 \;\!p \;\!
\bigr)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle
\!
\frac{{\scriptstyle n}}
{\;\!{\scriptstyle p} \;\!-\;\! {\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}}
}}
\equiv\:
K\!\;\!(n, \,\!\kappa, \,\!p),
\qquad \,
\forall \;\,
1 \;\!\leq\;\!j \;\!\leq\;\! m.$$\
[[**Prova:**]{} Como $ K\!\;\!(n) < 1 $ para todo $n$ $\;\!$(cf.$\;$[@CarlenLoss1993], p.$\;$213) obtém-se, de (3.15):\
\
$$\notag
C(j,m)
\;\;\!\leq\;\;\!
p^{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle
\!
\frac{\,\!(\:\!2^{m}\:\!{\scriptstyle p}
\,-\, {\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}\:\!)\,\!}
{2^{\mbox{}^{m}} \!\;\!{\scriptstyle p}}
\;\!
\mbox{\scriptsize
$ {\displaystyle
\sum_{\ell\,=\,j}^{m}
\;\!
\frac{2^{\ell} \:\!{\scriptstyle p \, n}}
{\,\!(\:\!2^{\ell} {\scriptstyle p} -
2 \;\! {\scriptstyle n \:\! \kappa}\:\!)
\, (\:\!2^{\ell} {\scriptstyle p} -
{\scriptstyle n \:\! \kappa}\:\!)\,\!}
} $}
}}
\;\!\times\;
2^{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle
\!\!
\frac{\,\!(\:\!2^{m}\:\!{\scriptstyle p}
\,-\, {\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}\:\!)\,\!}
{2^{\mbox{}^{m}} \!\;\!{\scriptstyle p}}
\;\!
\mbox{\scriptsize
$ {\displaystyle
\sum_{\ell\,=\,j}^{m}
\;\!
\frac{{\scriptstyle \ell} \cdot
2^{\ell} \:\!{\scriptstyle p \, n}}
{\,\!(\:\!2^{\ell} {\scriptstyle p} -
2 \;\! {\scriptstyle n \:\! \kappa}\:\!)
\, (\:\!2^{\ell} {\scriptstyle p} -
{\scriptstyle n \:\! \kappa}\:\!)\,\!}
} $}
}}
,
$$\
de onde segue a estimativa (3.18), visto que\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\frac{\,\!2^{m} \,\!p - n \:\!\kappa \,\!}
{2^{m} p}
\,
\sum_{\ell \,=\, j}^{m}
\;\!
\mbox{\small $ {\displaystyle
\frac{2^{\ell} \:\!p}
{\;\!(\:\!2^{\ell}\:\!p \:\!-\;\! 2 \;\! n \:\! \kappa\:\!)
\, (\:\!2^{\ell}\:\!p \:\!-\;\! n \:\! \kappa\:\!)\;\!}
\;\,\!\leq\,
\sum_{\ell \,=\, 1}^{m}
\;\!
\mbox{\small $ {\displaystyle
\frac{2^{\ell} \:\!p}
{\;\!(\:\!2^{\ell}\:\!p \:\!-\;\! 2 \;\! n \:\! \kappa\:\!)
\, (\:\!2^{\ell}\:\!p \:\!-\;\! n \:\! \kappa\:\!)\;\!}
} $}
\;\,\!\leq\;\,\!
\frac{1}{\,\!p - n \:\!\kappa\,\!}
} $}
} $\
\
e\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\frac{\,\!2^{m} \,\!p - n \:\!\kappa \,\!}
{2^{m} p}
\,
\sum_{\ell \,=\, j}^{m}
\;\!
\mbox{\small $ {\displaystyle
\frac{\ell \;\!\cdot\, 2^{\ell} \:\!p}
{\;\!(\:\!2^{\ell}\:\!p \:\!-\;\! 2 \;\! n \:\! \kappa\:\!)
\, (\:\!2^{\ell}\:\!p \:\!-\;\! n \:\! \kappa\:\!)\;\!}
\;\,\!\leq\,
\sum_{\ell \,=\, 1}^{m}
\;\!
\mbox{\small $ {\displaystyle
\frac{\ell \;\!\cdot\, 2^{\ell} \:\!p}
{\;\!(\:\!2^{\ell}\:\!p \:\!-\;\! 2 \;\! n \:\! \kappa\:\!)
\, (\:\!2^{\ell}\:\!p \:\!-\;\! n \:\! \kappa\:\!)\;\!}
} $}
\;\,\!\leq\;\,\!
\frac{1}{\,\!p - n \:\!\kappa\,\!}
} $}
} $\
\
(devido a (3.17) acima). $\,$Note-se que estimativas mais finas para $ C(j,m) $ também podem ser obtidas, de modo análogo, mas este ponto não é essencial no argumento a seguir.$\,$ ]{} $\Box$\
\
Usando-se as expressões (3.15), (3.16$b$) e (3.18) acima, obtém-se uma estimativa mais simples para $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\mathbb{U}_{2^{\mbox{}^{m}}\!p}(0\:\!; \:\!t)
} $, descrita em (3.19) abaixo. Esta estimativa representa o passo final para estabelecermos o Teorema 3.1.\
\
[\
]{}\
[[**Prova:**]{} Se $ m = 1 $, o resultado segue imediatamente de (3.15$b$), (3.16$a$), já que $ \lambda(2\:\!p) \leq K\!\;\!(n,\kappa,p) $. Consideremos, assim, $ m \geq 2 $. Dado $ 2 \leq j \leq m $, obtém-se, então, estimando-se $ {\displaystyle
\|\, u_0 \;\!
\|_{L^{2^{j}p/2}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}
\!\;\!
} $ por interpolação com respeito às duas normas $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\, u_0 \;\!
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\;\!
} $ e $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\, u_0 \;\!
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2^{m}p}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\;\!
} $ (e usando (3.18) acima):\
\
$ {\displaystyle
C(j,m)
\;\:\!
\mathbb{B}_{\mu}\!\;\!(0; t)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle
\!\!\!
\frac{\;\!{\scriptstyle p} \:-\;
{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}\:\!/\;\!2^{m}}
{{\scriptstyle p}}
\;\!
\left[\;
\frac{2\;\!{\scriptstyle n}}{\;\!2^{j}{\scriptstyle p}
\,-\, 2{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}}
\:-\;
\frac{\scriptstyle n}{2^{m}{\scriptstyle p}
\,-\, {\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}} \,
\right] }}
\,
\|\, u_0 \;\!
\|_{{\scriptstyle L^{2^{j}p/2}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle
\frac{\;\!{\scriptstyle p} \:-\;
{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}\:\!/\;\!2^{m}}
{\;\!{\scriptstyle p} \:-\; 2 \;\!
{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}\:\!/\;\!2^{\:\!j}}
}}
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\;
K\!\;\!(n,\kappa,p)
\;
\biggl[\;\,
\|\, u_0 \;\!
\|_{{\scriptstyle L^{2^{m}p}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle
\frac{\;\!{\scriptstyle p} \:-\;
{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}\:\!/\;\!2^{m}}
{\;\!{\scriptstyle p} \:-\; 2 \;\!
{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}\:\!/\;\!2^{\:\!j}}
\,
\frac{\,\!1 - 2^{-j + 1}}
{1 \,-\, 2^{-m}}
}}
\;
\biggr]
\;\times
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\times \;
\biggl[\;\,
\mathbb{B}_{\mu}\!\;\!(0; t)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle
\!\!\!
\frac{\;\!{\scriptstyle p} \:-\;
{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}\:\!/\;\!2^{m}}
{{\scriptstyle p}}
\;\!
\left[\;
\frac{2\;\!{\scriptstyle n}}{\;\!2^{j}{\scriptstyle p}
\,-\, 2{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}}
\:-\;
\frac{\scriptstyle n}{2^{m}{\scriptstyle p}
\,-\, {\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}} \,
\right]
}}
\;\!
\|\, u_0 \;\!
\|_{{\scriptstyle L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle
\frac{\;\!{\scriptstyle p} \:-\;
{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}\:\!/\;\!2^{m}}
{\;\!{\scriptstyle p} \:-\; 2 \;\!
{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}\:\!/\;\!2^{\:\!j}}
\,
\frac{\,\!2^{-j + 1} -\, 2^{-m}}
{1 \,-\, 2^{-m}}
}}
\;
\biggr]
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\;
\theta \,\!\cdot\;\!
K\!\;\!(n,\kappa,p) \;
\|\, u_0 \;\!
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle
L^{2^{m}p}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\!\;\!+\,
(1 - \theta)
\,\!\cdot\;\!
K\!\;\!(n,\kappa,p) \;
\mathbb{B}_{\mu}\!\;\!(0; t)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle
\!\!\!\;\!
\frac{\;\!{\scriptstyle n}
\,(\;\!1 \:-\; 2^{-\;\!m})}
{\;\!{\scriptstyle p} \,-\: {\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}}
}}
\:\!
\|\, u_0 \;\!
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle
L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle
\!\!\!\;\!
\frac{\;\!{\scriptstyle p} \:-\;
{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}\:\!/\;\!2^{m}}
{{\scriptstyle p} \:-\; {\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}}
}}
} $\
\
pela desigualdade de Young ([@Evans2002], p.$\;$622), onde $ \;\! \theta \in (\;\!0, 1\,\!) \;\!$ é dado por\
\
$$\notag
\theta
\;=\;
\frac{\,\! 1 - 2^{-\;\!j + 1}}
{1 - 2^{-\;\!m}}
\:
\frac{\,\!p \;\!-\;\! n \:\!\kappa/2^{m}}
{\,\!p \;\!-\;\! 2 \;\!n \:\!\kappa/2^{j}}
\:\!.$$\
Assim, de (3.16$b$) e (3.18), segue que, denotando $ K \!\;\!\equiv K\!\;\!(n,\kappa,p) $:\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\mathbb{U}_{2^{m}p}(0\:\!; \:\!t)
\;\leq\;
\max \;
\biggl\{\;\:\!
\|\, u_0 \;\!
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2^{m}p}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\:\!;
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\theta \,\!\cdot\;\!
K \;
\|\, u_0 \;\!
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle
L^{2^{m}p}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\!\;\!+\,
(1 - \theta)
\,\!\cdot\;\!
K \;
\mathbb{B}_{\mu}\!\;\!(0; t)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle
\!\!\!\;\!
\frac{\;\!{\scriptstyle n}
\,(\;\!1 \:-\; 2^{-\;\!m})}
{\;\!{\scriptstyle p} \,-\: {\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}}
}}
\:\!
\|\, u_0 \;\!
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle
L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle
\!\!\!\;\!
\frac{\;\!{\scriptstyle p} \:-\;
{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}\:\!/\;\!2^{m}}
{{\scriptstyle p} \:-\; {\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}}
}}
\:\!;
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
K \;
\mathbb{B}_{\mu}\!\;\!(0; t)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle
\!\!\!\;\!
\frac{\;\!{\scriptstyle n}
\,(\;\!1 \:-\; 2^{-\;\!m})}
{\;\!{\scriptstyle p} \,-\: {\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}}
}}
\:\!
\mathbb{U}_{p}(0\:\!;\:\!t)
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle
\!\!\!\;\!
\frac{\;\!{\scriptstyle p} \:-\;
{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}\:\!/\;\!2^{m}}
{{\scriptstyle p} \:-\; {\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}}
}}
\;
\biggr\}
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\;
K
\cdot\;
\max \;
\biggl\{\;\:\!
\|\, u_0 \;\!
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2^{m}p}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\:\!;
\;\;\!
\mathbb{B}_{\mu}\!\;\!(0; t)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle
\!\!\!\;\!
\frac{\;\!{\scriptstyle n}
\,(\;\!1 \:-\; 2^{-\;\!m})}
{\;\!{\scriptstyle p} \,-\: {\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}}
}}
\:\!
\mathbb{U}_{p}(0\:\!;\:\!t)
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle
\!\!\!\;\!
\frac{\;\!{\scriptstyle p} \:-\;
{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}\:\!/\;\!2^{m}}
{{\scriptstyle p} \:-\; {\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa}}
}}
\;
\biggr\}
} $\
\
para todo $ \;\! 0 \leq t < T_{\!\;\!\ast} \!\;\! $, como afirmado. Isso conclui a prova do Lema 3.7. ]{} $\Box$\
\
Do Lema 3.7, pode-se finalmente obter a estimativa (3.1), sendo apenas necessário que se tome $ \;\!m \rightarrow \infty \;\!$ em (3.19), pelo fato de se ter\
\
$$\tag{3.20}
\lim_{q\,\rightarrow\,\infty}
\mathbb{U}_{\!\;\!q}(0\:\!;\:\!t)
\;=\;
\mathbb{U}_{\infty}\!\;\!(0\:\!;\:\!t).$$\
Isso conclui a prova do Teorema 3.1, que ocupou toda a discussão da presente seção.
\
[**4. Condições de existência global**]{}\
Nesta seção, vamos aplicar a análise acima de modo a obter condições garantindo existência global (i.e., $ \mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\;\!\ast} \!\;\! = \infty $) das soluções $ u(\cdot,t) $ do problema (1.1)$\;\!$-$\;\!$(1.3), ou seja,\
$$\tag{4.1$a$}
u_t \,+\;
\mbox{div}\,
\bigl(\;\! \mbox{\boldmath $b$}(x,t,u) \, |\;\!u\;\!|^{\:\!\kappa} \:\! u \;\!
\bigr)
\:+\:
\mbox{div} \,
\mbox{\boldmath $f$}(t,u)
\;=\;
\mbox{div}\,\bigl(\;\!
A(x,t,u) \;\! \nabla u \;\!\bigr),
$$\
$$\tag{4.1$b$}
u(\cdot,0) \,=\,
u_0 \in L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})
\cap L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{n}),$$\
sendo $ A $ (tensor difusivo) e $ \;\!\mbox{\boldmath $b$}, \mbox{\boldmath $f$} \!\;\!$ (campos vetoriais) suaves satisfazendo (1.2) e (1.3). Um exemplo de condições de existência global é dado no Teorema 4.1 a seguir, onde (ver (1.7), Seção 1)\
\
$$\tag{4.2}
\mathbb{B}_{\!\;\!\mu}\!\;\!(0\:\!; \:\!\infty)
\;=\;\;\!
\sup_{t \,\geq\,0} \;
\mbox{\small $ {\displaystyle
\frac{B(t)}{\mu(t)}
} $}
\:\leq\;\! \infty.$$\
[\
]{}[\
]{}
[**Prova:**]{} O caso ([*i*]{}), já considerado no [Teorema A]{} da Seção 1, é consequência imediata da propriedade (2.4) e do Teorema 3.1 (tomando-se $ \;\!p = 1 $ em (3.1)). Nos casos ([*ii*]{}) e ([*iii*]{}), podemos proceder do seguinte modo. Da desigualdade (3.8) $\,$reescrita em termos de $ u(\cdot,t) $, usando (3.4), (3.5)$\,$, obtém-se, considerando $ \;\! q = 2 \;\! n \:\! \kappa \geq 2 $,\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\frac{d}{d\:\!t} \;
\|\, u(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2\;\!n\:\!\kappa}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
^{\:\! 2 \;\! n \:\!\kappa}
\!+\,
2\;\!n \:\!\kappa \,
(2\;\!n \:\!\kappa - 1) \;
\mu(t)
\!
\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}
\!\!\:\!
|\, u(x,t) \,|^{\:\!2\;\!n \:\!\kappa \;\!-\;\!2}
\,
|\, \nabla u \,|^{\:\!2}
\: dx
} $ (4.4)\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\;
n \:\! \kappa \;
\frac{B(t)}{\mu(t)} \;
\|\, u(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{n\:\!\kappa}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
^{\:\!\kappa}
\;\!
\Bigl\{\,
2\;\!n \:\!\kappa \,
(2\;\!n \:\!\kappa - 1) \;
\mu(t)
\!
\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}
\!\!\:\!
|\, u(x,t) \,|^{\:\!2\;\!n \:\!\kappa \;\!-\;\!2}
\,
|\, \nabla u \,|^{\:\!2}
\: dx
\;\!\Bigr\}
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\;
n \:\! \kappa \;
\mathbb{B}_{\!\;\!\mu}\!\;\!(0\:\!; \infty)
\:
\|\, u(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{n\:\!\kappa}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
^{\:\!\kappa}
\;\!
\Bigl\{\,
2\;\!n \:\!\kappa \,
(2\;\!n \:\!\kappa - 1) \;
\mu(t)
\!
\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}
\!\!\:\!
|\, u(x,t) \,|^{\:\!2\;\!n \:\!\kappa \;\!-\;\!2}
\,
|\, \nabla u \,|^{\:\!2}
\: dx
\;\!\Bigr\}
} $\
\
para todo $ \;\!t \in (\:\!0, \:\!T_{\!\;\!\ast}\!\;\!) \setminus
E_{2\;\!n \:\!\kappa} $, de modo que temos $ {\displaystyle
\,
\|\, u(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2 \;\!n\:\!\kappa}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!
} $ decrescente em $\;\![\,0, \:\!T\;\!] $
\
sempre que tivermos\
\
$$\tag{4.5}
n \:\! \kappa \:\,\!
\mathbb{B}_{\!\;\!\mu}\!\;\!(0\:\!; \infty)
\:
\|\, u(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{n\:\!\kappa}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
^{\:\!\kappa}
\;\!\leq\:
1,
\qquad
\forall \;\,
t \in [\,0, \;\!T\;\!].$$\
No caso ([*ii*]{}), esta condição é simplesmente $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\mathbb{B}_{\mu}\!\;\!(0\:\!; \infty)^{\:\!n}
\:\!
\|\, u(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\;\!\leq\:\!
1
} $, que é automaticamente satisfeita em qualquer intervalo $ \,\![\,0, \:\!T\:\!]\,\! $ se for satisfeita em $ \:\!t = 0 $, devido a (2.4). Isso mostra que $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\, u(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\;\!
} $ é monotonicamente decrescente em $ \,\![\,0, \:\!T_{\!\;\!\ast}\!\;\!) \,\! $ caso se tenha $ {\displaystyle
\mathbb{B}_{\mu}\!\;\!(0\:\!; \infty)^{\:\!n}
\:\!
\|\, u_0 \;\!
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\;\!\leq\:\!
1
} $. Pelo Teorema 3.1, $ {\displaystyle
\|\, u(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\!\;\!
} $ é controlada (como $ \:\!n \:\!\kappa = 1 $)\
por $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\, u(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\;\!
} $, e, assim sendo, $ {\displaystyle
\|\, u(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\!\;\!
} $ tem de permanecer limitada em qualquer intervalo limitado. Logo, não se pode ter $ \;\!T_{\!\;\!\ast} < \infty \:\!$ neste caso, como afirmado em ([*ii*]{}).\
Finalmente, consideremos o caso ([*iii*]{}). Observando que (por interpolação) tem-se\
\
$ {\displaystyle
n \:\! \kappa \:\,\!
\mathbb{B}_{\!\;\!\mu}\!\;\!(0\:\!; \infty)
\:
\|\, u(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{n\:\!\kappa}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
^{\:\!\kappa}
\:\!\leq\,\:\!
n \:\! \kappa \:\,\!
\mathbb{B}_{\!\;\!\mu}\!\;\!(0\:\!; \infty)
\:
\|\, u(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle
\frac{1}{\,\!2 \;\!{\scriptstyle n} \;\!-\;\!1/{\scriptstyle \kappa}}}}
\|\, u(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2\:\!n\:\!\kappa}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle
\frac{2 \;\!{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa} \;\!-\;\!2}
{\,\!2 \;\!{\scriptstyle n} \;\!-\;\!1/{\scriptstyle \kappa}}}}
} $ (4.6)\
\
e também (novamente, por interpolação)\
\
$ {\displaystyle
n \:\! \kappa \:\,\!
\mathbb{B}_{\!\;\!\mu}\!\;\!(0\:\!; \infty)
\:
\|\, u(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle
\frac{1}{\,\!2 \;\!{\scriptstyle n} \;\!-\;\!1/{\scriptstyle \kappa}}}}
\|\, u(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2\:\!n\:\!\kappa}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle
\frac{2 \;\!{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa} \;\!-\;\!2}
{\,\!2 \;\!{\scriptstyle n} \;\!-\;\!1/{\scriptstyle \kappa}}}}
\!\;\!<\:
n \:\! \kappa \:\,\!
\mathbb{B}_{\!\;\!\mu}\!\;\!(0\:\!; \infty)
\:
\|\, u(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \frac{1}{\scriptstyle n} }}
\:\!
\|\, u(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{\infty}}}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle \kappa \;\!-\;\! \frac{1}{\scriptstyle n} }}
} $\
\
(4.7)\
\
para todo $\;\!t \in [\,0, T_{\!\;\!\ast}\!\;\!) $, obtemos, por (4.3) e (4.7),\
\
$$\tag{4.8}
n \:\! \kappa \:\,\!
\mathbb{B}_{\!\;\!\mu}\!\;\!(0\:\!; \infty)
\:
\|\, u(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle
\frac{1}{\,\!2 \;\!{\scriptstyle n} \;\!-\;\!1/{\scriptstyle \kappa}}}}
\|\, u(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2\:\!n\:\!\kappa}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle
\frac{2 \;\!{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa} \;\!-\;\!2}
{\,\!2 \;\!{\scriptstyle n} \;\!-\;\!1/{\scriptstyle \kappa}}}}
\!\;\!<\:
1$$\
para todo $\;\!t \in [\,0, T_{\!\;\!\ast}\!\;\!) $ suficientemente próximo de zero. Afirmamos que (4.8) acima tem de ser verdadeira para todo $\;\!t \in [\,0, T_{\!\;\!\ast}\!\;\!) $. $\,$De fato, se não fosse, existiria $\;\!T_{\mbox{}_{1}} \!\in (\:\!0, T_{\!\;\!\ast}\!\;\!) $ tal que se teria\
\
$ {\displaystyle
n \:\! \kappa \:\,\!
\mathbb{B}_{\!\;\!\mu}\!\;\!(0\:\!; \infty)
\:
\|\, u(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle
\frac{1}{\,\!2 \;\!{\scriptstyle n} \;\!-\;\!1/{\scriptstyle \kappa}}}}
\|\, u(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2\:\!n\:\!\kappa}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle
\frac{2 \;\!{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa} \;\!-\;\!2}
{\,\!2 \;\!{\scriptstyle n} \;\!-\;\!1/{\scriptstyle \kappa}}}}
\!\;\!<\:
1,
\quad \;\;\,
\forall \;\,
0 \;\!\leq\;\! t \;\!<\;\! T_{\mbox{}_{1}}\!\;\!
} $, (4.9)\
\
enquanto $ {\displaystyle
\,
n \:\! \kappa \:\,\!
\mathbb{B}_{\!\;\!\mu}\!\;\!(0\:\!; \infty)
\:
\|\, u(\cdot,T_{\mbox{}_{1}}) \,
\|_{\scriptstyle L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle
\frac{1}{\,\!2 \;\!{\scriptstyle n} \;\!-\;\!1/{\scriptstyle \kappa}}}}
\|\, u(\cdot,T_{\mbox{}_{1}}) \,
\|_{\scriptstyle L^{2\:\!n\:\!\kappa}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle
\frac{2 \;\!{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa} \;\!-\;\!2}
{\,\!2 \;\!{\scriptstyle n} \;\!-\;\!1/{\scriptstyle \kappa}}}}
\!\;\!=\;\!
1
} $. Por (4.6), teríamos então (4.5) satisfeita para $ T = T_{\mbox{}_{1}} $, de modo que, por (4.4), $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\, u(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{L^{2\;\!n\;\!\kappa}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}
\!\;\!
} $ seria decrescente no intervalo $ \;\![\,0, \;\!T_{\mbox{}_{1}}\:\!] $. Assim, teríamos\
\
$ {\displaystyle
1
\;\;\!=\;\;\!
n \:\! \kappa \:\,\!
\mathbb{B}_{\!\;\!\mu}\!\;\!(0\:\!; \infty)
\:
\|\, u(\cdot,T_{\mbox{}_{1}}) \,
\|_{\scriptstyle L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle
\frac{1}{\,\!2 \;\!{\scriptstyle n} \;\!-\;\!1/{\scriptstyle \kappa}}}}
\|\, u(\cdot,T_{\mbox{}_{1}}) \,
\|_{\scriptstyle L^{2\:\!n\:\!\kappa}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle
\frac{2 \;\!{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa} \;\!-\;\!2}
{\,\!2 \;\!{\scriptstyle n} \;\!-\;\!1/{\scriptstyle \kappa}}}}
} $\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\;
n \:\! \kappa \:\,\!
\mathbb{B}_{\!\;\!\mu}\!\;\!(0\:\!; \infty)
\:
\|\, u_0 \;\!
\|_{\scriptstyle L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle
\frac{1}{\,\!2 \;\!{\scriptstyle n} \;\!-\;\!1/{\scriptstyle \kappa}}}}
\|\, u_0 \;\!
\|_{\scriptstyle L^{2\:\!n\:\!\kappa}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle
\frac{2 \;\!{\scriptstyle n \:\!\kappa} \;\!-\;\!2}
{\,\!2 \;\!{\scriptstyle n} \;\!-\;\!1/{\scriptstyle \kappa}}}}
} $ $\,$por (2.4)$\,$\
\
$ {\displaystyle
\leq\;
n \:\! \kappa \:\,\!
\mathbb{B}_{\!\;\!\mu}\!\;\!(0\:\!; \infty)
\:
\|\, u_0 \;\!
\|_{\scriptstyle L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle
\frac{1}{\scriptstyle n}}}
\:\!
\|\, u_0 \;\!
\|_{\scriptstyle L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}
^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle
{\scriptstyle \kappa} \;\!-\;\! \frac{1}{\scriptstyle n}}}
\;<\, 1
} $. $\,$por (4.7), (4.3)$\,$\
\
Esta contradição mostra que (4.8) tem ser válida para todo $ \;\!0 \leq t < T_{\!\;\!\ast} \!\;\!$, como afirmado.$\,$ Sendo (4.8) verdadeira para todo $ \;\!0 \leq t < T_{\!\;\!\ast} \!\;\!$, resulta então, por (4.6), que
\
$$\tag{4.10}
n \:\! \kappa \:\,\!
\mathbb{B}_{\!\;\!\mu}\!\;\!(0\:\!; \infty)
\:
\|\, u(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{n\:\!\kappa}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
^{\:\!\kappa}
\,<\; 1,
\qquad
\forall \;\,
t \in [\,0, \;\!T_{\!\;\!\ast}).$$\
Isso mostra, por (4.4), que $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\, u(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2\:\!n\;\!\kappa}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\,\!
} $ é decrescente no intervalo de existência $\;\![\,0, \;\!T_{\!\;\!\ast}) $. Portanto, pelo Teorema 3.1 $\,$aplicado a $ \;\!p = 2\:\!n\:\!\kappa \,$, temos de ter $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\, u(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}
\!\:\!
} $ limitada em todo o intervalo $\;\![\,0, \;\!T_{\!\;\!\ast}) $, de modo que, como no caso ([*ii*]{}), $ T_{\!\;\!\ast} $ não pode ser finito.
$\Box$\
\
[999]{}
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">M. Agueh</span>, [*Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequalities involving the gradient $L^{2}\!$-norm*]{}, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Ser. I [**346**]{} (2008), 757-762.
, [*Blow-up in diffusion equations: a survey*]{}, J. Comp. Appl. Math. [**97**]{} (1998), 3-22.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">J.$\;$A.$\;$Barrionuevo, L.$\;$S.$\;$Oliveira and P.$\;$R.$\;$Zingano</span>, [*General asymptotic supnorm estimates for solutions of one-dimensional advection-diffusion equations in heterogeneous media*]{}, Intern. J. Partial Diff. Equations (2014), 1-8 (freely available at: http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijpde/2014/450417).
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">J. Benameur</span>, [*On the blow-up criterion of Navier-Stokes equations*]{}, J. Math. Anal. Appl. [**371**]{} (2010), 719-727.
, [*Long time decay to the Leray solution of the two-dimensional Navier-Stokes equations*]{}, Bull. London Math. Soc. [**44**]{} (2012), 1001-1019.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">P.$\;$Braz e Silva, W.$\;$G.$\;$Melo and P.$\;$R.$\;$Zingano</span>, [*An asymptotic supnorm estimate for solutions of systems of convection-diffusion equations*]{}, J. Diff. Eqs. [**258**]{} (2015), 2806-2822.
, [*On the large time approximation of the Navier-Stokes equations in $\:\!\mathbb{R}^{n}\!$ by Stokes flows*]{} (in preparation).
, [*On some energy inequalities and supnorm estimates for advection-diffusion equations in $\mathbb{R}^{n}\!\;\!$*]{}, Nonlin. Anal. [**93**]{} (2013), 90-96.
, [*Sharp constant in Nash’s inequality*]{}, Intern. Math. Res. Notices, 1993, 213-215.
, *Some results for doubly nonlinear equations with advection*, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil (work in progress).
, [*Some open problems and research directions in the mathematical study of fluid dynamics*]{}, in: B. Engquist and W. Schmid (Eds.), [Mathematics Unlimited — 2001 and Beyond]{}, Springer, New York, 2001, pp.$\;$353-360.
, [*The role of critical exponents in blow-up theorems: the sequel*]{}, J. Math. Anal. Appl. [**243**]{} (2000), 85-126.
, [*Comparison results for smooth solutions of quasilinear parabolic equations*]{}, Adv. Diff. Eqs. Control Proc. [**14**]{} (2014), 11-22.
, *Some results for unsigned porous medium equations with advection*, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil (work in progress).
, [Linear Opeartors]{}, vol.$\;$2, Interscience, New York, 1963.
, [Partial Differential Equations]{}, American Mathematical Society, Providence, 2002.
, *On global existence and supnorm results for nonnegative solutions of the porous medium equation with arbitrary advection terms* (Portuguese), PhD Thesis, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil, October 2013 (available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10183/88277).
, [*Existence and smoothness of the Navier–Stokes equations*]{}, in: A.$\;$M.$\;$Jaffe and A.$\;$J.$\;$Wiles (Eds.), [The Millenium Prize Problems]{}, American Mathematical Society, Providence, 2006, pp.$\;$57-70 ($\,\!$freely available at http:// www.claymath.org/millenium/Navier-Stokes\_Equations/NavierStokes.pdf.)
, [Partial Differential Equations]{}, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1969.
, [*On the blowing up of solutions of the Cauchy problem for $ \,\!u_t \!= \Delta u + u^{1 + \alpha}\!\;\!$*]{}, J. Fac. Sci. Univ. Tokyo, Sect. IA Math., [**13**]{} (1966), 109-124.
, [*An introduction to the Navier–Stokes initial–boundary problem*]{}, in: G. P. Galdi, J. G. Heywood and R. Rannacher (Eds.), [Fundamental Directions in Mathematical Fluid Dynamics]{}, Birkhauser, Basel, 2000, pp.$\;$1-70.
, *Some results for p-Laplacian evolution equations with advection*, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil (work in progress).
, [*On singular integral operators, with applications to partial differential equations*]{} (Portuguese), M. Sc. Dissertation, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil, September 2014 (available at http://www.lume.ufrgs.br/handle/10183/115175).
, [*On the non-existence of global solutions of some semilinear parabolic differential equations*]{}, Proced. Japan Acad. Sci., Ser. A, [**49**]{} (1973), 503-505.
, [*On the $L^2$ decay of weak solutions of the Navier–Stokes equations in $\mathbb{R}^{n}\!\;\!$*]{}, Math. Z. [**192**]{} (1986), 135-148.
, [*Strong $L^p$-solutions of the Navier–Stokes equations in $\mathbb{R}^{m}\!$, with applications to weak solutions*]{}, Math. Z. [**187**]{} (1984), 471-480.
, [*Decay in time of the solutions of the Navier–Stokes equations for incompressible flows*]{}, unpublished note, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, 2002.
, [*Decay in time of incompressible flows*]{}, J. Math. Fluid Mech. [**5**]{} (2003), 231-244.
, [Initial–boundary value problems and the Navier–Stokes equations]{}, Academic Press, New York, 1989. (Reprinted in the series SIAM Classics in Applied Mathematics, Vol. 47, 2004.)
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">O.$\;$A.$\;$Ladyzhenskaya, V.$\;$A.$\;$Solonnikov and N.$\;$N.$\;$Uralceva</span>, [Linear and Quasilinear Equations of Parabolic Type]{}, American Mathematical Society, Providence, 1968.
, [*The role of critical exponents in blow-up theorems*]{}, SIAM Rev. [**32**]{} (1990), 262-288.
, [*The Navier-Stokes equations for incompressible flows: solution properties at potential blow-up times*]{}, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, July 2012 (available at http://www.arXiv.org/abs/1503.01767).
, [*Essai sur le mouvement d’un fluide visqueux emplissant l’espace*]{}, Acta Math. [**63**]{} (1934), 193-248.
, [*Weak solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations*]{}, Tôhoku Math. Journal [**36**]{} (1984), 623-646.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">W.$\;$G.$\;$Melo</span>, [*A-priori estimates for systems of advection-diffusion equations*]{} (Portuguese), PhD Thesis, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brazil, 2011 (available at: http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/7355).
, [*Continuity of solutions of parabolic and elliptic equations*]{}, Amer. J. Math. [**80**]{} (1958), 931-954.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">L.$\;$S.$\;$Oliveira</span>, [*Two results in classical analysis*]{} (Portuguese), PhD Thesis, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil, 2013 (available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10183/70212).
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">M. Oliver and E. S. Titi</span>, [*Remark on the rate of decay of higher order derivatives for solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations in $ \mathbb{R}^{n} \!$*]{}, J. Funct. Anal. [**172**]{} (2000), 1-18.
, [*On the Leray’s problem for the Navier-Stokes equations and some generalizations*]{} (Portuguese), M. Sc. Dissertation, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil, September 2014 (available at http://www.lume.ufrgs.br/handle/10183/115208).
, [*Existence and non-existence of global solutions for $u_t = \Delta u + a(x) \;\!u^p \!\;\!$ in $ \mathbb{R}^{d}\!$*]{}, J. Diff. Eqs. [**133**]{} (1997), 152-177.
, [Superlinear Parabolic Problems: blow-up, global existence and steady states]{}, Birkhäuser, Basel, 2007.
, [*Lower bounds on blow up solutions of the three-dimensional Navier-Stokes equations in homogeneous Sobolev spaces*]{}, J. Math. Phys. [**53**]{} (2012), no.$\;$11, 115618, 15 pp.
, [*On the decay of higher-order norms of the solutions of Navier-Stokes equations*]{}, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh [**126A**]{} (1996), 677-685.
, [*Some results on advection-diffusion equations, with applications to the Navier-Stokes equations*]{} (in Portuguese), Doctorate Thesis, Graduate Program in Mathematics (http://www.mat.ufrgs.br/${\sim}$ppgmat), Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, June 2008 (available at http://hdl.handle.net/10183/13714).
, [*On the supnorm form of Leray’s problem for the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations*]{} (submitted).
, [*A certain necessary condition of potential blow–up for Navier-Stokes equations*]{}, Comm. Math. Phys. [**312**]{} (2012), 833-845.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">D. Serre</span>, [Systems of Conservation Laws]{}, vol.$\;$1, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999.
, [*The initial value problem for the Navier–Stokes equations*]{}, in: R. Langer (Ed.), [Nonlinear Problems]{}, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, 1963, pp.$\;$69-98.
, [Singular Integrals and Differentiability Properties of Functions]{}, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 1970.
, [Partial Differential Equations]{} (2nd ed.), vol.$\;$III, Springer, New York, 2011.
, [*Existence theorem and blow-up criterion of the strong solutions to the magneto-micropolar fluid equations*]{}, Math. Meth. Appl. Sci. [**31**]{} (2008), 1113-1130.
, [*Decay results for weak solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations on $ \mathbb{R}^{n}\!$*]{}, J. London Math. Soc. [**35**]{} (1987), 303-313.
, [*$\,\!$New $\,\!L^{p}\,\!$-$\;\!L^{q}\!\,\!$ procedures for advection-diffusion equations, I*]{} ($n = 1, \;\!\kappa = 0$), unpublished notes, Porto Alegre, RS, 2010. , [*$\,\!$New $\,\!L^{p}\:\!$-$\;\!L^{q}\!\,\!$ procedures for advection-diffusion equations, II*]{} ($n = 1, \;\!\kappa > 0$), unpublished notes, Porto Alegre, RS, 2011.
[^1]: É conhecido também que se tem $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
T_{\!\:\!\ast\ast} \!\;\! <\;\!
K \;\! \nu^{-\,5} \,
\|\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0 \;\!
\|_{{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\:\!4}
\!
} $ para certa constante absoluta $ K > 0 $,\
ver e.g.$\;$[@KreissHagstromLorenzZingano2003; @LorenzZingano2012; @Leray1934]. ($\:\!$No [Apêndice A]{} a seguir, melhoraremos o valor dado para $K\!\:\!$, mostrando que $ \:\!K \!\;\!< 0.000\,753\,026 \:\!$.) Condições adicionais sobre o estado inicial $ \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0 \in L^{2}_{\sigma}(\mathbb{R}^{3}) $ — por exemplo, $ \mbox{\boldmath $u$}_0 \in H^{s}_{\sigma}(\mathbb{R}^{3}) $, $ s > 3/2 $ — garantem além disso $ {\displaystyle
\mbox{\boldmath $u$} \in
C^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{3} \!\times\!\;\!(\:\!0,\mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\:\!\ast}])
} $ para certo $ {\displaystyle
0 < \mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\:\!\ast} \leq
\mbox{\small $T$}_{\!\:\!\ast\ast}
} $ [@Yuan2008].
[^2]: Como em [@KreissHagstromLorenzZingano2003], esta prova faz uso tradicional de técnicas clássicas como estimativas de energia e transformadas de Fourier, mas é válida apenas em dimensão $ n = 2, 3$. Em contraste, a prova de (1.4) em [@Kato1984] pode ser estendida a $ n = 4 $, e o argumento (muito envolvente) desenvolvido em [@Wiegner1987] consegue estabelecer (1.4) para $ n \geq 2 $ qualquer.
[^3]: Para a definição de $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\| \, D^{m} \:\!\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t) \,
\|_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}
\!\:\!
} $ e outras normas aqui usadas, ver (1.19), (1.20) a seguir. De modo geral, o símbolo $ D^{m} $ refere-se coletivamente a todas as derivadas espaciais de ordem $m$, enquanto $ \:\!D^{\alpha} \!\:\!$ denota uma derivada particular, correspondente ao multi-índice $\:\!\alpha\:\!$ indicado.
[^4]: Mais seriamente, convém observar que, com as definições (1.19), (1.20), se uma desigualdade de tipo Nirenberg-Gagliardo $ {\displaystyle
\|\,{\sf u}\,\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{\!q}}}
\!\leq\!\;\!K\;\!
\|\,{\sf u}\,\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{\!r_{\mbox{}_{\!\:\!1}}}}}^{1 - \theta}
\|\;\!\nabla {\sf u}\,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{\!r_{\mbox{}_{\!\:\!2}}}}}^{\:\!\theta}
\!
} $, $ 0 \leq \theta \leq 1 $, valer para funções [*escalares*]{} $ {\sf u} $ ($K \!> 0$ constante), então ela será automaticamente válida para funções [*vetoriais*]{} $ \mbox{\boldmath $u$} $ com a [*mesma*]{}\
constante $K\!\;\!$ do caso escalar. Ademais, tem-se $ {\displaystyle
\;\!
\|\, D^m \:\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t)\,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{\!q}}}
\!\:\!\leq\:\!
\|\, D^m \:\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t)\,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{\!q_{\mbox{}_{\!\:\!1}}}}}^{1 - \theta}
\|\, D^m \:\! \mbox{\boldmath $u$}(\cdot,t)\,
\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{\!q_{\mbox{}_{\!\:\!2}}}}}^{\:\!\theta}
\!\!\;\!
} $ se $ 1/q = (1 - \theta)/q_{\mbox{}_{1}} \!+ \theta/q_{\mbox{}_{2}} $, $ 0 \leq \theta \leq 1 $, e assim por diante.
[^5]: Além disso, supoõe-se $ \mbox{\boldmath $b$} $ suave (mais precisamente: $ \mbox{\boldmath $b$} $, $ \mbox{\boldmath $b$}_{\mbox{\scriptsize $x_{\mbox{}_{\!\;\!1}}$}} \!\,\!,
\!\:\!..., \mbox{\boldmath $b$}_{\mbox{\scriptsize $x_{\mbox{}_{n}}$}} \!\!\!\,\!$ e $ \mbox{\boldmath $b$}_{\mbox{\scriptsize u}} $ são supostas contínuas). Sobre o termo de fluxo $ \mbox{\boldmath $f$} \!\;\!$, por não depender de $x$, só será preciso supor que $ \mbox{\boldmath $f$} \!\:\!$, $ \mbox{\boldmath $f$}_{\!\:\!\mbox{\scriptsize u}} $ sejam contínuas.
[^6]: A condição $ \;\! p > \:\! n \:\! \kappa \;\! $ imposta em (3.9) acima não é resultado de limitação do método de análise apresentado, mas uma condição [*natural*]{}, prevista por argumentos de escala aplicados a (2.1).
|
---
abstract: 'Classical results for exchangeable systems of random variables are extended to multi-class systems satisfying a natural partial exchangeability assumption. It is proved that the conditional law of a finite multi-class system, given the value of the vector of the empirical measures of its classes, corresponds to *independent* uniform orderings of the samples within *each* class, and that a family of such systems converges in law *if and only if* the corresponding empirical measure vectors converge in law. As a corollary, convergence within *each* class to an infinite i.i.d. system implies asymptotic independence between *different* classes. A result implying the Hewitt-Savage 0–1 Law is also extended.'
address: 'CMAP, [É]{}cole Polytechnique, CNRS, 91128 Palaiseau France.'
author:
- Carl Graham
title: |
Chaoticity for multi-class systems\
and exchangeability within classes
---
Introduction
============
Among many others, Kallenberg [@Kallenberg], Kingman [@Kingman], Diaconis and Freedman [@Diaconis], and Aldous [@Aldous] study exchangeable random variables (r.v.) with Polish state space. The related notion of chaoticity (convergence in law to i.i.d. random variables) appears in many contexts, such as statistical estimation, or the asymptotic study of interacting particle systems or communication networks. It is behind many fruitful heuristics, such as the “molecular chaos assumption” (*Stosszahlansatz*) used by Ludwig Boltzmann to derive the Boltzmann equation, see Cercignani *et al.* [@Cercignani Sect. 2, 4].
A sequence of finite exchangeable systems converges in law to an infinite system if and only if the corresponding sequence of empirical measures converges to the directing measure of the limit infinite system, given by the de Finetti Theorem. Hence, chaoticity is equivalent to the fact that the empirical measures satisfy a weak law of large numbers, for which A.S. Sznitman developed a compactness-uniqueness method of proof yielding propagation of chaos results for varied models of interest. Sznitman also devised a coupling method for proving chaoticity directly. See Sznitman [@Sznitman] for a survey, and M[é]{}l[é]{}ard [@Meleard:96] and Graham [@Graham:00; @Graham:92] for some developments.
The above notions pertain to the study of *similar* random objects, but many systems in stratified sampling, statistical mechanics, chemistry, communication networks, biology, etc., involve *varied* classes of similar objects (which we call “particles”). See for instance Cercignani *et al.* [@Cercignani] (“Mixtures”, Subject index p. 454) and the review papers [@Bellomo:00; @Graham:00; @Grunfeld:00; @Struckmaier:00] in a recent book.
Our paper considers natural notions of multi-exchangeability and chaoticity for such multi-class systems, and extends the above results. These notions are explicit in Graham [@Graham:92 pp. 78, 81], and implicit in [@Cercignani; @Bellomo:00; @Grunfeld:00; @Struckmaier:00] where the corresponding limit equations are directly considered. Graham and Robert [@GrahamRobert] extend Sznitman’s coupling method in this context. For infinite classes, Aldous calls multi-exchangeability “internal exchangeability” just before [@Aldous Corollary 3.9].
We prove that the conditional law of a finite multi-class system, given the value of the vector of the empirical measures of its classes, corresponds to choosing *independent* uniform orderings of the samples within *each* class, and that a family of such systems converges in law *if and only if* the corresponding empirical measure vectors converge in law. We conclude by extending a result implying the Hewitt-Savage 0–1 Law.
As a corollary, for a multi-exchangeable system, chaoticity *within* classes implies asymptotic independence *between* classes, see Theorem \[main\] below. This striking result allows rigorous derivation of limit macroscopic models from microscopic dynamics using Sznitman’s compactness-uniqueness methods, and was a major goal of this paper.
We state as a “Proposition” any known result, and a “Theorem” any result we believe to be new. All state spaces $\mathcal{S}$ are Polish, and the weak topology is used for the space of probability measures $\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S})$ which is then also Polish, as are products of Polish spaces. For $k \ge1$ we denote by $\Sigma(k)$ the set of permutations of $\{1,\ldots,k\}$.
Some classical results {#sclares}
======================
Finite and infinite exchangeable systems
----------------------------------------
For $N \ge 1$, a finite system $(X^N_n)_{1\le n \le N}$ of random variables (r.v.) with state space $\mathcal{S}$ is *exchangeable* if $$\mathcal{L}(X^N_{\sigma(1)}, \ldots, X^N_{\sigma(N)})
= \mathcal{L}(X^N_1, \ldots, X^N_N)\,,
\qquad
\forall \sigma \in \Sigma(N)\,.$$ Then, the conditional law of such a system given the value of its empirical measure $$\label{emplaw}
\Lambda^N = {1\over N} \sum_{n=1}^{N} \delta_{X^N_n}$$ corresponds to a uniform ordering of the $N$ (possibly repeated) values occurring in $\Lambda^N$ (its atoms, counted according to their multiplicity), see Aldous [@Aldous Lemma 5.4 p. 38].
An *infinite* system $(X_n)_{n \ge 1}$ is *exchangeable* if every finite subsystem $(X_n)_{1 \le n \le N}$ is exchangeable. The de Finetti Theorem, see *e.g.* [@Kallenberg; @Kingman; @Diaconis; @Aldous], states that such a system is a mixture of i.i.d. sequences: its law is of the form $$\int P^{\otimes \infty} \mathcal{L}_\Lambda(dP)$$ where $\mathcal{L}_\Lambda$ is the law of the (random) *directing measure* $\Lambda$ which can be obtained as $$\label{dirmeas}
\Lambda = \lim_{N \to \infty} {1\over N} \sum_{n=1}^{N} \delta_{X_n}
\;\;
\textrm{a.s.}$$ Thus, laws of infinite exchangeable systems with state space $\mathcal{S}$ and laws of random measures with state space $\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S})$ are in one-to-one correspondence.
All this leads to the following fact, see Kallenberg [@Kallenberg Theorem 1.2 p. 24] and Aldous [@Aldous Prop. 7.20 (b) p. 55].
\[sznigen\] Let $(X^N_n)_{1\le n \le N}$ for $N \ge1$ be finite exchangeable systems, and $\Lambda^N$ their empirical measures . Then $$\lim_{N \to \infty} (X^N_n)_{1\le n \le N} = (X_n)_{n \ge 1} \;\;\textrm{in law},$$ where the (infinite exchangeable) limit has directing measure $\Lambda$, if and only if $$\lim_{N \to \infty} \Lambda^N = \Lambda
\;\;\textrm{in law}.$$
A sequence $(X^N_n)_{1\le n \le N}$ for $N \ge1$ is $P$-*chaotic*, where $P\in \mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S})$, if $$\lim_{N \to \infty} \mathcal{L}(X^N_1, \ldots, X^N_k) = P^{\otimes k}\,,
\qquad
\forall k\ge1\,,$$ *i.e.*, if it converges in law to an i.i.d. system of r.v. of law $P$. The following corollary of Proposition \[sznigen\] is proved directly in [@Sznitman Prop. 2.2 p. 177] and [@Meleard:96 Prop. 4.2 p. 66].
\[szni\] Let $(X^N_n)_{1\le n \le N}$ for $N \ge1$ be finite exchangeable systems, $\Lambda^N$ their empirical measures , and $P\in \mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S})$. Then, the sequence is $P$-chaotic if and only if $$\lim_{N \to \infty} \Lambda^N = P
\;\;\textrm{in law}$$ and hence in probability, since the limit is deterministic.
Multi-exchangeable systems
--------------------------
We assume that $C \ge 1$ and state spaces $\mathcal{S}_i$ for $1 \le i \le C$ are fixed. For a multi-index $\mathbf{N}=(N_i)_{1 \le i \le C} \in \mathbb{N}^C$ we consider a multi-class system $$\label{eq:mcys}
(X^\mathbf{N}_{n,i})_{1\le n \le N_i,\, 1\le i \le C}\,,
\qquad
X^\mathbf{N}_{n,i}
\textrm{ with state space $\mathcal{S}_i$},$$ where $X^\mathbf{N}_{n,i}$ is the $n$-th particle, or object, of class $i$, and say that it is *multi-exchangeable* if its law is invariant under permutation of the particles *within* classes: $$\mathcal{L}\bigl( (X^\mathbf{N}_{\sigma_i(n),i})_{1\le n \le N_i,\, 1\le i \le C} \bigr)
=
\mathcal{L}\bigl( (X^\mathbf{N}_{n,i})_{1\le n \le N_i,\, 1\le i \le C} \bigr)\,,
\qquad
\forall \sigma_i \in \Sigma(N_i)\,.$$ This natural assumption means that particles of a class are statistically indistinguishable, and obviously implies that $(X^\mathbf{N}_{n,i})_{1\le n \le N_i}$ is exchangeable for $1\le i \le C$. It is sufficient to check that it is true when all $\sigma_i$ but one are the identity. We introduce the *empirical measure vector*, with samples in $\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}_1) \times \cdots \times \mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}_C)$, $$\label{eq:emmeve}
(\Lambda^\mathbf{N}_i)_{1\le i \le C}\,,
\qquad
\Lambda^\mathbf{N}_i = {1 \over N_i}\sum_{n=1}^{N_i} \delta_{X^\mathbf{N}_{n,i}}\,.$$
We say that the multi-class system $(X_{n,i})_{n \ge 1, 1\le i \le C}$ with *infinite* classes is *multi-exchangeable* if every finite sub-system $(X_{n,i})_{1 \le n \le N_i,\, 1\le i \le C}$ is multi-exchangeable. Particles of class $i$ form an exchangeable system, which has a directing measure $\Lambda_i$, and we call $(\Lambda_i)_{1 \le i \le C}$ the *directing measure vector*.
The following result is given in Aldous [@Aldous Cor. 3.9 p. 25] and attributed to de Finetti. A remarkable fact is conditional independence between *different* classes.
\[conind\] Let $(X_{n,i})_{n \ge 1,\, 1\le i \le C}$ be an infinite multi-exchangeable system, and $\Lambda_i$ be the directing measure of $(X_{n,i})_{n \ge 1}$. Given the directing measure vector $(\Lambda_i)_{1 \le i \le C}$, the $X_{n,i}$ for $n \ge 1$ and $1\le i \le C$ are conditionally independent, and $X_{n,i}$ has conditional law $\Lambda_i$.
The extended results
====================
We shall extend to multi-exchangeable systems the main results for exchangeable systems, which hold even though the symmetry assumption and resulting structure is much weaker. Indeed, the symmetry order of the multi-exchangeable system is $N_1! \cdots N_C!$ whereas the symmetry order of an exchangeable system of same size is the much larger $(N_1 + \cdots + N_C)!$.
The following extension of [@Aldous Lemma 5.4 p. 38] (stated in words at the beginning of Section \[sclares\]) shows that, for a finite multi-exchangeable system, the classes are *conditionally independent* given the vector of the empirical measures within each class. Hence, *no further information* can be attained on its law by cleverly trying to involve what happens for different classes.
A statistical interpretation of this remarkable fact is that the empirical measure vector is a *sufficient statistic* for the law of the system, the family of all such laws being trivially parameterized by the laws themselves.
\[suffstat\] Let $(X^\mathbf{N}_{n,i})_{1\le n \le N_i,\, 1\le i \le C}$ be a finite multi-exchangeable system as in . Then its conditional law, given the value of the empirical measure vector $(\Lambda^\mathbf{N}_i)_{1\le i \le C}$ defined in , corresponds to *independent* uniform orderings for $1 \le i \le C$ of the $N_i$ values of the particles of class $i$ (possibly repeated), which are the atoms of the value of $\Lambda^\mathbf{N}_i$ (counted with their multiplicities).
Multi-exchangeability and the obvious fact that $$\Lambda^\mathbf{N}_j
= {1 \over N_j}\sum_{n=1}^{N_j} \delta_{X^\mathbf{N}_{n,j}}
= {1 \over N_j}\sum_{n=1}^{N_j} \delta_{X^\mathbf{N}_{\sigma(n),j}}\,,
\qquad
\forall \sigma \in \Sigma(N_j)\,,$$ imply that for all $g : \mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}_1) \times \cdots \times \mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}_C) \rightarrow \mathbb{R}_+$ and $f_i : \mathcal{S}_i^{N_i} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}_+$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cenfor}
&&\kern-6.5mm
{\kern1pt\mathbf{E}\kern1pt}\left[
g\bigl((\Lambda^\mathbf{N}_j)_{1 \le j \le C}\bigr)
\prod_{i=1}^C
f_i(X^\mathbf{N}_{1,i}, \ldots X^\mathbf{N}_{N_i,i})
\right]
\nonumber\\
&&\kern-5.5mm{}
= {1 \over N_1 !}\sum_{\sigma_1 \in \Sigma(N_1)} \cdots {1 \over N_C !}\sum_{\sigma_C \in \Sigma(N_C)}
{\kern1pt\mathbf{E}\kern1pt}\left[
g\bigl((\Lambda^\mathbf{N}_j)_{1 \le j \le C}\bigr)
\prod_{i=1}^C
f_i(X^\mathbf{N}_{\sigma_i(1),i}, \ldots X^\mathbf{N}_{\sigma_i(N_i),i})
\right]
\nonumber\\
&&\kern-5.5mm{}
=
{\kern1pt\mathbf{E}\kern1pt}\!\left[
g\bigl((\Lambda^\mathbf{N}_j)_{1 \le j \le C}\bigr)
\prod_{i=1}^C
{1 \over N_i !}
\sum_{\sigma \in \Sigma(N_i) }
f_i(X^\mathbf{N}_{\sigma(1),i}, \ldots, X^\mathbf{N}_{\sigma(N_i),i})
\right]
\nonumber\\
&&\kern-5.5mm{}
=
{\kern1pt\mathbf{E}\kern1pt}\!\left[
g\bigl((\Lambda^\mathbf{N}_j)_{1 \le j \le C}\bigr)
\prod_{i=1}^C
\left\langle f_i,
{1 \over N_i !}
\sum_{\sigma \in \Sigma(N_i) }
\delta_{ (X^\mathbf{N}_{\sigma(1),i}, \ldots, X^\mathbf{N}_{\sigma(N_i),i}) }
\right\rangle
\right]\end{aligned}$$ where the empirical measure $${1 \over N_i !}
\sum_{\sigma \in \Sigma(N_i) }
\delta_{ (X^\mathbf{N}_{\sigma(1),i}, \ldots, X^\mathbf{N}_{\sigma(N_i),i}) }$$ corresponds to exhaustive uniform draws without replacement among the atoms $X^\mathbf{N}_{1,i}$, …, $X^\mathbf{N}_{N_i,i}$ of $\Lambda^\mathbf{N}_i$ counted according to multiplicity, and hence is a function of $\Lambda^\mathbf{N}_i$. Since $g$ is arbitrary, the characteristic property of conditional expectation yields that $${\kern1pt\mathbf{E}\kern1pt}\Biggl[
\prod_{i=1}^C
f_i(X^\mathbf{N}_{1,i}, \ldots X^\mathbf{N}_{N_i,i})
\,\bigg |\,(\Lambda^\mathbf{N}_i)_{1 \le i \le C}
\Biggr]
= \prod_{i=1}^C
\left\langle f_i,
{1 \over N_i !}
\sum_{\sigma \in \Sigma(N_i) }
\delta_{ (X^\mathbf{N}_{\sigma(1),i}, \ldots, X^\mathbf{N}_{\sigma(N_i),i}) }
\right\rangle$$ which finishes the proof, since the $f_i$ are arbitrary and the spaces Polish.
This result and Proposition \[conind\] lead to the following extension of Proposition \[sznigen\]. We denote by $\lim_{\mathbf{N} \to \infty}$ the limit along a fixed arbitrary subsequence of $\mathbf{N} \in \mathbb{N}^C$ such that $\min_{1 \le i \le C} N_i$ goes to infinity.
\[maingen\] We consider a family of finite multi-exchangeable multi-class systems $$(X^\mathbf{N}_{n,i})_{1\le n \le N_i,\, 1\le i \le C}\,,
\qquad
\mathbf{N} \in \mathbb{N}^C\,,$$ all of the form with the same $C\ge1$ and state spaces $\mathcal{S}_i$, and the corresponding empirical measure vectors $(\Lambda^\mathbf{N}_i)_{1\le i \le C}$ given in . Then $$\lim_{\mathbf{N} \to \infty} (X^\mathbf{N}_{n,i})_{1\le n \le N_i,\, 1\le i \le C}
= (X_{n,i})_{n \ge 1,\, 1\le i \le C}
\;\; \textrm{in law},$$ where the (infinite multi-exchangeable) limit has directing measure vector $(\Lambda_i)_{1 \le i \le C}$, if and only if $$\lim_{\mathbf{N} \to \infty} (\Lambda^\mathbf{N}_i)_{1 \le i \le C} = (\Lambda_i)_{1 \le i \le C}
\;\; \textrm{in law.}$$
Since the state spaces are Polish, it is enough to prove that for arbitrary $k \ge1$ and bounded continuous $f_i : \mathcal{S}_i^k \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ for $1 \le i \le C$ we have $$\label{oneway}
\lim_{\mathbf{N} \to \infty}
{\kern1pt\mathbf{E}\kern1pt}\left[
\prod_{i=1}^C
f_i(X^\mathbf{N}_{1,i}, \ldots X^\mathbf{N}_{k,i})
\right]
=
{\kern1pt\mathbf{E}\kern1pt}\left[
\prod_{i=1}^C
f_i(X_{1,i}, \ldots X_{k,i})
\right]$$ if and only if $$\label{theother}
\lim_{\mathbf{N} \to \infty}
{\kern1pt\mathbf{E}\kern1pt}\!\left[
\prod_{i=1}^C
\left\langle f_i, (\Lambda^\mathbf{N}_i)^{\otimes k} \right\rangle
\right]
=
{\kern1pt\mathbf{E}\kern1pt}\!\left[
\prod_{i=1}^C
\left\langle f_i, \Lambda_i^{\otimes k} \right\rangle
\right].$$ Let $(m)_k = \frac{m!}{(m-k)!} = m(m-1)\cdots(m-k+1)$ for $m\ge 1$ and, for $N_i \ge k$, $$\Lambda^{\mathbf{N},k}_i
=
{1 \over (N_i)_k}
\sum_{ \substack{ 1 \le n_1,\ldots, n_k \le N_i \\ \textrm{distinct} }}
\delta_{ (X^\mathbf{N}_{n_1,i}, \ldots, X^\mathbf{N}_{n_k,i}) }$$ denote the empirical measure for distinct $k$-tuples in class $i$, corresponding to sampling $k$ times *without* replacement among $X^\mathbf{N}_{1,i}$, …, $X^\mathbf{N}_{N_i,i}$. Theorem \[suffstat\] implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{prf1}
{\kern1pt\mathbf{E}\kern1pt}\left[
\prod_{i=1}^C
f_i(X^\mathbf{N}_{1,i}, \ldots X^\mathbf{N}_{k,i})
\right]
&=&
{\kern1pt\mathbf{E}\kern1pt}\left[
{\kern1pt\mathbf{E}\kern1pt}\left[
\prod_{i=1}^C
f_i(X^\mathbf{N}_{1,i}, \ldots X^\mathbf{N}_{k,i})
\,\bigg|\, (\Lambda^\mathbf{N}_i)_{1 \le i \le C}
\right]
\right]
\nonumber \\
&=&
{\kern1pt\mathbf{E}\kern1pt}\!\left[
\prod_{i=1}^C
\left\langle f_i,
\Lambda^{\mathbf{N},k}_i
\right\rangle
\right]
\quad\end{aligned}$$ (which follows directly from with $g=1$ and the extensions of $f_i$ on $\mathcal{S}_i^{N_i}$) and Proposition \[conind\] similarly implies that $$\label{conddec}
{\kern1pt\mathbf{E}\kern1pt}\left[
\prod_{i=1}^C
f_i(X_{1,i}, \ldots X_{k,i})
\right]
=
{\kern1pt\mathbf{E}\kern1pt}\!\left[
\prod_{i=1}^C
\left\langle f_i, \Lambda_i^{\otimes k} \right\rangle
\right]\,.$$ The corresponding empirical measure for sampling *with* replacement is given by $$\begin{aligned}
(\Lambda^\mathbf{N}_i)^{\otimes k}
&=&
{1 \over N_i^k} \sum_{1 \le n_1,\ldots, n_k \le N_i}
\delta_{ (X^\mathbf{N}_{n_1,i}, \ldots, X^\mathbf{N}_{n_k,i}) }
\\
&=&
\frac{(N_i)_k}{N_i^k}\,
\Lambda^{\mathbf{N},k}_i
+
{1 \over N_i^k} \sum_{ \substack{ 1 \le n_1,\ldots, n_k \le N_i \\ \textrm{not distinct} }}
\delta_{ (X^\mathbf{N}_{n_1,i}, \ldots, X^\mathbf{N}_{n_k,i}) }\end{aligned}$$ and in total variation norm $\Vert \mu \Vert = \sup\{\,\langle \phi, \mu \rangle : \Vert \phi \Vert_\infty \le 1\,\}$ we have $$\label{tveq}
\left\Vert
(\Lambda^\mathbf{N}_i)^{\otimes k}
-
\Lambda^{\mathbf{N},k}_i
\right\Vert
\le 2 {N_i^k - (N_i)_k \over N_i^k} \le {k(k-1) \over N_i}$$ where we bound $N_i^k - (N_i)_k$ by counting $k(k-1)/2$ possible positions for two identical indices with $N_i$ choices and $N_i^{k-2}$ choices for the other $k-2$ positions. Hence, if holds then , and imply , and conversely, if holds then , and imply , which concludes the proof.
Let $P_i \in \mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}_i)$ for $1\le i \le C$. We say that the family of finite multi-class systems such as in Theorem \[maingen\] is $(P_1,\ldots, P_C)$-*chaotic* if $$\lim_{\mathbf{N} \to \infty}
\mathcal{L}\bigl( (X^\mathbf{N}_{n,i})_{1\le n \le k,\, 1\le i \le C} \bigr)
= P_1^{\otimes k}\otimes \cdots \otimes P_C^{\otimes k}\,,
\qquad
\forall k\ge1\,.$$ This means that the multi-class systems converge to an *independent* system, in which particles of class $i$ have law $P_i$. We state a striking corollary of Theorem \[maingen\].
\[main\] We consider a family of finite multi-exchangeable multi-class systems such as in Theorem \[maingen\], and $P_i \in \mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}_i)$ for $1\le i \le C$. Then the family is $(P_1,\ldots, P_C)$-chaotic if and only if the $(X^\mathbf{N}_{n,i})_{1\le n \le N_i}$ are $P_i$-chaotic for $1\le i \le C$.
Since $(P_i)_{1 \le i \le C}$ is deterministic, $\lim_{\mathbf{N} \to \infty}(\Lambda^\mathbf{N}_i)_{1 \le i \le C} = (P_i)_{1 \le i \le C}$ in law if and only if $\lim_{\mathbf{N} \to \infty}\Lambda^\mathbf{N}_i = P_i$ in law for $1\le i \le C$. We conclude using Theorem \[maingen\].
We finish with the following extension of Aldous [@Aldous Cor. 3.10 p. 26] and of the Hewitt-Savage 0–1 Law. For $k \ge 1$, we say that a set $$B \subset \mathcal{S}_1^{\infty} \times \cdots \times \mathcal{S}_C^{\infty}$$ is $k$-multi-exchangeable if for all permutations $\sigma_i$ of $\{1,2,\ldots\}$ leaving $\{k+1,k+2,\ldots\}$ invariant, $1 \le i \le C$, we have $$(x_{n,i})_{n \ge 1,\, 1\le i \le C} \in B
\Leftrightarrow
(x_{\sigma_i(n),i})_{n \ge 1,\, 1\le i \le C} \in B\,.$$ We define the multi-exchangeable $\sigma$-algebra $$\mathcal{E} = \bigcap_{k \ge 1} \mathcal{E}_k\,,
\qquad
\mathcal{E}_k = \bigl\{
\{ (X_{n,i})_{n \ge 1 ,\, 1\le i \le C} \in B \}
: B \textrm{ is $k$-multi-exchangeable} \bigr\} \,,$$ and multi-tail $\sigma$-algebra $$\mathcal{T} = \bigcap_{k \ge 1} \mathcal{T}_k\,,
\qquad
\mathcal{T}_k = \sigma\bigl((X_{n,i})_{n \ge k ,\, 1\le i \le C}\bigr)\,.$$ Clearly, $\mathcal{T}_{k+1} \subset \mathcal{E}_k$ and hence $\mathcal{T} \subset \mathcal{E}$.
Let $(X_{n,i})_{n \ge 1,\, 1\le i \le C}$ be an infinite multi-exchangeable system with directing measure vector $(\Lambda_i)_{1 \le i \le C}$. Then $$\sigma((\Lambda_i)_{1 \le i \le C}) = \mathcal{T} = \mathcal{E}
\;\;\textrm{a.s.}$$ If moreover the $X_{n,i}$ are independent, then $P(A) \in \{0,1\}$ for all $A \in \mathcal{E}$.
Consideration of yields $\sigma((\Lambda_i)_{1 \le i \le C}) \subset \mathcal{T}$, a.s., and we have seen that $\mathcal{T} \subset \mathcal{E}$, hence the first statement is true if $\mathcal{E} \subset \sigma((\Lambda_i)_{1 \le i \le C})$, a.s. Now, let $A \in \mathcal{E}$. For every $k\ge1$, since $A \in \mathcal{E}_k$, there is some $k$-multi-exchangeable set $B_k$ such that $$A = \{ (X_{n,j})_{n \ge 1 ,\, 1\le j \le C} \in B_k \}$$ and hence, for all permutations $\sigma_i$ of $\{1,2,\ldots\}$ leaving $\{k+1,k+2,\ldots\}$ invariant, $$\begin{aligned}
(\mathbf{1}_{A}, X_{\sigma_i(n),i})_{n \ge 1,\, 1\le i \le C}
&=&
(\mathbf{1}_{B_k}((X_{n,j})_{n \ge 1 ,\, 1\le j \le C}), X_{\sigma_i(n),i}
)_{n \ge 1,\, 1\le i \le C}
\\
&=&
(
\mathbf{1}_{B_k}((X_{\sigma_j(n),j})_{n \ge 1 ,\, 1\le j \le C}), X_{\sigma_i(n),i}
)_{n \ge 1,\, 1\le i \le C} \end{aligned}$$ and the multi-exchangeability of $(X_{n,i})_{n \ge 1,\, 1\le i \le C}$ implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}\bigl((\mathbf{1}_A, X_{\sigma_i(n),i})_{n \ge 1,\, 1\le i \le C}\bigr)
&=&
\mathcal{L}\bigl(
(\mathbf{1}_{B_k}((X_{\sigma_j(n),j})_{n \ge 1 ,\, 1\le j \le C}), X_{\sigma_i(n),i}
\bigr)_{n \ge 1,\, 1\le i \le C}
\bigr)
\\
&=&
\mathcal{L}\bigl(
(\mathbf{1}_{B_k}((X_{n,j})_{n \ge 1 ,\, 1\le j \le C}), X_{n,i}
\bigr)_{n \ge 1,\, 1\le i \le C}
\bigr)
\\
&=&
\mathcal{L}\bigl((\mathbf{1}_A, X_{n,i})_{n \ge 1,\, 1\le i \le C}\bigr)\,.\end{aligned}$$ Thus $(\mathbf{1}_A, X_{n,i})_{n \ge 1,\, 1\le i \le C}$ is infinite multi-exchangeable, and Proposition \[conind\] implies that the $(\mathbf{1}_A, X_{n,i})$ are conditionally independent given $(\hat\Lambda_i)_{1 \le i \le C}$ and have conditional laws $\hat\Lambda_i$, where considering we have $$\hat\Lambda_i = \lim_{N \to \infty} {1 \over N} \sum_{n=1}^N \delta_{ (\mathbf{1}_A, X_{n,i}) }
= \delta_{\mathbf{1}_A} \otimes
\lim_{N \to \infty} {1 \over N} \sum_{n=1}^N \delta_{X_{n,i}}
= \delta_{\mathbf{1}_A} \otimes \Lambda_i
\;\;\textrm{a.s.}$$ Hence, for arbitrary $k \ge1$ and Borel sets $B_{n,i} \subset \mathcal{S}_i$ for $1 \le n \le k$ and $1 \le i \le C$, $$\displaylines{\quad
{\kern1pt\mathbf{P}\kern1pt}\bigl(X_{n,i} \in B_{n,i} : 1 \le n \le k, 1 \le i \le C
\,\big|\, A, (\Lambda_i)_{1 \le i \le C}\bigr)
\hfill\cr\hfill
= {\kern1pt\mathbf{P}\kern1pt}\bigl(X_{n,i} \in B_{n,i} : 1 \le n \le k, 1 \le i \le C
\,\big|\, (\hat\Lambda_i)_{1 \le i \le C}\bigr)
= \prod_{1 \le n \le k, 1 \le i \le C} \Lambda_i(B_{n,i})
\quad}$$ is a function of $(\Lambda_i)_{1 \le i \le C}$, conditionally to which $A$ and $(X_{n,i})_{n \ge 1,\, 1\le i \le C}$ are thus independent. Since $A \in \mathcal{E}$ is arbitrary, we deduce that $\mathcal{E} \subset \sigma((X_{n,i})_{n \ge 1,\, 1\le i \le C})$ and $(X_{n,i})_{n \ge 1,\, 1\le i \le C}$ are conditionally independent given $(\Lambda_i)_{1 \le i \le C}$, which implies $\mathcal{E} \subset \sigma((\Lambda_i)_{1 \le i \le C})$ a.s. This proves the first statement, from which the second follows since $\mathcal{T}$ is a.s. trivial if the $X_{n,i}$ are independent, see the Kolmogorov 0–1 Law.
Concluding remarks
==================
The important bound is a combinatorial estimate of the difference between sampling with and without replacement, see Aldous [@Aldous Prop. 5.6 p. 39] and Diaconis and Freedman [@Diaconis Theorem 13 p. 749] for related results. It is used in [@Diaconis] to prove the de Finetti Theorem.
Theorem \[main\] allows proving $(P_1,\ldots, P_C)$-chaoticity results by use of Proposition \[szni\] and Sznitman’s compactness-uniqueness methods for proof that the empirical measures $\Lambda^\mathbf{N}_i$ converge in law to $P_i$ for $1 \le i \le C$. This was the main motivation for this paper, as can be seen by its title. In the reviewing process, the referee’s suggestions lead to a much improved and fuller study of multi-exchangeable systems.
The techniques developed in this paper could also extend convergence results, such as Kallenberg [@Kallenberg Theorem 1.3 p. 25] and Aldous [@Aldous Prop. 7.20 (a) p. 55], suited for a family of multi-exchangeable systems of fixed possibly infinite class sizes depending on a parameter. We refrain do to so for the sake of coherence.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank the anonymous referee for a careful reading and many stimulating remarks. He helped us rediscover the depth and beauty of Aldous’s treatise [@Aldous].
[99]{}
(1985). Exchangeability and related topics. In *[É]{}cole d’[é]{}t[é]{} de Probabilit[é]{}s de Saint-Flour XIII - 1983*, Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1117, Springer, Berlin, pp. 1–198.
(2000). Development of Boltzmann models in mathematical biology. In *Modelling in Applied Sciences: A Kinetic Theory Approach*, eds N. Bellomo and M. Pulvirenti, Birkhauser, Boston, pp. 225–262.
(1994). *The mathematical theory of dilute gases*. Applied Mathematical Sciences 106, Springer, New-York.
(1980). Finite exchangeable sequences. *Ann. Prob.* 8, 745–764.
(1992). McKean-Vlasov Ito-Skorohod equations, and nonlinear diffusions with discrete jump sets. *Stoch. Proc. Appl.* 40, 69–82.
(2000). Kinetic limits for large communication networks. In *Modelling in Applied Sciences: A Kinetic Theory Approach*, eds N. Bellomo and M. Pulvirenti, Birkhauser, Boston, pp. 317–370.
(2008). Interacting multi-class transmissions in large stochastic networks. Preprint, arXiv:0810.0347, hal:inria-00326156
(2000). Nonlinar kinetic models with chemical reactions. In *Modelling in Applied Sciences: A Kinetic Theory Approach*, eds N. Bellomo and M. Pulvirenti, Birkhauser, Boston, pp. 173–224.
(1973). Canonical representations and convergence criteria for processes with interchangeable increments. *Z. Wahrscheinlichkeitstheor. Verw. Geb.* 27, 23–36.
(1978). Uses of exchangeability. *Ann. Prob.* 6, 183–197.
(1996). Asymptotic behaviour of some interacting particle systems; McKean-Vlasov and Boltzmann models. In: *CIME summer school Montecatini Terme 1995*, eds D. Talay and L. Tubaro, Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1627, Springer, Berlin, pp. 42–95.
(2000). Numerical simulation of the Boltzmann equation by particle methods. In *Modelling in Applied Sciences: A Kinetic Theory Approach*, eds N. Bellomo and M. Pulvirenti, Birkhauser, Boston, pp. 371–419.
(1991). Topics in propagation of chaos. In *[É]{}cole d’[é]{}t[é]{} de Probabilit[é]{}s de Saint-Flour XIX - 1989*, Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1464, Springer, Berlin, pp. 165–251.
|
---
abstract: 'The rapid development of the magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ) spin torque oscillator (STO) technology demands an analytical model to enable building MTJ STO-based circuits and systems so as to evaluate and utilize MTJ STOs in various applications. In Part I of this paper, an analytical model based on the macrospin approximation, has been introduced and verified by comparing it with the measurements of three different MTJ STOs. In Part II, the full Verilog-A implementation of the proposed model is presented. To achieve a reliable model, an approach to reproduce the phase noise generated by the MTJ STO has been proposed and successfully employed. The implemented model yields a time domain signal, which retains the characteristics of operating frequency, linewidth, oscillation amplitude and DC operating point, with respect to the magnetic field and applied DC current. The Verilog-A implementation is verified against the analytical model, providing equivalent device characteristics for the full range of biasing conditions. Furthermore, a system that includes an MTJ STO and CMOS RF circuits is simulated to validate the proposed model for system- and circuit-level designs. The simulation results demonstrate that the proposed model opens the possibility to explore STO technology in a wide range of applications.'
author:
- 'Tingsu Chen, Anders Eklund, Ezio Iacocca, Saul Rodriguez, Gunnar Malm, Johan $\AA$kerman, and Ana Rusu, [^1] [^2] [^3] [^4]'
title: 'Comprehensive and Macrospin-Based Magnetic Tunnel Junction Spin Torque Oscillator Model – Part II: Verilog-A Model Implementation'
---
=1
spin torque oscillator, magnetic tunnel junction, macrospin, analytical model.
Introduction
============
is an emerging technology, utilizing both fundamental electronic charge and spin [@spintronics2001]. Spin is the intrinsic angular momentum of the electron. The spin-transfer-torque magnetoresistive random access memory (STT-MRAM), which is based on spintronic effects, has revolutionized the magnetic storage industry [@STTMRAM1]-[@STTMRAM3]. In the past few years, extensive research on modeling this device has been carried out [@MTJ_model1]-[@MTJ_model3]. The developed models of STT-MRAM enable estimation of the performance of STT-MRAMs together with its CMOS circuits, further accelerating the development of STT-MRAM technology.
Meanwhile, the spin torque oscillator (STO) [@STObook], which is another interesting spintronics-based device, has recently received a rapidly increased attention. The STO provides a widely tunable voltage oscillation at microwave frequencies, greatly extending the possible application range of spintronics. Possible applications of STOs include frequency detection [@nature2014], [@tulapurkar2005spin], magnetic field sensing [@nature2014], [@braganca2010nanoscale], microwave sources [@nature2014], [@Bonetti2009], [@Villard2010a] and microwave communications [@pufall2005frequency], [@wireless2014]. Particularly, the magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ) STO, which provides comparatively large output power, show great potential to be used in different applications. This motivates the focus of this work on the MTJ STO. However, unlike for the case of STT-MRAM, very little progress has been achieved in modeling the STOs for circuit- and system-level design, impeding the development of STO-based applications. The only existing MTJ STO models [@MTJSTO_model1], [@MTJSTO_model2] are limited by several factors. For instance, they offer a limited applicable range, inaccurate DC operating point, and utilize expressions that are not fully validated by experiments or theory. A new analytical MTJ STO model, which can overcome these issues, has been proposed in Part I [@Tingsu_2014TEDI]. To further allow being used by a circuit simulator, such as Cadence Spectre-RF, which can analyze the analog and RF performances of STO-based circuits and systems, the analytical MTJ STO model should be implemented in a hardware description language. Verilog-A is a hardware description language, which uses mathematical expressions to model the behaviors of arbitrary types of devices and components, while allowing circuit- and system-level design and analyses. Therefore, Verilog-A is suitable and will be used for modeling MTJ STOs. In the existing MTJ STO models [@MTJSTO_model1], [@MTJSTO_model2], however, the information of full Verilog-A implementation is absent. In the STO Verilog-A model [@MTJSTO_model3], which has been proposed by the same research group as [@MTJSTO_model1], [@MTJSTO_model2] and has not been validated by MTJ STOs, it is not possible to change the bias magnetic field in the Verilog-A model since the calcuation of the effective magnetic field is not included. Instead, the effective magnetic field is calculated in advance in Matlab and manually imported to circuit simulation platforms by the user for every change of field bias condition. Therefore, this model does not allow tuning the applied field in the circuit simulator, and it can not be considered to be fully implemented in Verilog-A, which brings difficulties in designing or optimizing the dedicated circuits for STOs. Besides, to generate the frequency or phase fluctuation of the STO, the model in [@MTJSTO_model3] employs an approach that can cause signal discontinuity. As a result, this existing STO Verilog-A model is not ready to be used.
Here, in Part II, we present a full Verilog-A implemention of the anlytical MTJ STO model proposed in Part I [@Tingsu_2014TEDI]. This MTJ STO Verilog-A model uses a new approach to reproduce the phase fluctuation of the MTJ STO and avoid convergence issues, enabling a reliable MTJ STO model. Moreover, efficient simulations of both the stand-alone MTJ STO model and the MTJ STO model combined with CMOS circuits, are demonstrated.
Comprehensive and Compact MTJ STO Model in Verilog-A
====================================================
As detailed in Part I [@Tingsu_2014TEDI], the characteristics of an MTJ STO include the DC operating point, operating frequency $\omega_\text{g}$, output peak power $P(\omega)$, and linewidth $2 \Delta \omega$ (the full width at half-maximum). These characteristics vary greatly as the biasing condition changes. The biasing condition for the MTJ STO is typically composed of the amplitude ${H}_\text{ext}$ and the in-plane angle $\phi_\text{ext}$ of the external magnetic field, as well as the applied DC current $I_\text{DC}$.
The complete Verilog-A code of the comprehensive and compact MTJ STO model is available from [@model_link].
Computational efficiency of the comprehensive model
---------------------------------------------------
To fully implement the MTJ STO model in Verilog-A, solving Eq.(4a, 4b) in [@Tingsu_2014TEDI] for the angle and magnitude of the effective field is realized solely by using Verilog-A. The effective field angle (see Eq.(4a) in [@Tingsu_2014TEDI]) is solved numerically using the fixed-point iteration method, based on which the effective field magnitude can be simply obtained using Eq.(4b) in [@Tingsu_2014TEDI]. The equation solver, as well as the the large amount of calculations involved in obtaining the nonlinear coefficients and characteristics of the MTJ STO, make the transient simulation time-consuming. For most of the analyses, none of the parameters in the effective field change for a single run, so that all the heavy calculations can be executed in the *initial step* event in order to improve the efficiency of the simulation. The *initial step* event is pre-defined in Verilog-A and called on the first point of a simulation. Therefore, in these cases, all the coefficients, parameters and characteristics are computed only once in the entire simulation.
Accurate phase generation
-------------------------
In order to generate the time domain signal, which includes all the characteristics of the MTJ STOs, the output of the model should comprise of both RF and DC terms, implemented in Verilog-A as\
$V$(MTJ\_STO, GND) <+ $V_\text{RF}+V_\text{DC};$
-----------------------------------------------------
\
\
where $V_\text{DC}$ is the DC voltage across the MTJ STO and is a function of the effective field angle, as detailed in [@Tingsu_2014TEDI], and $V_\text{RF}$ can be derived based on Eq.(2) and Eq.(11) in [@Tingsu_2014TEDI], written in Verilog-A as\
$V_\text{RF}=R_\text{prec}\cdot I_\text{DC} \cdot \cos({\omega_0}\cdot \textdollar abstime+\varphi(t));$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
\
where $R_\text{prec}$ is the amplitude of the resistance oscillation, whose value depends on the biasing condition. The $\textdollar abstime$ function returns the absolute simulation time. Since MTJ STOs have considerable phase noise amplitude, $\varphi(t)$ is used to represent the phase fluctuation (phase noise), reflecting the linewidth of the proposed model. For the timescales of circuit-level simulations (generally on the order of $\mu$s), white frequency noise extending over fluctuation frequencies wider than 1 MHz – 100 MHz [@quinsat2010] will be the noise type dominating the linewidth. Hence, for this application, it is natural and adequate to approximate the frequency noise by white frequency noise alone. The amplitude noise of MTJ STOs is coupled to the phase noise due to the nonlinearity of the governing magneto-dynamic equation (Eq.(1) in [@Tingsu_2014TEDI]). Such a coupling greatly enhances the phase noise, making the impact of the amplitude noise less significant for applications [@quinsat2010]. For this reason, the amplitude noise is not explicitly addressed in this work, but its effect is manifested in the linewidth of the proposed MTJ STO model. Nevertheless, Gaussian amplitude noise could be added to the proposed model by further specifying its standard deviation.
An accurate Verilog-A model of oscillators should memorize its phase along the simulation time. However, a solution to keep the phase information between adjacent simulation time steps has not been found. In one common Verilog-A phase noise generation method [@VCOmodel], the step-specific perturbed frequency $f_{VCO}$+$\Delta f_{VCO}$ is integrated all the way from $t$ = 0 up to $t$, resulting in a discontinuous phase jump whenever $\Delta f_{VCO}$ is updated. The method used in the existing Verilog-A STO model [@MTJSTO_model3] instead implements a phase noise $\varphi_{STO}(t)$ that is discontinuously updated every couple of nanoseconds. In both methods, the comparatively large and discontinuous phase changes result in significant signal discontinuities for sinusoidal signals. This type of discontinuity is not a characteristic of MTJ STOs and, moreover, may cause convergence issues during simulations.
The solution for achieving an accurate and reliable MTJ STO model is to instead implement a $\varphi(t)$, which bears a continuous, linear phase change in between the fixed points of randomized phase fluctuation. The flow chart of the divergence-free implementation of $\varphi(t)$ is illustrated in Fig. 1. The first step is to create a vector $\Delta f [~]$, which gives the random frequency fluctuation as a function of the linewidth (assumed that the frequency noise is white, i.e. that the linewidth has a Lorentzian lineshape), changing every $\Delta t$. $\Delta t$ is the virtual time step, which reflects how offen the frequency fluctuation happens and can be defined by the user. Moreover, the user-set $\Delta t$ is necessary in order to implement the Verilog-A model, because the circuit simulator provides an adaptive time step determined by the local truncation error (LTE) [@Kundert] so that the real simulation time step cannot be fully controlled by the user nor the programmer. Hence, the real simulation time step cannot be used to update the frequency fluctuations. To obtain the correct linewidth, the dataset of $\Delta f [~]$ follows a normal distribution with a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of $\sqrt{\frac{2 \Delta \omega}{\Delta t}}$, resulting in a phase variance that is growing linearly with time in a rate consistent with the specific level of white frequency noise for the specific linewidth $2\Delta \omega$ [@silva2010]. The virtual time step $\Delta t$ is related to the upper cut-off frequency for white noise in the frequency noise spectrum, and should be set to a value smaller than one order of magnitude lower than the inverse cut-off frequency in order to produce white frequency noise all the way up to the cut-off. For cut-off frequencies of 100 MHz or 1 GHz, this means that the virtual time step $\Delta t$ should be set to lower than 1 ns or 100 ps respectively. Failing to set a short enough $\Delta t$ will result in a too narrow white band in the frequency noise spectrum, resulting in a decreased spectral linewidth. In this work, $\Delta t$ = 100 ps is employed. The length of $\Delta f [~]$ is the ratio between the simulation time $t_{sim}$ and the virtual time step $\Delta t$.
The second step in implementing $\varphi(t)$ is to create another vector $\Sigma\Delta \varphi[~]$, which is used to store the phase deviation accumulated from the reference time ($t$=0) to each virtual time step. The relationship between $\Delta f [~]$ and $\Sigma\Delta \varphi[~]$ is illustrated in Fig. 2. In the first period between $t$=0 and the first virtual time step ($t$=1), $\Sigma\Delta \varphi[j=0]$ is 0. During the period between $t$=$j$ and $t$=$j$+1 ($j$>0), the total accumulated phase deviation caused by the frequency fluctuation(s) in the past period(s) (from $\Delta f [0]$ to $\Delta f [j-1]$) is stored in $\Sigma\Delta \varphi[j]$ . A large $\Delta f [j]$ leads to a large phase deviation that will be fully presented at the next time step ($t$=$j$+1). The first two steps in implementing $\varphi(t)$ are necessarily conducted in the $initial$ $step$ event, so that the two vectors are generated only once during the simulation.
The third step, as shown in Fig. 1, is to generate the required $\varphi(t)$. $\varphi(t)$ at an arbitrary time, can be expressed as the sum of the accumulated phase deviation $\Sigma\Delta \varphi[k]$ up to the last virtual time step, and the phase deviation produced from the last virtual time step to the absolute time. The parameter $k$ is employed to count the past number of virtual time steps, and it is updated every $\Delta t$ by using the $timer$ function in Verilog-A. It should be noted that the initial value of $k$ is set to -1 since the $timer$ function is called at the beginning of each time period. The absolute time is fetched by calling the $\$ abstime$ function. The relationship between $\varphi(t)$, $\Delta f[k]$ and $\Sigma\Delta \varphi[k]$ is presented in Fig. 2. Specifically, the slope of $\varphi(t)$ is the instantaneous frequency deviation $\Delta f[k]$, so that the phase deviation generated from the last virtual time step to the absolute time is ($(\$ abstime - k \cdot \Delta t) \cdot \Delta f[k]$). By summing $\Sigma\Delta \varphi[k]$ and ($(\$ abstime - k \cdot \Delta t) \cdot \Delta f[k]$), the required $\varphi(t)$ is realized.
The proposed phase noise generation approach successfully overcomes the phase discontinuity issue identified in the existing Verilog-A models for oscillators [@MTJSTO_model3; @VCOmodel]. However, the proposed noise generation approach makes the proposed MTJ STO model less suitable for simulations which involve momentary variations in the operating conditions, such as the modulation of current or field. Nevertheless, at the early stage of evaluating STOs in various applications and designing STO-based building blocks towards applications, these simulations involving momentary variations in the operating conditions are not yet critical.
Simulation Results
==================
Transient simulations of the aforementioned analytical model implemented in Verilog-A, are carried out using the Cadence SpectreRF circuit simulator.
Simulation results of the MTJ STO model
---------------------------------------
To validate the proposed $\varphi(t)$ function for generating the frequency fluctuation of the MTJ STO, transient simulations of the stand-alone (unloaded) MTJ STO model using the parameters from different MTJ STOs [@ref1]-[@muduli2010nonlinear] are performed. The time domain signals of the transient simulation using the parameters from [@ref1] and $I_\text{DC}$ = 1.5 mA, while sweeping $\phi_\text{ext}$, are depicted in Fig. 3 as an example. They are compared with the measured time domain signal from [@time], since time domain measurements are not included in [@ref1]-[@muduli2010nonlinear]. The general nature of these simulated time domain signals agree with the measured one. Especially, the phase fluctuation generated by the proposed $\varphi(t)$ function, has continuous changes and is very similar to that of the measured time domain signal [@time]. Aside from the discrepancies between the modeled (theoretical) and measured linewidth, this comparison demonstrates that the proposed MTJ STO model can reproduce the phase fluctuation generated by MTJ STOs, so as to achieve a reliable MTJ STO model.
The time domain signals in Fig. 3. are further analyzed to validate that the model implemented in Verilog-A is equivalent to the analytical model given in [@Tingsu_2014TEDI].
For different $\phi_\text{ext}$, the time domain signals shown in Fig. 3 present different characteristics including the operating frequency, phase noise (linewidth), amplitude, and DC biasing points. Time domain signals with large output power (voltage amplitude) appear at the in-plane external field angles between $40^o$ and $55^o$ (corresponding in-plane effective field angles between $47^o$ and $68^o$). Among these, the signal generated at $\phi_\text{ext}=55^o$ shows less random fluctuations in the phase than that at $\phi_\text{ext}=40^o$. The estimation of output power and linewidth based on Fig. 3 are in agreement with the analytical results given in and Fig. 4(a) of [@Tingsu_2014TEDI] respectively. As it can also be seen in Fig. 3, the phase noise at large in-plane external field angles degrades significantly, which is in accord with the theoretical linewidth in Fig. 4(a) of [@Tingsu_2014TEDI]. In such cases, where the phase noise is considerable, the simulation does not suffer from any signal discontinuity or convergence issues, thanks to the proposed method used to generate the phase noise. Additionally, noticed from Fig. 3, the DC voltage across the MTJ STO increases as a function of $\phi_\text{ext}$, which is in agreement with Eq.(5) in [@Tingsu_2014TEDI].
To quantify the characteristics of the MTJ STO Verilog-A model as a function of $\phi_\text{ext}$, the time domain signals obtained from the transient simulations (1 $\mu$s) are converted (in Cadence) to the frequency domain using FFT so as to obtain power spectral densities (PSDs) of the signals, which are depicted in . To perform the FFT, a Hamming window of the full waveform length 1 $\mu$s (16384 samples) is employed. This results in a resolution bandwidth of (1 $\mu$s)$^{-1}$ = .
Fig. 4(a) shows the PSDs, which contain the information of the operating frequency and linewidth of the MTJ STO’s signals as a function of $\phi_\text{ext}$. As $\phi_\text{ext}$ is increased, the operating frequency initially decreases, reaches a minimum and thereafter increases, agreeing with the measured data given in Fig. 2(a) of [@Tingsu_2014TEDI]. For different $\phi_\text{ext}$, the operating frequency and linewidth of the proposed MTJ STO model implemented in Verilog-A are in accordance with the one obtained from the theoretical analysis, as given in Fig. 2(a) and Fig. 4(a) of [@Tingsu_2014TEDI]. Particularly, as it can be noticed from Fig. 4(a), the linewidth at $\phi_\text{ext}=55^o$, is much narrower than that at $\phi_\text{ext}=40^o$, indicating less random frequency fluctuations and confirming the estimation based on Fig. 3. Moreover, as it can be observed from Fig. 4(a), the signal with comparatively large output power can be found between $40^o$ and $55^o$, which is also in agreement with the analytical and measured results in Fig. 3(a) of [@Tingsu_2014TEDI].
The dependence of $I_\text{DC}$ on the characteristics of the MTJ STO is also examined by performing transient simulations of the proposed Verilog-A model with different $I_\text{DC}$. The PSDs of the transient simulation results as a function of $I_\text{DC}$ at $\phi_\text{ext}=45^o$ is depicted in Fig. 4(b). The rise in $I_\text{DC}$ causes a decline in the operating frequency and an increase in the output power, which matches the theoretical results and experiments.
Effort has been made in this work to achieve the compact MTJ STO model and improve the simulation speed. Therefore, the time required for transient simulations of the proposed model is of interest. To benchmark the simulation speed, a 1 $\mu$s simulation with a maximum time step of 5 ps is performed. By averaging the runtime of 10 simulations containing approximately 470900 transient steps, a simulation takes only 52.6 s. The simulations are performed on a server with 2$\times$AMD Opteron 6172, and occupy one core. Regarding the micromagnetics-based model, which is most efficiently simulated on graphic processing units (GPUs) or supercomputer clusters, the typical runtime is roughly 24 hours for a similar device. Compared with the micromagnetics-based model discussed in Part I [@Tingsu_2014TEDI], the proposed model offers rapid simulations with a similar degree of accuracy.
Hybrid simulation of the MTJ STO model with CMOS circuits
---------------------------------------------------------
Hybrid simulation of the MTJ STO model with CMOS circuits is of great importance since it provides validation of the proposed model at system- and circuit-level throughout its range of operation. Furthermore, it can fully cross-verify the model and the designed CMOS circuits. To perform the hybrid simulation, a system including the proposed MTJ STO model as well as CMOS circuits is considered. In this system, the MTJ STO model employs the parameters from [@ref3] since this MTJ STO has a resistance close to 50 $\Omega$, which eases analyses. Firstly, proper biasing circuits for driving the MTJ STO are investigated and analyzed. For instance, the current mirror, which has been employed in [@MTJSTO_model1], [@MTJSTO_model2] to provide the current biasing for the MTJ STO, is simulated with the proposed MTJ STO model and examined. The simulation results, however, suggest that using the current mirror to bias the MTJ STO is not suitable. The reason is that the resistance (biasing voltage) of the MTJ STO changes when $\phi_\text{ext}$ is varied, as illustrated in Fig. 3. Therefore, different resistances at different $\phi_\text{ext}$ make it impossible for the current mirror to accurately copy the current from a current source to the MTJ STO under all circumstances. Thereafter, a traditional RC bias-T, as shown in Fig. 5, is simulated with the proposed MTJ STO model.
According to the simulation results, this RC bias-T can more successfully be utilized by MTJ STOs since the performance of the bias-T is not influenced by the variable resistance (biasing voltage) of MTJ STO. Consequently, the RC bias-T is used in this work to build the system. The selection of the biasing circuits for the MTJ STO demonstrates that the proposed MTJ STO model is very useful for the device and circuit community to identify the suitable circuit topologies and to design dedicated circuits for MTJ STOs, owing to the complete implementation of the proposed model in Verilog-A.
To complete a system, which provides low-noise amplification to MTJ STO signals and can be used in either applications or measurements, a wideband Balun-low noise amplifier (LNA) [@Tingsu2014] is employed. An output buffer and an AC coupling capacitor are added to present a system (Fig. 5) that is able to drive 50 $\Omega$ load. The buffered wideband Balun-LNA is fully-ESD protected, and it is implemented in CMOS 65 nm process with a 1.2 V power supply.
Before performing the transient simulation of the system, the unloaded MTJ STO is simulated at and $\phi_\text{ext}=40^o$, where a comparatively high voltage generated by the MTJ STO can be obtained. This voltage will be used as the reference voltage to compare with the voltage signals obtained from the MTJ STO together with the Balun-LNA. The transient simulation of the system is then conducted at the same biasing condition. The obtained time domain signals, including the voltage generated by the unloaded MTJ STO, the voltage that can be delivered from the MTJ STO to the Balun-LNA, and the amplified voltage at the differential output of the Balun-LNA, are plotted in Fig. 6.
The output signals of the MTJ STO before and after being connected by the Balun-LNA show that the DC voltage is sustained due to employed bias-T, and the DC resistance ($R_\text{DC}$) is close to 50 $\Omega$. In addition, approximately 2/3 of the AC voltage generated by the MTJ STO is delivered to the Balun-LNA, which is due to the fact that an AC voltage divider is formed between $R_\text{DC}$ and the input impedance of the Balun-LNA ($Z_\text{in}$). To quantify the power delivery and amplification so as to evaluate the hybrid simulation, PSDs of these signals are plotted in Fig. 7.
Figure 7 shows that the power delivered from the MTJ STO to the Balun-LNA is about -3 dB less than the power generated by the unloaded MTJ STO. Based on this loss ($Z_\text{in}$/($Z_\text{in}+R_\text{DC}$) = 10$^{\frac{-3}{20}}$), it can be calculated that the return loss S11=($Z_\text{in}-R_\text{DC}$)/($Z_\text{in}+R_\text{DC}$) at the operating frequency of the MTJ STO (under the applied biasing condition) is . Since $R_\text{DC}$ is close to 50 $\Omega$, the calculated S11 should be similar to the S11 of the Balun-LNA that is characterized with a 50 $\Omega$ termination. The S11 of the Balun-LNA reported in [@Tingsu2014] is about , which verifies the S11 calculated based on the hybrid simulation. As it can be also approximated from Fig. 7, the difference between the simulated PSD signals at the input and output of the Balun-LNA is approximately , which corresponds to the gain of the Balun-LNA reported in [@Tingsu2014]. In summary, the behavior of the proposed MTJ STO model has been validated at circuit- and system- level. The evaluated hybrid simulation demonstrates that the performance of an MTJ STO-based system can be easily, reliably and accurately predicted by the circuit simulator using the proposed MTJ STO Verilog-A model.
Conclusion
==========
The analytical model of the MTJ STO proposed in of this paper has been fully implemented in Verilog-A, enabling its direct use in STO-based systems. During the implementation, an approach to replicate the phase noise, hence the generated signal of the MTJ STOs, has been developed. This approach makes a reliable MTJ STO model possible, and allows different performance analyses so as to extensively explore possible applications. The simulation results of the stand-alone MTJ STO model and the MTJ STO-based system show that the implemented model gives identical characteristics as those obtained from the proposed analytical model. Additionally, the results demonstrate that the proposed MTJ STO model is useful for estimating as well as improving overall performance of the MTJ STO-based circuits and systems. Consequently, the proposed MTJ STO has the potential to accelerate the development of MTJ STO technology towards its future applications.
[1]{}
S. A. Wolf, D. D. Awschalom, R. A. Buhrman, J. M. Daughton, S. Von Molnar, M. L. Roukes, A. Y. Chtchelkanova, and D. M. Treger, “Spintronics: a spin-based electronics vision for the future,” *Science*, vol. 294, no. 5546, pp. 1488–1495, 2001.
K. C. Chun, H. Zhao, J. D. Harms, T.-H. Kim, J.-P. Wang, and C. H. Kim, “A scaling roadmap and performance evaluation of in-plane and perpendicular MTJ based STT-MRAMs for high-density cache memory,” *IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits*, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 598–610, 2013.
Y. Huai, “Spin-transfer torque MRAM (STT-MRAM): Challenges and prospects,” *AAPPS Bulletin*, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 33–40, 2008.
C. Augustine, N. N. Mojumder, X. Fong, S. H. Choday, S. P. Park, and K. Roy, “Spin-transfer torque mrams for low power memories: Perspective and prospective,” *IEEE Sens. J.*, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 756–766, 2012.
G. D. Panagopoulos, C. Augustine, and K. Roy, “Physics-based SPICE-compatible compact model for simulating hybrid MTJ/CMOS circuits,” *IEEE Trans. Electron Devices*, vol. 60, no. 9, pp. 2808–2814, 2013.
Y. Zhang, W. Zhao, Y. Lakys, J. O. Klein, J. V. Kim, D. Ravelosona, and C. Chappert, “Compact modeling of perpendicular-anisotropy CoFeB/MgO magnetic tunnel junctions,” *IEEE Trans. Electron Devices*, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 819–826, 2012.
A. Vatankhahghadim, S. Huda, and A. Sheikholeslami, “A survey on circuit modeling of spin-transfer-torque magnetic tunnel junctions,” *IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I, Reg. Papers*, vol. 61, no. 9, pp. 2634–2643, 2014.
S. E. Russek, W. H. Rippard, T. Cecil, R. Heindl,“Spin Torque Nano-Oscillators,” in *Handbook of Nanophysics*, CRC Press, 2010, chp. 38, pp. 38-1–38-24.
N. Locatelli, V. Cros, and J. Grollier, “Spin-torque building blocks,” *Nature Mater.*, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 11–20, 2014.
A. A. Tulapurkar, Y. Suzuki, A. Fukushima, H. Kubota, H. Maehara, K. Tsunekawa, D. D. Djayaprawira, N. Watanabe, and S. Yuasa, “Spin-torque diode effect in magnetic tunnel junctions,” *Nature*, vol. 438, no. 7066, pp. 339–342, 2005.
P. M. Braganca, B. A. Gurney, B. A. Wilson, J. A. Katine, S. Maat, and J. R. Childress, “Nanoscale magnetic field detection using a spin torque oscillator,” *Nanotechnology*, vol. 21, no. 23, p. 235202, 2010.
S. Bonetti, P. Muduli, F. Mancoff, and J. $\AA$kerman, “Spin torque oscillator frequency versus magnetic field angle: The prospect of operation beyond 65 GHz,” *Appl. Phys. Lett.*, vol. 94, no. 10, p. 102507, 2009.
P. Villard, U. Ebels, D. Houssameddine, J. Katine, D. Mauri, B. Delaet, P. Vincent, M. C. Cyrille, B. Viala, J. P. Michel, J. Prouvée, and F. Badets, “A GHz spintronic-based RF oscillator,” *IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits*, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 214–223, 2010.
M. R. Pufall, W. H. Rippard, S. Kaka, T. J. Silva, S. E. Russek, “Frequency modulation of spin-transfer oscillators,” *Appl. Phys. Lett.*, vol. 86, no. 8, p. 082506, 2005.
H. S. Choi, S. Y. Kang, S. J. Cho, I.-Y. Oh, M. Shin, H. Park, C. Jang, B.-C. Min, S.-I. Kim, S.-Y. Park and C. S. Park, “Spin nano-oscillator-based wireless communication”, *Scientific Reports*, vol. 4, no. 5486, pp. 1–7, 2014.
H. Lim, S. Ahn, M. Kim, S. Lee, and H. Shin, “A new circuit model for spin-torque oscillator including perpendicular torque of magnetic tunnel junction,” *Adv. Condens. Matter Phys.*, vol. 2013, p. 169312, 2013.
M. Kim, H Lim, S. Ahn, S. Lee, and H. Shin, “Advanced circuit-level model of magnetic tunnel junction-based spin-torque oscillator with perpendicular anisotropy field,” *J. Semicond. Tech. Sci.*, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 556–561, 2013.
T. Chen, A. Eklund, E, Iacocca, S. Rodriguez, G. Malm, J. [Å]{}kerman and A. Rusu, “Comprehensive and macrospin-based magnetic tunnel junction spin torque oscillator model – Part I: Analytical model of the MTJ STO,” submitted to *IEEE Trans. Electron Devices*, 2014.
S. Ahn, H. Lim, H. Shin, and S. Lee, “Analytic model of spin-torque oscillators (STO) for circuit-level simulation,” *J. Semicond. Tech. Sci.*, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 28–33, 2013.
T. Chen, *Verilog-A code of the MTJ STO model* \[Online\]. Available: http://web.ict.kth.se/$\sim$tingsu/VerilogA$\_$MTJ$\_$STO.
M. Quinsat, D. Gusakova, J. F. Sierra, J. P. Michel, D. Houssameddine, B. Delaet, M. -C. Cyrille, U. Ebels, B. Dieny, L. D. Buda-Prejbeanu, J. A. Katine, D. Mauri, A. Zeltser, M. Prigent, J. -C. Nallatamby and R. Sommet, “Amplitude and phase noise of magnetic tunnel junction oscillators,” *Appl. Phys. Lett.*, vol. 97, no. 18, p. 182507, 2010.
M. Takahashi, K. Ogawa, and K. Kundert, “VCO jitter simulation and its comparison with measurement,” in *Proc. of IEEE ASP-DAC*, 1999, pp. 85–88.
K. Kundert, and I. Clifford, “Achieving accurate results with a circuit simulator,” in *IEE Colloq. on SPICE: Surviving Problems in Circuit Evaluation*, 1993, pp. 1–5.
T. J. Silva, and M. W. Keller, “Theory of thermally induced phase noise in spin torque oscillators for a high-symmetry case,” *IEEE Trans. Magnetics*, vol. 46, no. 9, pp. 3555–3573, 2010.
Z. M. Zeng, P. Upadhyaya, P. K. Amiri, K. H. Cheung, J. A. Katine, J. Langer, K. L. Wang, and H. W. Jiang, “Enhancement of microwave emission in magnetic tunnel junction oscillators through in-plane field orientation,” *Appl. Phys. Lett.*, vol. 99. vol. 3, p. 032503, 2011.
P. Gangmei, A. Neudert, M. K. Marcham, R. J. Hicken, M. A. Gubbins, X. Cao, R. R. Lamberton, and A. B. Johnston, “Thermal and spin-transfer-torque excitation of precessional modes in magnetic tunnel junction nanopillars with symmetric interfaces and a thick free layer,” *Phys. Rev. B*, vol. 88, no. 13, p. 134415, 2013.
P. K. Muduli, Y. Pogoryelov, S. Bonetti, G. Consolo, F. Mancoff, and J. [Å]{}kerman, “Nonlinear frequency and amplitude modulation of a nanocontact-based spin-torque oscillator,” *Phys. Rev. B*, vol. 81, no. 14, p. 140408, 2010.
G.E. Rowlands, J.A. Katine, J. Langer, J. Zhu, and I.N. Krivorotov, “Time domain mapping of spin torque oscillator effective energy,” *Phys. Rev. Lett.*, vo. 111, no. 8, p. 087206, 2013.
T. Chen, S. Rodriguez, J. [Å]{}kerman, and A. Rusu, “An inductorless wideband balun-LNA for spin torque oscillator-based field sensing”, in *Proc. of IEEE ICECS*, 2014, pp. 36–39.
[Tingsu Chen]{} (S’11) received the B.Sc. degree in communication engineering from the Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, China, and the M.Sc. degree in system-on-chip design from the KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden, in 2009 and 2011, respectively. She is currently working toward the Ph.D. degree at KTH with the research area of high frequency circuit design for spin torque oscillator technology.
[Anders Eklund]{} (S’13) received the M.Sc. degree in engineering physics from KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden, in 2011. He is currently working towards a Ph.D. degree in physics at KTH, experimentally investigating the frequency stability of spin torque oscillators by means of electrical characterization and synchrotron x-ray measurements.
[Ezio Iacocca]{} (S’08) received the B.Sc. degree in electronic engineering from the Simón Bolívar University, Caracas, Venezuela (’08), the M.Sc. in nanotechnology from the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden (’10), and the Ph.D. in physics from the University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden (’14). His research focuses on the magnetodynamical modes of spin transfer torque driven nano oscillators and their applications in communication and storage technology.
[Saul Rodriguez]{} (M’06) received the B.Sc. degree in electrical engineering from the Army Polytechnic School (ESPE), Quito, Ecuador, and the M.Sc. degree in system-on-chip design and the Ph.D. degree in electronic and computer systems from the KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. in 2001, 2005, and 2009, respectively. His current research interests include RF CMOS circuit design for wideband frond-ends, ultralow-power circuits for medical applications and graphene-based RF, and AMS circuits.
[B. Gunnar Malm]{} (M’98 - SM’10) was born in Stockholm, Sweden, in 1972. He received the M.S. from Uppsala University, Sweden, in 1997, the PhD in solid-state electronics 2002, from Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm. He is an Associate Professor at the School of ICT, KTH since 2011. His recent work includes silicon photonics, silicon-carbide technology for extreme environments and spintronics. He also serves on the KTH Sustainability Council.
[Johan $\AA$kerman]{} (M’06) has an Ing. Phys. Dipl. degree (’94) from EPFL, Switzerland, a M.Sc. in physics (’96) from LTH, Sweden, and a Ph.D. in materials physics (’00) from KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm. In 2008 he was appointed Full Professor at University of Gothenburg and is a Guest Professor at KTH Royal Institute of Technology. He is also the founder of NanOsc AB and NanOsc Instruments AB.
[Ana Rusu]{} (M’92) received the M.Sc. degree in electronics and telecommunications and Ph.D. degree in electronics in 1983 and 1998, respectively. She has been with KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, since 2001, where she is Professor in electronic circuits for integrated systems. Her research interests include low/ultralow power high performance CMOS circuits and systems, STO-based systems, RF graphene and high temperature SiC circuits.
[^1]: Manuscript received October 20, 2014; revised December 5, 2014; accepted December 15, 2014. This research is supported by Swedish Research Council (VR).
[^2]: Tingsu Chen, Anders Eklund, Saul Rodriguez, Gunnar Malm and Ana Rusu are with the Department of Integrated Devices and Circuits, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 164 40 Kista, Sweden. (e-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] and [email protected]).
[^3]: Ezio Iacocca and Johan $\AA$kerman are with the Department of Physics, University of Gothenburg, 412 96 Gothenburg, Sweden.(e-mail: [email protected]).
[^4]: Johan $\AA$kerman is also with the Department of Materials and Nano Physics, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 164 40 Kista, Sweden. (e-mail: [email protected]).
|
---
author:
- Jérémy Leconte
- Gilles Chabrier
- Isabelle Baraffe
- Benjamin Levrard
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: |
Is tidal heating sufficient to explain bloated exoplanets?\
Consistent calculations accounting for finite initial eccentricity
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Gravitational tides have marked out the history of science and astrophysics since the first assessment by Seleucus of Seleucia of the relation between the height of the tides and the position of the moon and the Sun in the second century BC. Modern astrophysics extended the study of gravitational tides in an impressive variety of contexts from the synchronization of the moon and other satellites to the evolution of close binary stars and even the disruption of galaxies.
The recent discoveries of short period extrasolar planetary systems and the determination of the anomalously large radius of some giant close-in exoplanets revived the need for a theory of planetary tides covering a wider variety of orbital configurations than previously encountered for the case of our own solar system planets. In particular, the orbital evolution of planetary systems such as HD 80606, with an orbital eccentricity of 0.9337 [@NLM01], and XO-3, with a stellar obliquity $\es\gtrsim37.3\pm3.7$ deg [@WJF09], cannot be properly treated with tidal models limited to the case of zero or vanishing eccentricity and obliquity such as in the models of e.g. @GS66, @JGB08 and @FRH08.
Following @BLM01 and @GLB03, attempts have been made to explain the observed large radius of some transiting close-in gas giant exoplanets - the so-called “Hot Jupiters” - by means of tidal heating [@JGB08; @MFJ09; @ISB09]. All these models, however, use tidal models truncated to low (second) order in eccentricity, in spite of initial eccentricities, as determined from the tidal evolution calculations, which can be as large as $e=0.8$! According to these calculations, a large eccentricity can remain long enough to lead to tidal energy dissipation in the planet’s gaseous envelop (assuming a proper dissipation mechanism is at play in the deep convective layers) at a late epoch and then can explain the actual bloated radius of some observed planets.
In the present paper, we revisit the viability of this tidal heating hypothesis, using an extended version of the @Hut81 tidal evolution model, solving consistently the [*complete*]{} tidal equations, to any order in eccentricity and obliquity, and coupling these latter with the gravothermal evolution of the irradiated planet. As will be shown in the paper, properly taking into account the full nature of the tidal equations severely modifies the planet’s tidal and thermal evolution, compared with the aforementioned truncated calculations, leading to significantly different tidal heat rates and thus planet contraction rates.
After introducing our model in §\[sec:hyp\], we examine in detail in §\[sec:q\] the relation between the *constant time lag* ($\Delta t$) in Hut’s (and thus our) model and the usual tidal quality factor ($Q$) widely used in the literature. Constraints on $\Delta t$ from the study of the galilean satellites are also derived. In §\[sec:2ndOrder\], we demonstrate, with [*analytical arguments*]{}, that truncating the tidal equations at $2^{\mathrm{nd}}$ order in eccentricity leads to wrong tidal evolution histories, with sequences drastically differing from the ones obtained when solving the complete equations. In §\[sec:comp\], we compare our full thermal/orbital evolution calculations with similar studies based on a truncated and constant $Q$ tidal model. These numerical comparisons confirm and quantify the conclusions reached in §\[sec:2ndOrder\], namely that low order eccentricity models substantially underestimate the tidal evolution timescales for initially eccentric systems and thus lead to incorrect tidal energy contributions to the planet’s energy balance. For instance, we show that tidal heating can not explain the radius of HD 209458b, for the present values of their orbital parameters, contrarily to what has been claimed in previous calculations based on truncated eccentricity models [@ISB09]. Finally, in §\[sec:global\], we apply our model to the case of some of the discovered bloated planets. We show that, although tidal heating can explain the presently observed radius of some [*moderately bloated*]{} hot Jupiters, as indeed suggested in some previous studies, tidal heating alone cannot explain [*all*]{} the anomalously large radii. Indeed, in these cases, eccentricity damping occurs too early in the system’s tidal evolution (assuming a genuine two-body planetary system) to lead to the present state of the planet’s contraction.
Model Description {#sec:hyp}
=================
Internal evolution {#sec:intevolution}
------------------
The main physics inputs (equations of state, internal composition, irradiated atmosphere models, boundary conditions) used in the present calculations have been described in details in previous papers devoted to the evolution of extrasolar giant planets [@BCB03; @BCB08; @LBC09] and are only briefly outlined below. The evolution of the planet is based on a consistent treatment between the outer non-grey irradiated atmospheric structure and the inner structure. The interior is composed primarily of a gaseous H/He envelope whose thermodynamic properties are described by the Saumon-Chabrier-VanHorn equation of state (EOS, @SCV95) with a solar or non-solar enrichment in heavy elements described by the appropriate EOS’s [@BCB08]. In the present calculations, our fiducial model consists of a planet with a central core made up of water, with the ANEOS EOS [@TL72]. A detailed analysis of the effects of different EOS’s, core compositions and heavy material repartitions within the planet can be found in @BCB08, as well as a comparison with models from other groups, in particular the ones by @FMB07.
Transiting planets are by definition very close to their host star ($a< 0.1$AU). In that case, the stellar irradiation strongly affects the planet atmospheric structure to deep levels [@BHA01] and thus the planet’s evolution (@GBH96, @BCB03, @BSH03, @CBB04). We use a grid of irradiated atmosphere models based on the calculations of [@BHA01], computed for different levels of stellar irradiation relevant to the present study. For planets with a finite orbital eccentricity, the mean stellar flux received is given by: $$\label{finc}
<F_{\mathrm{inc}}> =f\, R_\star^2\ \sigma T_{\mathrm{eff},\star}^4<\frac{1}{r^2} >= f\,\left( \frac{R_\star}{a } \right)^2 \frac{\sigma T_{\mathrm{eff},\star}^4}{\sqrt{1-e^2}}\,,$$ where $\Rs$ and $T_{\mathrm{eff},\star}$ are the stellar radius and effective temperature, $\sigma$ the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, $a$ and $e$ the orbital semi-major axis and eccentricity and $f$ is a geometrical factor (substituting $f$ by 1 in Eq.\[finc\] gives the mean flux received at the substellar point). The atmospheric models were computed with $f=1/2$ as described by @BHA01.
Tidal Model {#sec:tidalmodel}
-----------
We consider the gravitational tides raised by both the host star and the planet on each other and follow the traditional “viscous” approach of the [*equilibrium tide*]{} theory [@Dar08]. The secular evolution of the semi-major axis $a$ can be calculated exactly (e.g. @Hut81; @NL97; @LCC07; @CL10; see appendix \[appendix\] for the derivation of these equations for any value of the eccentricity and obliquity) $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{a}\frac{\dd a}{\dd t}=\frac{4\,a}{GM_{\star}\Mp}
&\Big\{&\Kp&\left[N(e)\,x_\mathrm{p}\,
\frac{\op}{n}-N_a(e)\right] \nonumber\\
&+& \Ks&\left[N(e)\,x_\star\,
\frac{\os}{n}-N_a(e)\right]\Big\}\ , \quad
\label{evol_a}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\label{n_e}
N(e) = \frac{1+\frac{15}{2}e^2+\frac{45}{8}e^4+\frac{5}{16}e^6}{(1-e^2)^{6}}$$ and $$\label{na_e}
N_a(e)=\frac{1+\frac{31}{2}e^2+\frac{255}{8}e^4+\frac{185}{16}e^6+\frac{25}{64}e^8}{(1-e^2)^{15/2}},$$ where $G$ is the gravitational constant, $\op$ is the planet’s rotation rate, $\Mp$ and $\Rp$ its mass and radius, $\ep$ its obliquity (the angle between the equatorial and orbital planes), with $x_\mathrm{p}=\cos
\ep$, and $n$ the orbital mean motion. $$\Kp = \frac{3}{2} \kp \dtp \left( \frac{G
\Mp^2}{\Rp} \right) \left(\frac{\Ms}{\Mp} \right)^2 \left( \frac{\Rp}{a}
\right)^6 n^2 \ ,$$ where $\kp$ and $\dtp$ are the potential Love number of degree 2 and the constant time lag for the planet. The stellar parameters correspond to the same definitions, by simply switching the p and $\star$ indices. Similarly, the secular evolution of the eccentricity is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{e}\frac{\dd e}{\dd t}=11\frac{a}{GM_{\star}\Mp}
&\Big\{&\Kp&\left[\Omega_e(e)\,x_\mathrm{p}\,
\frac{\op}{n}-\frac{18}{11}N_e(e)\right] \nonumber\\
&+& \Ks&\left[\Omega_e(e)\,x_\star\,
\frac{\os}{n}-\frac{18}{11}N_e(e)\right]\Big\}\ , \quad
\label{evol_e}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\label{omega_e_e}
\Omega_e(e) =\frac{1+\frac{3}{2}e^2+\frac{1}{8}e^4}{(1-e^2)^{5}}$$ and $$\label{ne_e}
N_e(e)=\frac{1+\frac{15}{4}e^2+\frac{15}{8}e^4+\frac{5}{64}e^6}{(1-e^2)^{13/2}}.$$ The terms proportional to $\Kp$ (resp. $\Ks$) are due to the tides raised by the star (planet) on the planet (star). Finally, the evolution of the rotational state of each object $i$ ($i$ being $p$ or $\star$) is given by: $$\frac{\dd C_\ii\omega_\ii}{\dd t}=-\frac{K_\ii}{n}
\left[\left(1+x_\ii^2\right)\Omega(e)\frac{\omega_\ii}{n}-2x_\ii\,N(e)
\right] \ ,
\label{rot_tidal}$$ while the evolution of the obliquity obeys the equation $$\frac{\dd \varepsilon_\ii}{\dd t}=\sin \varepsilon_\ii \frac{K_\ii}{C_\ii \omega_\ii\,n}
\left[(x_\ii-\eta_\ii)\,\Omega(e) \frac{\omega_\ii}{n}- 2\,N(e) \right] \ , \label{rot_tidal2}$$ where $C_\ii$ is the principal moment of inertia of the deformable body under consideration, $\eta_\ii$ is the ratio of rotational over orbital angular momentum $$\eta_\ii=\frac{\Mp+\Ms}{\Mp\Ms} \frac{C_\ii \omega_\ii}{a^2n \sqrt{1-e^2}},$$ and $$\label{omega_e}
\Omega(e) = \frac{1+3e^2+\frac{3}{8}e^4}{(1-e^2)^{9/2}}.$$ Up to this point, no assumption has been made on the objects themselves. As a result, Eqs.(\[evol\_a\])-(\[rot\_tidal2\]) are fully symmetric in p and $\star$ indices and can be used directly to model binary stars or a planet-satellite system. For typical HD 209458b-like parameters and $\Delta t$-values comparable to that inferred for Jupiter (see §\[sec:q\]), the planetary spin evolves to a coplanar ($\ep=0$) state with the equilibrium rotation rate value (setting $ \dd \op / \dd t = 0$) $$\omega_{\mathrm{eq}}=\frac{N(e)}{\Omega(e)}\frac{2x}{1+x^2}\,n= \frac{N(e)}{\Omega(e)}\,n\,,
\label{rot_eq}$$ within a time scale $\tau=C_\mathrm{p}\,n^2/\Kp \sim 10^5$ yr. Since the age of the known transiting systems ranges from a few Myr to Gyr, we can safely assume that the planet is now in this state of pseudo synchronization. The evolution of the orbital parameters of the planet-star systems is thus fully defined by the system of differential equations, to be solved consistently, given by Eqs.(\[evol\_a\]) and (\[evol\_e\]) for $a$ and $e$, Eqs.(\[rot\_tidal\]) and (\[rot\_tidal2\]) for the stellar rotation and $\ep=0$, $\op=\omega_{\mathrm{eq}}$. The rate of tidal dissipation within the [*planet*]{} in this state of pseudo synchronization reads [@Hut81; @LCC07] $$\dot{E}_{\mathrm{tides}}=
2\Kp\left[N_a(e)-\frac{N^2(e)}{\Omega(e)} \right] \ ;\ \ (\op=\omega_{\mathrm{eq}})\ .
\label{tidal_energy}$$ The dissipated heat is deposited over the whole planet’s interior.
One can see from Eq.(\[appendtidalnrj2\]) in Appendix \[appendix\] that Eq.(\[tidal\_energy\]) is a special case of energy dissipation for a body in pseudo synchronous rotation as expected for fluid objects ($\ep=0$, $\op=\omega_{\mathrm{eq}}$). For a rocky planet, the external gravitational potential created by its permanent quadrupole moment can cause its locking into synchronous rotation ($\op=n$) and the dissipation rate reads in that case $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{E}_{\mathrm{tides}}&=&\,2\,\Kp\ \times\ &\nonumber\\
&\times&\Bigg[N_a(e)-2&N(e)\,x_\mathrm{p}+\left(\frac{1+x_\mathrm{p}^2}{2}\right)\Omega(e)\Bigg] ;\ (\op=n)\ .\end{aligned}$$ This equation fully agrees with Eq.(30) of @Wis08 who calculated it for a homogeneous, incompressible with a radial displacement Love number $h_2 =5k_2/3$. Note that our derivation does not require such an hypothesis and all the uncertainties in the radial distribution of material and its physical properties (e.g., density, compressibility, elasticity) are lumped into the $k_2$ parameter [@Lev08].
Relationship between the time lag $\Delta t$ and the quality factor ($Q$) {#sec:q}
=========================================================================
The aforedescribed tidal model, which leads to [*exact*]{} tidal evolution equations in the viscous approximation, implies a [*constant time lag*]{} $\Delta t$. Neither the tidal quality factor ($Q$), or its counterpart, the phase lag ($\epsilon$) [@Gol63; @GS66] enter the dynamical evolution equations. Instead, the model is characterized by the time lag between the maximum of the tidal potential and the tidal bulge in each body, $\Delta t_\ii$, considered to be constant during the evolution. As shown e.g. by @Dar08 (see also @Gre09), this model is equivalent to considering a body whose rheology entails $Q^{-1}(\sigma)\approx \epsilon(\sigma)\propto \sigma$, where $\sigma/2\pi$ is the frequency of the tidal forcing. The actual rheology of giant gaseous planets being poorly constrained, this arbitrary choice based on the visco-elastic model has the advantages of (i) not introducing any discontinuity for vanishing tidal frequencies, as is the case for synchronous rotation, and (ii) to allow for a complete calculation of the tidal effect [*without any assumption on the eccentricity*]{} for an ideal viscoelastic body.
Indeed, as shown by @Gre09, the frequency dependence of the phase lag of a perfect viscoelastic oscillator is given by $$\tan (\epsilon)=\frac{\sigma}{\tau (\omega_0^2-\sigma^2)}$$ where $\tau$ is a viscous damping timescale and $\omega_0$ the natural frequency of the oscillator. In an incompressible gaseous body, the restoring force acting against the tidal deformation is the self gravity of the body. Thus $\omega_0$ can be estimated through the free-fall time as $2\pi/\omega_0\approx\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{\frac{3\pi}{2\,G\bar{\rho}}}\approx 30$ minutes for Jupiter mean density. For tidal periods of several days $\omega_0\gg\sigma$, and for weakly viscous fluid, the phase lag reads $$\epsilon(\sigma)\approx\frac{\sigma}{\tau\, \omega_0^2}\equiv\,\sigma\, \Delta t$$ which is the frequency dependence corresponding to the constant time lag model.
On the contrary, constant-$Q$ models described by @GS66, @JGB08, @FRH08 were derived using perturbative developments of Kepler equations of motion both in eccentricity and inclination. Such Fourier decomposition is in fact necessary in an “lag and add” approach with a given frequency dependence of the phase lag ($\epsilon(\sigma)$). Indeed, in this approach, one must first separate the forcing potential in terms with a defined frequency before lagging them with the chosen $\epsilon(\sigma)$ (See @FRH08 [@Gre09]). As a result they can only be used in the $e\ll1$ and $\varepsilon_\ii\ll1$ limit.
The time lag $\Delta t$ can be linked to the reduced quality factor $Q'\equiv 3Q/2k_2$, chosen so that $Q'=Q$ for an homogeneous sphere ($k_2=3/2$). Indeed, one must remember that the [*phase lag*]{}, $\epsilon(\sigma)$, induced by the tidal dissipative effects, is twice the geometrical lag angle, $\delta(\sigma)$, between the maximum of the deforming potential and the tidal bulge: $\epsilon(\sigma)=2\delta(\sigma)=\sigma\Delta t $. Moreover, for an incompressible body, a reasonable assumption for giant planets, the tidal dissipation function is given by [@Gol63; @EW09]: $$Q^{-1}(\sigma)=-\frac{\Delta_{\mathrm{cycle}} E(\sigma)}{2\pi E_{\mathrm{peak}}(\sigma)}=\frac{\tan\epsilon(\sigma)}{1-(\frac{\pi}{2}-\epsilon(\sigma))\tan\epsilon(\sigma)},
\label{Qfunc}$$ where $\Delta_{\mathrm{cycle}}E(\sigma)$ is the energy dissipated by the body at the frequency $\sigma$ during one tidal period and $E_{\mathrm{peak}}(\sigma)$ the maximum energy stored in the perturbation. In the cases of interest in the present study, where $Q\gg1$, and for non-synchronized circular orbits, semi-diurnal tides dominate and one can equal the average tidal quality factor to the one given by Eq.(\[Qfunc\]) for the relevant frequency $$\label{QforJ}
Q'^{-1}\approx \frac{4}{3} k_2\Delta t |\omega-n|.$$ This formula can be used to estimate the quality factor in the case of the jovian planets as long as semi-diurnal tides dominate. As the planet tends toward synchronization, the dissipative effects of the semi diurnal tides ($\sigma=2|\op-~n|$) vanish with their frequency. Then, the most dissipative tides are the eccentric annual tides ($\sigma=n$) and $$\label{QforExo}
Q_{\mathrm{p}}'^{-1}\approx \frac{2}{3}k_2\Delta t\, n.$$ Apart from these two limit cases, no tidal frequency dominates, and the dissipation is the response of the body to the rich spectrum of exciting tidal frequencies. Thus no simple relation exists between $Q'$ and $\Delta t$ in the general case.
Although it is tempting to use Eq.(\[QforExo\]) to rewrite the tidal equation and to keep $Q'$ constant instead of $\Delta t$ as done by, for example, @ML02, @DLM04 and @BO09, one must keep in mind that this procedure is not equivalent either to the constant phase lag (i.e. constant $Q$) or time lag model. Indeed the frequency dependence of the phase lag is given by $\epsilon(\sigma)=\sigma/(nQ)$ and is still proportional to the tidal frequency over an orbit as in the constant time lag model, but with a slope that is changing during the evolution.
In §\[sec:2ndOrder\] and §\[sec:comp\], we compare the constant time lag model with the constant $Q'$ model used by various authors. In order to allow a direct and immediate comparison with these studies, we will choose the values of the couple $(\dtp,\dts)$ from the relations $(k_2\dtp=\frac{3}{2 n_{\mathrm{obs}} \qp} ,k_2\dts=\frac{3}{2 n_{\mathrm{obs}} \qs} )$, where $(\qp,\qs)$ are the *constant* normalized quality factors used by @MFJ09. This ensures that the effective tidal dissipation function is the same in both calculations for a given planet with its measured orbital parameters.
In order to use the constant *time lag* model, we must consider many values for $\Delta t$. To constrain this parameter, we follow the analysis of @GS66 and use the Io-Jupiter system to infer an upper limit for $\kp\times\dtp$ in giant extrasolar planets. Since Jupiter is rapidly rotating, with $\omega_{\mathrm{J}}>n$ (hereafter, J indices refer to the value for Jupiter), where $n$ is the orbital mean motion of Jupiter’s satellites, tidal transfer of angular momentum drives the satellites of Jupiter [*outwards*]{}, into expanding orbits. Therefore, the presence of Io in a close orbit provides an upper limit for the time lag in Jupiter. Indeed, if $\dtp$ was too large, the backward evolution of the satellites orbits would imply their disappearance within less time than the age of the Solar system, i.e. of Jupiter. For coplanar and circular orbits, a dimensionless version of Eq.(\[evol\_a\]) reads: $$\label{adotozero}
\dot{\tilde{a}}=- \frac{1}{\tilde{a}^7}\left[1 -\frac{\os}{n}\right],$$ where $\tilde{a}=a/a_0$, 0 indices refer to initial values and time is counted in units of $$\tau = \frac{1}{6} \frac{\Mp^2}{M_\mathrm{S}(M_\mathrm{S}+\Mp)}(\frac{a_0}{\Rp})^8 \frac{\Rp^3}{G\Mp \kp\dtp},$$ where $M_\mathrm{S}$ is the satellite mass. $\tau$ is the typical timescale of tidal evolution of the semi-major axis. Injecting angular momentum conservation $$J_\mathrm{tot}=\frac{\Mp M_\mathrm{S}}{\Mp+M_\mathrm{S}} a^2n +\sum_\ii C_\ii \omega_\ii$$ into Eq.(\[adotozero\]), and integrating over time yields $$\label{exactsole0}
\int_1^{\frac{a(t)}{a_0}} \frac{-\tilde{a}^7 \dd \tilde{a}}{1 -\tilde{a}^{3/2}[\frac{\omega_{\mathrm{p},0}}{n_0}-\beta(\sqrt{\tilde{a}}-1)]}=\frac{t}{\tau},$$ where $\beta =(M_\mathrm{S}\Mp a_0^2)/((\Mp+M_\mathrm{S})C_\mathrm{p})$. Note that this integral cannot be performed down to $a=0$ because the satellite first crosses the corotation radius where the integrand tends to infinity, which is an unstable equilibrium state for the system [@Hut80]. Furthermore, this result is not limited to the case of a planet-satellite system and can be directly used to compute the inspiral time of a close-in exoplanet (setting p$\,\rightarrow\star$ and S$\,\rightarrow\,$p).
For the Io-Jupiter system, taking $t=-4.5\,\times10^9$yr and $a(t)$ equal to the Roche limit in Eq.(\[exactsole0\]) yields $k_\mathrm{J}\Delta t_\mathrm{J}\lesssim5\times 10^{-3}$s. Therefore, for the actual Io-Jupiter system, Eq.(\[QforJ\]) implies $Q'_\mathrm{J}\gtrsim 1\times10^6$, slightly smaller than the value derived by @GS66. As discussed by these authors, our upper limit on $\dtp$ must be multiplied by a factor 5 to 7.5, as Io might have been trapped in a low order commensurability with Europa and Ganymede during part of its evolution, slowing down the expansion of its orbit. This roughly yields $$k_\mathrm{J}\Delta t_\mathrm{J}\lesssim2-3\times 10^{-2}\,\mathrm{s}.$$
For sake of easy comparison, we will refer to the quantity $Q'_0$, which is the reduced quality factor computed for a reference period of 1 day: $$Q'_0=\frac{3}{2}\frac{Q(2\pi/1\,\mathrm{day})}{k_2}=\frac{3}{2}\frac{1\,\mathrm{day}}{2\pi\, k_2 \Delta t}.$$ The above calculated constraint reads $Q'_{0,\mathrm{p}}\gtrsim 1\times10^6$. In the present calculations, we will examine two cases for the planet under consideration, namely $Q'_{0,\mathrm{p}}=10^6$ and $Q'_{0,\mathrm{p}}=10^7$ ($\kp\dtp\sim2\times10^{-2}-2\times10^{-3}$), while taking $Q'_{0,\star}$ in the range $10^5-10^6$ ($\ks\dts\sim2\times10^{-1}-2\times10^{-2}$), a typical value for solar-type stars [@OL07].
It is important to stress that, if $\Delta t$, or its counterpart $Q$, is poorly known for both planets and stars, its variability from one object or configuration to another is even more uncertain. For instance, tidal dissipation in planets probably differs significantly from the one in brown dwarfs because of the presence of a dense core able to excite inertial waves in the convective envelope [@GL09]. Given the highly non-linear behavior of tidal dissipation mechanisms, the effective tidal dissipation function varies not only with the structure of the object or with the tidal frequency but also with the amplitude of the tidal potential. For example, $\qs$ values inferred from the circularization of close FGK binary stars [@MM05], may be lower than the actual $\qs$ encountered in star-planet systems [@OL07]. Consequently, the range of values considered here for both $\qs$ and $\qp$ should be seen as mean values and be re-evaluated when considering specific and/or atypical systems (XO-3, HAT-P-2 or CoRoT-Exo-3 for example).
Effect of the truncation of the tidal equations to $\mathbf{2^{\mathrm{nd}}}$ order in $\mathbf{e}$: Analytical analysis. {#sec:2ndOrder}
==========================================================================================================================
Following the initial studies of @JGB08, all the studies exploring the effect of tidal heating on the internal evolution of “hot jupiters” (@MFJ09, @ISB09) have been using a tidal model assuming a constant $Q$ value during the evolution. Moreover, in all these calculations, the tidal evolution equations are truncated at the second order in eccentricity (hereafter referred to as the “$e^2$ model”), even when considering tidal evolution sequences with non-negligible values of $e$ at earlier stages of evolution. Although such a $e^2$-truncated model is justified for planets and satellites in the solar system [@Kau63; @GS66], it becomes invalid, and thus yields incorrect results for $a(t)$, $e(t)$ and $\dot{E}_{\mathrm{tides}}$ for finite eccentricity values. The main argument claimed for using such a simple tidal model is the large uncertainty on the tidal dissipation processes in astrophysical objects. In particular, as detailed by @Gre09, the linearity of the response to the tidal forcing based on the viscoelastic model may not hold in a real object for the large spectrum of exciting frequencies encountered when computing high order terms in the eccentricity. Although the large uncertainty in the dissipative processes certainly precludes an exact determination of the tidal evolution, it can by no means justify calculations which are neglecting dominant terms at finite $e$.
Indeed, from a dimensional point of view and prior to any particular tidal model, the strong impact of high order terms in the eccentricity is simply due to the fact that the tidal torque ($\mathbf{N}$) is proportional to $(\omega-\dot{\theta})/r^{6}$ ($\theta$ being the true anomaly) and that over a keplerian orbit, the average work done by the torque is of the form $$<\mathbf{N}\cdot\mathbf{\dot{\theta}}>\,\propto\,<\frac{\dot{\theta}^2}{r^6}>=\frac{n^2}{a^6}\cdot\frac{1+14e^2+\frac{105}{4}e^4+\frac{35}{4}e^6+\frac{35}{128}e^8}{(1-e^2)^{15/2}},$$ which is a rapidly increasing function of $e$ (see Appendix \[appendix\] for the details of the calculation). This means that, although the mean distance between the planet and the star increases with $e$, the distance at the periapsis strongly [*decreases*]{}, and most of the work due to the tidal forces occurs at this point of the orbit. One can see that for $e>0.32$ the high order terms dominate the constant and $e^2$ terms. This is a physical evidence that shows that for moderate to large eccentricity, most of the tidal effects are contained in the high order terms that can therefore not be neglected independently of any tidal model.
In this section we quantify more comprehensively this statement. We will demonstrate analytically that:
- in the context of the Hut model, a truncation of the tidal equations at the order $e^2$ can lead not only to quantitatively wrong but to [*qualititatively*]{} wrong tidal evolution histories, with sequences drastically differing from the ones obtained with the complete solution.
- the rate of tidal dissipation can be severely underestimated by the quasi circular approximation ($e\ll1$).
Furthermore, $Q$-constant models consider only low order terms in obliquity ($\varepsilon_\ii$), and thus cannot address the problem of obliquity tides and energy dissipation produced by this mechanism. A detailed discussion on this subject is presented in @LCC07 and @BO09 and will not be reproduced here.
Expanding vs shrinking orbits
-----------------------------
On one hand, considering Eq.(\[evol\_a\]) (with $\varepsilon=0$ for simplification) we can see that, for $\omega_\ii/n\leqslant N_a(e)/N(e)$, the tides raised on the body $i$ lead to a decrease of the semi-major axis, transferring the angular momentum from the orbit to the body’s internal rotation. It is easy to show that for a synchronous planet this condition is always fulfilled, since $\frac{\omega_\mathrm{eq}}{n}=\frac{N(e)}{\Omega(e)}\leqslant\frac{N_a(e)}{N(e)}$ for any eccentricity (respectively solid and dashed curves of Fig.\[fig:phasespace\]a). As a result, the semi-major axis of most short period planets is decreasing.
\
On the other hand, truncating Eq.(\[evol\_a\]) at the order $e^2$ for the semi-major axis evolution yields $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{a}\frac{\dd a}{\dd t}=\frac{4\,a}{GM_{\star}M_p}
&\Big\{&\Kp&\left[(1+\frac{27}{2}e^2)
\frac{\op}{n}-(1+23\,e^2)\right] \nonumber\\
&+& \Ks&\left[(1+\frac{27}{2}e^2)
\frac{\os}{n}-(1+23\,e^2)\right]\Big\}\ .
\label{evol_ae2}\end{aligned}$$ and the previous condition becomes $\omega_\ii/n\leqslant(1+23\,e^2)/(1+\frac{27}{2}e^2)$. Up to $2^{\mathrm{nd}}$ order in eccentricity, the pseudo synchronization angular velocity is given by $\omega_\mathrm{eq}=(1+6\,e^2)n$ [^1]. One can see that $\omega_\mathrm{eq}/n=1+6\,e^2 \leqslant(1+23\,e^2)/(1+\frac{27}{2}e^2)$ only for $$e\leqslant\frac{1}{9}\sqrt{\frac{7}{2}}\approx0.208.$$ This means that even for a moderate eccentricity, $e\sim0.2$, the truncated model predicts that tides raised on a pseudo synchronous planet lead to a *growth* of the semi-major axis instead of a *decrease*, as obtained by the complete model. Therefore, truncating the tidal equations at the order $e^2$ for an eccentricity $e \geqslant 0.2$ not only predict quantitatively wrong but [*qualitatively*]{} wrong tidal evolutions. The same arguments for the evolution of the eccentricity show that tides raised on a pseudo synchronous planet lead to a *growth* of the eccentricity for $$e\geqslant \sqrt{\frac{7}{66}}\approx0.326$$ and not to a *decrease*. This is illustrated by Fig.\[fig:phasespace\] that shows the pseudo synchronization curve (solid), the $\dot{a}=0$ curve (dashed) and the $\dot{e}=0$ curve (dotted) for the full model (top panel) and the truncated one (bottom panel), in the $\omega/n$ vs $e$ phase space. As demonstrated before, the pseudo synchronization curve crosses the $\dot{a}=0$ and $\dot{e}=0$ lines in the $2^{\mathrm{nd}}$ order model (Fig.\[fig:phasespace\]b) whereas it does not when solving the complete Hut equations (Fig.\[fig:phasespace\]a). *As a result, with the truncated model, a pseudo synchronized planet can erroneously enter the zone of the phase space where its tides act to increase both the semi-major axis and the eccentricity.* While this behavior is not observed with the constant phase lag model because it assumes that the star is slowly rotating ($\os/n\ll1$) and that the planet is near synchronization ($\op/n\approx1$) - placing them in the $\dot{a}<0$ and $\dot{e}<0$ zone of the phase space - this formal demonstration sets clear limits on the domain of validity of the quasi circular approximation.
Underestimating tidal heating {#sec:edot_2ndOrder}
-----------------------------
The key quantity arising from the coupling between the orbital evolution and the internal cooling history of a planet is the amount of energy dissipated by the tides in the planet’s interior, which may compensate or even dominate its energy losses. As a result, tides raised in an eccentric planet can slow down its contraction [@BLM01; @LBC09; @BCB10] or even lead to a transitory phase of expansion [@MFJ09; @ISB09]. Correctly determining the tidal heating rate is thus a major issue in the evolution of short-period planets. The often used formula is [@Kau63; @PC78; @JGB08] $$\dot{E}_{\mathrm{tides}}=
7\Kp e^2=\frac{21}{2}\frac{\kp}{Q} \left( \frac{G
\Ms^2}{\Rp} \right) \left( \frac{\Rp}{a} \right)^6 n e^2
\label{tidal_energye2}$$ (the $21\kp/2Q$ is rewritten $63/4Q'$ in @MFJ09). As already stated by @Wis08, although this formula gives a fair approximation of the tidal dissipation rate for the small eccentricity cases, typical in the solar system, it severely underestimates the tidal heating for moderate and high eccentricities. Fig.\[fig:edot\] illustrates the power dissipated in a pseudo synchronized planet as a function of the eccentricity. It shows that for $e\gtrsim 0.45$, the truncated formula used in @MFJ09 and @ISB09 underestimates the actual tidal dissipation rate *by more than one order of magnitude and by more than a factor $10^3$ for $e\gtrsim 0.7$*, an eccentricity value often advocated by these authors to explain the highly inflated planets (see §\[sec:comp\]).
From a mathematical point of view, the fact that a truncation to $2^{\mathrm{nd}}$ order in eccentricity yields such discrepancies is due to the presence of $(1-e^2)^{-\mathrm{15}/2}$ factors in the equations for the tidal dissipation. As already stated by @Wis08, for moderate to large eccentricity, this function is poorly represented by the first terms of its polynomial representation. Indeed, the first terms of the energy dissipation rate are given by: $$\frac{\dot{E}_{\mathrm{tides}}}{7\Kp e^2}=
1+\frac{54 }{7}e^2+\frac{1133}{28} e^4+\frac{31845}{224} e^6+\frac{381909}{896} e^8+O\left(e^{10}\right).
\label{tidal_energye10}$$ The dissipation rate calculated up to $e^{10}$ is plotted in Fig.\[fig:edot\] (dotted curve), where it can be compared with the exact result. It is clear that, *for $e\gtrsim0.4$, the polynomial developments of the tidal evolution equations must be done to a much higher degree that done in previous studies, or complete calculations such as the ones done in @Hut81 must be used.* The same argument holds for the evolution of the semi-major axis and the eccentricity. Since Eqs.(\[evol\_a\]) and (\[evol\_e\]) also contain $(1-e^2)^{-\mathrm{p}/2}$ factors, the decrease of $a$ and $e$ is severely underestimated at even moderately large eccentricity when using a $2^{\mathrm{nd}}$ order truncated expansion in eccentricity.
In particular, as discussed in the next section, a high eccentricity ($e\gtrsim 0.6$) cannot be maintained for a few 100 Myr to a few Gyr in a system like HD 209458 in agreement with the results of @MFJ09 (see Fig.\[fig:xo4\] below). This is in contrast with @IB09 who find that the radius HD 209458b can be matched and that the system can sustain a significant eccentricity up to the observed epoch. Such discrepancies between these two studies based on the same tidal model may reveal differences in the implementations of the tidal equations, or a difference in the calculation of interior structures or boundary conditions.
Effect of the truncation to $\mathbf{2^{\mathrm{nd}}}$ order in $\mathbf{e}$: Simulation results {#sec:comp}
================================================================================================
In this section, we present the comparison of the results of our complete model with the “$e^2$ model”. We have calculated evolutionary tracks of the tidal evolution for various transiting systems, coupling the internal evolution of the object either with our tidal model or with the “$e^2$ model” used in @MFJ09 and @IB09. In order to ensure a consistent comparison with these authors, we directly convert their set of tidal parameters. Since our model assumes a constant time lag, and not a constant $Q'$ value, a history track computed with the $Q'$ “$e^2$ model” with a constant couple ($\qp,\,\qs$) is compared with a history track computed in our model with a constant couple $(k_2\dtp,\,k_2\dts)$ given by $(k_2\dtp=\frac{3}{2 n_{\mathrm{obs}} \qp} ,\,k_2\dts=\frac{3}{2 n_{\mathrm{obs}} \qs} )$ (See §\[sec:q\] and Eq.(\[QforExo\])). This ensures that - although our calculations are conducted with a *constant* $\Delta t$ - the quality factor computed with Eq.(\[QforExo\]) in the object at the present time is the same as the one used in the *$Q$ constant* model.
Calculations at low eccentricity
--------------------------------
\
We first compare the results of the two models on a system which has a zero measured eccentricity and is not inflated, namely TrES-1. Such a system does not require a substantial initial eccentricity for its observed properties to be reproduced and thus provides an opportunity to test the quasi circular limit, where the “$e^2$ model” used by @MFJ09 and our model should yield similar results. Fig.\[fig:tres1\] illustrates the results of the integration of the coupled internal/orbital evolution equations with our constant time lag model (solid curve) and with the “$e^2$ model” (dashed curve) for an initial eccentricity of 0.07. As expected, in this low eccentricity limit both models yield very similar tracks: the eccentricity is damped to zero in a few Gyr and the semi-major axis decreases until the planet reaches the Roche limit and merges with the star, because the system does not have enough angular momentum to reach a stable equilibrium [@Hut80; @LWC09]. In this case, tidal heating is not sufficient to significantly affect the radius of the planet which keeps shrinking steadily as it cools. Note, however, that, although the qualitative behavior of the evolution is the same, the hypothesis made on the rheology of the body can influence the age at which the merging occurs.
Calculations at high eccentricity {#sec:comp2}
---------------------------------
\
In the moderately to highly eccentric regime, the tidal dissipation rate can no longer be approximated by Eq.(\[tidal\_energye2\]) (see §\[sec:edot\_2ndOrder\]). Instead, Eq.(\[tidal\_energy\]) must be used and yields - as shown by Fig.\[fig:edot\] - a much more important dissipation rate. As a result, tidal evolution takes place on a much shorter time scale, and both the eccentricity damping and the merging with the star occur earlier in the evolution of the planet. For illustration, Fig.\[fig:xo4\] portrays the possible thermal/tidal evolution (for given initial conditions) for XO-4b (thin black curves) and HD 209458b (thick blue curves) computed with the “$e^2$ model” (dashed) and with our model (solid). The dashed curves are similar to the ones displayed in Fig.8 and 10 of @MFJ09. As mentioned above and illustrated in Fig.\[fig:xo4\]d, the energy dissipation is much larger when fully accounting for the large eccentricity. The evolution of the planet can exhibit two different general behaviors:
- The planet first undergoes a phase of contraction and rapid cooling before the tidal heating due to the large initial eccentricity starts to dominate the energy balance of the object, leading to a phase of radius inflation (as shown by Fig.\[fig:coupling\] for a test case).
This speeds up the damping of the eccentricity and the decrease of the semi-major axis, since $\dot{a}$ and $\dot{e}\propto \Rp^5$. When the eccentricity becomes small enough, a “standard” contraction phase begins and lasts until the planet merges with the star (due to [*stellar*]{} tides; @LWC09) or - if enough angular momentum is present in the system - until both tidal and thermal equilibria are achieved. Such a behavior has already been identified by @MFJ09 and @IB09 but, because these authors use truncated tidal equations, they find that a large eccentricity can be maintained for a few Gyr and keep inflating the planet at a late time, as illustrated on Fig.\[fig:xo4\] (dashed curves); whereas it is not the case.
- In some extreme cases, such as HD 209458, for the initial conditions corresponding to the ones in Fig.\[fig:xo4\], the tidal heating can overwhelm the cooling rate of the planet by orders of magnitude and lead to a spectacular inflation of the planet and thus to a rapid merging with the star. This stems from a combination of different effects. First of all, as mentioned above, the expansion of the radius accelerates the tidal evolution and thus the decrease of the orbital distance. Furthermore, the Roche limit ($a_\mathrm{R}=\alpha \Rp \sqrt[3]{\Ms / \Mp}$ where $\alpha$ is a constant which depends on the structure of the body and is equal to 2.422 for fluid objects) increases with the radius of the planet, extending the merging zone.
As clearly illustrated by these calculations, using tidal equations truncated at second ($e^2$) order leads to severely erroneous evolutionary tracks for initially moderately ($e\gtrsim 0.2$) or highly eccentric systems. Indeed, the complete tidal model shows that, for the initial conditions and $Q$ parameter values chosen by @IB09 and @MFJ09, HD 209458b would in fact have disappeared! As mentioned earlier, the use of such a quasi circular approximation cannot be justified by the uncertainty on the quality factor, as the discrepancy in the characteristic evolution timescales can amount to 3 orders of magnitude in some cases, depending on the initial eccentricity. Conversely, trying to infer values for the stellar or planetary tidal quality factors $Q$ from tidal evolution calculations performed with the truncated $e^2$ model will lead to severely inaccurate values.
Global view of transiting systems {#sec:global}
=================================
As mentioned earlier, tidal heating has been suggested by several authors to explain the anomalously large radius of some giant close-in observed exoplanets. As demonstrated in §\[sec:comp\], the previous calculations, all based on constant-$Q$ models truncated at the order $e^2$ yield inaccurate results when applied to significantly (initial or actual) eccentric orbits - a common situation among detected exoplanetary systems. In this section, we revisit the viability of such a tidal heating mechanism to explain the large observed Hot Jupiters radii with the present complete Hut tidal model. We first examine the properties of the known transiting systems. Then we show that, although indeed providing a possible explanation for some transiting systems, the tidal heating hypothesis fails to explain the radii of extremely bloated planets such as - among others - HD 209458b, TrES-4b, WASP-4b or WASP-12b, in contrast with some previously published results based on truncated tidal models (See §\[sec:disc\]).
It is now well established that a large number of transiting giant exoplanets are more inflated than predicted by the standard cooling theory of irradiated gaseous giant planets (see @US07 [@BCB10] for reviews). In order to quantify this effect, we have computed the radius predicted by our standard model, described in §\[sec:intevolution\], for the 54 transiting planets detected at the time of the writing of this paper, with $\Mp>0.3\mjup$ (about a Saturn mass). We define the *radius excess* as the difference between the observed radius and the one predicted by the model at the estimated age of the system, denominated $R_{\mathrm{irrad}}$. Results are summarized in Fig.\[fig:RsurRirrad\]. The existence of objects below the $R=R_{\mathrm{irrad}}$ line is a clear signature of the presence of a dense core and/or of the enrichment of the gaseous envelop [@BAC06; @FMB07; @BHB07; @BCB08; @LBC09]. Note that most of the objects significantly below this line are in the $M\lesssim1\mjup$ region, and can be explained with a $M_Z/\Mp \simgr 0.10$ heavy material enrichment [@BCB08], in good agreement with predictions of the core accretion scenario for planet formation (@BAC06 [@MAB09]). Interestingly enough, all the planet radii in the $R\lesssim R_{\mathrm{irrad}}$ region of Fig.\[fig:RsurRirrad\] show no significant eccentricity and can be explained by including the presence of a core in their internal structure and an orbital evolution with a low initial eccentricity, independently of the chosen tidal parameters.
Among the 39 remaining objects, we will focus on the most extremely inflated ones to investigate the validity of the tidal heating hypothesis to explain their abnormally low density, as they provide the most stringent cases to examine the viability of this scenario. For sake of simplicity and to avoid introducing further free parameters in our tidal model, and since our aim is to derive an *upper limit* for the radius that a planet can achieve under the effect of tidal heating, we will not consider the presence of heavy element enrichment in our calculations.
Our calculations proceed as follows:
1. For each of the systems, a range of initial semi-major axis ($[a_\mathrm{i,min},a_\mathrm{i,max}]$) is found by a [*backward integration*]{} of the tidal equations, from present-day observed values.
2. Evolutionary tracks, coupling consistently the gravothermal evolution of the irradiated planet and the tidal heating source (Eq.(\[tidal\_energy\])), are then computed for $a_\ii\in[a_\mathrm{i,min},a_\mathrm{i,max}]$ and an initial eccentricity $e_\ii\in[0,0.8]$. The plausibility of such initial conditions as a remnant of early planet-disk and/or planet-planet interaction is discussed in @MFJ09. Since total angular momentum is conserved during the tidal evolution, the [*initial spin rate*]{} of the star is calculated by satisfying the equality between the initial and the presently observed value of the system’s total angular momentum. Calculations are performed with $Q'_{0,\star}=10^5$ and $10^6$ and $Q'_{0,\mathrm{p}}=10^6$ and $10^7$ (See §\[sec:q\] for a detailed discussion).
3. For each evolutionary calculation, the departure from a given measured quantity is defined as $\delta_x(t)=~\left(\frac{x(t)-x_\mathrm{p}}{\sigma_x}\right)$, where $x$ refers to $a$, $e$, $\Rp$, $\es$ or $\os$ and $\sigma_x$ to their measured uncertainty. When no error bar has been measured for the eccentricity and $e=0$ has been assumed in the light curve analysis, we take $\sigma_e=0.05$. We consider that the evolution accurately reproduces the presently measured data if there is a time interval (compatible with the age of the system) within which *all* the $\delta_x$’s are smaller than 1, meaning that each one of these parameters agrees with the measured one within 1 $\sigma$.
\
Fig.\[fig:aiei\] portrays a grid of evolution history initial conditions that are found to be consistent with the observed parameters of HD 209458, at the age of the system. As expected, an initially more eccentric system must have a greater initial separation to end up at the same location. This stems from the fact that $|\dot{a}|$ is a monotonically increasing function of $e$ for a slowly rotating star (as obtained from Eq.(\[evol\_a\]) for $\op=\omega_\mathrm{equ}$ and $\os/n\ll1$). Although, for these extremely bloated planets, we do find evolutionary tracks that lead to the presently observed orbital parameters, *none of these solutions can reproduce the presently observed radii*, as illustrated on Fig.\[fig:hd\] for the case of HD 209458b. Indeed, the major phase of eccentricity damping, as given by Eq.(\[evol\_e\]) and discussed in §\[sec:comp2\], occurs too early in the evolution, so that a large fraction of the tidal heating energy dissipated in the planet has been radiated away at the age of the system ($\sim$ a few Gyrs) and can no longer provide enough energy to slow down gravitational contraction. The same behavior is found for other bloated systems such as WASP-12, TrES-4 and WASP-4 whose best evolutionary tracks are shown in Fig.\[fig:w12\_t4\]. For all these systems, although a solution matching the presently observed orbital parameters can be found, tidal dissipation occurs too early to reproduce the present values of the planet radii.
\
These results, based on complete tidal evolution calculations, show that the tidal energy dissipated in the planet’s tidal bulges, although providing a viable explanation to the large radius of many short-period planets (such as OGLE-TR-211b shown in Fig.\[fig:tr211\]), is not sufficient to explain the radii of the most bloated planets, at the age inferred for these systems. In that case, an extra mechanism, besides tidal heating, must be invoked to solve this puzzling problem. Surface winds driven by the powerful incident stellar flux [@SG02], converting kinetic energy to heat by dissipation within the tidal bulge and thus reaching deep enough layers to affect the planet’s inner isentrope, or inefficient large-scale convection due to a composition gradient [@CB07] could be the other mechanisms to be considered with tidal dissipation to lead eventually to these large planet radii (see @BCB10 for discussion).
\
Discussion and conclusion {#sec:disc}
=========================
In this paper, we have demonstrated that the quasi-circular approximation ($e\ll 1$, i.e. tidal equations truncated at the order $e^2$) usually made in tidal calculations of transiting planet systems and valid for our Solar system planets, is not valid for the exoplanetary systems that have - or were born with - an even modestly large ($e\simgr 0.2$) eccentricity. As shown in §\[sec:2ndOrder\], although the real frequency dependence of the tidal effect remains uncertain, there are dimensional evidences that for eccentric orbits, most of the tidal effect is contained in the high order terms and that truncating the tidal equations at $2^\mathrm{nd}$ order in eccentricity can overestimate the characteristic timescales of the various orbital parameters by up to three orders of magnitude. Therefore, truncating the tidal equations at the second order can by no means be justified by invoking the large uncertainty in the dissipative processes and their frequency dependence. Therefore, high order tidal equations should be solved to derive reliable results for most of the existing exoplanet transiting systems. This need to solve the complete equations is met by any tidal model. In this context, even though no tidal model can claim describing perfectly a two body evolution, we recall that the Hut model is at least exact in the weak friction viscous approximation (see §\[sec:q\]).
We have tested our complete tidal model on several inflated planets to find out whether or not tidal heating can explain the large radius of most of the observed transiting systems. Although this mechanism is indeed found to be sufficient to explain moderately bloated planets such as OGLE-TR-211b (see Fig.\[fig:tr211\]), we have been *unable* to find evolutionary paths that reproduce both the measured radius and the orbital parameters of HD 209458b, WASP-12b, TrES-4b, and WASP-4b (see Fig.\[fig:hd\] and Fig.\[fig:w12\_t4\]) for their inferred age range. The main reason is the early circularization of the orbit of these systems. As demonstrated in the paper, this stems from the non-polynomial terms in eccentricity in the complete tidal equations, which are missing when truncating the equations at small $e$-order. The present results, based on complete tidal equations, show that tidal heating, although providing an important contribution to the planet’s internal heat budget during the evolution, cannot explain [*alone*]{} the observed properties of all exoplanets.
This is in contrast with some of the conclusions reached in previous studies. Based on truncated tidal models, @IB09 and @ISB09 find evolutionary tracks that match observed parameters for HD 209458b, WASP-12b, and WASP-4b and thus suggest that the tidal heating is the principal cause of the large radii of Hot Jupiters.
These particular properties of Hot Jupiters, including the extreme cases of the most severely bloated planets, can only be explained if the following explanations/mechanisms occur during the system lifetimes:
- Early spin up of the star: simulations of the rotational evolution of solar-like stars [@BFA97] show that after the dispersion of the accretion disk, the rotation rate of the contracting star increases due to angular momentum conservation, until magnetic braking takes over. Considering Eq.(\[evol\_e\]), we see that stellar tides act as an eccentricity source if $\frac{\os}{n}\geqslant\frac{18}{11}\frac{N_e(e)}{\Omega_e(e)}$. Investigating whether the duration of this phase lasts long enough and whether the magnitude of this effect is large enough to drive enough eccentricity requires performing consistent star/planet thermal/tidal calculations and will be investigated in a forthcoming paper.
- Presence of a third body: as proposed by @Mar07, a low mass terrestrial planet can drive the eccentricity of a massive giant planet during up to Gyr timescales. Accurate enough observations are necessary to support or exclude the presence of such low-mass companions.
- As mentioned earlier, combining tidal heat dissipation with other mechanisms such as surface winds, due to the stellar insolation, dissipating deep enough in the tidal bulges, or layered convection within the planet’s interior may provide the various pieces necessary to completely solve the puzzle.
In conclusion, the suggestion that tidal heating is the main mechanism responsible to solve the problem of anomalously large short-period planets, as sometimes claimed in the literature, must be reformulated more rigorously: although providing a non-negligible contribution to hot-Jupiter heat content, tidal dissipation does not appear to provide the whole explanation. Further studies are thus necessary to eventually nail down this puzzling issue.
This work was supported by the Constellation european network MRTN-CT-2006-035890, the french ANR “Magnetic Protostars and Planets” (MAPP) project and the “Programme National de Planétologie” (PNP) of CNRS/INSU. We acknowledge the use of the *www.exoplanet.eu* database. We thank our referee, J. Fortney, for helpful suggestions.
Tidal evolution equations for finite eccentricity and obliquity. {#appendix}
================================================================
The present calculation of the tidal evolution equations extends the formulas given in @Hut81 to any obliquity. We consider a system of two deformable bodies of mass $M_1$ and $M_2$. The demonstration follows three main steps. First we compute a vector expression for the tidal force and torque. Second we derive the variation of the rotation rate, obliquity and orbital angular momentum thanks to this expression of the torque and using the *total* angular momentum conservation. Finally the evolution of the semi-major axis and eccentricity are obtained from the expression of the energy dissipated by tides in the deformable body. The total amount of energy dissipated by tides in one of the bodies is a direct product of the calculation.
Up to the quadrupolar terms in the tidal deformation, the mutual interaction of the tidal bulges is negligible and we can consider separately the effects of the tides raised in each body and sum them up at the end of the calculation. Let us consider the effect of the tides raised in a deformable body (say $M_1$, hereafter the primary) in interaction with a point mass (say $M_2$ the secondary). The mass distribution of a deformable body in a quadrupolar tidal potential can be mimicked by a central mass $M_1-2m$ and two point masses at the location of the tidal bulges ($\mathbf{r_+,\,r_-}$) of mass $m$ with $\|\mathbf{r_+}\|=\|\mathbf{r_-}\|=R_1$ the radius of the primary and $m=\frac{1}{2}k_2 M_2\left(\frac{R_1}{r}\right)^3$ where $k_2$ is the love number of degree 2 of the primary and $r$ is the distance between the center of the two objects. Since we consider a *constant* time lag $\Delta t_1$ between the deforming potential and the tidal deformation in the frame rotating with the primary, $\mathbf{\hat{r}_+}=\mathbf{\hat{r}}(t-\Delta t_1)$ ( $\mathbf{\hat{r}}$ refers to the unit vector associated to $\mathbf{r}$) in this frame. Let $\mathbf{\dot{\theta}}$ be the orbital rotation vector collinear to the orbital angular momentum and whose value is the instantaneous variation rate of the true anomaly $\theta$ of the bodies in their keplerian motion and $\mathbf{\omega_1}$ the rotation vector of the primary. Thus, to first order in $\Delta t_1$, $$\mathbf{\hat{r}_+}=\mathbf{\hat{r}}(t-\Delta t_1)\approx \mathbf{\hat{r}}-\Delta t_1\,\mathbf{\hat{r}}\times (\mathbf{\omega_1}-\mathbf{\dot{\theta}}),$$ the amplitude of the tidal bulges also lags behind the deforming potential and is given by $$\begin{aligned}
m(t)\ \ \ &=&\frac{1}{2}k_2 M_2&\left(\frac{R_1}{r(t-\Delta t_1)}\right)^3 \nonumber \\
&\approx &\frac{1}{2}k_2 M_2&\left(\frac{R_1}{r}\right)^3(1+3\frac{\dot{r}}{r}\Delta t_1) ,\end{aligned}$$ and the force exerted by this mass distribution on the secondary is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{tideForce}
\mathbf{F}=-\ \frac{GM_1 M_2}{r^2}\cdot \mathbf{\hat{r}} \ \ &-&3\frac{Gk_2M_2^2R_1^5}{r^7}&\{1+3\frac{\dot{r}}{r}\Delta t_1\}\cdot\mathbf{\hat{r}}\nonumber\\
&+&3\frac{Gk_2M_2^2R_1^5}{r^7}& \Delta t_1(\mathbf{\omega_1}-\mathbf{\dot{\theta}}) \times \mathbf{\hat{r}}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus the tidal torque reads: $$\label{torque}
\mathbf{N}=3\frac{Gk_2M_2^2R_1^5}{r^6}\, \mathbf{\hat{r}}\times\left(\Delta t_1(\mathbf{\omega_1}-\mathbf{\dot{\theta}}) \times \mathbf{\hat{r}}\right).$$ and the angular momentum conservation yields $$\label{angcons}
\mathbf{N}=\mathbf{\dot{h}}=-\mathbf{\dot{L}},$$ where $\mathbf{h}=\frac{M_1M_2}{M_1+M_2}na^2\sqrt{1-e^2}$ is the orbital angular momentum and $\mathbf{L}=C_1\omega_1$ the rotational angular momentum of the primary. We can then simply derive the rate of angular velocity variation: $$\label{comedot}
\frac{\dd}{\dd t}(C_1\omega_1)=\dot{L}=\mathbf{\dot{L}}\cdot\mathbf{\hat{L}}=-\mathbf{N}\cdot\mathbf{\hat{L}}$$ This product can be carried out by projecting in any base. We choose the base defined by $\mathbf{h}=(0,\,0,\,h)$ and $\mathbf{\omega_1}=(\omega_1 \sin \varepsilon_1,\,0,\,\omega_1 \cos \varepsilon_1)$ where $\varepsilon_1$ is the obliquity. In this base, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{N}=3\frac{Gk_2M_2^2R_1^5}{r^6}\Delta t_1 \left( \begin{array}{c} \omega_1 \sin \varepsilon_1 \sin^2(\theta+\psi) \\ -\omega_1\sin \varepsilon_1 \cos(\theta+\psi)\sin(\theta+\psi) \\ \omega_1\cos \varepsilon_1-\dot{\theta} \end{array}\right),
\end{aligned}$$ where $\psi$ is the longitude of the periapsis in this base. The precession of the periapsis occurring on a much shorter timescale than the tidal migration, we can average the tidal torque over $\psi$. This yields: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{averagetorque}
\mathbf{N}=3\frac{Gk_2M_2^2R_1^5}{r^6}\Delta t_1 \left( \begin{array}{c} \frac{1}{2}\omega_1 \sin \varepsilon_1 \\ 0 \\ \omega_1\cos \varepsilon_1-\dot{\theta} \end{array}\right).
\end{aligned}$$ We can compute the dot product in Eq.(\[comedot\]) giving (with $x_1=\cos \varepsilon_1$) $$\label{dcomeg}
\frac{\dd C_1\omega_1}{\dd t}=3\frac{Gk_2 \Delta t_1 M_2^2R_1^5}{ r^6} \left(x_1 \dot{\theta}-\left(\frac{1+x_1^2}{2} \right) \omega_1 \right).$$ The mean rotation rate variation (Eq.(\[rot\_tidal\])) is obtained by averaging over a keplerian orbit using $$r=a\frac{1-e^2}{1+e\cos\theta},$$ $$\label{average_r6}
\frac{1}{T_\mathrm{orb}} \oint_{\mathrm{orbit}}\left(\frac{a}{ r}\right)^6 \cdot \dd t =\oint_{\mathrm{orbit}}\frac{a^6}{\dot{\theta} r^6} \cdot \dd \theta =\Omega(e)$$ and $$\label{average_thetar6}
\frac{1}{T_\mathrm{orb}} \oint_{\mathrm{orbit}}\dot{\theta}\left(\frac{a}{ r}\right)^6 \cdot \dd t =n\,N(e)$$ where $\dd t=\dd \theta/\dot{\theta}$, and the angular momentum conservation over one orbit is used to express $\dot{\theta}$ with respect to $\theta$ (see Eq.(\[omega\_e\]) and Eq.(\[n\_e\]) for the definition of $\Omega(e)$ and $N(e)$). The variation of the obliquity can be obtained with: $$\dot{x}_1=\dot{(\mathbf{\hat{L}}\cdot\mathbf{\hat{h}})}\,=\mathbf{\dot{\hat{L}}}\cdot\mathbf{\hat{h}}+\mathbf{\hat{L}}\cdot\mathbf{\dot{\hat{h}}}.$$ Carrying out the differentiation and using Eq.(\[angcons\]) yields $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{x}_1&=&\frac{(\mathbf{\hat{L}}\cdot\mathbf{\hat{h}})(\mathbf{N}\cdot\mathbf{L})}{L^2}-\frac{(\mathbf{N}\cdot\mathbf{\hat{h}})}{L}\nonumber\\
&&-\frac{(\mathbf{\hat{h}}\cdot\mathbf{\hat{L}})(\mathbf{N}\cdot\mathbf{h})}{h^2}+\frac{(\mathbf{N}\cdot\mathbf{\hat{L}})}{h}.\end{aligned}$$ Subsituting Eq.(\[averagetorque\]) for $\mathbf{N}$ we get after simplification $$\frac{\dd \varepsilon_1}{\dd t}=\frac{3}{2}\frac{Gk_2 \Delta t_1 M_2^2R_1^5}{ r^6} \sin \varepsilon_1\left(\frac{x_1}{C_1}-2\frac{\dot{\theta}}{C_1\omega_1}-\frac{\omega_1}{h} \right).$$ Averaging over an orbit using Eqs.(\[average\_r6\])-(\[average\_thetar6\]) gives Eq.(\[rot\_tidal2\]).
To obtain the variation of the semi-major axis and eccentricity, we must compute the work done by the tidal force on the secondary: $$< \dot{E}_\mathrm{orb}>=\frac{1}{T_\mathrm{orb}} \oint_{\mathrm{orbit}}\mathbf{F}\cdot \dd \mathbf{r},$$ $$< \dot{E}_\mathrm{orb}>=\frac{1}{T_\mathrm{orb}} \oint_{\mathrm{orbit}} (\,\dot{r}\,\mathrm{F}_r\,+\mathbf{N\cdot\dot{\theta}})\,\dd t ,$$ where $\mathrm{F}_{r} $ is the radial component and $\mathbf{N\cdot\dot{\theta}}$ the normal one. The radial forces in $r^{-2}$ and $r^{-7}$ in Eq.(\[tideForce\]) are conservative and do not dissipate energy. The radial part of the work is computed using $$\dot{r}=an\frac{e}{\sqrt{1-e^2}} \sin \theta,$$ and thus $$\label{average_r6rpoint}
\frac{1}{T_\mathrm{orb}} \oint_{\mathrm{orbit}}\left(\frac{a}{ r}\right)^8\left(\frac{\dot r}{ a}\right)^2 \cdot \dd t =\frac{n^2e^2}{2}\frac{N_e(e)}{1-e^2}$$ (see Eq.(\[ne\_e\]) for the definition of $N_e(e)$). The normal component can be written $$\mathbf{N\cdot\dot{\theta}}\,\dd t=3Gk_2 \Delta t_1 M_2^2R_1^5 \left( \frac{x_1 \omega_1 -\dot{\theta}}{r^6}\right)\dd \theta.$$ Again, averaging is carried out using Eqs.(\[average\_r6\])-(\[average\_thetar6\]). After integration, $$\label{appendtidalorbnrj}
< \dot{E}_\mathrm{orb}>=2K_1\left[N(e)\,x_\mathrm{1}\,\frac{\omega_1}{n} -N_a(e)\right].$$ The variation of semi-major axis due to the tides raised in the primary (Eq.(\[evol\_a\])) is directly given by $$< \dot{E}_\mathrm{orb}>=-\frac{\dd}{\dd t}\frac{GM_1M_2}{2\,a}=\frac{GM_1M_2}{2\,a^2}\dot{a}$$ Since the orbital angular momentum is given by $$\label{orbangmom}
h=\sqrt{G\frac{M_1^2M_2^2}{M_1+M_2}a(1-e^2)}.$$ the variation of the eccentricity can be obtained by differentiating $h$ with respect to $t$: $$\label{varorbangmom}
\frac{2\dot{h}}{h}=\frac{\dot{a}}{a}-\frac{2e\dot{e}}{1-e^2}.$$ Only *total* angular momentum is conserved, then $\dot{h}=-\dd(C_1\omega_1)/\dd t$ and substituting Eq.(\[evol\_a\]), (\[rot\_tidal\]) and (\[orbangmom\]) in (\[varorbangmom\]) gives one of the two terms of Eq.(\[evol\_e\]) corresponding to the contribution of one of the two bodies (star or planet) for the evolution of the eccentricity. Finally, the rate of tidal energy dissipation into the primary is $$\dot{E}_{\mathrm{tides}}=\frac{\dd}{\dd t}\frac{GM_1M_2}{2\,a}-\omega_1\frac{\dd}{\dd t}(C_1\omega_1).
\label{appendtidalnrj}$$ Thus, substituting Eqs. (\[dcomeg\]) and (\[appendtidalorbnrj\]) in Eq. (\[appendtidalnrj\]) gives $$\dot{E}_{\mathrm{tides}}=2K_1\left[N_a(e)-2N(e)\,x_\mathrm{1}\,\frac{\omega_1}{n} +\left(\frac{1+x_1^2}{2}\right)\Omega(e)\left(\frac{\omega_1}{n}\right)^2\right] .
\label{appendtidalnrj2}$$ One can see that the dissipated energy is positive for any value of $e$ and $x_1$ as expected [@Hut81], and that it is minimum when the body is pseudo synchronized. Substituting $\omega_1$ by the pseudo synchronization rate (Eq.(\[rot\_eq\])), Eq. (\[appendtidalnrj2\]) simplifies to Eq. (\[tidal\_energy\]) that can be used for a close-in gas-giant exoplanet. For rocky planets locked in synchronous rotation by their permanent quadrupolar mass distribution, the heating rate can be estimated setting $\omega_1=n$ in Eq. (\[appendtidalnrj2\]).
*In fine*, the complete equations taking into account tides in both bodies are obtained by computing the effects of the tides raised in the secondary (given by the same equations with $1\rightleftarrows2$) and by adding them up to the effects of the tides in the primary.
[^1]: these equations truncated at the order $e^2$ agree with equations in §16 of @FRH08, even though they have been derived with different methods
|
---
abstract: 'Given two $3$-graphs $F$ and $H$, an $F$-covering of $H$ is a collection of copies of $F$ in $H$ such that each vertex of $H$ is contained in at least one copy of them. Let [$c_2(n,F)$]{} be the maximum integer $t$ such that every 3-graph with minimum codegree greater than $t$ has an $F$-covering. In this note, we answer an open problem of Falgas-Ravry and Zhao (SIAM J. Discrete Math., 2016) by determining the exact value of [$c_2(n, K_4^-)$]{} and [$c_2(n, K_5^-)$]{}, where $K_t^-$ is the complete $3$-graph on $t$ vertices with one edge removed.'
author:
- |
Lei Yu$^a$, Xinmin Hou$^b$,Yue Ma$^c$, Boyuan Liu$^d$\
$^{a,b,c,d}$ Key Laboratory of Wu Wen-Tsun Mathematics\
School of Mathematical Sciences\
University of Science and Technology of China\
Hefei, Anhui 230026, China.
title: 'Exact minimum codegree thresholds for $K_4^-$-covering and $K_5^-$-covering[^1]'
---
Introduction
============
Given a set $V$ and a positive integer $k$, let $\binom{V}{k}$ be the collection of $k$-element subset of $V$. A [*simple $k$-uniform hypergraph*]{} (or $k$-graph for short) $H=(V,E)$ consists of a vertex set $V$ and an edge set $E\subseteq\binom{V}{k}$. We write graph for $2$-graph for short. For a set $S\subseteq V(H)$, the [*neighbourhood*]{} $N_H(S)$ of $S$ is $\{T\subseteq V(H)\backslash S:T\cup S\in E(H)\}$ and the [*degree*]{} of $S$ is $d_H(S)=|N_H(S)|$. The [*minimum $s$-degree*]{} of $H$, denoted by $\delta_s(H)$, is the minimum $d_H(S)$ taken over all $s$-element sets of $V(H)$, and $\delta_{k-1}(H)$ and $\delta_1(H)$ are usually called the [*minimum codegree*]{} and the [*minimum degree*]{} of $H$, respectively. An $r$-graph $H$ is called an [*$r$-partite $r$-graph*]{} if the vertex set of $H$ can be partitioned into $r$ parts such that each edge of $H$ intersects each part exactly one vertex. Given disjoint sets $V_1, V_2, \cdots, V_r$, let $K(V_1, V_2, \ldots, V_r)$ be the complete $r$-partite $r$-graph with vertex classes $V_1, V_2,\ldots, V_r$.
Given a $k$-graph $F$, we say a $k$-graph $H$ has an [*$F$-covering*]{} if each vertex of $H$ is contained in some copy of $F$. For $0\leq i<k$, define $$c_i(n,F)=\max\{\delta_i(H) : H \text{ is a $k$-graph on $n$ vertices with no } F\text{-covering}\}.$$ We call $c_{k-1}(n,F)$ the [*minimum codegree threshold*]{} for $F$-covering.
For graphs $F$, the $F$-covering problem was solved asymptotically in [@Z-PhD16] by showing that $c_1(n,F)=(\frac{\chi(F)-2}{\chi(F)-1}+o(1))n$, where $\chi(F)$ is the chromatic number of $F$. For general $k$-graphs, the function [$c_i(n, F)$]{} was determined for some special family of $k$-graphs $F$. For example, Han, Lo, and Sanhueza-Matamala [@HLS-ENDM17] proved that $c_{k-1}(n,C_s^{(k,k-1)})\leq (\frac{1}{2}+o(1))n$ for [$k\geq3, s\geq 2k^2$]{}, where $C_s^{(k,\ell)}$ $(1\leq \ell<k)$ is the $k$-graph on $s$ vertices such that its vertices can be ordered cyclicly so that every edge consists of $k$ consecutive vertices under this order and two consecutive edges intersect in exactly $\ell$ vertices. Han, Zang, and Zhao showed in [@HZZ-JCTA17] that $c_1(n,K)=(6-4\sqrt{2}+o(1))\binom{n}{2}$, where $K$ is a complete $3$-partite $3$-graph with at least two vertices in each part. In this note, we focus on the minimum codegree threshold for covering $3$-graphs. Let $K_t$ denote the complete $3$-graph on $t$ vertices and let $K_t^-$ denote the $3$-graph obtained from $K_t$ by removing one edge. Falgas-Ravry and Zhao [@FZ-SIAM16] determined the exact value of $c_2(n,K_4)$ for $n>98$ and gave lower and upper bounds of $c_2(n, K_4^-)$ and $c_2(n, K_5^-)$. More specifically, they proved the following theorem.
\[ASY K\_4\^-\] Suppose $n=6m+r$ for some $r\in \{0,1,2,3,4,5\}$ and $m\in \mathbb{N}$ with $n\geq 7$. Then $$c_2(n,K_4^-)=
\begin{cases}
2m-1\text{ or }2m&\text{ if } r=0,\\
2m&\text{ if } r\in\{1,2\},\\
2m\text{ or }2m+1&\text{ if } r\in\{3,4\},\\
2m+1&\text{ if } r=5.\\
\end{cases}$$
\[ASY K\_5\^-\] $\lfloor\frac{2n-5}{3}\rfloor\leq c_2(n,K_5^-)\leq \lfloor\frac{2n-2}{3}\rfloor$.
Falgas-Ravry and Zhao [@FZ-SIAM16] also conjectured that the gap between the upper and lower bounds for $c_2(n,K_4^-)$ could be closed and left this as an open problem.
\[PROB: p1\] Determine the exact [value of]{} $c_2(n,K_4^-)$ in the case $n\equiv 0,3,4 \pmod 6$.
In this note, we determine not only the exact value of $c_2(n,K_4^-)$ but also the exact value of $c_2(n, K_5^-)$.
\[exact K\_4\^-\] $c_2(n,K_4^-)=\lfloor\frac{n}{3}\rfloor$.
The theorem solved Problem \[PROB: p1\] completely.
\[exact K\_5\^-\] $c_2(n,K_5^-)=\lfloor\frac{2n-2}{3}\rfloor$.
This result completes Theorem \[ASY K\_5\^-\].
The following are some definitions and notation used in our proofs. For a $k$-graph $H$ and $x\in V(H)$, the [*link graph*]{} of $x$, denoted by $H(x)$, is the $(k-1)$-graph with [vertex set]{} $V(H)\setminus\{x\}$ and edge set $N_H(x)$. Given a graph $G$ and a positive integer vector ${\bf k}\in Z^{V(G)}_+$, the [*${\bf k}$-blowup*]{} of $G$, denoted by $G^{(\bf k)}$, is the graph obtained by replacing every vertex $v$ of $G$ with ${\bf k}(v)$ different vertices where a copy of $u$ is adjacent to a copy of $v$ in the blowup graph if and only if $u$ is adjacent to $v$ in $G$. We call the collection of copies of $v\in V(G)$ in $G^{(\bf k)}$ the blowup of $v$. When there is no confusion, we write $ab$ and $abc$ as a shorthand for $\{a,b\}$ and $\{a,b,c\}$, respectively. Given two $r$-graphs $H$ and $F$, we say $H$ is $F$-free if $H$ contains no subgraph isomorphic to $F$. Given a positive integer $n$, write $[n]$ for the set $\{1,2, \ldots, n\}$.
In the rest of the note, we give proofs of Theorems \[exact K\_4\^-\] and \[exact K\_5\^-\].
Proof of Theorems \[exact K\_4\^-\] and \[exact K\_5\^-\]
==========================================================
We will construct extremal 3-graphs for $K_4^-$ and $K_5^-$ with minimum codegree matching the upper bounds in Theorems \[ASY K\_4\^-\] and \[ASY K\_5\^-\], respectively.
Proof of Theorem \[exact K\_4\^-\]
----------------------------------
We first give an observation, which can be verified directly from the definitions.
\[OBS: o1\] Let $H$ be a $3$-graph and $x\in V(H)$. If $H(x)$ is triangle-free and the subgraph of $H(x)$ induced by an edge $e\in E(H)$ with $x\notin e$ is $P_2$-free, then $x$ can not be covered by a $K_4^-$ in $H$, where $P_2$ is a path of length two.
By Theorem \[ASY K\_4\^-\], to show Theorem \[exact K\_4\^-\], it is sufficient to construct 3-graphs $H$ on $n$ vertices for $n\equiv 0, 3,4 \pmod 6$ and with $\delta_2(H)=\lfloor \frac n3\rfloor$ such that $H$ has no $K_4^-$-covering. We distinguish the proof into three cases. Let $C_6$ be the 6-cycle $v_1v_2v_3v_4v_5v_6v_1$.
[**Construction A:**]{} Let $G_1$ be the graph obtained from $C_6$ and the 5-cycle $123451$ by adding the edges $1v_1, 1v_3, 2v_2, 2v_5, 3v_4, 3v_6, 4v_3, 4v_5, 5v_2, 5v_6$.
[**Construction B:**]{} Let $G_2$ be the graph obtained from $C_6$ and the 8-cycle $123456781$ by adding the edges $1v_1, 1v_3, 2v_2, 2v_6, 3v_1, 3v_5, 4v_3, 4v_6, 5v_2, 5v_4, 6v_3, 6v_5, 7v_4, 7v_6, 8v_2, 8v_5$.
[**Construction C:**]{} Let $G_3$ be the graph obtained from $C_6$ and the 8-cycle $123456781$ by adding a new vertex 9 and the edges $19, 39,79$, $1v_1,1v_3,2v_2,2v_6,3v_1,3v_4,4v_3,4v_5,5v_4$, $5v_6, 6v_1,6v_5,7v_3,7v_6,8v_2,8v_4, 9v_2, 9v_5$.
It can be checked that $G_1, G_2, G_3$ are triangle-free; therefore, so are the blowups of them.
[**Case $1$.**]{} $n=6m$ for some integer $m\ge 1$.
Define a positive integer vector ${\bf k}_1\in Z_+^{V(G_1)}$ by ${\bf k}_1(v_i)=m-1$ for $i\in [6]$ and ${\bf k}_1(i)=1$ for $i\in [5]$.
\[Construction A:\] Let $V_1, \ldots, V_6$ be six disjoint sets of the same size $m-1$ and let $x$ be a specific vertex. Define the 3-graph $H_1$ on vertex set $\{x\}\cup [5]\cup (\cup_{i=1}^6V_i)$ such that the following holds:
- The link graph of $x$, $H_1(x)$, consists of the ${\bf k}_1$-blowup of $G_1$ by replacing $v_i$ by $V_i$ for $i\in [6]$ and a perfect matching between $V_1$ and $V_4$.
- A triple $abc\in E(H_1)$ if $x\notin\{a,b,c\}$ and the subgraph induced by $\{a,b,c\}$ in ${H_1}(x)$ is $P_2$-free.
\[CLAIM: c1\] $H_1$ contains no $K_4^-$-covering and $\delta_2(H_1)=2m=\lfloor\frac n3\rfloor$.
[**Proof of Claim 1.** ]{} By the definition of $G_1$, $v_1$ and $v_4$ have no common neighbor. So by (1) of Construction \[Construction A:\], ${H_1}(x)$ is triangle-free. By (2) of Construction \[Construction A:\], any two incident edges of ${H_1}(x)$ are not contained in one edge of $H_1$. By Observation \[OBS: o1\], $x$ is contained in no copy of $K_4^-$ in $H_1$. So $H_1$ has no $K_4^-$-covering. By (1) of Construction \[Construction A:\], one can check that ${H_1}(x)$ is $2m$-regular. So $d_{H_1}(x,a)=2m$ for all $a\in V\setminus\{x\}$. Now we consider the degree of the pair $\{a,b\}$ with $x\notin\{a,b\}$. If $ab\in E({H_1}(x))$, then by (2) of Construction \[Construction A:\], $N_{H_1}(x,a)\cap N_{H_1}(a,b)=\emptyset$, $N_{H_1}(x,b)\cap N_{H_1}(a,b)=\emptyset$ and $N_{H_1}(x,a)\cap N_{H_1}(x,b)=\emptyset$; or equivalently, for any $c\notin N_{H_1}(x,a)\cup N_{H_1}(x,b)$, $\{a,b,c\}$ forms an edge of $H_1$. So $d_{H_1}(a,b)=6m-2\times 2m=2m$. If $ab\notin E({H_1}(x))$ then $x\notin N_{H_1}(a,b)$. By (2) of the construction of $H_1$, $N_{H_1}(x,a)\cap N_{H_1}(x,b)\cap N_{H_1}(a,b)=\emptyset$; or equivalently, for any $c\notin (N_{H_1}(x,a)\cap N_{H_1}(x,b))\cup\{x,a,b\}$, we have $abc\in E(H_1)$. So $d_{H_1}(a,b)=6m-3-|N_{H_1}(a,x)\cap N_{H_1}(b,x)|\ge 4m-3\ge 2m$ if $m>1$. If $m=1$, then $H_1(x)$ is the 5-cycle $123451$, one can check that $d_{H_1}(a,b)\ge 2=2m$. Case 1 follows directly from Claim \[CLAIM: c1\].
[**Case 2:** ]{} $n=6m+3$ for some integer $m\ge 1$.
Define a positive integer vector ${\bf k}_2\in Z_+^{V(G_2)}$ by ${\bf k}_2(v_i)=m-1$ for $i\in [6]$ and ${\bf k}_2(i)=1$ for $i\in [8]$.
\[Construction B:\] Let $V_1, \ldots, V_6$ be six disjoint sets of the same size $m-1$ and let $x$ be a specific vertex. Define the 3-graph $H_2$ on vertex set $\{x\}\cup [8]\cup (\cup_{i=1}^6V_i)$ such that the following holds:
- The link graph of $x$, $H_2(x)$, consists of the ${\bf k}_2$-blowup of $G_2$ by replacing $v_i$ with $V_i$ for $1\le i\le 6$, a perfect matching between $V_1$ and $V_4$ and a matching $\{15, 26, 37, 48\}$.
- A triple $abc\in E(H_2)$ if $x\notin\{a,b,c\}$ and the subgraph induced by $\{a,b,c\}$ in ${H_2}(x)$ is $P_2$-free.
\[CLAIM: c2\] $H_2$ contains no $K_4^-$-covering and $\delta_2(H_2)=2m+1=\lfloor\frac n3\rfloor$.
[**Proof of Claim 2.**]{} By the definition of $G_2$, $N_{G_2}(v_1)\cap N_{G_2}(v_4)=\emptyset$ and $N_{G_2}(1)\cap N_{G_2}(5)=N_{G_2}(2)\cap N_{G_2}(6)=N_{G_2}(3)\cap N_{G_2}(7)=N_{G_2}(4)\cap N_{G_2}(8)=\emptyset$. So by (1) of Construction \[Construction B:\], ${H_2}(x)$ is triangle-free, too; and by (2) of Construction \[Construction B:\], any two incident edges of $H_2(x)$ are not contained in one edge of $H_2$. By Observation \[OBS: o1\], $x$ is contained in no copy of $K_4^-$ in $H_2$. So $H_2$ has no $K_4^-$-covering. By (1) of Construction \[Construction B:\], ${H_2}(x)$ is $(2m+1)$-regular. So $d_{H_2}(x,a)=2m+1$ for all $a\in V(H_2)\setminus\{x\}$. Now assume $\{a,b\}\subseteq V(H_2)\setminus\{x\}$. If $ab\in E({H_2}(x))$, then by (2) of Construction \[Construction B:\], $N_{H_2}(x,a)\cap N_{H_2}(a,b)=\emptyset$, $N_{H_2}(x,b)\cap N_{H_2}(a,b)=\emptyset$ and $N_{H_2}(x,a)\cap N_{H_2}(x,b)=\emptyset$; or equivalently, for any $c\notin N_{H_2}(x,a)\cup N_{H_2}(x,b)$, $\{a,b,c\}$ forms an edge of $H_2$. So $d_{H_2}(a,b)=6m+3-2 (2m+1)=2m+1$. If $ab\notin E({H_2}(x))$ then $x\notin N_{H_2}(a,b)$. By (2) of the construction of $H_2$, $N_{H_2}(x,a)\cap N_{H_2}(x,b)\cap N_{H_2}(a,b)=\emptyset$; or equivalently, for any $c\notin (N_{H_2}(x,a)\cap N_{H_2}(x,b))\cup\{x,a,b\}$, $abc\in E(H_2)$. So we have $d_{H_2}(a,b)=6m+3-3-|N_{H_2}(a,x)\cap N_{H_2}(b,x)|\ge 4m-1\ge {2m+1}$. Case 2 follows from Claim \[CLAIM: c2\].
[**Case $3$:**]{} $n=6m+4$ for some integer $m\ge 1$.
Define a positive integer vector ${\bf k}_3\in Z_+^{V(G_3)}$ by ${\bf k}_3(v_i)=m-1$ for $i\in [6]$ and ${\bf k}_3(i)=1$ for $i\in [9]$.
\[Construction C:\] Let $V_1, \ldots, V_6$ be six disjoint sets of the same size $m-1$ and let $x$ be a specific vertex. Define a 3-graph $H_3$ on vertex set $\{x\}\cup [9]\cup (\cup_{i=1}^6V_i)$ such that the following holds:
- The link graph of $x$, $H_3(x)$, consists of the ${\bf k}_3$-blowup of $G_3$ and a matching $\{15, 26, 48\}$.
- A triple $abc\in E(H_3)$ if $x\notin \{a,b,c\}$ and the subgraph induced by $\{a,b,c\}$ in ${H_3}(x)$ is $P_2$-free.
\[CLAIM: c3\] $H_3$ contains no $K_4^-$-covering and $\delta_2(H_3)=2m+1=\lfloor\frac n3\rfloor$.
[**Proof of Claim \[CLAIM: c3\]:**]{} By (1) of Construction \[Construction C:\], one can check that $H_3(x)$ is triangle-free; and by (2) of Construction \[Construction C:\], any two incident edges of $H_3(x)$ are not contained in one edge of $H_3$. By Observation \[OBS: o1\], $x$ is contained in no copy of $K_4^-$ in $H_3$. So $H_3$ has no $K_4^-$-covering. By the construction of $H_3(x)$, one can check that $H_3(x)$ is almost $(2m+1)$-regular, i.e. $d_{H_3(x)}(a)=2m+1$ for all vertices $a\in V(H_3)\setminus\{x,1\}$ and $d_{{H_3}(x)}(1)=2m+2$. So $d_{H_3}(x,a)=2m+1$ for all $a\in V(H_3)\setminus\{x,1\}$ and $d_{H_3}(x,1)=2m+2$. Now assume $\{a,b\}\subseteq V(H_3)\setminus\{x\}$. If $ab\in E(H_3(x))$, by (2) of Construction \[Construction C:\], $N_{H_3}(x,a)\cap N_{H_3}(a,b)=\emptyset$, $N_{H_3}(x,b)\cap N_{H_3}(a,b)=\emptyset$, and for any $c\in V(H_3)\setminus(N_{H_3}(x,a)\cup N_{H_3}(x,b))$, $\{a,b,c\}$ forms an edge of $H_3$. Since $H_3(x)$ is triangle-free, $N_{H_3}(x,a)\cap N_{H_3}(x,b)=\emptyset$. If $1\notin \{a,b\}$ then $d_{H_3}(a,b)=|V(H_3)|-|N_{H_3}(x,a)|-| N_{H_3}(x,b)|=6m+4-2(2m+1)=2m+2$. Now assume $1\in\{a,b\}$, say $a=1$. Then $d_{H_3}(1,b)=|V(H_3)|-|N_{H_3}(x,1)|-| N_{H_3}(x,b)|=6m+4-(2m+2)-(2m+1)=2m+1$. If $ab\notin E(H_3(x))$ then $x\notin N_{H_3}(a,b)$. By (2) of the construction of $H_3$, $N_{H_3}(x,a)\cap N_{H_3}(x,b)\cap N_{H_3}(a,b)=\emptyset$; or equivalently, for any $c\notin (N_{H_3}(x,a)\cap N_{H_3}(x,b))\cup\{x,a,b\}$, $abc\in E(H_3)$. So we have $d_{H_3}(a,b)=6m+4-3-|N_{H_3}(a,x)\cap N_{H_3}(b,x)|\ge 4m\ge 2m+1$. Case 3 follows from Claim \[CLAIM: c3\].
Theorem \[exact K\_4\^-\] follows from Cases 1,2,3 and Theorem \[ASY K\_4\^-\].
Proof of Theorem \[exact K\_5\^-\]
----------------------------------
The following theorem is well known in graph theory.
\[Konig\] Let $G$ be a bipartite graph with maximum degree $\Delta$. Then $E(G)$ can be partitioned into $M_1, M_2, \ldots, M_{\Delta}$ so that each $M_i\ (1\le i\le \Delta)$ is a matching in $G$. In particular, if $G$ is $\Delta$-regular then $E(G)$ can be partitioned into $\Delta$ perfect matchings.
\[cons D\] Given positive integers $m, \ell$ with $m\le \ell$ and two disjoint sets $V_1, V_2$ with $|V_1|\le |V_2|=m$, by Theorem \[Konig\], the edge set of the complete bipartite graph $K(V_1, V_2)$ has a partition $M_1, M_2, \ldots, M_m$ such that each $M_i$ $(1\le i\le m)$ is a matching. Let $T$ be the 3-partite 3-graph with vertex classes $V_1\cup V_2\cup [\ell]$ and edge set $$E(H)=\bigcup_{i=1}^m\{ e\cup\{i\} : e\in M_i\}.$$
We first give the extremal 3-graph for $K_5^-$.
\[Cons E\] Given a positive integer $m$ and three disjoint sets $V_1, V_2, V_3$ such that $m-1\le |V_1|\le |V_2|=m\le |V_3|\le m+1$ and $|V_3|-|V_1|\le 1$, then $3m-1\le \sum\limits_{i=1}^3|V_i|\le 3m+1$. Denote $V_3=[\ell]$. Then $\ell=m$ or $m+1$. Let $T$ be the 3-partite 3-graph on vertex set $V_1\cup V_2\cup V_3$ defined by Construction \[cons D\]. Let $x$ be [a specific]{} vertex not in $V_1\cup V_2\cup V_3$. Define the 3-graph $H_4$ on vertex set $V_1\cup V_2\cup V_3\cup\{x\}$ such that the following holds.
\(1) The link graph of $x$, $H_4(x)$, consists of three complete bipartite graphs $K(V_1, V_2)$, $K(V_1, V_3)$ and $K(V_2, V_3)$.
\(2) Each triple $e\notin E(K(V_1, V_2, V_3))$ is an edge of $H_4$.
\(3) $E(T)\subseteq E(H_4)$.
Let $n=|V(H_4)|$. Then $3m\le n\le 3m+2$.
\[Claim: 1.4\] $H_4$ has no $K_5^-$-covering and $\delta_2(H)\ge \lfloor\frac{3n-2}{3}\rfloor$.
[**Proof of Claim \[Claim: 1.4\]:**]{} We show that $x$ is contained in no copy of $K_5^-$ in $H_4$. Suppose to the contrary that $H_4$ contains a copy of $K_5^-$, say $K$, covering $x$. Denote $V(K)=\{x,a,b,c,d\}$. Then there is at least one part $V_i$ $(1\le i\le 3)$ such that $|V_i\cap\{a,b,c,d\}|\ge 2$. By (1) of Construction \[Cons E\], there is no edge of $H_4$ included in $\{x\}\cup V_i$. So at least one edge connecting $x$ and $\{a,b,c,d\}$ misses from $K$. As $K$ is a copy of $K_5^-$, there is exact one edge between $x$ and $\{a,b,c,d\}$ missed and so $\{a,b,c,d\}$ induces a copy of the complete 3-graph $K_4$ in $H_4$. From Construction \[cons D\], [$\Delta_2(T)\le 1$]{}. By (2) and (3) of Construction \[Cons E\], each pair of vertices chosen from different parts of $V_1, V_2, V_3$ has at most one neighbor in the remaining part. Thus a putative $K_4$ induced by $\{a,b,c,d\}$ intersects at most two parts of $V_1, V_2, V_3$. But this is impossible. In fact, if there is some $1\le i\le 3$ such that $a,b,c\in V_i$, then $xab, xac\notin E(H_4)$, a contradiction. So assume $a,b\in V_i$ and $c,d \in V_j\ (i\neq j)$ for some $i,j\in\{1,2,3\}$. Then $xab,xcd\notin E(H_4)$, a contradiction too.
Now we compute the minimum codegree of $H_4$. Choose two distinct vertices $a,b\in V(H_4)$. If $x\in\{a,b\}$, assume $x=a$ and $b\in V_i$, then by (1) of Construction \[Cons E\], $$d(x,b)=n-1-|V_i|\geq n-1-\left\lceil\frac{n-1}{3}\right\rceil=\left\lfloor\frac{2n-2}{3}\right\rfloor.$$ If $a,b\in V_i$ for some $1\le i\le 3$ then, by (2) of Construction \[Cons E\], $d(a,b)=\sum\limits_{i=1}^3|V_i|-2=n-3\geq\left\lfloor\frac{2n-2}{3}\right\rfloor$. If $a\in V_i, b\in V_j$ $(i\not=j)$, then $$d(a,b)=|V_i|+|V_j|-2+1+d_{T}(a,b)\geq\left\lfloor\frac{2n-2}{3}\right\rfloor,$$ where the inequality holds since [$d_T(a,b)=1$ when $\{i, j\}=\{1,2\}$]{} or [$\{i,j\}\subseteq \{1,2,3\}$ and $|V_1|=|V_2|=|V_3|=m$]{}.
This completes the proof of Claim \[Claim: 1.4\].
By Claim \[Claim: 1.4\], we have $$c_2(n, K_5^-)\geq \delta_2(H_4)=\left\lfloor\frac{2n-2}{3}\right\rfloor.$$ By Theorem \[ASY K\_5\^-\], we have Theorem \[exact K\_5\^-\].
[99]{}
V. Falgas-Ravry, Y. Zhao, Codegree thresholds for covering $3$-uniform hypergraphs, SIAM J. Discrete Math., 30 (4) (2016), 1899-1917.
J. Han, A. Lo, N. Sanhueza-Matamala, Covering and tiling hypergraphs with tight cycles, Electron. Notes Discrete Math., 61 (2017), 561-567.
J. Han, C. Zang, Y. Zhao, Minimum vertex degree thresholds for tiling complete $3$-partite $3$-graphs. J. Combin. Theory Ser. A, 149 (2017), 115-147.
D. König, Über Graphen und ihre Anwendung auf Determinantentheorie und Mengenlehre, Math. Ann., 77 (1916), 453-465.
C. Zang, Matchings and tilings in hypergraphs, PhD thesis, Georgia State University, 2016.
[^1]: The work was supported by NNSF of China (No. 11671376), NSF of Anhui Province (No. 1708085MA18), and Anhui Initiative in Quantum Information Technologies (AHY150200).
|
---
abstract: 'The ANTARES project aims to build a deep underwater Cherenkov neutrino telescope in the Mediterranean Sea. Currently the experiment is in the construction phase and has recently achieved two important milestones. The electro-optical cable to shore and the junction box that will distribute power to detector strings and allow data transmission have been deployed at the sea floor. A prototype string and a string for environmental parameter measurement have been deployed, connected to the cable using a manned submarine. Data have been sent to shore. The final ANTARES detector consisting in 12 strings each equipped with 75 photomultiplier tubes is planned to be fully deployed and taking data by the end of 2006.'
---
[*[Talk given at 4th International Conference on Non-Accelerator New Physics,\
Dubna, Russia, June 23–28, 2003. ]{}*]{}
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Neutrino is an attractive tool for astrophysical investigations since interacting weakly they can escape from the source and travel large distances to the Earth without interaction and without deflection by magnetic fields. Nevertheless, due to the same property, large volume neutrino detectors are needed. ANTARES is one of the several on-going projects \[1-6\] on underwater/ice neutrino telescopes. Given the presence of AMANDA at the South Pole, a detector in the Mediterranean will allow to cover the whole sky. The ANTARES Collaboration ([**A**]{}stronomy with a [**N**]{}eutrino [**T**]{}elescope and [**A**]{}byss environmental [**RES**]{}earch) was formed in 1996 and currently joins about 200 scientists and engineers from France, Germany, Italy, Russia, Spain, The Netherlands and the United Kingdom. The project aims to detect atmospheric and extraterrestrial neutrinos with energies above $E_{\nu} \sim$10GeV by means of the detection of the Cherenkov light that is generated in water by charged particles which are produced in $\nu N$ interactions. After extensive R&D program the collaboration moved into construction of a detector in the Mediterranean Sea at 2400 m depth, 50 km off-shore of La Seyne sur Mer, near Toulon (42$^{\circ}$50$^{'}$N, 6$^{\circ}$10$^{'}$E).
R&D stage {#sec:rd}
=========
In 1996-99 an intense R&D program was performed. The deployment and recovery technologies, electronics and mechanical structures were developed and tested with more than 30 deployments of autonomous strings. The environmental properties at the detector site were investigated \[7,8\].
Concerning the optical backgrounds it was found that baseline 1p.e.-counting rate of $\sim$60kHz is measured by a 10$^{''}$ PMT. The counting rate increases during short bursts up to several MHz due to bioluminiscence. These bursts lead to a dead-time of less than 5% per each PMT. However, the long-term measurements that were performed with the so-called ’prototype string’ in 2003 (see below) showed that these rates and the burst fraction are sometimes essentially higher (Fig.1). The experimental work to understand the differences between previous results with autonomous mooring lines and the prototype string is in progress. Perhaps, to suppress the high background harder cuts will have to be applied which will slightly increase the energy threshold without altering the detection efficiency of $>$100GeV neutrino events. Light transmission loss for glass containers that house PMTs was found strong in long-term tests for up-looking surfaces. It led to the decision to turn all PMTs downward. Signal loss due to bio-fouling and sedimentation was measured to be 1.6% after 8 months at equator of glass sphere saturating with time. The optical properties of water at the experiment site were measured during several years. The effective attenuation length varies in a range 48m$<L_{att}<$61m while scattering length is $L_{scatt}>$200m for blue light ($\lambda=$466 nm). Only 5% of the photons emitted by an isotropic source located 24m from PMT are collected out of a 10ns time window being delayed due to scattering. This allows a good time resolution needed for event reconstruction.
ANTARES R&D program culminated with deployment and 8 month operation of a 350m length ’demonstrator string’ (November 1999 - July 2000) instrumented with 7 PMTs at a depth of 1100m, 40 km off the coast of Marseille. The string was controlled and read out via 37km-long electro-optical cable connected to the shore station. It allowed to test the deployment procedure with a full-scale string, positioning system and collect $\sim$5$\cdot$10$^{4}$ seven-fold coincidences from atmospheric muons. Relative distances were measured with an accuracy of $\sim$5cm and accuracy of absolute positioning was $\sim$1m. The angular distribution of atmospheric muons was reproduced and the fraction of multi-muon events was found to be $\sim$50% which is in agreement with expectation for such a shallow depth as 1100m.
ANTARES detector {#sec:0.1}
================
After this R&D experience, the collaboration moved to the next stage: construction of a 12-string detector \[2\] which can be considered as a step toward a 1km$^{3}$ detector (Fig.2). Strings are anchored at the sea floor and held taut by buoys. Each string is instrumented with 75 optical modules (OMs) \[9\] containing 10$^{``}$ Hamamatsu R7081-20 PMTs housed in glass spheres. OMs are grouped in triplets at 25 levels separated by 14.5m. 3 PMTs in each triplet are oriented at 45$^{\circ}$ to the nadir. Strings are separated from each other by $\sim$70m. All the strings are connected to a Junction Box (JB) by means of electro-optical link cables. The JB is connected to the shore station by a 50km length 48-fiber electro-optical cable. Undersea connections are performed with a manned submarine. PMT signals are processed by Analogue Ring Samplers ASIC which measure the arrival time and charge for 1p.e.-pulses (99% of the pulses) and perform wave form digitization for larger amplitudes. Digitized data from each OM are sent to shore ($\sim$1 GB/s/detector). The data flow is reduced down to $\sim$1 MB/s by means of an on-shore data filter \[10\]. 100 PC farm is foreseen on shore to process and collect the data. The telescope will be complemented with an instrumentation string for hydrological parameter measurements and for calibration purposes. The deployment of the detector is planned for 2004-2006.
The important milestones that have been achieved by the collaboration are:
- the electro-optical cable connecting detector and shore station was deployed in October 2001;
- the industrial production of 900 OMs started in April 2002;
- since December 2002 the JB is in communication with the shore station;
- in December 2002 and February 2003 the ’prototype instrumentation string’ and the ’prototype detection string’ (equipped with 15 OMs) were successfully deployed \[11\] (recovered in May and July, 2003, respectively);
- in March 2003 both strings were connected to JB with the Nautile manned submarine and data taking started.
The aim of the deployment and operation of two prototype strings were to test all the components of the future detectors in their final design. Mechanical problems occurred: 1 fiber for clock signal transmission was found broken and 1 connector leaked. After strings recovery it was found that these problems occurred due to manufacturers who changed design without notification. Solutions have been found for the final detector design and severe quality control will be applied.
The detailed description of ANTARES physics performance can be found in \[12\]. The angular resolution of the 12-string detector (Fig.3) is about 0.2$^{\circ}$ for $E_{\nu} \ge$100TeV where it is limited only by PMT TTS and light scattering and $\sim$0.5$^{\circ}$–1$^{\circ}$ at $E_{\nu} \sim$0.1–10TeV where accuracy is dominated by $\nu - \mu$ kinematics. Energy resolution (Fig.4) improves at high energies: dispersion of the $\log_{10}(E_{rec}/E_{t})$ distribution (where $E_{t}$ is the true energy and $E_{rec}$ is the reconstructed energy, respectively) is around $\sigma \approx$0.5 at $E_{\nu} \sim$5TeV and $\sigma \approx$0.3 for $E_{\nu} \ge$100TeV. Effective area for muons grows from $A_{eff}=$0.01km$^{2}$ at $E_{\nu} =$1TeV to $A_{eff}=$0.06km$^{2}$ at $E_{\nu} =$10PeV. The sensitivity of the detector to diffuse neutrino fluxes achieved by rejecting the background with an energy cut of $E_{cut}=$50GeV allows to reach Waxmann & Bahcall limit \[13\] in 3 years. The ANTARES sensitivity for point-like source searches (90% C.L.) assuming $E^{-2}$ differential $\nu$ flux is in the range 4$\div$50$\cdot$10$^{-16}$cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$ after 1 yr which gives a real hope to detect a signal from the most promising sources (e.g., galactic microquasars \[14\]). The ANTARES potential for WIMP searches is high enough to improve existing experimental upper limits on $\nu$-induced muon fluxes from neutralino annihilation in the Sun and on relativistic magnetic monopole flux obtained by other detectors by an order of magnitude.
Conclusions {#sec:conc}
===========
The construction of the ANTARES detector is underway. It is planned to be fully deployed and start to take data by the end of 2006. Calculations based on the data on environmental conditions at the experiment site and on studied properties of electronic components shows that predicted sensitivity of the detector to diffuse neutrino fluxes, point-like neutrino searches and WIMP searches is better by several orders of magnitude compared to data published by other experimental groups. The deployment of the ANTARES neutrino telescope can be considered as a step toward the deployment of a 1 km$^3$ detector in the Mediterranean Sea.
[99]{} AMANDA: P. Desiati [*et al.*]{}, astro-ph/0306536; http://amanda.uci.edu/ ANTARES: E. Aslanides [*et al.*]{}, astro-ph/9907432; http://antares.in2p3.fr/ Baikal: R. Wischnewski [*et al.*]{}, astro-ph/0305302; http://nt200.da.ru/ IceCube: A. Goldschmidt [*et al.*]{}, Nucl.Phys.Proc.Suppl. [**110**]{} (2002) 516; http://icecube.wisc.edu/ NEMO: G. Riccobene [*et al.*]{}, Proc. 2nd Workshop on Methodical Aspects of Underwater/Ice Neutrino Telescopes, Hamburg, 2001, p.61; http://nemoweb.lns.infn.it/ NESTOR: S. E. Tzamarias [*et al.*]{}, NIM [**A502**]{} (2003) 150; http://www.nestor.org.gr/ P. Amram [*et al.*]{}, Astropart.Phys. [**13**]{} (2000) 127. P. Amram [*et al.*]{}, Astropart.Phys. [**19**]{} (2003) 253. P. Amram [*et al.*]{}, NIM [**A484**]{} (2002) 369. M. C. Bouwhuis for the ANTARES Collaboration, submitted to 28th ICRC. M. Circella for the ANTARES Collaboration, submitted to 28th ICRC. T. Montaruli for the ANTARES Collaboration, astro-ph/0207531 and physics/0306057; J. J. Hernández-Rey for the ANTARES Collaboration, NuclPhys.Proc.Suppl. [**114**]{} (2003) 211. E. Waxmann, J. N. Bahcall, Phys.Rev. [**D59**]{} (1999) 023002. C. Distefano [*et al.*]{}, Astrophys.J. [**575**]{} (2002) 378.
The ANTARES Collaboration:
FIGURES
{width="14.8cm"}
\[fig1\]
{width="15.8cm"}
\[fig2\]
{width="14.0cm"}
\[fig3\]
{width="15.6cm"}
\[fig4\]
|
Manganese oxides are currently attracting considerable attention [@review], due to the complex interplay among spin, charge, and orbital degrees of freedom, which induces a rich phase diagram as well as Colossal Magneto-Resistant (CMR) properties. There are clearly two types of dominant states in these compounds. For example, in perovskite manganites such as La$_{1-x}$Ca$_x$MnO$_3$, in the region 0.22$<$$x$$<$0.5 a ferromagnetic (FM) metallic phase is the ground-state at low temperature. On the other hand, at $x$$>$0.5, a charge-orbital-spin ordered state is stabilized. The competition between these two states is at the heart of recent theories that explain the CMR effect in manganites as arising from mixed-phase tendencies[@ps].
This two-phase metal-insulator competition and concomitant large MR effect occurs also at the Curie temperature $T_{\rm C}$, at densities where a FM phase exists at low temperature. Several experiments have clearly revealed the mixed-phase characteristics of manganites near $T_{\rm C}$ [@tunneling]. While it is natural to assume that one of the competing phases is FM metallic, the properties of the insulating phase are still unknown. Recently, considerable progress has been made in this context. Just above $T_{\rm C}$ evidence for the existence of short-range [*stripe-like*]{} charge ordering has been obtained with neutron diffraction and X-ray scattering studies. For La$_{1-x}$Ca$_x$MnO$_3$[@cubic], “diagonal” stripes, i.e. charge ordering (CO) along the $(1,1,0)$-direction[@note:vector], appear for 0.2$\alt$$x$$\alt$0.3, while for $x$$<$0.2, “bond” stripes, i.e. CO along the (1,0,0) or (0,1,0) direction, have been revealed. For La$_{2-2x}$Sr$_{1+2x}$Mn$_2$O$_7$[@bi-layer], short-range bond stripes have been detected in the wide range 0.3$\leq$$x$$\leq$0.5. These results lead to the intriguing possibility that the insulating phase that contributes to the CMR near $T_{\rm C}$ may also be FM but with striped features, a remarkable novel result. Such a state would be puzzling since stripes in cuprates are associated with the creation of rivers of holes to avoid having the individual charges “fighting” against the antiferromagnetic (AFM) background. Thus in a FM state, where hole movement appears optimal, charge is naively not expected to form stripes, in contradiction with experiments.
In order to understand this puzzling complex problem, in this Letter the two-dimensional (2D) double-exchange (DE) model coupled to Jahn-Teller (JT) phonons is investigated using unbiased computational techniques. This model has been already successful in reproducing the A-type AFM state at $x$=0[@hotta1], the CE-state at $x$=0.5[@hotta2], and the complex structure of the $x$$>$0.5 regime [@hotta3], as observed in experiments. However, a state as exotic as containing stripes in a ferromagnetic background has not been reported until now. The present effort focuses on the properties of 2D systems, since (i) studies in three-dimensional (3D) cases are technically far more complex, and (ii) stripe structures identified experimentally in bilayer and 3D manganites are here observed in 2D systems as well. Our main result is the stabilization of [*FM states with stripe order*]{} at $x$=$1/m$ ($m$=integer), a surprising result whose origin lies in the concomitant orbital order.
Regarding single-layered manganites $\!{\rm La}_{1-x}\!{\rm Sr}_{1+x}\!{\rm Mn}{\rm O}_4$, the undoped compound is AFM [@kawano], while at $x$$\sim$0.5 a CE-type AFM CO phase has been identified [@murakami]. However, for 0.0$<$$x$$<$0.5, a complex “spin glass" behavior has been experimentally observed [@moritomo], indicating that the 2D ground-state properties are basically unknown. Our results below also indicate that stripe states with CE-like AFM characteristics may exist at $x$=1/4 and 1/3, and they could be important for the physics of single-layered compounds in non-FM regimes.
The Hamiltonian studied here is $$\begin{aligned}
H &=& -\sum_{{\bf ia}\gamma \gamma'\sigma}
t^{\bf a}_{\gamma \gamma'} d_{{\bf i} \gamma \sigma}^{\dag}
d_{{\bf i+a} \gamma' \sigma}
-J_{\rm H} \sum_{\bf i}
{\bf s}_{\bf i} \cdot {\bf S}_{\bf j} \nonumber \\
&+& J_{\rm AF} \sum_{\langle {\bf i,j} \rangle}
{\bf S}_{\bf i} \cdot {\bf S}_{\bf j}
+ \lambda \sum_{\bf i}
(Q_{1{\bf i}}\rho_{\bf i} + Q_{2{\bf i}}\tau_{{\rm x}{\bf i}}
+Q_{3{\bf i}}\tau_{{\rm z}{\bf i}}) \nonumber \\
&+& (1/2) \sum_{\bf i} (\beta Q_{1{\bf i}}^2
+Q_{2{\bf i}}^2+Q_{3{\bf i}}^2),\end{aligned}$$ where $d_{{\bf i}{\rm a}\sigma}$ ($d_{{\bf i}{\rm b}\sigma}$) is the annihilation operator for an $e_{\rm g}$-electron with spin $\sigma$ in the $d_{x^2-y^2}$ ($d_{3z^2-r^2}$) orbital at site ${\bf i}$, and ${\bf a}$ is the vector connecting nearest-neighbor (NN) sites. The first term represents the NN hopping of $e_{\rm g}$ electrons with the amplitude $t^{\bf a}_{\gamma \gamma'}$ between $\gamma$- and $\gamma'$-orbitals along the ${\bf a}$-direction ($t^{\bf x}_{\rm aa}$=$-\sqrt{3}t^{\bf x}_{\rm ab}$= $-\sqrt{3}t^{\bf x}_{\rm ba}$=$3t^{\bf x}_{\rm bb}$=$1$ for ${\bf a}$=${\bf x}$ and $t^{\bf y}_{\rm aa}$=$\sqrt{3}t^{\bf y}_{\rm ab}$= $\sqrt{3}t^{\bf y}_{\rm ba}$=$3t^{\bf y}_{\rm bb}$=$1$ for ${\bf a}$=${\bf y}$, in $t^{\bf x}_{\rm aa}$ energy units). In the second term, the Hund coupling $J_{\rm H}$($>$0) links $e_{\rm g}$ electrons with spin ${\bf s}_{\bf i}=
\sum_{\gamma\alpha\beta}d^{\dag}_{{\bf i}\gamma\alpha}
\bbox{\sigma}_{\alpha\beta}d_{{\bf i}\gamma\beta}$ ($\bbox{\sigma}$ are the Pauli matrices) with the localized $t_{\rm 2g}$ spin ${\bf S}_{\bf i}$, assumed classical and normalized to $|{\bf S}_{\bf i}|$=1. The third term is the AFM coupling $J_{\rm AF}$ between NN $t_{\rm 2g}$ spins [@note:JAF]. The fourth term couples $e_{\rm g}$ electrons and MnO$_6$ octahedra distortions, $\lambda$ is the dimensionless coupling constant, $Q_{1{\bf i}}$ is the breathing-mode distortion, $Q_{2{\bf i}}$ and $Q_{3{\bf i}}$ are, respectively, $(x^2$$-$$y^2)$- and $(3z^2$$-$$r^2)$-type JT-mode distortions, $\rho_{\bf i}$= $\sum_{\gamma,\sigma}
d_{{\bf i}\gamma\sigma}^{\dag}d_{{\bf i}\gamma\sigma}$, $\tau_{{\rm x}{\bf i}}$= $\sum_{\sigma}(d_{{\bf i}{\rm a}\sigma}^{\dag}d_{{\bf i}{\rm b}\sigma}
+d_{{\bf i}{\rm b}\sigma}^{\dag}d_{{\bf i}{\rm a}\sigma})$, and $\tau_{{\rm z}{\bf i}}$= $\sum_{\sigma}(d_{{\bf i} a\sigma}^{\dag}d_{{\bf i}a\sigma}
-d_{{\bf i} b\sigma}^{\dag}d_{{\bf i}b\sigma})$. The fifth term is the potential for distortions, where $\beta$ is the ratio of spring constants for breathing- and JT-modes, treated here adiabatically [@note:coulomb].
=7.truecm
\[fig1\]
First let us clarify the charge and orbital structure in the FM phase, main issue of this paper. If lattice distortions are not correlated in different sites, holes will be simply distributed as uniformly as they can to lower the ground state energy. Namely, the stabilization of charge inhomogeneous structure such as stripes in the FM phase requires a proper treatment of the [*cooperative*]{} JT effect. A simple way to include such an effect is to optimize the displacement of oxygen ions $u_{\bf i}^{\bf a}$ along the ${\bf a}$-axis at site ${\bf i}$, instead of local distortions [@note:oxygen]. Results at large $\lambda$ for the FM phase are shown in Fig. 1. Using relaxation techniques to optimize $\{u\}$’s, [*diagonal stripes*]{} can be clearly observed even in a spin FM regime, a surprising result. The key ingredient to understand the presence of stripes in a spin magnetized phase is the presence of the concomitant [*staggered*]{} orbital order. Individual holes doped into the $x$=0 FM orbital-ordered (OO) state produce a distortion of the ordered background. This energy lost is minimized if holes share the distorted regions, forming complex patterns such as stripes. A similar reasoning is usually applied to the rationalization of stripe formation in nickelates and cuprates [@tranquada], with the important conceptual difference that in those compounds the background in which the stripes are created is spin AFM, i.e. the real spin is active, while in the present study the spin is FM and the orbital background is active. If the orbital degree of freedom is associated to a “pseudo-spin” up and down, then an analogy between manganites and nickelates/cuprates can be established, replacing the real spin of the latter by the orbital degree of freedom of the former. In fact, with this analogy the pseudo-spin and charge structure at $x$=1/4 (Fig. 1(c)) becomes the same as the real-spin and charge stripe structure of hole-doped La$_2$NiO$_4$, at the same hole density [@note:stripe]. In the stripe phase, a gap of the order of the JT energy opens around the Fermi level (see Fig. 1(d)). Thus, “pseudogap” features may be expected as precursors for stripe formation even at high temperatures such as $T_{\rm C}$.
Note that the stable charge-orbital stripes with the arrangement of Fig. 1 can appear when the distance $d$ between diagonal hole arrays is equal to $m a_0$, where $m$ is an integer and $a_0$ is the lattice constant along the $a$-axis. Since $d$=$a_0/x$ from Fig. 1, $x$ should be equal to 1/$m$ for the appearance of stable diagonal charge stripes. For 1/($m$+1)$<$$x$$<$1/$m$, it seems possible (but at this early stage it is a conjecture) that a mixed phase of two charge-orbital ordered states with $x$=1/($m$+1) and 1/$m$ appears, consistent with the phase separation scenario [@ps] and also with recent synchrotron X-ray scattering measurements [@greven]. Based on this scenario, the charge ordering observed in experiments at $x$$\sim$0.3 in the FM regime may be understood as a mixture of diagonal stripes at $x$=1/4 and 1/3 (Figs. 1(b) and (c)), if those patterns are assumed to be stacked along the $z$-axis due to the influence of $J_{\rm AF}$, a reasonable assumption based on previous $x$=0.5 calculations[@hotta2]. In the orbital correlation function $T^z({\bf q})$ =$\sum_{\bf i,j}e^{i{\bf q}\cdot({\bf i-j})}
\langle\tau_{z{\bf i}} \tau_{z{\bf j}} \rangle$, peaks appear at ($\pi$$\pm$$\delta_m$, $\pi$$\pm$$\delta_m$) with $\delta_m$=(1$-$2/$m$)$\pi$. The deviation from ($\pi$,$\pi$) for $m$$>$2 is caused by a [*$\pi$-shift*]{} in the orbital order across the stripe (Fig. 1), and it can be informally referred to as “orbital incommensurability” by analogy to the spin incommensurability found in cuprates and nickelates. It is important to remark that the present idealized charge stripes will likely be destabilized by thermal and/or quantum fluctuations. Thus, in actual materials, it is expected that the stripes will be [*dynamical*]{} as in cuprates and only vestiges of stripes may be detected [@Belesi], together with pseudogap features, consistent with the phase separation tendency for 1/($m$+1)$<$$x$$<$1/$m$.
Now let us consider the charge-orbital structure in the AFM phase by using [*non-cooperative*]{} JT phonons. This will allow us to report yet another striped state which could be observed experimentally, this time with an overall zero magnetization. As found at $x$=1/2 [@hotta2], the AFM phase such as CE-type state is not sensitive to the JT phonons treatment, since there exists a strong constraint due to the DE mechanism for the $e_{\rm g}$ electron kinetic motion, masking differences in the character of JT phonons. Note, however, that both the local lattice distortion and $t_{\rm 2g}$ spin direction should be determined independently at each site by optimizing the total energy. Using relaxation techniques to optimize $\{Q\}$’s and $\{{\bf S}\}$’s at fixed electronic density [@note:non-coop], the phase diagram at $x$=1/4 has been here obtained (Fig. 2(a)). Its overall features can be understood from the competition between the $e_{\rm g}$ electron kinetic energy and magnetic energy of $t_{\rm 2g}$ spins regulated by $J_{\rm AF}$. At small $J_{\rm AF}$ the system becomes FM to improve hole movement, and a metal-insulator transition occurs at a critical value of $\lambda$, separating FM CO and FM charge-disordered (CD) states. In the other limit of large $J_{\rm AF}$, an AFM phase is stabilized since the magnetic energy among $t_{\rm 2g}$ spins dominates. The most interesting result of Fig. 2(a) is that at [*intermediate*]{} values of $J_{\rm AF}$, a novel spin-ordered state analogous to the CE-type phase at $x$=1/2 has been found. The complex optimized spin pattern is shown in Fig. 2(b). A similar CE-like spin arrangement is also found at $x$=1/3 (see Fig. 2(c)) [@note:zigzag1]. These configurations are here called the “zigzag” AFM (Z-AFM) states, since $t_{\rm 2g}$ spins form one-dimensional (1D) zigzag paths where $e_{\rm g}$ kinetic energy is gained, stacking with anti-parallel spins in the direction perpendicular to those paths to gain magnetic energy. Since this Z-AFM phase can take partial advantage of both energies, it is reasonable that it is stabilized in between the FM and AFM phases.
=7.truecm
\[fig2\]
Consider now the charge and orbital structures of the phases in Fig. 2(a). In the FM phase, for the values of $\lambda$ investigated, an OO phase appears (not shown), irrespective of the charge structure. As mentioned above, for non-cooperative JT phonons, holes are distributed uniformly to lower the ground state energy, compatible with the concomitant orbital order. In the Z-AFM phase, the charge-orbital arrangements for large $\lambda$ are schematically shown in Figs. 3(a) and (b) for $x$=1/4 and 1/3, respectively. The local charge density is found to be constant along the diagonal directions denoted by the broken lines in Fig. 3(a). This result indicates a tendency toward the formation of diagonal charge stripes in the Z-AFM phase for $x$=1/3 and 1/4. In Fig. 3(c), the local charge densities on the diagonal lines, $n(\delta_1)$, $n(\delta_2)$, and $n(\delta_3)$, are shown vs $\lambda$. At small $\lambda$, diagonal charge stripes are observed, concomitant with a peak around ${\bf q}$=($\pi$/2,$\pi$/2) in the charge correlation function $n({\bf q})$ [@hill]. On the other hand, at large $\lambda$, $n(\delta_3)$ is very small, while $n(\delta_1)$ and $n(\delta_2)$ are almost unity. Namely, holes are mainly located along the line $\delta_3$, indicating the formation of a clear diagonal charge stripe pattern (see Fig. 3(a)), and the intensity of the $(\pi/2,\pi/2)$ peak in $n({\bf q})$ becomes larger than at small $\lambda$. Note that in the Z-AFM phase the $e_{\rm g}$ electron motion is restricted to the 1D zigzag FM chains due to large $J_{\rm H}$. When a finite electron-lattice coupling is introduced in this 1D system, a Peierls instability should occur, leading to a charge-density-wave state. Since in the Z-AFM phase the same chain is simply stacked along the diagonal direction in the $x$-$y$ plane, diagonal charge stripes occurs naturally [@note:CO].
To understand the shape of the zigzag chain (Fig.2(b)), consider the limit of $\lambda$=0 [@hotta2; @hotta3]. Even without phonons, by straightforward diagonalization it can be shown that the zigzag chains have a spectra corresponding to a [*band-insulator*]{} due to the periodic changes in hopping amplitudes along zigzag chains ($t_{\rm ab}^{\bf x}$=$-t_{\rm ab}^{\bf y}$), which induce gaps in the energy spectra [@hotta3]. At $x$=1/4, there are nine independent possible types of zigzag chains on an 8$\times$8 lattice with periodic boundary conditions. Let us label these zigzag chains using “bits”, 0 and 1, representing the $x$- and $y$-directions, respectively. The nine possible configurations are in Fig. 3(d). The zigzag chain of Fig. 2(b) is given by the periodic sequence “00101101”, and its energy is the lowest among the possible candidates, since it provides the largest bandgap. When the electron-phonon interaction is adiabatically switched on, it is reasonable that the AFM phase Fig. 2(b) would still be stable for a finite $\lambda$ range [@note:zigzag2]. Note that in Fig. 3(d), excited states characterized by other zigzag paths have small excitation energies, such as 0.001$\sim$0.01 in units of $t_{\rm aa}^{\bf x}$. Thus, at temperatures as low as a few degrees Kelvin the ground-state Fig. 2(b) can be easily distorted into other zigzag spin patterns. This fragility of the ground-state may be related with the “spin glass” features observed in single-layer experiments [@moritomo], leading to an overall orbital disordered state. However, note that seven of the nine competing states, as well as the Z-AFM phase, have diagonal stripes. Then, even in a mixture of these states, the stripe direction is not random. Thus, it is possible that indications of diagonal charge stripes may be present in the “spin glass” phase of single-layer manganites.
=7.truecm
\[fig3\]
In summary, novel striped charge-orbital ordering has been found in realistic models for manganites. Diagonal stripes in the FM phase have been observed at densities $x$=$1/m$, with $m$ an integer, and also in the CE-like Z-AFM phase. The orbital degree of freedom orders in a $x$=0 staggered pattern in between the stripes, playing a key role in stabilizing these structures, similarly as the real spin does for stripes in nickelates and cuprates. Our results have implications for the recently discovered short-range charge ordering effects in neutron scattering experiments, as well as for future experiments, particularly involving layered manganites.
The authors are grateful to P. Dai, M. Greven, J. Hill, and M. Kubota for useful comments. This work has been supported by the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, and Culture of Japan, Fundación Antorchas, and grant NSF-DMR-9814350.
See, e.g., [*Colossal Magnetoresistive Oxides*]{}, edited by Y. Tokura (Gordon & Breach, New York, 2000); E. Dagotto [*et al.*]{}, to appear in Physics Reports.
S. Yunoki [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 5612 (1998); A. Moreo [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 5568 (2000).
J. M. De Teresa [*et al.*]{}, Nature [**386**]{}, 256 (1997); S. J. L. Billinge [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B[**62**]{}, 1203 (2000).
S. Shimomura [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 4389 (1999); P. Dai [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 2553 (2000); C. P. Adams [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 3954 (2000).
The propagation vector is in the pseudo-cubic notation.
L. Vasiliu-Doloc [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 4393(1999); M. Kubota [*et al.*]{}, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**69**]{}, 1986 (2000).
T. Hotta [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B[**60**]{}, R15009 (1999).
S. Yunoki [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 3417 (2000); T. Hotta [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B[**62**]{}, 9432 (2000).
T. Hotta, [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 2477 (2000).
S. Kawano [*et al.*]{}, J. Phys. (Paris) Colloq. [**49**]{}, C8-829 (1988).
B. J. Sternlieb [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 2169 (1996); Y. Murakami [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 1932 (1998).
Y. Moritomo [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B[**51**]{}, R3297 (1995).
$J_{\rm AF}$ is small to make it compatible with experiments for the fully hole-doped CaMnO$_3$ compound. See also L. F. Feiner and A. M. Oleś, Phys. Rev. B[**59**]{}, 3295 (1999).
Coulomb interactions are effectively included in the large $\lambda$ regime (see T. Hotta [*et al.*]{} in Ref. [@hotta2]).
Here only the bond stretching mode is assumed to occur and $\beta$ is set as 2, a realistic value deduced from vibration energies for breathing- and JT-mode phonons [@hotta1]. Note that in an isolated 2D sheet there is no constraint for $u^{\bf z}_{\bf i}$, the displacement of apical oxygens (AO), but the real 2D system is embedded in a 3D environment, suggesting that AO motion should be determined considering the influence of other ions between sheets. In this work, for simplicity, $u^{\bf z}_{\bf i}$ is set to zero, assuming that AO are fixed in their positions by 3D effects.
J. M. Tranquada [*et al.*]{}, Nature [**375**]{}, 561 (1995).
To understand vertical/horizontal stripes, the cooperative analysis should be carried out including modes for distortions other than the bond-stretching mode. In the one-orbital model such stripes can also be obtained (see Fig.III.d.6(b) in E. Dagotto [*et al*]{}. in Ref. [@review] and H. Aliaga [*et al.*]{}, cond-mat/0011342).
S. Larochelle [*et al.*]{}, preprint; M. Greven, private communication.
Once the stripes melt, together with the dynamical aspect of the charge, the orbital order will no longer be long-ranged but short. Then, melted stripes may lead to orbital liquid properties (M. Belesi [*et al.*]{}, preprint).
To reduce the effort in our calculations, still capturing the main effect of JT distortions, $\beta$ is set to $\infty$ effectively suppressing the breathing mode, while $J_{\rm H}$=20 (but results at $J_{\rm H}$=$\infty$ are essentially the same).
At $x$=1/3 and large $\lambda$, the zigzag FM chain (Fig. 2(c)) is divided into small FM clusters for non-cooperative JT phonons, while for cooperative case the Z-AFM phase (Fig. 2(c)) is stable. For large $\lambda$, the cooperative effect is crucial to stabilize the Z-AFM structure, as well as to observe the diagonal charge stripes in the FM phase.
Note that the charge density is nearly uniform at intermediate $\lambda$ such as 1.2 in Fig. 3(c). In this interesting regime, a peak in the orbital correlations exist, while the analog in the charge sector is not prominent. Such an OO but CD $x$=1/4 state may be related to those observed in recent experiments for Pr$_{1-x}$Ca$_x$MnO$_3$ (M. v. Zimmermann [*et al.*]{}, cond-mat/0007231).
In the Z-AFM phase, the charge pattern depends on $\lambda$ and the shape of the FM path, but the orbital arrangement is mainly determined by the zigzag geometry.
Note that the results of Figs. 2(b,c) and the analysis of competing zigzag paths have been obtained assuming either FM or AFM links among localized spins, reasonable at large $\lambda$. If the $t_{\rm 2g}$ spin directions are optimized for small $\lambda$, spin patterns similar to Fig. 2(b) and (c) are stabilized, but with spin directions slightly disordered.
|
---
abstract: 'We report a thorough theoretical study of the low temperature phase diagram of [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}, a spatially anisotropic spin $S=1/2$ triangular lattice antiferromagnet, in a magnetic field. Our results, obtained in a quasi-one-dimensional limit in which the system is regarded as a set of weakly coupled Heisenberg chains, are in excellent agreement with experiment. The analysis reveals some surprising physics. First, we find that, when the magnetic field is oriented within the triangular layer, spins are actually most strongly correlated within planes [*perpendicular*]{} to the triangular layers. This is despite the fact that the inter-layer exchange coupling in [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{} is about an order of magnitude smaller than the weakest (diagonal) exchange in the triangular planes themselves. Second, the phase diagram in such orientations is exquisitely sensitive to tiny interactions, heretofore neglected, of order a few percent or less of the largest exchange couplings. These interactions, which we describe in detail, induce entirely new phases, and a novel commensurate-incommensurate transition, the signatures of which are identified in NMR experiments. We discuss the differences between the behavior of [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{} and an ideal two-dimensional triangular model, and in particular the occurrence of magnetization plateaux in the latter. These and other related results are presented here along with a thorough exposition of the theoretical methods, and a discussion of broader experimental consequences to [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{} and other materials.'
author:
- 'Oleg A. Starykh'
- Hosho Katsura
- Leon Balents
bibliography:
- 'sensitivity.bib'
title: 'Extreme sensitivity of a frustrated quantum magnet: [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}'
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
The spin-$1/2$ nearest-neighbor Heisenberg antiferromagnet on the two dimensional triangular (hexagonal) lattice is the simplest theoretical model for frustrated quantum magnetism.[@Anderson_RVB] Without additional perturbations, the model is believed to order at zero temperature into a 3-sublattice coplanar ground state.[@Huse_Elser_1988_PRL; @Bernu1992PRL; @Sorella1999PRL] However, one may expect a strong sensitivity to additional perturbations to the isotropic triangular lattice Hamiltonian. The material [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{} provides an interesting example of a spatially [*anisotropic*]{} spin-$1/2$ triangular antiferromagnet.[@Coldea2001PRL] For several years, neutron scattering,[@Coldea2003PRB] magnetization, and specific heat measurements[@RaduPRL2005; @TokiwaPRB2006] on [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{} have intrigued the community with unexpected behavior. These experimental properties have been suggested by a variety of authors, including the experimentalists themselves, to indicate exotic physics such as a spin-liquid ground state, unconventional “spinon” excitations at higher energies, and quantum criticality. Theoretical work on this material has been intense. [@Chung2003PRB; @IsakovPRB2005PRB; @AliceaPRL2005; @kohno2009dps; @kohno07:_spinon_and_tripl_in_spatial; @Starykh2007; @PhysRevLett.103.197203]
An advantage of [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{} is that the small exchange constants and high degree of magnetic isotropy allow for a fairly accurate determination of several of the largest Hamiltonian parameters, by comparison with the measured single magnon dispersion relation above an approximately fully-polarized state. The approximate Hamiltonian, including a magnetic field, determined by the experimentalists in this way is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Hexpt}
H & = & \frac{1}{2} \sum_{ij} \left[ J_{ij} {\bm S}_i \cdot
{\bm S}_j - {\bm D}_{ij} \cdot {\bm S}_i \times {\bm S}_j \right]
- {\bm h}\cdot \sum_i {\bm S}_i.~~~\end{aligned}$$ Here $i,j$ are sites of a stack of triangular lattices (see Figs. \[fig: planar\_lattice\] and \[fig: DM\_distribution\]). The principle exchange interactions determined in Ref. are $J=0.374 ~{\rm meV}$ on nearest-neighbor bonds parallel to the $b$ axis, significantly smaller $J'=0.128~{\rm meV}\approx 0.34 J$ on diagonal bonds in the $b$-$c$ plane, and quite small $J''=0.045 J$ along vertical bonds between adjacent triangular layers. A Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya (DM) coupling was also measured along the diagonal bonds, with ${\bm D}_{ij}=-{\bm D}_{ji}=\pm D \hat{a}$ where the sign in specific directions are as indicated in Fig. \[fig: DM\_distribution\], and $D=0.020$meV$=0.05J$.
![Magnetic sites and exchange couplings in a 2D triangular layer in [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}: on-chain bonds $J$ (thick lines $\parallel b$), frustrating diagonal bonds $J'$ (dotted lines). Stacked layers are coupled by nearest-neighbor exchange $J''$. Crystallographic $a$,$b$,$c$ axes are indicated.[]{data-label="fig: planar_lattice"}](planar_lattice.pdf){width="0.7\columnwidth"}
The relative smallness of the couplings other than $J$ suggests that one may perhaps fruitfully regard this Hamiltonian as one of Heisenberg spin chains along the $b$ axis defined by $J$, which are weakly coupled together by the remaining interactions.[@nersesyan1998; @bocquet2001] This point of view was validated in Refs. , where it was shown that much of the observed low energy ordering [*and*]{} the high energy inelastic neutron scattering data on [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{} can be calculated starting from known exact results for 1d Heisenberg chains. Indeed, numerical approaches in Refs. showed that, due to frustration, the diagonal interaction may be as large as $J'/J < 0.7$ while still retaining approximate quasi-one-dimensionality.
While this approach has been quite successful for [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}, most notably in directly confronting data [*without any adjustable parameters*]{}, there remain some puzzling features in the experiments. One of the most striking ones is the drastic difference in the low temperature phase diagrams of the material in magnetic fields aligned along the three different principle axes of the crystal. Though some aspects of these differences were explained in Ref. , based upon the “standard” model in Eq. (\[eq:Hexpt\]), other glaring discrepancies remain. In this paper, we resolve these outstanding differences between theory and experiment by correcting the standard model of [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}.
It is important to emphasize that the corrections to Eq. (\[eq:Hexpt\]) [*must*]{} be small, because the standard model does an excellent job in explaining a large volume of experimental data. The parameters in Eq. (\[eq:Hexpt\]) were determined by high field measurements of single-magnon spectra,[@Coldea2002PRL] which leave little room for doubt of their correctness with relatively small error bars. Moreover, the same model, used at zero and intermediate fields, is quite successful in reproducing the full inelastic neutron spectrum, containing both continuum and magnon/triplon (sharp) contributions.[@kohno07:_spinon_and_tripl_in_spatial; @PhysRevLett.103.197203] Nevertheless, in some field orientations, entirely different low temperature phases are observed in experiment than are predicted by the standard model. Thus, we must somehow explain major [*qualitative*]{} differences in the ground states of [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{} in a field by very small corrections to $H$, of no more than a few percent!
A key message of this paper is that, indeed, the frustration and quasi-one-dimensionality of this problem can and do amplify tiny terms in the Hamiltonian to the point where they actually control the ground state. Sensitivity to small perturbations is of course an often-cited characteristic of frustrated systems. However, the extent to which this sensitivity can be fully characterized in the problem under consideration here is, to our mind, unprecedented. Using the methods of bosonization, the renormalization group, and chain mean-field theory (CMFT), we are able to distinctly identify the hierarchy of emergent low energy scales that control the very complex ordering behavior of the anisotropic triangular antiferromagnet, in a magnetic field and with a variety of very weak symmetry-breaking terms.
This paper contains many results, and a thorough presentation of the methods required to obtain them. To briefly summarize, we have determined the ground state phase diagrams for the ideal two-dimensional anisotropic triangular antiferromagnetic Heisenberg model, and for the model appropriate to [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}, in all three distinct field orientations, over most of the range of applied magnetic fields. In the former, we find spin density wave (SDW) and cone states, and in the SDW, a family of quantized magnetization plateaux. In the latter, we find several phases, including an incommensurate cone state, an commensurate coplanar antiferromagnetic state, and a second incommensurate phase, descended from the antiferromagnetic one. The occurence of these phases depends crucially on the field orientation, and matches well with experiments on [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}. The associated phase diagrams in the temperature-magnetic field plane are shown schematically in Fig. \[fig: magnetic\_phases\]. Details of each phase and its properties can be found in the appropriate section of the main text.
![Schematic phase diagrams in the temperature-magnetic field plane for fields along (a) the $a$ axis, (b) the $b$ axis, and (c) the $c$ axis. (d) Schematic phase diagram for the ideal 2d ($J$-$J'$) model. Here we use the abbreviations: FP = fully polarized state; AF = commensurate antiferromagnetic state; IC = incommensurate state; CAF = collinear antiferromagnetic state; and SDW = spin density wave state. The shaded areas denote the regions in which Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya and exchange non-trivially compete. For these regions, we do not have reliable theoretical predictions at this point.[]{data-label="fig: magnetic_phases"}](magnetic_phases.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
![A single triangular layer of the cone state, illustrated for a field along the $a$ axis. Circles with arrows indicate the sense of precession of the spins, as one moves along the $x$ axis. This is most easily seen intuitively by comparing every other spin, which compensates for the natural staggering due to the underlying Néel correlations of the 1d chains. Note that in the cone state, all spins precess in the same sense on all chains within a plane. For fields along $a$, however, this sense alternates between successive vertical layers, owing to the staggering of $D$. Within a single layer, cone states for fields along other axes are identical to this one after a global spin rotation.[]{data-label="fig:cone-state"}](conea_gray.pdf){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
![A single layer of the AF state, illustrated for a field along the $b$ axis. The spins lie in a plane spanned by the $b$ axis and a second axis within the $a-c$ plane but at a non-zero angle to both the $a$ and $c$ axes. The component of the spin normal to $b$ is antiparallel on successive even (or odd) chains, so that the patten has period $\Delta y=4$ along the $c$ axis. This corresponds to a doubled cystallographic unit cell in this direction.[]{data-label="fig:af-state"}](afb_gray.pdf){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
![A single layer of the IC state, illustrated for a field along the $c$ axis. Circles with arrows indicate the sense of precession of the spins, as one moves along the $x$ axis. This is most easily seen intuitively by comparing every other spin, which compensates for the natural staggering due to the underlying Néel correlations of the 1d chains. Note that in the IC state, by contrast to the cone state, spins on alternate chains in the plane precess in the opposite sense. []{data-label="fig:ic-state"}](ic_gray.pdf){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
One noteworthy highlight is that, remarkably, when the magnetic field is in the $b$-$c$ plane, the spin correlations impugn the popular interpretation of [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{} as a two-dimensional “anisotropic triangular lattice” antiferromagnet. In fact, in this very wide regime, in the ground state, the spins are more correlated in the $a$-$b$ planes, [*perpendicular*]{} to the triangular layers, than they are within those layers! Taking into account these correlations is crucial to obtaining the proper low temperature phase diagram. They lead to an enhanced sensitivity to some very weak second neighbor and effective “biquadratic” interactions, which are needed to stabilize the antiferromagnetic and incommensurate states mentioned above.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[sec:background\], we present some necessary background, including the standard model Hamiltonian for [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}, the low energy properties of a single Heisenberg chain, the results of a space group analysis of allowed DM interactions in [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}, and a summary of the general scaling and Chain Mean Field Theory (CMFT) approach to studying competing interactions. In Sec. \[sec:ideal-2d-model\], we determine the ground state behavior of the “ideal” model of an isolated spatially anisotropic triangular Heisenberg antiferromagnet, often presumed to apply to [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}. It clearly disagrees with experimental results for all three field orientations, as already pointed out in Ref. . In Sec. \[sec:field-along-axis\], we successfully apply the standard model to the case with a magnetic field applied perpendicular to the triangular plane, the DM interaction $D$ playing a crucial role in reconciling the behavior with experiment. Next, in Sec. \[sec:field-along-b\], we study the case of magnetic field along the $b$ (chain) axis. The $D$ term becomes rapidly negligible in this orientation, and we argue instead that the inter-plane coupling $J''$ becomes dominant. A subtle hierarchy of energy scales (see Fig. \[fig:energyscales\]) is exposed, which leads to the establishment of competing antiferromagnetic and cone phases in this case. Then, in Sec. \[sec:field-along-c\], we consider the field along the final principal axis, $c$, where an additional symmetry-allowed DM coupling plays a key role. It leads to the new incommensurate phase and an interesting commensurate-incommensurate phase transition. Having established all the ground state phases, we discuss some experimental consequences in Sec. \[sec:exper-cons\]. We give the explicit spin structures, describe the NMR lineshapes, which provide a telling confirmation of the theoretical results, and establish the nature of the $T>0$ phase diagram. We conclude with some brief discussion in Sec. \[sec:conclusions\]. Several appendices present details of calculations underlying some of the results in the main text.
Background {#sec:background}
==========
Explicit hamiltonian and coordinates {#sec:expl-hamilt-coord}
------------------------------------
For the bulk of this paper, we will adopt a simple orthogonal coordinate system, with $x$ along the crystallographic $b$ direction, parallel to the chains, $y$ along the $c$ axis, perpendicular to the chains within the triangular plane, and $z$ along the $a$ axis, perpendicular to the triangular planes. Moreover, we will adopt a simplified geometry, which respects the topology and interactions between spins, but does not precisely reproduce the actual locations of Cu$^{2+}$ ions. A description of the actual ion locations is given in Appendix \[sec:dmv\]. In our simplified geometry, the spins form a set of regular triangular lattices stacked uniformly along the $z$ axis, with spacing $1$ between spins in the $x$ and $z$ directions, and spacing $\Delta y=1$ between chains in the triangular plane.
In this representation, the lattice Hamiltonian for the standard model is $$\label{eq:117}
H_{\rm sm} = \sum_{xyz}\Big\{ J {\bm S}_{x,y,z}\cdot {\bm S}_{x+1,y,z}
- {\bm h}\cdot {\bm S}_{x,y,z} \Big\} + H_1 + H_2,$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:1}
H_1 & = & \sum_{xyz}
J' {\bm S}_{x,y,z}\cdot\left({\bm S}_{x-\frac{1}{2},y+1,z}+{\bm S}_{x+\frac{1}{2},y+1,z}\right)
\label{standard_hamiltonian}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:118}
H_2 & = & \sum_{xyz}\Big\{ J'' {\bm S}_{x,y,z}\cdot {\bm S}_{x,y,z+1} \\
& & + D (-1)^z {\hat z} \cdot {\bm S}_{x,y,z}\times \big(
{\bm S}_{x-\frac{1}{2},y+1,z}-{\bm S}_{x+\frac{1}{2},y+1,z}\big) \Big\}.
\nonumber \end{aligned}$$
Review of low energy properties of Heisenberg chains {#sec:review-low-energy}
----------------------------------------------------
We give a brief synopsis of known results on the low energy theory of the single Heisenberg chain in a field, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:singlechain}
H_{1d} & = & J \sum_x {\bm S}(x)\cdot {\bm S}(x+1) - h \sum_x S^z(x).\end{aligned}$$ Here $x$ are taken as integers, and we have taken the $z$ axis in spin space along the field. In Eq. (\[eq:singlechain\]) the magnetization $M = \sum_x \frac{1}{N}S^z(x) = \langle S^z(x) \rangle$ is conserved ($N$ is the number of spins), and so it is convenient to work at fixed $M$. The equilibrium relation between magnetization and field $M(h)$ is known from the Bethe ansatz solution, see Ref. .
For any $M$ less than full saturation, $|M|<1/2$, the low energy theory can be described in Abelian bosonization by a single massless free scalar field $\theta$ and its “dual” $\phi$ (related to the canonical momentum conjugate to $\theta$) $$\label{eq:duals}
[\theta(x), \phi(x')] = - i \Theta(x-x'),$$ with $\Theta(x)$ the Heaviside step function. The low energy Hamiltonian is then $$\label{eq:H-bos-0}
H_0 = \int dx ~\frac{v}{2} \Big((\partial_x \phi)^2 + (\partial_x
\theta)^2\Big) ,$$ where the velocity $v$ depends on $M$, see Fig. 9 of Ref. . At a given $M$, the fluctuations of the “longitudinal” spin component along the field axis are gapless at wavevectors $k_x=0,\pi\pm
2\delta$, with $\delta=\pi M$. Similarly, the “transverse” spin fluctuations perpendicular to the field axis are gapless at $k_x=\pm 2\delta, \pi$. The lattice spin operator is decomposed thereby according to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:1dspindecomp}
S^z(x) & \sim & M + \mathcal{S}^z_0(x) \\ &&+ e^{i(\pi-2\delta)x}
\mathcal{S}^z_{\pi-2\delta}(x)
+e^{-i(\pi-2\delta)x}
\mathcal{S}^z_{\pi+2\delta}(x) , \nonumber \\
S^+(x) & \sim & e^{-i2\delta x} \mathcal{S}^+_{2\delta}(x)
+ e^{i 2\delta x} \mathcal{S}^+_{-2\delta}(x) + (-1)^x
\mathcal{S}^+_\pi(x). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Here the scaling operators $\mathcal{S}^z_0, \mathcal{S}^z_{\pi\pm
2\delta}$ describe longitudinal spin fluctuations, and $\mathcal{S}^\pm_{\pm 2\delta}, \mathcal{S}^\pm_\pi$ transverse ones. These should be assumed to vary slowly with $x$ (and time). Note that the operators $\mathcal{S}^\mu_k$ ($\mu=z, \pm$) do not mean the Fourier components of $S^\mu(x)$. They can be expressed in terms of bosonic fields as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:bosonizespinops}
\mathcal{S}^z_0(x) & = & \beta^{-1}\partial_x \phi, \\
\mathcal{S}^z_{\pi-2\delta}(x) & = & -\frac{i}{2} A_1 e^{-2\pi i \phi/\beta},
\\
\mathcal{S}^+_{\pm 2\delta}(x) & = & \pm \frac{i}{2} A_2 e^{i\beta \theta}
e^{\pm i 2\pi \phi/\beta}, \\
\label{eq:bosonizespinops+3}
\mathcal{S}^+_\pi(x) & = & A_3 e^{i\beta\theta}.\end{aligned}$$ The parameter $\beta$ is obtained by solving the integral equations,[@Bogoliubov-Izergin-Korepin; @Qin-Fabrizio; @Cabra-Honecker-Pujol] and the amplitudes $A_1,A_2,A_3$ have been determined numerically in Ref. . We note that the above effective field theory describes the long-distance correlations of the spin chain, and is a good approximation beyond some cut-off length $a_0$. For “generic” values of the magnetization, this is of the order of lattice spacing; however, it diverges near saturation ($|M|\rightarrow 1/2$), where it scales roughly as the distance between flipped spins (antiparallel to the field), $a_0 \sim
(1/2-|M|)^{-1}$.
The parameter $\beta = 2\pi R$ is related to the “compactification radius” $R$. At zero magnetization $M=h=0$, the $SU(2)$ invariant Heisenberg chain has $2\pi R^2 = 1$. In the field $\beta$ and $R$ decrease (see Fig. \[fig:Beta\_curve\] of Appendix \[sec table\]) toward the limit $2\pi R^2=1/2$ as $|M|\rightarrow 1/2$. The scaling dimensions for general $M$ are given in terms of $R$, and in the limits of zero and full polarization, are listed in Table \[tab:dims\].
Operator $\Delta$ $M=0$ $M\rightarrow 1/2$
----------------------------------- ---------------------- ------- --------------------
$\mathcal{S}^z_0$ $1$ $1$ $1$
$\mathcal{S}^z_{\pi \pm 2\delta}$ $1/4\pi R^2$ $1/2$ $1$
$\mathcal{S}^\pm_{\pm 2\delta}$ $\pi R^2+1/4\pi R^2$ $1$ $5/4$
$\mathcal{S}^\pm_{\pi}$ $\pi R^2$ $1/2$ $1/4$
: Scaling dimensions of scaling fields associated with spin fluctuations in the one dimensional Heisenberg chain at magnetization $M$. The third and fourth columns give the scaling dimensions in the limit of zero and full polarization, respectively.[]{data-label="tab:dims"}
In addition to the scaling fields above, which appear in the expansion of spin operators, we will also make use of the spin current, for the component of spin along the field axis. This has the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:19}
J^z(x) & = & \frac{-i}{2} \left[ S^+(x) S^-(x+1) -
S^-(x)S^+(x+1)\right]\nonumber \\
&& \sim \mathcal{J}^z(x).\end{aligned}$$ Like the spin density $\mathcal{S}_0^z$, this has a simple bosonization formula, $$\label{eq:20}
\mathcal{J}^z = \frac{v}{\beta J} \partial_x \theta.$$ We note that at $M=0$, $v/J=\pi/2$ takes a simple value, but at $M>0$ the coefficient decreases continuously.
It may also be useful to connect with the limit of zero field $M=\delta=0$, which is probably more familiar. Here the Hamiltonian has SU(2) symmetry. In this limit, the three operators ${\rm
Re}[\mathcal{S}_\pi^+]$, ${\rm Im}[\mathcal{S}_\pi^+]$, and ${\rm
Re}[\mathcal{S}^z_{\pi-2\delta}]$ become unified into the three components of the Néel field ${\bm N}$ (scaling dimension 1/2), while the other three operators, ${\rm
Re}[\mathcal{S}_{2\delta}^+]$, ${\rm Im}[\mathcal{S}_{2\delta}^+]$, and $\mathcal{S}_0^z$, become the uniform magnetization operator ${\bm
L} = {\bm J}_R + {\bm J}_L$, where ${\bm J}_{R/L}$ are the chiral spin currents (scaling dimension 1). The remaining operator, ${\rm
Im}[\mathcal{S}^z_{\pi-2\delta}]$ becomes the staggered dimerization field $\varepsilon$ (scaling dimension 1/2).
DM-ology {#sec:dm-ology}
--------
Here we present the DM terms which correct the standard model, as allowed by the space group symmetry of the lattice. They are derived in Appendix \[sec:dmv\]. Since [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{} is an $S=1/2$ system with a single unpaired electron in a non-degenerate orbital, we expect that spin-orbit effects to be perturbative. In this limit, the leading effect is to generate DM terms on the same bonds on which exchange interactions are present, and which are proportional to both the exchange coupling on that bond, and to the strength of spin orbit interactions. As a consequence, we need to consider DM terms only on bonds with reasonably strong exchange, that is, the intra-layer triangular lattice bonds. These come in two types: the on-chain bonds and the diagonals. We denote the DM vectors on the former bonds by ${\bm D}$ and on the latter by ${\bm D}'$, in analogy to $J$ and $J'$ exchange couplings on the same bonds.
The space group symmetry of the lattice determines the pattern of relative signs of the DM vectors on each of these bonds (see Appendix \[sec:dmv\]). We find the following form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:11}
H_D & = & \sum_{xyz} \Big\{ {\bm D}_{y,z}\cdot {\bm S}_{x,y,z}\times
{\bm S}_{x+1,y,z} \nonumber
\\ && + {\bm D}^+_{y,z}\cdot {\bm S}_{x,y,z}\times
{\bm S}_{x+1/2,y+1,z} \nonumber \\ && + {\bm D}^-_{y,z}\cdot {\bm S}_{x,y,z}\times
{\bm S}_{x-1/2,y+1,z}\Big\},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:18}
{\bm D}_{y,z} & = & D_a (-1)^z \hat{a} + D_c (-1)^y \hat{c}, \label{DM_chain}\\
{\bm D}^\pm_{y,z} & = & \pm D'_a (-1)^z \hat{a} + D'_b (-1)^{y+z}
\hat{b} \pm D'_c (-1)^{y+z}\hat{c},\nonumber \label{DM_diagonal}\\ &&\end{aligned}$$ and $D'_a\equiv D$ is the DM term in the standard model. The relative signs of the DM vectors are graphically shown in Fig. \[fig: DM\_distribution\].
One sees that symmetry allows five distinct DM couplings: $D=D'_a$, $D'_b$, $D'_c$, $D_a$ and $D_c$. Of these, only $D'_a$ and $D_c$ will be invoked in the body of this paper. The remaining three can be safely neglected, as explained in Appendix \[sec:negl-dm-coupl\].
![Distribution of the DM vectors. Sites 1,2,3, and 4 correspond to $(x,y,z)$, $(x+\frac{1}{2},y+1,z)$, $(x,y,z+1)$, and $(x+\frac{1}{2},y+1,z+1)$, respectively. (a) The signs $\otimes$, $\odot$ refer to the direction of the DM vectors along $a$ axis. (b) The arrows indicate the direction of the DM vectors along $b$ or $c$ axis. We use the convention (see Eq. ) in which the first spin in the cross product ${\bm D}_{ij}\cdot {\bm S}_i \times
{\bm S}_j$ is the one with smaller $x$ for the on-chain bonds (i.e. it is on the left side of the bond), and it is the one with smaller $y$ on the diagonal bonds (i.e. it is the lower of the two spins). Note that a different convention is used in Refs. .[]{data-label="fig: DM_distribution"}](DM_distribution.pdf){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
Competing Interactions, Scaling, and Chain Mean Field Theory {#sec:renorm-group-appr}
------------------------------------------------------------
We assume that [*all*]{} inter-chain couplings are weak. In this case, a scaling analysis based on a perturbative RG treatment is appropriate. This proceeds in a standard way. One integrates out short-distance modes (i.e. small $x$ or large $k_x$), progressively reducing the large momentum cutoff from its “bare” value $\Lambda$ (of order the inverse lattice spacing, which we take in turn to be $O(1)$) to $\Lambda
e^{-\ell}$, where $\ell \in [0,\infty]$ is the logarithmic RG scaling variable. Equivalently, the corresponding real space cutoff is $L=ae^\ell$, where $a$ is a microscopic length (which we take to be $O(1)$). As we integrate out modes, the couplings themselves are renormalized. For each given coupling constant $\gamma_{i}$, which appears in the Hamiltonian as $H=H_0+\cdots + \int\! dx \, \gamma_{i}
\mathcal{O}_i$, we can define a [*dimensionless*]{} coupling $\breve{\gamma}_i = \gamma_i/(v\Lambda_\ell^2)$, which is measured relative to the typical magnitude of the terms in the free bosonic field theory. Equivalently, division by both a factor of $v\Lambda_\ell$ (the typical energy at this scale) and an additional factor of $\Lambda_\ell$ (a typical inverse length) are needed to render $\gamma_i$, which is an energy density, dimensionless. To linear order, each dimensionless coupling “flows” according to the RG equation $$\label{eq:RGgeneral}
\partial_\ell \breve{\gamma}_{i} = (2-\Delta_{i})\breve{\gamma}_{i}.$$ Note that the factor of $2$ in this equation, which comes from the normalization by $1/\Lambda_\ell^2$, is equivalent to the space-time dimensionality of the (1+1)-dimensional field theory of the spin chains. In RG schemes in which space-time is rescaled to keep the cutoff fixed, this factor arises directly from that rescaling. We prefer to formulate the RG without rescaling in this paper, so that all lengths, times, energies, etc. are explicit.
Many of the above operators may be [*relevant*]{} in the RG sense. This means that, with increasing $\ell$, the dimensionless coupling constants [*increase*]{}, which implies $\Delta<2$ for that coupling. The RG is valid only so long as the [*largest*]{} of these dimensionless couplings remains small. Crudely, then, we may determine the length scale $\xi$ at which inter-chain coupling becomes significant by the point $\ell=\ell^*$ [*at which the first operator renormalizes to become of $O(1)$*]{}, where $\xi=a e^{\ell^*}$. The length $\xi$ defines a correlation length, below which the dynamics is approximately one-dimensional.
If this first “diverging” operator is unique, one can often identify the nature of the associated instability of the decoupled chains. In many cases, this can be done by dropping the other operators, and treating the remaining one by a type of mean field theory. Sometimes it can be treated in a semiclassical fashion. None of these approaches are rigorous, but they are eminently reasonable, and are likely to correctly predict the nature of the resulting state.
$ $From this reasoning, we see that both the bare magnitude and the scaling dimension (relevance) of the different interactions are important in determining the low energy state of the system. To be more concrete, consider two candidate operators, $\mathcal{O}_1,\mathcal{O}_2$. Their renormalized coupling constants obey $$\label{eq:32}
\breve{\gamma}_i(\xi) = \frac{\gamma_i}{v} \xi^{2-\Delta_i}.$$ Here, since $\Lambda=\Lambda_{\ell=0}$ is $O(1)$, we replace $\breve{\gamma}_i(\ell=0) = \gamma_i(\ell=0)/v=\gamma_i/v$. Setting $\breve{\gamma}_i(\xi_i)= C$, an $O(1)$ constant, we obtain $$\label{eq:33}
\xi_i = \left(\frac{C v}{\gamma_i}\right)^{\frac{1}{2-\Delta_i}}.$$ We expect that operator 1 (2) is dominant if $\xi_1$ ($\xi_2$) is the shorter length. Hence the boundary between the two regimes, in which one or the other operator dominates, occurs when $\xi_1=\xi_2$, or $$\label{eq:34}
\gamma_1^{2-\Delta_2}= (C v)^{\Delta_1-\Delta_2} \gamma_2^{2-\Delta_1}.$$ Note that, although the scaling of this boundary is determined by this argument, the precise location is not, due to the ambiguity of $C$. We can understand this conclusion also from the scaling of the ground state energy density, $\mathcal{E}_0$, which obeys $$\label{eq:35}
\mathcal{E}_0(\gamma_1,\gamma_2) = b^{-2} \mathcal{E}_0\left(\frac{\gamma_1}{v}
b^{2-\Delta_1},\frac{\gamma_2}{v} b^{2-\Delta_2}\right).$$ Choosing $b = (\frac{\gamma_1}{v})^{-1/(2-\Delta_1)}$, we obtain $$\label{eq:36}
\mathcal{E}_0(\gamma_1,\gamma_2) = \left(\frac{\gamma_1}{v}\right)^{\frac{2}{2-\Delta_1}} f( \gamma_2/ (\gamma_1/v)^{(2-\Delta_2)/(2-\Delta_1)}),$$ where $f({{\cal X}})$ is a universal scaling function. If there is a phase transition as $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$ are varied, there must therefore be a non-analyticity at ${{\cal X}}={{\cal X}}^*$ in $f({{\cal X}})$, for some ${{\cal X}}^*$. This gives an equivalent condition to Eq. (\[eq:34\]). To precisely determine the phase boundary, we need to know ${{\cal X}}^*$ (or $C$), which means we need knowledge of $f({{\cal X}})$. Such scaling functions are generally determined by the full RG flows out of the scale-invariant theory, and not just perturbative data.
To resolve this ambiguity, we turn to an approach which is equivalent to the former one at the [*scaling*]{} level, but which is more quantitative. A natural choice is the Chain Mean Field Theory (CMFT), in which inter-chain couplings are treated by a self-consistent Weiss-type decoupling, using the exact solutions of perturbed but decoupled individual chain problems [@schulz-cmft]. Our CMFT approach is described in detail in Appendix \[sec:cmft\]. In principle, it can be employed to determine a full mean-field phase diagram. Here, we will mostly use it in more limited ways, as convenient. To address the ambiguity discussed above, we use the CMFT to compute a putative ordering temperature, $T_i$, for each channel driven by an operator $\mathcal{O}_i$. The instability which sets in first upon lowering the temperature, i.e. with maximal $T_i$, is assumed to be dominant. Another application of CMFT will be to compute the magnitude of the ordering induced by a coupling $\gamma_i$, at zero temperature. This will be useful in making quantitative estimates of more subtle smaller energy scales, as we will see below.
Ideal 2d model {#sec:ideal-2d-model}
==============
In this section, we consider the behavior of the ideal 2d model, described by the standard model in Eqs. (\[eq:Hexpt\],\[eq:1\]) with $J''=D=0$.
Continuum limit {#sec:continuum-limit}
---------------
For this case, the technology of the previous section can be straightforwardly applied. We begin with the naïve procedure of simply inserting the decompositions in Eq. (\[eq:1dspindecomp\]) into the microscopic inter-chain lattice Hamiltonian in Eq. (\[eq:1\]) (We will assess the need to go beyond this approximation later). Specifically, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:2}
S_{x,y,z}^z & \sim & M + \mathcal{S}^z_{y,z;0}(x) \\
&& + e^{i(\pi-2\delta)x} \mathcal{S}^z_{y,z;\pi-2\delta}(x) + e^{-i(\pi-2\delta)x} \mathcal{S}^z_{y,z;\pi+2\delta}(x) , \nonumber \\
S_{x,y,z}^+& \sim & e^{-i2\delta x} \mathcal{S}^+_{y,z;2\delta}(x)\nonumber \\
&&
+ e^{i 2\delta x} \mathcal{S}^+_{y,z;-2\delta}(x) + e^{i\pi x}
\mathcal{S}^+_{y,z;\pi}(x). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ It might appear that a slightly different formula should be applied for odd chains, since in those cases in our convention the $x$ coordinates are half-integer rather than integer. However, the differences can be removed by constant shifts of $\theta$ and $\phi$ for the odd chains, without any further changes. Hence we can uniformly apply Eq. (\[eq:2\]) to all chains.
Having dropped the $D$ term, the behavior of the model at zero temperature is independent of the direction of the field, and is a function only of the magnetization $M$ and the magnitude of $J'$. Inserting the decomposition of Eq. (\[eq:1dspindecomp\]) into $H_1$ in Eq. (\[eq:1\]), one need keep only terms which do not oscillate, the condition corresponding to momentum conservation. Using the slowly-varying nature of the scaling operators in $x$ (but [*not*]{} in $y$ and/or $z$), one may take a continuum limit in $x$ by gradient expansion to obtain the lowest non-vanishing terms of each type. One finds:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:H1dec}
H_1 & \approx & J' \sum_{y,z} \int\! dx\, \Big\{ 2 M^2 + 2
\mathcal{S}_{y,z;0}^z\mathcal{S}_{y+1,z;0}^z +
2\sin \delta\left[ \mathcal{S}_{y,z;\pi-2\delta}^z
\mathcal{S}_{y+1,z;\pi+2\delta}^z+ {\rm h.c.}\right] \nonumber \\
& & +\frac{1}{2} \left[-i\mathcal{S}_{y,z;\pi}^+ \partial_x
\mathcal{S}_{y+1,z;\pi}^- + {\rm h.c.}\right] + \cos\delta \left[
\mathcal{S}_{y,z;2\delta}^+
\mathcal{S}_{y+1,z;2\delta}^- + \mathcal{S}_{y,z;-2\delta}^+
\mathcal{S}_{y+1,z;-2\delta}^- + {\rm h.c.}\right] \Big\}\end{aligned}$$
Let us now assess the importance of each of the terms in Eq. (\[eq:H1dec\]). This is accomplished by ranking each of the terms in order of increasing scaling dimension, or equivalently, decreasing relevance in the RG sense. Formally, the most relevant term is the first ($M^2$) one, which is a $c$-number constant and hence of dimension zero. Though it is a “trivial” constant (at fixed magnetization) and hence does not affect the dynamics of the system, it is indeed the dominant correction to the ground state energy of the weakly coupled chains. Being positive, it implies an increase of this energy with increasing $M$, and hence a suppression of the $M(h)$ curve at fixed external field $h$. This is calculated in Ref., and reproduced in Appendix \[sec table\]. The result agrees very well with experimental data on [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}.
Consulting Table \[tab:dims\], one sees that of the remaining terms, the third and fourth terms are presumably most important. The third term involves $\mathcal{S}^z_{\pi\pm 2\delta}$ operators, whose scaling dimensions approach the minimal value of $1/2$ at small magnetization. Because this term lacks any derivatives, it achieves nearly the smallest total scaling dimension ($\approx 2 \times 1/2 =
1$) for small $M$. The fourth term contains a derivative (which adds $1$ to its scaling dimension), but contains $\mathcal{S}^\pm_\pi$ operators, whose scaling dimensions decrease from $1/2$ towards $1/4$ near saturation. Thus the total scaling dimension of the fourth term decreases from $2\times 1/2 + 1=2$ at small $M$ towards $2\times
1/4+1=1.5$ near saturation. This makes it less relevant than the third term at small $M$, but more relevant than it near saturation. The remaining (second and fifth) terms have larger scaling dimensions for all values of the magnetization.
We therefore drop these less relevant terms, as well as the constant contribution to the energy to obtain $H_1 \rightarrow H'_1$, with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:H1p}
H'_1 & = & \sum_{y,z} \int\! dx\, \Big\{
\gamma_{\rm sdw} \mathcal{S}_{y,z;\pi-2\delta}^z
\mathcal{S}_{y+1,z;\pi+2\delta}^z
-i \gamma_{\rm cone}\mathcal{S}_{y,z;\pi}^+ \partial_x
\mathcal{S}_{y+1,z;\pi}^- + {\rm h.c.} \Big\},\end{aligned}$$
with $\gamma_{\rm sdw} = 2 J'\sin\delta$, $\gamma_{\rm cone} = J'/2$. Equivalently, using the bosonization formulae in Eq. (\[eq:bosonizespinops\]), one can rewrite $H'_1$ in sine-Gordon form, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Hsg1}
H'_1 & = & \sum_{y,z} \int\! dx\, \Big\{ {\tilde \gamma}_{\rm sdw} \cos [2\pi
(\phi_{y,z}-\phi_{y+1,z})/\beta ] \\ && - {\tilde \gamma}_{\rm cone}
(\partial_x \theta_{y,z}+ \partial_x \theta_{y+1,z})
\cos [\beta(\theta_{y,z} - \theta_{y+1,z})] \Big\},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ with ${\tilde \gamma}_{\rm sdw} = J' A_1^2 \sin \delta$ and ${\tilde \gamma}_{\rm cone} = J' A_3^2
\beta/2$.
Phases of {#sec:phases}
----------
The names of these coupling constants have been chosen to reflect their probable consequences. For small magnetization, where $\gamma_{\rm sdw}$ is most strongly relevant, one expects collinear “spin density wave” (SDW) ordering of spins along the $z$ (field) axis, with $$\label{eq:44}
\langle \mathcal{S}^z_{y,z;\pi\pm 2\delta}\rangle = |\psi| (-1)^y e^{i\alpha_z},$$ which minimizes the SDW interaction term. Here $\alpha_z \in [0,2\pi]$ can be arbitrary for each $z$, since the layers are decoupled. Near saturation, where $\gamma_{\rm cone}$ becomes more relevant, one expects a “spiraling” order of the components of the spins transverse to the field, $$\label{eq:45}
\langle \mathcal{S}^\pm_{y,z;\pi}(x) \rangle = |\psi| (\sigma_z)^y
e^{i \sigma_z q_0 x}e^{i\Theta_z},$$ with some $q_0>0$, and where $\sigma_z=\pm 1$ and $\Theta_z$ are independent for each $z$. Some incommensurate pitch $q_0$ is preferred by the derivative in Eq. (\[eq:H1p\]), but is expected to be small as it is disfavored by the single chain Hamiltonian. Because of the non-zero magnetization along the $z$ axis, the spins in this phase sweep out a “cone” as one moves along the $b$ (chain) axis in real space.
Following the logic in Sec. \[sec:renorm-group-appr\], the dominant interaction, at each magnetization, is the one whose putative ordering temperature is largest. The estimated ordering temperatures for the SDW and cone states, calculated from CMFT, are shown in Fig. \[fig:RG1\]. One can see that the two curves cross at $M\approx 0.24$, which therefore separates a region of SDW state at lower magnetization from a cone state at higher magnetization.
![(Color online) Putative ordering temperatures within chain mean field theory for SDW interaction, ($T_{\rm sdw}$, dotted (red) line) and cone ($T_{\rm cone}$, solid (blue) line) interactions, within the ideal two-dimensional model. Dashed blue line, emanating from $M=1/2$ point, represents $T_{\rm cone} \propto (1/2-M)$ (Eq. ) which describes the cross-over between 1d behavior obtained by bosonization with CMFT, and 2d one, which takes over for $M \geq 0.45$. The larger ordering temperature is expected to be physical, while the putative lower temperature transition will be suppressed by the dominant competing order.[]{data-label="fig:RG1"}](Fig3-sdwcone-interpol.pdf){width="3.4in"}
This change from an SDW to a cone state is primarily due to the variation of scaling dimensions with magnetization. As $M$ increases, the spin correlations are increasingly XY-like, i.e. enhanced transverse to the field and suppressed parallel to it. While the SDW term is obviously more relevant than the cone term near $M=0$, due to the derivative in the latter, the change in scaling dimensions eventually compensates. Equating the two scaling dimensions, one finds $R=R_c$, with $2\pi R_c^2 = (\sqrt{5}-1)/2\approx 0.62$ (the golden ratio!). This occurs at magnetization $M_c \approx 0.32$ (i.e about $65$ percent of the saturation value). This approximately recovers the more accurate estimate $M_c \approx 0.24$, obtained above. Similar estimate holds for the SDW-to-cone phase transition in a single zig-zag ladder.[@kolezhuk2005]
Critical temperature {#sec:critical-temperature}
--------------------
Further details of the behavior of the critical temperatures in Fig. \[fig:RG1\] can be understood physically. The SDW critical temperature increases from small values at small $M$, to a maximum around $M=0.1$, above which it again decreases. The initial rise is due to the partial relieve of frustration of the inter-chain $J'$ coupling by increasing incommensurability of the longitudinal spin correlations. The ultimate decay of $T_{\rm sdw}$ is due simply to the suppression of longitudinal spin correlations as the chain becomes more XY-like. The same increasing XY-like behavior leads to the growth of $T_{\rm cone}$ with $M$.
The two endpoints, $M\rightarrow 0$ and $M\rightarrow 1/2$, require special consideration. Approaching zero field, the dominant SDW interaction vanishes. This case requires a subtle analysis of fluctuation-generated interactions, which was undertaken in Ref. . There it was observed that corrections to the naïve continuum limit are crucial to obtain the correct behavior, which is [*neither*]{} an SDW state nor a spiral, but rather a commensurate, collinear, antiferromagnet (CAF). This CAF state replaces SDW as the ground state near the $M=0$ limit, see Fig. \[fig: magnetic\_phases\]d, which is the reason for $T_{\rm sdw/cone}$ curves in Figure \[fig:RG1\] (as well as in most other $T_c$ vs. $M$ figures in the paper) start not at $M=0$ but at a finite $M=0.02$ value. We will not go into further detail on this point here, but simply mention that another instance of fluctuation-generated couplings will be encountered later in Secs. \[sec:field-along-b\]-\[sec:field-along-c\].
The other limit, $M\rightarrow 1/2$, can be attacked differently. At $M=1/2$, one has full spin saturation, and the state is unique and trivial. Single spin-flip magnon excitations can be found exactly including the effects of $J'$. One may obtain in this limit a cone state as a magnon condensate, as in Refs. . In this formulation, it is clear that the critical temperature for the ordering must vanish as $M\rightarrow 1/2$. However, this is not observed in Fig. \[fig:RG1\]. This is due to a non-commuting order of limits. In the vicinity of saturation, scaling (see Sec. \[sec:cmft-limits\]) in fact predicts that [*all*]{} physical quantities are functions of the combination $$\label{eq:37}
\Xi = \frac{J'/J}{\tfrac{1}{2}-M},$$ when $\tfrac{1}{2}-M \ll 1$. The bosonization analysis carried out above is valid for $\Xi\ll 1$. However, for $\Xi\gg 1$ a different behavior obtains. Specifically, the critical temperature is expected to scale (up to logarithmic corrections) according to $$\label{eq:38}
T_{\rm cone} = (\tfrac{1}{2}-M)^2\mathcal{F}\left[\frac{J'/J}{\tfrac{1}{2}-M}\right]$$ where $\mathcal{F}[\Xi]\sim \Xi^2$ for $\Xi\ll1$ and $\mathcal{F}[\Xi]
\sim \Xi$ for $\Xi \gg 1$. One can see that this form indeed vanishes on approaching saturation. The maximum of $T_{\rm cone}$ should be obtained by differentiating, occurs when $\mathcal{F}(\Xi)= \Xi
\mathcal{F}'(\Xi)$, which implies $\Xi$ of $O(1)$. Hence the maximum $T_{\rm cone}$ occurs very close to saturation, where $\tfrac{1}{2}-M
\sim J'/J$, and its presence is not captured in the bosonization result plotted in Fig. \[fig:RG1\]. Hence the temperature $T_{\rm cone}$ is overestimated, leading to an underestimate of the magnetization of the crossing point from Fig. \[fig:RG1\]. This effect is probably small, however, since this occurs relatively far from saturation.
SDW and magnetization plateaus {#sec:plateau}
------------------------------
The above considerations treat only the most relevant terms in the effective Hamiltonian. This, however, neglects some important physics in the SDW phase. In particular, it misses [*commensurability*]{} effects, when the SDW period can become “locked” (i.e. fixed over a region of field and temperature) to a multiple of the lattice constant.
Microscopically, this effect arises from “umklapp" processes, which distinguish quasimomentum from true momentum, violating absolute conservation of the former. The $x$ component of the quasimomentum is important here, and hence umklapp events carry momentum $2\pi$. Since the SDW carries momentum $\pi \pm 2\delta$, a umklapp event occurs when a number $k$ of SDW quanta are absorbed or emitted, adding to $\pm
2\pi$. This condition is rigorously derived below, where we outline symmetry considerations which fix the form of the allowed microscopic umklapp Hamiltonian completely.
### Symmetry constraints {#sec:symmetry-constraints}
We start by analyzing how $\phi_y(x)$ transforms under discrete lattice symmetries.[@miles2008] For that, we re-write as $$\begin{aligned}
S_y^z(x) &\sim& M + \beta^{-1}\partial_x \phi_y(x) + \nonumber\\
&& - A_1 \sin[\frac{2\pi \phi_y(x)}{\beta} - (\pi - 2\delta) x] .
\label{eq:umk1}\end{aligned}$$ It then follows that translation along the chain transforms $\phi_y(x)$ as $$\phi_y(x) \to \phi_y(x+1) - \frac{\beta}{2\pi} (\pi -2\delta) ,
\label{eq:translation-x}$$ while translation along the north-east diagonal ($y\to y+1, x\to x+1/2$) changes it to $$\phi_y(x) \to \phi_{y+1}(x+1/2) - \frac{\beta}{4\pi} (\pi -2\delta) .
\label{eq:translation-y}$$ Spatial inversion ($x\to -x$) changes it as well: $$\phi_y(x) \to \frac{\beta}{2} - \phi_y(-x) .
\label{eq:inversion}$$ In addition, $\phi_y(x)$ is defined modulo $\beta$ so that $$\phi_y(x) \to \phi_y(x) + \beta
\label{eq:period}$$ must be respected also.
We now specify the general form for the $k$-th order umklapp term: $$H_{\rm umk}^{(k)} = \sum_y \int dx ~t_k(y) \cos[\frac{2\pi k}{\beta} \phi_y(x) + \omega_k].
\label{eq:umk2}$$ where $t_k \sim O(J)$ is the bare amplitude and $\omega_k$ is yet undetermined phase. The periodicity requirement, Eq. , implies that $k$ must be an [*integer*]{}. The translation in Eq. changes the argument of cosine in Eq. into $2\pi k \phi_y/\beta + \omega_k - k(\pi-2\delta)$ which implies that $$k (\pi-2\delta) = 2\pi \nu .
\label{eq:umk3}$$ Since $\delta = \pi M$, the above equation implies that allowed values of the magnetization are given by $$M^{(k,\nu)} = \frac{1}{2} \Big(1 - \frac{2 \nu}{k}\Big),$$ where $\nu$ and $k$ are positive integers. This condition is equivalent to the magnetization quantization condition for a single spin chain.[@oshikawa1997] However, we will see that $\nu$ and $k$ are [*not*]{} arbitrary in the two-dimensional triangular lattice.
The remaining symmetries, translation along the diagonal of the triangular lattice, Eq. , and spatial inversion, Eq. , require that $t_k(y) = (-1)^{y \nu} t_k$ and $\omega_k = -\pi/2$ for [*odd*]{} $k$ and $\omega_k = 0$ for [*even*]{} $k$. As a result, the most general form of the umklapp term, consistent with lattice symmetries and involving single chains and no spatial derivatives, reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:umk6}
H_{\rm umk}^{(k={\rm odd})} &=& \sum_y \int dx ~t_k (-1)^{y \nu} \sin[\frac{2\pi k}{\beta} \phi_y(x)], \\
H_{\rm umk}^{(k={\rm even})} &=& \sum_y \int dx ~t_k (-1)^{y \nu} \cos[\frac{2\pi k}{\beta} \phi_y(x)].
\label{eq:umk6b}\end{aligned}$$
### Energetic constraints {#sec:energ-constr}
To proceed, we bring out the energetics associated with the underlying SDW order by making the shift $$\phi_y(x) \to \phi_y(x) + (-1)^y \frac{\beta}{4}
\label{eq:umk7}$$ so as to minimize the leading SDW term in Eq. (see Appendix \[sec:cmft-sdw\]). In terms of the transformed fields, the SDW ground state corresponds to an $x$- and $y$-independent configuration of $\phi_y(x) = \phi_0$. This shift modifies Eq. as $$H_{\rm umk}^{(k={\rm odd})} = \sum_y \int dx ~t_k
(-1)^{y (\nu +1)} \sin[\frac{\pi k}{2}] \cos[\frac{2\pi k}{\beta}
\phi_y(x)] .$$ We immediately conclude that [*odd*]{}-$k$ umklapp processes must have [*odd*]{} $\nu$ in order to be able to gain some energy – otherwise the sum oscillates with $y$ and does not give an extensive contribution. Similarly, Eq. becomes $$H_{\rm umk}^{(k={\rm
even})} = \sum_y \int dx ~t_k (-1)^{y \nu} \cos[\frac{\pi k}{2}]
\cos [\frac{2\pi k}{\beta} \phi_y(x)] ,$$ implying that now $\nu$ must be [*even*]{}.
This interesting result allows us to finally represent [*all*]{} allowed umklapp terms in a single compact equation $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\rm umk}^{(k)} &=& \sum_y \int dx ~\tilde{t}_k\cos[\frac{2\pi k}{\beta} \phi_y(x)] ,
\label{eq:umk8}\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{t}_k=t_k (\cos[\frac{\pi k}{2}] + \sin[\frac{\pi
k}{2}])$, and Eq. must be supplemented by the important constraint $$\label{eq:87}
\nu = k \qquad \textrm{(mod 2)},$$ i.e. $\nu$ [*must have the same parity as*]{} $k$.
### Allowed plateaux {#sec:allowed-plateaux}
It is natural to consider the plateaux in order of increasing $k$ – this will be directly related to the robustness of the plateau (see below). One finds that the first non-trivial possibility (different from the non-polarized $M=0$ or the fully polarized $M=1/2$ limits), corresponds to $\nu=1, k =3$ when $M=1/6 = \frac{1}{3} (\frac{1}{2})$. Assuming for concreteness $\tilde{t}_{k=3} > 0$ we find that $\phi_0 =
\beta (2 n + 1)/6$ (with $n=0,1,2$) minimizes Eq. (and, by construction, the SDW interaction in Eq. ). Working backwards through the chain of the transformations we find that Eq. predicts (recall that $(\pi - 2\delta) = 2\pi/3$ here) $$\langle S_y^z(x) \rangle_{M=1/6} = M + A_1 (-1)^y \cos[\frac{2\pi x}{3}
- \frac{\pi (2 n +1)}{3}].$$ This equation describes the famous [@chub1991] [*up-up-down*]{} (uud) spin configuration of the $1/3$-magnetization plateau, i.e. with two-thirds of the sites having a larger spontaneous magnetic moment than the remaining third. It also correctly predicts relative arrangement of down-spins on neighboring chains: the system gains energy by coupling every down-spin with a pair of up-spins on adjacent chains. The resulting pattern has down-spins in the centers of hexagons formed by up-spins. For the other sign, $\tilde{t}_{k=3}<0$, one finds instead of the uud configuration one in which two-thirds of the sites have a [*smaller*]{} spontaneous moment than the remaining third. This corresponds to the “quantum” magnetization plateau suggested in Ref. , where the magnetic unit cell is composed of a spin singlet on a pair of sites accompanied by an up-pointing spin.
Other possible plateaux include $M = 3/10 = \frac{3}{5} (\frac{1}{2})$ ($k=5, \nu=1$) and $M = 5/14 = \frac{5}{7} (\frac{1}{2})$ ($k=7, \nu=1$). Importantly, several of the smaller-$k$ plateaux are excluded due to the ‘mismatch’ between the parities of $k$ and $\nu$ numbers. These include $k=4, \nu=1$ which leads to $M = 1/4$ (one-half plateau) and $k=6, \nu=1$ which would result in $M = 1/3$ (two-thirds plateau).
### Effective two-dimensional sine-Gordon model {#sec:plateaux-width}
We now use the RG to derive an effective two-dimensional sine-Gordon model. Our starting point is given by the following Hamiltonian: $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\rm plateau}^{(k)} &=& \sum_y \int dx \{ \frac{v}{2} (\partial_x\phi_y)^2 -
\tilde{\gamma}_{\rm sdw} \cos[\frac{2\pi}{\beta}(\phi_y - \phi_{y+1})] \nonumber\\
&& - \frac{v q(h)}{\beta} \partial_x \phi_y(x) + \tilde{t}_k \cos[\frac{2\pi k}{\beta}\phi] \},
\label{eq:umk9}\end{aligned}$$ which incorporates the shift Eq. . Observe the appearance of the new, linear in spatial derivative term, which is added here [@miles2008] to describe variation of the magnetic field $h$ near the optimal plateau value $h^{(k,\nu)}$. The optimal field is defined by the condition that the magnetization in the absence of the umklapp term, $M_0(h)$, is given by the plateau’s value, $M_0(h^{(k,\nu)}) = M^{(k,\nu)}$. Then $q(h) = 2\pi k (M_0(h) - M^{(k,\nu)})$.
We then iteratively integrate out high-energy modes, reducing the momentum cutoff from initial $\Lambda_0 \sim 1$ to $\Lambda_{\rm sdw}= \Lambda_0 e^{-\ell_{\rm sdw}}$, as described in the Appendix \[sec:biquadratic\]. The new, reduced cutoff $\Lambda_{\rm sdw}$ is determined by the condition that the renormalized SDW coupling, $\tilde\gamma_{\rm sdw} (\Lambda_{\rm sdw}/\Lambda_0)^{\Delta_{\rm sdw}}$ becomes comparable to the contribution of the gradient term to the energy density at the same scale, $v \Lambda_{\rm sdw}^2$. Here $\Delta_{\rm sdw} = 2/(4\pi R^2)$ is the scaling dimension of the SDW cosine in Eq. . This leads to the estimate $\Lambda_{\rm sdw}/\Lambda_0 \sim (\frac{\tilde\gamma_{\rm sdw}}{v\Lambda_0^2})^{1/(2 - \Delta_{\rm sdw})}$. At this scale, SDW coupling is of the order $v\Lambda^2 \sim
(\tilde{\gamma}_{\rm sdw}^2/v^{\Delta_{\rm sdw}})^{\frac{1}{2-\Delta_{\rm sdw}}}$ and the SDW term should be minimized. Therefore, the argument of cosine is small and we can approximate $$\cos[\frac{2\pi}{\beta}(\phi_y - \phi_{y+1})] \to 1 -
\frac{1}{2}\left( \frac{2\pi}{\beta} \right)^2 (\partial_y \phi(x,y))^2 .$$ The umklapp term has a scaling dimension, $\Delta_k = (2\pi k/\beta)^2/(4\pi) = k^2/(4\pi R^2)$, which grows quadratically with the $k$, and is thereby strongly suppressed by high-energy fluctuations: $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{t}_k(\ell_{\rm sdw}) &=&\tilde{t}_k(0) \Big(\frac{\Lambda_{\rm
sdw}}{\Lambda_0}\Big)^{\frac{k^2}{4\pi R^2}} \nonumber\\
&&\approx v \Big(\frac{J'}{v}\Big)^{\frac{k^2} {8\pi R^2 -2}} .
\label{eq:plateau2}\end{aligned}$$ At this stage it is convenient to define a rescaled field, $\varphi = 2\pi k
\phi/\beta + \pi \Theta(\tilde{t}_k)$, which includes a shift to achieve a definite sign of the umklapp term ($\Theta(x)$ is the Heaviside step function). This gives the [*two-dimensional*]{} sine-Gordon Hamiltonian of the $k$-th plateau, $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\rm plateau}^{(k)} &=& \int dx dy \Big\{ \frac{u}{2} (\partial_x\varphi)^2 + \frac{c_y}{2} (\partial_y \varphi)^2 +\nonumber\\
&& - \frac{v q(h)}{2\pi k} \partial_x \varphi_y(x) - |\tilde{t}_k| \cos[\varphi] \Big\}.
\label{eq:umk10}\end{aligned}$$ Here $u = v (\beta/2\pi k)^2$, $c_y \sim k^{-2}(\tilde{\gamma}^2_{\rm sdw}/v^{\Delta_{\rm sdw}})^{\frac{1}{2-\Delta_{\rm sdw}}}$.
### Plateaux width {#sec:plateaux-width-1}
At $T=0$, the two-dimensional sine-Gordon Hamiltonian Eq. can be analyzed classically.[@chaikin_book] We review this standard analysis as it is important both here and in Sec. \[sec:comm-incomm-trans\]. The classical sine-Gordon model exhibits two phases: commensurate, describing the plateau, with $\langle\partial_x\varphi
\rangle =0$; and incommensurate, with $\langle\partial_x \varphi
\rangle\neq 0$. The incommensurate state, which describes the SDW phase with field-dependent ordering momentum, is achieved for sufficiently strong $|q|\geq q_c$. The critical value $q_c$ is determined by the condensation of [*kinks*]{}, when $E_{\rm kink} =0$. Here the kink represents the solution of Eq. interpolating between two degenerate minima of cosine potential: $\varphi(x=-\infty,y) = 0$ and $\varphi(x=+\infty,y)=2\pi$, for all $y$. One immediately observes that the linear derivative term in Eq. contributes $-v q(h)/k$ to the kink’s energy (per unit length in the $y$ direction). The rest follows from standard steps,[@chaikin_book] which show that energy of the kink, relative to the energy of the uniform plateau state with, for example, $\varphi=0$, is given by $$E_{\rm kink} = 8 \sqrt{u |\tilde{t}_k|} - \frac{v |q|}{k} .$$ Thus $$q_c = \frac{4 \beta}{\pi} \sqrt{\frac{|\tilde{t}_k|}{v}} \sim \Big(\frac{J'}{v}\Big)^{\frac{k^2} {4(4\pi R^2 -1)}} .
\label{eq:umk11}$$ Since in the relevant range of the magnetic field $d M_0/d h$ is constant, the plateau width in field units, $\delta h_{(k,\nu)}$ is directly proportional to $q_c$.
Focusing on the $1/3$-magnetization plateau we can estimate, with the help of Figure \[fig:Beta\_curve\], that $2\pi R^2 \approx 3/4$ at $M=1/6$. This leads to $\delta h_{(3,1)} \sim
(J'/v)^{9/2}$. The next most robust plateau is at $3/5^{\rm th}$ of the saturation magnetization ($k=5, \nu=1$), for which $\delta h_{(5,1)}
\sim (J'/v)^{25/2}$. The existence of this plateau is unclear, since this magnetization is close to the boundary of the SDW state, and indeed, the calculation in Figure \[fig:RG1\] predicts that it falls outside the stability range of the SDW state. It is, however, [ *inside*]{} the SDW phase as estimated from the pure scaling dimension criterion $2\pi R^2> (\sqrt{5}-1)/2$. Thus this plateau still seems a reasonable candidate for observation in some anisotropic triangular materials.
Other plateaux, such as, for example, the one-half magnetization one ($M=1/4$), are much narrower due to the [*equal parity requirement*]{}, Eq. (\[eq:87\]), which implies $k=8, \nu=2$. Then $\delta h_{(8,2)}
\sim (J'/v)^{32}$, making it very hard to observe indeed. These arguments make it clear that the $1/3$ plateau ($M=1/6$) is drastically more robust than others, and thereby it is expected to be much more commonly observed. We also reiterate that it should persist all the way down to the decoupled chains limit, $J'=0$.
It is interesting to compare our findings with those in Refs. which studied magnetization plateaux in a single zig-zag ladder, made of two spin chains (with exchange $J$) coupled in a triangular (zig-zag) fashion by exchange $J'$. This geometry can also be viewed as a single chain with first and second-neighbor interactions $J_1=J'$ and $J_2=J$. In this one-dimensional system a robust $1/3$-plateau is found to exist in the intermediate exchange region $0.487 \leq J/J' \leq 1.25$. In particular, it does not seem to extend far into the $J' \to 0$ limit, although a very narrow sleeve of the plateau phase cannot be reliably excluded by the current numerical studies. We note however that the much reduced extent of the long-range ordered plateau region, in comparison with the quasi-2d predictions above, simply reflects the reduced stability of the crystalline (more specifically SDW in this case) order in 1d systems (at $T=0$). In more technical terms, the magnetization plateau requires pinning of both the ‘center-of-mass’ and relative combinations of $\phi_{1,2}$ fields in a two-chain system which, in turn, requires significant modification of the chain Luttinger parameter $K$ from its bare value of $1/2$, in notations of Ref. , by various marginal (density-density type) inter-chain terms. Such modifications generically require $J' \sim O(1)$, which is the reason for the absence of the plateau in the $J' \to 0$ limit in this case.
### Critical behavior of the wavevector {#sec:crit-behav-wavev}
Our description can be extended to the neighborhood of the plateau-SDW transition, where the ordering momentum $|q(h)| > q_c$ shows abrupt variation with magnetic field. Near the commensurate state, the incommensurate SDW phase can be understood as a [*soliton lattice*]{}, with a finite linear density $n_s$ of solitons.[@chaikin_book; @lee-2009] In the dilute limit $n_s w \ll 1$, where $w = \sqrt{u/|t_k|}$ is the width of the soliton, the solitons [*repel*]{} each other, with an exponentially decaying potential $U e^{-x/w}$. The pre-factor $U = 32\sqrt{u |t_k|}$ can be obtained by calculating the energy of two solitons separated by a distance $x$ with the help of . As a result, the energy density of the dilute soliton lattice is given by $$E_{\rm sol.lat.} = 2\pi v (q_c - q) n_s + n_s U e^{-1/(n_s w)} .
\label{eq:umk12}$$ Here the last term represents the repulsion between the nearest solitons of the lattice. The optimal concentration $n_s^*$, for $q > q_c$, follows by minimizing Eq. (\[eq:umk12\]) (with logarithmic accuracy): $$n_s^* = \frac{1}{w \ln[\frac{U}{2\pi v (q-q_c)}]} .
\label{eq:umk13}$$ This implies that the shift of the ordering momentum $\delta Q = 2\pi n_s^*$ from its commensurate value $Q_{k,\nu} = 2\pi \nu/k$ inside the plateau vanishes with an [*infinite slope*]{}, according to $$\delta Q = \frac{-2\pi}{w \ln | (h - h^{(k,\nu)})/\delta h_{(k,\nu)}|},
\label{eq:umk14}$$ where the last expression is written with logarithmic accuracy.
Standard model: field (including zero) along $a$ axis {#sec:field-along-axis}
=====================================================
The predictions of the last section for the idealized model with $J''=D=0$, unfortunately do not agree with experiments on [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}. At zero magnetic field, the ground state is actually an incommensurate spiral, similar to that predicted at high fields in the previous section, rather than the collinear state produced by the fluctuation-generated interactions. Moreover, the zero field spiral ground state appears to continuously evolve on increasing fields along the $a$ axis, with no intervening phase transition before reaching a fully polarized ferromagnetic state at the saturation field. The SDW state predicted in the previous section is entirely absent.
This behavior, however, is readily explained by the standard model [ *including*]{} the $D$ and $J''$ terms, as discussed in Ref. . To proceed, we again apply the decompositions, Eq. (\[eq:2\]), to the these terms. Following the logic of the previous section, we keep only the most relevant contributions. This gives
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:3}
&& H'_2 = \sum_{y,z} \int\! dx\, \Big\{ -D (-1)^z \left(
\mathcal{S}^+_{y,z;\pi} \mathcal{S}^-_{y+1,z;\pi} +
\mathcal{S}^-_{y,z;\pi} \mathcal{S}^+_{y+1,z;\pi} \right) +\gamma''_z \left( \mathcal{S}^z_{y,z;\pi-2\delta}
\mathcal{S}^z_{y,z+1;\pi+2\delta} + \mathcal{S}^z_{y,z;\pi+2\delta}
\mathcal{S}^z_{y,z+1;\pi-2\delta}\right) \nonumber \\
& & + \gamma''_{\delta-z} \left( \mathcal{S}^z_{y,z;\pi-2\delta}
\mathcal{S}^z_{y,z+1;\pi-2\delta}e^{-4i\delta x} + \mathcal{S}^z_{y,z;\pi+2\delta}
\mathcal{S}^z_{y,z+1;\pi+2\delta}e^{4i\delta x} \right) + \gamma''_{\pm}\left(\mathcal{S}^+_{y,z;\pi} \mathcal{S}^-_{y,z+1;\pi}+\mathcal{S}^-_{y,z;\pi} \mathcal{S}^+_{y,z+1;\pi}\right)\Big\},\end{aligned}$$
with $\gamma''_z=\gamma''_{\delta-z}=2\gamma''_\pm = J''$.
At zero field, we can simplify, using SU$(2)$ symmetry and $\delta=0$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:4}
H'_2 & = & \sum_{y,z} \int\! dx\, \Big\{ -D (-1)^z \left( N^+_{y,z}
N^-_{y+1,z} + N^-_{y,z} N^+_{y+1,z} \right) \nonumber \\
& & + J'' {\bm N}_{y,z}\cdot {\bm N}_{y,z+1} \Big\}.\end{aligned}$$
Competition between $D$ and $J''$ {#sec:comp-betw-d}
---------------------------------
In Eq. it is evident that both $D$ and $J''$ induce strongly relevant perturbations, with scaling dimension $1$. These are more relevant than any terms naïvely present in zero field (i.e. the two terms studied in the previous section), and much larger than the fluctuation-induced correction ($\sim (J')^4/J^3$) with the same scaling dimension, which drives the formation of the collinear antiferromagnetic state [@Starykh2007] in their absence. They also become more relevant with increasing field. Hence we expect that these terms should control the actual ordering in [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{} for this field orientation.
![(Color online) Same as Fig. \[fig:RG1\], but with the chain mean field ordering temperature due to interlayer interactions ($T_{\rm il}$, dot-dashed (magenta) line) and DM interaction ($T_{\rm D}$, dashed (cyan) line) included. Note that the highest two temperatures are $T_{\rm D}$ and $T_{\rm il}$, with the former substantially larger. Thus for a magnetic field along the $\hat{a}$ axis, where the $D$ term is present, it is expected to dominate the ordering except in the region close to saturation, $M\gtrsim 0.45$ or so. That later region, which is described by a 2d scaling, is represented by the shaded rectangle.[]{data-label="fig:RG2"}](Fig4-sdwconeJppDM-interpol.pdf){width="3.4in"}
However, it is not so obvious which of the two is dominant. Indeed, they actually compete. This can be seen as follows. The $D$ term is minimized (for $D>0$) by configurations in which $$\label{eq:39}
\langle N_{y,z}^+ \rangle_{D} = (-1)^{yz} N e^{i\beta\vartheta_z},$$ where the classical phase $\vartheta_z$ may depend upon $z$. For such configurations, however, the $J''$ term oscillates in sign with $y$, and hence averages to zero. To instead minimize the $J''$ term, one requires configurations in which $$\label{eq:40}
\langle {\bm N}_{y,z}\rangle_{J''} = (-1)^z N {\hat {\bm n}}_y,$$ where the unit vector ${\hat{\bm n}}_y=(n^1_y, n^2_y, n^3_y)$ may depend upon $y$. For all such configurations, the $D$ term vanishes when averaged over $z$.
The balance of this competition is determined by the relative magnitudes of $D$ and $J''$. We rely again on the chain mean field method, which indicates that the DM term dominates for the parameters of [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{} – as shown by the fact that the associated mean-field ordering temperature in Fig. \[fig:RG2\] is largest. This is essentially due to the fact that the DM interaction acts on twice as many bonds as does the interlayer exchange.
A physical distinction between the two candidate states, which may be compared to experiment, is in their vector chirality, which is concentrated on the diagonal bonds of the triangular lattice. Define $$\label{eq:30}
\chi^z_{y,z,\pm}(x) = {\hat z}\cdot\langle {\bm S}_{y,z}(x) \times {\bm S}_{y\pm 1,z}(x+\tfrac{1}{2})\rangle .$$ This quantity is non-zero in both phases. In the continuum limit, one obtains $$\label{eq:31}
\chi^z_{y,z,\pm} \sim \frac{1}{2}\left( N^+_{y,z} N^-_{y\pm 1,z}+ {\rm h.c.}\right).$$ Let us compare this chirality for the states favored by $D$ and $J''$. For the $D$ term, one obtains $\chi^z_{y,z,\pm} \sim (-1)^z N^2$, which is constant in the triangular planes but alternates between layers. This staggering of chirality along the crystallographic $a$ axis is observed experimentally in zero field. For the $J''$ term, one obtains instead $\chi^z_\pm \sim N^2 (n_y^1 n_{y+1}^1 +
n_y^2 n_{y+1}^2)$, which can vary within the triangular planes but is the same in every such layer. Thus experiment supports the $D$-induced order but not the $J''$ one, in agreement with the calculation described above.
Now consider non-zero field. In this case, returning to Eq. (\[eq:3\]) with $\delta\neq 0$, we see that the third term is oscillatory, and can be dropped. The second term is less relevant than the first and fourth, and thus is also subdominant. One is still left with a competition between the first and fourth terms, again controlled by the balance of DM and inter-layer exchange. Since several terms that had formed part of the latter coupling for $h=0$ are now removed, we should expect that the DM will be relatively enhanced and continue to win the competition for all values of the field. This gives a natural explanation for the continuity of the ordered phase across the range of fields observed in experiments (with this field orientation). It is also interesting to note that the scaling dimension of the $\mathcal{S}^+_{y,z;\pi}$ operator decreases with increasing field, actually making the DM coupling more relevant. This is reflected in an increasing critical temperature for the ordered phase with increasing field, up to a maximum which occurs relatively close to saturation. Again, consulting Fig. \[fig:RG2\], we see that indeed the $D$ term dominates the ordering except very close to saturation ($M>0.45$ or so). In that narrow field window, the larger bare value of the cone interaction ($O(J')$) is sufficient to overcome its larger scaling dimension.
Incommensuration of the ordered state {#sec:incomm-order-state}
-------------------------------------
Naïvely, it would appear from the above analysis that, in the region $M<0.45$, a commensurate ordered state is induced by the $D$ term. However, while the $D$ term is indeed dominant in this regime, we still need to take into account the subsidiary effects of the $J'$ interaction. It turns out that the cone coupling $\gamma_{\rm cone}$ does not actually compete with $D$, so that it introduces a weak incommensuration in the ordered state.
To see this, we apply the expectation value in Eq. to the cone interaction in Eq. (using $\mathcal{S}^\pm_{y,z;\pi}
= N^\pm_{y,z}$ in zero field), assuming $\vartheta_z$ is a slowly-varying function of $x$: $$\label{eq:41}
H'_1 \rightarrow -2 \gamma_{\rm cone} \beta N^2 \sum_{y,z} \int\! dx \,
(-1)^z \partial_x \vartheta_z .$$ The (average) phase $\vartheta_z$ is obviously the classical analog of $\theta_z$, so that there is a gradient cost obtained from Eq. , which should be added to the above term to obtain $$\label{eq:42}
H_{\rm eff} = \sum_{y,z} \int\! dx \, \Big\{ \frac{v}{2}
(\partial_x \vartheta_z)^2 -2 \gamma_{\rm cone} \beta N^2 (-1)^z \partial_x \vartheta_z \Big\}.$$ This is easily minimized with respect to $\vartheta_z$: $$\label{eq:43}
\partial_x \vartheta_z = 2\frac{\gamma_{\rm cone}}{v} \beta N^2 (-1)^z
\equiv \frac{q_0}{\beta}(-1)^z.$$ Here $q_0$ is the induced incommensurability. For zero magnetization, we have $q_0 = (4J'/J) N^2$. However, Eq. also applied to $M>0$, if $N$ is replaced by the magnitude of the expectation value of $\mathcal{S}^\pm_{y,z;\pi}$. In both cases, the result is that $$\label{eq:46}
\langle \mathcal{S}^+_{y,z;\pi}\rangle = (-1)^{yz} N e^{i (-1)^z q_0
x+ i \Theta_z},$$ where $\Theta_z$ is arbitary for each layer, since we have up to now neglected inter-layer coupling. Let us compare to what is expected in the cone-dominated regime, $M>0.45$. Here we should apply the ansatz in Eq. , which minimizes the cone interaction, to the $D$ term in Eq. . One obtains $$\label{eq:47}
H'_2 \rightarrow \sum_{y,z}\int\! dx\, (-D) |\psi|^2 (-1)^z \sigma_z,$$ which is minimized by taking $\sigma_z={\rm sgn}(D)(-1)^z$. Suppose that $D$ is positive, which is always possible if we redefine $z$. Then Eq. becomes $$\label{eq:48}
\langle \mathcal{S}^+_{y,z;\pi}\rangle = (-1)^{yz} |\psi| e^{i (-1)^z
q_0 x+i\Theta_z} .$$ Comparing Eq. and Eq. , we see the forms are identical. Thus, the regimes $M<0.45$ and $M>0.45$ are actually smoothly connected, and distinguished only by which interaction controls the largest part of the ordering energy. This means that $D$ and $J'$ do not really compete. Indeed, in Appendix \[sec:cmft-dm\], we show that in CMFT both interactions together increase the critical temperature of the cone state.
Interlayer correlations {#sec:interl-corr}
-----------------------
The expression in Eq. (\[eq:48\]) contains an undetermined phase, $\Theta_z$, for each layer. One may look to $J''$, which has been neglected in obtaining the form in Eq. (\[eq:48\]), to fix these phases. However, at the naïve level of first order perturbation theory, this is not the case. In particular, taking the expectation value of the $J''$ term in Eq. (\[eq:4\]) or the corresponding $\gamma''_\pm$ term in Eq. (\[eq:3\]), one finds a oscillating result, which vanishes upon summation over $y$. This indicates that the effects of $J''$ on the undetermined phases is second order in $J''$.
Such second order effects can be considered as a fluctuation-induced interaction, which can be derived in a similar way as in the calculation of Appendix \[sec:biquadratic\]. One obtains $$\label{eq:66}
\Delta H = - J''_2 \sum_{y,z} \int\! dx\,\cos (\theta_{y,z}-\theta_{y,z+2}),$$ with [*ferromagnetic*]{} $J''_2 \sim (J'')^2/v >0$. Taking its expectation value, this terms splits the large phase degeneracy, leaving only two undetermined values, $$\label{eq:67}
\Theta_z = \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} \Theta_0 & \textrm{for $z$ even}
\\ \Theta_1 & \textrm{for $z$ odd} \end{array}\right.$$ Some bare microscopic second neighbor exchange might contribute to $J''_2$, but experiments indicate that the net result remains ferromagnetic, as there is no enlargement of the unit cell in the $a$ ($z$) direction.
For the standard model, the two remaining phase degeneracies are protected by symmetry. The [*overall*]{} $U(1)$ phase, $\Theta_0+\Theta_1$ is of course expected to be arbitrary, owing to rotational symmetry of the Hamiltonian about the $a$ ($z$) axis. The [*relative*]{} phase, $\Theta_0-\Theta_1$, is protected by translation symmetry, $x\rightarrow x+1$, under which $\Theta_z \rightarrow
\Theta_z+ (-1)^z q_0$.
Field along $b$ axis {#sec:field-along-b}
====================
In this section and the next, we will discuss the physics determining the ordered ground states when the magnetic field is normal to the crystallographic $a$ axis. These cases are much more complex than above, because, as we will see, the ordering is determined by several distinct interactions which are important at different energy scales. The “cascade” of energy scales, which must be considered in turn, from largest to smallest, is indicated graphically in Fig. \[fig:energyscales\].
![Cascade of energy scales operative for fields in the $b$-$c$ plane. Symbols adjacent to the arrows indicate the interactions responsible for the associated (partial) ordering. The cascade can be quantified by different “condensation” energy densities, which give the lowering of the energy density due to the establishment of the associated partial order. At the highest energies, between $J$ and $\varepsilon_{2d} \sim J'' |\psi|^2$, the system exhibits one-dimensional fluctuations. Here $|\psi|$ is the amplitude of the order parameter, Eq. (\[eq:8\]). Between $\varepsilon_{2d}$ and $\varepsilon_{3d}$, the spins order within $a$-$b$ planes, but the planes are not registered. Below $\varepsilon_{3d} \sim {\rm Max}\{ J_2|\psi|^2,
\frac{(J')^2}{J} |\psi|^4\}$, full three-dimensional order develops, which may be of antiferromagnetic (AF) or cone type. In the former case, there may be yet another lower energy scale, $\varepsilon_{\rm CIT }$ (which is of the same order as $\varepsilon_{3d}$), below which the magnetic structure is completely determined. This may be commensurate or incommensurate, the latter occuring only for fields along the $c$ axis, and is driven by DM interactions.[]{data-label="fig:energyscales"}](energy_scales2.pdf){width="3.4in"}
Irrelevance of $D$ term {#sec:irrelevant-d-term}
-----------------------
Having understood that the DM interaction $D$ dominated the physics for fields along the $a$ axis, we first consider its role in this field orientation. Remarkably, the change in orientation has a drastic effect. With a field in the $b$-$c$ plane, the $D$ term always involves one spin component parallel to the field and one perpendicular to it. Consulting the decomposition of spin operators in Eq. (\[eq:2\]), we immediately see that the dominant fluctuations of these two spin components are always incommensurate. As a consequence, in the continuum limit all terms directly arising from $D$ [*oscillate*]{} with a $e^{\pm 2 i \delta x}$ factor. This makes them formally strongly irrelevant. More physically, upon coarse-graining over length scales shorter than $\pi/\delta$, these terms average to zero. Thus, provided that $D$ does not scale to strong coupling under the RG before this scale is reached, they become negligible. This will be true everywhere except the low field limit. Specifically, since it has scaling dimension $1$, the renormalized $D$ term at this scale is of order $D (\pi/\delta)$. Demanding this be small compared to $v$, we obtain the criterion $\delta=\pi M \gtrsim D/J$ for it to be negligible.
Thus for most of the magnetic field range, we can drop the $D$ term. This gives a simple reason why the experimental behavior in [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{} for this field orientation is completely different from that with field along the $a$ axis. It is tempting to expect instead that the ideal 2d model discussed in Sec. \[sec:ideal-2d-model\] should apply. A comparison to experiments strongly suggests, however, that this is not the case, except perhaps at high fields. Unfortunately, no published low temperature NMR or neutron data are available in this field orientation. However, magnetization and specific heat measurements [@TokiwaPRB2006] show a single phase occupying the region below the high field cone state and above the low field DM-dominated spiral. By comparison to the same measurements along the $c$ axis, which are strikingly similar, it appears most likely that this intermediate phase represents a commensurate state. In the ideal 2d model, we would be forced to interpret it instead as an incommensurate SDW. This seems untenable, as such an SDW phase should also show a $1/3$ magnetization plateau (see Sec. \[sec:plateau\]), of which there is no sign. Thus we conclude that the SDW phase has been superseded by another competing state. In the following, we find an explanation for this competing state as a commensurate “antiferromagnetic” (AF) phase.
Role of interlayer interactions {#sec:interl-inter}
-------------------------------
To explain this, we must take into account the one remaining interaction present in the standard but not ideal model – the exchange $J''$ between triangular planes. Like the (now absent) $D$ term, it is strongly relevant, and unlike the $D$ term, it is not averaged out in any field orientation. The appropriate continuum limit has already been given, the dominant piece being the last term of Eq. (\[eq:3\]), reproduced here: $$\label{eq:5}
H'_2 = \gamma''_{\pm} \sum_{y,z} \int\! dx\, \left(\mathcal{S}^+_{y,z;\pi} \mathcal{S}^-_{y,z+1;\pi}+\mathcal{S}^-_{y,z;\pi} \mathcal{S}^+_{y,z+1;\pi}\right),$$ with $\gamma''_\pm=J''/2$. Written explicitly using bosonization, it becomes $$\label{eq:27}
H'_2 = {\tilde \gamma}''_\pm \sum_{y,z} \int\! dx\, \cos [\beta (\theta_{y,z}-\theta_{y,z+1})],$$ with ${\tilde \gamma}''_\pm = 2 A_3^2 \gamma''_\pm$. This coupling is more relevant than either the SDW or cone interaction, in the entire range of magnetization. We may therefore expect that it scales to strong coupling unambiguously before any competing interactions. To check this, we again consult the comparison of critical temperatures in Fig. \[fig:RG2\]. Neglecting the effects of the $D$ term, as we have just discussed, we see that the interlayer interaction is clearly dominant for all magnetizations below about 80 percent of the saturation value. Above this magnetization, the larger bare value of the cone interaction, which is of order $J'$ rather than $J''$, overcomes the difference in scaling dimensions and controls the physics. In this high magnetization regime, the physics is therefore very similar to that described in the previous sections, and an incommensurate cone state is expected.
In the remainder of this section, we focus on the main field regime, where $\gamma''_\pm$ is dominant. The latter obeys the RG equation (using the dimensionless coupling $\breve{\gamma}''_\pm =
\gamma''_\pm/(v\Lambda_\ell^2)$ as discussed in Sec. \[sec:renorm-group-appr\]) $$\label{eq:6}
\partial_\ell \breve{\gamma}''_\pm = (2-2\Delta_\pm) \breve{\gamma}''_\pm,$$ where $\Delta_\pm = \pi R^2$ is the scaling dimension of the $\mathcal{S}^\pm_{\pi}$ fields. Integrating this to the scale $\ell=\ln (\xi'')$ such that $\breve{\gamma}''_\pm
(\ell) \sim v$ defines the length scale $$\label{eq:7}
\xi'' \sim (v/J'')^{1/(2-2\Delta_\pm)}.$$ For lengths shorter than $\xi''$, one-dimensional fluctuations are significant and approximately those of free chains. On longer length scales, we expect that $\gamma''_\pm$ drives ordering of the $\mathcal{S}^\pm_{y,z;\pi}$ fields. $H'_2$ in Eq. (\[eq:5\]) is minimized by configurations of the form $$\label{eq:8}
\left\langle \mathcal{S}^\pm_{y,z;\pi}\right\rangle = |\psi| (-1)^z e^{\pm i \beta \vartheta_y},$$ where $|\psi|$ is a real number giving the magnitude of the spontaneous moment, and $\vartheta_y$ is a [*classical*]{} phase that can be chosen [*independently*]{} for each vertical $a$-$b$ plane specified by $y$. Note that longitudinal order is strongly suppressed at this scale, $\langle \mathcal{S}^z_{y,z}\rangle = 0$, by the uncertainty principle (in bosonization this follows from the duality of the $\theta$ and $\varphi$ fields). We expect by scaling that $|\psi| \sim
(\xi'')^{-\Delta_\pm} \ll 1$, reflecting the suppressed magnitude of magnetic order by 1d fluctuations. Hence $$\label{eq:28}
|\psi| = \sigma(M) \left( \frac{J''}{v}\right)^{\frac{\Delta_\pm}{2-2\Delta_\pm}},$$ where the prefactor $\sigma(M)$ is computed by CMFT in Appendix \[sec:cmft-T=0\]. We estimate $|\psi|\approx 0.25-0.3$ over most of the field range. From this, we can estimate the lowering of the energy density due to the establishment of such two-dimensional order, simply by taking the expectation value of Eq. (\[eq:5\]): $$\label{eq:12}
\varepsilon_{2d} \sim J'' |\psi|^2.$$ An experimental measure of this energy density is the XY spin stiffness along the $a$ axis, which is of the same order, $\rho_{s;a} \sim \varepsilon_{2d}$. Note that the spin stiffness along the $b$ axis is much larger, of order $\rho_{s;b} \sim v$.
Exchange coupling of $a$-$b$ planes {#sec:coupling-a-b}
-----------------------------------
The arbitrary choice of $\vartheta_y$ for every $y$ is a consequence of the fact that the dominant interaction, $\gamma''_\pm$, does not couple different $a$-$b$ planes. Less relevant interactions can and do remove this arbitrariness, ultimately determining the precise nature of the ordered state.
To study this, we first include exchange interactions between chains within the $b$-$c$ planes. In the standard model, this is only the $J'$ coupling along the nearest-neighbor diagonals. However, it was argued in Ref. that it is important to also take into account weak exchange $J_2$ between spins on [*second-neighbor*]{} chains separated by distance $\Delta y=2$. While clearly $J_2 \ll J'$, it is important because it is unfrustrated, unlike the $J'$ interaction.
In the continuum limit, these couplings lead to the Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:9}
H'_3 & = & \sum_{y,z} \int\! dx \, \Big\{ -i \gamma_{\rm cone}\mathcal{S}_{y,z;\pi}^+ \partial_x
\mathcal{S}_{y+1,z;\pi}^- + {\rm h.c.} \nonumber\\
&& + \gamma_2 \mathcal{S}_{y,z;\pi}^+
\mathcal{S}_{y+2,z;\pi}^- + {\rm h.c.} \Big\} ,\end{aligned}$$ with $\gamma_2=J_2/2$ (and $\gamma_{\rm cone} = J'/2$ as given earlier). Taking the expectation values using Eq. (\[eq:8\]), the resulting renormalized Hamiltonian can then be treated classically, and minimized to find the ground state. It is evident that the “twist” interaction $\gamma_{\rm cone}$ favors an incommensurate state with $k_x \neq \pi$. To describe this requires allowing for non-zero gradients $\partial_x\vartheta_y$. While such configurations are not ground states in the absence of $\gamma_{\rm cone}$, they are low in energy, because a small gradient comprises a soft (Goldstone) mode. The magnitude of the associated incommensurability is determined by a balance of $\gamma_{\rm
cone}$ with the gradient terms in $H_0$, which of course favor commensurate order at $k_x=\pi$. We therefore include the latter, and write the entire effective Hamiltonian explicitly in the $\vartheta_y$ variables, which we will allow to be $x$-dependent but [*independent*]{} of $z$ according to Eq. (\[eq:8\]). The total energy becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:10}
E_b & = & L_z \sum_y \int \! dx\, \Big\{ \frac{v}{2} (\partial_x
\vartheta_y)^2 + g_2 \cos [\beta (\vartheta_y - \vartheta_{y+2})] \nonumber \\
& & - g_{\rm cone} (\partial_x \vartheta_{y}+ \partial_x \vartheta_{y+1})
\cos [\beta(\vartheta_{y} - \vartheta_{y+1})] \Big\},\end{aligned}$$ with $g_2 = 2 \gamma_2 |\psi|^2$ and $g_{\rm cone} = \gamma_{\rm cone}
|\psi|^2 \beta$.
Now we can see that, for $g_2>0$, which is expected from antiferromagnetic superexchange, the two interactions strongly compete. In this case, the minima of the $g_2$ term are states with $$\label{eq:25}
\vartheta_y = \frac{\pi y}{2\beta} + \frac{\Theta_{{\rm mod}(y,2)}}{\beta} .$$ Here $\Theta_0,\Theta_1$ define the overall phase on the even and odd chains, respectively. Inserting this into the twist term, one finds a vanishing result due to cancellations when the sum over $y$ is carried out, even if $\Theta_0$ and $\Theta_1$ are allowed to have gradients. Hence this solution has energy density equal to $-g_2$. This is a commensurate “antiferromagnetic” (AF) state. Conversely, the solutions which minimize the twist term have $\vartheta_y = \kappa x$, for which the $g_2$ term is [*maximized*]{} rather than minimized. Here $\kappa=2 g_{\rm cone}/v$ is determined by minimizing the full energy, leading to the energy density $-2g_{\rm cone}^2/v + g_2$. This is the incommensurate cone state. Comparing the energies of the two states, one finds that the AF state obtains for $g_2 > g_{\rm cone}^2/v$. This requires a minimum value of second neighbor exchange for the commensurate state, $J_2 > J_{2}^*$, where $$\label{eq:29}
J_{2}^* = \frac{\beta^2|\psi|^2}{4} \frac{(J')^2}{v}.$$ For [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}, $J_2^*$ is very small, and is in fact only a few percent ($\leq 5\%$) of $J$ for the relevant field range. Moreover, we argue below that the above value of $J_2^*$ is actually an overestimate, as it neglects a fluctuation-generated interaction which is of the same order. Thus, an exceedingly tiny second neighbor coupling $J_2$, likely undetectable directly, qualitatively changes the ground state. In general, re-expressing the minimum energy density in terms of bare variables, we have $$\label{eq:13}
\varepsilon_{3d} \sim -{\rm Max}\left\{ J_2 |\psi|^2,
\frac{\beta^2|\psi|^4}{4} \frac{(J')^2}{v}\right\}.$$ This energy scale determines the spin stiffness along the $c$ axis, $\rho_{s;c} \sim \varepsilon_{3d}$.
Locking of even and odd $a$-$b$ layers {#sec:locking-even-odd}
--------------------------------------
When $J_2$ is dominant in establishing three-dimensional AF order, it is ineffective in coupling the even and odd layers. As a consequence, there remains an artificial degeneracy of solutions, specifically, one may make opposite rotations of the phases $\Theta_1$ and $\Theta_2$. This rotation is not a true symmetry of the microscopic theory. However, the simplest possible coupling of phases in neighboring chains, of the form $\cos \beta(\vartheta_y - \vartheta_{y+1})$, [*is*]{} prohibited by reflection symmetry, see and . Instead, the leading possible coupling between neighboring chains is of the form $$\label{eq:14}
H_{\rm bq} = {\bf +} g_{\rm bq} \sum_{y,z} \int \! dx\, \cos [2\beta (\vartheta_{y,z}
- \vartheta_{y+1,z})].$$ Here we have already assumed Eq. (\[eq:8\]), and taken the average of the fluctuation-generated interaction. See Appendix \[sec:biquadratic\] for details. For classical XY spins with phase $\beta \vartheta$, this interaction would correspond to a biquadratic coupling $({\bm S}_i \cdot {\bm S}_j)^2$, between spins on neighboring chains. Such fluctuation-generated biquadratic interactions are indeed familiar from the theory of frustrated magnets, and are a manifestation of “order by disorder”.[@shender; @Henley_JAP] In that context, it is well-known that fluctuations generally favor collinear states, which requires $g_{\rm
bq}>0$. This is indeed confirmed by the microscopic calculation in Appendix \[sec:biquadratic\], which leads to the estimate $$\label{eq:15}
g_{\rm bq} \sim \frac{(J')^2}{v} |\psi|^{4}.$$
In the AF phase, we may use the solutions for $\theta_{y,z}$ determined above, and hence rewrite Eq. (\[eq:14\]) as $$\label{eq:16}
E_{\rm bq} = -g_{\rm bq} L_x L_y L_z \cos[2(\Theta_0-\Theta_1)].$$ Clearly states with $\Theta_0=\Theta_1+ n \pi$ are preferred, which implies commensurate, collinear, AF order. The condensation energy density associated with the selection of the collinear order is thus $\varepsilon_{\rm CIT} \sim g_{\rm bq}$ (the reason for the choice of this subscript will become clear in the next section). Physically, this energy scale determines the gap of the antisymmetric pseudo-Goldstone mode corresponding to $\Theta_0-\Theta_1$, which is of order $$\label{eq:17}
\Delta_{\rm as} \sim \sqrt{v\varepsilon_{\rm CIT}} \sim J' |\psi|^{2}.$$ This can potentially be measured as an emergent low energy (but gapped) mode in neutron scattering.
Comparing Eq. with Eq. and Eq. , we observe that the energy gain due to $g_{\rm bq}$ term is of the same order as the energy gain of the incommensurate cone state. This is not a coincidence as the both effects have their common origin in the inter-chain exchange $J'$. This suggests that, even in the absence of any micrscopic $J_2$ exchange, a collinear state could be energetically preferred to the cone state. However, the RG approach used to obtain Eq. (\[eq:15\]) is not accurate in determining the $O(1)$ numerical prefactor, which is essential for making such a comparison quantitatively. Thus we at present can only speculate that this might be the case. Even if not, these considerations imply that the interaction $J_2$ needed to induce the AF state is even lower than the estimate in Eq. (\[eq:29\]).
Field along $c$ axis {#sec:field-along-c}
====================
Experimentally, this field orientation shows the most complex phase diagram. In addition to the commensurate “AF” phase seen for fields along the $b$ axis, a broad region of incommensurate phase is also clearly observed in NMR measurements [@takigawa-poster] (and defined by earlier magnetization measurements [@TokiwaPRB2006]). Within the model used up to now, the difference in phase diagrams for fields along the $b$ and $c$ axes is inexplicable: the Hamiltonian has a symmetry under spin rotations within the $b$-$c$ plane.
DM interaction on chain bonds {#sec:dm-interaction-chain}
-----------------------------
Therefore additional spin-rotational symmetry breaking interactions [*must*]{} be included to explain this discrepancy. We therefore turn to the general set of allowed DM interactions in Sec. \[sec:dm-ology\] for our consideration. As we saw in the previous section, DM terms whose D-vector is orthogonal to the applied field average out rapidly in the presence of an applied field. Hence we need consider only components of the D-vectors along the $c$ axis. There are two independent such terms: $D_c$ and $D'_c$. Given that DM terms are generally proportional to the corresponding exchange, we expect $D_c$ to be the largest of the two, and we focus on its effects (in Appendix \[sec:d\_c\] we explain in detail why $D'_c$ can be neglected). It introduces the perturbation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:21}
H_c & \sim & D_c \sum_{y,z} (-1)^y \int \! dx\,
\mathcal{J}_{y,z}^z(x) \nonumber \\
& \sim & d_c \sum_{y,z} (-1)^y \int \! dx\, \partial_x \theta_{y,z},\end{aligned}$$ where $d_c = v D_c/(\beta J)$.
Notably, $H_c$ is linear in the boson fields, and hence, in the absence of any other interactions, the term $d_c$ can be taken into account exactly. Moreover, it is actually a pure boundary term, whose effect on the energy depends solely on the [*winding numbers*]{}, $[\theta_{y,z}(\infty) - \theta_{y,z}(-\infty)]/(2\pi \beta)$, and vanishes in the zero winding number sector. However, $H_c$ favors sectors with non-vanishing winding numbers (proportional to $L_x$, in fact).
$D_c$ does not compete with $J$,$J'$, and $J''$ {#sec:d_c-does-not}
-----------------------------------------------
To understand the degree of competition of $H_c$ with the other interactions, it is instructive to consider the shifted variables $$\label{eq:22}
\tilde\theta_{y,z}(x) = \theta_{y,z}(x) + (-1)^y \frac{d_c}{v} x.$$ With this shift, $d_c$ is “eliminated” from the free Hamiltonian, up to a constant: $H_0[\theta]+H_c[\theta] = H_0[\tilde\theta]+ {\rm
const.}$. Physically, this change of variables corresponds to a shift of the dominant wavevector of correlations from $k_x=\pi$ to $k_x = \pi \pm
\beta d_c/v=\pi \pm D_c/J$. Significantly, the dominant $\gamma''_\pm$ coupling is invariant under the shift: $H'_2[\theta]=H'_2[\tilde\theta]$. Thus $J''$ and $D_c$ do not compete. The same is true for the $\gamma_2$ ($J_2$) interaction. Thus, in the region where the AF phase appears for the case of field along the $b$ axis, since the $J''$ and $J_2$ couplings dominate, we expect the energetics is unchanged at the three highest energy scales in Fig. \[fig:energyscales\].
Commensurate-Incommensurate Transition {#sec:comm-incomm-trans}
--------------------------------------
Differences do appear, however, once the cone and biquadratic interactions are considered, as these are [*not*]{} invariant under the shift in Eq. (\[eq:22\]). We focus on the putative AF region, for which we may assume the decomposition in Eq. (\[eq:25\]). Allowing for small gradients in $\Theta_\pm(x,y,z) = \Theta_0(x,y,z)\pm
\Theta_1(x,y,z)$, we obtain the continuum hamiltonian $H=H_++H_-$, with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:23}
H_+ & = \int \! d^3{\bm r}\, \Big\{ &\sum_\mu\frac{c_\mu}{2}(\partial_\mu
\Theta_+)^2 \Big\}, \\
H_- & = \int \! d^3{\bm r}\, \Big\{ &\sum_\mu\frac{c_\mu}{2}(\partial_\mu
\Theta_-)^2 + \frac{d_c}{2\beta}\partial_x \Theta_- \nonumber \\
&& - g_{\rm bq} \cos (2 \Theta_-)\Big\} ,\end{aligned}$$ where $c_x = v/4\beta^2$, $c_y = g_2 $, and $c_z = {\tilde \gamma}''_\pm/4$. Here the cone interaction has dropped out, and the low energy Hamiltonian has decomposed into two decoupled parts. The first, $H_+$, is simply the Hamiltonian of a free massless boson. It describes the Goldstone mode $\Theta_+$ associated with spin rotations about the field axis. The second part, $H_-$, is the familiar sine-Gordon model, discussed earlier in Sec. \[sec:plateaux-width\]. In this case it is in three dimensions, but this has no significant consequences. As in Sec. \[sec:plateaux-width\], the sine-Gordon model describes a commensurate phase (here, the AF state) and an incommensurate (IC) one, separated by a [*Commensurate-Incommensurate Transition*]{}, or CIT.
The results for the CIT can be taken over directly from Sec. \[sec:plateau\], with the mapping $\Theta_- \rightarrow
\varphi/2$. Here, it is $d_c$ which plays the role of the tuning parameter, favoring the IC phase, for $|d_c|>d_c^*$, where $$\label{eq:26}
d_c^* = \frac{4\sqrt{v g_{\rm bq}}}{\pi}.$$ On entering the IC phase, the system forms a soliton lattice, with a corresponding incommensurate wavevector $q_0$ (measured relative to the AF state). Note that the IC phase found here is thus a smooth deformation of the AF state, which makes it quite distinct from the cone state, which is also incommensurate. The incommensurate wavevector grows rapidly after the CIT, which can be seen by translating Eq. (\[eq:umk14\]) to the current case: $$\label{eq:88}
q_0 = \frac{\langle \partial_x \Theta_-\rangle}{2} \sim
\frac{\pi}{4\beta} \sqrt{\frac{g_{bq}}{v}} \frac{1}{\ln [(|d_c|-d_c^*)/d_c^*]},$$ where the brackets $\langle \partial_x \Theta_-\rangle$ indicates the spatial average. Once the above logarithm is not large, the solitons are strongly overlapping, and Eq. (\[eq:88\]) is no longer valid. Instead, one may simply minimize the energy neglecting $g_{\rm bq}$, which gives $$\label{eq:89}
q_0 = \frac{\beta d_c}{v} = \frac{D_c}{J}.$$ To summarize, $q_0$ varies from its maximal value given in Eq. (\[eq:89\]) at the low field end of the IC phase, and [ *decreases*]{} with increasing field, vanishing asymptotically according to Eq. (\[eq:88\]) at the CIT to the AF phase. Because the variation in Eq. (\[eq:88\]) is so rapid, very likely $q_0$ appears approximately constant in most of the IC phase, dropping precipitously to zero in a narrow region near the CIT.
Experimental Consequences {#sec:exper-cons}
=========================
In this section, we consider a few key experimental consequences of the analysis of the previous sections. First, we give explicit expressions for the spin structures in the various phases predicted there, which should be useful for comparison to neutron scattering measurements. Next, we derive the nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) lineshapes in each of these phases, using these expressions, and compare to experiments by Takigawa and collaborators. Finally, we describe the phase diagrams in the magnetic field–temperature plane, for the different field orientations.
Explicit spin structures {#sec:expl-spin-struct}
------------------------
Here we reconstruct explicit formulae and plots of the spin ordering patterns in the various phases discussed earlier.
### Cone state {#sec:cone-state}
First consider the incommensurate ordered “cone” state, described in Sec. \[sec:incomm-order-state\], which occurs for any field along the $a$ axis. This is described by Eq. (\[eq:46\]). Using Eq. (\[eq:2\]), we can express the microscopic spin operator’s expectation value $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:49}
&& \left\langle S_{xyz}^x \right\rangle_{\rm cone} = (\left\langle
S_{xyz}^+\right\rangle e^{i\pi x} + {\rm c.c.})/2 \\
& &= (-1)^{yz} N \cos[(\pi + (-1)^z q_0 )x + \Theta_z] \nonumber \\
& &= (-1)^{yz} N \cos[(\pi + q_0) x + ((-1)^z-1)\pi x + (-1)^z
\Theta_z]. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ To further simplify, we note that the $x$ coordinate takes integer values for even $y$ and half-integer values for odd $y$. As a consequence, $((-1)^z-1)\pi x$ is an integer multiple of $2\pi$ [ *unless*]{} $y$ is odd [*and*]{} $z$ is odd. This allows this factor inside the cosine to be removed in favor of an overall $(-1)^{yz}$ factor in front of it, which cancels the one already present. Therefore one finds, finally $$\label{eq:49a}
\left\langle S_{xyz}^x \right\rangle_{\rm cone} = N \cos[(\pi + q_0)x + \tilde\Theta_z],$$ where $\tilde\Theta_z= (-1)^z\Theta_z$. Similar manipulations for the y component of the spins give $$\label{eq:49b}
\left\langle S_{xyz}^y \right\rangle_{\rm cone} = (-1)^z N \sin[(\pi + q_0)x + \tilde\Theta_z].$$ and of course, one has $$\label{eq:50}
\left\langle S_{xyz}^z \right\rangle_{\rm cone} = M.$$
### Antiferromagnetic phase {#sec:commensurate-phase}
Here we simply apply Eq. (\[eq:25\]), and use $\Theta_0=\Theta$, $\Theta_1=\Theta + \pi n$ (with $n=0,1$) as preferred in the commensurate “antiferromagnetic” (AF) phase by Eq. (\[eq:16\]). This gives $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:51}
\left\langle S_{xyz}^x \right\rangle_{\rm AF} & = & (-1)^z|\psi| \cos[\pi
x + \sigma \pi y/2 + \Theta], \\
\left\langle S_{xyz}^y \right\rangle_{\rm AF} & = & (-1)^z|\psi|
\sin[\pi x + \sigma \pi y/2 + \Theta], \end{aligned}$$ where the $\sigma=\pm 1 = (-1)^n$. These equations describe a state in which the $x-y$ components of the spins are [*collinear*]{}. This may not be obvious, but is true because the combination $\pi x + \sigma \pi y/2$ is always an integer multiple of $\pi$, owing to the fact that $x$ is integer (half-integer) for even (odd) $y$. Combined with the constant uniform magnetization, Eq. (\[eq:50\]), these equations describe a [*co-planar*]{} spin state, distinct from the three-dimensional cone configuration. We note, however, that small perturbations due to the various DM interactions will probably disrupt this ideal coplanarity. The commensurate nature of the ordering is, however, robust.
### Incommensurate phase for fields along $c$ axis {#sec:incomm-phase-fields}
Here we consider the incommensurate phase which is discussed in Sec. \[sec:field-along-c\]. For simplicity, we will ignore the narrow but subtle region in the vicinity of the CIT, where a non-trivial soliton lattice should be taken into account. The basic symmetry of this phase is well described by the “smooth” regime (corresponding to strongly overlapping solitons), where we simply treat the incommensuration as linear shift of the phase fields, i.e. we take $\tilde\theta_{y,z}$ in Eq. (\[eq:22\]) as constant. The preceding formula now are modified to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:52}
\left\langle S_{xyz}^x \right\rangle_{\rm IC} = (-1)^z|\psi|
\cos[(\pi+(-1)^y q_0) x + \pi y/2 + \Theta_y],~~~~ \\
\left\langle S_{xyz}^y \right\rangle_{\rm IC} = (-1)^z|\psi|
\sin[(\pi+(-1)^y q_0) x + \pi y/2 + \Theta_y],~~~~\end{aligned}$$ where $q_0= \beta d_c/v$ – see Eq. – and $\Theta_y$ is a phase taking two distinct arbitrary values for even and odd $y$.
NMR lineshape {#sec:nmr-lineshape}
-------------
Recent NMR experiments by Takigawa and collaborators [@takigawa-poster] have revealed numerous phases and transitions in [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{} in magnetic fields. Here we wish to address the signatures of the phases predicted in this paper in the NMR lineshape. The basic approach is to consider the Hamiltonian of a given nuclear spin ${\bf I}_i$ to be the sum of two effective fields $$\label{eq:53}
H_a = ({\bf h}^{\rm ext}_i + {\bf h}^{\rm hf}_a)\cdot {\bf I}_i,$$ where ${\bf h}^{\rm ext}_i$ is the effective field on the nucleus $i$ due to the external field ${\bf H}$, factoring in any anisotropies of the nuclear g-tensor (which are believed to be small [@private]). The remaining “hyperfine field” ${\bf h}^{\rm hf}_i$ represents transferred hyperfine interactions with nearby electronic spins. The NMR resonance frequency of this particular nucleus is simply proportional to the magnitude of the total effective field. The simplest approximation, which we take here, is to assume in addition that $|{\bf h}^{\rm hf}_i| \ll |{\bf h}^{\rm ext}_i|$. This is certainly so in intermediate and high-field regions, which we focus on. For lower fields, of the order of $1 - 2$ T, this may not be such a good approximation.[@private] But even in this case the off-diagonal contribution (see below), which is central to our consideration, should be smaller than the diagonal one and a modified expansion in off-diagonal components of ${\bf h}^{\rm hf}_i$ should be possible. With these assumptions in mind, and disregarding the g-factor anisotropy (so that ${\bf h}^{\rm ext}_i \propto {\bf H}$), we can approximate the shift due to the hyperfine interaction by $$\label{eq:70}
\Delta\nu_i \propto {\bf h}^{\rm hf}_i \cdot {\bf h}^{\rm ext}_i /|{\bf h}^{\rm ext}_i | = {\bf h}^{\rm hf}_i \cdot {\bf\hat H},$$ where ${\bf\hat H}= {\bf H}/|{\bf H}|$.
![Scheme of the trasferred hyperfine interaction for Cs(A). The signs $+$/$-$ refer to the relative signs of the off-diagonal entry $\kappa_{ij}$ in Eq. (\[eq:54\]). $\kappa_{ij}$ takes equal value for two sites of a triangle as shown by the dashed lines while that for the other site can be different as shown by the dotted line.[]{data-label="fig: NMR_Cs_A_ions"}](NMR_Cs_A_ions.pdf){width="0.7\columnwidth"}
In [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}, there are two inequivalent Cs sites measured in the Cs NMR measurements. We focus on the Cs(A) site, which is located slightly above or below the center of a triangle of Cu spins.[@NMRpaper]The NMR response of the[@private] Cs(B) site, which is coupled to Cu spins in the two planes adjacent to it, is more difficult to analyze at present, but we do expect the qualitative conclusions derived below to remain valid for this situation as well. In the Cs(A) case, the hyperfine field of nucleus $i$ located between spins $j$ at the sites of this triangle should be given by the sum of three transferred contributions: $$\label{eq:72}
{\bf h}^{\rm hf}_i = \sum_{j \; {\rm nn}\; i} {\bf K}_{ij} \langle {\bf S}_j \rangle,$$ where ${\bf K}_{ij}$ is a tensor describing the anisotropic transferred hyperfine exchange from the Cu spin at site $j$ to the nucleus $i$ (see Fig. \[fig: NMR\_Cs\_A\_ions\]). According to recent measurements,[@NMRpaper] in these tensors, the only significant off-diagonal entry is $[{\bf K}_{ij}]^{ac}=[{\bf K}_{ij}]^{ca} =\kappa_{ij}$, and, moreover, $\kappa_{ij}$ takes equal values for the two sites $j$ of the triangle which are on the same chain.
For magnetic fields along $a$ and $c$, this off-diagonal transferred exchange is crucial in determining the NMR lineshape. Let us see how this occurs. In either of these cases, we define, as usual the $z$ axis of spin along the field axis. Let us then take the $x$ axis of spin along the other of the two, i.e. for ${\bf\hat H}={\hat a}$, take $S^x=S^c$, and conversely, if ${\bf\hat H}={\hat c}$, then $S^x=S^a$. From Eq. (\[eq:70\]), the NMR shift is entirely determined by the $z$ component of the hyperfine field. This, in turn, is given by $$\label{eq:54}
\left[{\bf h}^{\rm hf}_i \right]^z = \sum_{j \; {\rm nn}\; i} \left( \left[{\bf
K}_{ij}\right]^{zz} \langle S^z_j \rangle + \kappa_{ij} \langle S^x_j \rangle \right).$$ In all of the phases predicted for [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}, the component of the spins parallel to the field is constant, and equal to the average magnetization $M$ (this is [*not*]{} true in the SDW phase, which is expected in the ideal 2d case of Section \[sec:ideal-2d-model\]). Therefore the first term in Eq. (\[eq:54\]) gives a constant contribution to the shift, which is the same for all Cs(A) nuclei. Thus $$\label{eq:73}
\Delta\nu_i \propto {\rm const.}+ \sum_{j \; {\rm nn}\; i}
\kappa_{ij} \langle S^x_j \rangle .$$ Using the experimentally determined form of the hyperfine couplings, and dropping the constant, one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:74}
&& \Delta\nu_{x+\frac{1}{2},y+\frac{1}{2},z} \\
&& \nonumber (-1)^y \left(\kappa_1 \left[ \langle
S^x_{x,y,z} \rangle + \langle
S^x_{x+1,y,z} \rangle \right] + \kappa_2 \langle
S^x_{x+\frac{1}{2},y+1,z} \rangle \right).\end{aligned}$$ Here we have absorbed the proportionality constant in the shift into the definitions of $\kappa_1$ and $\kappa_2$. We are now in a position to evaluate the NMR lineshape for the different magnetic phases.
![Schematic NMR spectra in (a) the cone state, (b) the AF state, and (c) the IC state. On approaching the commensurate AF phase from the IC phase, i.e., $q_0 \to 0$ limit, four peaks merge pairwise as indicated by the arrow.[]{data-label="fig: NMR_line_shape"}](NMR_line_shape.pdf){width="0.98\columnwidth"}
### Cone state {#sec:cone-state-2}
In the cone state, we can use Eq. (\[eq:49a\]) to evaluate Eq. (\[eq:74\]). One obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:75}
&& \Delta\nu_{x+\frac{1}{2},y+\frac{1}{2},z} = \\
\nonumber &&
(-1)^y N \left[\kappa_2 - 2 \kappa_1 \sin \tfrac{q_0}{2}\right] \cos [(\pi +
q_0)(x +1/2)+ \tilde\Theta_z].\end{aligned}$$ Now the NMR lineshape reflects the [*distribution*]{} of shifts, $p(\Delta\nu) $, over all the Cs(A) sites. We may consider this as a sum of distributions of the shifts for the nuclei associated with each pair of chains, i.e. ranging over $x$ for fixed $y$ and $z$. Because $q_0$ is incommensurate, the argument of the cosine above is distributed [*uniformly*]{} over the full angular interval from $0$ to $2\pi$. Thus the cosine itself is distributed between $-1$ and $+1$, and we obtain a distribution for the shift, for fixed $y$ and $z$ with support between $\pm N |\kappa_2 - 2 \kappa_1
\sin \tfrac{q_0}{2}|$: $$\label{eq:78}
p(\Delta \nu) = \frac{1}{\pi} \frac{1}{\sqrt{A^2 -
(\Delta\nu)^2}}\Theta[A-|\Delta\nu|],$$ with $$\label{eq:79}
A = N |\kappa_2 - 2 \kappa_1\sin \tfrac{q_0}{2}|.$$ We see that the distribution is in fact independent of $y$ and $z$, so that the full distribution over all Cs(A) sites is identical to that for a single pair of chains. It has two peaks, at the edges of the distribution, $\delta\nu=\pm A$ as shown in Fig. \[fig: NMR\_line\_shape\](a).
### AF state {#sec:af-state}
Applying Eq. (\[eq:51\]) to Eq. (\[eq:74\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:76}
\Delta\nu_{x+\frac{1}{2},y+\frac{1}{2},z} & = &
\sigma (-1)^{y+z}|\psi|\kappa_2 \cos[\pi(x+\sigma y/2)+\Theta]
\nonumber \\
& = & \pm \kappa |\psi|\cos\Theta.\end{aligned}$$ One expects therefore two sharp peaks in the Cs(A) NMR spectrum, separated by $2\kappa_2\psi|\cos\Theta|$ (see Fig. \[fig: NMR\_line\_shape\](b)). Note that $\cos\Theta$ is generically non-zero, as argued by symmetry in Appendix \[sec:antif-af-state\].
### IC state {#sec:ic-state}
Here we apply Eq. (\[eq:52\]) to Eq. (\[eq:74\]). We find that the NMR shift can be written $$\label{eq:77}
\Delta\nu_{x+\frac{1}{2},y+\frac{1}{2},z} = A_y \cos (q_0 x + \phi_y),$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:80}
|A_y| & = & |\psi|\Big[ 4\kappa_1^2 \sin^2 \tfrac{q_0}{2} + \kappa_2^2
\\
&&
-(-1)^y 4 \kappa_1\kappa_2 \sin \tfrac{q_0}{2} \sin (\Theta_0+\Theta_1)\Big]^{1/2}, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:81}
&& \tan \phi_y = \\
&& \nonumber
\left\{ \begin{array}{cc} \frac{\kappa_1\left(\sin(q_0+\Theta_0) -
\sin\Theta_0 \right)+ \kappa_2 \sin (\tfrac{q_0}{2} -\Theta_{1})}{\kappa_1\left(\cos(q_0+\Theta_0) -
\cos\Theta_0 \right)+ \kappa_2 \cos (\tfrac{q_0}{2} -\Theta_{1})} &
\textrm{$y$ even} \\
\frac{\kappa_1\left(\sin(q_0-\Theta_1) +
\sin\Theta_1 \right)+ \kappa_2 \sin (\tfrac{q_0}{2} +\Theta_{0})}{\kappa_1\left(\cos(q_0-\Theta_1) -
\cos\Theta_1 \right)+ \kappa_2 \cos (\tfrac{q_0}{2} +\Theta_{0})} &
\textrm{$y$ odd}
\end{array} \right. .\end{aligned}$$ For each $y$, we expect from Eq. (\[eq:77\]) a continuum lineshape of the form of Eq. (\[eq:78\]), owing to the incommensurate wavevector $q_0$. However, in general, $A_y$ takes two distinct values for even and odd $y$ (owing to the $(-1)^y$ factor in Eq. (\[eq:80\])). Note that the prefactor of this term is non-vanishing since $\sin(\Theta_0+\Theta_1)$ is generally non-zero, as argued in Appendix \[sec:incommensurate-phase\]. Hence the full Cs(A) lineshape is expected to be the sum of both distributions, and hence has [*four peaks*]{}, at $\Delta\nu=\pm A_0,
\pm A_1$ as schematically shown in Fig. \[fig: NMR\_line\_shape\](c). Notably, these peaks merge pairwise as $q_0\rightarrow 0$, i.e. on approaching the commensurate AF phase from the IC state. Precisely such a merging of the peaks has been seen in the NMR experiments by Takigawa and collaborators [@takigawa-poster].
Phase diagrams {#sec:phase-diagrams}
--------------
In Secs. \[sec:field-along-axis\],\[sec:field-along-b\],\[sec:field-along-c\], we have determined (most of) the zero temperature phases for the three major field orientations. Here we discuss the extension of these results to $T>0$.
### Field along $a$ axis {#sec:field-along-a}
This is the simplest case. At zero temperature, the cone state extends across the entire field range from zero up to saturation. We have seen that it is predominantly controlled by the DM interaction $D=D'_a$, perturbed somewhat by the interchain exchange $J'$. We therefore expect a single phase boundary, $T_{\rm cone}(H)$. One estimate for this curve is obtained from CMFT, and is shown in Fig. \[fig:dmTc\] (plotted versus magnetization $M$ rather than field). One observes that $T_{\rm
cone}$ at first increases with the applied field for small fields, and then reaches a maximum, followed by a decrease to zero at the saturation field.
These trends can be understood simply as follows. With increasing magnetization, the spins become more XY-like, which decreases the scaling dimension $\Delta_\pm$. As a consequence, the DM interaction becomes more relevant with increasing field, enhancing the critical temperature. However, on approaching saturation, the magnitude of the transverse components of the spins, which constitute the cone order, decrease to zero, and hence suppress the ordering temperature to zero.
As these trends are correctly captured by CMFT, we may perhaps trust the result for the phase boundary. However, we note that the [*nature*]{} of the phase transition is somewhat subtle, and probably not properly described by this approximation. Neglecting $J''$, which has a very weak effect upon the cone state (see Eq. ), the system is effectively two-dimensional, and as a consequence exhibits strong effects of thermal fluctuations. Since the DM terms (e.g. $D_c$) with DM-vectors perpendicular to $a$ are also negligible here, the Hamiltonan has approximate XY spin rotation symmetry. As a consequence, the cone phase is approximately a [*quasi-*]{}long-range-ordered state at $T>0$, and its thermal transition should be of Kosterlitz-Thouless (KT) type. Obviously the CMFT approximation does not describe the KT universality class, and instead predicts mean-field critical behavior.
It is interesting to verify that, nevertheless, the magnitude of $T_c$ obtained from CMFT agrees with an analysis based on KT theory. For simplicity, we will focus on the DM-dominated field range, and neglect entirely $J'$ and $J''$ for simplicity. In this case, the system decouples into 2d triangular $x-y$ planes, consisting of chains connected by the DM interaction only. Taking the expectation value using Eq. (\[eq:39\]) in Eq. (\[eq:4\]), one obtains the energy $$\label{eq:85}
H_{2d} =\sum_{y,z} \int \! dx\, \Big\{
\frac{v}{2}(\partial_x\vartheta_{y,z})^2 - 2D |N|^2 \cos
\beta(\vartheta_{y,z}-\vartheta_{y+1,z}) \Big\}.$$ In the ordered phase, one may expand the cosine, and take the continuum limit (in $y$) for fields $\vartheta_{y,z}$ that are slowly-varying in $y$: $$\label{eq:86}
H_{2d} =\sum_{z} \int \! dx dy\, \Big\{
\frac{v}{2}(\partial_x\vartheta_z)^2 + D |N|^2 \beta^2 (\partial_y\vartheta_{z})^2 \Big\}.$$ Now, according to KT theory, the critical temperature is proportional to the geometric mean of the two stiffnesses, i.e. $T_{KT}\sim \sqrt{v
D}|N|$. We are neglecting all $O(1)$ prefactors here, as we are only interested in the scaling behavior. Now from scaling, or from the CMFT calculations in Appendix \[sec:cmft-T=0\], one has $|N| \sim
(D/v)^{\Delta_\pm/(2-2\Delta_\pm)} $, from which one obtains finally $T_{KT} \sim v (D/v)^{1/(2-2\Delta_\pm)}$. Precisely the same scaling is found directly from the CMFT treatment at $T>0$ in the Appendix \[sec:cmft-dm\]. (Please note that the described calculation corresponds to setting $J'=0$ the coupling $\hat\Gamma^a_{\rm cone}$, see . That implies $q_0=0$ which, via second equation in , leads to the scaling $T_c \sim v (D/v)^{1/(2-2\Delta_\pm)}$.) It may appear surprising that the two approaches, which describe the transition so differently, agree in this respect. The reason for the agreement is that the [*scale*]{} of $T_c$ is entirely determined by the scaling properties of the weakly perturbed one-dimensional chains. Any approximation which respects this scaling (and both the CMFT and the KT analysis do) will obtain the same order of magnitude answer. Differences would appear in the prefactor, which, however, is beyond the scope of the rough KT analysis carried out here.
### Field along $b$ axis {#sec:field-along-b-2}
The situation in a field along $b$ is considerably more complicated. The analysis in Sec. \[sec:field-along-b\] implies [*at least*]{} four phases at $T=0$: the zero field phase “spiral” phase, dominated by $D$, the AF phase, the high-field cone phase, and the saturated phase. Due to the difficulty of treating the competition between the $D$ term and magnetic field when the two are comparable, the intervening range between the AF and zero field phases has not been fully clarified here. Thermodynamic measurements[@TokiwaPRB2006] appear to show a single transition between the spiral and AF states, and therefore the absence of any intermediate states.
For the “high field” phases (i.e. in the region where the $D$ term is negligible), we can attempt to apply CMFT to determine the uppermost phase boundaries, describing the transitions from the ordered to paramagnetic states. The key observation is that [*both ordered phases*]{} (AF and cone) are driven by the same $J''$ interaction. The two states are only distinguished by the competing effects of the weaker (at least in the renormalized sense) $J'$ and $J_2$ interactions. Thus the upper phase boundary should be approximately continuous across this field range up to saturation, and not very sensitive to the precise nature (AF or cone) of the ordered phase it demarcates. This boundary should be similar in shape to the $T_{\rm cone}(H)$ discussed above, as it arises from a term of the same scaling dimension as $D$ in that case, and suffers the same reduction on approaching saturation.
The high-field region requires one further phase boundary, between the AF and cone states. This should be approximately vertical, but is expected to bend “to the left”, as the cone state has higher entropy than the AF one, and is thus favored with increasing temperature. This reasoning is based on higher order effects of other DM interactions that we have neglected up to now (mentioned in passing in Sec. \[sec:commensurate-phase\]): these sub-dominant terms are expected to break the $U(1)$ rotational symmetry of the AF state and gap out its Goldstone modes, while preserving the commensurability of the AF structure. The cone state, being incommensurate, is expected to not be affected by these small perturbations and preserve its gapless excitations. As a result, we expect the entropy of the cone state to be greater than that of the AF one, and result in the mentioned bending of the AF-cone boundary to the left. The transition between the two states is first order, and observables such as the ordering wavevector jump at the critical field.
### Field along $c$ axis {#sec:field-along-c-2}
In this, most complex field orientation, all the phases predicted for the field along $b$ must appear, [*and*]{} in addition the IC state, taking up some territory between the AF and spiral phases. Experiments seem to show[@Coldea2001PRL; @TokiwaPRB2006; @takigawa-poster] even beyond these 5 states, one or two additional ones in the regime when the $D$ term is comparable to the Zeeman energy. At present we have little to say about these states. The observed linear relation between the ordering momentum of the intermediate “S” state (in the notation of Ref. ) is suggestive of an SDW phase, but at the present we do not have a good understanding of how the competition between the DM and the Zeeman terms may bring out the SDW order discussed in Sec. \[sec:phases\].
In the high-field region, we expect, by similar arguments to the previous section, a rather continuous boundary between the IC, AF, and cone states and the paramagnetic phase. The AF-cone boundary should appear very similar to that for this field orientation as well. The new feature introduced here is the IC-AF boundary, which is the location of the CIT. Like the cone phase, the IC phase is expected to have more entropy than the AF state, and hence be stabilized by increasing temperature. Experimentally, this boundary bends quite sharply “to the right”, in marked contrast to the nearly vertical AF-cone transition line.
To understand this, consider the expression for the CIT location, Eq. . It can be rewritten, using the expressions for $g_{\rm bq}$, Eq. , and for $d_c$ (given in the text following Eq. ), as $$\label{eq:82}
|\psi|^2 \sim \frac{v D_c}{\beta J J'},$$ where we drop all $O(1)$ factors. A simple treatment, which takes into account some of the one-dimensional fluctuations, but not the high-dimensional ones, is to simply apply Eq. , but replacing $|\psi|^2$ with its reduced value [*at $T=T_{\rm CIT}$*]{}. In general, this is difficult to actually calculate analytically, e.g. with CMFT, but the detailed form is not important to our argument. Scaling implies that it can be written $$\label{eq:83}
|\psi|^2(T) = |\psi_0|^2 {\mathcal F}(T/T_c),$$ where $T_c$ is the critical temperature at which $\psi$ vanishes, and the scaling function $\mathcal F$ is smooth and obeys ${\mathcal
F}(0)=1$ and ${\mathcal F}(1)=0$. For illustrative purposes, we can take the simple approximation $\mathcal{F}(t) = 1-t^2$. Using this form, one finds $$\label{eq:84}
\frac{T_{\rm CIT}}{T_c} = \sqrt{1- \frac{v D_c}{\beta JJ'|\psi_0|^2}}.$$ By construction, the right-hand side vanishes at the zero temperature CIT, where $T_{\rm CIT}=0$. Both $\psi_0$ and $\beta$ are rather weak functions of magnetic field. However, the velocity $v$ varies considerably (on the scale of $J$) with field, indeed vanishing as saturation is approached. Hence, the right-hand-side increases rather quickly with field, leading to rapid variation of $T_{\rm CIT}$ with an approximate square-root form, consistent with experiments.
It is interesting to note that, in experiment,[@TokiwaPRB2006; @takigawa-poster] the AF-IC and AF-cone boundaries are observed to approach each other very closely with increasing temperature, leading to an extremely narrow range of transition directly from the paramagnet to the AF phase. This suggests some physical mechanism which “avoids” this transition. In fact, one can argue that,according to Landau theory, a [*continuous*]{} AF-paramagnetic transition is [*forbidden*]{} for this field orientation. To do so, consider the Landau expansion of the free energy $F$ in the “order parameters” $\psi_{y,z}(x) \equiv \langle
\mathcal{S}_{y,z}^-(x)\rangle$. Such an expansion, in powers of $\psi_{y,z}$, is valid near any putative continuous transition. We presume $\psi_{y,z}(x)$ to be a slowly-varying function of $x$. The Landau expansion has the form $F=F_2+F_4+\cdots$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:108}
F_2 & = & \sum_{y,z}\int\! dx\, \Big\{
\frac{\bar{v}}{2}|\partial_x\psi_{y,z}|^2 - i \bar{\gamma}_c
\left(\psi_{y,z}^* \partial_x \psi^{\vphantom*}_{y+1,z} + {\rm c.c.}\right) \nonumber \\
& & -i\bar{d}_c
(-1)^y \psi_{y,z}^* \partial_x \psi^{\vphantom*}_{y,z} + \bar{\gamma}_2\left(
\psi_{y,z}^* \psi_{y+2,z}^{\vphantom*} + {\rm h.c.}\right)\nonumber \\
& & + \bar{\gamma}''_\pm \left( \psi_{y,z}^* \psi_{y,z+1}^{\vphantom*} +
{\rm h.c.}\right) + r |\psi_{y,z}|^2\Big\}\end{aligned}$$ contains quadratic terms in the order parameter, and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:109}
F_4 & = & \sum_{y,z}\int\! dx\, \Big\{ u |\psi_{y,z}|^4 \nonumber \\
& & +\bar{\gamma}_{\rm bq} \left[ \left(\psi_{y,z}^* \psi_{y+1,z}^{\vphantom*} \right)^2+
{\rm h.c.}\right] \Big\}\end{aligned}$$ is quartic. In Eqs. (\[eq:108\],\[eq:109\]), the couplings with overlines on them are analogous to the corresponding couplings in the bosonized Hamiltonian, as can be seen if one assumes $\psi_{y,z}=|\psi|e^{i\vartheta_{y,z}}$. They are, however, from the present point of view, phenomenological coefficients which are at best proportional to those microscopic couplings.
Let us consider possible continuous transitions from the paramagnetic state. In this case, we may assume $|\psi_{y,z}|$ is arbitrarily small, and thus $F_4$ is a small perturbation to $F_2$. The transition occurs on decreasing $r$ from large positive values, at the point at which the smallest eigenvalue of the quadratic form in $F_2$ vanishes. Fourier transforming into the two-site unit cell, $\psi_{y,z}(x) = \int \!
d^3k/(2\pi)^3 \, \psi_{a,k} e^{i k_x x + i k_y y+ i k_z z}$, with $a=0$ for $y$ even and $a=1$ for $y$ odd, one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:110}
F_2 & = & \int \! \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} \, \psi_{a,k}^*
\mathcal{F}_{ab}(k) \psi_{b,k},\end{aligned}$$ where the matrix $\mathcal{F}(k)$ can be decomposed into the identity matrix, ${\bm I}$, and the Pauli matrices, ${\boldsymbol \sigma}_\mu$, according to $$\label{eq:112}
\mathcal{F}(k) = \mathcal{F}_0 {\bm I} + \mathcal{F}_x {\boldsymbol
\sigma}_x + \mathcal{F}_z {\boldsymbol \sigma}_z,$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:113}
\mathcal{F}_0 & = & \frac{\bar{v}}{2}k_x^2 + 2 \bar{\gamma}''_\pm \cos k_z +
2\bar{\gamma}_2 \cos 2k_y + r, \nonumber \\
\mathcal{F}_x & = & 2\bar{\gamma}_c k_x \cos k_y, \nonumber \\
\mathcal{F}_z & = & \bar{d}_c k_x.\end{aligned}$$ One immediately concludes that the minimum eigenvalue of $\mathcal{F}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:114}
\mathcal{F}_{\rm min} & = & \mathcal{F}_0 - \sqrt{\mathcal{F}_x^2 +
\mathcal{F}_z^2} \nonumber \\
& = & \mathcal{F}_0(k) - |k_x|\sqrt{4\bar{\gamma}_c^2 \cos^2 k_y + \bar{d}_c^2} .\end{aligned}$$ This, in turn, should be minimized over $k$. Minimization over $k_x$ and $k_z$ is simple: the minimum occurs at $$\label{eq:116}
|k_x|=\sqrt{4\bar{\gamma}_c^2 \cos^2 k_y + \bar{d}_c^2}/\bar{v}$$ and $k_z=\pi$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:115}
\mathcal{F}_{\rm min}(k_y) & = &
r - 2 \bar{\gamma}''_\pm - \frac{\bar{d}_c^2}{2\bar{v}}
-\frac{2\bar{\gamma}_c^2 \cos^2 k_y}{\bar{v}} + 2 \bar{\gamma}_2
\cos 2k_y\nonumber \\
& = & r- 2 \bar{\gamma}''_\pm - \frac{\bar{d}_c^2+ 2
\bar{\gamma}_c^2}{2\bar{v}} + (2\bar{\gamma}_2 -
\frac{\bar{\gamma}_c^2}{\bar{v}}) \cos 2k_y.\nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ From here we immediately see that the minimum free energy is obtained for $k_y=0$ when $\bar{\gamma}_c^2/\bar{v}> 2\bar{\gamma}_2$ and for $k_y=\pi/2$ otherwise. In either case, we see from Eq. (\[eq:116\]) that $k_x \neq 0$. The two cases therefore correspond to the cone and IC states, respectively. Noteably, the commensurate AF state is [ *absent*]{}. This is easily understood since it is stabilized by the biquadratic coupling $g_{\rm bq}$, which in Landau theory corresponds to the [*quartic*]{} interaction $\bar{\gamma}_{\rm bq}$. Since this becomes parametrically small relative to the quadratic terms as $|\psi|\rightarrow 0$, it cannot stabilize a commensurate phase in this limit. Thus we conclude that [*if*]{} there is a continuous transition from the paramagnet to an ordered state for this field orientation, it can only be to the cone or IC phases, and [*not*]{} to the AF state. Conversely, if there is a direct transition between the paramagnet and AF states, it must be first order. This latter scenario appears to be the case in experiment.[@TokiwaPRB2006; @takigawa-poster] We note that for fields along the $b$ axis, where $d_c=0$, a direct continuous transition to the AF state is possible, since in that case $k_y=\pi/2$ and $k_x$ vanishes from Eq. (\[eq:116\]).
[[Cs$_2$CuBr$_4$]{}]{} {#sec:cscubr}
----------------------
It is instructive to compare the case of [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{} extensively reviewed here with that of its isostructural equivalent [[Cs$_2$CuBr$_4$]{}]{}. The latter material is more two-dimensional, with $J'/J \approx 0.75$ as estimated in Ref. by comparing the observed momentum of magnetic Bragg reflections, ${\bm q}_0 = (0, 0.575, 0)$, with the result of the series expansion calculations in Ref. . This estimate should be taken with some caution, as the theory neglects DM coupling, which is clearly present in experiment (as witnessed by the distinct differences between the behavior in a field along $a$ and perpendicular to it). Ref. argued that the inter-plane coupling in [[Cs$_2$CuBr$_4$]{}]{} is weaker than in [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}, since the ratio of the saturation field to the Néel temperature is approximately $1.5$ times larger in [[Cs$_2$CuBr$_4$]{}]{} than in [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}, and usually the Néel temperature in quasi-2d systems is expected to be determined by inter-plane coupling. In principle, this need not be the case when DM interactions are strong, but we believe the conclusion is probably correct. Thus, compared to [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}, we surmise that $J'/J$ is increased and $J''/J$ is decreased. This behavior is in agreement with the estimate based on the band-structure calculation of material’s microscopic parameters in Ref. .
We believe that reduced three-dimensional coupling is the primary reason for the observed cascade of phase transitions in [[Cs$_2$CuBr$_4$]{}]{} subject to magnetic field in $b$-$c$ plane. [@ono2004; @ono2005; @fujii2007; @tsujii2007; @fortune2009] Particularly striking is the observation of a robust $M=\frac{1}{3} M_{\rm sat}$ magnetization plateau as well as a hint of possible second plateau, at or near $2/3$ of the saturation magnetization.
In the quasi-one-dimensional approach adopted here, as discussed in Section \[sec:plateau\], the existence of the SDW state is a necessary condition for the plateau. Given that inter-plane exchange $J''$ strongly favors cone state over the SDW one, we understand that [[Cs$_2$CuBr$_4$]{}]{}with its small inter-plane coupling is indeed a good candidate for the magnetization plateau. One must remember that this argument is based on one-dimensional reasoning, the validity of which in [[Cs$_2$CuBr$_4$]{}]{} ($J'/J = 0.75$) is questionable. However, the final outcome of this – that the magnetization plateau is stable in the full range of $J'/J
\leq 1$ ratio – is completely consistent with two recent studies [@alicea2009; @Tay_Motrunich] which approached the problem as a spatially-deformed two-dimensional one.
It is worth noting that abrupt variation of the SDW ordering momentum $Q$ on approaching the plateau value, described by Eq. , can be clearly seen in Figure 9 of Ref. . While this strong feature was interpreted there as an indication of a first order transition, our theory would predict very similar behavior from a continuous two-dimensional C-IC transition.
It is interesting to contrast the physical scenario emerging from the quasi-one-dimensional approach to what is expected based on semi-classical physics and the more isotropic regime.[@alicea2009]Notably, the phases immediately bordering the $1/3$ magnetization plateau in the latter case [*are not*]{} collinear SDW states. Instead, Ref. finds commensurate planar or non-coplanar incommensurate distorted umbrella states. These states are connected to the uud plateau state by continuous phase transitions which however can be driven first order by residual DM interactions,[@alicea2009] which generally allow for cubic terms in free energy expansion. NMR measurements[@fujii2007] find that the states below and above the plateau are incommensurate, but cannot distinguish SDW from distorted umbrella states. These experiments and others[@tsujii2007] also find some hysteresis at the plateau edges, which suggests first order transitions there. As we have discussed, one expects second order transitions in the SDW case, so this probably suggests that SDW state does not occur in [[Cs$_2$CuBr$_4$]{}]{}. This is also supported by the neutron scattering experiments,[@ono2004] which observe a smooth evolution of the scattering intensity from zero field up to the plateau edge.
Despite the evident absence of SDW physics in [[Cs$_2$CuBr$_4$]{}]{}, it is still interesting to consider the predictions of our theory for the plateaux themselves. Apart from the persistence of the $1/3$ plateau to small $J'/J$, the most striking outcome of our theory is probably that the second “strongest” candidate plateau is [*not*]{} at $2/3$ of saturation but at $3/5$ of it. This feature should be taken as another definite prediction of our work.
Discussion {#sec:conclusions}
==========
Resume {#sec:resume}
------
In this paper, we have presented a fairly thorough analysis of the low temperature phases of [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}, obtained from a quasi-one-dimensional approach. The results explain most of the specific heat, magnetization, NMR, and neutron data available. Several aspects are particularly remarkable. First, contrary to the popular view of this material as an “anisotropic triangular lattice antiferromagnet”, for magnetic fields within the XY plane, the strongest two-dimensional ground state correlations are within the $a$-$b$ planes, [*perpendicular*]{} to the nominal triangular ($b$-$c$) layers! Second, in establishing the phase diagram, we have argued for the critical importance of [*four*]{} different very weak interactions ($D$, $J''$, $D_c$ and $J_2$), only two of which have been generally recognized ($D$ and $J''$) in prior work. It is remarkable that interactions of a magnitude of only a few percent of the largest exchange can induce entirely new phases. Finally, we have discovered an heretofore unnoticed commensurate-incommensurate transition in this material, and located its telltale signature in NMR experiments.
Relation to previous work {#sec:relat-prev-work}
-------------------------
The subject of quantum antiferromagnetism on the triangular lattice is long and storied. Here, we will review various aspects of the problem discussed in the literature which relate to this paper. Some of the earliest work[@bocquet2001a; @bocquet2001] applied the random phase approximation (RPA), using bosonization results for one-dimensional Heisenberg chains, to study the susceptibility in the paramagnetic phase, and estimate critical temperatures. Indeed, the RPA is equivalent to the CMFT used here, as far as predictions of the critical temperature are concerned, provided the same interactions are taken into account. At a more general level, this early work correctly emphasized the importance of the one-dimensional regime. However, the analysis here (and in Ref. ) is much more complete in a number of significant ways. It treats the ordered phases below $T_c$, takes full account of anisotropic DM couplings, and includes fluctuation-generated interactions which are ignored within RPA. These effects rather dramatically alter the phase diagram of [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{} from the expectations of Refs. and .
Much of the theoretical work motivated by [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{} focused on the inelastic neutron structure factor, addressing experiments[@Coldea2003PRB] which observed very broad lineshapes and extracted dispersion relations for putative “magnon” peaks. Several groups applied spin-wave theory[@PhysRevB.72.134429; @PhysRevB.73.184403; @merino1999heisenberg; @PhysRevB.60.2987]to study the ground state (staggered) magnetization and the structure factor, including higher order corrections in $1/S$. The low energy dispersion of the zero field magnon peak is reasonably well reproduced by this approach, while higher energy portions are not. To fit them, requires “renormalizing” the exchange couplings by hand, in a manner inconsistent with other measurements (e.g. at high fields). Moreover, the large continuum scattering is not obtained in this approach. Another series of works study the excitation spectrum of “magnons” using series expansions.[@PhysRevB.75.174447; @PhysRevB.74.224420; @PhysRevLett.96.057201; @PhysRevB.71.134422] In our opinion, because the ground state [*is*]{} ordered, and the series are constructed from such a starting point, they are fairly reliable in determining the energies of magnon-type excitations of the system. (Although they do miss important finite lifetime effects which can be quite large in non-collinear spin configurations.[@chernyshev2009]) Indeed, the results compare well to the dispersion of the peaks of intensity in experiment.[@PhysRevB.75.174447] This method provides a useful computational tool, especially helpful in estimating exchange couplings. However, it does not elucidate the [*mechanism*]{} of magnetic ordering or provide a full description of [*all*]{} the excitations. Thus it is much less useful if the ground state is not known (as in much of the non-zero field experiments), and it does not address the dominant continuum portion of the experimental spectra. Several theories approached the excitation spectrum from more exotic perspectives,[@IsakovPRB2005PRB; @PhysRevB.73.174430; @AliceaPRL2005; @PhysRevB.72.064407; @PhysRevLett.92.157003] postulating proximity to quantum spin liquid phases and/or quantum critical points. We believe there is little support for such proximate exotic phases from experiments on [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}. Instead, the most compelling explanation for the neutron experiments comes from a theory[@kohno2009dps; @PhysRevLett.103.197203; @kohno07:_spinon_and_tripl_in_spatial] in which the excited states are constructed from superposition of a small number of elementary “spinon” excitations of the individual Heisenberg chains. This approach quantitatively and qualitatively explains the main features of experiment, with no adjustable parameters. Its success is a strong argument in favor of the quasi-one-dimensional approach adopted here.
Several works address the ground states of spatially anisotropic triangular antiferromagnets, and [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{} in particular. In zero magnetic field, the ideal problem (discussed here in Sec. \[sec:ideal-2d-model\]) has been heavily studied.[@weihong1999; @Heidarian_Sorella_PRB2009; @chung2001large; @DN_Sheng_PRB2006; @bishop2009; @Pardini_Singh_PRB2008; @Starykh2007] Many approaches find simply that, in the quasi-1d limit, the correlations between chains are extremely weak, and either regard this small $J'/J$ region as a “spin liquid” or are inconclusive as to the actual ground state.[@weihong1999; @Heidarian_Sorella_PRB2009; @DN_Sheng_PRB2006] The most recent series expansion calculations of Ref. favor a spiral state, but do not make a definitive conclusion. The approach described here, applied to this case in Ref. , predicts definitively a collinear ground state, arising from a rather subtle fourth order fluctuation effect. Very recently, a numerical coupled cluster method [@bishop2009] also obtained this state. Unfortunately, because of the very weak fourth order nature of the stabilization of this phase, we expect this to be a somewhat academic result. The DM interactions in [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{} (and likely in many other anisotropic triangular systems) completely overwhelm the fluctuation effect and result in a spiral state, as decribed in Sec. \[sec:ideal-2d-model\].
In a non-zero applied field, there has been less effort.[@veillette2005incomm; @veillette2006commensurate; @Starykh2007; @PhysRevB.73.174430] Spin wave theory, applied to the “standard” model of [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}, has considerable success in reproducing many of the features of the ground state phase diagram.[@veillette2006commensurate; @veillette2005incomm] It does not, however, explain the broad regions of AF and IC phases appearing for fields in the $b$-$c$ plane. An explanation of the region corresponding to the AF phase found here was given in Ref. , based on a dilute spin-flip approximation. However, the state obtained there differs from our AF state. It is a non-coplanar commensurate state, with the spin components transverse to the field lying in orthogonal directions on neighboring chains. Such a state would obtain for [*negative*]{} biquadratic coupling $g_{\rm bq} < 0$ in ), and would probably have distinct signatures in NMR measurements. In our opinion, the sign $g_{\rm bq}>0$, found here, is rather more natural, and more consistent with the usual expectation that fluctuations (“order by disorder”) favor more collinear states.[@Henley_JAP] The IC phase and CIT discussed here are entirely new, and could not possibly have been obtained in previous works, all of which assume rotational symmetry of the exchange interactions in the $b$-$c$ plane. As a general point, it is not too surprising that spin-wave based approximations can capture most of the phases in an applied field. This is because we have found that these have “classical” order parameters (non-zero $\langle {\mathcal
S}^\pm_{y,z}(x)\rangle$), and are thus adiabatically connected to mean-field states. Such approaches may, however, have large quantitative errors, and furthermore, may miss states where fluctuation-induced interactions are important (such as the AF state). The problems with spin-wave theory are most extreme actually in the ideal model, which we have found displays a wide range of SDW state, which is entirely non-classical and difficult to obtain from spin-waves. The SDW state is very naturally related to magnetization plateaus, which have been widely discussed, mostly in the spatially isotropic regime. This is discussed in detail in Sec. \[sec:cscubr\].
Open Questions and Parting Remarks {#sec:parting-remarks}
----------------------------------
Our study has resolved most of the main questions regarding the phase diagram of [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}. However, there are still some smaller details which remain to be understood. We have not addressed the regime of magnetic fields $h$ of order $D$, for fields in the triangular plane. There, the ground state should involve a non-trivial balance between $D$ and inter-chain exchanges. Evidently, this gives rise to additional phases for fields along the $c$ axis. There is also a discrepancy between the measured incommensurability ($q_0$) in the high-field cone state for this field orientation[@veillette2005incomm] and theoretical expectations. To check whether this discrepancy might be explained by the additional DM interactions considered in this paper, we evaluated in Appendix \[sec:swa\] the single-magnon spectrum in the fully-polarized state, including these interactions. We have not found any set of parameters which appear consistent with the measured incommensurability, which is [*reduced*]{} compared to the expected one. Indeed, the theoretical result in Eq. (\[eq:90\]) shows that DM interactions only [*increase*]{} the incommensurability, making the problem worse. This might be a point that warrants more extensive experimental investigation.
While we have focused on the application of our methods to [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{} (and to a lesser extent, [[Cs$_2$CuBr$_4$]{}]{}), the analysis can be applied to other quasi-1d materials. Indeed, it appears that the commensurate AF state described here has been observed[@private-coldea] in the another triangular lattice material, Cs$_2$CoCl$_4$, in Ref.. This material is a spin-$1/2$ XY-like antiferromagnet forming a spatially anisotropic triangular lattice. In contrast with the naïve expectation of incommensurate spiral order along the chains, experiment[@coldeaXY] finds commensurate antiferromagnetic ordering in the absence of an applied magnetic field. This finding matches nicely our description here, as in Cs$_2$CoCl$_4$ pronounced easy-plane anisotropy (the estimate[@coldeaXY] is $J^z/J^{x,y} = 0.25$, where $J^a$ represents in-chain exchange between $S^a$ components of the nearest spins) plays a role quite similar to the external magnetic field: it enhances XY spin correlations at the expense of Z ones (which, however, remain commensurate with the lattice). In fact, the behavior of the compactification radius as function of XY anisotropy[@affleck1999field] is not very different from that in a magnetic field, discussed in Appendix \[sec table\]: $2\pi R^2 = 1 -
\arccos[J^z/J^{x,y}]/\pi$. Thus the results of Sec. \[sec:field-along-b\] provide a natural theoretical explanation of the observed commensurate AF phase in Cs$_2$CoCl$_4$.
To facilitate further application of our methods such as this one, we have described them here in sufficient detail that they could be readily applied to other problems. We hope that the level of detail exposed here serves to amplify the tremendous power of the quasi-one-dimensional approach, which allows real quantitative contact betweem the microscopic spin Hamiltonian and universal long-wavelength physics, while including at the same time strong fluctuations and frustration.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank J. Alicea, A. Chubukov, R. Coldea, V. Mitrovic, O. Motrunich, M. Takigawa and Y. Takano for stimulating discussions. Much of this work was carried out using resources provided by the KITP through NSF grant PHY05-51164. OAS is supported by the National Science Foundation through grant DMR-0808842. LB was supported by the Packard Foundation, and the National Science Foundation through grant DMR-0804564. HK is partly supported by the JSPS Postdoctoral Fellowships for Research Abroad.
Notations and parameters {#sec table}
========================
Throughout the paper the following conventions are used: coupling constants of quantum Hamiltonians written in terms of spin densities ${\cal S}^{z,\pm}$ are denoted as $\gamma$. When these terms are expressed in terms of bosonic fields $\phi$ and $\theta$, the corresponding couplings change into $\tilde{\gamma}$. Coupling constants of various interaction terms of the effective two- and three-dimensional Hamiltonians, expressed in terms of the [*classical*]{} phase $\vartheta$, are denoted as $g$.
Table \[tab: notation\] contains a list of notations in which several perturbations are summarized along with their scaling dimensions. The scaling dimensions are functions of $2\pi R^2$.
Hydrodynamic rep. Bosonized rep. Scaling dimension
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------
${{\begin{array}{c} \gamma_{\rm sdw}({\cal S}^z_{y,z;\pi-2\delta} {\cal S}^z_{y+1,z;\pi+2\delta}+{\rm h.c.}) \\ \gamma_{\rm sdw}=2J'\sin \delta \end{array}}}$ ${{\begin{array}{c} {\tilde \gamma}_{\rm sdw}\cos [\frac{2\pi}{\beta} (\phi_{y,z}-\phi_{y+1,z})] \\ {\tilde \gamma}_{\rm sdw}=J'A^2_1 \sin \delta \end{array}}}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi R^2}$
${{\begin{array}{c} -i\gamma_{\rm cone}{\cal S}^+_{y,z;\pi}\partial_x {\cal S}^-_{y+1,z;\pi}+{\rm h.c.} \\ \gamma_{\rm cone}=J'/2 \end{array}}}$ ${{\begin{array}{c} -{\tilde \gamma}_{\rm cone}(\partial_x \theta_{y,z}+\partial_x \theta_{y+1,z}) \cos[\beta (\theta_{y,z}-\theta_{y+1,z})] \\ {\tilde \gamma}_{\rm cone}=J'A^2_3 \beta/2 \end{array}}}$ $2\pi R^2+1$
${{\begin{array}{c} \gamma''_{\pm}({\cal S}^+_{y,z;\pi}{\cal S}^-_{y,z+1;\pi}+{\rm h.c.}) \\ \gamma''_{\pm}=J''/2 \end{array}}}$ ${{\begin{array}{c} {\tilde \gamma}''_{\pm} \cos[\beta (\theta_{y,z}-\theta_{y,z+1})] \\ {\tilde \gamma}''_{\pm}=A^2_3 J'' \end{array}}}$ $2\pi R^2$
${{\begin{array}{c} \gamma_2 {\cal S}^+_{y,z;\pi} {\cal S}^-_{y+2,z;\pi}+{\rm h.c.} \\ \gamma_2=J_2/2 \end{array}}}$ ${{\begin{array}{c} {\tilde \gamma}_2 \cos[\beta (\theta_{y,z}-\theta_{y+2,z})] \\ {\tilde \gamma}_2=A^2_3 J_2 \end{array}}}$ $2\pi R^2$
${{\begin{array}{c} \rm biquadratic ~fluctuation-generated \\ \rm coupling \end{array}}}$ ${{\begin{array}{c} -{\tilde \gamma}_{\rm bq}\cos[2 \beta (\theta_{y,z}-\theta_{y+1,z})] \\ g_{\rm bq} = {\tilde \gamma}_{\rm bq}(\ell'')\sim (J')^2 |\psi|^4/v \end{array}}}$ $8\pi R^2$
$D_c(-1)^y {\cal J}^z_{y,z}$ ${{\begin{array}{c} d_c(-1)^y \partial_x \theta_{y,z} \\ d_c=vD_c/(\beta J) \end{array}}}$ $1$
: List of notations.[]{data-label="tab: notation"}
The parameter $2\pi R^2$ as a function of the magnetization $M$ is obtained by solving the Bethe ansatz integral equations.[@Bogoliubov-Izergin-Korepin; @Qin-Fabrizio; @Cabra-Honecker-Pujol] Figure \[fig:Beta\_curve\] shows the numerical data obtained from $\beta=2 \pi R$ in Ref. . Near the saturation magnetization, $M\sim 1/2$, one can solve the integral equation analytically and obtain $$\label{eq: sat-field}
2 \pi R^2 = \frac{3}{4}-\frac{M}{2}.$$ In the opposite limit of zero magnetization, $M\sim 0$, $2\pi R^2$ is well fitted by the following function: $$\label{eq: zero-field}
2\pi R^2=1-\frac{1}{2 \ln(M_0/M)},$$ where $M_0 = \sqrt{8/(\pi e)}$. An abrupt, inverse-log, deviation from the $SU(2)$ value is due to the marginally irrelevant current-current interaction typical for the spin-1/2 Heisenberg chain.[@affleck1999field]
![Parameter $2\pi R^2$ as a function of the magnetization $M$. Numerical solutions in Ref. shown by the dots are compared with asymptotic solutions Eq. (\[eq: sat-field\]) and Eq. (\[eq: zero-field\]).[]{data-label="fig:Beta_curve"}](Beta_curve.pdf){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
The relation between the magnetization $M$ and the magnetic field $h$ has been discussed previously in Ref. and we briefly describe the result here. As discussed below , the interchain interaction $J'$ increases the energy of the system of coupled chains by $2 J' M^2$ which results in suppression of the [ *two-dimensional*]{} $M(h)$ curve with respect to the one-dimensional $M_1(h)$ curve for a single spin chain, at fixed external field $h$. Using the relation $h = -\frac{\partial E}{\partial M}$, we observe that the field $h$ naturally decomposes into a sum of “one-dimensional” field $h_1 = -\frac{\partial E_1}{\partial M}$ for a single magnetized chain with energy $E_1(M)$ and the inter-chain contribution $- 4 J' M$. As a result, we arrive at a self-consistent equation where magnetization $M(h)$ of the system of coupled chains is approximated by that of the single chain, but evaluated at a shifted field $h - 4 J' M$: $$M(h) = M_1(h-4 J' M).
\label{eq:Mh}$$ This equation is easily solved numerically using data of Ref. and results in $M(h)$ curve going below $M_1(h)$ for all $h$. An essentially identical result is obtained if one uses the interpolating formula $M_1(h) = \pi^{-1} \arcsin[1/(1 - \pi/2 + \pi/h)]$, suggested in Ref.. This approximation predicts saturation field $h_{\rm sat} = 2J + 2J'$ which is very close to the exact 2d result $h_{\rm sat}^{\rm exact} = 2 J + 2 J' + (J')^2/(2 J)$. It is also worth noting that while $M_1$ approaches saturation with an infinite slope, $\partial M_1/\partial h \sim (2 - h)^{-1/2}$, the two-dimensional curve is characterized by the finite slope $1/(4 J')$, so that $M(h \approx h_{\rm sat}) = 1/2 + (h - h_{\rm sat})/(4 J')$.
![(Color online) Magnetization $M$ versus magnetic field $h$. Dashed (red) curve shows magnetization of a single Heisenberg chain, based on the data in Ref. . Solid (blue) line shows mean-field result .[]{data-label="fig:Mh"}](Fig20-Mh.pdf){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
Symmetry analysis {#sec:dmv}
=================
Here we consider the full symmetries of [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}, and some of their consequences. Most importantly, we derive the possible DM vectors of the on-chain and diagonal bonds. The direction of the DM vectors are constrained by the space group symmetry in the crystal. In the ideal triangular lattice, the DM vectors must be perpendicular to the plane and hence is parallel to the $a$ axis. However, this is not true in the real crystal due to the lower symmetry.
Crystal structure and symmetry generators {#sec:cryst-struct-symm}
-----------------------------------------
[[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{} has an orthorhombic crystal structure with space group $Pnma$.[@Bailleul] The lattice parameters are $a=9.65$Å, $b=7.48$Å, and $c=12.35$Å at 0.3 K. The unit cell contains four independent Cu$^{2+}$ ions as shown in Fig. \[fig: Pnma\_crystal\].
![Left: Four independent Cu spins (labeled by 1,2,3, and 4) in the unit cell of [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}. The spins 1(2) and 3(4) lie in the same $a$-$c$ plane. Right: Layered-triangular lattice formed by magnetic sites. Thick, dotted, and broken lines indicate $J$, $J'$, and $J''$ exchange couplings, respectively.[]{data-label="fig: Pnma_crystal"}](Pnma_crystal.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
The locations of the ions are given by ${{\bm R}}+{{\bm \delta}}_\alpha$ ($\alpha=1,2,3$, and $4$), where $${{\bm R}}=l {\hat a}+m {\hat b}+n{\hat c}
\label{crystal_coordinate}$$ denotes the location of the unit cell and $$\begin{aligned}
{{\bm \delta}}_1 &=& z_0{\hat a}+\frac{1}{4}{\hat b}+y_0{\hat c}, \nonumber \\
{{\bm \delta}}_2 &=& \left( \frac{1}{2}-z_0 \right){\hat a}+\frac{3}{4}{\hat b}+\left( \frac{1}{2}+y_0 \right){\hat c}, \nonumber \\
{{\bm \delta}}_3 &=& \left(\frac{1}{2}+z_0 \right){\hat a}+\frac{1}{4}{\hat b}+\left(\frac{1}{2}-y_0 \right){\hat c}, \nonumber \\
{{\bm \delta}}_4 &=& \left( 1-z_0 \right){\hat a}+\frac{3}{4}{\hat b}+
\left(1-y_0 \right){\hat c}, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ with $z_0=0.23$ and $y_0=0.42$. In the simplified notation used in Eq. (\[standard\_hamiltonian\]), the spins 1,2,3, and 4 correspond to ${\bm S}_{x,y,z}$, ${\bm S}_{x+\frac{1}{2},y+1,z}$, ${\bm S}_{x, y, z+1}$, and ${\bm S}_{x+\frac{1}{2},y+1,z+1}$, respectively. Note that $m$ in Eq. (\[crystal\_coordinate\]) is the coordinate along the chains, i.e., $x$. For fixed $l$, 1 and 2 spins constitute one triangular layer while 3 and 4 another layer. On the other hand, 1 and 3 spins lie in the same $a$-$c$ plane which is a mirror plane through the midpoints of the on-chain bonds (see Fig. \[fig: Pnma\_crystal\]). The same thing holds for 2 and 4 spins. Therefore, according to Moriya’s rule, the DM vector on the chain bonds must lie in the $a$-$c$ plane.[@Moriya_rule] In contrast to this, there is no symmetry constraint on the DM vectors on diagonal bonds.
We shall next determine the pattern of relative signs of the DM vectors, which requires a more elaborate argument of symmetry. The $Pnma$ space group has three kinds of symmetry operations, $A$, $B$, and reflection apart from Bravais lattice translations. We consider the transformation property of spins under $A$ and $B$. Let us denote by ${\bm S}_\alpha (l,m,n)$ the spin at the position ${{\bm R}}+ {\bm \delta}_\alpha$. The spins are transformed under $A$ as follows: $$A: \left\{ \begin{array}{l}
S^\mu_{1} (l,m,n) \leftrightarrow S^\mu_{4} (-l-1,-m-1,-n-1) \\
S^\mu_{2} (l,m,n) \leftrightarrow S^\mu_{3} (-l-1,-m-1,-n-1)
\end{array} \right. ,
\label{eq: sym_A}$$ where $\mu=a,b,c$. Since $A$ is the inversion operation as shown in Fig. \[fig: Pnma\_sym\], the spins do not change sign.
![Symmetry operations $A$ and $B$. The locations of unit cells are indicated by $(l,m,n)$.[]{data-label="fig: Pnma_sym"}](Pnma_sym.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
The symmetry operation $B$, graphically shown in Fig. \[fig: Pnma\_sym\], corresponds to a $\pi$ rotation about an axis parallel to $a$. Under it, two of three components of the spin change sign. Therefore, one obtains $$B: \left\{\begin{array}{l}
S^\mu_{1} (l,m,n) \leftrightarrow \gamma_\mu S^\mu_{3} (l,-m,-n) \\
S^\mu_{2} (l,m,n) \leftrightarrow \gamma_\mu S^\mu_{4} (l,-m-1,-n-1)
\end{array}\right. ,
\label{eq: sym_B}$$ where $\gamma_b=\gamma_c=-1$ and $\gamma_a=1$.
DM vectors {#sec:dm-vectors}
----------
We can determine the relative signs of the DM vectors using Eqs. (\[eq: sym\_A\]) and (\[eq: sym\_B\]). Let us first consider components of the DM interactions on the on-chain bonds: $$\sum^4_{\alpha=1} (D_{\alpha,a} {\hat a} + D_{\alpha,c} {\hat c}) \cdot {\bm S}_\alpha (l,m,n) \times {\bm S}_\alpha (l,m+1,n)$$ Applying $A$ and translations, we find $$\begin{aligned}
D_{1,a} = -D_{4,a},~~~~~ D_{2,a}=-D_{3,a} \\
D_{1,c} = -D_{4,c},~~~~~ D_{2,c}=-D_{4,c}\end{aligned}$$ while applying $B$ and translations, we find $$D_{1,a}=-D_{3,a},~~~~~D_{1,c}=D_{3,c}.$$ These six relations determine the relative signs of $D_a$ and $D_c$ as in Eq. (\[DM\_chain\]). Let us apply the same technique to analyze the DM vectors on the diagonal bonds. Since each site lies in the mirror plane, we can assume the coupling of the following form: $$\begin{aligned}
&& {\bm D}^+_{12} \cdot {\bm S}_1(l,m,n) \times {\bm S}_2 (l,m,n) \nonumber \\
&+& {\bm D}^-_{12} \cdot {\bm S}_1(l,m,n) \times {\bm S}_2(l, m-1,n) \nonumber \\
&+& {\bm D}^+_{21} \cdot {\bm S}_2(l,m,n) \times {\bm S}_1(l,m+1,n+1) \nonumber \\
&+& {\bm D}^-_{21} \cdot {\bm S}_2(l,m,n) \times {\bm S}_1(l,m,n+1) \nonumber \\
&+& (1 \rightarrow 3, 2 \rightarrow 4)\end{aligned}$$ with $${\bm D}^{\pm}_{\alpha \beta}=\pm (D'_{\alpha \beta,a}) {\hat a}+(D'_{\alpha \beta,b}) {\hat b} \pm D'_{\alpha \beta,c} {\hat c}.$$ Here we have used the fact that $S^a_\alpha$ and $S^c_\alpha$ change signs while $S^b_\alpha$ does not under reflection through a mirror plane. Applying $A$ and translations, we find $${\bm D}^\pm_{12}=-{\bm D}^\pm_{34},~~~~~{\bm D}^\pm_{21}=-{\bm D}^\pm_{43}.
\label{eq: DM_diagonal1}$$ On the other hand, applying $B$ with translations, we obtain $$D'_{12,a} = -D'_{43,a},~~
D'_{12,b} = D'_{43,b},~~
D'_{12,c} = D'_{43,c}.
\label{eq: DM_diagonal2}$$ Using Eqs. (\[eq: DM\_diagonal1\]) and (\[eq: DM\_diagonal2\]), one can show that relative signs are given by Eq. (\[DM\_diagonal\]), which is shown in Fig. \[fig: DM\_distribution\].
Symmetry with in-plane magnetic field {#sec:symmetry-c-axis}
-------------------------------------
\# $x'_a$ $x'_b$ $x'_c$ $S^{a'}$ $S^{b'}$ $S^{c'}$
--------- -------------------- -------------------- --------------------- ---------- ---------- ----------
0 $x_a$ $x_b$ $x_c$ $S^a$ $S^b$ $S^c$
1 ($A$) $-x_a$ $-x_b$ $-x_c$ $S^a$ $S^b$ $S^c$
2 $\tfrac{1}{2}-x_a$ $-x_b$ $\tfrac{1}{2}+ x_c$ $-S^a$ $-S^b$ $S^c$
3 ($D$) $\tfrac{1}{2}+x_a$ $x_b$ $\tfrac{1}{2}- x_c$ $-S^a$ $-S^b$ $S^c$
4 $-x_a$ $\tfrac{1}{2}+x_b$ $-x_c$ $-S^a$ $S^b$ $-S^c$
5 ($C$) $x_a$ $\tfrac{1}{2}-x_b$ $x_c$ $-S^a$ $S^b$ $-S^c$
6 ($B$) $\tfrac{1}{2}+x_a$ $\tfrac{1}{2}-x_b$ $\tfrac{1}{2}- x_c$ $S^a$ $-S^b$ $-S^c$
7 $\tfrac{1}{2}-x_a$ $\tfrac{1}{2}+x_b$ $\tfrac{1}{2}+ x_c$ $S^a$ $-S^b$ $-S^c$
: Point group operations in the $Pnma$ space group. []{data-label="tab:Pnma"}
To fully determine the spin structures, it is sometimes useful to have a more detailed understanding of the residual symmetry in a field. The uniform applied field obviously preserves the translational symmetry of the lattice, but breaks time reversal symmetry. Its effects upon the point group operations are less obvious. In general, the $Pnma$ space group contains 7 non-trivial (and one trivial) point operations, which are not all independent (see Table \[tab:Pnma\]). Of these 7 operations, 3 preserve any one component of the magnetization, and of these 3, two are independent. Therefore the point group symmetry in the presence of the magnetic field is generated by just two operations, which have Ising character. The first operation is simply the inversion tranformation $A$, from Eq. (\[eq: sym\_A\]) in Sec. \[sec:cryst-struct-symm\]. In the notation of the main text, this operation reads $$\label{eq:55}
A: \; {\bf S}_{x,y,z} \rightarrow {\bf S}_{\frac{1}{2}-x,1-y,1-z}.$$ Clearly, this operation preserves [*all*]{} components of the uniform magnetization, and hence is a symmetry for an arbitrary applied magnetic field.
For a magnetic field along $a$, the $B$ operation given in the previous subsection, Eq. (\[eq: sym\_B\]), can be chosen as the other symmetry generator. It can be written as $$\label{eq:68}
B: \; S^\mu_{x,y,z} \rightarrow \upsilon_\mu S^\mu_{-x,-y,z+1},$$ with $\upsilon_a=1$, $\upsilon_b=\upsilon_c=-1$.
However, operation $B$ does not keep either the $b$ or the $c$-axis magnetization invariant. The second independent operation should be chosen differently for these field orientations. For a magnetic field along $b$, it can be taken as a reflection in an $a$-$c$ plane: $$\label{eq:57}
C: \, S^\mu_{x,y,z}\rightarrow \zeta_\mu S^\mu_{-x,y,z},$$ where $\zeta_a=\zeta_c=-1$ and $\zeta_b=1$.
For a field along $c$, it can be taken as a reflection in an $a$-$b$ plane: $$\label{eq:56}
D: \, S^\mu_{x,y,z}\rightarrow \eta_\mu S^\mu_{x,-y,z},$$ where $\eta_a=\eta_b =-1$ and $\eta_c=1$.
Using the bosonization formulae, Eq. (\[eq:2\]), one can deduce the transformation of the boson field $\theta_{y,z}(x)$ under these symmetries. One finds, for the inversion operation, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:24}
A: \theta_{y,z}(x) & \rightarrow & \theta_{1-y,1-z}(\tfrac{1}{2}-x)
+ \frac{\pi}{2\beta} (-1)^y\end{aligned}$$ For the field along $b$, the reflection gives $$\label{eq:59}
C: \theta_{y,z}(x) \rightarrow \theta_{y,z}(-x) - \frac{\pi}{2\beta}[1-(-1)^y].$$ For the field along $c$, the corresponding reflection instead gives $$\label{eq:58}
D: \theta_{y,z}(x) \rightarrow \theta_{-y,z}+ \frac{\pi}{\beta}.$$
Breaking of $U(1)$ spin rotation symmetry {#sec:select-discr-ground}
=========================================
In the discussion of Secs. \[sec:field-along-b\]-\[sec:field-along-c\], the [*overall*]{} phase angle of the spins in the plane perpendicular to the magnetic field remained arbitrary. This reflects the $U(1)$ symmetry of spin rotations about the field axis, which is present in the effective Hamiltonian having dropped DM terms with DM-vectors perpendicular to the field. While we expect this to be an excellent approximation, it is not exact, and the weak effects which we have neglected should remove this artificial invariance. This is appropriate for a crystalline system with only discrete symmetries. In this Appendix, we use symmetry analysis to determine how this symmetry breaking occurs, for different field orientations. We will not attempt to determine the microscopic origin of these effects here, which might be, for instance, symmetric exchange anisotropy, or fluctuation-generated interactions. Instead, we ask what terms might arise in the energy as a function of the remaining parameters describing the orientation of the spins in the plane perpendicular to the field. To do so, we must consider the [ *reduced*]{} symmetries of the system in the presence of the magnetic field.
Cone state {#sec:cone-state-1}
----------
In Sec. \[sec:field-along-axis\], we obtained a cone state for arbitrary magnetic fields (below saturation) along the $a$ axis. Considering the standard model, this incommensurate state has both a $U(1)$ spin-rotational degeneracy and a pseudo-$U(1)$ phason degeneracy. The latter degeneracy is protected by translational invariance, but the $U(1)$ rotational symmetry is an artifact, violated for instance by the $D_c$ term and other DM interactions with DM-vectors along $b$ or $c$. To study the breaking of the $U(1)$ spin rotational symmetry, it is useful to consider the combinations $\Theta_\pm =
\Theta_0\pm \Theta_1$. The $\Theta_-$ field describes the phason mode. We focus instead of $\Theta_+$.
Apart from translation invariance, the residual symmetries in the field along $a$ are $A$ and $B$. Under these operations, we find $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:69}
A: \; \Theta_+ & \rightarrow & -\Theta_+ + 2\pi , \\
B: \; \Theta_+ & \rightarrow & -\Theta_+ .\end{aligned}$$ One sees from this that the effective potential should be an even, $2\pi$-periodic function of $\Theta_+$. [*There are no further symmetry restrictions on this potential.*]{} In the simplest situation, e.g. $V_{\rm eff}(\Theta_+) = V \cos \Theta_+$, this potential has a unique minimum ($\Theta_+=0$ or $\pi$, depending upon the sign of $V$). Thus one expects the artifical $U(1)$ rotational symmetry about the $a$ axis to be completely lifted, and the only degeneracy of the cone state to be that associated with the phason mode.
Antiferromagnetic (AF) state {#sec:antif-af-state}
----------------------------
The breaking of the spin-rotation symmetry about the field axis is crucial for determining the precise nature of the spin structure in the AF phase. Since this phase is commensurate, and the Hamiltonian has only discrete symmetries, we expect only a discrete ground state degeneracy. This will fix the angles of the spin projections into the plane transverse to the magnetic field. We want to construct an effective potential which depends upon the parameters of the AF state, $\Theta$ and $\sigma$.
### field along $b$ axis {#sec:field-along-b-1}
For a field along the $b$ axis, the remaining symmetries are the inversion and reflection operations, denoted $A$ and $C$, given in Eqs. (\[eq:55\],\[eq:56\]), in Appendix \[sec:symmetry-c-axis\]. Using the formula in the appendix, and Eq. (\[eq:25\]), we find that under these operations, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:60}
A: \sigma\rightarrow \sigma, & \qquad & \Theta \rightarrow \Theta +
\frac{\pi}{2}(1+\sigma), \\
C: \sigma\rightarrow - \sigma, & \qquad & \Theta \rightarrow \Theta . \label{eq:62}\end{aligned}$$ In addition to these symmetries, under translations by one unit along $x$, one has $$\label{eq:61}
T: \sigma \rightarrow \sigma \qquad \Theta \rightarrow \Theta + \pi.$$ From this, we may construct the simplest energy function which depends upon $\Theta$ and $\sigma$, in the spirit of Landau theory. From $C$, Eq. (\[eq:62\]), we see that it must be independent of $\sigma$. From $A$ and $T$, Eqs. (\[eq:60\],\[eq:61\]), it must be periodic in $\Theta$ with period $\pi$. Importantly, [*there are no other symmetry restrictions*]{}. Hence the most general energy is of the form $$\label{eq:63}
V(\Theta) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty a_n \cos (2n\Theta - \alpha_n).$$ Generically, since there are no restrictions on $\alpha_n$, such a potential $V(\Theta)$ has two inequivalent minima (e.g. if we take the simplest form with $a_n=0$ for $n>1$, located at $\Theta=\alpha_1/2,
\alpha_1/2+\pi$) located at points of no particular symmetry. This means that the transverse (to the magnetic field) components of spins do not lie parallel to [*either*]{} the $a$ or $c$ axes. In total, one therefore expects 4 ground states, with $(\sigma,\Theta)=(\pm
1,\Theta_0), (\pm1,\Theta_0+\pi)$. Physically, the four states are obtained from one another by the arbitrary choice of global sign for the transverse components of the spins on the even and odd chains, separately.
### field along $c$ axis {#sec:field-along-c-1}
In this field orientation, the good symmetry operations are $A$, $T$ and $D$, given in Eqs. (\[eq:55\],\[eq:56\]) of Appendix \[sec:dmv\]. $A$ and $T$ continue to act as in Eqs. (\[eq:60\],\[eq:61\]), while $D$ leads instead to $$\label{eq:64}
D: \sigma\rightarrow -\sigma, \qquad \Theta \rightarrow \Theta+\pi.$$ Combining the $D$ and $T$ operations, one sees that the energy must be independent of $\sigma$, and then using $A$ or $D$, one obtains again the effective potential for $\Theta$ in form of Eq. (\[eq:63\]). Thus, the ground state degeneracy (four-fold) is the same as in the AF state for fields along $b$, and the transverse components of the spins do not point along the $a$ or $b$ axes.
Incommensurate Phase {#sec:incommensurate-phase}
--------------------
Here we must reconsider the valid symmetry operations – $A$, $T$, and $D$ – when acting upon the spin structure in Eq. (\[eq:52\]). This structure is parametrized by two angles, $\Theta_0$ and $\Theta_1$, which describe the spins in the even and odd chains, respectively. Equivalently, we can choose the combinations $\Theta_\pm = \Theta_0\pm
\Theta_1$. We find $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:65}
& & A : \Theta_+ \rightarrow \Theta_++2\pi , \hspace{0.2in} \Theta_-
\rightarrow -\Theta_--q_0, \\
& & D : \Theta_+ \rightarrow \Theta_+ + \pi, \hspace{0.3in} \Theta_- \rightarrow
\Theta_-+\pi, \\
& & T: \Theta_+ \rightarrow \Theta_++2\pi, \hspace{0.25in}
\Theta_-\rightarrow\Theta_- + 2q_0.\end{aligned}$$
Note that the transformations of the $\Theta_-$ field under $A$ and $T$ involve shifts by multiples of the incommensurate wavevector $q_0$. Under multiple actions of such shifts, any value of $\Theta_-$ can be approached arbitrarily closely (due to the $2\pi$ periodicity). Thus there is [ *no*]{} potential which can pin the values of $\Theta_-$. This is the reason for the gapless “phason” mode in the IC phase.
By contrast, the effective Hamiltonian can certainly depend upon $\Theta_+$, reflecting the lack of rotational invariance about the $c$ axis. In general, due to the action of $D$ (which is most constraining), the effective potential must be a $\pi$-periodic function of $\Theta_+$. There are, however, no other constraints. Since shifts of either $\Theta_0$ or $\Theta_1$ by $2\pi$ have no physical significance, $\Theta_+$ is itself defined only up to $2\pi$. This implies that there should be two discrete sets of IC solutions, described by $\Theta_+ =
\Theta_0, \Theta_0+\pi$, and $\Theta_0$ should generically take an incommensurate value with no special symmetry.
Chain mean field theory {#sec:cmft}
=======================
SDW order {#sec:cmft-sdw}
---------
We start by applying CMFT to the ideal 2d model Eq. and consider first SDW order at finite temperature. Thus we write $$H_{1,\rm{sdw}} = \sum_{y,z} \int\! dx\, {\tilde \gamma}_{\rm{sdw}}
\cos [2\pi (\phi_{y,z}-\phi_{y+1,z})/\beta ].
\label{eq:H1sdw}$$ It is convenient to shift $\phi$ fields slightly, $\phi_{y,z} \to \phi_{y,z} + (-1)^y \beta/4$, so as to change the sign of the interaction in the equation above. In terms of the shifted fields the minimum corresponds to a uniform configuration $\phi_{y,z} = \phi_0(z)$ for each $z$, since the layers are decoupled. It is clear that the inter-chain interaction can next be written as ${\bm \sigma}_{y,z} \cdot {\bm \sigma}_{y+1,z}$ where ${\bm \sigma}_{y,z} = (\cos[2\pi \phi_{y,z}/\beta], \sin[2\pi \phi_{y,z}/\beta])$ is the SDW order parameter vector describing chain $(y,z)$. Chain mean-field consists in a self-consistent assumption that SDW order spontaneously develops at some critical temperature $T_{\rm{sdw}}$, below which the SDW order parameter acquires a finite value along some arbitrary direction in the SDW plane. For concreteness we choose this direction to be along $x$-axis, $\langle {\bm \sigma}_{y,z}\rangle = (\tilde\psi, 0)$. This choice corresponds to $\alpha_z =0$ in Eq. . With these approximations we have $$H_{1,\rm{sdw}} \to H_{1,\rm{sdw}}^{\rm{mf}} = -2 {\tilde \psi} {\tilde \gamma}_{\rm{sdw}} \sum_{y,z} \int\! dx\,
\cos [\frac{2\pi}{\beta} \phi_{y,z} ],$$ where the factor of $2$ arises from the coordination number of chain $y$ in the layer $z$. The self-consistent condition reads $$\tilde\psi = \langle \cos [\frac{2\pi}{\beta} \phi_{y,z}] \rangle_{\rm{sdw}} ,
\label{eq:cmft-sdw1}$$ where angular brackets denote finite-temperature average with the sine-Gordon Hamiltonian $H^{\rm{mf}}_{\rm{sdw}}$ of the single chain: $$H^{\rm{mf}}_{\rm{sdw}} = \int\! dx\, \frac{v}{2} \left( (\partial_x \theta_{y,z})^2 + (\partial_x \phi_{y,z})^2 \right)
+ H_{1,\rm{sdw}}^{\rm{mf}} .
\label{eq:H-mf-sdw}$$ The right-hand side of Eq. is evaluated perturbatively in powers of vanishing $\tilde\psi$ and the leading order result is $$\tilde\psi = 2\tilde\psi {\tilde \gamma}_{\rm{sdw}} \chi_{\Delta_{\rm sdw}}(q=0,\omega_n=0;T).
\label{eq:cmft-sdw2}$$ Here we defined the momentum and frequency dependent [ *susceptibility*]{}, $\chi_{\Delta}(q,\omega_n;T)$, of the vertex operator ${\mathcal O}_\Delta=\cos(\sqrt{4\pi\Delta}\phi)$ (or ${\mathcal
O}_\Delta=\cos(\sqrt{4\pi\Delta}\theta)$, which gives identical results) at temperature $T$, in the canonical free boson theory, Eq. (\[eq:H-bos-0\]): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:91}
\chi_{\Delta}(q=0,\omega_n=0;T) & = & \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \! dx\,
\int_0^{1/T} d\tau\, e^{i q x + i \omega_n \tau} \nonumber \\
&& \times \left\langle {\mathcal O}_\Delta(x,\tau) {\mathcal O}_\Delta(0,0)\right\rangle_0.\end{aligned}$$ The subscript $0$ reminds us that that this is evaluated in the free theory. This susceptibility, in various limits, plays a central role in the determination of critical temperatures within CMFT. It is evaluated at the end of this appendix, Sec. \[sec:Fcos\]. Here, we need the SDW susceptibility, for which $\Delta_{\rm sdw} = 1/4\pi R^2$. At the critical temperature Eq. acquires a non-trivial solution, $\tilde\psi\neq 0$, resulting in the implicit equation for $T_{\rm sdw}$: $$1 = 2 {\tilde \gamma}_{\rm{sdw}} \chi_{\Delta_{\rm sdw}}(q=0,\omega_n=0;T_{\rm sdw}).
\label{eq:cmft-sdw3}$$ Using Eq. from Sec. \[sec:12delta1\], we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Big(\frac{2\pi T_{\rm{sdw}}}{v}\Big)^{2-2\Delta_{\rm sdw}} = \lambda_{\rm{sdw}}
\frac{\Gamma(1-\Delta_{\rm sdw}) \Gamma^2(\Delta_{\rm sdw}/2)}
{\Gamma(\Delta_{\rm sdw}) \Gamma^2(1-\Delta_{\rm sdw}/2)} \\
&&\times\Big[1 + \lambda_{\rm{sdw}}\Gamma(\Delta_{\rm sdw}-1/2)/
(\sqrt{\pi} \Gamma(\Delta_{\rm sdw}) (1-\Delta_{\rm sdw}))\Big]^{-1} ,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda_{\rm{sdw}} = \pi \tilde{\gamma}_{\rm sdw}/v = \pi A_1^2 \sin(\delta) J'/v$. This result, $T_{\rm{sdw}}$ as a function of magnetization $M$, is plotted in Fig. \[fig:RG1\].
Cone order {#sec:cmft-cone}
----------
Here we consider the cone (twist) ordering instability of the ideal 2d model Eq. . The cone Hamiltonian is given by $$\begin{aligned}
H_{1,\rm{cone}} &=& - {\tilde \gamma}_{\rm{cone}} \sum_{y,z} \int\! dx\,
(\partial_x \theta_{y,z}+ \partial_x \theta_{y+1,z}) \nonumber\\
&&\times \cos [\beta(\theta_{y,z} - \theta_{y+1,z})]
\label{eq:H1cone}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\tilde \gamma}_{\rm{cone}}=J' A_3^2 \beta/2$. The spatial derivatives in Eq. require a generalization of the procedure described in subsection \[sec:cmft-sdw\]. We begin by shifting the $\theta$ fields by a position-dependent phase corresponding to a wavevector shift $q_0$, the magnitude of which is to be determined later self-consistently. Thus $$\theta_{y,z}(x) = q_0 x/\beta + \tilde{\theta}_{y,z}(x) .
\label{eq:theta-shift}$$ This shift transforms Eq. into $$\tilde{H}_{1,\rm{cone}} \approx - 2 \frac{q_0 {\tilde \gamma}_{\rm{cone}}}{\beta} \sum_{y,z} \int\! dx\,
\cos [\beta(\tilde{\theta}_{y,z} - \tilde{\theta}_{y+1,z})] ,
\label{eq:H1cone-shifted}$$ where we have neglected as subleading $\partial_x\tilde{\theta}$ terms. The transformed Hamiltonian Eq. is now of the form Eq. and can be manipulated similarly. However, the shift Eq. has modified the free boson Hamiltonian Eq. into $$\tilde{H}_0 = \sum_{y,z} \int\! dx\, \frac{v}{2} \left((\partial_x \tilde{\theta}_{y,z} + q_0/\beta)^2 + (\partial_x \phi_{y,z})^2 \right) .
\label{eq:H0-tilde}$$ Introducing the order parameter $$\tilde\psi = \langle \cos [\beta \tilde{\theta}_{y,z}] \rangle_{\rm{cone}} ,
\label{eq:cmft-cone1}$$ where the average is over the Hamiltonian $$H^{\rm{mf}}_{\rm{cone}} = \tilde{H}_0 - 2 \tilde\psi {\hat \gamma}_{\rm{cone}} \sum_{y,z}\int\! dx\,
\cos[\beta \tilde{\theta}_{y,z}] ,
\label{eq:H-mf-cone}$$ and ${\hat \gamma}_{\rm{cone}} = 2 q_0 {\tilde \gamma}_{\rm{cone}}/\beta = q_0 J' A_3^2$. As before, expanding the expectation value in Eq. to leading order in $\hat\gamma$, and assuming $\tilde\psi\neq 0$, gives the condition for the critical temperature $$1 = 2 {\hat \gamma}_{\rm{cone}} \tilde\chi_{\Delta_\pm}(q=0,0;T_c) \
\label{eq:cmft-cone3}$$ where [*tilde*]{} on the susceptibility indicates that it is to be calculated using the free but [*shifted*]{} Hamiltonian Eq. . However we can now undo the shift Eq. and transform back to the original $\theta$ fields. As a result, one obtains the identity $$\tilde\chi_{\Delta_\pm}(q=0,0;T_c) =\chi_{\Delta_\pm}(q_0,0;T_c) .$$ Then Eq. becomes $$1=2 {\hat \gamma}_{\rm{cone}} \chi_{\Delta_\pm}(q_0,0;T_c).
\label{eq:cmft-cone2}$$ This wavevector dependent static susceptibility is well-known, and given in Eq. . Using it, Eq. can be solved by maximizing the right-hand-side with respect to $q_0$ at given $T$, and then finding the maximum $T_c=T_{\rm{cone}}$ (this is equivalent to choosing the wavevector $q_0$ for which $T_c$ is maximum). Expressing all quantities in terms of dimensionless variables, $r=v q_0/(4\pi T_{\rm{cone}})$ and $s=2\pi
T_{\rm{cone}}/v$, we obtain a system of two equations $$\begin{aligned}
4~ {\rm Im} \Psi(\frac{\Delta_\pm}{2} + i r) &=& \frac{2\pi \sinh[2\pi r]}{\cosh[2\pi r] - \cos[\pi \Delta_\pm]} + \frac{1}{r},\nonumber\\
s^{1-2\Delta_\pm} &=& \frac{2\tilde\gamma_{\rm cone}}{\pi\beta v} \frac{\Gamma(1-\Delta_\pm)}{\Gamma(\Delta_\pm)}
r \Big|\Gamma(\frac{\Delta_\pm}{2} + i r)\Big|^4 \nonumber\\
&&\times (\cosh[2\pi r] - \cos[\pi \Delta_\pm]) .
\label{eq:cone-system}\end{aligned}$$ The resulting $T_{\rm{cone}}$ is plotted in Fig. \[fig:RG1\].
It is worth mentioning here that the outlined calculation can be done by keeping track of lattice as well, so that spatial derivatives in Eq. become lattice differences. Following this route (see for example Ref. ) one again arrives at Eq. but with the coupling constant given by ${\hat \gamma}_{\rm{cone,lattice}} = 2 J' A_3^2 \sin[q_0/2]$. This difference, $q_0 \to 2\sin[q_0/2]$, does not affect the outcome as in the regime where CMFT is applicable the ordering vector remains small, $q_0 \sim J'/J \ll 1$. See section \[sec:cmft-limits\] for more discussion.
Inter-layer interaction $J''$ {#sec:cmft+Jpp}
-----------------------------
Here we consider the fate of SDW and cone orders in the presence of inter-layer coupling $J''$. As discussed in Section \[sec:field-along-axis\], the inter-layer interaction is a strongly relevant perturbation which should be accounted for in CMFT.
### SDW order {#sec:sdw-phase}
Consider the SDW channel first. Eq. should now be complimented by $$\begin{aligned}
H'_{2,\rm{sdw}} &=& J'' \sum_{y,z} \int\! dx\, ( \mathcal{S}^z_{y,z;\pi-2\delta}
\mathcal{S}^z_{y,z+1;\pi+2\delta} + \nonumber\\
&& + \mathcal{S}^z_{y,z;\pi+2\delta} \mathcal{S}^z_{y,z+1;\pi-2\delta}) .\end{aligned}$$ This is simply a rewriting of the $\gamma''_z$ term in Eq. . Its bosonized form is $$H'_{2,\rm{sdw}} = \frac{1}{2} A_1^2 J'' \sum_{y,z} \int\! dx\,
\cos [2\pi (\phi_{y,z}-\phi_{y,z+1})/\beta ].
\label{eq:H2sdw}$$ The total SDW Hamiltonian is obtained by adding Eq. and Eq. . Both terms can be made negative by a shift $\phi_{y,z} \to \phi_{y,z} + ((-1)^y + (-1)^z)\beta/4$. Following the same steps as in Sec. \[sec:cmft-sdw\], we find that $T_c$ is determined by an equation of the same form as Eq. , but with the replacement $$\label{eq:96}
\tilde\gamma_{\rm sdw} \rightarrow \tilde \Gamma_{\rm sdw} = {\tilde \gamma}_{\rm{sdw}} + A_1^2 J''/2 = A_1^2( J' \sin\delta + J''/2).$$ Fig. \[fig:sdwTc\] shows that $T_{\rm{sdw}}$ is mildly enhanced by $J''$ at low magnetization $M$.
![(Color online) SDW ordering temperature $T_{\rm SDW}$ (dotted (red) line) of the ideal 2d model, as obtained from Eq. . Solid (blue) line: the same but with inter-layer $J''$ accounted for, see Eq. .[]{data-label="fig:sdwTc"}](Fig8-sdwJpp.pdf){width="3.4in"}
### transverse/cone order {#sec:cone-phase}
Interlayer exchange $J''$ strongly enhances the transverse (to the field) order (underlying the cone, AF, and IC states) for magnetic fields along the $b$ and $c$ axes, for which the DM interaction $D$ is ineffective. In this case, we need to account for the $\gamma''_\pm$ ($\tilde\gamma''_\pm$) term represented in Eq. , which is bosonized in Eq. . To bring the latter into canonical form for CMFT, we change its sign by a simple shift $\theta_{y,z} \to \theta_{y,z} + \pi z/\beta $, which does not affect any of the manipulations in subsection \[sec:cmft-cone\]. Transforming next to $\tilde{\theta}_{y,z}$ as in Eq. , we arrive at the modification of Eq. where ${\hat \gamma}_{\rm{cone}}$ is replaced by $\hat\Gamma^{b-c}_{\rm{cone}}$, $${\hat \gamma}_{\rm{cone}} \to \hat\Gamma^{b-c}_{\rm{cone}} = A_3^2 (J' q_0 + J'').
\label{eq:3dcone}$$ As in Sec. \[sec:cmft-cone\], we obtain two equations for $q_0$ and $T$ by maximizing the right-hand side of the modified Eq. with respect to $q_0$, and using the equation itself. The result reads, in terms of dimensionless pair $(r,s)$ introduced in Eqs. , $$\begin{aligned}
4~ {\rm Im} \Psi(\frac{\Delta_\pm}{2} + i r) &=& \frac{2\pi \sinh[2\pi r]}{\cosh[2\pi r] - \cos[\pi \Delta_\pm]} + \frac{2 J' s}{2J' s r + J''},\nonumber\\
\frac{s^{2-2\Delta_\pm}}{2J' s r + J''} &=& \frac{A_3^2}{2 \pi v} \frac{\Gamma(1-\Delta_\pm)}{\Gamma(\Delta_\pm)}
\Big|\Gamma(\frac{\Delta_\pm}{2} + i r)\Big|^4 \nonumber\\
&&\times (\cosh[2\pi r] - \cos[\pi \Delta_\pm]) .
\label{eq:cone-system2}\end{aligned}$$ The cone ordering temperature $T_{\rm cone}$ is plotted in Fig. \[fig:coneTc\]. We observe that the interlayer coupling enhances $T_{\rm{cone}}$ dramatically, and even leads to a substantial $T_c$ when $J'=0$. The reason for this is simply that the non-frustrated nature of the interlayer exchange leads to an appreciable inter-chain coupling of transverse spin components even when $q_0\ll 1$, as Eq. shows. Indeed, in the AF and IC phases, we also have transverse ordering, but $J'$ does not actually contribute to $T_c$, and the plot with of $T_c(J'=0)$ is relevant in those cases.
![(Color online) Critical temperature of cone ordering as obtained in the ideal 2d model, Eq. , (solid (blue) line) and in the 3d model (dashed (green) line) as given by Eq. . The dot-dashed (magneta) curve represents the critical temperature for $T_{\rm{il}}$ of the interlayer-driven order, relevant for the AF and IC phases, which we obtain by setting $J' =0$ in Eq. .[]{data-label="fig:coneTc"}](Fig9-coneJpJpp.pdf){width="3.4in"}
The effect of interlayer exchange $J''$ on the two orders can now be compared. Notably, despite its smallness – $J'' = 0.045 J$ – interlayer coupling completely eliminates SDW order in a system of weakly coupled layers, $T_{\rm{sdw}} < T_{\rm{cone}}$ for all magnetizations from $0$ to $1/2$, see Fig. \[fig:sdw-cone-Jpp\].
![(Color online) $T_{\rm{sdw}}$ (solid (blue) line) and $T_{\rm{cone}}$ (dashed (green) line) for $J'' = 0.045 J$. Compare this with ideal 2d situation in Fig, \[fig:RG1\] where the two orders compete strongly at intermediate values of $M$.[]{data-label="fig:sdw-cone-Jpp"}](Fig10-sdwconeJpp.pdf){width="3.4in"}
Field along $a$ axis {#sec:cmft-dm}
--------------------
Here we describe how to calculate $T_c$ in CMFT in the presence of the DM interaction $D$ for a field along the $a$ axis, which is the arrangement considered in Sec. \[sec:field-along-axis\] of the main text. Here $J''$ is unimportant, as we will see. Bosonization of the DM term in Eq. gives $$H'_{2,\rm{dm}} = \sum_{y,z} \int\! dx\, (-1)^z 2 DA_3^2 \cos [\beta(\theta_{y,z} - \theta_{y+1,z})],
\label{eq:H2dm}$$ while the cone term is given by Eq. , with $\tilde{\gamma}_{\rm{cone}}=J' A_3^2 \beta/2$. We observe (c.f. Section \[sec:incomm-order-state\] where the corresponding $T=0$ state is discussed) that the two interactions can enhance each other if the sign of the ordering vector is correlated with the sign of the DM vector. We therefore make the layer-dependent shift, which corresponds to Eq. , $$\theta_{y,z}(x) = (-1)^z q_0 x/\beta + \tilde{\theta}_{y,z}(x) .
\label{eq:theta-shift-z}$$ This should be contrasted with Eq. , which describes the situation without any DM vector. The transformation in Eq. makes the competition between the staggered DM and interlayer interactions (discussed in Sec. \[sec:field-along-axis\]) obvious, since the argument of the interlayer cosine term, $\tilde\gamma''_\pm$ in Eq. , acquires a position-dependent phase $$\theta_{y,z} - \theta_{y,z+1} = (-1)^z 2 q_0 x/\beta + \tilde{\theta}_{y,z} - \tilde{\theta}_{y,z+1}.$$ The resulting oscillations eliminates the contribution of $J''$ to the energy within CMFT. Proceeding as described in subsection \[sec:cmft-cone\], we again obtain an equation for the critical temperature in the same form as Eq. , but with $\hat\gamma_{\rm cone}$ replaced by $\hat\Gamma_{\rm cone}^{a}$: $$\hat\gamma_{\rm cone} \rightarrow \hat\Gamma^a_{\rm cone} = A_3^2(J' q_0+2 D).
\label{eq:cmft-dm}$$ Note the great similarity of the above coupling with that in Eq. : the two situations are related by exchanging $J'' \leftrightarrow 2 D$. Hence the critical temperature, $T_D$, for transverse (cone) type ordering follows from solving Eq. with $J''$ replaced by $2 D$. The result is plotted in Fig. \[fig:dmTc\], which compares the case of DM interaction only $T_D(J'=0)$ with that of general $D\neq
0, J'\neq 0$ situation. One observes that $J'$ leads to only a modest enhancement of $T_D$ relative to the case with DM interaction present only. Note that Fig.\[fig:RG2\] in the main text shows the solution with $D\neq 0, J'=0$.
![ (Color online) Ordering temperature with the field along the DM ($a$ axis) axis. Dashed (cyan) curve: $T_D(J'=0)$ due to DM interaction only ($J'=0$ in Eq. ). Solid (blue) curve: $T_D$ obtained with both $D$ and $J'$ interactions present.[]{data-label="fig:dmTc"}](Fig11-coneDM.pdf){width="3.4in"}
CMFT at $T=0$ {#sec:cmft-T=0}
-------------
Here we outline calculation leading to Eq. . We start by changing the sign of Eq. via a shift: $\theta_{y,z} \to \theta_{y,z} +
(-1)^z \pi/(2\beta)$. Within CMFT, $H'_2$ is replaced by a single-chain sine-Gordon Hamiltonian, $$H'_{2,\rm{sG}} = - 2 \tilde\psi J'' A_3^2 \int dx \cos\beta\theta(x) .
\label{eq:sg}$$ Here $\tilde\psi = \langle \cos\beta\theta\rangle$ is to be determined self-consistently. The brackets stand for averaging with the sine-Gordon action which, upon rescaling of the temporal coordinate $\tau=y/v$, reads $$S_{\rm{sG}} = \int dx dy \Big(\frac{1}{2}(\partial_x \theta)^2 + \frac{1}{2}(\partial_y \theta)^2 - 2 \mu
\cos\beta\theta \Big) .
\label{eq:action-sg}$$ Here $\mu = \tilde\psi J'' A_3^2/v$. The exact solution of Eq. from Ref. , gives the ground state energy density $$F(\mu) = -\frac{1}{4} M^2 \tan \left( \frac{\pi \xi}{2} \right),
\label{eq:sg2}$$ which is expressed in terms of the parameter $\xi$ and mass gap $M$. These are determined by $$\begin{aligned}
\xi & = & \frac{\beta'^2}{1-\beta'^2}=\frac{\beta^2}{8\pi - \beta^2},\nonumber\\
\mu & = & \frac{\Gamma(\beta'^2)}{\pi \Gamma(1-\beta'^2)}
\Big[ M \frac{\sqrt{\pi} \Gamma((1+\xi)/2)}{2 \Gamma(\xi/2)}\Big]^{2-2\beta'^2},
\label{eq:sg3}\end{aligned}$$ with $\beta' = \beta/\sqrt{8\pi}$. Using the obvious relation $$\langle \cos\beta\theta\rangle = -\frac{1}{2} \frac{d F(\mu)}{d\mu} ,$$ we obtain, after some algebra, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:sg4}
\tilde\psi &=& \sigma'(M) \left( \frac{J'' A_3^2}{v}\right)^{\frac{\pi R^2}{2-2\pi R^2}},\\
\sigma'(M) &=&\frac{\tan[\pi \xi/2]}{2\pi (1-\beta'^2)} \left[\frac{\Gamma(\frac{\xi}{2})}{\Gamma(\frac{1+\xi}{2})}\right]^2
\Big[\frac{\pi \Gamma(1-\beta'^2)}{\Gamma(\beta'^2)}\Big]^{1/(1-\beta'^2)}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The order parameter $\psi$ in Eq. is related to the self-consistently calculated $\tilde\psi$ very simply, $\psi = A_3 \tilde\psi$. Hence the prefactor in follows as $$\label{eq:97}
\sigma(M) = A_3^{1/(1-\Delta_\pm)} \sigma'(M).$$
The resulting order parameter, $\psi(M)$, is plotted in Fig. \[fig:orderparam\] as a function of magnetization. Because the exponent $\pi R^2/(2-2\pi R^2)$ in Eq. is always small (it varies from $1/2$ at $M=0$ to $1/6$ at $M=1/2$), one observes that $\psi(M)$ is a slow-varying function of magnetization $M$. The overall non-monotonic shape of $\psi(M)$ is in excellent agreement with the experimental data reported in Fig. 3b of Ref. : the order parameter first rises with increasing magnetization, reflecting the increasing relevance of transverse spin correlations, and then falls down rapidly as $M\to 1/2$ as a result of diminishing density of magnons. However, the CMFT result shown in the figure does suffer one problem, discussed in the next subsection, leading it to break down close to saturation (where it incorrectly predicts that $\psi$ remains finite as $M\rightarrow 1/2$).
![The $T=0$ order parameter $\psi$ versus $M$, calculated within CMFT. []{data-label="fig:orderparam"}](Fig12-psi.pdf){width="3.4in"}
Limitations of CMFT {#sec:cmft-limits}
-------------------
The results of CMFT for the critical temperature and order parameter, discussed in the previous subsections, exhibit unphysical behavior on approaching the saturation magnetization: in these calculations, the $T_c$ for the cone state remains finite in this limit, as does the zero temperature order parameter $\psi$. These features are both clearly incorrect, as both $T_c$ and $\psi$ must decrease to zero as the spins become fully polarized. We will investigate the breakdown of CMFT in this subsection in more detail, and determine the proper scaling theory for the vicinity of magnetization saturation.
First, let us observe the failure of CMFT more directly. Consider the solution of Eqs. in the $\Delta_{\pm}\to 1/4$ limit in more detail. First, note that the first equation there is readily solved by $r=O(1)$ which is not particularly sensitive to the value of $M$. This immediately tells us that $s \sim (A_3^2 J'/v)^2$ for $\Delta_{\pm}=1/4$. Near the saturation [@hikihara2004correlation] $A_3^2
\sim (\tfrac{1}{2} - M)^{1/2}$ while $v \sim (\tfrac{1}{2} - M) J$, which implies $s \sim (J'/J)^2/(\tfrac{1}{2} - M)$. Hence $T_c \sim v s
= (J')^2/J$ approaches a constant value while the ordering momentum $q_0 = 2
r s \sim (J'/J)^2/(\tfrac{1}{2} - M)$ diverges as $M\to
\tfrac{1}{2}$. The latter divergence is a clear indication of the failure of CMFT. It can be traced the fact that CMFT is by construction an expansion about the 1d chain limit. The natural parameter of this expansion is $J'/v$ which is supposed to be small everywhere. This assumption clearly breaks down near saturation, where the spin velocity $v$ vanishes and the expansion is not justified anymore.
Physically, near saturation, one has a dilute gas of spin flips, which can be thought of as hard-core bosons or, in one dimension, equivalently, as spinless fermions. Their density $n=\tfrac{1}{2} -M$ determines Fermi-momentum $k_F = \pi n$, which in turn determines the (Fermi) velocity as $v = k_F/m$. Since the mass $m$ is of the order of inverse chain exchange constant $J$, we obtain the scaling quoted above, $v \sim (\tfrac{1}{2} - M) J$. The velocity vanishes because precisely at saturation, the hard-core magnons possess a [*quadratic*]{} dispersion relation, which is beyond the Luttinger liquid paradigm of [*linearly*]{} dispersing collective excitations. (The scaling of $A_3
\sim n^{1/4}$ follows from the fact that the scaling dimension of the spin-flip operator ${\cal S}^+_\pi$ is $\pi R^2 = 1/4$.)
To solve the problem correctly we need to start with a 2d description, which is actually simple near the saturation. We define the “order parameter” field $\Psi_y(x) \sim S^+_{y;\pi}(x)$, which is just the annihilation operator for a spin flip. Because the flips are dilute, we expand their kinetic energy near the bottom of their 1d band, and the Hamiltonian of the layer is given by $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\rm{sat}} &=& \sum_y \int\! dx\, \Psi_y^\dagger(x) (-\frac{\partial_x^2}{2 m} - \mu)\Psi^{\vphantom\dagger}_y(x) \nonumber\\
&&- J' (\Psi_y^\dagger(x) i \partial_x \Psi^{\vphantom\dagger}_{y+1}(x)
+ {\rm{h.c.}}) + ... \label{eq:98}\end{aligned}$$ where the chemical potential $\mu \sim h_{\rm{sat}} - h$ describes the deviation from the saturating magnetic field $h_{\rm{sat}}$ and dots stand for the interaction terms (which are irrelevant at the 2d critical point). The scaling behavior for small $J'/J$ and small deviations from saturation, can already be read off from Eq. , which should be considered for this purpose as a (1+1)-dimensional quantum field theory. The magnetization density, relative to saturation is $\tfrac{1}{2}-M \sim \Psi^\dagger \Psi^{\vphantom\dagger}$ which scales like an inverse length. Furthermore, the $J'$ term above scales in the same way, since it is missing one $x$ derivative. Thus physical quantities should be scaling functions of $\Xi=(J'/J)/(\tfrac{1}{2}-M)$, as claimed in Eq. . The overall scaling behavior of $T_c$ is determined by the dynamical critical exponent, which is $z=2$ due to the quadratically-dispersing magnons. Since $T_c$ therefore scales as the square of an inverse length, the result in Eq. follows.
We may understand the result more physically, and in particular the behavior of the scaling function $\mathcal{F}(\Xi)$ by considering Eq. and its consequences in more detail. First, the behavior for small $\Xi$ corresponds just to the CMFT result in the limit of $M\rightarrow 1/2$. The limit of large $\Xi$ is more interesting, and represents 2+1-dimensional physics. Transforming to momentum space, we find that the magnons have the following dispersion: $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon_k & = & \frac{k_x^2}{2 m} - \mu - J' k_x \cos k_y \\
& = & \frac{(k_x- m J' \cos k_y)^2}{2m} - \frac{m(J')^2 }{2} \cos^2 k_y
-\mu .\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ We expand around the minimum, writing $k_x=mJ'+q_x$, $k_y=q_y$, which gives the continuum dispersion relation, $$\label{eq:99}
\epsilon_k \approx -(\mu + \frac{m(J')^2 }{2} ) + \frac{q_x^2}{2m} +
\frac{ m(J')^2 q_y^2}{2}.$$ The continuum theory describes a free Bose gas with anisotropic effective mass. It of course forms a Bose condensate at low temperature, which is described in the usual way by taking the continuum limit $\Psi_y(x) \rightarrow e^{imJ' x} \Psi(x,y)$, with $$\Psi(x,y) = \sqrt{n_s}\, e^{i \theta(x,y)} .$$ Here $\theta$ is the 2d superfluid phase, and $n_s \sim \tfrac{1}{2}-M$. For the above anisotropic Bose condensate, standard manipulations give the phase-only effective Hamiltonian (superfluid kinetic energy), $$H_{\rm{sat}} = \frac{1}{2} \int\! dx\,dy\, \Big(\rho_x (\partial_x
\theta)^2 + \rho_y (\partial_y \theta)^2 \Big) .
\label{eq:xy}$$
Eq. describes an anisotropic 2d XY model with stiffnesses $\rho_x = n_s/m \sim n_s J$ and $\rho_y \sim m (J')^2 n_s = n_s (J')^2/J$. Its critical temperature is determined by the geometric mean of the two stiffnesses: $T_c = \pi \sqrt{\rho_x
\rho_y}/2 \sim n_s J'$. This argument describes the [*large*]{} $\Xi$ limit of the scaling function $\mathcal{F}(\Xi)$. Note also that this argument implies that the ordering momentum $q_0 \sim T_{\rm{cone}}/v$ remains small even near the saturation. This we saw already in spin-wave theory in Appendix \[sec:swa\], where we observed $q_0 \sim J'/J$. Away from saturation, so that $M - \tfrac{1}{2} \gg J'/J$, the CMFT is applicable, and Eq. predicts small $q_0$ again. For this reason we expect that $q_0$ is uniformly small for all magnetizations, and lattice effects, of the kind mentioned in the end of Section \[sec:cmft-cone\], remain unimportant in all the regimes considered. For this reason we chose to keep only the leading terms of the small wavevector expansion (that is, approximate lattice differences by spatial derivatives) throughout the main text.
Calculation of susceptibilities {#sec:Fcos}
-------------------------------
Here we present some technical details of the evaluation of susceptibilites used in this appendix. We define for convenience the susceptibility in space and time, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:92}
\chi_{\Delta}(x,\tau,T) & = & \left\langle {\mathcal
O}_{\Delta}(x,\tau) {\mathcal O}_{\Delta}(0,0) \right\rangle_{0;T},\end{aligned}$$ evaluated at temperature $T$. It is straightforward to perform the average in Eq. with the free boson Hamiltonian Eq. , see for example, Ref. : $$\begin{aligned}
&& \chi_{\Delta}(x,\tau;T) =\frac{1}{2} \exp\{-4\pi\Delta \times I(y,\tau)\}, \\
&&I(y,\tau) = T \sum_{\omega_n} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{dq}{2\pi} e^{-\alpha |q|}
\frac{1-\cos[q y] \cos[\omega_n \tau]}{q^2 +\omega_n^2} \nonumber .\end{aligned}$$ Here $y = x/v$, $\alpha=a_0/v$ is the short-distance cutoff needed to regularize the integral, $\omega_n = 2\pi T n$ is the standard bosonic Matsubara frequency, and $0 \leq \tau \leq 1/T$ is the Matsubara time. The frequency summation is standard (we use GR 1.445.2 in Ref. ) and leads to $$\begin{aligned}
&& I(y,\tau) = \frac{1}{4\pi}\int_0^\infty \frac{dq}{q} \frac{e^{-\alpha q}}{1 - e^{-q/T}} \times
\Big( 2 - e^{i q y - q\tau} \nonumber \\
&& - e^{- i q y - q\tau} + e^{-q/T}[ 2 - e^{i q y + q\tau} - e^{- i q y + q\tau}]\Big).\end{aligned}$$ Next we expand the denominator in series which is evaluated term by term with the help of the identity $$\int_0^\infty \frac{dq}{q} \Big( e^{- A q} - e^{-B q}\Big) = \ln(\frac{B}{A}).$$ In this way we arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
&&4\pi I = \ln\frac{(\alpha + \tau)^2 + y^2}{\alpha^2} +
\nonumber\\
&&+ \sum_{m=1}^\infty\Big(
\ln\frac{(m + \alpha T)^2 - T^2 (\tau - i y)^2}{(m + \alpha T)^2} \nonumber\\
&& + \ln\frac{(m + \alpha T)^2 - T^2 (\tau + i y)^2}{(m + \alpha T)^2}\Big).
\label{eq:I1sum}\end{aligned}$$ For later use we note here that small $(\tau, y) \sim 0$ behavior is described by the first term in the right-hand side of the above equation. It is easy to check that small $(t,y)$ behavior, where $t = 1/T - \tau$, is described by a similar $\ln[(\alpha + t)^2 + y^2]$ term (which is contained in $m=1$ contributions).
Focusing for the moment on the regime where $|t|\gg \alpha$ (i.e. including the small $\tau$ limit but not the limit near $\tau=1/T$), we next observe that $m\neq 0$ contain no singular dependence on $\alpha$, which allows us to set $\alpha = 0$ there. The well-known identity $\ln[\sin(x)/x] = \sum_{k=1}^\infty \ln[1 - x^2/(\pi^2 k^2)]$ leads us to $$4\pi I = \ln\Big[\frac{(\alpha + \tau)^2 + y^2}{\alpha^2} \frac{\sin[\pi T(\tau - i y)] \sin[\pi T (\tau + i y)]}
{\pi^2 T^2 (\tau^2 + y^2)}\Big].$$ Hence we obtain, when $|t|\gg \alpha$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:93}
&&2 \chi_{\Delta}(x,\tau;T) = \Big\{ \frac{\tau^2+y^2}{(\alpha + \tau)^2 + y^2} \nonumber\\
&&\times\frac{\pi^2 T^2 \alpha^2}{\sin[\pi T(\tau - i y)] \sin[\pi T (\tau + i y)]}\Big\}^{\Delta} ,
\label{eq:Fcos-full}\end{aligned}$$ which is imaginary time version of the expression obtained in Ref. . The appearance of the cut-off $\alpha$ in the temporal $\tau$ direction is a generic feature of the bosonization technique (see Ref. for more examples). The first factor in Eq. clearly carries the information on the small $\tau$ limit. To account for [*both*]{} $\tau\approx 0$ and $\tau \approx 1/T$ properly, we must include another similar factor, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:94}
&&2 \chi_{\Delta}(x,\tau;T) = \Big\{ \frac{\tau^2+y^2}{(\alpha + \tau)^2 + y^2} \frac{t^2+y^2}{(\alpha + t)^2 + y^2} \nonumber\\
&&\times \frac{\pi^2 T^2 \alpha^2}{\sin[\pi T(\tau - i y)] \sin[\pi T (\tau + i y)]}\Big\}^{\Delta} .\end{aligned}$$ Eq. then is correct for the full imaginary time interval. To separate the short and long time behaviors of $\chi_{\Delta}(x,\tau;T)$ we approximate it as $$\chi_{\Delta}(x,\tau;T) = \chi^>_{\Delta}(x,\tau;T) + \chi^<_{\Delta}(x,\tau;T) .$$ Here the first term describes long-distance behavior, $$\chi^>_{\Delta}(x,\tau;T) = \Big\{ \frac{\pi^2 T^2 \alpha^2}{\sin[\pi T(\tau - i y)] \sin[\pi T (\tau + i y)]}\Big\}^{\Delta} ,
\label{eq:Fcos-long}$$ which gives the naïve limit of Eq. when $\alpha\rightarrow 0$, valid away from the endpoints. The second, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Fcos<}
&& \chi^<_{\Delta}(x,\tau;T) =
\Big\{\frac{\alpha^2}{(\alpha + \tau)^2 + y^2}\Big\}^{\Delta}
- \Big\{\frac{\alpha^2}{\tau^2 + y^2}\Big\}^{\Delta} \nonumber \\
&& + \Big\{\frac{\alpha^2}{(\alpha + t)^2 + y^2}\Big\}^{\Delta}
- \Big\{\frac{\alpha^2}{t^2 + y^2}\Big\}^{\Delta} ,\end{aligned}$$ accounts for an important difference in the short-distance behavior of the full Eq. and the approximate Eq. expressions for $\chi_{\Delta}(x,\tau;T)$. Observe that the short-distance behavior is not sensitive to temperature as it takes place on the scale determined by $\alpha$ while the long-distance one describes correlations on a much-longer thermal scale $1/T$.
For CMFT, we require certain limits of the Fourier transform of the susceptibility, Eq. , or $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:95}
&& \chi_{\Delta}(q,\omega_n;T) \\
&& = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \!\!\! dx\,
\int_0^{1/T} \!\!\! d\tau\, e^{i q x + i \omega_n \tau} \chi_{\Delta}(x,\tau;T).\nonumber \end{aligned}$$
### SDW case {#sec:12delta1}
For the SDW case, we need the static ($\omega_n=0$), zero momentum ($q=0$) limit of Eq. in the range $1/2<\Delta<1$. Here we must take some care to keep the short and long time contributions separate. We split $\chi_{\Delta}(0,0;T) =
\chi^>_{\Delta}(0,0;T) +\chi^<_{\Delta}(0,0;T) $, Fourier transforming separately Eq. and Eq. . The first contribution is rather standard and given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:A>}
&&\chi^>_{\Delta}(0,0;T) = \\
&&\frac{\pi v \alpha^2}{2} \Big(2\pi T \alpha\Big)^{2\Delta -2} \frac{\Gamma(1-\Delta) \Gamma^2(\Delta/2)}
{\Gamma(\Delta) \Gamma^2(1-\Delta/2)}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Observe that Eq. diverges as $1/(1-\Delta)$ when $\Delta\to 1$. In the case of the SDW order this limit corresponds to the behavior near saturation where $\Delta$ approaches $1$ at the full magnetization, $M=1/2$ (see Table. \[tab:dims\] and ). The divergence is not physical and stems from the incorrect short-distance behavior of Eq. . It is compensated by $\chi^<_{\Delta}(0,0;T)$, which yields two identical contributions from the two terms in Eq. . Substituting $\tau = \alpha t, y = \alpha z$ and using $\int_0^\infty dz/(1 + z^2)^\Delta = \sqrt{\pi} \Gamma(\Delta-1/2)/(2 \Gamma(\Delta))$ we arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
&& \chi^<_{\Delta}(0,0;T) = \\
&& \frac{v \alpha^2 \sqrt{\pi} \Gamma(\Delta-1/2)}{(2-2\Delta) \Gamma(\Delta)}
\Big((1+L)^{2-2\Delta} - L^{2-2\Delta} -1\Big) ,\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where $L = 1/(\alpha T) \gg 1$. Simple calculation shows that this expression diverges logarithmically near $\Delta=1/2$, $\chi^<_{\Delta \approx 1/2}(0,0;T) \sim \ln(L e)$, which however represents a small subleading correction to Eq. , which diverges linearly, $\chi^>_{\Delta \approx 1/2}(0,0;T) \sim L$, in this region. Thus $\chi^<_{\Delta \approx 1/2}(0,0;T) $ can be safely neglected. Near $\Delta=1$ limit things are different: here $\chi^<_{\Delta \approx 1}(0,0;T) $ results in a large $T$-independent contribution $$\chi^<_{\Delta \approx 1}(0,0;T) = - \frac{v \alpha^2 \sqrt{\pi} \Gamma(\Delta-1/2)}
{(2-2\Delta) \Gamma(\Delta)}
\approx - \frac{v \alpha^2 \pi}{2(1-\Delta)} .
\label{eq:DeltaA}$$ Similar short-distance correction can be found in Refs. . Collecting both contributions we finally obtain, for $1/2 < \Delta < 1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\chi_{\Delta}(0,0;T) &=& \frac{\pi v \alpha^2}{2} \Big\{\Big(2\pi T \alpha\Big)^{2\Delta -2}
\frac{\Gamma(1-\Delta) \Gamma^2(\Delta/2)}
{\Gamma(\Delta) \Gamma^2(1-\Delta/2)} -\nonumber\\
&& - \frac{\Gamma(\Delta-1/2)}{\sqrt{\pi} (1-\Delta) \Gamma(\Delta)}\Big\}.
\label{eq:A}\end{aligned}$$ At $\Delta=1$ this expression reduces to $$\chi_{\Delta=1}(0,0;T) = - \pi v \alpha^2 \ln[2\pi T \alpha] ,$$ which is free of unphysical $(1-\Delta)^{-1}$ divergence. The resulting $T_c(\Delta=1)$ is exponentially small in $v/{\tilde \gamma}_{\rm{sdw}}$ ratio.[@schulz83]
### Cone order {#sec:cone-order}
For the CMFT treatment of the cone state, one requires the static susceptibility at non-zero wavevector, with $\Delta=\Delta_\pm =
\pi R^2$. This is always less than or equal to $1/2$, making the short-time corrections in Eq. negligible. Therefore we may directly Fourier transform only the long time term, Eq. . The result is well-known (see, e.g. Ref. ): $$\begin{aligned}
&&\chi_\Delta(q,0;0) = \frac{\pi \alpha^2}{2} \Big(2\pi T \alpha\Big)^{2\Delta -2}
\frac{\Gamma(1-\Delta)}{\Gamma(\Delta)} \nonumber\\
&&\times \Big|\frac{\Gamma(\Delta/2 + i v q/(4\pi T))}{\Gamma(1-\Delta/2 + i v q/(4\pi T))}\Big|^2 .
\label{eq:chi-xx}\end{aligned}$$
Generation of biquadratic interaction {#sec:biquadratic}
=====================================
In this appendix, we detail the generation of the biquadratic interaction, Eq. . We use a standard Wilsonian RG, in which one derives the low-energy theory by integrating out high-energy modes.
We begin by passing from the Hamiltonian formulation to the (Euclidean) Lagrangian one, integrating out the conjugate field $\phi$ in the path integral. Furthermore, we rescale the temporal direction, introducing $x_0 =
v\tau$, $x_1=x$, in order to render the free action rotationally invariant in the ${\bm
x}=(x_0,x_1)$ plane. The free action of the $\theta$ fields, corresponding to Eq. , is $$\begin{aligned}
S_0 &=& \frac{1}{2} \int d^2{\bm x}\, \left|{\boldsymbol\nabla}\theta_y\right|^2 \nonumber\\
&=& \frac{1}{2} \int_0^{\Lambda} \frac{d^2 {\bm k}}{(2\pi)^2} ~k^2
~\theta_y(k) \theta_y(-k). \label{eq:101}\end{aligned}$$ Here we have introduced a momentum space cut-off $\Lambda$, which is actually of $O(1)$ (the lattice spacing). Furthermore, throughout this appendix, we have suppressed the $z$ index of the chains to simplify the formulae. Note that, due to the change from $\tau$ to $x_0$, the interaction terms become perturbations with dimensionless couplings, given by original ones divided by $v$.
The RG proceeds in the standard way, by progressively integrating out modes within a shell of width $d\Lambda = \Lambda d\ell$ near the cut-off, thereby reducing the latter to a “running” cut-off $\Lambda_\ell = \Lambda
e^{-\ell}$, which defines the logarithmic scaling variable $\ell \in \{0,\infty\}$. Following the convention used in the main text, we do not perform any iterative rescaling of length and time scales, thereby allowing the cutoff to “run” to increasingly smaller value as the RG proceeds.
Formally, the integration of modes is accomplished, in each iteration, by writing $$\label{eq:100}
\theta_y = \theta_y^<+ \theta_y^>,$$ where the “slow” field $\theta_y^<$ contains non-zero Fourier components with $k<\Lambda_{\ell+d\ell}= \Lambda_\ell e^{-d\ell}$, and the “fast” field $\theta_y^>$ contains the remaining ones with $\Lambda_{\ell+d\ell}<k<\Lambda_\ell$. We integrate out the fast field at each iteration, perturbatively in the interactions. After this, we relabel $\theta_y^< \rightarrow \theta_y$, which then defines the theory at the reduced cut-off $\Lambda_{\ell+d\ell}$.
At zeroth order in the interactions, the free action renormalizes trivially, since the slow and fast modes are decoupled. It remains in the form of Eq. (\[eq:101\]), with $\Lambda$ replaced by $\Lambda_\ell$. To first order, the perturbations $H'_{1,2,3}$ renormalize very simply, according to their scaling dimensions. We illustrate this explicitly for the cone/twist interaction under consideration here. Ignoring the SDW term, we have the action corresponding to $H'_1$ in Eq. (\[eq:Hsg1\]): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:102}
S'_1 & = & -\tilde\gamma_{\rm cone} \sum_y \int\! dx d\tau\, (\partial_x\theta_y
+ \partial_x \theta_{y+1})\cos \beta(\theta_y-\theta_{y+1}) \nonumber
\\
& = & \frac{i \tilde\gamma_{\rm cone}}{\beta v} \sum_y \int\!
d^2{\bm x}\, \left( n_{y+1}^-\partial_x n_y^+ - n_{y+1}^+ \partial_x n_y^-\right).\end{aligned}$$ Here we introduced the shorthand $n_y^\pm = e^{\pm i \beta \theta_y}$. To first order in the RG, we use Eq. (\[eq:100\]) and average Eq. (\[eq:102\]) over the fast fields using the free action. Since the fields are decoupled at each $y$, the two $n^\pm$ factors average independently. One has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:103}
\langle n^\pm_y\rangle_> & = & e^{\pm i \beta \theta^<_y} \left\langle
e^{\pm i \beta \theta^>_y}\right\rangle_> \nonumber \\
& = & e^{\pm i \beta \theta^<_y} \exp[-\frac{\beta^2}{2}
\int_{\Lambda_{\ell+d\ell}}^{\Lambda_\ell} \frac{d^2 {\bm
k}}{(2\pi)^2} \frac{1}{k^2}] \nonumber \\
& = & e^{\pm i \beta \theta^<_y} e^{-\Delta_\pm d\ell},\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta_\pm = \beta^2/(4\pi) = \pi R^2$ is just the scaling dimension of the $n_y^\pm$ field. Letting $\theta^< \rightarrow
\theta$, we see that Eq. (\[eq:103\]) applied to Eq. (\[eq:102\]) simply multiplies $\tilde\gamma_{\rm cone}$ by the constant $e^{-2\Delta_\pm d\ell}$. Hence, we have $\tilde\gamma_{\rm
cone}(\ell+d\ell) = (1-2\Delta_\pm d\ell) \tilde\gamma_{\rm
cone}(\ell)$, or $$\label{eq:104}
\partial_\ell \tilde\gamma_{\rm cone} = -2\Delta_\pm \tilde\gamma_{\rm cone}.$$ This of course integrates to $$\label{eq:106}
\tilde\gamma_{\rm cone}(\ell) = \tilde\gamma_{\rm cone}(0) e^{-2\Delta_\pm \ell} =
\tilde\gamma_{\rm cone}(0) \left(\frac{\Lambda_\ell}{\Lambda}\right)^{2\Delta_\pm}.$$
The same treatment holds for the interlayer coupling $\tilde\gamma''_\pm$ (see Eq. (\[eq:27\]): $$\label{eq:105}
\tilde\gamma''_\pm(\ell) = \tilde\gamma''_\pm \left(\frac{\Lambda_\ell}{\Lambda}\right)^{2\Delta_\pm}.$$ As we have discussed, this is the most strongly relevant interaction for fields in the $b$-$c$ plane, which we consider here. The RG can be considered perturbative provided the dimensionless rescaled coupling, $\tilde\gamma''_\pm(\ell)/v$, remains small compared with the typical value of the bare action at the corresponding scale, $\Lambda_\ell^2$. This fixes the value of the cut-off, $\Lambda''$, at which the coupled chains form correlated $a$-$b$ planes: $$\frac{\tilde\gamma''_\pm}{v} (\Lambda''/\Lambda)^{2\Delta_\pm} = (\Lambda'')^2 .$$ Solving for $\Lambda''$, and using $\tilde\gamma''_\pm = A_3^2 J''$, $$\Lambda'' \sim \Big(\frac{J'' A_3^2}{v}\Big)^{1/(2 -2\Delta_\pm)} ,$$ where we have used that the bare cutoff $\Lambda$ is $O(1)$. Thus the corresponding spatial scale which determines the renormalization of all interactions is given by $\xi'' =1/\Lambda'' \sim (v/J'')^{1/(2 -2\Delta_\pm)}$, in agreement with Eq. . Let us now, finally, generate the biquadratic term. This occurs as a [*second*]{} order contribution of $\tilde\gamma_{\rm cone}$ to the effective action. Expanding the action in powers of this term, we get in second order ($Z = \int e^{-S_0}[1 + S_{(1)} + S_{(2)} +...]$) $$\begin{aligned}
&&S_{(2)} =\nonumber \\
&& \frac{1}{2} ( \frac{\tilde\gamma_{\rm{cone}}}{\beta v})^2 \sum_y \int d^2{\bm x} d^2{\bm x'}
\Big\{ \partial_{x'} (n_y^+({\bm x}) n_y^+({\bm x'}))\times \nonumber\\
&&\times \partial_x (n_{y+1}^-({\bm x}) n_{y+1}^-({\bm x'})) + {\rm h.c.}
\Big\}.\end{aligned}$$ Terms which do not have the necessary $e^{i2\beta\theta_y}$ structure are omitted here. Now we integrate out the fast fields in each chain. Then, in chain $y$ we obtain the combination like this $$\begin{aligned}
&& \partial_{x'} \left\{~e^{i\beta[\theta^<_y({\bm x}) + \theta^<_y({\bm x'})]}
e^{-\beta^2 \int^> \frac{d^2{\bm k}}{(2\pi)^2} \frac{1 + \cos[{\bm k}\cdot({\bm x}-{\bm x'})]}{k^2}} \right\}\nonumber\\
&&\approx e^{i2\beta\theta_y^<({\bm X})}
(-\beta^2) \int^> \frac{d^2{\bm k}}{(2\pi)^2} \frac{k_{x} \sin[{\bm k}\cdot {\bm \rho}]}{k^2} ,\end{aligned}$$ where ${\bm X}= ({\bm x}+{\bm x}')/2$ and ${\bm \rho}={\bm x}-{\bm x}'$ are the center-of-mass and relative coordinates. The most relevant term that emerges has the spatial derivative acting on the c-function which is produced by fast modes (the superscript on the integral indicates that it is over the support of the fast modes only). In the second line above, the derivative has been carried out, bringing down the integral factor shown from the derivative of the exponential. After doing so, we have approximated the exponential itself by $1$. This approximation is exact to first order in $d\ell$, which is infinitesimally small. Then $$\begin{aligned}
&&S_{(2)} = -\frac{1}{2} ( \frac{\tilde\gamma_{\rm{cone}}}{\beta v})^2 \beta^4 \int d^2{\bm \rho} \int^> \frac{d^2{\bm k}_1}{(2\pi)^2}
\int^>\frac{d^2{\bm k}_2}{(2\pi)^2} \nonumber\\
&& \times\frac{k_{1x} \sin[{\bm k}_1\cdot{\bm \rho}]}{k_1^2} \frac{k_{2x} \sin[{\bm k}_2\cdot{\bm \rho}]}{k_2^2} \nonumber\\
&& \times\int d^2{\bm X} ~2 \cos[2\beta(\theta_y^< - \theta_{y+1}^<)] .\end{aligned}$$ The integral over the relative distance ${\bm \rho}$ produces difference of two delta-functions, $\delta({\bm k}_1 + {\bm k}_2) - \delta({\bm k}_1 - {\bm k}_2)$, which, thanks to the $k_{1x} k_{2x}$ factor in the numerator, only doubles the final result. The whole of the momentum-shell integration reduces to $$\int^> \frac{d^2{\bm k}_1}{(2\pi)^2} \frac{k_{1x}^2}{k_1^4} =
\frac{1}{4\pi} \int_{\Lambda_{\ell+d\ell}}^{\Lambda_\ell} \frac{dk}{k}
= \frac{d\ell}{4\pi} .$$ The generated biquadratic correction to the action is $-S_{(2)}$. Taking $\theta^< \rightarrow \theta$, we see that we indeed generate a biquadratic interaction of the form $$\label{eq:107}
H_{\rm bq} = \tilde\gamma_{\rm bq} \sum_y \int \! dx\, \cos[2\beta(\theta_y(x) - \theta_{y+1}(x))] ,$$ with $$d \tilde\gamma_{\rm bq} = v\frac{\beta^2 d\ell \tilde\gamma_{\rm{cone}}^2}{4\pi v^2} .
\label{eq:biq3}$$ Here we have added a factor $v$ to the generated interaction, accounting for the transformation back to imaginary time $\tau$ from $x_0$. The scaling dimension of this term is $2\times (2\beta)^2/(4\pi) = 8 \Delta_\pm$. Hence, the RG flow equation for $\tilde\gamma_{\rm bq}$ is $$\partial_\ell \tilde\gamma_{\rm{bq}} = - 8 \Delta_\pm \tilde\gamma_{\rm{bq}}
+ \frac{\beta^2 \tilde\gamma_{\rm{cone}}^2}{4\pi v} .
\label{eq:biq4}$$ Note that $\tilde\gamma_{\rm{cone}}$ here is itself a function of running RG scale $\ell$, as specified in Eq. (\[eq:106\]). Solving Eq. (\[eq:biq4\]) is easy and leads to $$\tilde\gamma_{\rm{bq}}(\ell) = \frac{\beta^2 \tilde\gamma_{\rm{cone}}(0)^2}{16 \pi \Delta v} \Big(e^{-4\Delta \ell} - e^{-8\Delta \ell}\Big),
\label{eq:biq5}$$ which shows that $\ell \gg 1$ behavior is controlled by the driving term $\tilde\gamma_{\rm{cone}}^2/v$ in the right-hand-side of Eq. .
As discussed above, the chains enter the strongly coupled limit at $\xi'' =
\exp[\ell''] \sim (v/J'')^{1/(2 -2\Delta_\pm)}$, where Eq. must be stopped. At this point, the phases $\theta_y$ may be regarded as no longer fluctuating, and hence reduce to the classical phases $\vartheta_y$ of the main text. Thus $\tilde\gamma_{\rm bq}(\ell'')$ corresponds directly to $g_{\rm bq}$ defined in Eq. (\[eq:14\]). Combining therefore Eq. (\[eq:biq5\]) with Eq. (\[eq:103\]), which tells us that spontaneous moment of the $a$-$b$ planes $|\psi| \sim
(\xi'')^{-\Delta}$, we arrive at the estimate Eq. , $g_{\rm{bq}} \sim (J')^2 |\psi|^4/v$.
Negligible DM couplings {#sec:negl-dm-coupl}
=======================
In Sec. \[sec:dm-ology\], it was stated that three of the five allowed DM couplings, $D_a$, $D'_b$ and $D'_c$, can be safely neglected. In this appendix, we explain why this is the case.
$D_a$ {#sec:d_a}
------
First consider the $D_a$ term. As with all the DM couplings, this is only effective for fields parallel to its D-vector, in this case the $a$ axis. For such fields, like the $D_c$ term studied in Sec. \[sec:field-along-c\], it can be “gauged away” for a single chain, by an $x-dependent$ spin rotation about the $z$ axis of spin. Unlike the $D_c$ coupling, however, the $D_a$ interaction is constant within each triangular plane. Therefore this rotation has negligible effects upon the other in-plane couplings, most importantly $D'_a=D$, which we have argued dominates the physics in this field orientation, but also $J'$, which plays a subsidiary but still important role. This gauge rotation [*does*]{} affect the $J''$ interaction, however, since the $D_a$ term is staggered along the $z$ axis, see Eq. . We have seen already in Sec. \[sec:interl-corr\] that $J''$ itself is already (without $D_a$) ineffective in establishing interlayer correlations, and its only effects arise through generating the $J''_2$ interaction between second neighbor layers, Eq. . The $J''_2$ interaction is, happily, also unaffected by the gauge rotation, as the second neighbor layers involved rotate identically. Thus even if some $D_a$ is present, the analysis of Sec. \[sec:field-along-axis\] remains unchanged.
$D'_b$ {#sec:d_b}
------
Next consider the $D'_b$ interaction. Unlike the $D=D'_a$ interaction, this coupling has the same sign on both diagonal bonds between chains (${\bm D}_{y,z}^+ = {\bf D}^-_{y,z}$ in Eq. ). This means that, like the $J'$ coupling, this interaction is highly frustrated. As a consequence, the leading order contributions arising from this term involve a gradient, analogous to the twist/cone term in, e.g. Eq. . Thus the effects of this term are generally strongly suppressed, both by this gradient (and associated increased scaling dimension) [*and*]{} by its small magnitude, which is of at most a few percent. In other words, it carries the same scaling dimension as the twist/cone coupling, but is probably at least a factor of 10 smaller in magnitude. Thus it is always negligible.
$D'_c$ {#sec:d_c}
------
Finally, we turn to the $D'_c$ term. This interaction is similar in some ways to the $D=D'_a$ interaction, which dominates for fields along $a$. Both are unfrustrated, as they have opposite signs on the two diagonals, and both are staggered along the $a$ ($z$) direction. However, $D'_c$ is also staggered along $c$ ($y$), while $D$ was constant within the triangular planes.
The fate of $D'_c$ is less clear than that of the prior two terms under consideration. It is neither trivially gauged away nor obviously negligible. However, it is easy to establish that it does compete with many of the key interactions that have already been identified as driving forces in the system. As such, provided $D'_c$ is not too large, it loses this competition and has minimal effects.
First, we see that $D'_c$ has the same scaling dimension and hence relevance as the $J''$ term. Moreover, like the $D$ term, it competes with the $J''$ interaction because of the staggering along $z$. Hence, if $D'_c$ is not comparable to $J''$, it will lose this competition. Indeed, if one assumes the form, Eq. , which satisfies the $\gamma''_\pm$ coupling ($\propto J''$), the $D'_c$ term identically vanishes.
Second, the $D'_c$ term also competes with the $D_c$ term, since the latter favors opposite rotations on neighboring chains, which the $D'_c$ term attempts to couple. Transforming to the rotating frame favored by $D_c$, Eq. , will make the $D'_c$ term oscillate, and hence average out over long distances.
Thus to have any significant effect, the $D'_c$ term would need to be large enough to overcome at least two competing interactions. At least for small $D'_c$, we conclude that the phase diagrams established in the main text are unchanged. Evidently, this is the case in [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}.
Spin-wave analysis in a high field {#sec:swa}
==================================
In this appendix, we study the effect of the DM interaction and the inter-layer interaction $J''$ on the high field magnons, and particularly on the ordering wavevector infinitesimally below the saturation field. In a strong magnetic field, the ground state is a fully polarized ferromagnetic state and one can easily solve the single-magnon problem exactly. By comparing measurements of the high field magnons with such calculations, the microscopic parameters of the standard Hamiltonian Eq. (\[standard\_hamiltonian\]) were determined.[@Coldea2002PRL; @veillette2005incomm; @veillette2006commensurate] However, in the standard model, all the possible DM vectors are not included. We present here a complete analysis based on Eq. (\[eq:11\]), which was derived in Appendix \[sec:dmv\]. Let us first show that the components of the DM vector perpendicular to an applied field can be negligible in the spin-wave analysis. To show this, we decompose ${\bm S}_{i}$ into $\langle {\bm S} \rangle+\delta
{\bm S}_{i}$, where $\langle {\bm S} \rangle$ is the ordered moment parallel to the applied field ${\bm h}$. In the linear spinwave theory we neglect $\delta {\bm S}_{i}$ parallel to ${\bm h}$, which means $\delta {\bm S}_{i} \times \delta \bm S_{j}$ is always parallel to ${\bm
h}$ and does not couple to the component of the DM vector perpendicular to ${\bm h}$. One can also show that the DM interaction does not produce single magnon terms which is proportional to $\delta
{\bm S}_{i}$ using the symmetry argument in Appendix \[sec:dmv\]. In what follows, we only retain $D_{\zeta}={\bm D}\cdot {\hat \zeta}$ where $\zeta \equiv {\bm h}/h$. We now take the direction of the field (${\hat \zeta}$) as a quantization axis of spins. Introducing $S^\nu_i={\bm S}_i \cdot {\hat \nu}$ and $S^\pm \equiv S^\xi_i \pm i
S^\eta_i$ such that ${\hat \nu}={\hat \xi}, {\hat \eta}, {\hat \zeta}$ form an orthonormal basis, the local Hamiltonian for the bond $ij$ is written as $$\begin{aligned}
H_{ij}&=&J_{ij} {\bm S}_i \cdot {\bm S}_j +D_{ij,\zeta} (S^\xi_i S^\eta_j-S^\eta_i S^\xi_j) \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{\tilde J_{ij}}{2}(e^{i\phi_{ij}}S^+_i S^-_j+{\rm h.c.})+J_{ij}S^\zeta_i S^\zeta_j,\end{aligned}$$ where ${\tilde J}_{ij}=\sqrt{J^2_{ij}+D^2_{ij,\zeta}}$ and $\tan \phi_{ij}=D_{ij,\zeta}/J_{ij}$. In the following, we focus on ${\hat \zeta}={\hat a}$, ${\hat b}$, and ${\hat c}$ cases and introduce $$\begin{aligned}
{\tilde J}_\zeta = \sqrt{J^2+(D_\zeta)^2},~~~\tan \phi_\zeta=D_\zeta/J, \\
{\tilde J}'_\zeta= \sqrt{(J')^2+(D'_\zeta)^2}~~~\tan \phi'_\zeta=D'_\zeta/J'\end{aligned}$$ for on-chain and diagonal bonds, respectively. We now apply the Holstein-Primakoff transformation: $$S^\zeta_i=S-n_i,~S^+_i=(2S-n_i)^{\frac{1}{2}} b_i,
~S^-_i=b^\dagger_i (2S-n_i)^{\frac{1}{2}},$$ with $n_i=b^\dagger_i b_i$ and $S=1/2$, and obtain $$H_{ij}\sim {\tilde J}_{ij} S(e^{i\phi_{ij}}b^\dagger_i b_j+{\rm h.c.})-J_{ij}S(n_i+n_j)+JS^2.$$ Denoting by $b_{\alpha,{\bm k}}$ the Fourier transform of the boson at the position ${\bm R}+{\bm \delta}_{\alpha}$, the spinwave Hamiltonian is written as $$H_{\rm SW}=\sum_{\bm k}\Psi^\dagger_{\bm k} [{\cal H}({\bm k})+h-(2J+4J'+2J'')S]\Psi_{\bm k},
\label{eq: spinwave_ham}$$ where ${\Psi}_{\bm k}=(b_{1,{\bm k}}, b_{2,{\bm k}}, b_{3,{\bm k}},
b_{4,{\bm k}})^{\rm T}$ and the $4\times 4$ matrix ${\cal H}({\bm k})$ depend on the field direction.
Field along $a$ axis {#field-along-a-axis}
--------------------
Let us first consider the case of field along the $a$ axis. In this case, ${\cal H}({\bm k})$ in Eq. (\[eq: spinwave\_ham\]) is given by $${\cal H}({\bm k})=\frac{1}{2} \left(\begin{array}{cc}
{\sf A}_{a,{\bm k}} (\phi_a,\phi'_a) & {\sf B}_{\bm k} \\
{\sf B}^\dagger_{\bm k} & {\sf A}_{a,{\bm k}} (-\phi_a, -\phi'_a)
\end{array}\right).$$ Here, the matrices ${\sf A}_{a,{\bm k}}(\phi_a,\phi'_a)$ and ${\sf B}_{\bm k}$ are $${\sf A}_{a,{\bm k}} (\phi_a,\phi'_a) = \left(\begin{array}{cc}
2{\tilde J_a} \cos(k_b-\phi_a) & {\tilde J'_a} f_a (\phi'_a; {\bm k}) \\
{\tilde J'_a} f_a (-\phi'_a; -{\bm k}) & 2{\tilde J_a} \cos(k_b-\phi_a)
\end{array}\right),\nonumber$$ and ${\sf B}_{\bm k} = J''(1+e^{ik_a})I$, where $I$ is the $2 \times 2$ identity matrix and $f_a(\phi'_a; {\bm k})=(e^{-i
\phi'_a}e^{ik_b}+e^{i\phi'_a})(1+e^{ik_c})$. We also note that $k_\mu$ is defined by ${\bm k} \cdot \hat \mu$ for $\mu=a,b,$ and $c$. We now try to find the location of the minimum of the spectrum of 1-magnon excitations, which is given in the form of ${\bm k}^*=(0,
2\pi(1/2+\epsilon), 0)$. Using the relations such as $\cos
\phi_a=J/{\tilde J}_a$, the eigenvalues of ${\cal H}(0,k_b,0)$ are explicitly obtained as $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_{1,\pm}= J \cos k_b + 2J' \cos (k_b/2) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \nonumber \\
\pm \sqrt{(J'')^2 + (D_a \sin k_b + 2D'_a \sin(k_b/2))^2}, \\
\omega_{2,\pm}= J \cos k_b - 2J' \cos (k_b/2) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \nonumber \\
\pm \sqrt{(J'')^2 + (D_a \sin k_b - 2D'_a \sin(k_b/2))^2}.
\label {eq: omega2_pm}
$$ Putting $D_a=0$, one finds the results consistent with Ref. . Among the four solutions, $\omega_{1,\pm}$ and $\omega_{2,\pm}$, $\omega_{1,-}$ has the lowest energy around $k_b=2\pi (1/2+\epsilon_0)$, where $\epsilon_0=J'/(2 \pi J)$ which is the incommensuration in the absence of $D_a$ and $D'_a$. It is convenient to introduce a variable $X=\cos(k_b/2)$. Then we rewrite $\omega_{1,-}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\omega_{1,-}}{J}=2X^2-1+2 \frac{J'}{J}X ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\nonumber \\
-\sqrt{\frac{(J'')^2}{J^2}+4(1-X^2)\left(\frac{D_a}{J}X+\frac{D'_a}{J} \right)^2}\end{aligned}$$ Assuming $X$ is small, we expand the above equation and have the following approximate expression for the incommensuration: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:111}
&&\sin(\pi \epsilon)=\frac{J'}{2J} \Big( 1-\frac{2D_a D'_a}{J' \sqrt{(J'')^2+4(D'_a)^2}} \\
&& + \frac{(D_a)^2-(D'_a)^2}{J \sqrt{(J'')^2+4(D'_a)^2}}
-\frac{4(D_a D'_a)^2}{J [(J'')^2+4(D'_a)^2]^{3/2}} \Big).\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Whether the incommensuraton is enhanced or not depends on the signs of $D_a$ and $D'_a$ and the subtle balance of them. We note that, if $D_a$ is present, and not too small, the incommensuration can be substantially modified from the DM-free value, since the second term in the brackets in the first line of Eq. (\[eq:111\]) is small only in the ratio $D_a/J'$. Since $D_a$ was neglected in the experimental fits in Ref., this might lead to small errors in the magnetic parameters, at perhaps a level of ten percent of their estimated values, i.e. an uncertainty in $J'$ of $\pm 0.1 J'_{\rm
estimated}$, and similarly for $D=D'_a$. Errors of the order of $10\%$ of the largest interaction, $J$, are clearly ruled out by the fits.[@private-coldea]
Field along $b$ axis {#field-along-b-axis}
--------------------
Next we consider the case of field along the $b$ axis. In this case, we have $${\cal H}({\bm k})=\frac{1}{2} \left(\begin{array}{cc}
{\sf A}_{b,{\bm k}} (\phi'_b) & {\sf B}_{\bm k} \\
{\sf B}^\dagger_{\bm k} & {\sf A}_{b,{\bm k}} (-\phi'_b)
\end{array}\right),$$ where $${\sf A}_{b,{\bm k}}(\phi'_b)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
2J\cos k_b & {\tilde J}'_b f_b(\phi'_b; {\bm k}) \\
{\tilde J}'_b f_b(-\phi'_b; -{\bm k}) & 2J \cos k_b
\end{array}\right)$$ with $f_b (\phi'_b; {\bm k})=e^{i\phi'_b} (1+e^{ik_b})(1+e^{ik_c})$. We minimize the excitation energy to find the ordering wavevector of the form ${\bm k}^*=(0, 2\pi(1/2+\epsilon),0)$. The lowest eigenvalue of ${\cal H}(0,k_b,0)$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\omega =J\cos k_b ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~&&
\nonumber \\
- \sqrt{(J'')^2-4 J' J'' \cos (k_b/2)+4({\tilde J}'_b)^2 \cos^2 (k_b/2)}.&&\end{aligned}$$ Similarly to the previous subsection, we rewrite the above as $$\frac{\omega}{J}=2X^2-1-\sqrt{\frac{(J'')^2}{J^2}-4\frac{J' J''}{J^2}X+4\frac{({\tilde J}'_b)^2}{J^2}X^2},$$ where $({\tilde J}'_b)^2=(J')^2+(D'_b)^2$. One can find the incommensuration $\sin (\pi \epsilon)=-X$ from the minimum of the above equation and observe that DM interaction, $D'_b$, always enhances the incommensuration from its $D'_b=0$ value $J'/(2J)$.
Field along $c$ axis {#field-along-c-axis}
--------------------
Finally, we consider the case of field along the $c$ axis. In this case, ${\cal H}({\bm k})$ in Eq. (\[eq: spinwave\_ham\]) is given by $${\cal H}({\bm k}) = \frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
{\sf A}_{c,{\bm k}} (\phi_c,\phi'_c) & {\sf B}_{\bm k} \\
{\sf B}^\dagger_{\bm k} & {\sf A}_{c,{\bm k}} (\phi_c,-\phi'_c)
\end{array}\right),$$ where $${\sf A}_{c,{\bm k}}(\phi_c,\phi'_c)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
2{\tilde J}_c \cos (k_b-\phi_c) & {\tilde J}'_c f_c(\phi'_c; {\bm k}) \\
{\tilde J}'_c f_c(-\phi'_c; -{\bm k}) & 2{\tilde J}_c \cos (k_b+\phi_c)
\end{array}\right)$$ with $f_c(\phi'_c; \bm k) = e^{i\phi'_c} (1+e^{ik_b+ik_c}) + e^{-i\phi'_c} (e^{ik_b}+e^{ik_c})$. The minimum of the spectrum of 1-magnon excitation is also of the form ${\bm k}^*=(0,2\pi(1/2+\epsilon),0)$. The lowest eigenvalue of ${\cal H}(0,k_b,0)$ is explicitly obtained as $$\omega_1=-J''+J \cos k_b -\sqrt{(D_c)^2 \sin^2 k_b +4 (J')^2 \cos^2 (k_b/2)}.
\label{eq for X}$$ Here we have used the relations such as $\cos \phi_c = J/{\tilde J}_c$. The remarkable point here is that the minimum and hence the incommensuration $\epsilon$ is independent of $D'_c$ and $J''$. So once we know $\epsilon$ and $J, J'$, it uniquely determine the strength of $D_c$. Let us now assume that $\epsilon$ is of the order $J'/J$, which is true if $D_c=0$, and obtain approximate eigenenergy as $$\frac{\omega_1}{J}=2 \sin^2 (\pi \epsilon)-2\frac{\sqrt{(J')^2+(D_c)^2}}{J}\sin(\pi \epsilon) -\frac{J''}{J}-1,$$ where we have neglected a term proportional to $\sin^4 (\pi \epsilon)$. From the above equation, we can obtain the incommensuration $\epsilon$ as a function of $J$, $J'$, and $D_c$ as $$\sin (\pi \epsilon) = \frac{\sqrt{(J')^2+(D_c)^2}}{2J}
\label{eq:90}$$ From this relation, we see that the $D_c$ on the $J$ bonds enhances the incommensuration $\epsilon$. This is in contrast to the measured incommensurability,[@veillette2005incomm] which is reduced compared to the expected one from the ideal standard model.
|
---
abstract: 'Over the past decades, progress in deployable autonomous flight systems has slowly stagnated. This is reflected in today’s production air-crafts, where pilots only enable simple physics-based systems such as autopilot for takeoff, landing, navigation, and terrain/traffic avoidance. Evidently, autonomy has not gained the trust of the community where higher problem complexity and cognitive workload are required. To address trust, we must revisit the process for developing autonomous capabilities: modeling and simulation. Given the prohibitive costs for live tests, we need to prototype and evaluate autonomous aerial agents in a high fidelity flight simulator with autonomous learning capabilities applicable to flight systems: such a open-source development platform is not available. As a result, we have developed GymFG: GymFG couples and extends a high fidelity, open-source flight simulator and a robust agent learning framework to facilitate learning of more complex tasks. Furthermore, we have demonstrated the use of GymFG to train an autonomous aerial agent using Imitation Learning. With GymFG, we can now deploy innovative ideas to address complex problems and build the trust necessary to move prototypes to the real-world.'
author:
-
bibliography:
- 'main.bib'
title: 'GymFG: A Framework with a Gym Interface for FlightGear'
---
Acknowledgments
===============
This document does not contain technology or technical data controlled under either U.S. International Traffic in Arms Regulation or U.S. Export Administration Regulations. It has been approved for Public Release. Ref. No 20-S-0902, Approved 03/31/2020.
|
---
abstract: 'We investigated the magnetic properties of hydrogen plasma treated ZnO single crystals by SQUID magnetometry. In agreement with the expected hydrogen penetration depth we found ferromagnetic behavior located at the first 20 nm of the H-treated surface of ZnO with magnetization at saturation up to 6 emu/g at 300 K and Curie temperature T$_c$ $\gtrsim $ 400 K. In the ferromagnetic samples a hydrogen concentration of a few atomic percent in the first 20 nm surface layer was determined by nuclear reaction analysis. The saturation magnetization of H-treated ZnO increases with the concentration of hydrogen.'
address:
- ' Division of Superconductivity and Magnetism, University of Leipzig, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany'
- ' Division of Nuclear Solid State Physics, University of Leipzig, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany'
- ' Institut f[ü]{}r Strahlenphysik, Forschungszentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, PO Box 510119, D-01314 Dresden, Germany'
author:
- 'M. Khalid, P. Esquinazi'
- 'D. Spemann'
- 'W. Anwand, G. Brauer'
title: Hydrogen mediated ferromagnetism in ZnO single crystals
---
After a large number of studies and different kinds of efforts, experimental and theoretical work of the last years indicate that defect-induced magnetism remains the key to trigger ferromagnetism in ZnO (as well as in other non-magnetic oxides) with Curie temperature above 300 K. Not the doping with magnetic elements appears to be a successful and reproducible method to trigger magnetic order in this oxide but the introduction of a certain defect density of the order of a few percent, like O- [@Ban07] or Zn-vacancies [@kha09] with or without doping of non-magnetic ions like C [@Zhou08], N [@Wu10], Li[@Cha09] or Cu [@Xu08; @Yi10]. In general, however, the achieved magnetization values are still too low, indicating that the magnetic order is very probably not homogeneously distributed in the whole sample, a necessary condition for application of this phenomenon in ZnO-based devices.
What about the influence of hydrogen in the magnetism of ZnO? It is known that the presence of hydrogen is unavoidable in all systems and in general it remains rather difficult to measure it with high enough accuracy. Hydrogen related magnetic order was recently found in graphite surfaces by x-ray magnetic circular dichroism [@ohl10] indicating that this element can play a role in the magnetism of nominally non magnetic materials. The role of hydrogen in ZnO can be diverse. It can act either as donor (H$^+$) or acceptor (H$^-$) and can even modify the host structure. In bulk ZnO hydrogen acts as a shallow donor and is a source of the unintentional n-type conductivity [@Wal00]. Room temperature ferromagnetism due to atomic hydrogen adsorption on different terminated surfaces of ZnO [@Wang08; @Wol07; @San10] or in the bulk of Co-doped ZnO [@liu09] has been studied theoretically. In one of these studies it was shown that atomic hydrogen adsorbed on the Zn place on the ZnO(0001) surface forms a strong H-Zn bonds leading to a metallic surface with a net magnetic moment [@San10]. All these theoretical studies indicate that it is important to check whether hydrogen implantation can trigger ferromagnetism in ZnO. In this work we investigate the magnetic properties of ZnO single crystals treated by remote hydrogen plasma and demonstrate that a remarkable ferromagnetic signal with a large magnetization is located in a few nm of the H-treated surface of the ZnO single crystals. Our finding opens up a simple and reproducible possibility to trigger magnetic order in broad or localized regions of ZnO bulk, thin films or microstructures without the need of introducing other elements or vacancies.
Hydrothermally grown ZnO single crystals were used for H-plasma treatment. Two of them were with one-side polished (O-terminated) of dimensions $\sim$ $(10\times10\times0.5)$ mm$^3$ (MaTeck GmbH, Jülich). One of them was treated with H-plasma while the other one was kept as reference. Both single crystals were cut before treatment to directly mount them in a straw for the magnetic measurements done with a Superconducting Quantum Interferometer Device (SQUID). Four other crystals were two sides polished with similar termination but of dimensions $\sim
(6\times6\times0.5)$ mm$^3$ (CrysTec GmbH, Berlin). Hydrogen doping in ZnO can be achieved by, e.g. adsorption of hydrogen on the ZnO surface, H-implantation or remote hydrogen plasma doping [@Tor09; @Wan09; @Str04]. We used the last method to implant hydrogen into ZnO.
![\[etc\] Hydrogen concentration vs penetration depth of H$^+$-ions in ZnO single crystals at different total implanted time, estimated by SRIM. The simulation results show that most of the H$^+$-ions are implanted within the first 20 nm from the surface. The inset shows the oxygen and zinc vacancies concentration produced in ZnO single crystals during 90 minutes H-implantation at the used energy conditions. ](Figu1.eps){width="0.9\linewidth"}
There are several parameters that may influence the strength of the magnetic order triggered through H-plasma treatment. Namely, the sample temperature, the $H^+$-ion energy and current and the total implanted charge. In this work we demonstrate how the substrate temperature and the total implanted charge influence the magnetic ordering in ZnO crystals. The substrate temperature was varied from room temperature to $400\,^{\circ}{\rm C}$ whereas the total implanted charge was controlled by varying the treatment time ranging from 30 to 90 min. The ZnO surface was placed $\sim$100 nm downstream from the plasma with a bias voltage of $\sim$-330 V (parallel-plate system of voltage difference of $10^3$ V). The bias current was fixed at $\sim$ 50 $\mu$A (sample plus sample holder) while the current into the sample only was nA. The exposition to remote hydrogen dc plasma ranges from 30 to 90 min. During the loading the gas pressure was $\sim$1 mbar.
![\[hys\] Room temperature saturation magnetization of the ferromagnetic signal of H-ZnO single crystals treated at different substrate temperatures, all with similar nominally implanted charge.](Figu2.eps){width="0.9\linewidth"}
![\[etc\]Hysteresis loops of a H-ZnO single crystal measured at 300 K applying a magnetic field parallel $(\bullet)$ and perpendicular $(\blacktriangle)$ to the main plane of the sample. The open circles $(\circ)$ represent the ferromagnetic magnetization of the untreated ZnO crystal calculated by taking into account the whole volume of the sample. The diamagnetic linear background was subtracted from the measured signal. The inset shows the remanent moment vs. temperature. The (red) solid line is given by $m(T)= 6.8 [\mu$emu$] (1-T/T_c)^{1/3})$ with a Curie temperature $T_c = 450~$K.](Figu3.eps){width="0.9\linewidth"}
The hydrogen content before and after H-treatment was determined by standard Nuclear Reaction Analysis (NRA) [@Lan95] using 6.64 MeV $^1$$^5$N ions with a depth resolution of $\sim$5 nm and a H detection limit of $\sim$200 ppm. The H-concentration vs. depth was obtained using SRIM (The Stopping and Range of Ions in Matter) simulation [@Zie85], see Fig. 1. The average hydrogen atomic concentration of bound hydrogen measured by NRA within the top 100 nm surface region of the ZnO crystals before and after 60 min treatment was (0.14$\pm$0.03) and (0.64$\pm$0.07) at.$\%$, respectively. Comparable results were reported recently [@anw10]. The average H-concentration reached in the 20 nm surface region after 60 min implantation at the used current conditions was $\sim 2.5 \pm 0.5~$at.%. Particle induced x-ray emission (PIXE) measurements were used to analyze the magnetic impurities of the samples before and after H-treatment. There was no significant difference in the magnetic impurity concentration before and after H-plasma treatment.
Several ZnO single crystals were treated with H-plasma. All of them showed an increase in the ferromagnetic moment after H-plasma treatment relative to their virgin values. The increase of the ferromagnetic moment depends on the temperature of the sample during H-treatment at nominally similar total implanted charge. Figure 2 shows the saturation values of the ferromagnetic magnetization signal (after subtraction of the diamagnetic linear background) of several samples treated in H-plasma for 90 min at different temperatures. We found that the ferromagnetic saturation magnetization increases by increasing sample temperature and reaches a maximum at $350\,^{\circ}{\rm C}$. Therefore we concentrate on the study of samples implanted at $250\,^{\circ}{\rm C}$ and $350\,^{\circ}{\rm C}$. We note that the observed dependence on the sample temperature might be very useful to control H diffusion as well as lattice defects produced during plasma treatment as well as after treatment.
In what follows we discuss results of samples treated at $350\,^{\circ}{\rm C}$ and $250\,^{\circ}{\rm C}$ for 1 h implantation and followed by results of samples implanted at $350\,^{\circ}{\rm C}$ but with different total charge (or implantation time). The results shown in this paper were not affected by aging after leaving the samples one year at 300 K.
![\[etc\] (a) Magnetic moment as a function of applied magnetic field of a H-ZnO single crystal at different etching stages, after subtraction of the diamagnetic contribution at 300 K. (b) Ferromagnetic magnetization values at saturation obtained taking into account the change in magnetic moment (see (a)) after etching a specific thickness of the surface region for H-treated samples at substrate temperatures of $350\,^{\circ}{\rm
C}$ ($\bullet$) and $250\,^{\circ}{\rm C}$ $(\blacktriangle)$.](Fig.4.eps){width="0.9\linewidth"}
Figure 3 shows the magnetic moment at 300 K of a H-ZnO single crystal treated at $350\,^{\circ}{\rm C}$ and at applied magnetic fields parallel and perpendicular to the main sample area. Clear ferromagnetic hysteresis loops are observed at 300 K. The ferromagnetic behavior of the hysteresis shows a clear magnetocrystalline anisotropy with anisotropy constant $\textit{K}$$_1$ $\sim$ 2 $\times$ 10$^5$ J/m$^3$. This anisotropy also excludes magnetic impurities as origin for the observed ferromagnetism. The remanent magnetic moment vs. temperature shown in the inset of Fig. 3 was measured at zero field after applying a field parallel to the sample main surface and cooled down in field to 5 K. The temperature dependence of the remanence follows $m(T)=m_0(1-T/T_c)^{\delta}$ with $\delta = 0.33 \pm 0.05$, a static scaling law with an exponent similar to other ferromagnets like e.g. CrBr$_3$[@ho70]. This fit indicates a Curie temperature of $T_c = 450~\pm 25~$K.
In order to investigate how much surface thickness of the ZnO single crystals is contributing to the observed ferromagnetism we etched up to $\sim 100$ nm thick layer and studied the change in ferromagnetic moment. For this purpose we used a solution of 0.3 ml HCl in 400 ml water[@Mak02; @Lin77]. The single crystals were etched from both sides and then the measured etched mass divided by two in order to exclude the mass of H-untreated side. After $\simeq 40~$s etching time a $\simeq 4~\mu$g mass of the ZnO crystal was removed, which means $\simeq$10 nm thick layer from the H-treated side. After etching 10 nm thick layer the hysteresis loop was measured at 300 K. These results are shown in Fig. 4(a). Knowing the etched mass and the corresponding change in ferromagnetic moment we can calculate the real magnetization of the H-treated layer. The magnetization as a function of etched thickness for two samples treated at different temperatures is shown in Fig. 4(b). From these results it becomes clear that the major ferromagnetic contribution vanishes after etching the first $\simeq$20 nm layer, a layer thickness that agrees with the calculated H-concentration using SRIM and shown in Fig.1. At the used $H^+$-energies the estimated concentration of O- and Zn-vacancies is 8 and 9 orders of magnitude smaller than the H-concentration in the first 20 nm from the surface, see inset in Fig. 1. This huge difference clearly indicates that in the treated samples hydrogen with a concentration of several percent at the surface and not Zn- or O-vacancies or interstitials play a major role in the observed magnetic order.
![\[mr\] Magnetization of H-ZnO single crystal vs applied field measured at different total implantations. The saturation magnetization increases by increasing the implanted charge.](Fig.5.eps){width="0.9\linewidth"}
We also studied the influence on the ferromagnetic signal of the amount of hydrogen implanted into the sample. The samples were treated with H-plasma at a temperature of $350\,^{\circ}{\rm C}$ at 3 different total implanted times, namely 30, 60 and 90 min. The ferromagnetic signals of these samples are shown in Fig. 5. We observe that the magnetization of H-ZnO crystals increases with the total treatment time.
With the measured ferromagnetic magnetization within the first 20 nm surface region we estimate a magnetic moment of the order of $0.2~\mu_B$ per ZnO unit cell. If we assume that in average about 1 H atom per unit cell exists in this 20 nm region then this magnetic moment triggered by each H atom is comparable to that obtained in Ref. [@San10].\
In conclusion, we investigated the magnetic properties of remote H-plasma treated ZnO single crystals. The NRA results confirmed the enhanced concentration of hydrogen in ZnO single crystals after treatment. Characteristic ferromagnetic hysteresis loops as well as a magnetic anisotropy were observed in H-ZnO samples at room temperature. Systematically measurements of the magnetic moment of the treated samples after wet chemical etching proved that only the first $\lesssim$ 20 nm thick surface layer of H-treated ZnO contributes to the total ferromagnetic magnetization, in agreement with the expected H-penetration depth estimated by SRIM. We attribute the observed ferromagnetism in H-ZnO single crystals to the influence of hydrogen. Because hydrogen implantation also reduces dramatically the resistivity of the ZnO structure, this ferromagnetic oxide should be more easily applied in spintronic devices. Magnetotransport measurements on similar H-treated samples are currently being performed and show a negative magnetoresistance that increases (absolutely speaking) the larger the ferromagnetic magnetization (proportional to the H-concentration). Transport measurements as a function of the angle between current and applied magnetic field show a clear anisotropic magnetoresistance (AMR), which amplitude decreases as a function of temperature. At 250 K the amplitude of the AMR is $\simeq 0.5\%$ of the measured resistance at a field of 5 T. The existence of an AMR indicates a finite $L \cdot S$ coupling contribution to the scattering as well as the existence of a spin asymmetry in the electronic band. These results will be published elsewhere.\
This work was supported by the DFG within the Collaborative Research Center (SFB 762) “Functionality of Oxide Interfaces”.\
[10]{}
S. Banerjee, M. Mandal, N. Gayathri, and M. Sardar. , 91:182501, 2007.
M. Khalid, M. Ziese, A. Setzer, P. Esquinazi, M. Lorenz, H. Hochmuth, M. Grundmann, D. Spemann, T. Butz, G. Brauer, W. Anwand, G. Fischer, W. A. Adeagbo, W. Hergert, and A. Ernst. , 80(3):035331, Jul 2009.
S. Zhou, Q. Xu, K. Potzger, G. Talut, R. Grötzschel, J. Fassbender, M. Vinnichenko, J. Grenzer, M. Helm, H. Hochmuth, M. Lorenz, M. Grundmann, and H. Schmidt. , 93:232507, 2008.
K.Y. Wu, Q.Q. Fang, W.N. Wang, C. Zhou, W. J. Huang, J. G. Li, Q. R. Lv, Y. M. Liu, Q.P. Zhang, and H.M. Zhang. , 108:063530, 2010.
S. Chawla, K. Jayanthi, and R. K. Kotnala. , 79:125204, 2009.
Q. Xu, H. Schmidt, S. Zhou, K. Potzger, M. Helm, H. Hochmuth, M. Lorenz, A. Setzer, P. Esquinazi, C. Meinecke, and M. Grundmann. , 92:082508, 2008.
J.B. Yi, C.C. Lim, G.Z. Xing, H.M. Fan, L.H. Van, S.L. Huang, K.S. Yang, X.L. Huang, X.B. Qin, B.Y. Wang, T. Wu, L. Wang, H.T. Zhang, X.Y. Gao, T. Liu, A.T.S. Wee, Y.P. Feng, and J. Ding. , 104:137201, 2010.
H. Ohldag, P. Esquinazi, E. Arenholz, D. Spemann M. Rothermel, A. Setzer, and T. Butz. , 12:123012, 2010.
C. G. [Van de Walle]{}. , 85:1012, 2000.
C. Wang, G. Zhou, J. Li, B. Yan, and W. Duan. , 77:245303, 2008.
C. Woll. , 82:55, 2007.
N. Sanchez, S. Gallego, J. Cerda, and M.C. Munoz. , 81:115301, 2010.
E.-Z. Liu, J.-F. Liu, Y. He, and J. Z. Jiang. , 321:3507, 2009.
S. Torbrugge, F. Ostendorf, and M. Reichling. , 113:4909, 2009.
D.F.Wang, H.B. Lu, J.C. Li, Y. Wu, Y. Tian, and Y.P. Lee. , 44:41, 2009.
Y. M. Strzhemechny, H.L. Mosbacker, D.C. Look, D.C. Reynolds, and C.W. Litton et.al. , 84:2545, 2004.
W. A. Lanford. . Materials Reseach Society, Pittsburgh, PA, 1995.
J. F. Ziegler, J. P. Biersack, and U. Littmark. . Pergamon, New York, 1985.
W. Anwand, G. Brauer, T. E. Cowan, D. Grambole, W. Skorupa, J. C. Cizek, J. Kuriplach, I. Proch[á]{}zka, W. Egger, and P. Sperr. , 207:2415, 2010.
John T. Ho and J. D. Litster. , 2(11):4523–4532, Dec 1970.
H. Maki, T. Ikoma, I. Sakaguchi, N. Ohashi, H. Haneda, J. Tanaka, and N. Ichinose. , 411:91, 2002.
T.T. Lin and D. Lichtman. , 48:2164, 1977.
|
---
abstract: 'In the Nastrom-Gage spectrum of atmospheric turbulence we observe a $k^{-3}$ energy spectrum that transitions into a $k^{-5/3}$ spectrum, with increasing wavenumber $k$. The transition occurs near a transition wavenumber $k_t$, located near the Rossby deformation wavenumber $k_R$. The Tung-Orlando theory interprets this spectrum as a double downscale cascade of potential enstrophy and energy, from large scales to small scales, in which the downscale potential enstrophy cascade coexists with the downscale energy cascade over the same length-scale range. We show that, in a temperature forced two-layer quasi-geostrophic model, the rates with which potential enstrophy and energy are injected place the transition wavenumber $k_t$ near $k_R$. We also show that if the potential energy dominates the kinetic energy in the forcing range, then the Ekman term suppresses the upscale cascading potential enstrophy more than it suppresses the upscale cascading energy, a behavior contrary to what occurs in two-dimensional turbulence. As a result, the ratio $\gn/\gee$ of injected potential enstrophy over injected energy, in the downscale direction, decreases, thereby tending to decrease the transition wavenumber $k_t$ further. Using a random Gaussian forcing model, we reach the same conclusion, under the modeling assumption that the asymmetric Ekman term predominantly suppresses the bottom layer forcing, thereby disregarding a possible entanglement between the Ekman term and the nonlinear interlayer interaction. Based on these results, we argue that the Tung-Orlando theory can account for the approximate coincidence between $k_t$ and $k_R$. We also identify certain open questions that require further investigation via numerical simulations.'
author:
- Eleftherios Gkioulekas
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: 'The effect of asymmetric large-scale dissipation on energy and potential enstrophy injection in two-layer quasi-geostrophic turbulence'
---
Introduction
============
Quasi-geostrophic models capture the dynamics of the atmosphere at planetary scales greater than 100km, in order of magnitude. They are based on the assumptions of rapid rotation and small vertical thickness, both of which become pronounced features of the dynamics of atmospheric motion at increasingly larger length scales. The simplest quasi-geostrophic model is the two-layer model, in which we have two layers of two-dimensional vorticity-streamfunction equations, coupled by a temperature equation, situated in a mid-layer between the vorticity layers. Obviously, the two-layer model can be generalized by adding more layers of vorticity-streamfunction equations interlaced with temperature equation mid-layers. In the limit of an infinite number of layers, we converge to the full quasi-geostrophic model.
Until recently, it was assumed that quasi-geostrophic turbulence has the same dynamical behaviour as two-dimensional turbulence, where, according to the theory of @article:Kraichnan:1967:1, @article:Leith:1968, and @article:Batchelor:1969, there is a downscale enstrophy cascade and an upscale inverse energy cascade. This assumption follows from @article:Charney:1971 who claimed that there is an “isomorphism” between quasi-geostrophic turbulence and two-dimensional turbulence. More recently, key differences between these two models were noted by [@article:Welch:2001], @article:Orlando:2003:1, and @article:Tung:2007. The most remarkable difference was highlighted in the numerical simulation of the two-layer quasi-geostrophic model by @article:Orlando:2003, which produced an energy spectrum that scales as $k^{-3}$ initially, and with increasing wavenumber $k$, transitions to $k^{-5/3}$ scaling. This is consistent with the observed energy spectrum of the atmosphere, as was first measured by @article:Gage:1984 and @article:Nastrom:1986, but it is inconsistent with our conventional understanding of the dynamical behavior of two-dimensional turbulence, as described by the theory of @article:Kraichnan:1967:1, @article:Leith:1968, and @article:Batchelor:1969. @article:Orlando:2003 showed that their simulation produced a downscale enstrophy cascade that co-existed with a downscale energy cascade, with both energy and enstrophy injected by baroclinic instability at small wavenumbers, and dissipated at large wavenumbers. If $\gn$ is the enstrophy flux and $\gee$ is the energy flux associated with these coexisting cascades, then, by dimensional analysis, @article:Orlando:2003 argue that the transition from $k^{-3}$ scaling to $k^{-5/3}$ scaling should occur at a transition wavenumber $k_t \sim (\gn/\gee)^{1/2}$, and it does.
This result bolstered the Tung-Orlando theory that interpreted the Nastrom-Gage spectrum as a coexisting downscale potential enstrophy cascade and downscale energy cascade, both spanning a comparable range of length scales. It should be noted that it was not the intention of @article:Orlando:2003 to claim that the entire Nastrom-Gage spectrum can be explained via the two-layer quasi-geostrophic model. The point of the simulation was to demonstrate that it is possible to have coexisting downscale potential enstrophy and energy cascades, even in models as close to two-dimensional turbulence as the two-layer quasi-geostrophic model. This possibility is bound to become even more favorable under models that are further away from the two-dimensional approximation, such as the multi-layer quasi-geostrophic model or the three-dimensional stratified turbulence model. Gravity waves can also play a helpful role in facilitating coexisting cascades, as discussed further in section 5.
In a subsequent paper, @article:Smith:2004 criticized @article:Orlando:2003 on the following grounds: First, using his “HVK scale” estimates, he claimed that the Tung-Orlando numerical simulation is not well-resolved and that therefore the $k^{-5/3}$ part of the Tung-Orlando energy spectrum is a bottleneck instead of being indicative of a real cascade. In connection with this claim, @article:Smith:2004 criticized the use of a resolution-dependent hyperdiffusion coefficient by @article:Orlando:2003. Second, that in two-dimensional turbulence it is not possible for the downscale energy flux to be large enough to create a gap between the transition wavenumber $k_t$ and the dissipation wavenumber $k_d$. In response, @article:Tung:2004 noted that: (a) Since, the diagnostics in the Tung-Orlando simulation indicate a downscale enstrophy flux $\gn$ and a downscale energy flux $\gee$ that have magnitudes consistent with the location of the transition wavenumber $k_t$ in the simulation’s energy spectrum, it is very unlikely that the transition is caused by an energy bottleneck, as argued by @article:Smith:2004. (b) The use of a resolution-dependent hyperviscosity coefficient is intended to model the anomalous energy dissipation sink at small scales, originating from three-dimensional dynamics, by controlling the downscale energy dissipation rate. (c) Smith’s “HVK scale” argument, which was used to argue that the Tung-Orlando simulation is not well-resolved, has various flaws, discussed in detail by @article:Tung:2004, that render it inconclusive. Nevertheless, Smith’s claim, that $k_t$ will coincide with the dissipation scale $k_d$, can be shown to hold, for the case of two-dimensional turbulence, via a corrected proof given by @article:Tung:2005:1. However, as was shown by [@article:Tung:2007], this result is not necessarily generalizable to quasi-geostrophic models. Thus, @article:Smith:2004 did not establish the claim that “an inertial range transition is not possible in quasi-geostrophic models”, and the theoretical problem remains open. (d) Since the diagnostics of the Tung-Orlando simulation indicate that the downscale energy dissipation rate balances the rate with which energy is sent downscale from the forcing range, the simulation is sufficiently well-resolved to prevent a bottleneck-type energy pile up at small scales, over a time-scale longer than the runtime of the simulation.
Be that as it may, the underlying theoretical question, implied by @article:Smith:2004, remained open: How can the downscale energy flux $\gee$ be large enough to yield a gap between $k_t$ and $k_d$, when that is not possible in two-dimensional turbulence? An even deeper question also demanded further understanding: how is it possible for two downscale cascades to coexist? These lingering questions generated skepticism towards the Tung-Orlando theory, which is why we were prompted to investigate them at greater depth. In @article:Tung:2005 [@article:Tung:2005:1], we augmented the Tung-Orlando theory by noting that even in two-dimensional turbulence there is a small amount of energy cascading from small to large wavenumbers, as long as the viscosity coefficient of the small-scale dissipation term is non-zero. We have proposed that this small “energy leak” should be viewed as a downscale energy cascade that coexists with the dominant downscale enstrophy cascade. To support this theory, in @article:Tung:2005 [@article:Tung:2005:1] we noted that the triad interactions responsible for the enstrophy cascade are independent from those responsible for the downscale energy cascade. This is, in fact, an immediate but unstated consequence of the original argument by @article:Kraichnan:1967:1, as noted in section 3.2 of @article:Tung:2005. We have also theorized that the two cascades can be viewed as two independent homogeneous solutions of the governing statistical theory that can be linearly superposed on each other. @article:Davidson:2008 confirmed the validity of the linear superposition principle for the 3rd-order structure functions, thereby adding further detail to a corresponding proof sketch given in section 3.1 of @article:Tung:2005. Some of the details of my statistical theory of two-dimensional turbulence was given in @article:Gkioulekas:2008:1 and @article:Gkioulekas:p14, and further development of this theory is currently in progress.
To elaborate further, our claim is that the energy spectrum of the downscale cascade is given by the linear combination of a dominant $k^{-3}$ term, arising from the dominant downscale enstrophy cascade, and a subdominant $k^{-5/3}$ term, arising from the hidden downscale energy cascade, which allows, in principle, a transition from the $-3$ slope to the $-5/3$ slope. In linearly dissipated two-dimensional turbulence, this transition is not expected to be realized, because an upper bound on the energy flux forces the transition scale $k_t$ to be greater than the dissipation scale $k_d$ of the enstrophy cascade. If $\Pi_E (k)$ is the energy flux from the $(0,k)$ wavenumber interval to the $(k,+\infty)$ interval and $\Pi_G (k)$ is the enstrophy flux from $(0,k)$ to $(k,+\infty)$, then this flux inequality reads $k^2 \Pi_E (k)-\Pi_G (k)<0$, for all wavenumbers $k$ not in the forcing range. The origin of this inequality is the relationship $D_E (k) = k^{-2} D_G (k)$ between the energy dissipation spectrum $D_E (k)$ and the enstrophy dissipation spectrum $D_G (k)$. Thus, with increasing wavenumber $k$, the proportion of the energy dissipation rate relative to the enstrophy dissipation rate vanishes rapidly with $k^{-2}$, and this rapid decrease is the reason why the downscale energy cascade coexisting with the downscale enstrophy cascade cannot be seen in the energy spectrum. However, the subtle point that deserves to be stressed here is that *the proof of the inequality involves both the linearity of the dissipation terms and the twin conservation laws (of enstrophy and energy), and is not inherent solely to the twin conservation laws.* With a nonlinear dissipation term, that could result from neglected three-dimensional effects, the flux inequality could be violated within the inertial range. Since the transition wavenumber $k_t$ is expected to be approximately equal to the wavenumber where the flux inequality becomes an equation, an inertial range violation of the flux inequality would give $k_t \ll k_d$.
As was shown by @article:Tung:2007, in the quasi-geostrophic two-layer model, the relationship between $D_E (k)$ and $D_G (k)$ becomes quite complicated, so it may be possible to violate the flux inequality, thus resulting in a significant separation between $k_t$ and $k_d$. If that occurs, we can expect $k^{-5/3}$ scaling in the gap created between $k_t$ and $k_d$. In @article:Tung:2007, we have identified asymmetric dissipation as the only mechanism that can break the flux inequality. By asymmetric dissipation we mean that the dissipation operators acting on the top and bottom velocity equations are different: indeed, in the two-layer quasi-geostrophic model there is an Ekman dissipation term acting at large scales at the bottom layer but not at the top layer. Since the small-scale hyperdiffusion is not physically inherent in the quasi-geostrophic dynamics, there is no physical reason to prefer symmetric over asymmetric hyperdiffusion either. Unfortunately, there are still many open questions concerning the theory of the flux inequality. Consequently, the numerical results of @article:Orlando:2003 notwithstanding, there is still some uncertainty on whether the two-layer model can have a robust energy dissipation sink that can break the flux inequality in the inertial range.
It should be noted that when the same dissipation operator is used on both layers, it can be proved that the flux inequality is satisfied for all wavenumbers not in the forcing range. For that case, the prediction of @article:Charney:1971, that quasi-geostrophic turbulence will be isomorphic to two-dimensional turbulence, is expected to hold. This was confirmed in a numerical simulation by @article:Lindborg:2010, where the dissipation operator and the forcing term are both independent of the vertical coordinate. Recently, @article:Smith:2009 proposed a more sophisticated two-layer two-mode quasi-geostrophic model that has succeeded in reproducing the Nastrom-Gage spectrum. More importantly, using their quasi-geostrophic model, @article:Smith:2009 confirmed that it is possible for a downscale potential enstrophy cascade to coexist with a downscale energy cascade, thereby vindicating the fundamental premise of the Tung-Orlando theory. A further advantage of the Tulloch-Smith QG model is that it seems to have resolved the small-scale energy dissipation sink problem implied by the HVK argument of @article:Smith:2004. Since the Tulloch-Smith QG model is still a severely restricted approximation of the full quasi-geostrophic model, it is reasonable to expect that the small-scale energy dissipation sink problem will remain resolved under the full quasi-geostrophic model. This raises many interesting questions that are, unfortunately, beyond the scope of this paper, but will be investigated in future work.
The goal of the present paper is to add one more piece to the overall puzzle by looking at the forcing range instead of the dissipation range. We will thus consider the effect of symmetric versus asymmetric forcing on the dynamics of the two-layer quasi-geostrophic model. We will first show that when the model is forced exclusively through the temperature equation, this results in antisymmetric forcing on the potential vorticity equations for both layers. Consequently, the energy forcing spectrum $F_E(k)$ and the potential enstrophy forcing spectrum $F_G(k)$ are related as $F_G(k) = (k^2+k_R^2) F_E(k)$, with $k_R$ the Rossby wavenumber. For forcing-range wavenumbers $k\sim k_f \ll k_R$, we have approximately $F_G(k) \sim k_R^2 F_E(k)$. It follows that if we neglect Ekman dissipation, then the ratio of the enstrophy flux $\gn$ over the energy flux $\gee$ injection to the downscale cascades will satisfy $(\gn/\gee) \sim k_R^2$, and therefore the transition wavenumber $k_t$ has to be in the vicinity of the Rossby wavenumber $k_R$. As it turns out, this is indeed the approximate location of the transition wavenumber $k_t$ in the actual Nastrom-Gage spectrum as well as in the @article:Orlando:2003 simulation.
We will show that asymmetric Ekman dissipation tends to decrease the ratio $k_t \sim (\gn/\gee)^{1/2}$ as long as the potential energy spectrum dominates the kinetic energy spectrum in the forcing range. This peculiar behaviour results from the asymmetry of the effective forcing between the two layers, caused by the introduction of the Ekman term into the bottom layer. This claim is further supported by our consideration of the random Gaussian forcing model, in which the bottom-layer forcing is directly suppressed by a controlled scalar factor. Unfortunately, there are a number of open questions and outstanding issues concerning the distribution of energy between potential energy and kinetic energy. Furthermore, the modeling assumption that the Ekman term suppresses forcing only at the lower-layer is equivalent to ignoring the unknown effect of the entanglement of the Ekman term with the interlayer interaction, and that is the underlying problem.
It should be noted that, in the context of the two-layer model, unless the dissipation terms at small scales can dissipate the energy and potential enstrophy at the same rate with which they are injected to the downscale range, the downscale energy and potential enstrophy cascades will simply fail to develop. It is not yet obvious, in terms of theory, whether the two-layer quasi-geostrophic model can dissipate this much energy, a problem previously discussed by @article:Tung:2007. On the other hand, in the real atmosphere, we note that at larger wavenumbers, the dynamics transitions from quasi-geostrophic to stratified three-dimensional turbulence. According to @article:Lindborg:2007, the transition to stratified turbulence occurs at a scale of about $100$km. Since stratified turbulence, like three-dimensional Navier-Stokes turbulence, does have an anomalous energy dissipation sink, it follows that any amount of energy injected at large scales can and will be dissipated. Furthermore, since potential enstrophy continues to be conserved under stratified dynamics, the two cascades can continue to coexist for scales less than $100$km. On the other hand, the two-layer model is indeed realistic at the small synoptic-scale wavenumbers, where the forcing takes place, so using it to explain the rates of energy and potential enstrophy injection at the forcing range is a fair argument.
As we have explained above, in the Tung-Orlando theory, the location of the transition wavenumber $k_t$ is directly determined by the relative magnitude of the downscale potential enstrophy flux $\gn$ over the downscale energy flux $\gee$. A different mechanism underlies an SQG model that was recently proposed by @article:Smith:2006. In their model, there is only one cascade, whose scaling exponent changes with wavenumber $k$, because the self-similar scaling of the model’s nonlinear term changes with increasing $k$. As a result, in the Tulloch-Smith SQG model the transition wavenumber $k_t$ is strictly constrained to coincide with $k_R$, because the transition in the scaling of the nonlinear term of the model occurs at $k_R$. This dynamics of the Tulloch-Smith SQG model is analogous to that of the LANS $\ga$-model of three-dimensional Navier-Stokes turbulence [@article:Wingate:2005], in which, once again there is a single downscale energy cascade with $k^{-5/3}$ scaling in the energy spectrum, with a transition to a steeper $k^{-3}$ slope at higher wavenumbers $k$, because of the introduced distortion of the Navier-Stokes nonlinearity. In both cases, we are essentially dealing with a single homogeneous solution, associated with a single flux coefficient, which, to first approximation, we can consider bifractal.
Under the quasi-geostrophic models used by @article:Orlando:2003 and @article:Smith:2009, on the other hand, we are dealing with two independent homogeneous solutions each of which, to first approximation, can be considered monofractal. Because the two solutions are independent of each other, as far as the nonlinearity is concerned, it is possible for the transition wavenumber $k_t$, in principle, to have any arbitrary value, since its location is determined solely by the relative magnitude of the two homogeneous solutions against each other. From the viewpoint of this paper, the constraint $k_t \sim k_R$ is a weak indirect constraint that originates from the combined effect of anti-symmetric forcing and the large-scale Ekman dissipation term on the energy and potential enstrophy injection rates. This paper argues that the two-layer quasi-geostrophic model is consistent with placing $k_t$ near $k_R$.
The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we review the two-layer quasi-geostrophic model and introduce various preliminaries. In section 3 we derive the potential enstrophy and energy forcing spectra for the case of a generalized multi-layer quasi-geostrophic model, and discuss the random Gaussian forcing model. These results are applied to the two-layer quasi-geostrophic model itself in section 4. Conclusions and discussion are given in section 5 and technical matters are discussed in the appendices.
The two-layer model equations
=============================
The two-layer model is defined by two vorticity-streamfunction equations and a temperature equation which read $$\begin{aligned}
\pderiv{\gz_1}{t} &+ J(\gy_1, \gz_1+f) = -\frac{2f}{h} \gw + d_1, \label{eq:RelativeVortOne} \\
\pderiv{\gz_2}{t} &+ J(\gy_2, \gz_2+f) = +\frac{2f}{h} \gw + d_2 + e_2, \label{eq:RelativeVortTwo} \\
\pderiv{T}{t} &+ J\left( \frac{\gy_1+\gy_2}{2}, T\right) = -\frac{N^2}{f}\gw + Q_0. \label{eq:Temperature} \end{aligned}$$ We see that the temperature $T$ is advected by the average streamfunction $(\gy_1+\gy_2)/2$. Here $\gy_1$ and $\gy_2$ are the streamfunctions of the top and bottom layers; $\gw$ is the vertical velocity; $\gz_1 = \del^2 \gy_1$ and $\gz_2 = \del^2 \gy_2$ are the relative vorticities, and $d_1$, $d_2$, and $e_2$ are the dissipation terms given by $$\begin{aligned}
d_1 &= (-1)^{\gk+1}\nu \del^{2\gk} \gz_1 = (-1)^{\gk+1}\nu \del^{2\gk+2} \gy_1 ,\\
d_2 &= (-1)^{\gk+1}\nu \del^{2\gk} \gz_2 = (-1)^{\gk+1}\nu \del^{2\gk+2} \gy_2, \\
e_2 &= -\nu_E \gz_2 = -\nu_E \del^2 \gy_2.\end{aligned}$$ The terms $d_1$ and $d_2$ represent momentum dissipation of relative vorticity and $e_2$ represents Ekman damping from the lower boundary layer. Furthermore, $h$ is the height between the top and bottom rigid horizontal boundaries (the two vorticity layers and the temperature midlayer divide the space between the horizontal boundaries into four equal intervals, with the temperature midlayer situated between the two vorticity layers), $f$ is the Coriolis term, $N$ is the frequency, and $Q$ the thermal forcing term. The temperature $T$ is related with the streamfunctions $\gy_1$ and $\gy_2$ via the geostrophic condition $T = (2/h)(\gy_1-\gy_2)$. Finally, $J(a, b)$ is defined as the Jacobian between the fields $a$ and $b$ and it reads: $$J (a,b) = \pderiv{a}{x} \pderiv{b}{y} - \pderiv{b}{x} \pderiv{a}{y}.$$ Solving for the vertical velocity $\gw$ in the temperature equation, after substituting the geostrophic condition, leads to the definition of the potential vorticities $q_1$ and $q_2$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
q_1 &= \del^2 \gy_1 + f + \frac{k_R^2}{2}(\gy_2-\gy_1), \label{eq:DefPotVortOne} \\
q_2 &= \del^2 \gy_2 + f - \frac{k_R^2}{2}(\gy_2-\gy_1), \label{eq:DefPotVortTwo} \end{aligned}$$ and their corresponding governing equations which read: $$\begin{aligned}
\pderiv{q_1}{t} &+ J(\gy_1, q_1) = f_1 + d_1, \label{eq:PotVortOne} \\
\pderiv{q_2}{t} &+ J(\gy_2, q_2) = f_2 + d_2+ e_2. \label{eq:PotVortTwo}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $k_R$ is the Rossby deformation wavenumber defined as $k_R \equiv 2\sqrt{2} f/(hN)$, $f_1 = -(1/4)k_R^2 h Q_0$, and $f_2 = (1/4)k_R^2 h Q_0$. The derivation is shown in Appendix \[app:VorticityStreamfunctionEquations\]. Although the argument is well-known folklore, we want to note mainly that: (a) the dissipation terms have the same form in the relative vorticity equations as they do in the potential vorticity equations; (b) the thermal forcing term $Q$ appears on both top and bottom potential vorticity equations with opposite signs. Consequently, both layers are forced anti-symmetrically by the same forcing term, except with opposite signs.
It is also well-known that the two-layer model, in the absence of forcing and dissipation, conserves the total energy E given by $$E(t) = - \int_{\bbR^2} [\psi_1 (\bfx,t) q_1 (\bfx,t) + \psi_2 (\bfx,t) q_2 (\bfx,t) ] \;\df{\bfx},$$ and the potential enstrophies $G_1$ and $G_2$ for each layer given by: $$\begin{aligned}
G_1 (t) &= \int_{\bbR^2} q_1^2 (\bfx,t) \;\df{\bfx},\\
G_2 (t) &= \int_{\bbR^2} q_2^2 (\bfx,t) \;\df{\bfx}.\end{aligned}$$
To properly define all the relevant spectra associated with these conserved quantities, consider first the Fourier expansions of the streamfunctions fields $\psi_\ga (\bfx,t)$ and potential vorticity fields $q_\ga (\bfx,t)$ ($\ga = 1,2$): $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_\ga (\bfx,t) &= \int_{\bbR^2} \hat\psi_\ga (\bfk,t) \exp (i\bfk\cdot\bfx) \; \df{\bfk}, \\
q_\ga (\bfx,t) &= \int_{\bbR^2} \hat q _\ga (\bfk,t) \exp (i\bfk\cdot\bfx) \; \df{\bfk}.\end{aligned}$$ In Fourier space, the potential vorticity fields $q_\ga$ and streamfunction fields $\psi_\ga$ are related by $$\hat q _\ga (\bfk,t) = \sum_{\gb} L_{\ga\gb} (\nrm{\bfk}) \hat\psi_\ga (\bfk,t). \label{eq:QpsiRel}$$ Here, the sum runs over all layers, in this case $\gb=1,2$, and $L_{\ga\gb} (k)$ is a wavenumber matrix defined as $$L_{\ga\gb} (k) = \mattwo{-k^2-k_R^2/2}{+k_R^2/2}{+k_R^2/2}{-k^2-k_R^2/2}.
\label{eq:TheMatrixL}$$ In real space, the same relation between the potential vorticity $q_\ga$ and the streamfunction $\psi_\ga$ can be written in terms of a corresponding differential operator $\ccL_{\ga\gb}$, as follows: $$q_\ga (\bfx,t) = \sum_{\gb} \ccL_{\ga\gb} \psi_\ga (\bfx,t).$$ It is easy to see that the matrix $L_{\ga\gb} (k)$ is non-singular, for $k>0$, and can therefore be inverted. The inverse matrix $L_{\ga\gb}^{-1} (k)$ defines a corresponding inverse integrodifferential operator $\ccL_{\ga\gb}^{-1}$. Note that in Eq. we have neglected the $\gb$ contribution to the Coriolis term $f$, since, for the case of our planet, the impact of the $\gb$-effect on the Nastrom-Gage energy spectrum is negligible. We have also neglected the latitude dependence of $f$, on the premise that we are interested in the ensemble average of the energy spectrum restricted on a thin strip of the Earth’s surface that is oriented parallel to the equator. These approximations cause the Coriolis term $f$ to drop out of the nonlinear Jacobian terms altogether.
Let us now introduce the following notation. Consider any arbitrary abstract scalar fields $a(\bfx)$ and $b(\bfx)$, which can be snapshots in time of either the streamfunction fields $\psi_\ga (\bfx,t)$ or the potential vorticity fields $q_\ga (\bfx,t)$ for a given level $\ga$. Let $a^{<k}(\bfx)$ and $b^{<k}(\bfx)$ be the fields obtained from $a(\bfx)$ and $b(\bfx)$ by setting to zero, in Fourier space, the components corresponding to wavenumbers whose norm is greater than $k$. Formally, $a^{<k}(\bfx)$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
a^{<k}(\bfx) &= \int_{\bbR^2} \df{\bfx_0} \int_{\bbR^2} \df{\bfk_0}\; \frac{H(k-\nrm{\bfk_0})}{4\pi^2} \exp (i\bfk_0\cdot (\bfx-\bfx_0)) a(\bfx_0) \\
&\equiv \int_{\bbR^2} \df{\bfx_0} \; P(k|\bfx-\bfx_0) a(\bfx_0),\end{aligned}$$ with $H(x)$ the Heaviside function, defined as the integral of a delta function: $$\begin{aligned}
H(x) &= \int_0^x \gd (\tau) \; d\tau = \casethree{1}{\text{if } x\in (0,+\infty)}{1/2}{\text{if } x=0}{0}{\text{if } x\in (-\infty,0)}.\end{aligned}$$ Here $P(k|\bfx-\bfx_0)$ is the corresponding low-pass filter kernel. Obviously, $b^{<k}(\bfx)$ is defined similarly. We now use the two filtered fields $a^{<k}(\bfx)$ and $b^{<k}(\bfx)$ to define the bracket $\innerf{a}{b}{k}$ as: $$\begin{aligned}
\innerf{a}{b}{k} &= \dD{k} \int_{\bbR^2} \df{\bfx}\;\avg{a^{<k}(\bfx) b^{<k}(\bfx)} \label{eq:BracketDef} \\
&= \frac{1}{2} \int_{A\in \SO{2}} \df{\Omega (A)}\; \avg{[\hat a^{\ast}(kA\bfe) \hat b(kA\bfe) + \hat a(kA\bfe) \hat b^{\ast}(kA\bfe)]}. \label{eq:BracketFourier} \end{aligned}$$ Here, $\hat a (\bfk)$ and $\hat b (\bfk)$ are the Fourier transforms of $a(\bfx)$ and $b(\bfx)$, $\SO{2}$ is the set of all non-reflecting rotation matrices in two dimensions, $d\Omega (A)$ is the measure of a spherical integral, $\bfe$ is a two-dimensional unit vector, and $\avg{\cdot}$ represents taking an ensemble average. The star superscript represents taking the complex conjugate. Also note that Eq. is the definition of the bracket, and Eq. is a consequence of the definition.
It is easy to see that the bracket is both symmetric and bilinear, in that it satisfies: $$\begin{aligned}
&\innerf{a}{b}{k} = \innerf{b}{a}{k},\\
&\innerf{a}{b+c}{k} = \innerf{a}{b}{k} + \innerf{a}{c}{k}, \\
&\innerf{a+b}{c}{k} = \innerf{a}{c}{k} + \innerf{b}{c}{k}.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, every $(\ab)$-component of the operator $\ccL_{\ga\gb}$ is self-adjoint with respect to the bracket, which gives $$\innerf{\ccL_{\ab} a}{b}{k} = \innerf{a}{\ccL_{\ab} b}{k} = L_{\ab} (k)\innerf{a}{b}{k},$$ and the same property is also satisfied by every component of the inverse operator $\ccL_{\ga\gb}^{-1}$: $$\innerf{\ccL_{\ab}^{-1} a}{b}{k} = \innerf{a}{\ccL_{\ab}^{-1} b}{k} = L_{\ab}^{-1} (k)\innerf{a}{b}{k}.$$
Using the bracket, we now define the energy spectrum $E(k)= - \innerf{\psi_1}{q_1}{k} - \innerf{\psi_2}{q_2}{k}$ and the potential enstrophy spectra $G_1(k)= \innerf{q_1}{q_1}{k}$ and $G_2(k)= \innerf{q_2}{q_2}{k}$ for each layer. We also define $G (k)=G_1(k)+G_2(k)$ as the total potential enstrophy spectrum. This method of defining spectra was previously used by @book:Frisch:1995, and it is equivalent to the standard definition of spectra in terms of narrow spherical shells in Fourier space (see Eq. ). It is also superior in that one can generalize the definition of spectra to non-homogeneous flows by removing the spatial integral in Eq. , thereby obtaining location-dependent spectra.
It is useful to be able to rewrite the above spectra in terms of a streamfunction spectrum $C_{\ga\gb}(k)=\innerf{\psi_\ga}{\psi_\gb}{k}$. From the bilinear property of the bracket, it follows that the energy spectrum $E(k)$ reads: $$\begin{aligned}
E(k) &= -\sum_{\ga} \innerf{\psi_\ga}{q_\ga}{k} = -\sum_{\ga} \innerf{\psi_\ga}{\sum_{\gb} \ccL_{\ab} \psi_\gb}{k} = -\sum_{\ab} L_{\ab}(k) \innerf{\psi_\ga}{\psi_\gb}{k} \\
&= -\sum_{\ab} L_{\ab}(k) C_{\ab}(k). \label{eq:Ek}\end{aligned}$$ Likewise, the potential enstrophy spectrum $G(k)$ reads: $$\begin{aligned}
G (k) &= \sum_{\ga} \innerf{q_\ga}{q_\ga}{k} = \sum_{\ga} \innerf{\sum_{\gb} \ccL_{\ab} \psi_\gb}{\sum_{\gc} \ccL_{\ac} \psi_\gc}{k} \\
&= \sum_{\ab} L_{\ab} (k)\innerf{\psi_\gb}{\sum_{\gc} \ccL_{\ac} \psi_\gc}{k} = \sum_{\abc} L_{\ab} (k) L_{\ac}(k) \innerf{\psi_\gb}{\psi_\gc}{k}\\
&= \sum_{\abc} L_{\ab} (k) L_{\ac}(k) C_{\bc}(k). \label{eq:Gk}\end{aligned}$$ Stated in this way, these expressions easily generalize to multiple-layer quasi-geostrophic models simply by using a different matrix $L_{\ab} (k)$ with more rows and columns.
Forcing Spectrum in general
===========================
Now let us turn our attention to the forcing spectra of the two-layer model. We begin by writing the potential vorticity equations in the following more abstract form: $$\pderiv{q_\ga}{t}+J(\psi_\ga, q_\ga) = \sum_\gb \cD_{\ga\gb} \psi_\gb + f_\ga.$$ Here, $\cD_{\ga\gb}$ is a matrix operator that accounts for all the dissipation terms and $f_\ga$ is the forcing term acting on the $\ga$-layer. Using this abstract formulation will shorten the calculations below considerably. For the case of thermal forcing, the forcing terms take the form $f_1 = \gf$ and $f_2 = -\gf$. Multiplying both sides with the inverse operator $\ccL_{\ga\gb}^{-1}$ gives the following governing equation for the streamfunctions: $$\pderiv{\psi_\ga}{t}+ \sum_\gb \ccL_{\ab}^{-1} J(\psi_\gb, q_\gb) = \sum_{\bc} \ccL_{\ab}^{-1} \cD_{\bc} \psi_\gc + \sum_\gb \ccL_{\ab}^{-1} f_\gb. \label{eq:GovEqStreamFunc}$$ Now, let us define a streamfunction-forcing spectrum $\phi_{\ab}(k) = \innerf{f_\ga}{\psi_\gb}{k}$ and recall our definition of the streamfunction spectrum $C_{\ga\gb}(k)=\innerf{\psi_\ga}{\psi_\gb}{k}$. Differentiating $C_{\ab}(k)$ with respect to time gives $$\pderiv{C_{\ab}(k)}{t} = \innerf{\pderiv{\psi_\ga}{t}}{\psi_\gb}{k} + \innerf{\psi_\ga}{\pderiv{\psi_\gb}{t}}{k}, \label{eq:TimeDerCab}$$ and we may write a governing equation for $C_{\ab}(k)$ in the form $$\pderiv{C_{\ab}(k)}{t} + T_{\ab}(k) = D_{\ab}(k) + F_{\ab}(k). \label{eq:GovEqCab}$$ Here, $T_{\ab}(k)$ is the contribution from the nonlinear Jacobian term, $D_{\ab}(k)$ is the contribution from the dissipation term, and $F_{\ab}(k)$ is the contribution from the forcing term. Our interest here is in the forcing contribution $F_{\ab}(k)$. It is easy to see that $F_{\ab}(k)$ can be written in terms of the streamfunction-forcing spectrum $\phi_{\ab}(k)$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
F_{\ab}(k) &= \innerf{\sum_\gc \ccL_{\ac}^{-1} f_\gc}{\psi_\gb}{k} + \innerf{\psi_\ga}{\sum_\gc \ccL_{\bc}^{-1} f_\gc}{k} \\
&= \sum_\gc L_{\ac}^{-1}(k) \innerf{f_\gc}{\psi_\gb}{k} + \sum_\gc L_{\bc}^{-1}(k) \innerf{\psi_\ga}{f_\gc}{k} \\
&= \sum_\gc [ L_{\ac}^{-1}(k) \phi_{\cb} (k) + L_{\bc}^{-1}(k) \phi_{\ca} (k)].\end{aligned}$$ Here, we have replaced the time derivatives in Eq. with the forcing term from Eq. . We now note that governing equations for the energy spectrum $E(k)$ and the potential enstrophy spectrum $G(k)$ can be obtained by applying the operators indicated by equations and to the governing equation for the streamfunction spectrum $C_{\ab}(k)$. These equations are analogous to Eq. and they take the form: $$\begin{aligned}
&\pderiv{E(k)}{t} + T_E (k) = D_E (k) + F_E (k),\\
&\pderiv{G(k)}{t} + T_G (k) = D_G (k) + F_G (k).\end{aligned}$$ Here, the terms above have analogous definitions. The next step is to write the forcing spectrum $F_E (k)$ for the energy and $F_G (k)$ for the potential enstrophy in terms of $F_{\ab}(k)$. Using the operator indicated by Eq. , the energy forcing spectrum $F_E (k)$ reads: $$\begin{aligned}
F_E (k) &= -\sum_{\ab} L_{\ab}(k) F_{\ab}(k) = -\sum_{\abc} L_{\ab}(k) [ L_{\ac}^{-1}(k) \phi_{\cb} (k) + L_{\bc}^{-1}(k) \phi_{\ca} (k)] \\
&= -\sum_{\bc} \left[ \left( \sum_{\ga} L_{\ba}(k) L_{\ac}^{-1}(k) \right) \phi_{\cb} (k) \right] - \sum_{\ac} \left[ \left( \sum_{\gb} L_{\ab}(k) L_{\bc}^{-1}(k) \right) \phi_{\ca} (k) \right] \\
&= -\sum_{\bc} \gd_{\bc} \phi_{\cb} (k) - \sum_{\ac} \gd_{\ac} \phi_{\ca} (k) = -2 \sum_{\ga} \phi_{\ga\ga} (k). \label{eq:FE}\end{aligned}$$ A similar calculation gives the potential enstrophy forcing spectrum $F_G (k)$. We use the operator indicated by Eq. , and we find that $F_G (k)$ reads: $$\begin{aligned}
F_G (k) &= \sum_{\abc} L_{\ab} (k) L_{\ac}(k) F_{\bc}(k) \\
&= \sum_{\abc} L_{\ab} (k) L_{\ac}(k) \sum_\gd \left[ L_{\bd}^{-1}(k) \phi_{\dc} (k) + L_{\cd}^{-1}(k) \phi_{\db} (k) \right]\\
&= \sum_{\acd} L_{\ac}(k) \left[ \sum_\gb L_{\ab} (k) L_{\bd}^{-1}(k) \right] \phi_{\dc} (k) + \sum_{\abd} L_{\ab} (k) \left[ \sum_\gc L_{\ac}(k) L_{\cd}^{-1}(k) \right] \phi_{\db} (k) \\
&= \sum_{\acd} \gd_{\ad} L_{\ac}(k) \phi_{\dc} (k) + \sum_{\abd} L_{\ab} (k) \gd_{\ad} \phi_{\db} (k)
= 2\sum_{\ab}L_{\ab} (k) \phi_{\ab} (k). \label{eq:FG}\end{aligned}$$ Note that the $F_E (k)$ calculation is dependent on the symmetry assumption $L_{\ab} (k) = L_{\ba}(k)$, which multi-layer quasi-geostrophic models do satisfy. On the contrary, the $F_G (k)$ calculation is not dependent on this symmetry assumption.
Because of the dependence of the streamfunction-forcing spectrum $\phi_{\ga\gb} (k)$ on the streamfunction $\gy_\ga$, it is not possible to predict the forcing spectra $F_E (k)$ and $F_G (k)$ solely from the statistical properties of the forcing term $f_\ga$. The sole exception is the case where $f_\ga$ is a random Gaussian field that is delta-correlated in time such that $$\avg{f_\ga (\bfx_1, t_1) f_\gb (\bfx_2, t_2)} = 2Q_{\ga\gb} (\bfx_1, \bfx_2) \gd (t_1-t_2),$$ where $Q_{\ga\gb} (\bfx_1, \bfx_2)$ is assumed to be known. Then, it can be shown that the streamfunction-forcing spectrum $\phi_{\ga\gb} (k)$ is given by $$\phi_{\ab} (k) = \sum_\gc \cQ_{\ac}(k) L^{-1}_{\bc} (k).$$ Here $\cQ_{\ac}(k)$ is the correlation spectrum of the forcing term $f_\ga$ given by $$\cQ_{\ac}(k) = \dD{k} \int \df{\bfx}\df{\bfy}\df{\bfz} \; P(k|\bfx-\bfy) P(k|\bfx-\bfz) Q_{\ac}(\bfy,\bfz).$$ We give a detailed derivation of this result in Appendix \[app:StreamfunctionForcingSpectrum\].
Estimating the downscale injection rates
========================================
We will now consider three different arguments for estimating the ratio $\gn/\gee$ of the potential enstrophy injection rate $\gn$ to the energy injection rate $\gee$ to the downscale inertial range. It should be noted here that a careful distinction needs to be made between the total injection rates to the flow, given by integrating Eq. and Eq. , versus the partial injection rates to the coexisting downscale cascades of potential enstrophy and energy. For the purpose of estimating the transition wavenumber $k_t \sim \sqrt{\gn/\gee}$, it is the partial downscale injection rates $\gn$ and $\gee$ that are relevant. These partial downscale injection rates are dependent on both the forcing term and the Ekman term, and that complicates the task ahead.
In the first argument, we assume that the model is forced exclusively through the temperature equation, and we disregard the effect of the Ekman term to the downscale injection rates. In the second argument, we consider the combined effect of thermal forcing and the asymmetric Ekman dissipation term to the energy and potential enstrophy partial downscale injections rates. We will show that the Ekman term tends to shift the transition wavenumber $k_t$ towards large scales, but this claim is predicated on the hypothesis that the potential energy spectrum dominates the kinetic energy spectrum at the forcing range, and the status of this hypothesis is presently uncertain. This prompts us to consider the third argument, where we force both potential vorticity equations with random delta-correlated in time Gaussian forcing where the forcing on the bottom layer is suppressed using a control factor $\mu$. The underlying modeling assumption is that the asymmetric Ekman term suppresses forcing on the bottom layer but not at the top layer.
By combining our results from these three arguments, we will argue that the two-layer quasi-geostrophic model tends to place the transition wavenumber $k_t$ near the Rossby deformation wavenumber $k_R$. It should be noted that, due to interlayer interaction, it is not obvious whether the Ekman term actually suppresses predominantly the bottom-layer forcing. Furthermore, for models where the forcing is flow-dependent, there is further uncertainty on the effect of the Ekman term on forcing and the overall adjustment of the partial downscale injection rates. These caveats are discussed further below.
We begin the argument by rewriting our general expressions for the energy forcing spectrum $F_E (k)$ and the potential enstrophy forcing spectrum $F_G (k)$ in terms of the streamfunction-forcing spectrum $\phi_{\ga\gb} (k)$ for the special case of the two-layer model by substituting the corresponding matrix $L_{\ga\gb} (k)$ from Eq. . It is easy to see that the energy forcing spectrum $F_E (k)$ reads: $$F_E (k) = -2 \sum_{\ga} \phi_{\ga\ga} (k) = -2[\phi_{11}(k) +\phi_{22}(k)].
\label{eq:FE}$$ Likewise, the potential enstrophy forcing spectrum $F_G (k)$ reads: $$\begin{aligned}
F_G (k) &=2\sum_{\ab}L_{\ab} (k) \phi_{\ab} (k)\\
&= 2[L_{11}(k) \phi_{11}(k) + L_{12}(k) \phi_{12}(k) + L_{21}(k) \phi_{21}(k) + L_{22}(k) \phi_{22}(k) ]\\
&= -2 (k^2+k_R^2/2)[\phi_{11}(k) +\phi_{22}(k) ] + 2(k_R^2/2)[\phi_{12}(k) +\phi_{21}(k)].
\label{eq:FG}\end{aligned}$$ Using these expressions as our point of departure we now proceed with our analysis of the three energy and potential enstrophy partial downscale injection rate estimates.
Estimate 1: Thermal forcing neglecting Ekman term
-------------------------------------------------
Under thermal forcing we may assume that the potential vorticity equations are forced with $f_1=\gf$ and $f_2=-\gf$. Let us define $\Phi_1 (k) = \innerf{\gf}{\gy_1}{k}$ and $\Phi_2 (k) = \innerf{\gf}{\gy_2}{k}$ as the streamfunction correlators with $\gf$. We may therefore write the components of the streamfunction-forcing spectrum $\phi_{\ga\gb} (k)$ as: $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_{11}(k) &= \innerf{\gf}{\gy_1}{k} = \Phi_1 (k), \\
\phi_{12}(k) &= \innerf{\gf}{\gy_2}{k} = \Phi_2 (k), \\
\phi_{21}(k) &= \innerf{-\gf}{\gy_1}{k} = -\Phi_1 (k), \\
\phi_{22}(k) &= \innerf{-\gf}{\gy_2}{k} = -\Phi_2 (k).\end{aligned}$$ It follows that the energy forcing spectrum $F_E (k)$ is given by: $$F_E (k) = -2[\phi_{11}(k) +\phi_{22}(k)] = -2[\Phi_1 (k) - \Phi_2 (k)],$$ and the potential enstrophy forcing spectrum $F_G (k)$ is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
F_G (k) &= -2 (k^2+k_R^2/2)[\phi_{11}(k) +\phi_{22}(k) ] + 2(k_R^2/2)[\phi_{12}(k) +\phi_{21}(k) ]\\
&= -2 (k^2+k_R^2/2)[\Phi_1 (k) - \Phi_2 (k)] + 2(k_R^2/2)[\Phi_2 (k) - \Phi_1 (k)]\\
&= -2(k^2+k_R^2) [\Phi_1 (k) - \Phi_2 (k)].\end{aligned}$$ We see that the energy forcing spectrum $F_E (k)$ and the potential enstrophy forcing spectrum $F_G (k)$ are related as $$F_G (k)= (k^2+k_R^2) F_E (k).$$ In the limit $k \sim k_f \ll k_R$ we find that $F_G (k)\sim k_R^2 F_E (k)$, which implies that the ratio $\gn/\gee$ of injected potential enstrophy rate $\gn$ to injected energy rate $\gee$ is approximately equal to the square of the Rossby deformation wavenumber $k_R$. It follows that, if all of the injected energy and enstrophy cascade downscale and get successfully dissipated at small scales, we will then have a double potential enstrophy–energy cascade with transition wavenumber $k_t \sim k_R$. We suggest therefore, with some caveats to be discussed further below, that the two-layer quasi-geostrophic model provides a competent explanation for why the Nastrom-Gage spectrum exhibits a transition from $k^{-3}$ scaling to $k^{-5/3}$ scaling near the Rossby deformation wavenumber $k_R$.
It should be stressed that this calculation neglects the effect of Ekman dissipation of the energy and potential enstrophy injection rates, and is only good as a first approximation. In the next two arguments we will suggest that the Ekman term may tend to decrease $k_t$ further and that it is unlikely that it can suppress the partial downscale energy injection rate, as one typically expects in two-dimensional turbulence.
Estimate 2: Thermal forcing with asymmetric Ekman dissipation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Let us now consider the effect of asymmetric Ekman dissipation on the partial downscale rates of potential enstrophy and energy injection. It is well-known that in two-dimensional turbulence, large-scale dissipation predominantly dissipates most of the injected energy while allowing a considerable fraction of enstrophy to cascade to small scales. This is evidenced by all of the numerical simulations that have successfully reproduced the enstrophy cascade with $k^{-3}$ spectrum [@article:Alvelius:2000; @article:Falkovich:2002; @article:Ishihira:2001]. If the same thing were to occur in the two-layer quasigeostrophic model, it would undermine our previous argument concerning the location of the transition wavenumber $k_t$, because in that argument we assumed that most of the injected energy cascades downscale. As far as the downscale cascades are concerned, they “feel” forcing from both the forcing term and the Ekman term. It is therefore necessary to define the effective forcing spectra $\cF_E (k)$ and $\cF_G (k)$ in which the effects of asymmetric forcing and Ekman dissipation are included together. We use calligraphic notation to distinguish them from the forcing spectra $F_E (k)$ and $F_G (k)$ defined via Eq. and Eq. . The partial injection rates $\gn$ and $\gee$ to the downscale cascades are given by integrating $\cF_E (k)$ and $\cF_G (k)$. As a matter of mathematical expediency, we can still calculate $\cF_E (k)$ and $\cF_G (k)$ via Eq. and Eq. by *redefining* the forcing terms $f_1$ and $f_2$ to include the asymmetric Ekman term. The calculation below shows that the effect of the asymmetric Ekman term is to tend to decrease the effective energy forcing spectrum $\cF_E (k)$, thereby acting as an energy sink. However, as long as the potential energy spectrum dominates the kinetic energy spectrum at the forcing range, the effective potential enstrophy forcing spectrum $\cF_G (k)$ will decrease much faster, thereby shifting the transition wavenumber to smaller scales. It should be stressed that in most quasi-geostrophic models, the forcing term is flow-dependent, so the reaction of the flow to the effect of the asymmetric Ekman term adds another degree of uncertainty to the above claims. On the other hand, for random Gaussian forcing that is delta-correlated in time, the reaction of the flow does not affect the effective forcing spectra.
Let us now elaborate on the above argument. We begin by *redefining* $f_1=\gf$ and $f_2=-\gf-\nu_E \del^2 \gy_2$, as discussed above. Recall that $C_{12}(k) = \innerf{\gy_1}{\gy_2}{k}$, and let us define $U_1 (k) = \innerf{\gy_1}{\gy_1}{k}$ and $U_2 (k) = \innerf{\gy_2}{\gy_2}{k}$. It follows that the streamfunction-forcing spectra $\phi_{\ga\gb} (k)$ are given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_{11}(k) &= \innerf{\gf}{\gy_1}{k} = \Phi_1 (k), \\
\phi_{12}(k) &= \innerf{\gf}{\gy_2}{k} = \Phi_2 (k), \\
\phi_{21}(k) &= \innerf{-\gf-\nu_E \del^2 \gy_2}{\gy_1}{k} = -\Phi_1 (k) + \nu_E k^2 C_{12}(k),\\
\phi_{22}(k) &= \innerf{-\gf-\nu_E \del^2 \gy_2}{\gy_2}{k} = -\Phi_2 (k) + \nu_E k^2 U_2 (k).\end{aligned}$$ Substituting to Eq. , we find that the effective energy forcing spectrum $\cF_E (k)$ is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\cF_E (k) &= -2[\Phi_1 (k) - \Phi_2 (k) + \nu_E k^2 U_2 (k)] \\
&= F_E (k)-2\nu_E k^2 U_2 (k).\end{aligned}$$ Since $U_2 (k)$ is positive-definite, we have $U_2 (k)\geq 0$, and therefore the asymmetric Ekman dissipation term decreases the rate of energy injection. Note that if the forcing term $\gf$ is dependent on the flow, as is the case in both the Tung-Orlando and Tulloch-Smith simulations [@article:Orlando:2003; @article:Smith:2009], the decrease by the $\nu_E k^2 U_2 (k)$ term could be counteracted by an increase by the $2[\Phi_1 (k) - \Phi_2 (k)]$ term, as pointed out to the author by an anonymous referee. However, if $\gf$ is given as a standard independent random forcing term, which is common practice in turbulence simulations, then $\cF_E (k)$ is decreased by the Ekman term.
Similarly, the effective potential enstrophy forcing spectrum $\cF_G (k)$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\cF_G (k)- (k^2+k_R^2) \cF_E (k) %% = 2 (k^2+k_R^2/2)[\phi_{11}(k) +\phi_{22}(k) ] - k_R^2 [\phi_{12}(k) +\phi_{21}(k)] - 2 (k^2+k_R^2) [\phi_{11}(k) +\phi_{22}(k)]\\
&= k_R^2 [\phi_{11}(k)+\phi_{12}(k)+\phi_{21}(k)+\phi_{22}(k)] \label{eq:FGminFEformula}\\
%% &= -k_R^2 [\Phi_1 (k) + \Phi_2 (k) -\Phi_1(k) +\nu_E k^2 C_{12}(k) - \Phi_2(k) + \nu_E k^2 U_2(k)]\\
&= \nu_E k_R^2 k^2 [C_{12}(k) +U_2(k) ],\end{aligned}$$ and it follows that $\cF_G (k)$ is given by $$\cF_G (k) = (k^2+k_R^2) \cF_E (k)+\nu_E k_R^2 k^2 [C_{12}(k) +U_2(k) ].\label{eq:FGwithEkman}$$ We see that whether the Ekman term tends to shift $k_t$ upscale or downscale depends on the sign of $C_{12}(k) +U_2(k)$. It is already known that $U_2(k)\geq 0$. However, $C_{12}(k)$ can be either positive or negative. The condition $C_{12}(k) < 0$ is necessary but not sufficient in ensuring a transition wavenumber shift towards large scales. The necessary and sufficient condition for effecting such a shift is $U_2 (k)+C_{12}(k) < 0$. On the other hand, the condition $C_{12} (k) < U_2 (k)$ is sufficient to ensure that the Ekman term dissipates potential enstrophy, which is expected on physical grounds. To show this, we rewrite the effective potential enstrophy forcing spectrum $\cF_G (k)$ in terms of the potential enstrophy forcing spectrum $F_G (k)$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\cF_G (k) &= (k^2+k_R^2) [F_E (k) - 2\nu_E k^2 U_2(k)] +\nu_E k_R^2 k^2 [C_{12}(k) +U_2(k) ]\\
&= F_G (k) + \nu_E k^2 [k_R^2 (C_{12} (k)- U_2 (k)) - 2k^2 U_2 (k)].\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, the Ekman term dissipates potential enstrophy if $k_R^2 (C_{12} (k)- U_2 (k)) - 2k^2 U_2 (k)<0$ for all wavenumbers $k$ in the forcing range. Since $U_2 (k) > 0$, due to being positive-definite, it is sufficient that $C_{12} (k) < U_2 (k)$.
We can gain some insight on $C_{12}(k)$ by relating it with the kinetic and potential energy spectra $E_K (k)$ and $E_P (k)$ which are defined as follows: Let $\gy \equiv (\gy_1 + \gy_2)/2$ and $\gt \equiv (\gy_1 - \gy_2)/2$. So, $\gy_1 = \gy+\gt$ and $\gy_2 = \gy-\gt$. Following @article:Salmon:1978 [@article:Salmon:1980], the definitions of the spectra $E_K (k)$, $E_P (k)$, and $E_C (k)$ in terms of $\gy$ and $\gt$ are given by: $$\begin{aligned}
E_K (k) &= 2k^2 \innerf{\gy}{\gy}{k}, \\
E_P (k) &= 2(k^2 + k_R^2) \innerf{\gt}{\gt}{k}, \\
E_C (k) &= 2k^2 \innerf{\gy}{\gt}{k}.\end{aligned}$$ It can be shown that the definitions are self-consistent, i.e. $E (k)=E_K (k)+E_P (k)$. It is easy now to write $C_{12}(k)$ in terms of $E_K (k)$ and $E_P (k)$: $$\begin{aligned}
C_{12}(k) &= \innerf{\gy_1}{\gy_2}{k} = \innerf{\gy+\gt}{\gy-\gt}{k} = \innerf{\gy}{\gy}{k} - \innerf{\gy}{\gt}{k} + \innerf{\gt}{\gy}{k} - \innerf{\gt}{\gt}{k}\\
&= \innerf{\gy}{\gy}{k} - \innerf{\gt}{\gt}{k} = \frac{E_K (k)}{2k^2} - \frac{E_P (k)}{2(k^2+k_R^2)}.\end{aligned}$$ We see that requiring $E_K (k)\ll E_P (k)$ for all wavenumbers $k$ in the forcing range is sufficient to ensure that $C_{12}(k)$ be negative.
To obtain a necessary and sufficient condition, we first note that $$\begin{aligned}
U_2(k) &= \innerf{\gy_2}{\gy_2}{k} = \innerf{\gy-\gt}{\gy-\gt}{k} = \innerf{\gy}{\gy}{k} - 2 \innerf{\gy}{\gt}{k} + \innerf{\gt}{\gt}{k}\\
&= \frac{E_K (k)}{2k^2} + \frac{E_P (k)}{2(k^2+k_R^2)} - \frac{E_C (k)}{k^2}.\end{aligned}$$ It follows that $$U_2(k) + C_{12}(k) = \frac{E_K (k)-E_C (k)}{k^2},$$ and therefore $U_2(k) + C_{12}(k) < 0$ if and only if $E_K (k)<E_C (k)$ for all wavenumbers $k$ in the forcing range. It should be stressed that, as far as the transition wavenumber $k_t$ is concerned, the relevant requirement is that the ratio $\cF_G (k)/\cF_E (k)$ should be decreased by the Ekman term. It is easy to see from Eq. that $\cF_G (k)/\cF_E (k)$ is a linear function of $\nu_E$ with slope $k_R^2 k^2 [C_{12}(k) +U_2(k) ]$. Thus, the condition $E_K (k)<E_C (k)$ is indeed the needed necessary and sufficient condition.
Without a detailed phenomenological understanding of the two-layer model, it is hard to say whether this condition is satisfied. @article:Salmon:1980 has argued that in the two-layer model, energy is being injected as potential energy and gets converted to kinetic energy near the Rossby wavenumber $k_R$. We may therefore expect the potential energy to remain dominant in the forcing range, provided that most kinetic energy does not inversely cascade back to large scales again. Nevertheless, this is an open question that should be carefully investigated via numerical simulations. In the next section we will provide an alternate argument supporting the claim of a transition wavenumber shift to large scales, predicated on the hypothesis that the Ekman dissipation term suppresses forcing only at the lower-layer, thereby assuming that the interlayer interaction does not propagate Ekman dissipation into the top layer. The spectrum $C_{12}(k)$ captures, in effect, an aspect of the dynamics of this interlayer interaction.
Be that as it may, we note that it is also possible to formulate arguments that suggest the opposite conclusion as follows: As @article:Orlando:2003:1 have shown, an equipartition of kinetic and potential energy is expected in the extreme baroclinic limit represented by the SQG model (i.e. $E_P (k)/E_K (k) = 1$). The opposite limit, if generalized for all scales, is the case of three-dimensional stratified turbulence where @article:Lindborg:2006 observed a $1/3$ distribution of the total energy between potential and kinetic such that $E_P (k)/E_K (k) \sim 1/3$, with the exact ratio being somewhat dependent on the rotation rate. For both cases we have $E_K (k)\geq E_P (k)$. Furthermore, in a recent direct numerical simulation of the full quasi-geostrophic model by @article:Lindborg:2010, it has been confirmed that the total energy spectrum $E(k)$ is equipartitioned between potential energy $E_P (k)$ and the two horizontal components of kinetic energy, leading to an approximate ratio $E_P (k)/E_K (k) \sim 1/2$, consistent with the theory of @article:Charney:1971. A deviation seems to occur in the forcing range where $E_P (k)/E_K (k) \sim 1$, but any value between $1/2$ and $1$ violates the sufficient condition $E_K (k)\ll E_P (k)$. It should be noted, however, that the simulation of @article:Lindborg:2010 is forced symmetrically instead of antisymmetrically, and it is uncertain how that may affect the partition ratio of energy between kinetic energy and potential energy. Also uncertain is the effect of restricting the full quasi-geostrophic model to two layers and using asymmetric instead of symmetric dissipation.
At this point, one could argue that if the Ekman term in $\cF_G (k)$ is negligible, then it doesn’t matter either way whether $\cF_G (k)$ is increasing or decreasing. We will now argue, using a phenomenological order of magnitude estimate, that the Ekman adjustment of the potential enstrophy forcing spectrum $\cF_G (k)$ is not expected to be negligible. The argument is as follows: On the assumption that most injected energy cascades to small scales, $\cF_E (k)$ is proportional to the downscale energy flux $\gee$. If we also assume that the forcing spectrum is spread over a wavenumber interval with width proportional to the average forcing wavenumber $k_f$, then we get the dimensional estimate $\cF_E (k) \sim \gee/k_f$. This estimate is a lower bound for $\cF_E (k)$ since, as an anonymous referee noted, it is possible, in principle, for the forcing spectrum to be concentrated on a peak with width $\gD k$ narrower than $k_f$. We also assume that $k^2 [C_{12}(k) +U_2(k) ]$, which has the dimension of the energy spectrum, scales as $k^2 [C_{12}(k) +U_2(k) ] \sim \gn^{2/3} k_f^{-3}$, consistent with the downscale potential enstrophy cascade spectrum. Putting these two phenomenological estimates together, for forcing-range wavenumbers $k \sim k_f \ll k_R$, we estimate the two terms on the right-hand-side of Eq. as: $$\begin{aligned}
\cA &\equiv (k^2+k_R^2) \cF_E (k) \sim \gee k_R^2/k_f,\\
\cB &\equiv \nu_E k_R^2 k^2 (C_{12} (k) + U_2 (k)) \sim \nu_E k_R^2 \gn^{2/3} k_f^{-3}.\end{aligned}$$ Using the relation $ \gn\sim \gee k_t^2$ between the potential enstrophy flux $ \gn$ and the energy flux $\gee$, we find that the ratio of the two terms is estimated by: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\cA}{\cB} &\sim \frac{\gee k_R^2 k_f^{-1}}{\nu_E k_R^2 \gn^{2/3} k_f^{-3}}
\sim \frac{\gee k_f^{2}}{\nu_E \gn^{2/3}}
\sim \frac{ \gn k_f^{2}}{\nu_E \gn^{2/3} k_t^2}
\sim \frac{\gn^{1/3}}{\nu_E}\fracp{k_f}{k_t}^2.\end{aligned}$$ For the potential enstrophy flux $\gn$ we use the value $\gn\sim 10^{-15} \text{s}^{-3}$ estimated by @article:Lindborg:2001 by structure function analysis. For the Ekman coefficient $\nu_E$, we use the number $\nu_E \sim (6.7 \text{days})^{-1} \sim 10^{-6} \text{s}^{-1}$ by @article:Orlando:2003. Finally, from the Nastrom-Gage spectrum itself, we can estimate $k_t \sim 10^{-3} \text{km}^{-1}$ and $k_f \sim 10^{-4} \text{km}^{-1}$ for the transition and forcing wavenumbers. Using these numbers, we find that $\cA/\cB \sim 10^{-1}$, which implies that the terms $\cA$ and $\cB$ are comparable within one order of magnitude, so the effect of the constant coefficients is likely to play an important role in deciding which term is dominant. Note that if the forcing spectrum is concentrated on a peak with width $\gD k$ with $\gD k \ll k_f$, then $\cF_E (k)$ is increased, thus the change to the ratio $\cA/\cB$ in turn indicates a diminishing impact of the Ekman term on the transition wavenumber $k_t$. Consequently, within the framework of the above phenomenology, our estimate of the $\cA/\cB$ ratio represents a worst-case scenario, in the sense that the effect of the Ekman term can’t be stronger than this estimate.
In light of the above, it is very important to further investigate, with numerical simulations, the effect of the Ekman term on the injection rates, using both the quasi-geostrophic model of @article:Orlando:2003 and the quasi-geostrophic model of @article:Smith:2009. Specifically, for the case of the two-layer model, future numerical studies should, at the very least, investigate the interlayer spectrum $C_{12}(k)$ and the partition of energy between kinetic energy and potential energy.
Estimate 3: Asymmetric random forcing
-------------------------------------
In the previous case, we have seen that the effect of asymmetric Ekman dissipation on the forcing range is to tend to decrease the rate of energy injection. There is, however, ambiguity regarding whether the enstrophy injection rate is increasing or decreasing, and whether the Ekman term shifts the transition wavenumber $k_t$ towards small scales or large scales. The underlying problem is that, due to the effect of the layer to layer interaction on the relationship between potential vorticity and streamfunction, it is not obvious whether dissipating the bottom layer streamfunction $\gy_2$ is equivalent to dissipating the bottom-layer potential vorticity $q_2$. On the other hand, we will show now that if the bottom-layer forcing is directly suppressed via a control factor $\mu$, that will indeed result in a reduction of the ratio $F_G (k)/F_E (k)$ in the forcing range.
To that end, let us assume that the forcing terms for the top and bottom layers respectively are $f_1=\gf$ and $f_2=-\mu \gf$ with $0 < \mu < 1$. Decreasing $\mu$ increases the suppression of the bottom-layer forcing term $f_2$. We also assume that $\gf$ is a delta-correlated in time random Gaussian field with correlation spectrum $\cQ(k)$. In appendix \[app:RandomGaussianForcing\], we show that the forcing-streamfunction spectra $\phi_{\ga\gb} (k)$ can be expressed in terms of $\cQ(k)$ as follows: $$\gf_{\ab} (k) = \frac{-\cQ (k) \gy_{\ab} (k)}{2 k^2 (k^2+k_R^2)}.$$ Here, $\gy_{\ab}$ are given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\gy_{11} (k) &= (2k^2+k_R^2)-\mu k_R^2, \\
\gy_{12} (k) &= k_R^2-\mu (2k^2+k_R^2), \\
\gy_{21} (k) &= -\mu (2 k^2+k_R^2) + \mu^2 k_R^2, \\
\gy_{22} (k) &= -\mu k_R^2 + \mu^2 (2k^2+k_R^2).\end{aligned}$$ Without explicitly calculating the forcing spectra $F_E (k)$ and $F_G (k)$, we can readily argue that since $$\begin{aligned}
\gy_{11} (k) + \gy_{12} (k) + \gy_{21} (k) + \gy_{22} (k) %% &= 2(k^2+k_R^2)- 4(k^2+k_R^2)\mu +2 (k^2+k_R^2)\mu^2 \\
&= 2(k^2+k_R^2)(1-\mu)^2,\end{aligned}$$ it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
F_G (k) - (k^2+k_R^2) F_E (k) &= k_R^2 [\phi_{11}(k)+\phi_{12}(k)+\phi_{21}(k)+\phi_{22}(k)]\\
&= \frac{-\cQ (k) [\gy_{11} (k) + \gy_{12} (k) + \gy_{21} (k) + \gy_{22} (k)]}{2 k^2 (k^2+k_R^2)}\\
&= \frac{-\cQ (k) [2(k^2+k_R^2)(1-\mu)^2]}{2 k^2 (k^2+k_R^2)} = - \frac{k_R^2 (1-\mu)^2 \cQ (k)}{k^2},\end{aligned}$$ via Eq. and therefore $$F_G (k) = (k^2+k_R^2) F_E (k)- \frac{k_R^2 (1-\mu)^2 \cQ (k)}{k^2}.$$ We note that since the third term in the equation above is always negative, suppressing the lower-level forcing leads to a large-scale shift of the transition wavenumber $k_t$. For $\mu=1$, as expected, we recover the previously derived relation $F_G (k) = (k^2+k_R^2) F_E (k)$.
Another way of looking at the problem is by explicitly calculating the ratio $F_G (k)/F_E (k)$ and showing that it decreases with decreasing $\mu=1$. As shown in appendix \[app:RandomGaussianForcing\], an explicit calculation of the forcing spectra $F_E (k)$ and $F_G (k)$ gives: $$\begin{aligned}
F_E (k) &= \frac{2\cQ(k)[2(1+\mu^2) k^2 + (1-\mu)^2 k_R^2]}{2k^2 (k^2+k_R^2)}, \\
F_G (k) &= 2\cQ(k) (1+\mu^2).\end{aligned}$$
For the antisymmetric case $\mu=1$, the energy forcing spectrum $F_E (k)$ reduces to $F_E (k) = 4\cQ(k)/(k^2+k_R^2)$ and the enstrophy forcing spectrum $F_G (k)$ reduces to $F_G (k) = 4\cQ(k)$, thereby recovering our previous more generally applicable result $F_G (k)= (k^2+k_R^2) F_E (k)$, which suggests a transition wavenumber $k_t\sim k_R$, in the limit $k \sim k_f \ll k_R$.
For the extreme case $\mu=0$, whereby the bottom-layer forcing is completely suppressed, again under the limit $k \sim k_f \ll k_R$, the energy forcing spectrum $F_E (k)$ is given by $$F_E (k) = \frac{2\cQ(k)[2k^2+k_R^2]}{2k^2 (k^2+k_R^2)} \sim \frac{2\cQ(k)k_R^2}{2k^2 k_R^2} \sim \frac{\cQ(k)}{k^2},$$ and the enstrophy forcing spectrum $F_G (k)$ is given by $F_G (k) = 2Q(k)$. It follows that $F_G (k) \sim 2k^2 F_E (k)$, which suggests a reduced transition wavenumber $k_t\sim 2k_f$.
The two extreme cases $\mu=1$ and $\mu=0$ indicate that the ratio $F_G (k)/F_E (k)$ decreases with decreasing $\mu$ from approximately $k_R^2$ to $2k_f^2$. We can confirm that this is indeed the case by taking the partial derivative with respect to the parameter $\mu$. The partial derivative reads $$\begin{aligned}
\pD{\mu}\fracb{F_G (k)}{F_E (k)} &= \pD{\mu}\fracb{2(1+\mu^2)\cQ(k)2k^2 (k^2+k_R^2)}{2\cQ(k)[2(1+\mu^2) k^2 + (1-\mu)^2 k_R^2]}\\
&= 2k^2 (k^2+k_R^2)\pD{\mu}\fracb{1+\mu^2}{[2(1+\mu^2) k^2 + (1-\mu)^2 k_R^2]}\\
&= 2k^2 (k^2+k_R^2)\fracb{2k_R^2 (1-\mu)(1+\mu)}{[2(1+\mu^2) k^2 + (1-\mu)^2 k_R^2]^2}.\end{aligned}$$ For $0 < \mu < 1$, it is easy to see that every factor is positive, and therefore $$\pD{\mu}\fracb{F_G (k)}{F_E (k)} > 0.$$ Consequently, the ratio $F_G (k)/F_E (k)$ decreases with decreasing $\mu$. We conclude that if the asymmetric Ekman damping term on the bottom-layer streamfunction $\gy_2$ indeed suppresses the effective forcing of the bottom-layer potential vorticity, then the ratio $F_G (k)/F_E (k)$ will tend to decrease, thereby indicating a tendency to reduce the transition wavenumber $k_t$.
Conclusions and Discussion
==========================
In the present paper, we have sought out to explain why the transition from $k^{-3}$ scaling to $k^{-5/3}$ scaling in the Nastrom-Gage spectrum occurs near the Rossby deformation wavenumber $k_R$, where the atmospheric turbulence is still governed under quasi-geostrophic dynamics instead of three-dimensional dynamics. According to the Tung-Orlando theory [@article:Orlando:2003], the entire Nastrom-Gage spectrum represents a downscale potential enstrophy cascade that co-exists with a downscale energy cascade. The location of the transition wavenumber $k_t$ is thereby controlled by the ratio $\gn/\gee$ of the downscale potential enstrophy flux $\gn$ over the downscale energy flux $\gee$ and given by $k_t \sim \sqrt{\gn/\gee}$. That ratio, in turn, depends on the large-scale forcing and the effect of large-scale dissipation on the injection of potential enstrophy and energy.
We have shown that in the two-layer quasi-geostrophic model, which is reasonably applicable in the forcing scales, thermal forcing leads to antisymmetric forcing of the potential vorticity layer equations. This, in turn, yields a ratio $\gn/\gee$ of the potential enstrophy injection rate $\gn$ over the energy injection rate $\gee$ that is approximately equal to $k_R^2$. So, if most of the injected potential enstrophy and energy cascades towards small scales, then the transition wavenumber $k_t$ will be approximately equal to $k_R$.
At this point, one might object by arguing, drawing from an analogy with two-dimensional turbulence, that the large-scale Ekman dissipation will get rid of most of the injected energy at the forcing range while allowing a considerable amount of potential enstrophy to cascade to small scales. As it turns out, it is far from obvious that the two-layer model behaves in this manner. In general, the Ekman term always dissipates some amount of energy, and may or may not dissipate potential enstrophy, depending on the sign and magnitude of the interlayer spectrum $C_{12} (k)$. We have shown that if the potential energy spectrum $E_P (k)$ dominates the kinetic energy spectrum $E_K (k)$ in the forcing range, then the downscale potential enstrophy injection rate $\gn$ will be dampened faster than the downscale energy injection rate $\gee$. The resulting reduction in the $\gn/\gee$ ratio will tend to shift the transition wavenumber $k_t$ towards large scales. This tendency becomes exact, if the forcing used in these simulations is made independent of the flow.
Unfortunately, there is some ambiguity in the results of our direct analysis of the Ekman term, due to the dependence of the direction of the transition wavenumber shift on the spectral distribution of the energy between kinetic and potential energy. Using a random Gaussian forcing model, we have shown that, under the assumption that the Ekman term suppresses forcing predominantly at the bottom layer, the ratio $\gn/\gee$ will be decreased, thereby shifting the transition wavenumber $k_t$ to larger scales. While this assumption may seem obvious, on physical grounds, it requires us to disregard the possibility of Ekman dissipation being propagated to the top layer via the nonlinear interlayer interaction. Without a more detailed understanding of the phenomenology of the two-layer model, and especially the interlayer spectrum $C_{12}(k)$, this is as far as we can go on this problem in terms of theory.
Another problem with our argument is that it is only one-half of the whole story. In order for the injected potential enstrophy and energy to form a steady-state cascade, it is also necessary that the small-scale dissipation terms be able to dissipate the potential enstrophy and energy at the same rate with which they are injected. In a strictly two-dimensional model, this is impossible, because the potential enstrophy and energy fluxes $\Pi_G (k)$ and $\Pi_E (k)$ are constrained by the inequality $k^2 \Pi_E (k) - \Pi_G (k)<0$, for all wavenumbers $k$ not in the forcing range [@article:Tung:2005; @article:Tung:2005:1]. However, as we have shown previously in @article:Tung:2007:1, the asymmetric Ekman dissipation term can potentially cause this flux inequality to be violated. If that occurs, then a transition from $k^{-3}$ to $k^{-5/3}$ scaling is possible near the wavenumber $k_t$ where the aforementioned flux inequality breaks down. Unfortunately, it is not easy to derive a rigorous necessary and sufficient condition for violating the flux inequality, in the form of a lower bound for $\nu_E$, without introducing phenomenological assumptions. In light of the controversy with the Tung-Orlando simulation [@article:Smith:2004; @article:Tung:2004; @article:Tung:2007], this energy dissipation sink problem remains an open question. On the other hand, we are quite certain that this flux inequality was successfully violated in the more sophisticated two-mode two-layer quasi-geostrophic model of @article:Smith:2009, which produced coexisting cascades of potential enstrophy and energy consistent with the Tung-Orlando theory. We do not yet have a detailed mathematical understanding of how this violation came about.
Ultimately, the question of whether QG models can break the flux inequality is somewhat academic, albeit interesting. As @article:Lindborg:2007 has shown, at scales less than $100$km, the assumptions that underlie the quasi-geostrophic model break down. This breakdown acts in our favor by giving us an anomalous energy dissipation sink at large $k$, thereby further facilitating the breakdown of the flux inequality. What is less obvious is whether there is still an effective potential enstrophy dissipation sink at small scales, occurring either at length scales where the flow is still stratified or via a violation of potential enstrophy conservation at even smaller scales where the flow becomes entirely three-dimensional. If yes, then we have a full accounting of the entire process: quasi-geostrophic dynamics is thus responsible for injecting potential enstrophy and energy at a proportion leading to $k_t \sim k_R$, and three-dimensional dynamics is responsible for dissipating both at small scales. If no, then the widely accepted interpretation of the $k^{-3}$ part of the Nastrom-Gage spectrum as a downscale potential enstrophy cascade is itself in jeopardy, regardless of whether or not one agrees with all other aspects of the Tung-Orlando theory. An alternate explanation of the Nastrom-Gage spectrum as a downscale helicity cascade (with $k^{-7/3}$ scaling instead of $k^{-3}$) coexisting with a downscale energy cascade is the only remaining hypothesis on the table, if we were to completely rule out quasi-geostrophic dynamics for all length scales [@article:Tsinober:1993; @article:Chkhetiani:1996; @book:Moiseev:1999; @article:Golbraikh:2006].
It is fair to say that this paper does not resolve all of the outstanding controversies with respect to the Nastrom-Gage spectrum. For example, we have not yet completely resolved the energy dissipation sink issue in the Tung-Orlando simulation, or the question of whether the $k^{-3}$ part of the Nastrom-Gage spectrum is a helicity cascade or a potential enstrophy cascade. In spite of extensive numerical evidence, e.g. by @article:Mahlman:1999, @article:Hamilton:2001, @article:Skamarock:2004, @article:Ohfuchi:2006, and @article:Ohfuchi:2008, I believe that both questions are still open at the present time. Furthermore, within the framework of the theory presented in this paper, we have posed the new open question of the effect of Ekman dissipation on shifting the transition wavenumber away from the Rossby wavenumber $k_R$. Underlying all this, is the theoretical question of whether the location of the transition wavenumber $k_t$ is *flexible* and controlled via the magnitude of the two fluxes associated with two independent coexisting cascades, as proposed by @article:Orlando:2003, or whether it is *inflexible* and pinned down near the Rossby wavenumber $k_R$ by a scaling transition inherent in the nonlinearity, as typified by the Tulloch-Smith SQG model [@article:Smith:2006]. While we are advocating for the flexible placement of the transition wavenumber $k_t$, it is fair to say that the question deserves further scrutiny.
An anonymous referee has also raised the question of whether gravity waves can play a role in the Nastrom-Gage spectrum, as was conjectured by @article:Dewan:1979 and @article:VanZadt:1982. It is well-known that gravity waves vanish in the quasi-geostrophic limit, therefore they are not expected to be relevant over the quasi-geostrophic range of length scales, as were rigorously determined by @article:Lindborg:2007. According to @article:Nastrom:1986, the agreement between the measured wavenumber spectra and frequency spectra, suggests that the spectrum arises from strong turbulence and not from gravity waves. @article:Nastrom:1985 also noted that “the energy levels and shapes of the horizontal and vertical energy spectra are not consistent with existing models of internal wave spectra”, with the caveat that the inconsistency could be originating from shortcomings of these internal wave spectral models. Given these arguments against the gravity wave interpretation of the Nastrom-Gage spectrum, and the “folklore” belief that quasi-geostrophic dynamics does not allow a downscale energy cascade, it was necessary for @article:Orlando:2003 to demonstrate that the entire Nastrom-Gage spectrum can be reproduced entirely by quasi-geostrophic dynamics in order to bolster their hypothesis of coexisting cascades of potential enstrophy and energy, even under very restricted two-dimensional approximations of quasi-geostrophic dynamics. @article:Orlando:2003 however did acknowledge that gravity waves could play a role in enabling the coexistence of the two downscale cascades.
As for the gravity wave interpretation, many relevant questions are still not settled. For instance, @article:Zagar:2011 point towards a very interesting possibility: Using reprocessed observational data provided by the Japan Meteorological Agency, they showed that after decomposing the total energy into a quasi-geostrophic component and a gravity waves component, the quasi-geostrophic component yields a $k^{-3}$ potential enstrophy cascade contribution spanning the entire range of resolved length scales, and the gravity wave component yields a $k^{-5/3}$ energy cascade contribution coexisting over the same range of scales. The total energy spectrum is thus the linear superposition of the two contributions.
This picture is consistent with the Tung-Orlando theory and the linear superposition hypothesis proposed by @article:Tung:2005 [@article:Tung:2005:1] and @article:Tung:2006. As explained by @article:Tung:2006, the underlying principles involved are universal and originate from the linearity of the underlying statistical mechanics, so we expect them to remain valid, beyond two-dimensional turbulence, in all related dynamical systems that allow the coexistence of cascades of energy and enstrophy. Under the scenario of coexisting quasi-geostrophic and gravity wave dynamics, indicated by @article:Zagar:2011, the transition wavenumber is still entirely controlled by the injection rate ratio $\gn/\gee$, given the confirmed validity of the linear superposition principle. The remaining open question is whether the main results of this paper concerning the injection rates ratio (i.e. $\gn/\gee \sim k_R^2$) can be generalized even beyond quasi-geostrophic models. We believe that further research is needed in that direction.
It is a pleasure to thank Ka-Kit Tung and Joe Tribbia for discussion and correspondence. The idea of an energy-enstrophy flux inequality was originally communicated to me in e-mail correspondence with Sergey Danilov. All anonymous referees also provided very valuable feedback that went a long way into improving the paper.
The potential vorticity–streamfunction equations {#app:VorticityStreamfunctionEquations}
================================================
In this appendix, we derive the potential vorticity equations Eq. and Eq. from the relative vorticity equations Eq. and Eq. and the mid-layer temperature equation Eq. . Our goal is to demonstrate that the potential vorticity equations are forced anti-symmetrically, a key property for the argument of the present paper, and that the dissipation terms in the relative vorticity equations retain the same form in the potential vorticity equations. The derivation is dependent on the following properties of the Jacobian $J(a,b)$: $$\begin{aligned}
J&(a, b+c) = J(a, b) + J(a, c),\\
J&(a+b, c) = J(a, c) + J(b, c),\\
J&(a, a) = 0 \text{ and } J(a, b) = -J(b, a),\\
J&(\gl a,\mu b) = \gl\mu J(a, b),\end{aligned}$$ where $\gl$ and $\mu$ are constants.
The first step is to solve for the vertical velocity $\gw$ in the temperature equation Eq.. From the geostrophic constraint $T = (2/h)(\gy_1-\gy_2)$ we write the advection term in the temperature equation as: $$\begin{aligned}
J\left( \frac{\gy_1+\gy_2}{2}, T \right) &= \frac{1}{h}[J(\gy_1, \gy_1) - J(\gy_1, \gy_2) + J(\gy_2, \gy_1) - J(\gy_2, \gy_2) ]\\
&= -\frac{2}{h}J(\gy_1, \gy_2).\end{aligned}$$ It follows that the vertical velocity $\gw$ reads: $$\begin{aligned}
\gw &= -\frac{f}{N^2}\left[ \pderiv{T}{t} + J\left( \frac{\gy_1+\gy_2}{2}, T \right) - Q_0 \right]\\
&= -\frac{2f}{hN^2}\left[\pD{t} (\gy_1-\gy_2) - J(\gy_1, \gy_2) - \frac{hQ_0}{2} \right],\end{aligned}$$ and therefore $$\frac{2f}{h}\gw = -\frac{k_R^2}{2}\left[\pD{t} (\gy_1-\gy_2) - J(\gy_1, \gy_2) - \frac{hQ_0}{2} \right].$$ Here we have defined the Rossby deformation wavenumber $k_R = 2\sqrt{2} f/(hN)$.
The next step is to define the potential vorticities $q_1$ and $q_2$ for the top and bottom layers correspondingly as: $$\begin{aligned}
q_1 &= \del^2 \gy_1 + f + \frac{k_R^2}{2}(\gy_2-\gy_1), \\
q_2 &= \del^2 \gy_2 + f - \frac{k_R^2}{2}(\gy_2-\gy_1). \end{aligned}$$ The advection terms $J(\gy_1, q_1)$ and $J(\gy_2, q_2)$ of the potential vorticities with respect to the streamfunctions $\gy_1$ and $\gy_2$ are given by: $$\begin{aligned}
J(\gy_1, q_1) &= J(\gy_1, \gz_1+f+(k_R^2/2)(\gy_2-\gy_1)) \\
&= J(\gy_1, \gz_1+f) + \frac{k_R^2}{2} J(\gy_1,\gy_2),\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
J(\gy_2, q_2) &= J(\gy_2, \gz_2+f-(k_R^2/2)(\gy_2-\gy_1)) \\
&= J(\gy_1, \gz_1+f) + \frac{k_R^2}{2} J(\gy_2,\gy_1)\\
&= J(\gy_1, \gz_1+f) - \frac{k_R^2}{2} J(\gy_1,\gy_2).\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, differentiating the top-layer potential vorticity $q_1$ with respect to the time $t$ gives: $$\begin{aligned}
\pderiv{q_1}{t} &= \pderiv{\gz_1}{t} + \frac{k_R^2}{2}\pD{t}(\gy_2-\gy_1) \\
&= -J(\gy_1, \gz_1+f) - \frac{2f}{h}\gw + d_1 + \frac{k_R^2}{2}\pD{t}(\gy_2-\gy_1)\\
&= -J(\gy_1, \gz_1+f) + \frac{k_R^2}{2}\left[\pD{t} (\gy_1-\gy_2) - J(\gy_1, \gy_2) - \frac{hQ_0}{2} \right] + d_1 + \frac{k_R^2}{2}\pD{t}(\gy_2-\gy_1)\\
&= -J(\gy_1, \gz_1+f) - \frac{k_R^2}{2} J(\gy_1, \gy_2) - \frac{hk_R^2}{4}Q_0 + d_1\\
&= -J(\gy_1, q_1) - Q + d_1,\end{aligned}$$ with $Q$ defined as $Q= hk_R^2 Q_0/4$. Likewise, differentiating the bottom-layer potential vorticity $q_2$ with respect to the time $t$ gives: $$\begin{aligned}
\pderiv{q_2}{t} &= \pderiv{\gz_2}{t} - \frac{k_R^2}{2}\pD{t}(\gy_2-\gy_1) \\
&= -J(\gy_2, \gz_2+f) + \frac{2f}{h}\gw + d_2 + e_2 - \frac{k_R^2}{2}\pD{t}(\gy_2-\gy_1) \\
&= -J(\gy_2, \gz_2+f) - \frac{k_R^2}{2}\left[\pD{t} (\gy_1-\gy_2) - J(\gy_1, \gy_2) - \frac{hQ_0}{2} \right] + d_2 + e_2 - \frac{k_R^2}{2}\pD{t}(\gy_2-\gy_1)\\
&= -J(\gy_2, \gz_2+f) + \frac{k_R^2}{2} J(\gy_1, \gy_2) + \frac{hk_R^2}{4}Q_0 + d_2 + e_2\\
&= -J(\gy_2, q_2) + Q + d_2 + e_2.\end{aligned}$$ The governing equations Eq. and Eq. for the potential vorticity follow.
Streamfunction-forcing spectrum under random Gaussian forcing {#app:StreamfunctionForcingSpectrum}
=============================================================
Let us consider the case of a generalized multi-layer model forced at each layer $\ga$ with random Gaussian forcing $f_\ga$ such that $$\avg{f_\ga (\bfx_1, t_1) f_\gb (\bfx_2, t_2)} = 2Q_{\ga\gb} (\bfx_1, \bfx_2) \gd (t_1-t_2).$$ From the Novikov-Furutsu theorem [@article:Furutsu:1963; @article:Novikov:1965] we know that, given a functional $R[f]$, the correlation between $f_\ga$ and $R[f]$ reads $$\avg{f_\ga (\bfx_1, t_1) R[f]} = \int_{\bbR^2} \df{\bfx_2}\int_\bbR \df{t_2} \; \avg{f_\ga (\bfx_1, t_1) f_\gb (\bfx_2, t_2)} \avg{\vderiv{R[f]}{f_\gb (\bfx_2, t_2)}}.$$ It should be noted that implied is a space-time approach in which it is the entire forcing history $f$ that is being mapped to a number by the functional $R[f]$. The ensemble average is understood to average over all possible forcing histories. The idea is to treat the streamfunction $\gy_\ga$ of layer $\ga$ at a given point in space-time as a functional of the entire forcing history, and then use the Novikov-Furutsu theorem to evaluate the forcing-streamfunction spectrum $\phi_{\ga\gb} (k)$. This idea follows a similar argument by @book:McComb:1990 for the three-dimensional Navier-Stokes equation. The argument proceeds as follows:
Recall first the definition of the filtering kernel: $$a^{<k}(\bfx, t) = \int_{\bbR^2} P(k|\bfx-\bfy) a(\bfy, t)\; \df{\bfy}.$$ By definition, the streamfunction-forcing spectrum $\phi_{\ga\gb} (k)$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_{\ab}(k) &= \innerf{f_\ga}{\gy_\gb}{k} = \innerf{f_\ga}{\sum_\gc \ccL_{\bc}^{-1} q_\gc}{k}
= \sum_\gc L_{\bc}^{-1}(k) \innerf{f_\ga}{q_\gc}{k}\\
&= \sum_\gc L_{\bc}^{-1}(k) \dD{k} \int_{\bbR^2}\df{\bfx}\; \avg{f_\ga^{<k} (\bfx,t) q_\gc^{<k} (\bfx,t)} \\
&= \sum_\gc L_{\bc}^{-1}(k) \dD{k} \iiint_{(\bbR^2)^3}\df{\bfx}\df{\bfy}\df{\bfz}\; P(k|\bfx-\bfy) P(k|\bfx-\bfz) \avg{f_\ga (\bfy,t) q_\gc (\bfz,t)}.
\label{eq:StreamfuncInProgress}\end{aligned}$$ Using the Novikov-Furutsu theorem, we calculate the forcing-streamfunction correlation $\avg{f_\ga (\bfy,t) q_\gc (\bfz,t)}$, and find that it reads: $$\begin{aligned}
\avg{f_\ga (\bfy,t) q_\gc (\bfz,t)} &= \int_{\bbR^2}\df{\bfw}\int_\bbR\df{t_0} \; \avg{f_\ga (\bfy, t) f_{\gd} (\bfw,t_0)}\avg{\vderiv{q_\gc (\bfz, t)}{f_\gd (\bfw, t_0)}}\\
&= \int_{\bbR^2}\df{\bfw}\int_\bbR\df{t_0} \; 2Q_{\ad} (\bfy,\bfw)\gd (t-t_0) \avg{\vderiv{q_\gc (\bfz, t)}{f_\gd (\bfw, t_0)}}\\
&= 2\int_{\bbR^2}\df{\bfw} \; Q_{\ad} (\bfy,\bfw) \avg{\vderiv{q_\gc (\bfz, t)}{f_\gd (\bfw, t)}}.
\label{eq:StreamfuncCorrInProgress}\end{aligned}$$ To evaluate the variational derivative of potential vorticity $q_\gc (\bfz, t)$ with respect to layer forcing $f_\gd (\bfw, t_0)$ we first note that, by causality, the potential vorticity $q_{\gc}(\bfz, t)$ at time $t$ is related with the initial potential vorticity $q_\gc (\bfz, 0)$ at time $t_0 = 0$ by an equation of the form $$q_{\gc}(\bfz, t) = q_\gc (\bfz, 0)+\int_0^t \df{t_0}\; \cN_\gc [q(t_0)](\bfz) + \int_0^t \df{t_0}\; f_\gc (\bfz, t_0).$$ Here, $\cN_\gc [q(t_0)](\bfz)$ represents the combined effect of the nonlinear and dissipation terms. The third integral represents the causal contribution of the forcing term. Let us assume now that $0< \gt < t$, and differentiate the above equation variationally with respect to $f_\gd (\bfw, \gt)$. We immediately find that $$\begin{aligned}
\vderiv{q_{\gc}(\bfz, t)}{f_\gd (\bfw, \gt)} &= \vD{f_\gd (\bfw, \gt)} \left[ \int_0^t \df{t_0}\; \cN_\gc [q(t_0)](\bfz) + \int_0^t \df{t_0}\; f_\gc (\bfz, t_0) \right] \\
&= \cA_{\cd} (\bfz, t; \bfw, \gt) + \cB_{\cd} (\bfz, t; \bfw, \gt),\end{aligned}$$ with $\cA_{\cd} (\bfz, t; \bfw, \gt)$ and $\cB_{\cd} (\bfz, t; \bfw, \gt)$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
\cA_{\cd} (\bfz, t; \bfw, \gt) &= \vD{f_\gd (\bfw, \gt)} \int_0^t \df{t_0}\; \cN_\gc [q(t_0)](\bfz) = \int_{\gt}^t \df{t_0}\; \vderiv{\cN_\gc [q(t_0)](\bfz)}{f_\gd (\bfw, \gt)} \label{eq:TheAThing} \\
\cB_{\cd} (\bfz, t; \bfw, \gt) &= \vD{f_\gd (\bfw, \gt)}\int_0^t \df{t_0}\; f_\gc (\bfz, t_0)\\
&= \vD{f_\gd (\bfw, \gt)} \int_0^t \df{t_0}\int_{\bbR^2}\df{\bfz_0} \; \gd (\bfz-\bfz_0)f_\gc (\bfz_0, t_0) \\
&= \vD{f_\gd (\bfw, \gt)} \int_\bbR \df{t_0}\int_{\bbR^2}\df{\bfz_0} \; H(t-t_0) \gd (\bfz-\bfz_0)f_\gc (\bfz_0, t_0) \\
&= \gd_{\cd} H(\gt-t) \gd (\bfz-\bfw).\end{aligned}$$ Here, $H(t)$ is the previously defined Heaviside function. For Eq. , we rely on the principle of causality to restrict the integral from $\gt$ to $t$. It is easy to see that for $t=\gt$, $\cA_{\cd} (\bfz, t; \bfw, \gt)$ and $\cB_{\cd} (\bfz, t; \bfw, \gt)$ simplify to: $$\begin{aligned}
\cA_{\cd} (\bfz, t; \bfw, t) &= \int_{t}^t \df{t_0}\; \vderiv{\cN_\gc [q(t_0)](\bfz)}{f_\gd (\bfw, \gt)} = 0,\\
\cB_{\cd} (\bfz, t; \bfw, t) &= \frac{1}{2} \gd_{\cd} \gd (\bfz-\bfw),\end{aligned}$$ and therefore the variational derivative of $q_{\gc}(\bfz, t)$ with respect to $f_\gd (\bfw, t)$ is given by $$\vderiv{q_{\gc}(\bfz, t)}{f_\gd (\bfw, t)} = \frac{1}{2} \gd_{\cd} \gd (\bfz-\bfw).$$ Substituting this result to Eq. , we show that the forcing-streamfunction correlation is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\avg{f_\ga (\bfy,t) q_\gc (\bfz,t)} &= 2\int_{\bbR^2}\df{\bfw} \; Q_{\ad} (\bfy,\bfw) \avg{\vderiv{q_\gc (\bfz, t)}{f_\gd (\bfw, t)}}\\
&= 2\int_{\bbR^2}\df{\bfw} \; Q_{\ad} (\bfy,\bfw) \frac{1}{2} \gd_{\cd} \gd (\bfz-\bfw)\\
&= \int_{\bbR^2}\df{\bfw} \; Q_{\ac} (\bfy,\bfw) \gd (\bfz-\bfw) = Q_{\ac} (\bfy,\bfz).\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, the forcing-streamfunction spectrum $\phi_{\ga\gb} (k)$ reads $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_{\ab}(k) &= \sum_\gc L_{\bc}^{-1}(k) \dD{k} \iiint_{(\bbR^2)^3}\df{\bfx}\df{\bfy}\df{\bfz}\; P(k|\bfx-\bfy) P(k|\bfx-\bfz) \avg{f_\ga (\bfy,t) q_\gc (\bfz,t)}\\
&= \sum_\gc L_{\bc}^{-1}(k) \dD{k} \iiint_{(\bbR^2)^3}\df{\bfx}\df{\bfy}\df{\bfz}\; P(k|\bfx-\bfy) P(k|\bfx-\bfz) Q_{\ac} (\bfy,\bfz)\\
&= \sum_\gc \cQ_{\ac}(k) L_{\bc}^{-1}(k).\end{aligned}$$ The integral above defines the forcing correlation spectrum $\cQ_{\ac}(k)$, given by: $$\cQ_{\ac}(k) = \dD{k} \iiint_{(\bbR^2)^3}\df{\bfx}\df{\bfy}\df{\bfz}\; P(k|\bfx-\bfy) P(k|\bfx-\bfz) Q_{\ac} (\bfy,\bfz).$$ Our final result for the forcing-streamfunction spectrum is: $$\phi_{\ab}(k) = \sum_\gc \cQ_{\ac}(k) L_{\bc}^{-1}(k).$$
The random Gaussian forcing model {#app:RandomGaussianForcing}
=================================
Let us consider the case of the two-layer quasigeostrophic model forced with $f_1=\gf$ at the top layer and $f_2=-\mu \gf$ at the bottom layer. Here, $\mu$ is a suppression constant with $0 < \mu < 1$ and $\gf$ is a random Gaussian field that is delta-correlated in time such that: $$\avg{\gf (\bfx_1, t_1) \gf (\bfx_2, t_2)} = 2Q (\bfx_1, \bfx_2) \gd (t_1-t_2).$$ From $Q (\bfx_1, \bfx_2)$ we define the corresponding correlation spectrum $\cQ(k)$ as: $$\cQ(k) = \dD{k} \iiint_{(\bbR^2)^3}\df{\bfx}\df{\bfy}\df{\bfz}\; P(k|\bfx-\bfy) P(k|\bfx-\bfz) Q (\bfy,\bfz).$$ It follows that, for $\ga,\gb \in \{1,2\}$, $f_\ga$ and $f_\gb$ are correlated according to $$\avg{f_\ga (\bfx_1, t_1) f_\gb (\bfx_2, t_2)} = 2Q_{\ab} (\bfx_1, \bfx_2) \gd (t_1-t_2),$$ with the components of $Q_{\ab}$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
Q_{11}(\bfx_1, \bfx_2) &= Q(\bfx_1, \bfx_2),\\
Q_{12}(\bfx_1, \bfx_2) &= Q_{21}(\bfx_1, \bfx_2) = -\mu Q(\bfx_1, \bfx_2),\\
Q_{22}(\bfx_1, \bfx_2) &= \mu^2 Q(\bfx_1, \bfx_2).\end{aligned}$$ The spectrum $\cQ_{\ab}(k)$ of $Q_{\ab} (\bfx_1, \bfx_2)$ is defined as $$\cQ_{\ab}(k) = \dD{k} \iiint_{(\bbR^2)^3}\df{\bfx}\df{\bfy}\df{\bfz}\; P(k|\bfx-\bfy) P(k|\bfx-\bfz) Q_{\ab} (\bfy,\bfz),$$ consequently its components read: $$\begin{aligned}
\cQ_{11}(k) &= \cQ(k), \\
\cQ_{12}(k) &= \cQ_{21}(k) = -\mu \cQ(k), \\
\cQ_{22} (k)&= \mu^2 \cQ(k).\end{aligned}$$ In Appendix \[app:StreamfunctionForcingSpectrum\], we have shown that under general delta-correlated in time random Gaussian forcing, the general form of the forcing-streamfunction spectrum $\phi_{\ga\gb} (k)$ reads: $$\phi_{\ab}(k) = \sum_\gc \cQ_{\ac}(k) L_{\bc}^{-1}(k).$$ We would now like to reduce this result to the case of the two-layer quasi-geostrophic model. Starting from Eq. , a simple calculation shows that the inverse matrix $L_{\ab}^{-1}(k)$ is given by: $$L_{\ab}^{-1}(k) = \frac{-1}{2k^2 (k^2+k_R^2)} \mattwo{2k^2+k_R^2}{k_R^2}{k_R^2}{2k^2+k_R^2}.$$ We note that the inverse matrix $L_{\ab}^{-1}(k)$ is defined for all wavenumbers $k>0$. Combining the above two equations we find that the components of the streamfunction-forcing spectrum $\phi_{\ga\gb} (k)$ are: $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_{11}(k) &= \cQ_{11}(k)L^{-1}_{11}(k) + \cQ_{12}(k)L^{-1}_{12} (k)
= \cQ(k) [L_{11}^{-1}(k)-\mu L_{12}^{-1}(k)] \\
&= \frac{-\cQ(k)[2k^2+k_R^2-\mu k_R^2]}{2k^2 (k^2+k_R^2)}, \\
%% = \frac{-\cQ(k)[2k^2+(1-\mu) k_R^2]}{2k^2 (k^2+k_R^2)}, \\
\phi_{12}(k) &= \cQ_{11}(k)L_{21}^{-1}(k) + \cQ_{12}(k)L_{22}^{-1} (k)
= \cQ(k) [L_{21}^{-1}(k)-\mu L_{22}^{-1}(k)] \\
&= \frac{-\cQ(k)[k_R^2-\mu (2k^2+k_R^2)]}{2k^2 (k^2+k_R^2)}, \\
%% = \frac{-\cQ(k)[-2\mu k^2 + (1-\mu)k_R^2]}{2k^2 (k^2+k_R^2)}, \\
\phi_{21}(k) &= \cQ_{21}(k)L_{11}^{-1}(k) + \cQ_{22}(k)L_{12}^{-1}(k)
= \cQ(k) [-\mu L_{11}^{-1}(k)+\mu^2 L_{12}^{-1}(k) ]\\
&= \frac{-\cQ(k)[-\mu (2 k^2+k_R^2) + \mu^2 k_R^2]}{2k^2 (k^2+k_R^2)}, \\
\phi_{22}(k) &= \cQ_{21}(k)L_{21}^{-1}(k) + \cQ_{22}(k)L_{22}^{-1}(k)
= \cQ(k) [-\mu L_{21}^{-1}(k)+\mu^2 L_{22}^{-1}(k)] \\
&= \frac{-\cQ(k)[-\mu k_R^2 + \mu^2 (2k^2+k_R^2)]}{2k^2 (k^2+k_R^2)}.
%% = \frac{-\cQ(k)[2\mu^2 k^2 - \mu (1-\mu) k_R^2]}{2k^2 (k^2+k_R^2)}. \\\end{aligned}$$ We may therefore write the streamfunction-forcing spectra as: $$\gf_{\ab} (k) = \frac{-\cQ (k) \gy_{\ab} (k)}{2 k^2 (k^2+k_R^2)},$$ with $\gy_{\ab}$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
\gy_{11} (k) &= (2k^2+k_R^2)-\mu k_R^2, \\
\gy_{12} (k) &= k_R^2-\mu (2k^2+k_R^2), \\
\gy_{21} (k) &= -\mu (2 k^2+k_R^2) + \mu^2 k_R^2, \\
\gy_{22} (k) &= -\mu k_R^2 + \mu^2 (2k^2+k_R^2).\end{aligned}$$ From the streamfunction-forcing spectra $\phi_{\ga\gb} (k)$ we calculate both the potential enstrophy forcing spectrum $F_G(k)$ and the energy forcing spectrum $F_E(k)$ using Eq. and Eq. . An easy calculation gives: $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_{11}(k) + \psi_{22}(k) &= (2k^2+k_R^2)-\mu k_R^2-\mu k_R^2 + \mu^2 (2k^2+k_R^2)\\
&= 2(1+\mu^2)k^2 + k_R^2 (1-\mu)^2,\end{aligned}$$ and therefore, for $F_E(k)$ we find that $$\begin{aligned}
F_E (k) &= -2[\phi_{11}(k) + \phi_{22}(k)] = \frac{+2\cQ(k)[\psi_{11}(k) + \psi_{22}(k)]}{2k^2 (k^2+k_R^2)}\\
&= \frac{2Q(k)[2(1+\mu^2) k^2 + (1-\mu)^2 k_R^2]}{2k^2 (k^2+k_R^2)}.\label{eq:theFE}\end{aligned}$$ For the potential enstrophy forcing spectrum $F_G(k)$, we use a slightly more subtle argument, and we have: $$\begin{aligned}
F_G (k) &= 2\sum_{\ga\gb} L_{\ab}(k) \phi_{\ab}(k)
= 2\sum_{\ga\gb} L_{\ab}(k) \left[ \sum_\gc L_{\bc}^{-1} (k) \cQ_{\ac}(k) \right]\\
%% &= 2\sum_{\ga\gb\gc} L_{\ab}(k) L_{\bc}^{-1} (k) \cQ_{\ac}(k)
&= 2\sum_{\ac} \left[ \sum_\gb L_{\ab}(k) L_{\bc}^{-1} (k) \right]\cQ_{\ac}(k)
= 2\sum_{\ac} \gd_{\ac}\cQ_{\ac}(k) \\
&= 2\sum_{\ga} \cQ_{\ga\ga}(k)
= 2[\cQ_{11}(k) + \cQ_{22}(k)] \\
&= 2(1+\mu^2) \cQ(k). \label{eq:theFG}\end{aligned}$$ It is worth noting that the potential enstrophy forcing spectrum $F_G(k)$ is independent of the matrix $L_{\ab}(k)$ as long as $L_{\ab}(k)$ is non-singular. The energy forcing spectrum $F_E(k)$, on the other hand, is dependent on the inverse matrix $L_{\ab}^{-1}(k)$. Eq. and Eq. are the main results of this appendix.
|
---
address:
- 'Institute for Advanced Study, Fuld Hall, 1 Einstein Drive, Princeton, NJ, USA.'
- 'Korea Institute for Advanced Study, 85 Hoegiro, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul 130-722, Korea'
- 'University of Wisconsin-Madison, Van Vleck Hall, 480 Lincoln Drive, Madison, WI, USA.'
author:
- June Huh and Botong Wang
title: 'Enumeration of points, lines, planes, etc.'
---
Introduction
============
One of the earliest results in enumerative combinatorial geometry is the following theorem of de Bruijn and Erdős [@deBruijn-Erdos]:
> *Every finite set of points $E$ in a projective plane determines at least $|E|$ lines, unless $E$ is contained in a line.*
In other words, if $E$ is not contained in a line, then the number of lines in the plane containing at least two points in $E$ is at least $|E|$. See [@deWitteI; @deWitteII] for an interesting account of its history and a survey of known proofs.
The following more general statement, conjectured by Motzkin in [@MotzkinThesis], was subsequently proved by many in various settings:
> *Every finite set of points $E$ in a projective space determines at least $|E|$ hyperplanes, unless $E$ is contained in a hyperplane.*
Motzkin proved the above for $E$ in real projective spaces [@Motzkin]. Basterfield and Kelly [@Basterfield-Kelly] showed the statement in general, and Greene [@Greene] strengthened the result by showing that there is a *matching* from $E$ to the set of hyperplanes determined by $E$, unless $E$ is contained in a hyperplane:
> *For every point in $E$ one can choose a hyperplane containing the point in such a way that no hyperplane is chosen twice.*
Mason [@Mason] and Heron [@Heron] obtained similar results by different methods.
Let $\mathbb{P}$ be the projectivization of an $r$-dimensional vector space over a field, $E \subseteq \mathbb{P}$ be a finite subset not contained in any hyperplane, and $\mathscr{L}$ be the poset of subspaces of $\mathbb{P}$ spanned by the subsets of $E$. The poset $\mathscr{L}$ is a graded lattice, and its rank function satisfies the submodular inequality $$\text{rank}(F_1)+\text{rank}(F_2) \ge \text{rank}(F_1 \lor F_2)+\text{rank}(F_1 \land F_2) \ \ \text{for all $F_1,F_2 \in \mathscr{L}$}.$$ For a nonnegative integer $p$, we write $\mathscr{L}^p$ for the set of rank $p$ elements in the lattice $\mathscr{L}$. Thus $\mathscr{L}^1$ is the set of points in $E$, $\mathscr{L}^2$ is the set of lines joining points in $E$, and $\mathscr{L}^r$ is the set with one element, $\mathbb{P}$. Graded posets obtained in this way are standard examples of *geometric lattices* [@Welsh]. These include the lattice of all subsets of a finite set (Boolean lattices), the lattice of all partitions of a finite set (partition lattices), and the lattice of all subspaces of a finite vector space (projective geometries). In [@Dowling-WilsonII], Dowling and Wilson further generalized the above results for geometric lattices:
> *For every nonnegative integer $p$ less than $\frac{r}{2}$, there is a matching from the set of rank at most $p$ elements of $\mathscr{L}$ to the set of corank at most $p$ elements of $\mathscr{L}$.*
The matching can be chosen to match the minimum of $\mathscr{L}$ to the maximum of $\mathscr{L}$, and hence the above statement covers all the results introduced above. Kung gave another proof of the same result from the point of view of Radon transformations in [@KungRadonI; @KungRadon].
In [@Dowling-WilsonI; @Dowling-WilsonII], Dowling and Wilson stated the following “top-heavy” conjecture.
\[MainConjecture\] Let $\mathscr{L}$ be a geometric lattice of rank $r$.
(1) For every nonnegative integer $p$ less than $\frac{r}{2}$, $$|\mathscr{L}^p| \le |\mathscr{L}^{r-p}|.$$ In fact, there is an injective map $\iota:\mathscr{L}^p \to \mathscr{L}^{r-p}$ satisfying $x \le \iota(x)$ for all $x$.
(2) For every nonnegative integer $p$ less than $\frac{r}{2}$, $$|\mathscr{L}^p| \le |\mathscr{L}^{p+1}|.$$ In fact, there is an injective map $\iota: \mathscr{L}^p \to \mathscr{L}^{p+1}$ satisfying $x \le \iota(x)$ for all $x$.
The conjecture was reproduced in [@StanleyEC Exercise 3.37] and [@Kung-Rota-Yan Exercise 3.5.7]. For an overview and related results, see [@Aigner]. When $\mathscr{L}$ is a Boolean lattice or a projective geometry, the validity of Conjecture \[MainConjecture\] is a classical result. We refer to [@LefschetzBook] and [@StanleyAC] for recent expositions. In these cases, Conjecture \[MainConjecture\] implies that $\mathscr{L}$ has the *Sperner property*:
> *The maximal number of incomparable elements in $\mathscr{L}$ is the maximum of $|\mathscr{L}^p|$ over $p$.*
Kung proved the second part of Conjecture \[MainConjecture\] for partition lattices in [@KungRadonII]. Later he showed the second part of Conjecture \[MainConjecture\] for $p\le 2$ when every line contains the same number of points [@KungLinesPlanes].
We now state our main result. As before, we write $\mathbb{P}$ for the projectivization of an $r$-dimensional vector space over a field.
\[MainTheoremI\] Let $E \subseteq \mathbb{P}$ be a finite subset not contained in any hyperplane, and $\mathscr{L}$ be the poset of subspaces of $\mathbb{P}$ spanned by subsets of $E$.
(1) For all nonnegative integers $p \le q$ satisfying $p+q \le r$, $$|\mathscr{L}^{p}| \le |\mathscr{L}^{r-q}|.$$ In fact, there is an injective map $\iota:\mathscr{L}^p \to \mathscr{L}^{r-q}$ satisfying $x \le \iota(x)$ for all $x$.
(2) For every positive integer $p$ less than $\frac{r}{2}$, $$0 \le |\mathscr{L}^{p+1}|-|\mathscr{L}^{p}| \le \Big(|\mathscr{L}^{p}|-|\mathscr{L}^{p-1}|\Big)^{\langle p \rangle}.$$ Equivalently, $|\mathscr{L}^0|,|\mathscr{L}^1|-|\mathscr{L}^0|,\ldots,|\mathscr{L}^{p+1}|-|\mathscr{L}^p|$ is the $h$-vector of a shellable simplicial complex.
For undefined notions in the second statement, we refer to [@StanleyCC Chapter II].
The first part of Theorem \[MainTheoremI\] settles Conjecture \[MainConjecture\] for all $\mathscr{L}$ realizable over some field. We believe this to be a good demonstration of the power of the main ingredient in the proof, the decomposition theorem package for intersection complexes [@Beilinson-Bernstein-Deligne].
Modular geometric lattices, such as Boolean lattices or finite projective geometries, satisfies a stronger matching property:
> *For every $p$, there is an injective or surjective map $\iota: \mathscr{L}^p \to \mathscr{L}^{p+1}$ satisfying $x \le \iota(x)$.*
As noted before, this implies that modular geometric lattices have the Sperner property.
Dilworth and Greene constructed in [@Dilworth-Greene] a configuration of $21$ points in any $10$-dimensional projective space over a field with the property that there is no injective or surjective map $$\iota: \mathscr{L}^6 \to \mathscr{L}^{7}, \qquad x \le \iota(x).$$ Canfield [@Canfield] found such “no matching” successive rank level sets as above in partition lattices with sufficiently many elements (exceeding $10^{10^{20}}$). These geometric lattices satisfy Conjecture \[MainConjecture\] but do not have the Sperner property.
Rota conjectured that the sizes of the rank level sets of a geometric lattice form a unimodal sequence [@Rota; @Rota-Harper]: $$|\mathscr{L}^0|\le \cdots \le |\mathscr{L}^{p-1}|\le|\mathscr{L}^p|\ge|\mathscr{L}^{p+1}|\ge \cdots \ge |\mathscr{L}^r| \ \ \text{for some $p$.}$$ Stronger versions of this conjecture were proposed by Mason [@Mason]. The unimodality for the “upper half” remains as an outstanding open problem.
Let $\lambda$ be a partition of a positive integer, which we view as a Young diagram [@FultonYoung]. For example, the partition $(4,2,1)$ of $7$ corresponds to the Young diagram $$\yng(4,2,1)$$ *Young’s lattice* associated to $\lambda$ is the graded poset $\mathscr{L}_\lambda$ of all partitions whose Young diagram fit inside $\lambda$. The poset $\mathscr{L}_\lambda$ is usually not a geometric lattice, but Björner and Ekedahl [@Bjorner-Ekedahl] showed that $\mathscr{L}_\lambda$ satisfies both conclusions of Conjecture \[MainConjecture\] when $r$ is the number of boxes in $\lambda$:
(1) For $p$ less than $\frac{r}{2}$, there is an injective map $\iota:\mathscr{L}^p \to \mathscr{L}^{r-p}$ satisfying $x \le \iota(x)$ for all $x$.
(2) For $p$ less than $\frac{r}{2}$, there is an injective map $\iota: \mathscr{L}^p \to \mathscr{L}^{p+1}$ satisfying $x \le \iota(x)$ for all $x$.
However, according to Stanton [@Stanton], Young’s lattice for the partition $(8, 8, 4, 4)$ defines a nonunimodal sequence $$\begin{gathered}
\Big(|\mathscr{L}_\lambda^0|,\ |\mathscr{L}_\lambda^1|,\ |\mathscr{L}_\lambda^2|,\ \ldots,\ |\mathscr{L}_\lambda^{24}|\Big)=\\
\Big(1,\ 1,\ 2,\ 3,\ 5,\ 6,\ 9,\ 11,\ 15,\ 17,\ 21,\ 23,\ 27,\ 28,\ 31,\ 30,\ 31,\ 27,\ 24,\ 18,\ 14,\ 8,\ 5,\ 2,\ 1\Big).\end{gathered}$$ Face lattices of simplicial polytopes behaves similarly, starting from dimension $20$ [@Billera-Lee; @Bjorner]. See [@Ziegler Chapter 8] for a discussion of unimodality in the case of polytopes.
The graded Möbius algebra {#Section2}
=========================
We use the language of matroids, and use [@Welsh] and [@Oxley] as basic references. Let $r$ and $n$ be positive integers, and let $\mathrm{M}$ be a rank $r$ simple matroid on the ground set $$E=\{1,\ldots,n\}.$$ Write $\mathscr{L}$ for the lattice of flats of $\mathrm{M}$. We define a graded analogue of the Möbius algebra for $\mathscr{L}$.
Introduce symbols $y_F$, one for each flat $F$ of $\mathrm{M}$, and construct vector spaces $$B^p(\mathrm{M})=\bigoplus_{F \in \mathscr{L}^p} \mathbb{Q} \hspace{0.5mm} y_F, \quad B^*(\mathrm{M})=\bigoplus_{F \in \mathscr{L}} \mathbb{Q} \hspace{0.5mm} y_F.$$ We equip $B^*(\mathrm{M})$ with the structure of a commutative graded algebra over $\mathbb{Q}$ by setting $$\arraycolsep=1.1pt\def\arraystretch{1.3}
y_{F_1} y_{F_2}=\left\{\begin{array}{cl} y_{F_1 \lor F_2} & \quad \text{if $\text{rank}(F_1)+\text{rank}(F_2)=\text{rank}(F_1 \lor F_2)$,}\\ 0 & \quad \text{if $\text{rank}(F_1)+\text{rank}(F_2)>\text{rank}(F_1 \lor F_2)$.}\end{array}\right.$$ For simplicity, we write $y_1,\ldots,y_n$ instead of $y_{\{1\}},\ldots,y_{\{n\}}$.
Maeno and Numata introduced this algebra in a slightly different form in [@Maeno-Numata], who used it to show that modular geometric lattices have the Sperner property. Note that $B^*(\mathrm{M})$ is generated by $B^1(\mathrm{M})$ as an algebra: If $I_F$ is any basis of a flat $F$ of $\mathrm{M}$, then $$y_F=\prod_{i \in I_F} y_i.$$ Unlike its ungraded counterpart, which is isomorphic to the product of $\mathbb{Q}$’s as a $\mathbb{Q}$-algebra [@Solomon], the graded Möbius algebra $B^*(\mathrm{M})$ has a nontrivial algebra structure. Define $$L=\sum_{i \in E} y_i.$$ We deduce Theorem \[MainTheoremI\] from the following algebraic statement. Similar injectivity properties have appeared in the context of Kac-Moody Schubert varieties [@Bjorner-Ekedahl] and toric hyperkähler varieties [@Hausel].
\[MainTheoremII\] For nonnegative integer $p$ less than $\frac{r}{2}$, the multiplication map $$B^p(\mathrm{M}) \longrightarrow B^{r-p}(\mathrm{M}), \qquad \xi \longmapsto L^{r-2p} \ \xi$$ is injective, when $\mathrm{M}$ is realizable over some field.
It follows that, for nonnegative integers $p \le q$ satisfying $p+q \le r$, the multiplication map $$B^p(\mathrm{M}) \longrightarrow B^{r-q}(\mathrm{M}), \qquad \xi \longmapsto L^{r-p-q} \ \xi$$ is injective, when $\mathrm{M}$ is realizable over some field. To deduce the first part of Theorem \[MainTheoremI\] from this, consider the matrix of the multiplication map with respect to the standard bases of the source and the target. Entries of this matrix are labeled by pairs of elements of $\mathscr{L}$, and all the entries corresponding to incomparable pairs are zero. The matrix has full rank, so there is a maximal square submatrix with nonzero determinant. In the standard expansion of this determinant, there must be a nonzero term, and the permutation corresponding to this term produces the injective map $\iota$. The second part of Theorem \[MainTheoremI\] also follows from Theorem \[MainTheoremII\]. To see this, note that the algebra $B^*(\mathrm{M})$ is generated by its degree $1$ elements, and apply Macaulay’s theorem to the quotient of $B^*(\mathrm{M})$ by the ideal generated by $L$ [@StanleyCC Chapter II, Corollary 2.4].
Theorem \[MainTheoremII\] holds without the assumption of realizability.
Let $\mathrm{M}$ be as before, and let $\overline{\mathrm{M}}$ be a simple matroid on the ground set $$\overline{E}=\{0,1,\ldots,n\}.$$ Let $\overline{\mathscr{L}}$ be the lattice of flats of $\overline{\mathrm{M}}$. We suppose that $\mathrm{M}=\overline{\mathrm{M}}/0$, that is, $\mathrm{M}$ is obtained from $\overline{\mathrm{M}}$ by contracting the element $0$.
Introduce variables $x_{\overline{F}}$, one for each non-empty proper flat $\overline{F}$ of $\overline{\mathrm{M}}$, and set $$S_{\overline{\mathrm{M}}}=\mathbb{Q}[x_{\overline{F}}]_{\overline{F} \neq \varnothing, \overline{F} \neq \overline{E},\overline{F} \in \overline{\mathscr{L}}}.$$ The *Chow ring* $A^*(\overline{\mathrm{M}})$ is the quotient of $S_{\overline{\mathrm{M}}}$ by the ideal generated by the linear forms $$\sum_{i_1 \in \overline{F}} x_{\overline{F}} - \sum_{i_2 \in \overline{F}} x_{\overline{F}},$$ one for each pair of distinct elements $i_1$ and $i_2$ of $\overline{E}$, and the quadratic monomials $$x_{\overline{F}_1}x_{\overline{F}_2},$$ one for each pair of incomparable non-empty proper flats of $\overline{\mathrm{M}}$.
The algebra $A^*(\overline{\mathrm{M}})$ and its generalizations were studied by Feichtner and Yuzvinsky in [@Feichtner-Yuzvinsky]. For every $i$ in $E$, we define an element of $A^1(\overline{\mathrm{M}})$ by setting $$\beta_i=\sum_{\overline{F}} x_{\overline{F}},$$ where the sum is over all flats $\overline{F}$ of $\overline{\mathrm{M}}$ that contain $0$ and do not contain $i$. The linear relations show that we may equivalently define $$\beta_i=\sum_{\overline{F}} x_{\overline{F}},$$ where the sum is over all flats $\overline{F}$ of $\overline{\mathrm{M}}$ that contain $i$ and do not contain $0$. We record here three basic implications of the defining relations of $A^*(\overline{\mathrm{M}})$:
(1) When $\overline{F}$ is a non-empty proper flat of $\overline{\mathrm{M}}$ containing exactly one of $i$ and $0$, $$\beta_i \cdot x_{\overline{F}}=0.$$ This follows from the quadratic monomial relations.
(2) For every element $i$ in $E$, $$\beta_i \cdot \beta_i=0.$$ This follows from the previous statement.
(3) For any two maximal chains of non-empty proper flats of $\overline{\mathrm{M}}$, say $\{\overline{F}_k\}_{1\le k}$ and $\{\overline{G}_k\}_{1\le k}$, $$\prod_{k=1}^r x_{\overline{F}_k} =\prod_{k=1}^r x_{\overline{G}_k} \neq 0.$$
The proofs of (R1) and (R2) are straightforward. The proof of (R3) can be found in [@Adiprasito-Huh-Katz Section 5].
\[PhiHom\] There is a unique injective graded $\mathbb{Q}$-algebra homomorphism $$\varphi:B^*(\mathrm{M}) \longrightarrow A^*(\overline{\mathrm{M}}), \qquad y_i \longmapsto \beta_i.$$
First, we show that there is a well-defined $\mathbb{Q}$-linear map $$\varphi:B^*(\mathrm{M}) \longrightarrow A^*(\overline{\mathrm{M}}), \qquad y_F \longmapsto \prod_{i\in I_F} \beta_i,$$ where $I_F$ is any basis of a flat $F$ of $\mathrm{M}$. In other words, if $J_F$ is any other basis of $F$, then $$\prod_{i \in I_F} \beta_i =\prod_{i \in J_F} \beta_i.$$ Since any basis of $F$ can be obtained from any other basis of $F$ by a sequence of elementary exchanges, it is enough to check the equality in the special case when $I_F \setminus J_F=\{1\}$ and $J_F \setminus I_F =\{2\}$. Assuming that this is the case, we write the left-hand side of the claimed equality by $$\Big(\prod_{i \in I_F \cap J_F} \beta_i \Big)\Big(\sum_{\overline{G}} x_{\overline{G}}\Big),$$ where the sum is over all non-empty proper flats $\overline{G}$ of $\overline{\mathrm{M}}$ that contain $0$ and does not contain $1$. The relation (R1) shows that we may take the sum only over those $\overline{G}$ satisfying $$0 \in \overline{G}, \ \ 1 \notin \overline{G}, \ \ \text{and} \ \ I_F \cap J_F \subseteq \overline{G}.$$ Since $I_F \cup \{0\}$ and $J_F \cup \{0\}$ are bases of the same flat of $\overline{\mathrm{M}}$, the above condition is equivalent to $$0 \in \overline{G}, \ \ 2 \notin \overline{G}, \ \ \text{and} \ \ I_F \cap J_F \subseteq \overline{G}.$$ This proves the claimed equality, which shows that $\varphi$ is a well-defined linear map.
Second, we show that $\varphi$ is a ring homomorphism. Given flats $F_1$ and $F_2$ of $\mathrm{M}$, we show $$\Big(\prod_{i \in I_{F_1}} \beta_i\Big) \Big( \prod_{i \in I_{F_2}} \beta_i \Big)=0 \ \ \text{when the rank of $F_1 \lor F_2$ is less than $|I_{F_1}|+|I_{F_2}|$.}$$ If the independent sets $I_{F_1}$ and $I_{F_2}$ intersect, this follows from the relation (R2). If otherwise, the condition on the rank of $F_1 \lor F_2$ implies that there are two distinct bases of $F_1 \lor F_2$ contained in $I_{F_1} \cup I_{F_2}$, say $$I_{F_1 \lor F_2} \subseteq I_{F_1} \cup I_{F_2} \ \ \text{and} \ \ J_{F_1 \lor F_2} \subseteq I_{F_1} \cup I_{F_2}.$$ Using the first part of the proof, once again from the relation (R2), we deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
\Big(\prod_{i \in I_{F_1}} \beta_i\Big) \Big( \prod_{i \in I_{F_2}} \beta_i \Big)&=
\Big(\prod_{i \in I_{F_1\lor F_2}} \beta_i\Big) \Big( \prod_{i \in I_{F_1} \cup I_{F_2} \setminus I_{F_1\lor F_2}} \beta_i \Big)\\
&=
\Big(\prod_{i \in J_{F_1\lor F_2}} \beta_i\Big) \Big( \prod_{i \in I_{F_1} \cup I_{F_2} \setminus I_{F_1\lor F_2}} \beta_i \Big)=
0.\end{aligned}$$ This completes the proof that $\varphi$ is a ring homomorphism.
Third, we show that $\varphi$ is injective in degree $r$. Choose any ordered basis $\{i_1,\ldots,i_r\}$ of $\mathrm{M}$. For each $q=1,\ldots,r$, we set $$\overline{G}_q=\text{the closure of $\Big\{0,i_1,\ldots,i_{q-1}\Big\}$ in $\overline{\mathrm{M}}$}.$$ We deduce from the relation (R1) that $$\Big(\beta_{i_{1}} \cdots\beta_{i_{r-1}} \Big)\beta_{i_r} =
\Big( \beta_{i_{1}} \cdots\beta_{i_{r-1}} \Big)x_{\overline{G}_r}.$$ Similarly, for any positive integer $q \le r$, we have $$\Big( \beta_{i_{1}} \cdots\beta_{i_{q-2}}\beta_{i_{q-1}} \Big)x_{\overline{G}_q}
=\Big( \beta_{i_{1}} \cdots\beta_{i_{q-2}} \Big)x_{\overline{G}_{q-1}}x_{\overline{G}_q}=x_{\overline{G}_1}\cdots x_{\overline{G}_{q-1}}x_{\overline{G}_q},$$ since $\overline{G}_{q-1}$ is the only flat of $\overline{\mathrm{M}}$ containing $\overline{G}_{q-1}$, comparable to $\overline{G}_q$, and not containing $i_{q-1}$. Combining the above formulas, we deduce from the relation (R3) that $$\beta_{i_{1}} \cdots \beta_{i_{r}} =x_{\overline{G}_1}\cdots x_{\overline{G}_r} \neq 0.$$ This proves that $\varphi$ is injective in degree $r$.
Last, we show that $\varphi$ is injective in any degree $q$ less than $r$. For this we analyze the bilinear map given by the multiplication $$\varphi \Big(B^{q}(\mathrm{M})\Big) \times \bigoplus_{\overline{G}} \mathbb{Q}\hspace{0.5mm} x_{\overline{G}} \longrightarrow A^{q+1}(\overline{\mathrm{M}}),$$ where the sum is over all rank $q+1$ flats $\overline{G}$ of $\overline{\mathrm{M}}$ containing $0$. For any independent set $\{i_1,\ldots,i_{q}\}$ of $\mathrm{M}$, we claim that, for any $\overline{G}$ as in the previous sentence, $$\Big(\beta_{i_{1}}\cdots \beta_{i_{q}} \Big)x_{\overline{G}}\neq 0 \ \ \text{if and only if $\overline{G}$ is the closure of $\Big\{0,i_1,\ldots,i_{q}\Big\}$ in $\overline{\mathrm{M}}$}.$$ The “if” statement follows from the analysis made above. For the “only if” statement, suppose that the product is nonzero. Since $\overline{G}$ contains $0$, it must contain $i_1,\ldots,i_{q}$ by the relation (R1). Since $\overline{G}$ and the closure both have the same rank, we have $$\overline{G}=\text{the closure of $\Big\{0,i_1,\ldots,i_{q}\Big\}$ in $\overline{\mathrm{M}}$}.$$ This proves the claimed equivalence, and it follows that the image of the basis $\{y_F\}$ of $B^q(\mathrm{M})$ under $\varphi$ is a linearly independent in $A^q(\overline{\mathrm{M}})$.
The simplex, the cube, and the permutohedron
============================================
In this section, we give a toric preparation for the proof of our main result, Theorem \[MainTheoremII\]. For undefined terms in toric geometry and intersection theory, we refer to [@FultonToric] and [@FultonIntersection]. All the Chow groups and rings will have rational coefficients.
As in the previous section, we fix a positive integer $n$ and work with the sets $$E=\{1,\ldots,n\} \ \ \text{and} \ \ \overline{E}=\{0,1,\ldots,n\}.$$ Let $\mathbb{Z}^{\overline{E}}$ be the abelian group generated by the basis vectors $\mathbf{e}_i$ corresponding to $i \in \overline{E}$. For an arbitrary subset $\overline{I} \subseteq \overline{E}$, we define $$\mathbf{e}_{\overline{I}}=\sum_{i \in \overline{I}} \mathbf{e}_i.$$ We associate to $\overline{E}$ the abelian group $N_{\overline{E}}=\mathbb{Z}^{\overline{E}}/ \mathbb{Z}\hspace{0.5mm} \mathbf{e}_{\overline{E}}$ and the vector space $N_{\overline{E},\mathbb{R}}=\mathbb{R}^{\overline{E}}/ \mathbb{R}\hspace{0.5mm} \mathbf{e}_{\overline{E}}$.
(1) Let $\Sigma(\mathrm{S}_n) \subseteq N_{\overline{E},\mathbb{R}}$ be the image of the normal fan of the standard $n$-dimensional simplex $$\mathrm{S}_n=\text{conv}\Big\{ \mathbf{e}_0, \mathbf{e}_1,\ldots, \mathbf{e}_n\Big\} \subseteq \mathbb{R}^{\overline{E}}.$$ There are $(n+1)$ maximal cones in $\Sigma(\mathrm{S}_n)$, one for each maximal proper subset $\overline{I}$ of $\overline{E}$: $$\sigma_{\overline{I}}=\text{cone}\Big\{\mathbf{e}_i \mid i \in \overline{I}\Big\} \subseteq N_{\overline{E},\mathbb{R}}.$$ This fan defines the $n$-dimensional projective space $\mathbb{P}^n$, whose homogeneous coordinates are labeled by $i \in \overline{E}$.
(2) Let $\Sigma(\mathrm{C}_n) \subseteq \mathbb{R}^E$ be the normal fan of the standard $n$-dimensional cube $$\mathrm{C}_n=\text{conv}\Big\{ \pm \mathbf{e}_1,\ldots,\pm \mathbf{e}_n\Big\} \subseteq \mathbb{R}^E.$$ There are $2^n$ maximal cones in $\Sigma(\mathrm{C}_n)$, one for each subset $I$ of $E$: $$\sigma_I=\text{cone}\Big\{\mathbf{e}_i \mid i \in I\Big\}-\text{cone}\Big\{\mathbf{e}_i \mid i \notin I\Big\} \subseteq \mathbb{R}^E.$$ This fan defines the product of $n$ projective lines $(\mathbb{P}^1)^n$, whose multi-homogeneous coordinates are labeled by $i \in E$.
(3) Let $\Sigma(\mathrm{P}_n) \subseteq N_{\overline{E},\mathbb{R}}$ be the image of the normal fan of the $n$-dimensional permutohedron $$\mathrm{P}_n=\text{conv}\Big\{(x_0,\ldots,x_n) \mid \text{$x_0,\ldots,x_n$ is a permutation of $0,\ldots,n$}\Big\} \subseteq \mathbb{R}^{\overline{E}}.$$ There are $(n+1)!$ maximal cones in $\Sigma(\mathrm{P}_n)$, one for each maximal chain $\mathscr{I}$ in $2^{\overline{E}}$: $$\sigma_{\mathscr{I}}=\text{cone}\Big\{\mathbf{e}_{\overline{I}} \mid \overline{I} \in \mathscr{I}\Big\} \subseteq N_{\overline{E},\mathbb{R}}.$$ This fan defines the $n$-dimensional permutohedral space, denoted $X_{A_n}$. See [@Batyrev-Blume] for a detailed study of $X_{A_n}$ and its analogues for other root systems.
The inclusion $\mathbb{Z}^E \subseteq \mathbb{Z}^{\overline{E}}$ induces an isomorphism $$\psi^{-1}:\mathbb{R}^E \longrightarrow N_{\overline{E},\mathbb{R}}.$$ This identifies the underlying vector spaces of the normal fans $\Sigma(\mathrm{S}_n)$, $\Sigma(\mathrm{P}_n)$, $\Sigma(\mathrm{C}_n)$: $$\raisebox{-0.5\height}{\includegraphics{commutative-diagram1}}$$ We observe that $\textrm{id}$ and $\psi$ induce morphisms between the fans and their toric varieties $$\raisebox{-0.5\height}{\includegraphics{commutative-diagram2}}$$ The morphism $p_1$ is the standard barycentric subdivision. We check that $p_2$ is a subdivision.
The isomorphism $\psi$ induces a morphism $p_2$.
In other words, the image of a cone in $\Sigma(\mathrm{P}_n)$ under $\psi$ is contained in a cone in $\Sigma(\mathrm{C}_n)$.
For each $i \in E$, define $\psi_i$ as the composition of $\psi$ with the $i$-th projection $$\psi_i=\text{proj}_i\circ \psi, \qquad \text{proj}_i:\mathbb{R}^E \longrightarrow \mathbb{R}^{\{i\}}\simeq \mathbb{R}.$$ For any subset $\overline{I} \subseteq \overline{E}$, we have $$\arraycolsep=1.1pt\def\arraystretch{1.3}
\psi_i(\mathbf{e}_{\overline{I}})=\left\{\begin{array}{rl} \mathbf{e}_i&\quad \text{if $\overline{I}$ contains $i$ and does not contain $0$,} \\ -\mathbf{e}_i&\quad \text{if $\overline{I}$ contains $0$ and does not contain $i$,} \\ 0&\quad \text{if otherwise.} \end{array}\right.$$ It is enough to check that $\psi_i$ induces a morphism $\Sigma(\mathrm{P}_n) \longrightarrow \Sigma(\mathrm{C}_1)$.
Recall that any nonzero cone in the normal fan of $\textrm{P}_n$ is of the form $$\sigma_\mathscr{I}=\text{cone}\Big\{\mathbf{e}_{\overline{I}} \mid \overline{I} \in \mathscr{I}\Big\},$$ where $\mathscr{I}$ is a non-empty chain in $2^{\overline{E}}$. Viewing $\mathscr{I}$ as an ordered collection of sets, we see that $$\arraycolsep=1.1pt\def\arraystretch{1.3}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
&\text{$\psi_i(\sigma_\mathscr{I})$ is contained in the cone generated by $\mathbf{e}_i$
if $i$ appears before $0$ in $\mathscr{I}$, and}\\
&\text{$\psi_i(\sigma_\mathscr{I})$ is contained in the cone generated by $-\mathbf{e}_i$
if $i$ appears after $0$ in $\mathscr{I}$}.
\end{array}\right.$$ Thus the image of a cone in $\Sigma(\textrm{P}_n)$ under $\psi_i$ is contained in a cone in $\Sigma(\textrm{C}_1)$, for each $i \in E$.
Geometrically, $\pi_1$ is the blowup of all the torus-invariant points in $\mathbb{P}^n$, all the strict transforms of torus-invariant $\mathbb{P}^1$’s in $\mathbb{P}^n$, all the strict transforms of torus-invariant $\mathbb{P}^2$’s in $\mathbb{P}^n$, and so on. The map $\pi_2$ is the blowup of points $0^n$ and $\infty^n$, all the strict transforms of torus-invariant $\mathbb{P}^1$’s in $(\mathbb{P}^1)^n$ containing $0^n$ or $\infty^n$, all the strict transforms of torus-invariant $(\mathbb{P}^1)^2$’s in $(\mathbb{P}^1)^n$ containing $0^n$ or $\infty^n$, and so on.
\[PullbackRemark\] For later use, we record here a combinatorial description of the pullback of piecewise linear functions under the linear map $\psi_i=\text{proj}_i\circ \psi$:
> *Let $\alpha$ be the piecewise linear function on $\Sigma(\mathrm{C}_1)$ determined by its values $$\alpha(\mathbf{e}_i)=1 \ \ \text{and} \ \ \alpha(-\mathbf{e}_i)=0.$$ Then $\psi_i^*(\alpha)$ is the piecewise linear function on $\Sigma(\mathrm{P}_n)$ determined by its values $$\arraycolsep=1.1pt\def\arraystretch{1.3}
> \psi_i^*(\alpha)(\mathbf{e}_{\overline{I}})=\left\{\begin{array}{rl} 1 &\quad \text{if $\overline{I}$ contains $i$ and does not contain $0$,} \\ 0&\quad \text{if otherwise.} \end{array}\right.$$*
Using the correspondence between piecewise linear functions on fans and torus-invariant divisors on toric varieties [@FultonToric Chapter 3], the above can be used to describe the pullback homomorphism between the Chow rings $$\pi_2^*:A^*((\mathbb{P}^1)^n) \longrightarrow A^*(X_{A_n}).$$ Explicitly, writing $y_i$ for the divisor of $\mathbf{e}_i$ in $(\mathbb{P}^1)^n$ and $x_{\overline{I}}$ for the divisor of $\mathbf{e}_{\overline{I}}$ in $X_{A_n}$, $$\pi_2^*(y_i)=\sum_{\overline{I}} x_{\overline{I}},$$ where the sum is over all subsets $\overline{I} \subseteq \overline{E}$ that contain $i$ and do not contain $0$.
Proof of Theorem \[MainTheoremII\]
==================================
Let $\mathrm{M}$ be a simple matroid on $E$, and let $\overline{\mathrm{M}}$ be a simple matroid on $\overline{E}$ with $\mathrm{M}=\overline{\mathrm{M}}/0$. For simplicity, we take $\overline{\mathrm{M}}$ to be the direct sum of $\mathrm{M}$ and the rank $1$ matroid on $\{0\}$, so that $\mathrm{M}$ and $\overline{\mathrm{M}}$ share the same set of circuits.
Suppose that $\mathrm{M}$ is realizable over some field. Then $\mathrm{M}$ is realizable over some finite field [@Oxley Corollary 6.8.13], and hence over the algebraically closed field $\overline{\mathbb{F}}_p$ for some prime number $p$. The matroid $\overline{\mathrm{M}}$ is realizable over the same field, say by a spanning set of vectors $$\overline{\mathscr{A}}=\{f_0,f_1,\ldots,f_n\} \subseteq \overline{\mathbb{F}}_p^{r+1}.$$ Dually, the realization $\overline{\mathscr{A}}$ of $\overline{\mathrm{M}}$ corresponds to an injective linear map between projective spaces $$i_{\overline{\mathscr{A}}}:\mathbb{P}^r \longrightarrow \mathbb{P}^n, \qquad i_{\overline{\mathscr{A}}}=[f_0:f_1:\cdots:f_n].$$ The collection $\mathscr{A}=\{f_1,\ldots,f_n\}$ is a realization of the matroid $\mathrm{M}$.
The restriction of the torus-invariant hyperplanes of $\mathbb{P}^n$ to $\mathbb{P}^r$ defines an arrangement of hyperplanes in $\mathbb{P}^r$, which we denote by the same symbol $\overline{\mathscr{A}}$. We use $i_{\overline{\mathscr{A}}}$ to construct the commutative diagram $$\raisebox{-0.5\height}{\includegraphics{commutative-diagram3}}$$ where $X_{\overline{\mathscr{A}}}$ is the strict transform of $\mathbb{P}^r$ under $\pi_1$ and $Y_{\mathscr{A}}$ is the image of $X_{\overline{\mathscr{A}}}$ under $\pi_2$.
The induced map $\pi_1^{\overline{\mathscr{A}}}$ is the blowup of all the zero-dimensional flats of $\overline{\mathscr{A}}$, all the strict transforms of one-dimensional flats of $\overline{\mathscr{A}}$, all the strict transforms of two-dimensional flats of $\overline{\mathscr{A}}$, and so on. The variety $X_{\overline{\mathscr{A}}}$ is the *wonderful model* of $\overline{\mathscr{A}}$ corresponding to the maximal building set [@deConcini-ProcesiA]. The variety $Y_\mathscr{A}$ is studied in [@Ardila-Boocher], and its affine part centered at $\infty^n$ is the *reciprocal plane* in [@Elias-Proudfoot-Wakefield; @Proudfoot-Speyer]. To apply the decomposition theorem of [@Beilinson-Bernstein-Deligne], we notice that all varieties, maps, and sheaves under consideration may be defined over some finite extension of $\mathbb{F}_p$.
We know that the Chow ring of $X_{\overline{\mathscr{A}}}$ is determined by the matroid $\overline{\mathrm{M}}$: There is an isomorphism of graded algebras $$A^*(\overline{\mathrm{M}}) \simeq A^*(X_{\overline{\mathscr{A}}}),$$ where $x_{\overline{F}}$ is identified with the class of the strict transform of the exceptional divisor produced when blowing up the flat of $\overline{\mathscr{A}}$ corresponding to $\overline{F}$. See [@deConcini-ProcesiB Section 1.1], and also [@deConcini-ProcesiA; @Feichtner-Yuzvinsky]. When $\overline{\mathrm{M}}$ is the Boolean matroid $\overline{\mathrm{B}}$ on $\overline{E}$, this describes the Chow ring of the permutohedral space $A^*(X_{A_n})$. In general, the pullback homomorphism $$\raisebox{-0.5\height}{\includegraphics{commutative-diagram4}}$$ is determined by the assignment, for non-empty proper subsets $\overline{I}$ of $\overline{E}$, $$\arraycolsep=1.1pt\def\arraystretch{1.3}
x_{\overline{I}} \longmapsto \left\{\begin{array}{cl} x_{\overline{I}}& \quad \text{if $\overline{I}$ is a flat of $\overline{\mathrm{M}}$,} \\ 0 & \quad \text{if $\overline{I}$ is a not flat of $\overline{\mathrm{M}}$.}\end{array}\right.$$
Fix a prime number $\ell$ different from $p$, and consider the $\ell$-adic étale cohomology rings and the $\ell$-adic étale intersection cohomology groups of the varieties in the diagram above. These are $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell$-vector spaces of the form $$\mathrm{H}^*(X,\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell)\vcentcolon=\mathrm{H}^*(X,\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_{\ell,X}) \ \ \text{and} \ \ \mathrm{IH}^*(X,\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell)\vcentcolon=\mathrm{H}^*(X,\mathrm{IC}_X),$$ where $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_{\ell,X}$ and $\textrm{IC}_X$ are constructible complexes of $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell$-sheaves on $X$ as in [@Beilinson-Bernstein-Deligne]. The blowup construction of $X_{\overline{\mathscr{A}}}$ shows that the cycle class map induces an isomorphism of commutative graded $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell$-algebras $$A^*(X_{\overline{\mathscr{A}}}) \otimes_\mathbb{Q} \overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell \simeq \mathrm{H}^{2*}(X_{\overline{\mathscr{A}}},\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell),$$ see [@Keel Appendix]. For the variety $Y_{\mathscr{A}}$, which may be singular, we show in Theorem \[CohomologyY\] that there is an isomorphism of commutative graded $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell$-algebras $$B^*(\mathrm{M})\otimes_\mathbb{Q} \overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell \simeq \textrm{H}^{2*}(Y_\mathscr{A},\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell).$$ In general, the intersection cohomology $\mathrm{IH}^*(X,\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell)$ is a module over the cohomology $\mathrm{H}^*(X,\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell)$, satisfying the Poincaré duality and the hard Lefschetz theorems. See [@deCataldo-Migliorini] for an introduction and precise statements.
We obtain Theorem \[MainTheoremII\] from the following general observation. Let $f$ be a proper map from an $r$-dimensional smooth projective variety $$f:X_1 \longrightarrow X_2,$$ and let $L$ be a fixed ample line bundle on $X_2$. Consider the pullback homomorphism of cohomology in even degrees $$\mathrm{H}^{2*}(X_2,\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell) \longrightarrow \mathrm{H}^{2*}(X_1,\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell).$$ The image of the pullback is a commutative graded algebra over $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell$, denoted $B^*(f)_{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell}$: $$B^*(f)_{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell}=\text{im}\Big(\mathrm{H}^{2*}(X_2,\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell) \longrightarrow \mathrm{H}^{2*}(X_1,\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell)\Big).$$ $B^*(f)_{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell}$ is the cyclic $\mathrm{H}^{2*}(X_2,\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell)$-submodule of $\mathrm{H}^{2*}(X_1,\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell)$ generated by the element $1$.
\[PullbackProposition\] If $f$ is birational onto its image, then the multiplication map $$B^p(f)_{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell} \longrightarrow B^{r-p}(f)_{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell}, \qquad \xi \longmapsto L^{r-2p} \ \xi$$ is injective for every nonnegative integer $p$ less than $\frac{r}{2}$.
We reduce to the case when $f$ is surjective. For this consider the factorization $$\raisebox{-0.5\height}{\includegraphics{commutative-diagram5}}$$ Then $B^*(f)_{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell}$ is a subalgebra of $B^*(g)_{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell}$, and hence the statement $(f,L)$ follows from $(g,h^*L)$.
Suppose that $f$ is surjective. The decomposition theorem [@Beilinson-Bernstein-Deligne Section 4.3] says that the intersection complex of $X_2$ appears as a direct summand of the direct image of the constant sheaf $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell$ on $X_1$: $$Rf_*\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_{\ell,X_1} \simeq \mathrm{IC}_{X_2} \oplus \mathscr{C}.$$ Taking cohomology of both sides, we obtain a splitting injection of $\mathrm{H}^{*}(X_2,\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell)$-modules $$\Phi:\mathrm{IH}^{*}(X_2,\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell) \longrightarrow \mathrm{H}^{*}(X_1,\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell).$$ Since $\Phi$ is an isomorphism in degree $0$, it restricts to an isomorphism of commutative algebras $$\text{im}\Big(\mathrm{H}^{2*}(X_2,\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell) \longrightarrow \mathrm{IH}^{2*}(X_2,\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell)\Big) \simeq B^*(f)_{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell}.$$ The conclusion follows from the hard Lefschetz theorem for $L$ on $\mathrm{IH}^{2*}(X_2,\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell)$.
Theorem \[MainTheoremII\] will be deduced from the case when $f$ is the map $X_{\overline{\mathscr{A}}} \to (\mathbb{P}^1)^n$. For each $i \in E$, let $f_i$ be the composition of $f$ with the $i$-th projection $$f_i=\text{proj}_i\circ f, \qquad \text{proj}_i:(\mathbb{P}^1)^n \longrightarrow \mathbb{P}^1.$$ As in Proposition \[PhiHom\], for each $i \in E$, we write $\beta_i$ for the sum of $x_{\overline{F}}$ over all flats $\overline{F}$ of $\overline{\mathrm{M}}$ that contain $i$ and do not contain $0$. As mentioned before, the blowup construction of $X_{\overline{\mathscr{A}}}$ shows that the cycle class map induces an isomorphism of commutative graded $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell$-algebras $$A^*(X_{\overline{\mathscr{A}}}) \otimes_\mathbb{Q} \overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell \simeq \mathrm{H}^{2*}(X_{\overline{\mathscr{A}}},\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell),$$ Let $\Psi$ be the composition of isomorphisms $$\Psi: A^*(\overline{\mathrm{M}}) \otimes_\mathbb{Q} \overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell \simeq A^*(X_{\overline{\mathscr{A}}}) \otimes_\mathbb{Q} \overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell \simeq \mathrm{H}^{2*}(X_{\overline{\mathscr{A}}},\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell),$$ which maps $x_{\overline{F}}$ to the class of the strict transform in $X_{\overline{\mathscr{A}}}$ of the exceptional divisor produced when blowing up the flat of $\overline{\mathscr{A}}$ in $\mathbb{P}^r$ corresponding to $\overline{F}$.
\[PullbackBeta\] The element $\Psi(\beta_i)$ is the pullback of the class of a point in $\mathbb{P}^1$ under $f_i$.
We factor $f$ into the composition $$\raisebox{-0.5\height}{\includegraphics{commutative-diagram7}}$$ As noted before, the pullback map associated to the inclusion $j_{\overline{\mathscr{A}}}$ satisfies $$\arraycolsep=1.1pt\def\arraystretch{1.3}
x_{\overline{I}} \longmapsto \left\{\begin{array}{cl} x_{\overline{I}}& \quad \text{if $\overline{I}$ is a flat of $\overline{\mathrm{M}}$,} \\ 0 & \quad \text{if $\overline{I}$ is a not flat of $\overline{\mathrm{M}}$.}\end{array}\right.$$ Thus it is enough to prove the claim when $X_{\overline{\mathscr{A}}} = X_{A_n}$. This is the case when $\overline{\mathrm{M}}$ is the Boolean matroid on $\overline{E}$, and the claim in this case was proved in Remark \[PullbackRemark\] at the level of Chow rings.
Since the cohomology ring of $(\mathbb{P}^1)^n$ is generated by the pullbacks under $f_i$, Propositions \[PhiHom\] and \[PullbackBeta\] together show that $\Psi$ induces an isomorphism between $B^*(\mathrm{M})\otimes_\mathbb{Q} \overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell$ and $B^*(f)_{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell}$, which we denote by $\Psi'$. More precisely, there is a commutative diagram $$\raisebox{-0.5\height}{\includegraphics{commutative-diagram6}}$$ where $\varphi$ is the injective ring homomorphism of Proposition \[PhiHom\].
It is enough to show that the multiplication map $$B^p(\mathrm{M}) \otimes_\mathbb{Q} \overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell \longrightarrow B^{r-p}(\mathrm{M}) \otimes_\mathbb{Q} \overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell, \qquad \xi \longmapsto L^{r-2p} \ \xi$$ is injective. Under the isomorphism $\Psi'$, the statement to be proved translates to the conclusion of Proposition \[PullbackProposition\] when $f$ is the map $X_{\overline{\mathscr{A}}} \to (\mathbb{P}^1)^n$.
With more work, we can show that the graded Möbius algebra of the matroid $\mathrm{M}$ is isomorphic to the cohomology ring of the variety $Y_\mathscr{A}$. Write $L_i$ for the first Chern class of the pullback of $\mathcal{O}(1)$ under the composition $$\raisebox{-0.5\height}{\includegraphics{commutative-diagram8}}$$
\[CohomologyY\] There is an isomorphism of commutative graded $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell$-algebras $$B^*(\mathrm{M})\otimes_\mathbb{Q} \overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell \simeq \textrm{H}^{2*}(Y_\mathscr{A},\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell), \qquad y_i \longmapsto L_i.$$
In what follows, we write $z_0,z_1,\ldots,z_n$ for the homogeneous coordinates of $\mathbb{P}^n$, and write $(z_1,w_1),\ldots,(z_n,w_n)$ for the multi-homogeneous coordinates of $(\mathbb{P}^1)^n$.
Recall that $\mathrm{M}$ and $\overline{\mathrm{M}}$ share the same set of circuits. For every circuit $C$ of $\mathrm{M}$, there are nonzero constants $a_c \in \overline{\mathbb{F}}_p$, one for each element $c \in C$, such that $$\sum_{c \in C} a_c\hspace{0.5mm} z_c=0 \ \ \text{on the image of} \ \ i_{\overline{\mathscr{A}}}: \mathbb{P}^r \longrightarrow \mathbb{P}^n.$$ The collection $(a_c)_{c \in C}$ is uniquely determined by the circuit $C$, up to a common multiple.
A defining set of multi-homogeneous equations of $Y_\mathscr{A}$ is explicitly described by Ardila and Boocher in [@Ardila-Boocher Theorem 1.3]: $$Y_\mathscr{A}=\Bigg\{\ \sum_{c \in C} a_c \hspace{0.5mm} z_c \Big(\prod_{d \in C \setminus c} w_{d}\Big)=0, \ \ \text{$C$ is a circuit of $\mathrm{M}$} \ \Bigg\} \subseteq (\mathbb{P}^1)^n.$$ This shows that $Y_\mathscr{A}$ has an *algebraic cell decomposition* in the sense of [@Bjorner-Ekedahl Section 3], $$Y_\mathscr{A}=\coprod_F \ \mathbb{A}^{\text{rank}(F)},$$ where the disjoint union is over all flats $F$ of $\mathrm{M}$, and $\mathbb{A}^{\text{rank}(F)}$ is the intersection of $Y_\mathscr{A}$ with the affine space $$\mathbb{A}^{|F|}=\Big\{\text{$w_i=0$ if and only if $i$ is not in $F$}\Big\} \subseteq (\mathbb{P}^1)^n.$$
The existence of the cell decomposition has the following implications [@Bjorner-Ekedahl Theorem 3.1]:
(1) The natural map $\mathrm{H}^{2*}(Y_\mathscr{A},\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell) \longrightarrow \mathrm{IH}^{2*}(Y_\mathscr{A},\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell) $ is injective.
(2) The dimension of $\mathrm{H}^{2k}(Y_\mathscr{A},\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell)$ is the number of $k$-dimensional cells in $Y_\mathscr{A}$ for all $k$.
All the odd cohomology groups of $Y_\mathscr{A}$ are zero. When combined with the decomposition theorem for $X_{\overline{\mathscr{A}}} \rightarrow Y_\mathscr{A}$, the statement (CD1) shows that the pullback homomorphism in cohomology $$\mathrm{H}^{2*}(Y_\mathscr{A},\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell) \longrightarrow \mathrm{H}^{2*}(X_{\overline{\mathscr{A}}},\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell)$$ is injective. According to Proposition \[PullbackBeta\], the pullback of $L_i$ in the cohomology of $X_{\overline{\mathscr{A}}}$ is $\Psi(\beta_i)$, and hence the previous sentence implies that there is an injective graded ring homomorphism $$B^*(f)_{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell} \longrightarrow \textrm{H}^{2*}(Y_\mathscr{A},\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell), \qquad \Psi(\beta_i) \longmapsto L_i.$$ Composing with the isomorphism $\Psi'$, we get the injective graded ring homomorphism $$B^*(\mathrm{M})\otimes_\mathbb{Q} \overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell \longrightarrow \textrm{H}^{2*}(Y_\mathscr{A},\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell), \qquad y_i \longmapsto L_i.$$ The statement (CD2) shows that the source and the target are $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_\ell$-vector spaces of the same dimension, which is the number of flats of $\mathrm{M}$. Therefore, the map must be an isomorphism.
Let $\mathrm{M}$ be a simple matroid on $E=\{1,\ldots,n\}$ with rank $r \ge 2$. We write “$\text{deg}$” for the isomorphism $$\text{deg}: B^r(\mathrm{M})\longrightarrow \mathbb{Q}, \qquad y_E \longmapsto 1.$$ Let $\textrm{HR}(\mathrm{M})$ be the symmetric $n \times n$ matrix with entries $$\arraycolsep=1.1pt\def\arraystretch{1.3}
\textrm{HR}(\mathrm{M})_{ij} = \left\{\begin{array}{cl} 0 & \quad \text{if $i=j$,}\\ b_{ij}(\mathrm{M}) &\quad \text{if $i \neq j$,}\end{array}\right.$$ where $b_{ij}(\mathrm{M})$ is the number of bases of $\mathrm{M}$ containing $i$ and $j$. The matrix $\textrm{HR}(\mathrm{M})$ represents the Hodge-Riemann form $$B^1(\mathrm{M}) \times B^1(\mathrm{M}) \longrightarrow \mathbb{Q}, \qquad (\xi_1,\xi_2) \longmapsto \text{deg}( L^{r-2}\ \xi_1 \ \xi_2),$$ with respect to the standard basis $y_1,\ldots,y_n$. It can be shown that the matrix $\textrm{HR}(\mathrm{M})$ has exactly one positive eigenvalue [@Huh-Wang].
Consider the restriction of $\textrm{HR}(\mathrm{M})$ to the three dimensional subspace of $B^1(\mathrm{M})$ spanned by $y_i$, $y_j$, and $L$. The one positive eigenvalue condition says that the determinant of the resulting symmetric $3 \times 3$ matrix is nonnegative, and this implies $$2> b(\mathrm{M}) b_{ij}(\mathrm{M})/b_i(\mathrm{M}) b_j(\mathrm{M}),$$ where $b(\mathrm{M})$ is the number of bases of $\mathrm{M}$ and $b_i(\mathrm{M})$ is the number of bases of $\mathrm{M}$ containing $i$. More detailed arguments will be given in [@Huh-Wang].
> *Question: How large can the ratio $b(\mathrm{M}) b_{ij}(\mathrm{M})/b_i(\mathrm{M}) b_j(\mathrm{M})$ be?*
For graphic matroids, the work of Kirchhoff on electric circuits shows that the ratio is bounded above by $1$, see [@Feder-Mihail]. In other words, for a randomly chosen spanning tree of a graph, the presence of an edge can only make any other edge less likely. It was once conjectured that this is the case for all matroids, but Seymour and Welsh found an example with the ratio $ \simeq 1.02$ [@Seymour-Welsh].
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
We thank Petter Brändén, Jeff Kahn, Satoshi Murai, Yasuhide Numata, Nick Proudfoot, Dave Wagner, and Geordie Williamson for helpful conversations. Special thanks go to two anonymous referees, who made very useful suggestions. This research started while Botong Wang was visiting Korea Institute for Advanced Study in summer 2016. We thank KIAS for excellent working conditions. June Huh was supported by a Clay Research Fellowship and NSF Grant DMS-1128155.
[KRY09]{}
Karim Adiprasito, June Huh, and Eric Katz, *Hodge theory for combinatorial geometries*. `arXiv:1511.02888`.
Martin Aigner, *Whitney numbers*. Combinatorial geometries, 139–160, Encyclopedia Math. Appl. [**29**]{}, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1987.
Federico Ardila and Adam Boocher, *The closure of a linear space in a product of lines*. J. Algebraic Combin. [**43**]{} (2016), 199–235.
J. G. Basterfield and L. M. Kelly, *A characterization of sets of n points which determine n hyperplanes*. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. [**64**]{} (1968), 585–588.
Victor Batyrev and Mark Blume, *The functor of toric varieties associated with Weyl chambers and Losev-Manin moduli spaces*. Tohoku Math. J. (2) [**63**]{} (2011), 581–604.
Alexander Beilinson, Joseph Bernstein, and Pierre Deligne, *Faisceaux pervers*. Astérisque [**100**]{}, Paris, Soc. Math. Fr. 1982.
Louis Billera and Carl Lee, *Sufficiency of McMullen’s conditions for $f$-vectors of simplicial polytopes*. Bulletin Amer. Math. Soc. [**2**]{} (1980), 181–185.
Anders Björner, *The unimodality conjecture for convex polytopes*, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society [**4**]{} (1981), 187–188.
Anders Björner and Torsten Ekedahl, *On the shape of Bruhat intervals*. Ann. of Math. (2) [**170**]{} (2009), 799–817.
Rodney Canfield, *On a problem of Rota*. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. [**84**]{} (1978), 164.
Nicolaas de Bruijn and Paul Erdős, *On a combinatorial problem*. Indagationes Math. [**10**]{} (1948), 421–423.
Mark de Cataldo and Luca Migliorini, *The decomposition theorem, perverse sheaves and the topology of algebraic maps*. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.) [**46**]{} (2009), 535–633.
Corrado de Concini and Claudio Procesi, *Wonderful models of subspace arrangements*. Selecta Math. (N.S.) [**1**]{} (1995), 459–494.
Corrado de Concini and Claudio Procesi, *Hyperplane arrangements and holonomy equations*. Selecta Math. (N.S.) [**1**]{} (1995), no. 3, 495?535.
Paul de Witte, *Combinatorial properties of finite linear spaces. I.* Bull. Soc. Math. Belg. [**18**]{} (1966), 133–141.
Paul de Witte, *Combinatorial properties of finite linear spaces. II.* Bull. Soc. Math. Belg. [**27**]{} (1975), 115–155.
Robert Dilworth and Curtis Greene, *A counterexample to the generalization of Sperner’s theorem*. J. Combinatorial Theory Ser. A [**10**]{} (1971), 18–21.
Thomas Dowling and Richard Wilson, *The slimmest geometric lattices*. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**196**]{} (1974), 203–215.
Thomas Dowling and Richard Wilson, *Whitney number inequalities for geometric lattices.* Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. [**47**]{} (1975), 504–512.
Ben Elias, Nicholas Proudfoot, and Max Wakefield, *The Kazhdan-Lusztig polynomial of a matroid*. Adv. Math. [**299**]{} (2016), 36–70.
Tomás Feder and Milena Mihail, *Balanced matroids*. Proceedings of the 24th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (1992), 26–38.
Eva Maria Feichtner and Sergey Yuzvinsky, *Chow rings of toric varieties defined by atomic lattices*. Invent. Math. [**155**]{} (2004), 515–536.
William Fulton, *Introduction to toric varieties*. Annals of Mathematics Studies [**131**]{}, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1993.
William Fulton, *Young tableaux*. London Mathematical Society Student Texts [**35**]{}, Cambridge University Press, 1997.
William Fulton, *Intersection theory*. Second edition. Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete. 3. Folge. A Series of Modern Surveys in Mathematics [**2**]{}, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1998.
Curtis Greene, *A rank inequality for finite geometric lattices*. J. Combinatorial Theory [**9**]{} (1970), 357–364.
Tadahito Harima, Toshiaki Maeno, Hideaki Morita, Yasuhide Numata, Akihito Wachi, and Junzo Watanabe, *The Lefschetz properties*. Lecture Notes in Mathematics [**2080**]{}, Springer, Heidelberg, 2013.
Tamás Hausel, *Quarternionic geometry of matroids*. Cent. Eur. J. Math. [**3**]{} (2005), 26–38.
A.P. Heron, *A property of the hyperplanes of a matroid and an extension of Dilworth’s theorem.* J. Math. Anal. Appl. [**42**]{} (1973), 119–131.
June Huh and Botong Wang, *Mason’s conjecture and the Hodge-Riemann relations for matroids*, in preparation.
Sean Keel, *Intersection theory of moduli space of stable n-pointed curves of genus zero*. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**330**]{} (1992), 545–574.
Joseph Kung, *The Radon transforms of a combinatorial geometry. I.* J. Combin. Theory Ser. A [**26**]{} (1979), 97–102.
Joseph Kung, *Radon transforms in combinatorics and lattice theory*. Combinatorics and ordered sets (Arcata, Calif., 1985), 33–74, Contemp. Math. [**57**]{} Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1986.
Joseph Kung, *The Radon transforms of a combinatorial geometry. II. Partition lattices.* Adv. Math. [**101**]{} (1993), 114–132.
Joseph Kung, *On the lines-planes inequality for matroids*. In memory of Gian-Carlo Rota. J. Combin. Theory Ser. A [**91**]{} (2000), 363–368.
Joseph Kung, Gian-Carlo Rota, and Catherine Yan, *Combinatorics: the Rota way*. Cambridge Mathematical Library, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009.
Toshiaki Maeno and Yasuhide Numata, *Sperner property, matroids and finite-dimensional Gorenstein algebras*, Tropical geometry and integrable systems, Contemp. Math. [**580**]{} (2012), 73–84.
John Mason, *Matroids: unimodal conjectures and Motzkin’s theorem*. Combinatorics (Proc. Conf. Combinatorial Math., Math. Inst., Oxford, 1972), 207–220, Inst. Math. Appl., Southend-on-Sea, 1972.
Theodore Motzkin, *Beiträge zur Theorie der linearen Ungleichungen*. Dissertation, Basel, Jerusalem, 1936.
Theodore Motzkin, *The lines and planes connecting the points of a finite set*. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**70**]{} (1951), 451–464.
James Oxley, *Matroid theory*. Second edition. Oxford Graduate Texts in Mathematics [**21**]{}, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2011.
Nicholas Proudfoot and David Speyer, *A broken circuit ring*. Beiträge Algebra Geom. [**47**]{} (2006), 161–166.
Gian-Carlo Rota, *Combinatorial theory, old and new*. Actes du Congrès International des Mathématiciens (Nice, 1970), Tome 3, pp. 229–233. Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1971.
Gian-Carlo Rota and Lawrence Harper, *Matching theory, an introduction*. Advances in Probability and Related Topics, Vol. 1 pp. 169–215 Dekker, New York, 1971.
Paul Seymour and Dominic Welsh, *Combinatorial applications of an inequality from statistical mechanics*. Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. [**77**]{} (1975), 485–495.
Louis Solomon, *The Burnside algebra of a finite group*. J. Combin. Theory [**2**]{} (1967), 603–615.
Richard Stanley, *Combinatorics and commutative algebra.* Second edition. Progress in Mathematics [**41**]{}, Birkhäuser, Boston, MA, 1996.
Richard Stanley, *Enumerative combinatorics. Volume 1.* Second edition. Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics [**49**]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012
Richard Stanley, *Algebraic combinatorics*. Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics, Springer, New York, 2013.
Dennis Stanton, *Unimodality and Young’s lattice.* J. Combin. Theory Ser. A [**54**]{} (1990), 41–53.
Dominic Welsh, *Matroid theory*. London Mathematical Society Monographs [**8**]{}, Academic Press, London-New York, 1976.
Günter Ziegler, *Lectures on polytopes*. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, [**152**]{}, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1995.
|
---
address:
- |
Institut für Theoretische Physik, Universität Wien\
Boltzmangasse 5, A-1090 Wien, Austria\
E-mail: [email protected], [email protected],\
[email protected], [email protected]
- |
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Pittsburgh\
3941 O’Hara Street, Pittsburgh PA 15260, USA\
E-mail: [email protected]
author:
- 'J. Thornburg, Ch. Lechner, M. Pürrer, and P. C. Aichelburg'
- 'S. Husa'
title: 'Episodic Self-Similarity in Critical Gravitational Collapse'
---
Introduction
============
As summarized in companion papers in these proceedings (Lechner [@Lechner-etal:DICE-physics], Thornburg [@Thornburg-etal:DICE-numerical]), and described in detail elsewhere (Husa [@Husa-etal:DICE-DSS-paper]), we are studying critical phenomena in the nonlinear $\sigma$ model in spherical symmetry. This model is parameterized by a dimensionless coupling constant $\ccbeta$. We denote the matter field by $\phi = \phi(u,r)$, where $u$ is an outgoing null coordinate (normalized to proper time at the origin) and $r$ is the areal radius.
This model is known to have a CSS solution for all $\ccbeta < 0.5$. This solution can be explicitly constructed[@Bizon-Wasserman-2000-CSS], and takes the form $\phi = \phi_\CSS(z; u_*)$, where $z = r/(u_*{-}u)$ and the (only) free parameter $u_*$ gives the location of the accumulation point.
We consider a 1-parameter family of initial data, and fine-tune this parameter so the initial data’s evolution is very close to the threshold of black hole formation. At large (small) $\ccbeta$ the evolution of such “critical” initial data is DSS (CSS) for a time, before finally either dispersing or collapsing.
However, at intermediate $\ccbeta$ ($\approx 0.16$) a new behavior appears, which we call “episodic self-similarity”: The field configuration closely approximates a CSS solution, $\phi \approx \phi_\CSS(z;u_*^{(1)})$ in the inner part of the slice for some finite time interval, then departs from CSS, and then returns to closely approximate a CSS solution, $\phi \approx \phi_\CSS(z;u_*^{(2)})$ in the inner part of the slice for another finite time interval, then departs, this cycle repeating several times. The $u_*^{(k)}$ values increase from one CSS episode to the next.
In addition, a large region of the evolution (spanning several CSS episodes) is approximately DSS, but to a much lower degree of approximation than the approximate CSS.
Figure \[fig-phi+phicss\] shows an example of this behavior. The field configuration never [*exactly*]{} matches a CSS solution, but on the $u=15.893$ and $u=16.414$ slices (where the fit is good and hence $u_* = u_*^{(k)}$ is well-defined), $|\phi - \phi_\CSS| \ltsim 10^{-2}$ everywhere inside the self-similarity horizon (the backwards light cone of the accumulation point $u_*^{(k)}$). This region of the evolution is DSS to within $\sim 0.05$ in $\phi$.
We do not yet have a full understanding of episodic self-similarity in terms of the standard phase-space model of self-similarity[@Gundlach-critical-review], but we think this behavior is caused by a competition between nearby CSS and DSS attractors.
[9]{} Ch. Lechner, M. Pürrer, J. Thornburg, P. C. Aichelburg, and S. Husa, “Type II Critical Collapse of a Self-Gravitating Nonlinear $\sigma$ Model”, these proceedings. J. Thornburg, Ch. Lechner, M. Pürrer, P. C. Aichelburg, and S. Husa, “Numerical Methods for Spherically Symmetric Critical Collapse”, these proceedings. S. Husa, Ch. Lechner, M. Pürrer, J. Thornburg, and P. C. Aichelburg, . P. Bizoń and A. Wasserman . C. Gundlach, .
-3.0mm
(80,80) [-2.0ex[$u{=}15.893$ $u_*^{(1)}{=}16.193$]{}]{} [-2.0ex[$u{=}16.414$ $u_*^{(2)}{=}16.662$]{}]{} (-13,5)
(0,0) (-9,18)[$\phi$]{} (-9,58)[$\phi$]{} (-12.7,-8.9)
-2.0mm
|
---
abstract: 'By using the first-principles method based on density of functional theory, we study the electronic properties of twisted bilayer graphene with some specific twist angles and interlayer spacings. With the decrease of the twist angle(the unit cell becomes larger), the energy band becomes narrower and Coulomb repulsion increases, leading to the enhancement of electronic correlation; On the other hand, as the interlayer spacing decreases and the interlayer coupling becomes stronger, the correlation becomes stronger. By tuning the interlayer coupling, we can realize the strongly correlated state with the band width less than 0.01 eV in medium-sized moir$\rm \acute{e}$ cell of twisted bilayer graphene. These results demonstrate that the strength of electronic correlation in twisted bilayer graphene is closely related to two factors: the size of unit cell and the distance between layers. Consequently, a conclusion can be drawn that the strong electronic correlation in twisted bilayer graphene originates from the synergistic effect of the large size of Moir$\rm \acute{e}$ cell and strong interlayer coupling on its electronic structure.'
author:
- 'Xun-Wang Yan$^{1}$'
- 'Jing Li$^{1}$'
- 'Yanyun Wang$^{1}$'
- 'Miao Gao$^{2}$'
bibliography:
- 'aa-2.bib'
title: Strong Electronic Correlation Originates from the Synergistic Effect of Large Moiré Cell and Strong Interlayer Coupling in Twisted Graphene Bilayer
---
As one of the most famous problems in condensed matter physics, the electronic correlation has always been a hot research subject. Many transition metal oxides and rare earth metal compounds belong to the strongly correlated materials, in which the behaviors of electrons are complex due to the strong many-body interaction, bringing about lots of exotic physical properties, such as high temperature superconductivity, heavy fermion, and Mott insulator. Generally, strongly correlated materials have partially filled d- or f-electron shells and there exists the strong Coulomb repulsion between d- or f-electrons. Meanwhile, the narrow and flat bands around the Fermi energy is the typical feature of their electronic band structures.
Apart from the materials containing metal element with d- or f-electron, some organic superconductor are known as strongly correlated materials. The electronic correlation in Cs$_3$C$_{60}$, K-doped 1,2:8,9-dibenzopentacene (C$_{30}$H$_{18}$), (TMTSF)$_2$PF$_6$ and other organic superconductors are widely studied both in theory and experiment. [@Palstra1995; @Xue2012; @Lee2005] Recently, twisted-angle bilayer graphene (TBG) with small ’magnic’ angle of 1.1$^\circ$ exhibits the correlated insulating state and the intrinsic unconventional superconductivity, and the temperate-density phase diagram shows many similarities with that of high temperature cuprate oxide superconductors. At small twist angle, the bands of TBG near the Fermi energy are flat and narrow. These dipersionless bands are intimately associated to the electron correlation, and is regarded as the electronic signature of strongly correlated materials. Seen from this perspective, the graphene bilayer superlattice, caused by the rotation of top layer with respect to bottom layer, provides a new scheme to create the strongly correlated state in the low-dimensional materials consisting of simple carbon element without d- or f-electron shells, which can reduce the difficulty and complexity of the electronic correlation researches. How to understand the electronic correlation in TBG systems is a vital issue, especially what factors result in the occurrence of strong correlation. The previous theoretical studies most forcus on the interaction of two Dirac cones states belonging to two graphene layers, which results in the merge of two Van Hove singularities in the case of magic angle.[@Trambly2012] There is few theoretical research to discuss the relationship of the electronic correlation and the interlayer coupling or Moiré cell size. In this paper, by the first principles method, we investigate that the modulation of the spatial size and the strength of Moiré potential on the electronic properites of TBG system.
In our calculations, the plane wave pseudopotential method was used and implemented in Vienna Ab initio simulation package (VASP) program.[@PhysRevB.47.558; @PhysRevB.54.11169] The generalized gradient approximation (GGA) with Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof (PBE) formula [@PhysRevLett.77.3865] as well as the projector augmented-wave method (PAW) [@PhysRevB.50.17953] for ionic potential were employed. The plane wave basis cutoff was set to 500 eV and the convergence thresholds for the total energy and force are 10$^{-5}$ eV and 0.005 eV/Å . The lattice parameter $c$ for the unit cell is set to 30 Å to model the isolated bilayer graphene in $z$ axis direction. For the cell of TBG with a 6.01$^{\circ}$ angle, a mesh of $9\times 9\times 1$ k-points were sampled for the Brillouin zone integration. Also, the van der Waals (vdW) interaction is included in our calculations.[@PhysRevLett.92.246401]
When one layer of graphene bilayer are rotated by an angle $\theta$, Moir$\acute{\rm e}$ pattern can be obtained.[@DeTramblyLaissardiere2010] For a graphene layer, the Bravais lattice basis vectors are $\vec a_1$= ($\sqrt{3}$/2, -1/2)$a_0$, $\vec a_2$= ($\sqrt{3}$/2, 1/2)$a_0$. A lattice vector $\vec V$ = m$\vec a_1$ + n$\vec a_2$ is rotated to $\vec {V^{\prime}}$ = n$\vec a_1$ + m$\vec a_2$ , the angle is defined as $$cos(\theta) = \frac{n^2 + 4nm + m^2}{2(n^2 + nm + m^2)}$$ the Moir$\acute{\rm e}$ cell vectors are $\vec t$= $\vec V$ = m$\vec a_1$ + n$\vec a_2$ and $\vec {t^{\prime}}$= -m$\vec a_1$ + (m+n)$\vec a_2$. The rotation of one graphene layer is shown in Fig. \[struct-cell\] (a). The lattice vector $\vec V$ = m$\vec a_1$ + n$\vec a_2$ is labeled as $\overrightarrow{OA}, \overrightarrow{OB}, \cdots$, $$\begin{aligned}
\overrightarrow{OA}= 1 \cdot \vec a_1 + 0 \cdot \vec a_2; \qquad \nonumber
\overrightarrow{OB}= 2 \cdot \vec a_1 + 1 \cdot \vec a_2; \\ \nonumber
\overrightarrow{OC}= 3 \cdot \vec a_1 + 2 \cdot \vec a_2; \qquad
\overrightarrow{OD}= 4 \cdot \vec a_1 + 3 \cdot \vec a_2; \\ \nonumber
\overrightarrow{OE}= 5 \cdot \vec a_1 + 4 \cdot \vec a_2; \qquad
\overrightarrow{OF}= 6 \cdot \vec a_1 + 5 \cdot \vec a_2. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The vector $\overrightarrow{OA}$ (or $\overrightarrow{OB}, \cdots$) is one side of solid line rhombus, which denotes the size of one Moir$\acute{\rm e}$ cell. The solid line rhombus is rotated to the position of dash line rhombus and is superimposed on the bottom graphene layer to form the TBG. Fig. \[struct-cell\] (b) show the atomic structure of TBG unit cell with twist anglesof 13.17$^{\circ}$, in which the top layer is blue and bottom layer is red, and the atom number is 76 in such a unit cell.
![Atomic structures of TBG with twisted angles of 21.79$^{\circ}$(a), 13.17$^{\circ}$(b), 9.43$^{\circ}$(c), and 7.34$^{\circ}$(d) are shown in 2$\times$2$\times$1 supercell. The numbers of atoms in one unit cell of TBG 28, 76, 148, 244 for the above four twisted angle cases. The top layer and bottom layer are blue and red, respectively. []{data-label="struct-cell"}](cell-6.eps){width="8.0cm"}
The linear dispersion and Dirac cones in electronic bands are the important features of graphene. For the TBG, the Dirac cones belonging to two layers interact each other to result in the sharp peaks of density of states (DOS) on both sides of Fermi energy. [@Trambly2012] We perform the electronic structure calculations for TBG with the twist angles of 21.79$^{\circ}$, 13.17$^{\circ}$, 9.43$^{\circ}$, and 7.34$^{\circ}$, and the total DOS are shown in Fig. \[dos\](a), (b), (c), and (d) respectively. For these twist angles, the positions of sharp DOS peaks below Fermi energy are -1.33 eV, -0.84 eV, -0.59 eV, and -0.44 eV. As the twist angle decreases, the peaks of DOS gradually move and approach the Fermi energy. When the angle is less than 1$^{\circ}$, the two Van Hove singularities at both sides of Fermi energy merge and form one sharp DOS peak at Fermi energy, which is related to the instability of electronic states and lead to the occurrence of some novel physical phenomenons. For a unit cell of TBG with the twist angle smaller than 2.0$^{\circ}$, the number of atoms is greater than 3000. From the viewpoint of first-principles calculation, it is difficult to simulate the electronic properties of such large TBG cell. So, the first-principle study on TBG system with small twist angle has rarely been reported. However, we find out that Van Hove singularity can be shifted to Fermi energy by compressing the spacing between two layers. For the small TBG cell with $\theta$ = 7.34$^{\circ}$, the distance between two layers is compressed to 3.21 Å, 3.05 Å, 2.83 Å, and 2.69 Å, and the corresponding DOS peaks below Fermi energy locate at -0.38 eV, -0.32 eV, -0.20 eV, and -0.11 eV, shown in Fig. \[dos\] (e), (f), (g), and (h). Consequently, the reduction of distance between two layers of TBG is a feasible approach to shift the Van Hove singularity to the Fermi energy. Very recently, the role of the out of plane corrugation on the flat bands in TBG was investigated by Lucignano’s group, and they pointed that the interplane distance changed about 0.2 Å from AA to AB stacking region. [@Lucignano2019] An important experiment demonstrated that at twist angle 1.27$^{\circ}$ larger than magic angle 1.1$^{\circ}$, suerconductivity was induced by imposing the hydrostatic pressure to vary the interplane distance.[@Yankowitz2019] Our ideas are in line with these theoretical and experimental results. Based on our calculations and recent researches, we conclude that in addition to twist angle, interlayer coupling is another key factor to tune the electronic correlation in TBG.
![Total DOS for TBG with the twist angles of 21.79$^{\circ}$, 13.17$^{\circ}$, 9.43$^{\circ}$, and 7.34$^{\circ}$, shown in (a), (b), (c), and (d) respectively. As the twist angledecreases, the peaks of DOS related to Van Hove singularities are more and more close to Fermi energy. For the TBG with $\theta$ = 7.34$^{\circ}$, the distance between two layers is decreased to 3.21 Å, 3.05 Å, 2.83 Å, and 2.69 Å. The corresponding total DOS are shown in (e), (f), (g), and (h). With the distance being shorter, the DOS peaks are more close to Fermi energy. []{data-label="dos"}](dos20190311.eps){width="8.0cm"}
The band structures of TBG with the twist angles of 21.78$^{\circ}$, 13.17$^{\circ}$, 9.43$^{\circ}$, and 7.34$^{\circ}$ are shown in Fig. \[band\] left panel. With twisted angle decreasing, the size of graphene sheet in a unit cell become larger and the energy bands become narrower. On the other hand, we fix the twist angle at 7.34$^{\circ}$, and compress the interlayer spacing to 3.21 Å, 3.05 Å, 2.83 Å, and 2.69 Å. The band structures of TBG with these reduced interlayer spacings are displayed in Fig. \[band\] right panel. It can be seen that the band width is reduced with the interlayer spacing being compressed. In addition, with the twist angle and the interlayer spacing decreasing, the gap at M point between valence and conductance bands becomes smaller, while the Dirac cone at K point still persists, as shown in Fig. \[band\]. The width of those conductance bands for above situations are listed in Tab. \[Tab1\] and Tab. \[Tab2\].
![Left panel: Band structures of TBG with the twist angles of 21.78$^{\circ}$, 13.17$^{\circ}$, 9.43$^{\circ}$, and 7.34$^{\circ}$. Right panel: Band structures of TBG with $\theta$ = 7.34$^{\circ}$ for the interlayer spacings of 3.21 Å, 3.05 Å, 2.83 Å, and 2.69 Å. The Fermi energy is marked by the dashed line. With the twist anglebeing smaller and the interlayer spacing being narrower, the valence and conductance bands become flatter. []{data-label="band"}](band-20190311.eps){width="8.0cm"}
The electronic correlation is a vital topic at the current stage of TBG research. For the TBG with small twist angle, the flat low-energy bands appears in band structure and the electron kinetic energy is quenched, leading to a strongly correlated phase. Upon electrostatic doping away from the insulating state, the superconducting state with multiple similarities to cuprate’s are observed. [@Cao2018; @Cao2018a] The TBG reminds us of Cs$_3$C$_{60}$ and K-doped aromatics, in which the main element is carbon and benzene ring is the basic structural unit, similar to TBG.[@Kubozono2015; @Yan2018; @Yan2019] What’s important is that they are demonstrated to be the strong correlation systems in experiment and exhibit the unconventional superconductivity. [@Ruff2013; @Takabayashi2009] In K-doped aromaics superconductor, the superconducting transition temperature $T_c$ shows a linear relativity to the number of benzene rings. $T_c$ increases from 5 K for K$_x$phenanthrene with three benzene rings to 18 K for K$_x$picene with five benzene rings, and up to 33.1 K for K$_x$dibenzopentacene with seven benzene rings.[@Kubozono2015] Among the three kinds of carbon-based superconductors of magic angle TBG, Cs$_3$C$_{60}$ and metal-doped aromatics, there must exist the similarity of electronic correlation because of their structural similarity. The large cell size, involved in the large spatial period of Bravais lattice, is their important feature which results in the narrow energy band in electronic structure.[@Kittel2004] A simple method to estimate the Coulomb repulsion in molecular crystal was proposed by G. Brocks $et ~al.$ [@Brocks2004], and the effective Coulomb repulsion was expressed as $U_{eff} = U_{bare}-U_{screen}$. The Coulomb repulsion $U_{bare}$ for two charges on single molecule can be derived from the difference of the energies of the neutral, doubly and singly charged molecules, and $U_{screen}$ is the screening energy involved in the polarization of the molecule and the neighbored molecules in crystal. In the subsequent researches, the method was widely used to study the electronic correlation in alkali-metal-doped pentacene and picene. [@Craciun2009; @Kim2011; @Giovannetti2011] Especially, Giovannetti $et ~al.$ and Kim $et ~al.$ calculated the strength of electron correlation of K-doped picene, denoted by the ratio of the Coulomb repulsion $U$ and the width of bands $w$, and found that it is close to the ratio in Cs-doped C$_{60}$.[@Giovannetti2011; @Kim2011] We adopt the similar method to calculate the Coulomb repulsion $U$ in TBG, whose two sheets of graphene in a unit cell are regarded as two molecules. When one unit cell is charged by two or four electrons, corresponding to the energy band half-filling or filling for the electron-doped TBG system,[@Cao2018a; @Cao2018] each graphene sheet in unit cell has one or two additional electrons. We label the energies of neutral, one electron charged, and two electron charged graphene sheet as $E(m)$, $E(m^-)$, and $E(m^{2-})$, then the Coulomb repulsion between two electrons on each graphene sheet can be expressed as $U = E(m) + E(m^{2-}) - 2E(m^-)$. TBG system is continuous and infinite in the $xy$ plane, the additional electrons is uniformly distributed over the TBG plane. In $z$ direction, the TBG is isolated and we use the large lattice parameter $c$ of 30 Å to model the isolated bilayer graphene. So that no dipole correction was needed for TBG system, which is different from the charged picene molecule which is surrounded by other molecules to produce the screening effect. Hence, the above formula $U$ is used to estimate the Coulomb repulsion in TBG systems.
$\theta$($^{\circ})$ $w$(eV) $U$(eV) $U/w$
---------------------- --------- --------- -------
21.78 2.33 0.01 0.004
13.17 2.09 0.36 0.17
9.43 1.41 0.65 0.46
7.34 1.04 1.14 1.10
: Band width, Coulomb repulsion, and electron correlation strength in TBG with different twist angles. []{data-label="Tab1"}
$d$(Å) $w$(eV) $U$(eV) $U/w$
-------- --------- --------- -------
3.21 0.99 1.22 1.23
3.05 0.92 1.25 1.36
2.83 0.79 1.31 1.66
2.69 0.66 1.35 2.05
: Band width, Coulomb repulsion and electron correlation strength in TBG with different interlayer spacings. []{data-label="Tab2"}
We first inspect the influence of twist angle on the strength of electronic correlation in TBG systems. Tab. \[Tab1\] lists the data on the band width, Coulomb repulsion, and electronic correlation strength, which indicates that with twist angle decreasing the band width becomes smaller and Coulomb repulsion become larger, resulting in the enhancement of electronic correlation strength in TBG system. The result is consistent with the correlated electronic behavior of TBG at small angle observed in experiment. Then, we examine the effect of the spacing between two graphene layers on the strength of electronic correlation in TBG systems. For the TBG with the angle of 6.01$^{\circ}$, the conduction band width, Coulomb repulsion, and the correlation strength are computed and presented in Tab. \[Tab2\]. We can see that the electron correlation is enhanced greatly with the interlayer space decreasing. As the twist angle of TBG decreases, the size of unit cell increases and the moir$\acute{\rm e}$ potential has the larger period in real space. Meanwhile, the reduction of interlayer spacing is related to the more strong interaction between two graphene layers. The result can be roughly understood from Kronig-Penney model.[@Kittel2004] The TBG cell size and the interlayer coupling correspond to the distance between potential barriers and the height of potential barriers in Kronig-Penney model. With the barrier distance and barrier height increasing, the energy band will become narrower. Based on the analysis and the data in Tab. \[Tab1\] and \[Tab2\], we can draw a conclusion that the space period of moir$\acute{\rm e}$ potential and interlayer interaction, related to the cell size and interlayer spacing, are two main factors to determine the strength of electron correlation. For TBG with magic angle, to simulate the flat band and van Hove singularity near Fermi energy is difficult because the unit cell contains too many atoms. However, if the interlayer spacing of TBG is reduced, we can use a medium-sized unit cell of TBG with narrow interlayer spacing to reproduce the flat band and van Hove singularity near Fermi energy. Here, we choose the unit cell of TBG with twist angle of 6.01$^{\circ}$, which is composed of 364 atoms. The band structures of TBG with the interlayer spacing of 2.432 Å, 2.428 Å, 2.425 Å, 2.421 Å, and 2.418 Å are shown in Fig. \[band2\]. As can be seen, the width of conductance band marked as magenta color first decreases and then increases with the interlayer spacing reducing, and especially, the band width for 2.425 Å situation in middle panel is less than 0.01 eV. The results indicate that by carefully selecting the value of interlayer spacing we can obtain the flat and very narrow energy band of TBG. In such case, the Coulomb repulsion $U$ is about 1.24 eV, so its $U/w$ is larger than 100, which indicate that the strongly correlated state can be realized in medium-sized Moir$\rm \acute{e}$ cell of TBG by tuning its interlayer coupling. In addition, it is worthwhile to emphasize that the medium-sized moir$\rm \acute{e}$ cell with strong correlation has a great significance for the superconductivity in TBG. Generally, the superconducting transition temperature $T_c$ depends on the carrier density in strongly correlated superconductors.[@Cao2018] For a charged medium-sized cell, the carrier density is much higher than the density of the Moir$\rm \acute{e}$ cell with magic angle. So, we expect that the superconducting transition with high $T_c$ occurs in this medium-sized Moir$\rm \acute{e}$ cell of TBG.
![The band structures of TBG with the interlayer spacing of 2.432 Å, 2.428 Å, 2.425 Å, 2.421 Å, and 2.418 Å. When the interlayer spacing changes very little, the electronic structure changes obviously. In middle panel, the width of band marked as magenta color is less than 0.01 eV. []{data-label="band2"}](6degree-band.eps){width="8.0cm"}
In summary, we have performed the first principles calculations on the electronic properties of TBG with certain twist angles and interlayer spacings. The ratio of Coulomb repulsion $U$ and the energy band width $w$ is adopted to estimate the strength of electronic correlation of TBG systems. With the decrease of the twist angle and the interlayer spacing, the Coulomb repulsion becomes stronger and the band width become narrower, resulting in the enhancement of electronic correlation. For a medium-sized cell of TBG, the reduction of interlayer spacing can result in the strong electronic correlation. These results indicate that the strength of electronic correlation in twisted bilayer graphene is closely related to two factors: the size of unit cell and the distance between layers. Consequently, a conclusion can be drawn that the strong electronic correlation in twisted bilayer graphene originates from the synergistic effect of the large size of Moire cell and strong interlayer coupling on its electronic structure.
We thank Professors Zhong-Yi Lu, Guo-Hua Zhong, Ping Zhang and Hai-Qing Lin for valuable discussions. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grants Nos. 11474004, 11404383, 11674087.
|
---
abstract: 'For any Shimura variety of Hodge type with hyperspecial level at a prime $p$ and any automorphic lisse sheaf on it, we prove a formula, conjectured by Kottwitz [@Kottwitz90], for the Lefschetz number of an arbitrary Frobenius-twisted Hecke correspondence acting on the compactly supported étale cohomology and verify another conjecture of Kottwitz [@Kottwitz90] on stabilization of that formula. The main ingredients of our proof of the formula are a recent work of Kisin [@Kisin17] on Langlands-Rapoport conjecture and the theory of Galois gerbs developed by Langlands and Rapoport [@LR87]. Especially, we use the Galois gerb theory to establish an effectivity criterion of Kottwitz triple, and mimic the arguments of Langlands and Rapoport of deriving the Kottwitz formula from their conjectural description of the ${\bar{\mathbb{F}}_{p}}$-point set of Shimura variety (Langlands-Rapoport conjecture). We do not assume that the derived group is simply connected, and also obtain partial results at (special) parahoric levels under some condition at $p$. For that, in the first part of our work we extend the results of Langlands and Rapoport to such general cases.'
author:
- Dong Uk Lee
title: Galois gerbs and Lefschetz number formula for Shimura varieties of Hodge type
---
Introduction
============
Statement of the main results
-----------------------------
The main results of this work are the following two descriptions of the Lefschetz numbers of Frobenius-twisted Hecke correspondences on the compactly supported cohomology of Shimura varieties of Hodge type with hyperspecial level, which were conjectured by Kottwitz [@Kottwitz90], (3.1) and Thm. 7.2. The first one is a consequence of the second one.
Fix two distinct primes $p$, $l$ of ${\mathbb Q}$. Let $(G,X)$ be a Shimura datum of Hodge type, $K_p$ a hyperspecial subgroup of $G({{\mathbb Q}_p})$, $K^p$ a (sufficiently small) compact open subgroup of $G({\mathbb A}_f^p)$; put $K=K_pK^p$. Let $Sh_K(G,X)$ be (the canonical model over the reflex field $E(G,X)$ of) the associated Shimura variety, and ${\mathscr{F}}_K$ a $\lambda$-adic lisse sheaf on it defined by a finite-dimensional algebraic representation $\xi$ of $G$ over a number field $L$ and choice of a place $\lambda$ of $L$ over $l$. For $i\in{\mathbb N}_{\geq0}$, let $H_c^i(Sh_K(G,X)_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}},{\mathscr{F}}_K)$ be the compactly supported cohomology of ${\mathscr{F}}_K$. Let $\wp$ be a prime of $E=E(G,X)$ above $p$ and $\Phi\in {\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/E_{\wp})$ be a geometric Frobenius for an embedding $E_{\wp}\hookrightarrow {\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}$. It is known [@Kisin10], [@Vasiu99] that $Sh_K(G,X)$ has a canonical smooth integral model over the ring of integers $\mathcal{O}_{E_{\wp}}$ and ${\mathscr{F}}_K$ extends over it.
\[thm\_intro:Kottwitz\_conj\] Assume that the center $Z(G)$ of $G$ has same ranks over ${\mathbb Q}$ and ${\mathbb R}$.[^1] For every $f^p$ in the Hecke algebra $\mathcal{H}(G({\mathbb A}_f^p)/\!\!/ K^p)$, there exists $m(f^p)\in{\mathbb N}$, depending on $f^p$, such that for each $m\geq m(f^p)$, the Lefschetz number of $\Phi^m\times f^p$ is given by $$\sum_i (-1)^i \mathrm{tr}(\Phi^m\times f^p | H_c^i(Sh_K(G,X)_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}},{\mathscr{F}}_K))=\sum_{\underline{H}\in \mathscr{E}_{\mathrm{ell}}(G)} \iota(G,\underline{H}) {\mathrm{ST}}_{{\mathrm{ell}}}^{H_1}(f^{H_1}),$$ where the right sum is over a set $\mathscr{E}_{\mathrm{ell}}(G)$ of representatives of the isomorphism classes of elliptic endoscopic data of $G$ with a choice of a $z$-pair $(H_1,\xi_1)$ for each $\underline{H}\in \mathscr{E}_{\mathrm{ell}}(G)$, and ${\mathrm{ST}}_{{\mathrm{ell}}}^{H_1}(f^{H_1})$ is the elliptic part of the geometric side of the stable trace formula for a suitable function $f^{H_1}$ on $H_1({\mathbb A})$, $\iota(G,\underline{H})$ is a certain constant depending only on the pair $(G,\underline{H})$.
Moreover, if the adjoint group $G^{{\mathrm{ad}}}$ is ${\mathbb Q}$-anisotropic or $f^p$ is the identity, we can take $m(f^p)$ to be $1$.
In particular, we obtain a formula for the local zeta functions of the same Shimura varieties. We refer to Thm. \[thm:EP\_GS\_STF\] for explanation of the objects appearing here. We remark that this formula is the first step in the Langlands’s program for establishing the celebrated conjecture that the Hasse-Weil zeta function of an arbitrary Shimura variety is a product of automorphic $L$-functions. This formula is deduced from the following formula, via the machinery of stabilization of the trace formula.
\[thm\_intro:Kottwitz\_formula\] For any $f^p$ in the Hecke algebra $\mathcal{H}(G({\mathbb A}_f^p)/\!\!/ K^p)$, there exists $m(f^p)\in{\mathbb N}$, depending on $f^p$, such that for each $m\geq m(f^p)$, the Lefschetz number of $\Phi^m\times f^p$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_intro:Kottwitz_formula}
\sum_{i}(-1)^i\mathrm{tr}( & \Phi^m\times f^p | H^i_c(Sh_{K}(G,X)_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}},{\mathscr{F}}_K)) \\
& = \sum_{(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)} c(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)\cdot \mathrm{O}_{\gamma}(f^p)\cdot \mathrm{TO}_{\delta}(\phi_p) \cdot \mathrm{tr}\xi(\gamma_0), \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where the sum is over a set of representatives $(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$ of *all* equivalence classes of *stable* Kottwitz triples of level $n$ having trivial Kottwitz invariant and $c(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$ is a certain constant (defined in terms of Galois cohomology). Moreover, if $G^{{\mathrm{ad}}}$ is ${\mathbb Q}$-anisotropic or $f^p$ is the identity, we can take $m(f^p)$ to be $1$.
See Thm. \[thm:Kottwitz\_formula:Kisin\] for a precise description of the terms involved and more details. We emphasize that in both theorems, we do *not* assume that the derived group $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}$ of $G$ is simply connected. In such case that $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$, $G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$ being the simply connected cover of $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}$, the expression on the right-hand side of (\[eq\_intro:Kottwitz\_formula\]) equals the one in the Kottwitz’s conjecture [@Kottwitz90 (3.1)]. Regarding this generality, we remark on two points. First, we take the sum only over certain Kottwitz triples which we call *stable* (Def. \[defn:stable\_Kottwitz\_triple\]). This notion of stableness has the same meaning as in the stable conjugacy (e.g. every Kottwitz triple is stable in our sense if $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$), so is a natural condition in this context. But there is also some subtle point at $p$ (cf. Remark \[rem:Kottwitz\_triples\] and ). Secondly, the condition of “*having trivial Kottwitz invariant*” should be also taken with a grain of salt: again unless $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$, Kottwitz invariant itself is not a notion well-defined by a (stable) Kottwitz triple alone, although its vanishing is so (cf. ).
To have a complete picture of the Hasse-Weil zeta function (and for applications to construction of Galois representations, cf. [@ScholzeShin13]), one also needs similar descriptions at bad reductions (cf. [@Rapoport05 $\S$10], [@Haines14 Conj.4.30, 4.31]). For that, we remark that we also obtain some partial results towards Thm. \[thm\_intro:Kottwitz\_formula\] for (special) parahoric levels under the assumption that $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is quasi-split and is tamely ramified, and together with such results, the same methods proving the above theorems (based on [@Kottwitz84b], [@LR87]) should allow the wanted descriptions, once those results in [@Kisin17] which were geometric ingredients in our arguments (and further some relevant results in harmonic analysis) are also available for general parahoric levels.
Strategy of proof
-----------------
We begin with some general comments on our proofs. First, Thm. \[thm\_intro:Kottwitz\_conj\] is a consequence of the stabilization of the right-hand side of the identity (\[eq\_intro:Kottwitz\_formula\]), the key tools in this machinery being the endoscopic transfer conjectures which are now established by Ngo, Waldspurger. Such stabilization was carried out by Kottwitz [@Kottwitz90 $\S$4-$\S$7], [@Kottwitz10] in the case $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$. We follow closely his arguments which however need occasionally modifications due to our generality. Our main contribution is the proof of Thm. \[thm\_intro:Kottwitz\_formula\] and now we give a quick overview of the historical origin of our strategy. After previous successes with examples (by Eichler, Shimura, Kuga, Sato, and Ihara), a systematic approach to a formula for the Lefschetz number in question (and its stabilization) was conceived by Langlands based on Lefschetz-Grothendieck trace formula, and a set of ideas and techniques was developed by Langlands [@Langlands76], [@Langlands79] and Kottwitz [@Kottwitz84b] (“Langlands-Kottwitz method”). Meanwhile, it was also realized that this method itself needed some refinement. Then, Langlands and Rapoport [@LR87] recast the problem by developing the theory of Galois gerbs, modeled on the theory of Grothendieck motives. Its purpose was to provide a general framework for formulating a conjectural description of the ${\bar{\mathbb{F}}_{p}}$-point set of Shimura variety which is *precise* enough to allow one to derive the Kottwitz formula from it.
Our proof of the Kottwitz formula (\[eq\_intro:Kottwitz\_formula\]) imitates these arguments of Langlands and Rapoport of deriving the Kottwitz formula from their conjecture. As such, their theory of Galois gerbs is a major ingredient in this work. Another essential ingredient is a recent work of Kisin [@Kisin17] on the aforementioned conjecture of Langlands and Rapoport. Previously, Kottwitz [@Kottwitz92] proved the formula (\[eq\_intro:Kottwitz\_formula\]) in PEL-type cases (of simple Lie type $A$ or $C$) by a method which is based on the Honda-Tate theory. This method however cannot be applied in general Hodge-type situations, and indeed our proof is different from his proof in his PEL-type cases.
In the next, we give more detailed discussion of the idea of our proof. We begin by introducing the work of Langlands and Rapoport [@LR87].
### Langlands-Rapoport conjecture
The conjecture of Langlands and Rapoport, which was stated in [@LR87] and a significant progress towards which was recently made by Kisin [@Kisin17], aims to give a group-theoretic description of the set of ${\bar{\mathbb{F}}_{p}}$-points of the mod-$p$ reduction of a Shimura variety, as provided with Hecke operators and Frobenius automorphism.
Let $(G,X)$ be a (general) Shimura datum and ${\mathbf{K}}^p\subset G({\mathbb A}_f^p)$, ${\mathbf{K}}_p\subset G({{\mathbb Q}_p})$ compact open subgroups, and set ${\mathbf{K}}:={\mathbf{K}}_p\times {\mathbf{K}}^p\subset G({\mathbb A}_f)$. The original conjecture mainly concerned good reduction cases, where ${\mathbf{K}}_p$ is *hyperspecial*, i.e. ${\mathbf{K}}_p=G_{{{\mathbb Z}_p}}({{\mathbb Z}_p})$ for a reductive ${{\mathbb Z}_p}$-group scheme with generic fiber $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$. We also choose a place $\wp$ of the reflex field $E(G,X)$ dividing $p$, and let ${\mathcal{O}}_{\wp}$, $\kappa(\wp)$ denote respectively the integer ring of the local field $E(G,X)_{\wp}$ and its residue field. Then, Langlands and Rapoport conjectured that there exists an integral model ${\mathscr{S}}_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}(G,X)$ of ${\mathrm{Sh}}_K(G,X)$ over ${\mathcal{O}}_{\wp}$, for which there is a bijection $$\label{eqn:LRconj-ver1}
{\mathscr{S}}_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}(G,X)({\bar{\mathbb{F}}_{p}}){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}\bigsqcup_{[\phi]}S(\phi)$$ where $$S(\phi)=\varprojlim_{{\mathbf{K}}^p} I_{\phi}({\mathbb Q})\backslash X_p(\phi)\times X^p(\phi)/{\mathbf{K}}^p.$$ To give an idea of what these objects look like, suppose that our Shimura variety ${\mathrm{Sh}}_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}(G,X)$ is a moduli space of abelian varieties endowed with a certain prescribed set of additional structures defined by $G$ (called $G$-structure, for short), and that there exists an integral model whose reduction affords a similar moduli description (at least over ${\bar{\mathbb{F}}_{p}}$). Then, roughly speaking, each $\phi$ is supposed to correspond to an isogeny class of abelian varieties with $G$-structure, and the set $S(\phi)$ is to parameterize the isomorphism classes in the corresponding isogeny class. More precisely, $X_p(\phi)$ and $X^p(\phi)$ should correspond, repsectively, to the isogenies of $p$-power order and prime-to-$p$ order (say, leaving from a fixed member in the isogeny class $\phi$) preserving $G$-structure, and $X_p(\phi)$ can be also identified with a suitable affine Deligne-Lusztig variety $X(\{\mu_X\},b)_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}$. The term $I_{\phi}({\mathbb Q})$ is to be the automorphism group of the isogeny class attached to $\phi$, and thus acts naturally on $X_p(\phi)$ and $X^p(\phi)$. Moreover, each of the sets $S(\phi)$ carries a compatible action of the group $G({\mathbb A}_f^p)$ and the Frobenius automorphism $\Phi$ (which is an element of ${\mathrm{Gal}}({\bar{\mathbb{F}}_{p}}/\kappa(\wp))$), and the bijection (\[eqn:LRconj-ver1\]) should be compatible with these actions.
When it comes to the precise definition, the most tricky object is the parameter $\phi$. Its precise definition makes use of the language of *Galois gerb*: A Galois gerb is a gerb, in the sense of *Cohomologie non abélienne* à la Giraud, on the étale site of a field (with choice of a neutralizing object). This is motivated by the fact [@Milne94] that there is a well-determined class of Shimura varieties (i.e. Shimura varieties of abelian type) which, in characteristic zero, have a description of their point sets similar to (\[eqn:LRconj-ver1\]) with the parameter $\phi$ being an abelian motive (constructed using absolute Hodge cycles). For ${\bar{\mathbb{F}}_{p}}$-points, the parameter $\phi$, called an *admissible morphism*, is to represent “a motive over ${\bar{\mathbb{F}}_{p}}$ with $G$-structure”. A proper definition of such object involves a Tannakian-theoretic description of the category of motives. But, the Tannakian category of Grothendieck motives over ${\bar{\mathbb{F}}_{p}}$, being non-neutral, is identified (after choice of a fiber functor) with the representation category of a certain Galois gerb (“motivic Galois gerb”), not an affine group scheme, and “a motive over ${\bar{\mathbb{F}}_{p}}$ with $G$-structure” should be a morphism from this motivic Galois gerb to the neutral Galois gerb attached to $G$.
### From Langlands-Rapoport conjecture to Kottwitz formula {#subsubsec:fromLRtoKF}
The conjectural description (\[eqn:LRconj-ver1\]) allows one to obtain a manageable description of the fixed point set of any Hecke correspondence twisted by a Frobenius $\Phi^m$, and eventually a purely group-theoretic formula for its cardinality; in particular, it gives a formula for the cardinalities of the finite sets ${\mathscr{S}}_{{\mathbf{K}}}(G,X)({\mathbb F}_{q^m})=[{\mathscr{S}}_{{\mathbf{K}}}(G,X)({\bar{\mathbb{F}}_{p}})]^{\Phi^m=\mathrm{id}}$ for each finite extension ${\mathbb F}_{q^m}$ of the base field ${\mathbb F}_q=\kappa(\wp)$ whose knowledge amounts to that of the local zeta function of ${\mathscr{S}}_{{\mathbf{K}}}(G,X)_{\kappa(\wp)}$.
Such deduction arguments were provided by Kottwitz [@Kottwitz84b] and Langlands-Rapoport [@LR87]. Here, we sketch its basic idea in the trivial correspondence case (cf. [@Milne92]). For simplicity, we assume (only here) that the derived group $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}$ of $G$ is simply connected. By an elementary argument [@Kottwitz84b $\S$1.4], one readily sees that for each admissible morphism $\phi$, the corresponding fixed-point set $S(\phi)^{\Phi^m=\mathrm{Id}}$ breaks up further as a disjoint union of subsets $S(\phi,\epsilon)$ indexed by (the equivalence class of) a pair $(\phi,\epsilon)$, where $\epsilon$ is an automorphism of $\phi$ which exists as an element of $G({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ and is to be regarded as a Frobenius descent datum of $\phi$: $${\mathscr{S}}_{{\mathbf{K}}}(G,X)({\mathbb F}_{q^m}){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}\bigsqcup_{[\phi]}S(\phi)^{\Phi^m=\mathrm{id}} = \bigsqcup_{[\phi,\epsilon]} S(\phi,\epsilon)$$ Among such pairs $(\phi,\epsilon)$, we are interested only in the pairs, called *admissible*, satisfying some natural conditions that are necessary (but, not sufficient in general!) for the corresponding set $S(\phi,\epsilon)$ to be non-empty (Def. \[defn:admissible\_pair\]). Then, with any admissible pair $(\phi,\epsilon)$, one can associate a triple of group elements (*Kottwitz triple*) $$(\gamma_0;\gamma=(\gamma_l)_{l\neq p},\delta)\in G({\mathbb Q})\times G({\mathbb A}_f^p)\times G(L_n)$$ satisfying certain compatibilities among themselves, where $L_n$ is the unramified extension of ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$ of degree $n=m[\kappa(\wp):{\mathbb{F}_{p}}]$, and express the cardinality of the set $S(\phi,\epsilon)$ in terms of it as $$|S(\phi,\epsilon)|=\mathrm{vol}(G_{\gamma_0}({\mathbb Q})\backslash G_{\gamma_0}({\mathbb A}_f))\cdot O_{\gamma}(f^p)\cdot TO_{\delta}(\phi_p),$$ where $G_{\gamma_0}$ is the centralizer subgroup of $\gamma_0$ in $G$, $O_{\gamma}(f^p)$ and $TO_{\delta}(\phi_p)$ are some orbital integral and twisted orbital integral, respectively. Thus, the final formula for $|{\mathscr{S}}_{{\mathbf{K}}}(G,X)({\mathbb F}_{q^m})|$ (for any sufficiently small $K^p$) takes the form of a sum, indexed by (the equivalence classes of) Kottwitz triples, of a product of quantities that can be defined purely group theoretically: $$\label{eqn:formulra_for_number_of_pts}
|{\mathscr{S}}_{{\mathbf{K}}}(G,X)({\mathbb F}_{q^m})|=\sum_{(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)}\iota(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)\cdot \mathrm{vol}(G_{\gamma_0}({\mathbb Q})\backslash G_{\gamma_0}({\mathbb A}_f))\cdot O_{\gamma}(f^p)\cdot TO_{\delta}(\phi_p),$$ where $\iota(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$ is by definition the number of equivalence classes of admissible pairs giving rise to a fixed Kottwitz triple $(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$.
With an explicit cohomological description for $\iota(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$, this is the formula conjectured (and proved in certain PEL-type cases [@Kottwitz92 (19.6)]) by Kottwitz [@Kottwitz90 (3.1)], except that here the sum is only over the *effective* Kottwitz triples, namely those Kottwitz triples attached to some admissible pair $(\phi,\epsilon)$, while in the original formula, one takes *all* Kottwitz triples with trivial Kottwitz invariant (it is known that every effective Kottwitz triple has trivial Kottwitz invariant). We bring the reader’s attention to this usuage of the terminology *effectivity* and the possible confusion that a Kottwitz triple $(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$ which is effective in this sense may not appear as a summation index “effectively” in the sum (\[eqn:formulra\_for\_number\_of\_pts\]) (i.e. the corresponding summand could be zero): one could also have defined $\iota(\gamma_0;\gamma;\delta)$ to be zero if is not effective, but then it is not the definition $\iota(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta):=|\ker[\ker^1({\mathbb Q},G_{\gamma_0})\rightarrow \ker^1({\mathbb Q},G)]|$ used by Kottwitz in his formula (which is always non-zero). We note that to reconcile the formula (\[eqn:formulra\_for\_number\_of\_pts\]) with the Kottwitz’s formula [@Kottwitz90 (3.1)], it suffices to establish the following *effectivity criterion of Kottwitz triple*: a Kottwitz triple with trivial Kottwitz invariant is effective (in the sense just defined) if the corresponding summand $O_{\gamma}(f^p)\cdot TO_{\delta}(\phi_p)$ is non-zero (one also needs the fact that $\iota(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)=|\ker[\ker^1({\mathbb Q},G_{\gamma_0})\rightarrow \ker^1({\mathbb Q},G)]|$ which is however proved in [@LR87 Satz 5.25]).
### The works of Langlands and Rapoport [@LR87] and of Kisin [@Kisin17]
A substantial part of the work [@LR87] of Langlands and Rapoport is devoted to constructing all these objects and establishing their basic properties, especially those facts that are needed to carry out the deduction just sketched of the formula (\[eqn:formulra\_for\_number\_of\_pts\]) from the (conjectural) description (\[eqn:LRconj-ver1\]). The only missing ingredient in completing this deduction arguments was the effectivity criterion of Kottwitz triple stated above. In fact, Langlands and Rapoport also suggest one such effectivity criterion (condition $\ast(\epsilon)$ in [@LR87 Satz.5.21]), but fail to relate it to the more natural one of non-vanishing of $O_{\gamma}(f^p)\cdot TO_{\delta}(\phi_p)$. In this work, we prove this effectivity criterion (Thm. \[thm:LR-Satz5.25\]) and thereby (with a little more work allowing general Hecke correspondences) complete the arguments of Langlands and Rapoport of deriving the Kottwitz formula from their conjecture.[^2] We emphasize that our proof of the effectivity criterion (even though it could be formulated without the language of Galois gerbs) uses the full force of the theory of Galois gerbs and admissible morphisms from [@LR87].
On the other hand, recently Kisin [@Kisin17] obtained a description of ${\mathscr{S}}_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}(G,X)({\bar{\mathbb{F}}_{p}})$ quite similar to (\[eqn:LRconj-ver1\]). But, in his version of the description (\[eqn:LRconj-ver1\]) (i.e. Theorem 0.3 of *loc. cit.*), the action of the group $I_{\phi}({\mathbb Q})$ on $X_p(\phi)\times X^p(\phi)$ (which is somewhat artificial) is not the *natural* one specified in the original conjecture. An unfortunate consequence of this is that the deduction argument above *per se* does not work for such imprecise description.[^3] In fact, in our proof of Kottwitz formula, we do *not* use this weaker form (of Langlands-Rapoport conjecture) itself. Instead, we will just emulate the Langlands-Rapoport arguments above. Fortunately, this is possible due to the “geometrical” results of [@Kisin17] which are often quite strong (“geometrical” in the sense that it can be formulated without using the language of Galois gerbs). Here, we mention one such result, [@Kisin17 Cor.2.2.5] which we have dubbed “strong CM lifting theorem” to distinguish it from the usual CM lifting theorem [@Kisin17 Thm.2.2.3] (which only says that every isogeny class ${\mathscr{I}}$ in a SV of Hodge type over ${\bar{\mathbb{F}}_{p}}$ contains a point which lifts to a CM point).
Generalization of results of [@LR87]
------------------------------------
The main results of [@LR87] assume that the level subgroup ${\mathbf{K}}_p$ is hyperspecial (so, in particular that $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is unramified) and that the derived group is simply connected. To extend the scope of our method of proof beyond these cases, our first primary task in this article is to generalize their works to more general parahoric levels (so as to allow possibly bad reductions) under the assumption that $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is quasi-split and spits over a tamely ramified extension of ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$ (in fact, we will assume less than that, see Thm. \[thm:LR-Satz5.3\] for a precise condition), and also to remove the restriction on the derived group; some of our results will further assume that ${\mathbf{K}}_p$ is special maximal parahoric. When one works with this general level subgroups, the first notable change occurs in definitions, especially that of admissible morphism, where instead of a single affine Deligne-Lusztig variety $X(\{\mu_X\},b)_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}$ which defined the set $X_p(\phi)$, one needs to use a *finite union* of *generalized* affine Deligne-Lusztig varieties $X(w,b)_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}$: $$X(\{\mu_X\},b)_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}:=\bigsqcup_{w\in{\mathrm{Adm}}_{{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p}(\{\mu_X\})} X(w,b)_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}$$ Here, ${\mathrm{Adm}}_{{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p}(\{\mu_X\})$ is a certain subset of the double coset ${\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p\backslash G({\mathfrak{k}})/{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p$ determined by the datum $(G,X)$. When ${\mathbf{K}}_p$ is hyperspecial, this specializes to the previous definition. Meanwhile, the conjecture (\[eqn:LRconj-ver1\]) itself was extended by Rapoport [@Rapoport05] to cover general parahoric levels. Secondly, to work beyond the restriction of simply-connected derived group, we use the definition of admissible morphism generalized by Kisin for this purpose (cf. Def. \[defn:admissible\_morphism\], [@Kisin17 (3.3.6)]).
To keep statements short, we will call the following condition the *Serre condition for the Shimura datum $(G,X)$*[^4] : *the center $Z(G)$ of $G$ splits over a CM field and the weight homomorphism $w_X$ is defined over ${\mathbb Q}$.* Note that this condition holds if the Shimura datum is of Hodge type.
Our main results in the first part are generalizations (sometimes, including improvements) of the key properties of admissible morphisms and admissible pairs:
\[thm\_intro:1st\_Main\_thm\] Let $p>2$ be a rational prime. Let $(G,X)$ be a Shimura datum satisfying the Serre condition. Assume that $G$ is of classical Lie type, and that $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is quasi-split and splits over a tamely ramified extension of ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$. Let ${\mathbf{K}}_p$ be a parahoric subgroup of $G({{\mathbb Q}_p})$. Then, we have the followings.
\(1) Any admissible morphism $\phi:{\mathfrak{P}}\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}_G$ is *special*, namely there exists a special Shimura sub-datum $(T,h)$ and $g\in G({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ such that ${\mathrm{Int}}g\circ\phi=i\circ\psi_{T,h}$, where $i:{\mathfrak{G}}_T\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}_G$ is the canonical morphism of neutral Galois gerbs induced by the inclusion $T{\hookrightarrow}G$. If ${\mathbf{K}}_p$ is special maximal parahoric, then every such morphism $i\circ\psi_{T,h}$ is admissible. Every admissible pair $(\phi,\epsilon)$ is conjugate to $(i\circ\psi_{T,h},\epsilon'\in T({\mathbb Q}))$ for a special Shimura sub-datum $(T,h)$.
\(2) Suppose that ${\mathbf{K}}_p$ is special maximal parahoric. For any $\gamma_0\in G({\mathbb Q})$ that is elliptic over ${\mathbb R}$, there exists an admissible pair $(\phi,\gamma_0)$ if and only if there exists $\epsilon\in G({\mathbb Q})$ stably conjugate to $\gamma_0$ and satisfying condition $\ast(\epsilon)$ of . If the latter condition holds, there exists a ${\mathbf{K}}_p$-effective admissible pair $(\phi,\epsilon)$ with $\epsilon$ stably conjugate to $\gamma_0^t$ for some $t\in{\mathbb N}$.
The tame condition on $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ can be relaxed significantly (see Thm. \[thm:LR-Satz5.3\] for a precise condition). These statements (and their counterpart results in [@LR87]) are found respectively in Theorem \[thm:LR-Satz5.3\], Lemma \[lem:LR-Lemma5.2\], \[lem:LR-Lemma5.23\] (for (1)) and Theorem \[thm:LR-Satz5.21\] (for (2)). The statement (1) and the first claim of (2) are generalizations of the same results in *loc. cit.*, while the second claim of statement (2) is new. We also remark that the condition $\ast(\epsilon)$ in (2) is our generalization of the original condition in [@LR87 Satz 5.21] of the same name $\ast(\epsilon)$, in our general set-up that the level subgroup is parahoric and $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is not necessarily unramified nor $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}$ is simply connected.
The statement (1) is a fundamental fact about admissible morphisms, and underlies the CM lifting theorem [@Kisin17 Thm. 0.4] (in the hyperspecial level case) that every isogeny class in ${\mathscr{S}}_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}(G,X)({\bar{\mathbb{F}}_{p}})$ contains a point that is the reduction of a special(=CM) point.
The following theorem is the first version of the aforementioned effectivity criterion of Kottwitz triple which is established for the first time here (even in the original set-up of [@LR87], cf. Remark \[rem:comments\_on\_Milne92\]).
\[thm\_intro:2st\_Main\_thm\] \[Thm. \[thm:LR-Satz5.25\]\] Under the same assumptions as in (2) of Thm. \[thm\_intro:1st\_Main\_thm\], for every Kottwitz triple $(\gamma_0;(\gamma_l)_{l\neq p},\delta)$ with trivial Kottwitz invariant (Def. \[defn:Kottwitz\_triple\]), if $X(\{\mu_X\},\delta)_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}\neq\emptyset$, there exists an admissible pair $(\phi,\epsilon)$ giving rise to it. There exists an explicit cohomological expression for the number of non-equivalent pairs $(\phi,\epsilon)$ producing a given triple $(\gamma_0;(\gamma_l)_{l\neq p},\delta)$.
This is one of the key ingredients in our proof of the Kottwitz formula as well as in the Langlands-Rapoport’s arguments of deriving it from Langlands-Rapoport conjecture. There is also a similar, second version of effectivity criterion of Kottwitz triple (Thm. \[thm:LR-Satz5.25b2\]) which will be needed in our (unconditional) proof of Thm. \[thm\_intro:Kottwitz\_formula\].
### Some further results and comments
According to the discussion in , Langlands-Rapoport conjecture implies that to any ${\mathbb F}_{p^n}$-point ($n$ being a multiple of $[\kappa(\wp):{\mathbb F}_p]$), one should be able to attach a Kottwitz triple $(\gamma_0;(\gamma_l)_{l\neq p},\delta)$ of level $n$ (i.e. with $\delta\in G(L_n)$). For Hodge-type Shimura varieties with hyperspecial level, this was done by Kisin [@Kisin17 Cor. 2.3.1].[^5] Then, the formula (\[eqn:formulra\_for\_number\_of\_pts\]) implies that only those triples whose corresponding summation term is non-zero should be *geometrically effective*, i.e. arises from an ${\mathbb F}_{p^n}$-point (where $n$ is the level of the triple). Thus, a natural question arises whether such necessary condition for geometric effectivity is also a sufficient condition. Closely related questions are which (${\mathbb R}$-elliptic) stably conjugacy classes in $G({\mathbb Q})$ and which $\sigma$-conjugacy classes in $G(L_n)$ are “effective” (i.e. can be the classes of the elements $\gamma_0$ and $\delta$ attached to some ${\mathbb F}_{p^n}$-point, respectively). This question for (the stable conjugacy class of) an ${\mathbb R}$-elliptic rational element $\gamma_0\in G({\mathbb Q})$ can be regarded as Honda-Tate theorem in the context of Shimura varieties, while the question for $\delta$ is known as non-emptiness problem of Newton strata.
For hyperspecial level, the proof of Theorem \[thm\_intro:Kottwitz\_formula\] answers the first question affirmatively: the natural necessary condition is also sufficient. We also answer the second question too. For that, we consider Shimura varieties of Hodge type and fix an integral model ${\mathscr{S}}_{{\mathbf{K}}}$ over ${\mathcal{O}}_{\wp}$ of the canonical model ${\mathrm{Sh}}_{{\mathbf{K}}}(G,X)_{E_{\wp}}$ with the extension property that every $F$-point of ${\mathrm{Sh}}_{{\mathbf{K}}}(G,X)$ for a finite extension $F$ of $E_{\wp}$ extends uniquely to ${\mathscr{S}}_{{\mathbf{K}}}$ over its local ring (for example, integral model constructed by a suitable normalization); see [@KisinPappas15] for a construction of such integral model in general parhoric levels.
\[Cor. \[cor:geom\_effectivity\_of\_K-triple\]\] Keep the assumptions of Theorem \[thm\_intro:1st\_Main\_thm\]. a Kottwitz triple $(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$ of level $n$ with trivial Kottwitz invariant is *geometrically effective* in the sense that it arises from a ${\mathbb F}_{p^n}$-valued point of ${\mathscr{S}}$ as (\[eq:K-triple\_for\_isogeny\_adm.pair\]) if and only if $\mathrm{O}_{\gamma}(f^p)\cdot\mathrm{TO}_{\delta}(\phi_p)$ is non-zero.
\[Thm. \[thm:non-emptiness\_of\_NS\]\] \[thm:3rd\_Main\_thm\] Keep the assumptions of Theorem \[thm\_intro:1st\_Main\_thm\], and further assume that $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ splits over a *cyclic* tame extension of ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$. Let ${\mathbf{K}}_p$ be a (not necessarily special) parahoric subgroup of $G({{\mathbb Q}_p})$ and put ${\mathbf{K}}={\mathbf{K}}_p{\mathbf{K}}^p$ for a compact open subgroup ${\mathbf{K}}^p$ of $G({\mathbb A}_f^p)$.
\(1) Then, for any $[b]\in B(G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}},\{\mu_X\}$) (), there exists a special Shimura sub-datum $(T,h\in{\mathrm{Hom}}({\mathbb{S}},T_{{\mathbb R}})\cap X)$ such that for any $g_f\in{\mathbf{K}}^p$, the reduction in ${\mathscr{S}}_{{\mathbf{K}}}\otimes{\bar{\mathbb{F}}_{p}}$ of the special point $[h,g_f\cdot{\mathbf{K}}]\in {\mathrm{Sh}}_{{\mathbf{K}}}(G,X)({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ has the $F$-isocrystal represented by $[b]$.
\(2) The reduction ${\mathscr{S}}_{{\mathbf{K}}}(G,X)\otimes{\bar{\mathbb{F}}_{p}}$ has non-empty ordinary locus if and only if $\wp$ has absolute height one (i.e. $E(G,X)_{\wp}={\mathbb Q}_p$).
This theorem generalizes Theorem 4.3.1 and Corollary 4.3.2 of [@Lee16] in the hyperspecial cases.
Next, we give some comments on possible generalizations of Thm. \[thm\_intro:Kottwitz\_conj\] and Thm. \[thm\_intro:Kottwitz\_formula\] for bad reductions. In view of the recent works [@KisinPappas15 Thm. 4.7.11] and [@Zhou17], it seems very likely that our methods and results allow us to establish also the conjecture on the semisimple zeta function ([@Rapoport05], [@Haines14]) in special parahoric level case, when $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is unramified and $p\nmid |\pi_1(G^{{\mathrm{der}}})|$, and as a result Thm. \[thm\_intro:Kottwitz\_conj\] (for which one might also need certain results on the endoscopic transfer of stable Bernstein center, cf. [@Haines14]). But, we can already use our partial results to extend the scope of some previous results, for example, we can relax the ramification condition imposed on the PEL datum in the main result of [@Scholze13].
Finally, we make some comments on the various assumptions appearing in this article. The running assumption, which will be effective except in some general discussions, is that $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is quasi-split and splits over a tamely ramified extension of ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$ (as mentioned above, for the latter condition, in fact, we only need some less restrictive one: see Thm. \[thm:LR-Satz5.3\] and Prop. \[prop:existence\_of\_elliptic\_tori\_in\_special\_parahorics\] for a precise condition). Equally universal assumption, although it is not needed for the important Theorem \[thm\_intro:1st\_Main\_thm\], (1), is that ${\mathbf{K}}_p$ is special maximal parahoric. These two assumptions are somewhat forced on us because we follow closely the original line of arguments [@LR87] for our proofs. We however remark that the two conditions that $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ splits over a tamely ramified extension and the level subgroup is special maxima parahoric are imposed only via Lemma \[lem:LR-Lemma5.11\], or via Prop. \[prop:existence\_of\_elliptic\_tori\_in\_special\_parahorics\], where these assumptions are of more techinical nature rather than of intrinsic nature (e.g. in their proofs, we verify certain statements by case-by-case analysis, where the possible cases are restricted or reduce substantially under such assumptions). It would be interesting to know if one can remove either of these conditions in these statements.
We remark that our sign convention up to Section 6 is the same as that of Langlands-Rapoport in [@LR87]; so for example, it is opposite to that of Kisin in [@Kisin17]. In Section 7, we also need to fix some more sign conventions, especially sign normalization of the local Langlands correspondence for tori (see Footnote \[ftn:LLC\_sign\] for our choice).
This article is organized as follows. The second section is a preliminary discussion, devoted to a review of some basic objects, including Kottwitz and Newton maps (defined for algebraic groups over $p$-adic fields), parahoric groups (in the Bruhat-Tits theory), extended affine Weyl groups, and $\{\mu\}$-admissible set. In the third section, we attempt to give a self-contained overview of the notions of Galois gerbs, the pseudo-motivic Galois gerb, admissible morphisms, Kottwitz triples, and admissible pairs, following closely the original source [@LR87]. At the same time, we generalize these notions and establish their properties (notably, admissible morphism and Kottwitz triple) beyond the original assumption that the group has simply connected derived group. We also give a statement of the Langlands-Rapoport conjecture, as formulated by Rapoport [@Rapoport05 $\S$8] so as to cover parahoric levels. Along the way, we extend results on special admissible morphisms to (special maximal) parahoric levels, under the assumption that $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is quasi-split. In Section 4, we prove Theorem \[thm\_intro:1st\_Main\_thm\], (1) above, namely that every admissible morphism is conjugate to a special admissible morphism (in our case of general parahoric level), as well as the fact that every admissible pair is nested in a special Shimura datum. For some other potential applications in mind, we spilt the proof into a few steps and formalize each of them into a separate proposition (incorporating slight improvements). The results in this section are in large part translations of the original results, except for generalizations to our setting and reorganization (with small improvements). However, some of the generalizations, e.g. the proof of Lemma \[lem:LR-Lemma5.11\], are rather non-trivial. In Section 5, we establish the first version of effectivity criterion of Kottwitz triple (Thm. \[thm:LR-Satz5.25\]). In Section 6, we prove the Kottwitz formula, in two ways, one assuming validity of Langlands-Rapoport conjecture (Thm. \[thm:Kottwitz\_formula:LR\]) and another one being unconditional (Thm. \[thm:Kottwitz\_formula:Kisin\]), which uses the second version of effectivity criterion of Kottwitz triple (Thm. \[thm:LR-Satz5.25b2\]). In the last section, we stabilize the Kottwitz formula, thereby proving Thm. \[thm\_intro:Kottwitz\_conj\].
In this work, a certain result in the Bruhat-Tits theory, whose hyperspecial case was already used critically in the original work [@LR87] (cf. [@Lee16 Lem. A.0.4]), plays a key role. We provide its proof in Appendix \[sec:elliptic\_tori\_in\_special\_parahorics\]. Also, generalizations to our setting (i.e. $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}\neq G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$ in general) of previous arguments occur frequently throughout the entire work. For that, it is necessary to work with abelianized cohomology groups which are cohomology groups of complexes of tori. In appendix \[sec:abelianization\_complex\], we collect basic facts about complexes of tori attached to connected reductive groups.
**Acknowledgement** A part of this work was supported by IBS-R003-D1. The author would like to thank M. Rapoport and C.-L. Chai for their interests in this work and encouragement.
**Notations**
Throughout this paper, ${\overline{\mathbb Q}}$ denotes the algebraic closure of ${\mathbb Q}$ inside ${\mathbb C}$.
For a connected reductive group $G$ over a field, we let $G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$ be the universal covering of its derived group $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}$, and for a (linear algebraic) group $G$, $Z(G)$, and $G^{{\mathrm{ad}}}$ denote its center, and the adjoint group $G/Z(G)$, respectively.
For a group $I$ and an $I$-module $A$, we let $A_I$ denote the quotient group of $I$-coinvariants: $A_I=A/\langle ia-a\ |\ i\in I, a\in A\rangle$. For an element $a\in A$, we write $\underline{a}$ for the image of $a$ in $A_I$. In case of need for distinction, sometimes we write $\underline{a}_A$.
For a finitely generated abelian group $A$, we denote by $A_{\mathrm{tors}}$ its subgroup of torsion elements. For a locally compact abelian group $A$, we let $X^{\ast}(A):={\mathrm{Hom}}_{\mathrm{cont}}(A,{\mathbb C}^{\times})$ (continuous character group) and $A^D:={\mathrm{Hom}}_{\mathrm{cont}}(A,S^1)$ (Pontryagin dual). For a (commutative) algebraic group $A$ over a field $F$, $X_{\ast}(A):={\mathrm{Hom}}_{\mathrm{alg}}({\mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{m}}},A)$, $X^{\ast}(A):={\mathrm{Hom}}_{\mathrm{alg}}(A,{\mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{m}}})$. So, for a diagonalizable ${\mathbb C}$-group $A$, we have $\pi_0(A)^D=X^{\ast}(A)_{\mathrm{tors}}$ (with the embeddings ${\mathbb Q}/{\mathbb Z}\subset {\mathbb R}/Z=S^1\subset {\mathbb C}^{\times}$ understood).
In this article, the german letter ${\mathfrak{k}}$ denotes the completion of the maximal unramified extension (in a fixed algebraic closure ${\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}$) of ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$, and for $n\in{\mathbb N}$ $L_n$ will denote $\mathrm{Frac}(W({\mathbb F}_{p^n}))$.
Preliminaries: Parahoric subgroups and $\mu$-admissible set
===========================================================
Kottwitz maps and Newton map
----------------------------
In this section, we briefly recall the definitions of the Kottwitz maps and the Newton map. We refer to [@Kottwitz97], [@Kottwitz85], [@RR96], and references therein for further details.
### The Kottwitz maps $w_G$, $v_G$, $\kappa_{G}$ {#subsubsec:Kottwitz_hom}
Let $L$ be a complete discrete valued field with algebraically closed residue field and set $I:={\mathrm{Gal}}(\overline{L}/L)$. For any connected reductive group $G$ over $L$, Kottwitz [@Kottwitz97 $\S$7] constructs a group homomorphism $$w_G:G(L)\rightarrow X^{\ast}(Z(\widehat{G})^{I})=\pi_1(G)_{I}.$$ Here, $\widehat{G}$ denotes the Langlands dual group of $G$, $\pi_1(G)=X_{\ast}(T)/\Sigma_{\alpha\in R^{\ast}}{\mathbb Z}\alpha^{\vee}$ is the fundamental group of $G$ (à la Borovoi) (i.e. the quotient of $X_{\ast}(T)$ for a maximal torus $T$ over $F$ of $G$ by the coroot lattice), and $\pi_1(G)_I$ is the (quotient) group of coinvariants of the $I$-module $\pi_1(G)$. This map $w_G$ is sometimes denoted by $\widetilde{\kappa}_G$, e.g. in [@Rapoport05]. When $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}$ is simply connected (so that $\pi_1(G)=X_{\ast}(G^{{\mathrm{ab}}})$ for $G^{{\mathrm{ab}}}=G/G^{{\mathrm{der}}}$), $w_G$ factors through $G^{{\mathrm{ab}}}$: $w_G=w_{G^{{\mathrm{ab}}}}\circ p_G$, where $p_G:G\rightarrow G^{{\mathrm{ab}}}$ is the natural projection [@Kottwitz97 7.4].
There is also a homomorphism $$v_G:G(L)\rightarrow {\mathrm{Hom}}(X_{\ast}(Z(\widehat{G}))^I,{\mathbb Z})$$ sending $g\in G(L)$ to the homomorphism $\chi\mapsto \mathrm{val}(\chi(g))$ from $X_{\ast}(Z(\widehat{G}))^I={\mathrm{Hom}}_L(G,{\mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{m}}})$ to ${\mathbb Z}$, where $\mathrm{val}$ is the usual valuation on $L$, normalized so that uniformizing elements have valuation $1$. It is clear from this definition that $v_G=v_{G^{{\mathrm{ab}}}}\circ p_G$ for *any* $G$ (i.e. not necessarily having the property $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$).
There is the relation: $$v_G=q_G\circ w_G,$$ where $q_G$ is the natural surjective map $$q_G:X^{\ast}(Z(\widehat{G})^{I})=X^{\ast}(Z(\widehat{G}))_I \rightarrow {\mathrm{Hom}}(X_{\ast}(Z(\widehat{G}))^I,{\mathbb Z}).$$ The kernel of $q_G$ is the torsion subgroup of $X^{\ast}(Z(\widehat{G}))_I$, i.e. ${\mathrm{Hom}}(X_{\ast}(Z(\widehat{G}))^I,{\mathbb Z})\cong \pi_1(G)_I/\text{torsions}$; in particular, $q_G$ is an isomorphism if the coinvariant group $X^{\ast}(Z(\widehat{G}))_I$ is free (e.g. the $I$-module $X^{\ast}(Z(\widehat{G}))$ is trivial or more generally *induced*, i.e. has a ${\mathbb Z}$-basis permuted by $I$).
For example, when $G$ is a torus $T$, we have $\langle \chi,w_T(t)\rangle= \mathrm{val}(\chi(t))$ for $ t\in T(L)$, $\chi\in X^{\ast}(T)^I$, where $\langle\ ,\ \rangle$ is the canonical pairing between $X^{\ast}(T)^I$ and $X_{\ast}(T)_I$.
Now suppose that $G$ is defined over a local field $F$, i.e. a finite extension of ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$ (in a fixed algebraic closure ${\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}$). Let $L$[^6] be the completion of the maximal unramified extension $F^{{\mathrm{ur}}}$ of $F$ in ${\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}$ and let $\sigma$ denote the Frobenius automorphism on $L$ which fixes $F$ and induces $x\mapsto x^q$ on the residue field of $L$ ($\cong{\bar{\mathbb{F}}_{p}}$), where the residue field of $F$ is ${\mathbb F}_q$. In this situation, the maps $v_{G_L}$, $w_{G_L}$ each induce notable maps.
First, as $w_{G_L}$ (and $v_{G_L}$ too) commutes with the action of ${\mathrm{Gal}}(F^{{\mathrm{ur}}}/F)$, by taking $H^{\mathrm{o}}({\mathrm{Gal}}(F^{{\mathrm{ur}}}/F),-)$ on both sides of $w_{G_L}$, we obtain a homomorphism $$\lambda_G:G(F)\rightarrow X^{\ast}(Z(\widehat{G})^I)^{\langle\sigma\rangle},$$ where $I\cong{\mathrm{Gal}}(\overline{F}/F^{{\mathrm{ur}}})$. This map is introduced in [@Kottwitz84b $\S$3] (cf. [@Kottwitz97 7.7]) when $G$ is *unramified* over $F$ (in which case the canonical action of $I$ on $Z(\widehat{G})$ is trivial) and used in [@LR87] (with the same notation) under the additional assumption $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$ so that $w_{G_L}=v_{G_L}$. We remark that in our general set-up that $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is not necessarily unramified nor $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$, to achieve what $\lambda_G$ did in [@LR87], we use $v_G$, or $w_G$ depending on the situation. Next, let $B(G)$ denote the set of $\sigma$-conjugacy classes: $$B(G):=G(L)/\stackrel{\sigma}{\sim},$$ where two elements $b_1$, $b_2$ of $G(L)$ are said to be *$\sigma$-conjugate*, denoted $b_1\stackrel{\sigma}{\sim} b_2$, if there exists $g\in G(L)$ such that $b_2=gb_1\sigma(g)^{-1}$. Then, $w_{G_L}$ induces a map of sets $$\label{eq:kappa_G}
\kappa_G:B(G)\rightarrow X^{\ast}(Z(\widehat{G})^{\Gamma_F})=\pi_1(G)_{\Gamma_F}: \kappa_G([b])=\overline{w_{G_L}(b)}.$$ Here, for $b\in G(L)$, $[b]$ denotes its $\sigma$-conjugacy class, and for $x\in \pi(G)_{I}$, $\overline{x}$ denotes its image under the natural quotient map $\pi(G)_{I}\rightarrow \pi(G)_{\Gamma_F}$. For further details, see [@Kottwitz97 7.5].
All these maps are functorial in $G$ (i.e. for group homomorphisms).
### The Newton map $\nu_G$
Let $\mathbb{D}$ denote the protorus $\varprojlim{\mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{m}}}$ with the character group ${\mathbb Q}=\varinjlim{\mathbb Z}$. For an algebraic group $G$ over a $p$-adic local field $F$, we put $$\mathcal{N}(G):=({\mathrm{Hom}}_{L}(\mathbb{D},G)/\Int(G(L)))^{\sigma}$$ (the subset of $\sigma$-invariants in the set of $G(L)$-conjugacy classes of $L$-rational quasi-cocharacters into $G_L$). We will use the notation $\overline{\nu}$ for the the conjugacy class of $\nu\in{\mathrm{Hom}}_{L}(\mathbb{D},G)$.
For every $b\in G(L)$, Kottwitz [@Kottwitz85 $\S$4.3] constructs an element $\nu=\nu_G(b)=\nu_b\in{\mathrm{Hom}}_L(\mathbb{D},G)$[^7] uniquely characterized by the property that there are an integer $s>0$, an element $c\in G(L)$ and a uniformizing element $\pi$ of $F$ such that:
- $s\nu\in{\mathrm{Hom}}_L({\mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{m}}},G)$.
- ${\mathrm{Int}}(c)\circ s\nu$ is defined over the fixed field of $\sigma^s$ in $L$.
- $c\cdot (b\sigma)^s\cdot c^{-1}=c\cdot (s\nu)(\pi)\cdot c^{-1}\cdot \sigma^{s}$.
In (iii), the product (and the equality as well) take place in the semi-direct product group $G(L)\rtimes\langle\sigma\rangle$. We call $\nu_b$ the *Newton homomorphism* attached to $b\in G(L)$
When $G$ is a torus $T$, $\nu_b=\mathrm{av}\circ w_{T_L}(b)$, where $\mathrm{av}:X_{\ast}(T)_I\rightarrow X_{\ast}(T)_{{\mathbb Q}}^{\Gamma_F}$ is “the average map” $X_{\ast}(T)_I\rightarrow X_{\ast}(T)_{\Gamma_F}\rightarrow X_{\ast}(T)_{{\mathbb Q}}^{\Gamma_F}$ sending $\underline{\mu}\ (\mu\in X_{\ast}(T))$ to $|\Gamma_F\cdot\mu|^{-1} \sum_{\mu'\in \Gamma_F\cdot\mu}\mu'$ (cf. [@RR96 Thm. 1.15, (iii)]). Hence, it follows that if $T$ is split by a finite Galois extension $K\supset F$, for $b\in T(L)$, $[K:F]\nu_b\in X_{\ast}(T)$ and that $\langle \chi,\nu_b\rangle= \mathrm{val}(\chi(b))$ (especially $\in{\mathbb Z}$) for every $F$-rational character $\chi$ of $T$.
The map $b\mapsto \nu_b$ has the following properties.
- $\nu_{\sigma(b)}=\sigma(\nu_b)$.
- $gb\sigma(g)^{-1}\mapsto {\mathrm{Int}}(g)\circ \nu,\ g\in G(L)$.
- $\nu_b={\mathrm{Int}}(b)\circ\sigma(\nu_b)$.
It follows from (b) and (c) that $\nu_G:G(L)\rightarrow {\mathrm{Hom}}_L(\mathbb{D},G)$ gives rise to a map $\overline{\nu}_G:B(G)\rightarrow \mathcal{N}(G)$, which we call the *Newton map*. This can be also regarded as a functor from the category of connected reductive groups to the category of sets (endowed with partial orders defined as below): $$\overline{\nu}:B(\cdot)\rightarrow \mathcal{N}(\cdot)\ ;\
\overline{\nu}_{G}([b])=\overline{\nu}_{b},\quad
b\in[b].$$
###
For a connected reductive group $G$ over an arbitrary (i.e. not necessarily $p$-adic) field $F$, let $\mathcal{BR}(G)=(X^{\ast},R^{\ast},X_{\ast},R_{\ast},\Delta)$ be the based root datum of $G$: we may take $X^{\ast}=X^{\ast}(T)$, $X_{\ast}=X_{\ast}(T)$ for a maximal $F$-torus $T$ of $G$ and $R^{\ast}\subset X^{\ast}(T)$, $R_{\ast}\subset X_{\ast}(T)$ are respectively the roots and the coroots for the pair $(G,T)$ with a choice of basis $\Delta$ of $R^{\ast}$ (whose choice corresponds to that of a Borel subgroup $B\subset G_{\overline{F}}$ containing $T_{\overline{F}}$). Let $\overline{C}\subset (X_{\ast})_{{\mathbb Q}}$ denote the closed Weyl chamber associated with the root base $\Delta$. It comes with a canonical action of $\Gamma_F:={\mathrm{Gal}}(\overline{F}/F)$ on $\overline{C}$.
For a cocharacter $\mu\in{\mathrm{Hom}}_{\overline{F}}({\mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{m}}},G)$ lying in $\overline{C}$, we set $$\overline{\mu}:=|\Gamma_F\cdot\mu|^{-1} \sum_{\mu'\in\Gamma_F\cdot\mu}\mu'\quad\in\overline{C}.$$ Here, the orbit $\Gamma_F\cdot\mu$ is obtained using the canonical Galois action on $\overline{C}$. Once a Weyl chamber $\overline{C}$ (equivalently, a Borel subgroup $B$ or a root base $\Delta$) is chosen, $\overline{\mu}$ depends only on the $G(\overline{F})$-conjugacy class $\{\mu\}$ of $\mu$.
Suppose that $\mu\in X_{\ast}(T)\cap\overline{C}$. As $X_{\ast}(T)=X^{\ast}(\widehat{T})$ for the dual torus $\widehat{T}$ of $T$, regarded as a character on $\widehat{T}$, we can restrict $\mu$ to the subgroup $Z(\widehat{G})^{\Gamma_F}$ of $\widehat{T}$, obtaining an element $$\label{eqn:mu_natural}
\mu^{\natural}\in X^{\ast}(Z(\widehat{G})^{\Gamma_F})=\pi_1(G)_{\Gamma_F}.$$ Again, $\mu^{\natural}$ depends only on the $G(\overline{F})$-conjugacy class $\{\mu\}$ of $\mu$. Alternatively, $\mu^{\natural}$ equals the image (sometimes, also denoted by $\underline{\mu}$) of $\mu\in X_{\ast}(T)$ under the canonical map $X_{\ast}(T)\rightarrow \pi_1(G)_{\Gamma_F}$.
### The set $B(G,\{\mu\})$ {#subsubsec:B(G,{mu})}
Again, let us return to a $p$-adic field $F$. We fix a closed Weyl chamber $\overline{C}$ (equiv. a Borel subgroup $B$ over $\overline{F}$). Suppose given a $G(\overline{F})$-conjugacy class $\{\mu\}$ of cocharacters into $G_{\overline{F}}$. Let $\mu$ be the representative of $\{\mu\}$ in $\overline{C}$; so we have $\overline{\mu}=\overline{\mu}(G,\{\mu\})\in\overline{C}$ and $\mu^{\natural}\in X^{\ast}(Z(\widehat{G})^{\Gamma_F})$. We define a finite subset $B(G,\{\mu\})$ of $B(G)$ (cf. [@Kottwitz97 Sec.6], [@Rapoport05 Sec.4]): $$B(G,\{\mu\}):=\left\{\ [b]\in B(G)\ |\quad \kappa_{G}([b])=\mu^{\natural},\quad \overline{\nu}_{G}([b])\preceq \overline{\mu}\ \right\},$$ where $\preceq$ is the natural partial order on the closed Weyl chamber $\overline{C}$ defined by that $\nu\preceq \nu'$ if $\nu'-\nu$ is a nonnegative linear combination (with *rational* coefficients) of simple coroots in $R_{\ast}(T)$ [@RR96], Lemma 2.2). One knows [@Kottwitz97 4.13] that the map $$(\overline{\nu},\kappa):B(G)\rightarrow \mathcal{N}(G)\times X^{\ast}(Z(\widehat{G})^{\Gamma_F})$$ is injective, hence $B(G,\{\mu\})$ can be identified with a subset of $\mathcal{N}(G)$.
Parahoric subgroups
-------------------
Our references here include [@Rapoport05], [@HainesRapoport08], [@HainesRostami10], in addition to the original sources [@BT72], [@BT84], [@Tits79].
### {#subsubsec:parahoric}
Let $G$ be a connected reductive group $G$ over a strictly henselian discrete valued field $L$. Let ${\mathcal{B}}(G,L)$ be the Bruhat-Tits building of $G$ over $L$ (cf. [@Tits79], [@BT72], [@BT84]). Then, a *parahoric subgroup* of $G({\mathfrak{k}})$ is a subgroup of the form $$K_{{\mathbf{f}}}=\mathrm{Fix}\ {\mathbf{f}}\cap \ker\ w_G$$ for a facet ${\mathbf{f}}$ of ${\mathcal{B}}(G,L)$. Here, $\mathrm{Fix}\ {\mathbf{f}}$ denotes the subgroup of $G({\mathfrak{k}})$ fixing ${\mathbf{f}}$ pointwise and $w_G$ is the Kottwitz map (). When ${\mathbf{f}}$ is an alcove of ${\mathcal{B}}(G,L)$ (i.e. a maximal facet), the parahoric subgroup is called an *Iwahori* subgroup. A *special maximal parahoric subgroup* of $G({\mathfrak{k}})$ is the parahoric subgroup attached to a special point in ${\mathcal{B}}(G,L)$. More precisely, choose a maximal split torus $A$ of $G$ and let ${\mathcal{A}}(A,L)$ be the associated apartment; let ${\mathcal{A}}(A^{{\mathrm{ad}}},L)$ be the apartment in ${\mathcal{B}}(G^{{\mathrm{ad}}},L)$ corresponding to the image $A^{{\mathrm{ad}}}$ of $A$ in $G^{{\mathrm{ad}}}$. Then, there exists a canonical simplicial isomorphism [@Tits79 1.2] $${\mathcal{A}}(A,L)\cong {\mathcal{A}}(A^{{\mathrm{ad}}},L)\times X_{\ast}(Z(G))_{\Gamma_F}\otimes{\mathbb R}.$$ Then, every special point in ${\mathcal{A}}(A,L)$ is of the form $\{{\mathbf{v}}\}\times x$ for a unique special *vertex* ${\mathbf{v}}$ of ${\mathcal{A}}(A^{{\mathrm{ad}}},L)$ (in the sense of [@Tits79 1.9]) and some $x\in X_{\ast}(Z(G))_{\Gamma_F}\otimes{\mathbb R}$.
The original definition of pararhoic subgroups by Bruhat-Tits [@BT84 5.2.6], cf. [@Tits79 3.4] uses group schemes. With every facet ${\mathbf{f}}$ of ${\mathcal{B}}(G,L)$ they associate a smooth group scheme ${\mathcal{G}}_{{\mathbf{f}}}$ over ${\mathrm{Spec}}({\mathcal{O}}_L)$ with generic fiber $G$ such that ${\mathcal{G}}_{{\mathbf{f}}}({\mathcal{O}}_L)=\mathrm{Fix}\ {\mathbf{f}}$. Also, there exists an open subgroup ${\mathcal{G}}_{{\mathbf{f}}}^{\mathrm{o}}$ with the same generic fiber $G$ and the connected special fiber. Then, the parahoric subgroup attached to ${\mathbf{f}}$ by Bruhat-Tits is ${\mathcal{G}}_{{\mathbf{f}}}^{\mathrm{o}}({\mathcal{O}}_L)$. It is known [@HainesRapoport08 Prop.3] that they coincide: $$K_{{\mathbf{f}}}={\mathcal{G}}_{{\mathbf{f}}}^{\mathrm{o}}({\mathcal{O}}_L).$$
Now suppose that $G$ is defined over a local field $F$, as before given as a finite extension of ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$ in ${\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}$. Again, $L$ denotes the completion of the maximal unramified extension of $F$ in ${\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}$ and let $\sigma$ be the Frobenius automorphism of $L$ fixing $F$. Let ${\mathcal{B}}(G,L)$ (resp. ${\mathcal{B}}(G,F)$) be the Bruhat-Tits building of $G$ over $L$ (resp. over $F$); as $G$ is defined over $F$, ${\mathcal{B}}(G,L)$ carries an action of $G({\mathfrak{k}})\rtimes\langle\sigma\rangle$ and ${\mathcal{B}}(G,F)$ is identified with the set of fixed points of ${\mathcal{B}}(G,L)$ under $\langle\sigma\rangle$ [@BT84 5.1.25]. This procedure of taking $\sigma$-fixed points ${\mathbf{f}}\mapsto {\mathbf{f}}^{\sigma}$ gives a bijection from the set of $\sigma$-stable facets in ${\mathcal{B}}(G,L)$ to the set of facets in ${\mathcal{B}}(G,F)$.
A *parahoric subgroup* of $G(F)$ is by definition ${\mathcal{G}}_{{\mathbf{f}}}^{\mathrm{o}}({\mathcal{O}}_L)^{\sigma}(:={\mathcal{G}}_{{\mathbf{f}}}^{\mathrm{o}}({\mathcal{O}}_L)\cap G(F))$ for a $\sigma$-stable facet ${\mathbf{f}}$ of ${\mathcal{B}}(G,L)$. A *special maximal parahoric subgroup* of $G(F)$ is ${\mathcal{G}}_{{\mathbf{f}}}^{\mathrm{o}}({\mathcal{O}}_L)^{\sigma}$ for a special point ${\mathbf{f}}\in{\mathcal{B}}(G,F)$.
### Extended affine Weyl group {#subsubsec:EAWG}
Let $G$ be a connected reductive group over a complete discrete valued field $L$ with algebraically closed residue field. Let $S$ be a maximal split $L$-torus of $G$ and $T$ its centralizer; $T$ is a maximal torus since $G_L$ is quasi-split by a well-known theorem of Steinberg. Let $N=N_G(T)$ be the normalizer of $T$. The *extended affine Weyl group* (or *Iwahori Weyl group*) associated with $S$ is the quotient group $$\tilde{W}:=N(L)/T(L)_1,$$ where $T(L)_1$ is the kernel of the Kottwitz map $w_T:T(L)\rightarrow X_{\ast}(T)_{I}$. As $w_T$ is surjective, $\tilde{W}$ is an extension of the relative Weyl group $W_0:=N(L)/T(L)$ by $X_{\ast}(T)_I$: $$\label{eqn:EAWG1}
0\rightarrow X_{\ast}(T)_I\rightarrow \tilde{W}\rightarrow W_0\rightarrow 0.$$ The normal subgroup $X_{\ast}(T)_I$ is called the *translation subgroup* of $\tilde{W}$, and any $\lambda\in X_{\ast}(T)_I$, viewed as an element in $\tilde{W}$ in this way, will be denoted by $t^{\lambda}$ (*translation element*).
This extension splits by choice of a special vertex ${\mathbf{v}}$ in the apartment corresponding to $S$, namely if $K=K_{{\mathbf{v}}}\subset G(L)$ is the associated parahoric subgroup, the subgroup $$\tilde{W}_K:=(N(L)\cap K)/T(L)_1$$ of $\tilde{W}$ projects isomorphically to $W_0$, and thus gives a splitting $$\tilde{W}=X_{\ast}(T)_I\rtimes \tilde{W}_K.$$
For two parahoric subgroups $K$ and $K'$ associated with facets in the apartment corresponding to $S$, there exists an isomorphism $$\label{eqn:parahoric_double_coset}
K\backslash G(L)/ K'\cong \tilde{W}_K\backslash \tilde{W}/ \tilde{W}_{K'}.$$
Let $S^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$ (resp. $T^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$, $N^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$) be the inverse image of $S$ (resp. $T$, $N$) in the universal covering $G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$ of $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}$; then, $S^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$ is a maximal split torus of $G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$ and $T^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$ (resp. $N^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$) is its centralizer (resp. the normalizer). The natural map $N^{{\mathrm{sc}}}(L)\rightarrow N(L)$ induces an injection $X_{\ast}(T^{{\mathrm{sc}}})_I{\hookrightarrow}X_{\ast}(T)_I$ and presents the extended affine Weyl group associated with $(G^{{\mathrm{sc}}},S^{{\mathrm{sc}}})$ $$W_a:=N^{{\mathrm{sc}}}(L)/ T^{{\mathrm{sc}}}(L)_1$$ as a normal subgroup of the extended affine Weyl group $\tilde{W}$ (attached to $S$) such that the translation subgroup $X_{\ast}(T)_I$ maps onto the quotient $\tilde{W}/W_a$ with kernel $X_{\ast}(T^{{\mathrm{sc}}})_I$: $$\label{eqn:EAWG2}
0\rightarrow W_a\rightarrow \tilde{W}\rightarrow X_{\ast}(T)_I/X_{\ast}(T^{{\mathrm{sc}}})_I\rightarrow 0.$$ The quotient group $X_{\ast}(T)_I/X_{\ast}(T^{{\mathrm{sc}}})_I$ is identified in a natural way with $\pi_1(G)_I$ [@HainesRapoport08 p.196]. The group $W_a$ can be also regarded as an affine Weyl group attached to some reduced root system (*loc. cit.*, p.195).[^8] This extension (\[eqn:EAWG2\]) also splits by choice of an alcove in the apartment ${\mathcal{A}}(S,L)$ of $S$. More precisely, the extended affine Weyl group $\tilde{W}$ (resp. the affine Weyl group $W_a$) acts transitively (resp. simply transitively) on the set of alcoves in ${\mathcal{A}}(S,L)$, hence when we choose a base alcove ${\mathbf{a}}$ in ${\mathcal{A}}(S,L)$, $$\label{eqn:splitting_of_EAWG2}
\tilde{W}=W_a\rtimes \Omega_{{\mathbf{a}}},$$ where $\Omega_{{\mathbf{a}}}$ is the normalizer of ${\mathbf{a}}$; $\Omega_{{\mathbf{a}}}$ will be often identified with $X_{\ast}(T)_I/X_{\ast}(T^{{\mathrm{sc}}})_I$.
Finally, suppose that there is an automorphism $\sigma$ of $L$ such that $L$ is the strict henselization of its fixed field $L^{\natural}$ and that $G$ is defined over $L^{\natural}$. Then, we can find a $L^{\natural}$-torus $S$ such that $S_L$ becomes a maximal split $L$-torus, and a maximal $L^{\natural}$-torus $T$ containing $S$; set $N$ to be the normalizer of $T$. Then $\sigma$ acts on the extended Weyl group $\tilde{W}$ in an obvious way. Moreover, if $K_{{\mathbf{v}}}\subset G(L)$ is the parahoric subgroup attached to a $\sigma$-stable facet ${\mathbf{v}}$, then the subgroup $\tilde{W}_{K_{{\mathbf{v}}}}$ is stable under $\sigma$. We refer the reader to [@HainesRapoport08 Remark 9] for a “descent theory” in this situation.
### The $\{\mu\}$-admissible set {#subsubsec:mu-admissible_set}
As before, let $G$ be a connected reductive group $G$ over a complete discrete valued field $L$ with algebraically closed residue field. Let $W=N({\overline{L}})/T({\overline{L}})$ be the absolute Weyl group. Let $\{\mu\}$ be a $G({\overline{L}})$-conjugacy class of cocharacters of $G$ over ${\overline{L}}$. We use $\{\mu\}$ again to denote the corresponding $W$-orbit in $X_{\ast}(T)$. Let us choose a Borel subgroup $B$ over $L$ containing $T$ (which exists as $G_{/L}$ is automatically quasi-split), and let $\mu_B$ be the unique representative of $\{\mu\}$ lying in the associated absolute closed Weyl chamber in $X_{\ast}(T)_{{\mathbb R}}$. Then, the $W_0$-orbit of the image $\underline{\mu_B}$ of $\mu_B$ in $X_{\ast}(T)_I$ is well-determined, since any two Borel subgroups over $L$ containing $T$ are conjugate under $G(L)$. We denote this $W_0$-orbit by $\Lambda(\{\mu\})$: $$\Lambda(\{\mu\}):=W_0\cdot\underline{\mu_B}\ \subset\ X_{\ast}(T)_I.$$ It is known [@Rapoport05 Lem. 3.1] that the image of $\Lambda(\{\mu\})$ in the quotient group $X_{\ast}(T)_I/X_{\ast}(T^{{\mathrm{sc}}})_I$ consists of a single element, which we denote by $\tau(\{\mu\})$.
Let us now fix an alcove ${\mathbf{a}}$ in the apartment corresponding to $S$. This determines a Bruhat order on the affine Weyl group $W_a$ which further extends to the extended Weyl group $\tilde{W}=W_a\rtimes \Omega_{{\mathbf{a}}}$ (\[eqn:splitting\_of\_EAWG2\]), [@KR00 $\S$1]. Also, when $K\subset G({\mathfrak{k}})$ is a parahoric subgroup associated with a facet of ${\mathbf{a}}$, it induces a Bruhat order on the double coset space $\tilde{W}_K\backslash \tilde{W}/\tilde{W}_K$ [@KR00 $\S$8]. We will denote all these orders by $\leq$; this should not cause much confusion.
\[defn:mu-admissible\_subset\] The *$\{\mu\}$-admissible subset* of $\tilde{W}$ is $$\mathrm{Adm}(\{\mu\})=\{w\in\tilde{W}\ |\ w\leq t^{\lambda}\text{ for some }\lambda\in\Lambda(\{\mu\})\},$$ and the *$\{\mu\}$-admissible subset* of $\tilde{W}_K\backslash \tilde{W}/\tilde{W}_K$ is $$\mathrm{Adm}_K(\{\mu\})=\{w\in\tilde{W}_K\backslash \tilde{W}/\tilde{W}_K\ |\ w\leq \tilde{W}_Kt^{\lambda}\tilde{W}_K\text{ for some }\lambda\in\Lambda(\{\mu\})\}.$$
One knows [@Rapoport05 (3.8)] that $\mathrm{Adm}_K(\{\mu\})$ is the image of $\mathrm{Adm}(\{\mu\})$ under the natural map $\tilde{W}\rightarrow \tilde{W}_K\backslash \tilde{W}/\tilde{W}_K$.
Suppose that $G$ splits over $L$ (thus $S=T$) and $K$ is a special maximal parahoric subgroup. Then, $$\mathrm{Adm}_K(\{\mu\})=\{\nu\in X_{\ast}(S)\cap\overline{C}\ |\ \nu\stackrel{!}{\leq} \mu\},$$ where $\mu$ denotes the representative in $\overline{C}$ of $\{\mu\}$. If furthermore $\{\mu\}$ is minuscule, $\mathrm{Adm}_K(\{\mu\})$ consists of a single element, i.e. $\{\mu\}\in X_{\ast}(T)/W$ itself.
Here, $\nu\stackrel{!}{\leq} \mu$ means that $\mu-\nu$ is a sum of simple coroots with non-negative *integer* coefficients. See Prop. 3.11 and Cor. 3.12 of [@Rapoport05] for a proof.
Pseudo-motivic Galois gerb and admissible morphisms
===================================================
This section is devoted to a review of the theory of the pseudo-motivic Galois gerb and admissible morphisms, as explained in [@LR87]. In addition to this original source [@LR87], we also refer readers to [@Milne92], [@Kottwitz92], [@Reimann97].
Galois gerbs {#subsec:Galois_gerbs}
------------
We review the notion of Galois gerbs as used by Langlands-Rapoport in [@LR87 $\S$2] (cf. [@Breen94 $\S$4], [@Rapoport05 $\S$8], [@Reimann97 Appendix B]).
Let $k$ be a field of characteristic zero (which will be for us either a global or a local field) and ${\overline{k}}$ an algebraic closure. For an affine group scheme $G={\mathrm{Spec}}A$ over a Galois extension $k'\subset{\overline{k}}$ of $k$ and $\sigma\in{\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/k)$, an automorphism $\kappa$ of $G(k')$ is said to be *$\sigma$-linear* if there is a $\sigma$-linear automorphism $\kappa'$ of the algebra $A$ such that $$\kappa'(f)(\kappa(g))=\sigma(f(g)),\quad f\in A,\ g\in G(k').$$ The simplest example is given by the natural action of ${\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/k)$ on $G(k')$, when $G$ is defined over $k$. In this article, we will be concerned mainly with the following kind of Galois gerbs, which will be called *algebraic*. For $\sigma\in{\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/k)$, let $$\sigma_{k'}:G(k')\rightarrow (\sigma^{\ast}G)(k')$$ be the unique map for which $f\otimes 1(\sigma_{k'}(g))=\sigma(f(g))$ holds for $f\in A,\ g\in G(k')$, where $f\otimes1\in A\otimes_{k',\sigma}k'$. Then, for any algebraic isomorphism $\theta$ of $k'$-group schemes from $\sigma^{\ast}G$ to $G$, the automorphism $\theta\circ\sigma_{k'}$ of $G(k')$ is $\sigma$-linear, since then one can take $\kappa:=\theta\circ\sigma_{k'}$ and $\kappa'(f):=(\theta^{\ast})^{-1}(f\otimes1)$ (Here, $\theta^{\ast}:A{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}A\otimes_{k',\sigma}k'$ denotes the associated map on the structure sheaf). We will call such $\sigma$-linear automorphism of $G(k')$ *algebraic*. Hence, one can identify an algebraic $\sigma$-linear isomorphism $\kappa(\sigma)$ with an algebraic $k'$-isomorphism $\theta(\sigma):\sigma^{\ast}(G){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}G$ via $\kappa(\sigma)=\theta(\sigma)\circ\sigma_{k'}$.
\[defn:Galois\_gerb\] Let $k'\subset {\overline{k}}$ be a Galois extension of $k$. A *$k'/k$-Galois gerb* is an extension of topological groups $$1{\longrightarrow}G(k'){\longrightarrow}{\mathfrak{G}}{\longrightarrow}{\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/k){\longrightarrow}1,$$ where $G$ is an affine smooth group scheme (i.e. a linear algebraic group) over $k'$ and $G(k')$ (resp. ${\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/k)$) has the discrete (resp. the Krull) topology, such that
- for every representative $g_{\sigma}\in{\mathfrak{G}}$ of $\sigma\in {\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/k)$, the automorphism $\kappa(\sigma):g\mapsto g_{\sigma}gg_{\sigma}^{-1}$ of $G(k')$ is algebraic $\sigma$-linear.
- for some finite sub-extension $k\subset K\subset k'$, there exists a continuous section $${\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/K){\longrightarrow}{\mathfrak{G}}\ :\ \sigma\mapsto g_{\sigma}$$ which is a group homomorphism.
In the presence of (i), condition (ii) means that the family $\{\theta(\sigma):\sigma^{\ast}(G){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}G\}$ of isomorphisms associated with ${\mathrm{Int}}(g_{\sigma})$ is a $k'/K$-descent datum on $G$: the homomorphism property of (ii) gives the cocycle condition of descent datum. Thus the section $\sigma\mapsto g_{\sigma}\ (\sigma\in{\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/K))$ determines a $K$-structure on $G$ and accordingly an action of ${\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/K)$ on $G(k')$. This Galois action is nothing other than $\theta(\sigma)\circ\sigma_{k'}$,[^9] namely, we have the relation $$\label{eq:conjugation=Galois_action}
g_{\sigma}gg_{\sigma}^{-1}=\sigma(g),\quad \sigma\in {\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/K),$$ where $\sigma(g)$ is the just mentioned action of $\sigma\in{\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/K)$ on $G(k')$. In other words, the conditions (i), (ii) imply that over some finite Galois extension $K\subset k'$ of $k$, there exists a group-theoretic section $\sigma\mapsto \rho_{\sigma}$, via which the pull-back to ${\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/K)$ of ${\mathfrak{G}}$ becomes a semi-direct product $G(k')\rtimes {\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/K)$, with the action of ${\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/K)$ on $G(k')$ (i.e. the conjugation action of ${\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/K)$ on $G(k')$ via the section) being the natural Galois acton resulting from a $K$-structure on $G$.
We remark that our definition of Galois gerb is equivalent to that of affine smooth gerb[^10] on the étale site ${\mathrm{Spec}}(k)_{{\text{\'et}}}$ *equipped with a neutralizing object over ${\mathrm{Spec}}(K)$*.[^11] For a detailed discussion of this relation, we refer to [@LR87 p.152-153], [@Breen94 $\S$4].
We call the group scheme $G$ the *kernel* of ${\mathfrak{G}}$ and write $G={\mathfrak{G}}^{\Delta}$. A *morphism* between $k'/k$-Galois gerbs $\varphi:{\mathfrak{G}}\rightarrow{\mathfrak{G}}'$ is a continuous map of extensions which induces the identity on ${\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/k)$ and an algebraic homomorphism on the kernel groups. Two morphisms $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$ are said to be *conjugate* if there exists $g'\in G'(k')$ with $\phi_2={\mathrm{Int}}(g')\circ \phi_1$. With every linear algebraic group $G$ over $k$, the semi-direct product gives a gerb $${\mathfrak{G}}_G=G(k')\rtimes{\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/k).$$ We call it the *neutral gerb* attached to $G$.
For two successive Galois extensions $k\subset k'\subset k''\subset {\overline{k}}$, any $k'/k$-Galois gerb ${\mathfrak{G}}$ gives rise to a $k''/k$-Galois gerb ${\mathfrak{G}}'$, by first pulling-back the extension ${\mathfrak{G}}$ by the surjection ${\mathrm{Gal}}(k''/k)\twoheadrightarrow{\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/k)$ and then pushing-out via $G(k')\rightarrow G(k'')$. In this situation, we will call ${\mathfrak{G}}'$ the *inflation* to $k''$ of the $k'/k$-Galois gerb ${\mathfrak{G}}$; this terminology will be justified when we relate Galois gerbs with commutative kernels to Galois cohomology. We also call a ${\overline{k}}/k$-Galois gerb, simply a Galois gerb over $k$. It follows from definition that any Galois gerb over $k$ is the inflation of a $k'/k$-Galois gerb for some finite Galois extension $k\subset k'\subset {\overline{k}}$ and that every morphism between $k'/k$-Galois gerbs induces a morphism between their inflations to $k''$ for any sub-extension $k''\subset {\overline{k}}$.
For two morphisms of $k'/k$-Galois gerbs $\phi_1,\phi_2:{\mathfrak{G}}\rightarrow{\mathfrak{G}}'$, there exists a $k$-scheme $\underline{\mathrm{Isom}}(\phi_1,\phi_2)$, whose set of $R$-points, for a $k$-algebra $R$, is given by $$\label{eq:Isom(phi_1,phi_2)}
\underline{\mathrm{Isom}}(\phi_1,\phi_2)(R)=\{g\in{\mathfrak{G}}'^{\Delta}(k'\otimes_kR)\ |\ {\mathrm{Int}}(g)\circ\phi_{1R}=\phi_{2R}\},$$ where $\phi_{1R}$ and $\phi_{2R}$ are the induced maps ${\mathfrak{G}}_R\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}'_R$ between the push-outs of ${\mathfrak{G}}$ and ${\mathfrak{G}}'$ via ${\mathfrak{G}}^{\Delta}(k')\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}^{\Delta}(k'\otimes_kR)$ and the same map for ${\mathfrak{G}}'$. When $\phi_1=\phi_2$, we denote this $k$-group scheme by $I_{\phi_1}=\underline{\mathrm{Aut}}(\phi_1)$. For $g\in {\mathfrak{G}}'(k')$, one readily sees that $\Int(g)$ induces a $k$-isomorphism of $k$-groups $I_{\phi_1}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}I_{\Int(g)\circ\phi_1}$.
### Galois gerbs defined by $2$-cocyles with values in commutative affine group schemes
In our work (as well as in the work of Langlands-Rapoport), besides the neutral gerbs attached to arbitrary algebraic groups, all the nontrivial Galois gerbs have as associated kernel *commutative affine group schemes (in fact, (pro-)tori) defined over base fields*. In such cases, a Galois gerb has an explicit description in terms of (continuous) $2$-cocycles (in the usual sense) on the absolute Galois group of the base field with values in the geometric points of given commutative affine group scheme endowed with the natural Galois action.
Recall that for a group $H$ and an $H$-module $A$ (i.e. an abelian group with $H$-action), a normalized[^12] $2$-cocyle (or “factor set”) $(e_{h_1,h_2})$ on $H$ with values in $A$ gives rise to an extension of $H$ by $A$: $$1\rightarrow A\rightarrow E\stackrel{p}{\rightarrow}H\rightarrow1$$ with property $$\label{eq:extension_with_given_conjugation_action}
e\cdot a\cdot e^{-1}=p(e)(a)\quad (e\in E,a\in A),$$ where the right action of $p(e)$ on $A$ is the given one. Explicitly, $E$ is generated by $A$ and $\{e_h\}_{h\in H}$ ($a\mapsto 0,e_h\mapsto h$ giving the projection $E\rightarrow H$) with relations $$e_h\cdot a\cdot e_h^{-1}=h(a)\ (a\in A,h\in H),\qquad e_{h_1,h_2}=e_{h_1}\cdot e_{h_2}\cdot e_{h_1h_2}^{-1},\quad e_1=1$$ ($e_{h_1,h_2}\in Z^2(H,A)$ guarantees the associativity of the resulting composition law). Two extensions $E$, $E'$ of $H$ by $A$ with property (\[eq:extension\_with\_given\_conjugation\_action\]) are said to be *isomorphic* if there exists an isomorphism $E{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}E'$ which restricts to identity on $A$ and also induces identity on $H$. Then, this construction gives a bijection of pointed sets between $H^2(H,A)$ and the set of isomorphisms classes of group extensions of $H$ by $A$ with the induced conjugation action of $H$ on $A$ being the given one. Here, the distinguished points are the cohomology class of the trivial $2$-cocycle and the semi-direct product, respectively. For two isomorphic extensions $E,E'$ with property (\[eq:extension\_with\_given\_conjugation\_action\]), we say that two isomorphisms $f_1,f_2:E{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}E'$ which induce identities on $A$ and $H$ are *equivalent* (or *conjugate*) if $f_2={\mathrm{Int}}a\circ f_1$ for some $a\in A$, where ${\mathrm{Int}}a$ is the conjugation automorphism of $E'$. Then, there is a natural action of $H^1(H,A)$ on the set of equivalence classes of isomorphisms from $E$ to $E'$, which makes the latter set into a torsor under $H^1(H,A)$.
Now, suppose that $G$ is a *separable* commutative affine group scheme over $k$: then $G$ is the inverse limit of a strict system of commutative algebraic groups indexed by $({\mathbb N},\leq)$ (cf. [@Milne03 2.6]). If $k'\subset{\overline{k}}$ is a Galois extension of $k$, $G(k')$ is endowed with the inverse limit topology (for algebraic group $Q$, $Q(k')$ is given the discrete topology) and we get a continuous action of ${\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/k)$ on $G(k')$ provided by the $k$-structure of $G$. Then, for any continuous $2$-cocycle $(e_{\rho,\tau})\in Z^2_{cts}({\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/k),G(k'))$, the resulting extension $$1\rightarrow G(k')\rightarrow {\mathfrak{E}}_{k'}\rightarrow {\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/k)\rightarrow 1$$ is a $k'/k$-Galois gerb. Indeed, condition (i) of Definition \[defn:Galois\_gerb\] is obvious, and for (ii), we note that since $G(k')$ has discrete topology, any class in $H^2_{cts}({\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/k),G(k'))$ lies in $H^2({\mathrm{Gal}}(K/k),G(K))$ for a *finite* Galois extension $K$ of $k$, so becomes trivial when restricted to ${\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/K)$. Furthermore, by pulling-back along ${\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{k}}/k)\twoheadrightarrow{\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/k)$ and push-out via $G(k'){\hookrightarrow}G({\overline{k}})$, we obtain a Galois gerb ${\mathfrak{E}}$ over $k$ $$1\rightarrow G({\overline{k}})\rightarrow {\mathfrak{E}}\rightarrow {\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{k}}/k)\rightarrow 1,$$ which we called the inflation of ${\mathfrak{E}}_{k'}$ to ${\overline{k}}$. Now, one can verify that the corresponding cohomology class in $H^2_{cts}({\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{k}}/k),G({\overline{k}}))$ is indeed the image of $(e_{\rho,\tau})\in H^2_{cts}({\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/k),G(k'))$ under the inflation map $H^2_{cts}({\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/k),G(k'))\rightarrow H^2_{cts}({\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{k}}/k),G({\overline{k}}))$.
Pseudo-motivic Galois gerb
--------------------------
### Local Galois gerbs {#subsubsec:Local_Galois_gerbs}
Here, we define a Galois gerb ${\mathfrak{G}}_v$ over ${\mathbb Q}_v$ for each place $v$ of ${\mathbb Q}$.
For $v\neq p,\infty$, we define ${\mathfrak{G}}_v$ to be the trivial Galois gerb ${\mathrm{Gal}}(\overline{{\mathbb Q}}_v/{\mathbb Q}_v)$: $$\begin{array} {ccccccccc}
1 & \rightarrow & 1 & \rightarrow & {\mathrm{Gal}}(\overline{{\mathbb Q}}_v/{\mathbb Q}_v) & \rightarrow & {\mathrm{Gal}}(\overline{{\mathbb Q}}_v/{\mathbb Q}_v) & \rightarrow & 1.
\end{array}$$
For $v=\infty$, the cocycle $(d_{\rho,\gamma})\in Z^2({\mathrm{Gal}}({\mathbb C}/{\mathbb R}),{\mathbb C}^{\times})$ $$d_{1,1}=d_{1,\iota}=d_{\iota,1}=1,\quad d_{\iota,\iota}=-1,$$ where ${\mathrm{Gal}}({\mathbb C}/{\mathbb R})=\{1,\iota\}$, represents the fundamental class in $H^2({\mathrm{Gal}}({\mathbb C}/{\mathbb R}),{\mathbb C}^{\times})$ [@Milne13]. We set ${\mathfrak{G}}_{\infty}$ to be the (isomorphism class of) Galois gerb defined by this cocycle (or its cohomology class): $$\begin{array} {ccccccccc}
1 & \rightarrow & {\mathbb C}^{\times} & \rightarrow & {\mathfrak{G}}_{\infty} & \rightarrow & {\mathrm{Gal}}({\mathbb C}/{\mathbb R}) & \rightarrow & 1,
\end{array}$$ So, ${\mathfrak{G}}_{\infty}$ has generators ${\mathbb C}^{\times}$ and $w=w(\iota)$ (lift of $\iota$) satisfying that $$w(\iota)^2=-1\in{\mathbb C}^{\times},\ \text{ and}\quad wzw^{-1}=\iota(z)=\overline{z}\ (z\in{\mathbb C}^{\times}).$$
For $v=p$ also, for any finite Galois extension $K$ of ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$ in ${\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}$, there is the fundamental class in $H^2({\mathrm{Gal}}(K/{{\mathbb Q}_p}),K^{\times})$ [@Milne13]. For unramified extension $L_n/{{\mathbb Q}_p}$, it is represented by the cocycle: for $0\leq i,j<n$, $$\label{eq:canonical_fundamental_cocycle}
d_{\overline{\sigma}^i,\overline{\sigma}^j}=\begin{cases}
p^{-1} & \text{if } i+j\geq n, \\
1 & \text{ otherwise, }
\end{cases}$$ where $\overline{\sigma}\in {\mathrm{Gal}}(L_n/{{\mathbb Q}_p})$ is the *arithmetic* Frobenius.
We let ${\mathfrak{G}}_{p,K}^K$ be the corresponding (isomorphism class of) $K/{{\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerb and ${\mathfrak{G}}_p^K$ the Galois gerb over ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$ obtained from ${\mathfrak{G}}_{p,K}^K$ by inflation:[^13] $$\xymatrix{
1 & \rightarrow & K^{\times} & \rightarrow & {\mathfrak{G}}_{p,K}^K & \rightarrow & {\mathrm{Gal}}(K/{{\mathbb Q}_p}) & \rightarrow & 1\\
1 & \rightarrow & K^{\times} \ar@{=}[u] \ar@{^{(}->}[d] & \rightarrow & \pi_K^{\ast}{\mathfrak{G}}_{p,K}^K \ar[u] \ar[d] & \rightarrow & {\mathrm{Gal}}({{\mathbb Q}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p}) \ar@{->>}[u]^{\pi_K} \ar@{=}[d] & \rightarrow & 1\\
1 & \rightarrow & {\mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{m}}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}) & \rightarrow & {\mathfrak{G}}_p^K & \rightarrow & {\mathrm{Gal}}({{\mathbb Q}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p}) & \rightarrow & 1.}$$ Here, $\pi_K^{\ast}{\mathfrak{G}}_{p,K}^K$ is the pull-back of ${\mathfrak{G}}_{p,K}^K$ along $\pi_K:{\mathrm{Gal}}({{\mathbb Q}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p})\twoheadrightarrow {\mathrm{Gal}}(K/{{\mathbb Q}_p})$, and ${\mathfrak{G}}_p^K$ is the push-out of $\pi_K^{\ast}{\mathfrak{G}}_{p,K}^K$ along $K^{\times}{\hookrightarrow}{\mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{m}}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$.
For each $K\subset K'\subset{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}$ ($K'$ being a Galois extension of ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$ containing $K$), there exists a homomorphism $${\mathfrak{G}}_p^{K'}\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}_p^K$$ which, on the kernel, is given by $z\mapsto z^{[K':K]}$ [@LR87 p.119], [@Reimann97 Remark B1.2]. By passing to the inverse limit over $K\supset {{\mathbb Q}_p}$, we obtain a pro-Galois gerb ${\mathfrak{G}}_p$ over ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$ with kernel $\mathbb{D}=\varprojlim{\mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{m}}}$ (the protorus over ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$ with character group $X^{\ast}(\mathbb{D})={\mathbb Q}$).
For each Galois extension $K\subset{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}$ of ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$, we make a choice of a normalized cocycle $(d_{\tau_1,\tau_2}^K)$ on ${\mathrm{Gal}}(K/{{\mathbb Q}_p})$ with values in $K^{\times}$ defining ${\mathfrak{G}}_{p,K}^K$, and fix a section $\tau\mapsto s_{\tau}^K$ to the projection ${\mathfrak{G}}_{p,K}^K\rightarrow{\mathrm{Gal}}(K/{{\mathbb Q}_p})$ with property that $$s_{\tau_1}^Ks_{\tau_2}^K=d_{\tau_1,\tau_2}^Ks_{\tau_1\tau_2}^K,\qquad s_{1}^K=1.$$ Since ${\mathfrak{G}}_p^K$ is obtained from ${\mathfrak{G}}_{p,K}^K$ by inflation, this gives rise to a section to ${\mathfrak{G}}_p^K \rightarrow {\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p})$, which we also denote by $s^K$.[^14] By Hilbert 90, any such section $s^K$ is uniquely determined up to conjugation by an element of $K^{\times}$.
### Dieudonné gerb {#subsubsec:Dieudonne_gerb}
We also need an unramified version of the Galois gerbs ${\mathfrak{G}}^K_{p,K}$, ${\mathfrak{G}}_p$. Let ${{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}$ be the maximal unramified extension of ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$ in ${\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}$. For $n\in{\mathbb N}$, we denote by ${\mathfrak{D}}_n={\mathfrak{D}}_{L_n}$ the inflation to ${{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}$ of the $L_n/{{\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerb ${\mathfrak{G}}^{L_n}_{p,L_n}$. As before, for every pair $m|n$, there exists a homomorphism ${\mathfrak{D}}_n\rightarrow{\mathfrak{D}}_m$ which, on the kernel, is given by $z\mapsto z^{n/m}$ (cf. [@Reimann97], Remark B1.2). By passing to the inverse limit, we get a pro-${{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerb ${\mathfrak{D}}$ over ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$ with kernel $\mathbb{D}$. We call ${\mathfrak{D}}$ the *Dieudonné gerb*. Obviously, the Galois gerb ${\mathfrak{G}}_p^{L_n}$ (resp. the pro-Galois gerb ${\mathfrak{G}}_p$) is (equivalent to) the inflation to ${\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}$ of ${\mathfrak{D}}_n$ (resp. ${\mathfrak{D}}$). Again, a choice of a section to ${\mathfrak{G}}_{p,L_n}^{L_n} \rightarrow {\mathrm{Gal}}(L_n/{{\mathbb Q}_p})$ made above gives us a section to ${\mathfrak{D}}_n \rightarrow {\mathrm{Gal}}({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\mathbb Q}_p})$ which is again denoted by $s^{L_n}$.
### Unramified morphisms {#subsubsec:cls}
For any (connected) reductive group $H$ over ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$, there exists a canonical map $$\mathrm{cls}_H:{\mathrm{Hom}}_{{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}({\mathfrak{G}}_p,{\mathfrak{G}}_H)\rightarrow B(H),$$ where $B(H)$ is the set of $\sigma$-conjugacy classes of elements in $H({\mathfrak{k}})$.
Let $K\subset {\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}$ be a finite Galois extension. Recall that we fixed a normalized cocycle $(d_{\tau_1,\tau_2}^K)\in Z^2({\mathrm{Gal}}(K/{{\mathbb Q}_p}),K^{\times})$ defining ${\mathfrak{G}}^K_{p,K}$ as well as a section $s^K$ to the projection ${\mathfrak{G}}^K_{p,K}\rightarrow{\mathrm{Gal}}(K/{{\mathbb Q}_p})$ with the property that $s_{\tau_1}^Ks_{\tau_2}^K=d_{\tau_1,\tau_2}^Ks_{\tau_1\tau_2}^K$ and $s_{1}^K=1$; one uses the same notations for the induced cocycle defining ${\mathfrak{G}}_p^K$ and the induced section ${\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p})\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}_p^K$. A morphism $\theta:{\mathfrak{G}}_p^K\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}_H$ is said to be *unramified* (with respect to the chosen section $s^K$) if $\theta(s_{\tau}^K)=1\rtimes\tau$ for all $\tau\in{\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$. Note that if $K$ is unramified and $\theta^{\Delta}:\mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{m},{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}}\rightarrow H_{{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}}$ is defined over ${{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}$, this definition does not depend on the choice of the section $s^K$. A morphism $\theta:{\mathfrak{G}}_p\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}_H$ is then said to be *unramified* if $\theta$ factors through ${\mathfrak{G}}_p^K$ for some finite Galois extension $K$ of ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$ such that the induced map ${\mathfrak{G}}_p^K\rightarrow{\mathfrak{G}}_H$ is unramified in the just defined sense.
For a connected reductive group $H$ over ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$, we introduce the associated neutral ${{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerb by $${\mathfrak{G}}_H^{{\mathrm{ur}}}:=H({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})\rtimes{\mathrm{Gal}}({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\mathbb Q}_p}).$$
\[lem:unramified\_morphism\] (1) For any morphism $\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}:{\mathfrak{D}}\rightarrow{\mathfrak{G}}_H^{{\mathrm{ur}}}$ of ${{\mathbb Q}_p}^{{\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerbs, its inflation $\overline{\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}}:{\mathfrak{G}}_p\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}_H$ to ${\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}$ is an unramified morphism.
\(2) For every morphism $\theta:{\mathfrak{G}}_p\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}_H$ of ${\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerbs, there is a morphism $\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}:{\mathfrak{D}}\rightarrow{\mathfrak{G}}_H^{{\mathrm{ur}}}$ of ${{\mathbb Q}_p}^{{\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerbs whose inflation to ${\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}$ is conjugate to $\theta$. More precisely, if $\theta$ factors through ${\mathfrak{G}}_p^K$ for a finite extension $K$ of ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$, there is a morphism $\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}:{\mathfrak{D}}_n\rightarrow{\mathfrak{G}}_H^{{\mathrm{ur}}}$ with $n=[K:{{\mathbb Q}_p}]$ whose inflation to ${\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}$ is conjugate to $\theta$.
\(3) A morphism $\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}$ in (2) is determined uniquely up to conjugation by an element of $H({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$.
\(4) For every unramified morphism $\theta:{\mathfrak{G}}_p\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}_H$ of ${\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerbs, the element $b\in H({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ defined by $\theta(s_{\widetilde{\sigma}})=b \widetilde{\sigma}$ for an element $\widetilde{\sigma}\in {\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p})$ lifting $\sigma$ lies in $H({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$ and moreover does not depend on the choice of the lifting $\widetilde{\sigma}$.
\(1) Suppose that $\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}$ factors through ${\mathfrak{D}}_n$ so that $\overline{\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}}$ factors through ${\mathfrak{G}}_p^{L_n}$. The ${\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerb ${\mathfrak{G}}_p^{L_n}$ is obtained from ${{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerb ${\mathfrak{D}}_n$ by pull-back along $\pi:{\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p}){\twoheadrightarrow}{\mathrm{Gal}}({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\mathbb Q}_p})$, followed by push-out along ${\mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{m}}}({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}){\hookrightarrow}{\mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{m}}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$. To show that $\overline{\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}}$ is unramified, we may consider the morphism $\pi^{\ast}\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}: \pi^{\ast}{\mathfrak{D}}_n\rightarrow \pi^{\ast}{\mathfrak{G}}_H^{{\mathrm{ur}}}$ obtained by pull-back only, as the section to ${\mathfrak{G}}_p^{L_n}{\twoheadrightarrow}{\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p})$ induced, via inflation, from a section to ${\mathfrak{D}}_n{\twoheadrightarrow}{\mathrm{Gal}}({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\mathbb Q}_p})$ lands in (the image in the push-out of) the pull-back $\pi^{\ast}{\mathfrak{D}}_n$. But, the pull-back $\pi^{\ast}{\mathfrak{D}}_n$ is also obtained as the pull-back of the $L_n/{{\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerb ${\mathfrak{G}}^{L_n}_{p,L_n}$ along the surjection ${\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p}){\twoheadrightarrow}{\mathrm{Gal}}(L_n/{{\mathbb Q}_p})$, followed by push-out along ${\mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{m}}}(L_n){\hookrightarrow}{\mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{m}}}({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$. Then, as the section $s^{L_n}:{\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p})\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}_p^{L_n}$ is induced from a section ${\mathrm{Gal}}(L_n/{{\mathbb Q}_p})\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}^{L_n}_{p,L_n}$, we have $s^{L_n}_{\tau}=1$ for all $\tau\in{\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/L_n)$. This proves the claim, since by definition $\pi^{\ast}{\mathfrak{D}}_n\subset {\mathfrak{D}}_n\times {\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p})$ and the pull-back $\pi^{\ast}\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}$ is defined on the second factor ${\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p})$ as the identity.
\(2) This is Lemma 2.1 of [@LR87] (cf. first paragraph on p.167 of loc.cit). The second assertion is shown in the proof of *loc. cit.*
\(3) In general, for any two unramified morphisms $\theta,\theta':{\mathfrak{G}}_p\rightarrow{\mathfrak{G}}_H$, if $\theta'=\mathrm{Int}(g_p)\circ \theta$ for some $g_p\in H({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$, then it must be that $g_p\in H({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$, since for every $\tau\in{\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$, $$1\rtimes\tau=\theta'(s_{\tau}^{K})=g_p\theta(s_{\tau}^{K})g_p^{-1}=g_p(1\rtimes\tau)g_p^{-1}=g_p\tau(g_p^{-1})\cdot\tau.$$ Here, $K\subset {\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}$ is some finite Galois extension of ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$ for which both $\theta$ and $\theta'$ factor through ${\mathfrak{G}}_p^K$.
\(4) Let $\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}:{\mathfrak{D}}\rightarrow{\mathfrak{G}}_H^{{\mathrm{ur}}}$ be a morphism of ${{\mathbb Q}_p}^{{\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerbs whose inflation to ${\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}$ is conjugate to $\theta$. By the proof of (3), we have $\theta=g_p\overline{\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}}g_p^{-1}$ for some $g_p\in H({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$. So, if $\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}$ factors through ${\mathfrak{D}}^{L_n}$ for $n\in{\mathbb N}$, $\theta(s_{\widetilde{\sigma}}^{L_n})=g_p\overline{\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}}(s_{\widetilde{\sigma}}^{L_n})g_p^{-1}=g_p\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}(s_{\sigma}^{L_n})g_p^{-1}\in H({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$. Here, $s^{L_n}$ denotes both the section to ${\mathfrak{D}}^{L_n}\rightarrow {\mathrm{Gal}}({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\mathbb Q}_p})$ chosen before and the induced section to ${\mathfrak{G}}_p^{L_n}\rightarrow {\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p})$. The second equality is easily seen to follow from the definition of the inflation $\overline{\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}}$ of a morphism $\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}$. If $(g_p',{\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}}')$ is another pair with $\theta=g_p'\overline{{\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}}'}(g_p')^{-1}$, then we have the equalities $$g_p\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}(s_{\sigma}^{L_n})g_p^{-1}=\theta(s_{\widetilde{\sigma}}^{L_n})=g_p'{\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}}'(s_{\sigma}^{L_n})(g_p')^{-1},$$ so $\theta(s_{\widetilde{\sigma}}^{L_n})=g_p\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}(s_{\sigma}^{L_n})g_p^{-1}$ is independent of the choice of $\widetilde{\sigma}$ as well as that of the pair $(g_p,\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}})$.
\(1) For a morphism $\theta:{\mathfrak{G}}_p\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}_H$ of ${\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerbs, if one chooses a morphism $\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}$ as in (2) and $\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}(s_{\sigma})=b\sigma$ for $b\in H({{\mathbb Q}_p}^{{\mathrm{ur}}})$, then by (3) the $\sigma$-conjugacy class of $b$ in $H({\mathfrak{k}})$ is uniquely determined by $\theta$. Also, any other choice $s_{\sigma}'$ of the section $s_{\sigma}$ gives the same $\sigma$-conjugacy class, since $s_{\sigma}'=us_{\sigma}\sigma(u^{-1})$ for some $u\in {\mathcal{O}}_L^{\times}$ (cf. [@LR87], second paragraph on p.167).
\(2) Suppose that $\theta$ is itself unramified, and let $b_1\in H({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$ be defined by $\theta(s_{\widetilde{\sigma}})=b_1\widetilde{\sigma}$ for *some* lift $\widetilde{\sigma}\in {\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p})$ of $\sigma$. Also, let $b\in H({{\mathbb Q}_p}^{{\mathrm{ur}}})$ be defined as in (1) for some choice of $\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}:{\mathfrak{D}}\rightarrow{\mathfrak{G}}_H^{{\mathrm{ur}}}$ (${{\mathbb Q}_p}^{{\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerb morphism). Then (again by Lemma \[lem:unramified\_morphism\], (3)) the $\sigma$-conjugacy classes of $b$ and $b_1$ are equal.
\(3) In [@Reimann97 Remark B1.2], Reimann uses some specific $s_{\sigma}(n)\in {\mathfrak{D}}_n$, namely there exists a unique $s_{\sigma}(n)\in {\mathfrak{D}}$ such that for every $n$, the image of $s_{\sigma}(n)^n$ in ${\mathfrak{D}}_n$ is $p^{-[1/n]}\in {\mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{m}}}({{\mathbb Q}_p}^{{\mathrm{ur}}})\subset {\mathfrak{D}}_n$ (i.e. equals $p^{-1}$ if $n=1$, or otherwise is $1$) and maps to $\sigma$ under ${\mathfrak{D}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{Gal}}({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\mathbb Q}_p})$. There exists a compatible family of such elements $\{s_{\sigma}(n)\}$; we denote by $s_{\sigma}$ the corresponding element of ${\mathfrak{D}}$ (i.e. the image of $s_{\sigma}$ under the natural map ${\mathfrak{D}}\rightarrow {\mathfrak{D}}_n$ is $s_{\sigma}(n)$).
Now, the map $\mathrm{cls}_H$ in question is $\theta\mapsto \overline{b(\theta)}\in B(H)$. Note that this map $\mathrm{cls}$ gives the same element in $B(H)$ for all morphisms ${\mathfrak{G}}_p\rightarrow{\mathfrak{G}}_H$ lying in a single equivalence class.
\[lem:Newton\_hom\_attached\_to\_unramified\_morphism\] Let $H$ be a connected reductive group over ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$ and $\theta:{\mathfrak{D}}\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}_H^{{\mathrm{ur}}}$ a morphism of ${{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerbs. Let $b\in H({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$ be defined by $\theta(s_{\widetilde{\sigma}})=b \widetilde{\sigma}$ as in Lemma \[lem:unramified\_morphism\], (4). Suppose that $\theta$ factors through ${\mathfrak{D}}^{L_n}$. Then, the Newton homomorphism $\nu_{b}$ attached to $b\in H({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$ (in the sense of [@Kottwitz85], $\S$4.3) is equal to the quasi-cocharcter $$-\frac{1}{n}\theta^{\Delta}\quad \in{\mathrm{Hom}}_{{{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}}(\mathbb{D},G),$$ where $\theta^{\Delta}$ denotes the restriction of $\theta$ to the kernel ${\mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{m}}}$ of ${\mathfrak{D}}^{L_n}$.
See *Anmerkung* on p.197 of [@LR87].
### The Weil-number protorus and the pseudo-motivic Galois gerb {#subsubsec:pseudo-motivic_Galois_gerb}
In [@LR87], Langlands and Rapoport work with two kinds of “motivic Galois gerbs”, the quasi-motivic Galois gerb and the pseudo-motivic Galois gerb. The latter is the Galois gerb whose associated Tannakian category is supposed to be, with a suitable choice of a ${\overline{\mathbb Q}}$-fibre functor, the Tannakian category of Grothendieck motives over ${\bar{\mathbb{F}}_{p}}$ (*loc. cit.*, $\S$4). The former’s major role in *loc. cit.* is for formulation of the conjecture for the most general Shimura varieties (beyond those satisfying the Serre condition). Here, we will work mainly with the pseudo-motivic Galois gerb. According to [@Reimann97 Lem. B3.9], this is harmless, at least when the Serre condition for $(G,X)$ holds (i.e. $Z(G)$ splits over a CM field and the weight homomorphism $w_X$ is defined over ${\mathbb Q}$), e.g. if the Shimura datum $(G,X)$ is of Hodge-type and $G$ is the Mumford-Tate group of a generic element $h\in X$.
Since this Serre condition will be assumed largely in most of the statements and our use of the quasi-motivic Galois gerb will be limited to formulation of certain definitions, here we discuss the pseudo-motivc Galois gerb in detail and refer the readers to [@Reimann97 Appendix B] for the definition of the quasi-motivic Galois gerb.
The pseudo-motivic Galois gerb is a Galois gerb over ${\mathbb Q}$, which is also the projective limit of Galois gerbs ${\mathfrak{P}}(K,m)$ over ${\mathbb Q}$, indexed by CM fields $K\subset{\overline{\mathbb Q}}$ Galois over ${\mathbb Q}$ and $m\in{\mathbb N}$. The kernel $P(K,m)$ of ${\mathfrak{P}}(K,m)$ is a torus over ${\mathbb Q}$ whose character group consists of certain Weil numbers. Here, we give a brief review of their constructions. We begin with $P(K,m)$. As before, we fix embeddings ${\overline{\mathbb Q}}{\hookrightarrow}{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_l}$, for every place $l$ of ${\mathbb Q}$.
Recall that for a power $q$ of a rational prime $p$ and an integer $\nu\in{\mathbb Z}$, a *Weil $q$-number of weight $\nu=\nu(\pi)\in {\mathbb Z}$* is an algebraic number $\pi$ such that $\rho(\pi)\overline{\rho(\pi)}=q^{\nu}$ for every embedding $\rho:{\mathbb Q}(\pi){\hookrightarrow}{\mathbb C}$. When $K$ is a field containing $\pi$, then for every archimedean place $v$ of $K$, one has $$\label{eq:Weil-number_archimedean_condition}
|\pi|_v=|\prod_{\sigma\in{\mathrm{Gal}}(K_v/{\mathbb Q}_{\infty})}\sigma\pi|_{\infty}=q^{\frac{1}{2}[K_v:{\mathbb R}]\nu}.$$ Here, $|x+\sqrt{-1}y|_v=x^2+y^2$ if $K_v={\mathbb C}$, while if $K_v={\mathbb R}={\mathbb Q}_{\infty}$, $|x|_v$ is the usual absolute value $|x|_{\infty}$ on ${\mathbb R}$ (hence the first equality always holds for any $\pi\in K$).
\[defn:Weil-number\_torus\] Let $K\subset{\overline{\mathbb Q}}$ be a CM-field which is finite, Galois over ${\mathbb Q}$ and $m\in{\mathbb N}$.
\(1) The group $X(K,m)$ consists of the Weil $q=p^m$-numbers $\pi$ in $K$ (for some weight $\nu=\nu_1(\pi)$) with the following properties.
- For each prime $v$ of $K$ above $p$, there is $\nu_2(\pi,v)\in{\mathbb Z}$ with $$|\pi|_v=|\prod_{\sigma\in{\mathrm{Gal}}(K_v/{{\mathbb Q}_p})}\sigma\pi|_p=q^{\nu_2(\pi,v)}.$$
- At all finite places outside $p$, $\pi$ is a unit.
\(2) Let $X^{\ast}(K,m)$ be the quotient of $X(K,m)$ (which is finitely generated by Dirichlet unit theorem) by the finite group of roots of unity contained therein (so that $X^{\ast}(K,m)$ is torsion free). Let $P(K,m)$ be the ${\mathbb Q}$-torus whose character group $X^{\ast}(P(K,m))$ is $X^{\ast}(K,m)$.
The point of condition (a), while the first equality is always true (for any $\pi\in K$), is that $|\pi|_v$ is an *integral* power of $q$ (which however may well depend on $v$). One also has $$\nu_2(\pi,v)+\nu_2(\pi,\overline{v})=-[K_v:{{\mathbb Q}_p}]\nu_1(\pi),$$ since $\pi\overline{\pi}=q^{\nu_1}$ ($K$ being a CM field, the complex conjugation $\overline{\cdot}$ of $K$ lies in the center of ${\mathrm{Gal}}(K/{\mathbb Q})$).
If necessary, to avoid any misunderstandings, we write $\chi_{\pi}$ for the character of $P(K, m)$ which corresponds to a Weil number $\pi\in X(K, m)$. Recall that we fixed embeddings ${\overline{\mathbb Q}}\rightarrow{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}$, ${\overline{\mathbb Q}}\rightarrow{\mathbb C}$. Let $K\subset{\mathbb Q}$ be a Galois CM-field and $v_1$, $v_2$ the thereby determined archimedean and $p$-adic places of $K$, respectively. Then, one can readily see that there exist cocharacters $\nu_1^K$, $\nu_2^K$ in $X_{\ast}(K, m)=X_{\ast}(P(K, m))$ with following properties: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:cocharacters_nu^K}
\langle\chi_{\pi},\nu_1^K\rangle&=&\nu_1(\pi), \\
\langle\chi_{\pi},\nu_2^K\rangle&=&\nu_2(\pi,v_2). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ A priori, $\nu_1^K$ and $\nu_2^K$ are defined over respectively $K_{v_1}={\mathbb C}$ and $K_{v_2}\subset{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}$, but one readily sees from their definition that they are defined over respectively ${\mathbb Q}$ and ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$. Furthermore, for $K\subset K'$ and $m|m'$ (divisible), there exist maps of tori over ${\mathbb Q}$ $$\phi_{K,K'}:P(K',m)\rightarrow P(K,m),\quad \phi_{m,m'}:P(K,m')\rightarrow P(K,m)$$ induced by $\phi_{K,K'}^{\ast}(\pi)=\pi$ and $\phi_{m,m'}^{\ast}(\pi)=\pi^{m'/m}$ for $\pi\in X^{\ast}(K,m)$, and they satisfy that $\phi_{m,m'}(\nu_i')=\nu_i$ and $\phi_{K,K'}(\nu_i')=[K'_{v_i'}:K_{v_i}]\nu_i$ [@LR87 p.141]. Let $P^K:=\varprojlim_{m|m'}P(K,m)$. This protorus over ${\mathbb Q}$ is in fact a torus [@LR87 Lem. 3.8], with character group $X^{\ast}(P^K)=\varinjlim X^{\ast}(K,m)$ and which splits over $K$. Let $\nu_1^K$,$\nu_2^K$ be the induced cocharacters of $P^K$.
The triple $(P^K,\nu_1^K,\nu_2^K)$ is characterized by a universal property:
\[lem:Reimann97-B2.3\] (1) For every CM-field $K\subset{\overline{\mathbb Q}}$ which is Galois over ${\mathbb Q}$, $(P^K,\nu_1^K,\nu_2^K)$ is an initial object in the category of all triples $(T,\nu_{\infty},\nu_p)$ where $T$ is a ${\mathbb Q}$-torus which splits over $K$, and, $\nu_{\infty}$ and $\nu_p$ are cocharacters of $T$ defined over ${\mathbb Q}$ and ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$, respectively, and such that $${\mathrm{tr}}_{K/K_0}(\nu_p)+[K_{v_2}:{\mathbb Q}_p]\nu_{\infty}=0,$$ where $K_0$ is the totally real subfield of $K$ of index $2$.
\(2) There exists a set $\{\delta_n\}$ with $m|n$, $n$ sufficiently large, of distinguished elements in $P(K,m)({\mathbb Q})$ such that for every $\pi\in X^{\ast}(K,m)=X^{\ast}(P(K,m))$, $$\chi_{\pi}(\delta_n)=\pi^{\frac{n}{m}},$$ ($\frac{n}{m}$ should be divisible by the torsion order of $X(K,m)$) and that, when $K\subset K'$ and $m|m'$ (divisible), $$\phi_{m,m'}(\delta_n)=\delta_n,\quad \phi_{K,K'}(\delta_n)=\delta_n.$$ Moreover, the set $\{\delta_m^k\ |\ k\in{\mathbb Z}\}$ is Zariski-dense in $P(K,m)$.
For (1), see [@Reimann97 B2.3]. For (2), if the subset $\{\pi_1,\cdots,\pi_r\} \subset X(K,m)$ forms a basis of $X^{\ast}(K,m)$ (up to torsions) with dual basis $\{\pi_1^{\vee},\cdots,\pi_r^{\vee}\} \subset X(K,m)^{\vee}=X_{\ast}(P(K,m))$, we set $\delta_n:=\sum \pi_i^{n/m}\otimes\pi_i^{\vee}\in {\mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{m}}}({\overline{\mathbb Q}})\otimes X_{\ast}(P(K,m))=P(K,m)({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$, then it clearly satisfies the required properties, cf. [@LR87 p.142]. The last property is Lemma 5.5 of [@LR87]; it is stated for a different torus $Q(K,m)$, but the proof carries over to $P(K,m)$.
Set $P:=\varprojlim_K P^K$ (protorus). It is equipped with two morphisms $\nu_1:=\varprojlim_K\nu_1^K:\mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{m}}\rightarrow P$ (defined over ${\mathbb Q}$), $\nu_2:=\varprojlim_K\nu_2^K:\mathbb{D}\rightarrow P_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ (defined over ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$). Often, $\nu_1$ and $\nu_2$ are also denoted by $\nu_{\infty}$ and $\nu_p$, respectively.
\[thm:pseudo-motivic\_Galois\_gerb\] (1) There exists a Galois gerb ${\mathfrak{P}}$ over ${\mathbb Q}$ together with morphisms $\zeta_v:{\mathfrak{G}}_v\rightarrow {\mathfrak{P}}(v)$ for all places $v$ of ${\mathbb Q}$ such that
- $({\mathfrak{P}}^{\Delta},\zeta_{\infty}^{\Delta},\zeta_{p}^{\Delta})=(P_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}},(\nu_1)_{{\mathbb C}},(\nu_2)_{{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}})$, the identifications being compatible with the Galois actions of ${\mathrm{Gal}}(\overline{{\mathbb Q}}/{\mathbb Q})$, ${\mathrm{Gal}}({\mathbb C}/{\mathbb R})$, and ${\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p})$ respectively;
- the morphisms $\zeta_v$, for all $v\neq \infty,p$, are induced by a section of ${\mathfrak{P}}$ over ${\mathrm{Spec}}(\overline{{\mathbb A}_f^p}\otimes_{{\mathbb A}_f^p}\overline{{\mathbb A}_f^p})$;
where $\overline{{\mathbb A}_f^p}$ denotes the image of the map ${\overline{\mathbb Q}}\otimes_{{\mathbb Q}}{\mathbb A}_f^p\rightarrow \prod_{l\neq\infty,p}{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_l}$.
\(2) If $({\mathfrak{P}}',(\zeta_v'))$ is another such system, there exists an isomorphism $\alpha:{\mathfrak{P}}\rightarrow {\mathfrak{P}}'$ such that, for all $v$, $\zeta_v'$ is isomorphic to $\alpha\circ\zeta_v$, and any two $\alpha$’s arising in this way are isomorphic.
\(3) There is a surjective morphism $\pi:{\mathfrak{Q}}\rightarrow{\mathfrak{P}}$ such that, for all $l$, $\zeta_l^P$ is algebraically equivalent to $\pi\circ\zeta_l^Q$ [@Reimann97 Def. B1.1], where ${\mathfrak{Q}}$ is the quasi-motivic Galois gerb [@Reimann97 Appendix B].
\(1) and (2): In [@LR87 $\S$3], Langlands and Rapoport first define, for each CM Galois field $K$, a Galois gerb ${\mathfrak{P}}^K$ with kernel $P^K$ which, for every place $v$ of ${\mathbb Q}$, is equipped with morphisms $\zeta_v=\zeta_v^{K_w}:{\mathfrak{G}}_v^{K_w}\rightarrow {\mathfrak{P}}^K(v)$ whose restrictions to the kernels are $\nu_v^K$ for $v=\infty,p$, where $w$ is a place of $K$ above $v$. Then, they define ${\mathfrak{P}}$ as the projective limit of ${\mathfrak{P}}^K$’s; this requires choosing a place of ${\overline{\mathbb Q}}$ above each place $v$ of ${\mathbb Q}$. The construction of ${\mathfrak{P}}^K$ is a direct consequence of their Satz 2.2, but that of ${\mathfrak{P}}$ is more delicate: for example, for a projective system of algebraic tori $\{T_n\}_{n\in{\mathbb N}}$ over a field $F$, the natural map $H^2_{cts}(F,\varprojlim T_n)\rightarrow \varprojlim_n H^2(F,T_n)$ is not bijective in general (cf. [@Milne03 Prop. 2.8]). A proper treatment of construction of ${\mathfrak{P}}$ can be found in [@Milne03], (see also the proof of Theorem B 2.8 of [@Reimann97], where Reimann constructs the quasi-motivic Galois gerb ${\mathfrak{Q}}$, but the whole arguments should carry over to ${\mathfrak{P}}$ too, since all the relevant cohomological facts remain valid). In more detail, for $v=p,\infty$, let $d_v^K$ be the image in $H^2({{\mathbb Q}_v},P^K)$ of the fundamental class of the field extension $K_v/{{\mathbb Q}_v}$ under the map $\nu_v^K$, where $K_v$ denotes (by abuse of notation) the completion of $K$ at the place induced by the embedding ${\overline{\mathbb Q}}{\hookrightarrow}{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_v}$ (so, $K_{\infty}={\mathbb C}$). Then, the Galois gerb ${\mathfrak{P}}^K$ corresponds to a cohomology class in $H^2({\mathbb Q},P^K)$ with image $$(0,d_p^K,d_{\infty}^K)\in H^2({\mathbb A}^{\{p,\infty\}},P^K)\times H^2({{\mathbb Q}_p},P^K)\times H^2({\mathbb Q}_{\infty},P^K).$$ The same statement holds for ${\mathfrak{P}}$, too (cf. [@Milne03 $\S$4]). The work of Langland and Rapoport [@LR87 $\S$3] and Milne [@Milne03 (3.5b)] show that there exists a unique element in $H^2({\mathbb Q},P^K)$ with that property. Then, by showing that the canonical maps $$H^2_{cts}({\mathbb Q},P)\rightarrow \varprojlim_K H^2({\mathbb Q},P^K),\quad H^1_{cts}({\mathbb Q},P)\rightarrow H^1_{cts}({\mathbb A},P)$$ are isomorphisms [@Milne03], Prop. 3.5, Prop. 3.10), Milne concludes the existence of ${\mathfrak{P}}$ as required. The statement (3) is proved in [@Reimann97], Theorem B 2.8.
\[rem:comments\_on\_zeta\_v\] (1) As was remarked in the proof, to construct $\zeta_v$ (for a place $v$ of ${\mathbb Q}$), we need to choose a place $w$ of $K$ for each CM field $K$ Galois over ${\mathbb Q}$, in a compatible manner. From now on, when we talk about the pair $({\mathfrak{P}},(\zeta_v)_v)$, we will understand that such choice was already made. Clearly, it is enough to fix embeddings ${\overline{\mathbb Q}}{\hookrightarrow}{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_v}$ for all $v$’s.
\(2) As was also pointed out in the proof, for every CM field $K$ Galois over ${\mathbb Q}$ and each place $v$ of ${\mathbb Q}$, by construction, $\zeta_v$ induces a morphism ${\mathfrak{G}}_p^{K_w}\rightarrow {\mathfrak{P}}^K(v)$ of Galois ${{\mathbb Q}_v}$-gerbs, where $w$ is the pre-chosen place of $K$ above $v$ (cf. [@LR87 Satz 2.2]).
\(3) The proof also establishes the existence of a (constinous) section to the projection ${\mathfrak{P}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb Q}}/{\mathbb Q})$. We fix one and denote it by $\rho\mapsto q_{\rho}$.
The morphism $\psi_{T,\mu}$ and admissible morphisms
----------------------------------------------------
We consider the ${\mathbb Q}$-pro-torus $R:=\varprojlim_{L}\mathrm{Res}_{L/\\Q}(\mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{m},L})$ ($L$ running through the set of all Galois extensions of ${\mathbb Q}$ inside ${\overline{\mathbb Q}}$). Its character group $X^{\ast}(R)$ is naturally identified with the set of all continuous maps $f:{\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb Q}}/{\mathbb Q})\rightarrow{\mathbb Z}$, where the Galois action is given by $\rho(f)(\tau)=f(\rho^{-1}\tau),\ \forall\rho,\tau\in{\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb Q}}/{\mathbb Q})$.
\[lem:defn\_of\_psi\_T,mu\] (1) For any ${\mathbb Q}$-torus $T$ and every cocharacter $\mu$ of $T$, there exists a unique homomorphism $\xi:R\rightarrow T$ such that $\mu=\xi\circ\mu_0$, where $\mu_0\in X_{\ast}(R)$ is defined by $\langle f, \mu_0\rangle =f(id)\in{\mathbb Z}$ for $f\in X^{\ast}(R)$.
Let $\psi:{\mathfrak{Q}}\rightarrow{\mathfrak{G}}_R$ be the morphism of Galois gerbs over ${\mathbb Q}$ in [@Reimann97 B.2.8]. We define $$\psi_{T,\mu}:{\mathfrak{Q}}\rightarrow{\mathfrak{G}}_T$$ to be the composite of it and the morphism ${\mathfrak{G}}_R\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}_T$ induced by $\xi:R\rightarrow T$.
\(2) $\psi_{T,\mu}$ factors through ${\mathfrak{P}}$ if $\mu$ satisfies the Serre condition: if $$(\rho-1)(\iota+1)\mu=(\iota+1)(\rho-1)\mu=0,\quad \forall\rho\in {\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb Q}}/{\mathbb Q})$$ (e.g. if $T$ splits over a CM-field and the *weight* $\mu\cdot\iota(\mu)$ of $\mu$ is defined over ${\mathbb Q}$). If furthermore a CM field $K$ Galois over ${\mathbb Q}$ splits $T$, $\psi_{T,\mu}$ factors through ${\mathfrak{P}}^K$.
\(3) The restriction $\psi_{T,\mu}^{\Delta}: {\mathfrak{Q}}^{\Delta}=Q_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}_T^{\Delta}=T_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}$ of $\psi_{T,\mu}$ to the kernels is defined over ${\mathbb Q}$.
For (1) and (2), see [@Reimann97], Definition B 2.10 and Remark B 2.11. The last statement of (2) follows from the very construction of $\psi_{T,\mu}$ in Satz 2.2, 2.3 of [@LR87] (which is equivalent to that of Reimann, [@Reimann97], at least when it factors through ${\mathfrak{P}}$).
For (3), it is enough to show that the morphism $\psi^{\Delta}:{\mathfrak{Q}}^{\Delta}\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}_R^{\Delta}$ is defined over ${\mathbb Q}$. This morphism is constructed explicitly on p.117 of [@Reimann97].
Let $v$ a place of ${\mathbb Q}$ (mainly, one of $p,\infty$), $T$ a torus over ${{\mathbb Q}_v}$, and $\mu\in X_{\ast}(T)$. Suppose that $T$ splits over a finite Galois extension $F$ of ${{\mathbb Q}_v}$. Set $$\nu^F:=\sum_{\tau\in{\mathrm{Gal}}(F/{\mathbb Q}_{v})}\tau\mu,$$and let $$1\rightarrow F^{\times}\rightarrow W_{F/{\mathbb Q}_{v}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{Gal}}(F/{\mathbb Q}_{v})\rightarrow 1$$ be the Weil group extension of $F/{\mathbb Q}_{v}$ (cf. [@Tate79]); we fix a section $s^{F}_{\rho}$ to the projection $W_{F/{\mathbb Q}_{v}}\rightarrow {\mathrm{Gal}}(F/{\mathbb Q}_{v})$ so that $d^F_{\rho,\tau}:=s_{\rho}\rho(s_{\tau})s_{\rho\tau}^{-1}$ is a cocycle defining $W_{F/{\mathbb Q}_{v}}$.
\[defn:psi\_T,mu\] We define $\xi_{\mu,F}^F:W_{F/{\mathbb Q}_{v}}\rightarrow T(F)\rtimes{\mathrm{Gal}}(F/{\mathbb Q}_{v})$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\xi_{\mu,F}^F(z)&=&\nu^F(z)\quad (z\in F^{\times}),\\
\xi_{\mu,F}^F(s^F_{\rho})&=&\prod_{\tau\in{\mathrm{Gal}}(F/{\mathbb Q}_{v})}\rho\tau\mu(d^F_{\rho,\tau})\rtimes\rho.\end{aligned}$$
One easily checks that $\xi_{\mu,F}^F$ is a homomorphism (cf. [@LR87 p.134], [@Milne92], Lemma 3.30 - Example 3.32). By obvious pull-back and push-out, one gets a morphism of Galois gerbs over ${\mathbb Q}_v$: $$\xi_{\mu}^F:{\mathfrak{G}}_v^{F}\rightarrow{\mathfrak{G}}_T,$$ (where for $v\neq p, \infty$, we set ${\mathfrak{G}}_v^{F}$ to be ${\mathfrak{G}}_v={\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_v}/{{\mathbb Q}_v})$) and further, by passing to the projective limit, a morphism of Galois gerbs over ${\mathbb Q}_v$: $$\xi_{\mu}:{\mathfrak{G}}_v\rightarrow{\mathfrak{G}}_T,$$ which does not depend on the choice of a field $F$ splitting $T$. These maps are independent, up to conjugation by an element of $T({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_v})$, of the choice of section $s_{\rho}$.
\[lem:properties\_of\_psi\_T,mu\] (1) If $v=p$ and $F$ is unramified, $\xi_{\mu}$ is unramified (in the sense of ), and if $\xi_{\mu}(s_{\sigma})=b_{\mu} \sigma$ for $b_{\mu}\in T({\mathfrak{k}})$, one has $\overline{b_{\mu}}=\overline{\mu(p^{-1})}$ in $B(T_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}})$.
\(2) Suppose that $T$ is a torus defined over ${\mathbb Q}$, split over a finite Galois extension $K$ of ${\mathbb Q}$. For each $v=\infty,p$, let $\xi_{\pm\mu}$ be the morphism defined above for $(T_{{{\mathbb Q}_v}},F=K_w,\pm\mu)$. Then, $\psi_{T,\mu}(\infty)\circ \zeta_{\infty}$ is conjugate to $\xi_{\mu}$, and $\psi_{T,\mu}(p)\circ \zeta_{p}$ is conjugate to $\xi_{-\mu}$. For $v\neq \infty,p$, $\psi_{T,\mu}(\infty)\circ \zeta_{v}$ is conjugate to the canonical neutralization of ${\mathfrak{G}}_T(v)$.
\(1) See Lemma 4.3 of [@Milne92]. (2) This follows from the construction of $\psi_{T,\mu}$ and ${\mathfrak{P}}(K,m)$, cf. [@LR87], Satz 2.3 and $\S$3 (esp. (3.i)).
### Shimura data
Let $(G,X)$ be a Shimura datum. For a morphism $h:{\mathbb{S}}\rightarrow G_{{\mathbb R}}$ in $X$, the associated *Hodge cocharacter* $$\mu_{h}:\mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{m}{\mathbb C}}\rightarrow G_{{\mathbb C}}$$ is the composite of $h_{{\mathbb C}}:{\mathbb{S}}_{{\mathbb C}}\rightarrow G_{{\mathbb C}}$ and the cocharacter of ${\mathbb{S}}_{{\mathbb C}}\cong\mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{m}{\mathbb C}}\times \mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{m}{\mathbb C}}$ corresponding to the identity embedding ${\mathbb C}\hookrightarrow{\mathbb C}$. Let $\{\mu_X\}$ denote the $G({\mathbb C})$-conjugacy class of cocharacters of $G_{{\mathbb C}}$ containing $\mu_h$ (for any $h\in X$). For a maximal torus $T$ of $G_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}$, we can consider $\{\mu_X\}$ as an element of $X_{\ast}(T)/W$. Alternatively, when we fix a based root datum $\mathcal{BR}(G,T,B)$, $c(G,X)$ has a unique representative in the associated closed Weyl chamber $\overline{C}(T,B)$, hence will be also identified with this representative: $$\label{eq:representataive_Hodge_cocharacter}
\{\mu_X\}\in \overline{C}(T,B).$$ The *reflex field* $E(G,X)$ of a Shimura datum $(G,X)$ is the field of definition of $c(G,X)\in\mathcal{C}_G({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$, i.e. the fixed field of the stabilizer of $c(G,X)$ in ${\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb Q}}/{\mathbb Q})$; so the reflex field, which is a finite extension of ${\mathbb Q}$, is always a subfield of ${\mathbb C}$. When $T$ is a torus, the reflex field $E(T,\{h\})$ is just the smallest subfield of ${\overline{\mathbb Q}}\subset{\mathbb C}$ over which the single morphism $\mu_h$ is defined.
For each $j\in{\mathbb N}$, we denote by $L_j$ the unramified extension of degree $j$ of ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$ in ${\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}$, and by ${{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}$ the maximal unramified extension of ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$ in ${\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}$. We let $L$ and $\sigma$ denote the completion of ${{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}$ and the absolute Frobenius on it, respectively.
### Strictly monoidal categories $G/\widetilde{G}({\overline{k}})$, ${\mathfrak{G}}_{G/\widetilde{G}}$
In order to have a satisfactory formalism without the condition that the derived group is simply connected, Kisin [@Kisin17 (3.2)] introduced certain strictly monoidal categories. Recall (cf. [@Milne92 App. B]) that a *crossed module* is a group homomorphism $\alpha:\tilde{H}\rightarrow H$ together with an action of $H$ on $\tilde{H}$, denoted by ${}^h\tilde{h}$ for $h\in H$, $\tilde{h}\in \tilde{H}$, which lifts the conjugation action on itself (i.e. $\alpha({}^h\tilde{h})=h\alpha(\tilde{h})h^{-1}$ for $h\in H$, $\tilde{h}\in \tilde{H}$) and such that the induced action of $\tilde{H}$ on itself is also the conjugation action (i.e. ${}^{\alpha(\tilde{g})}\tilde{h}=\tilde{g}\tilde{h}\tilde{g}^{-1}$ for $\tilde{g},\tilde{h}\in \tilde{H}$). A crossed module $\tilde{H}\rightarrow H$ gives rise to a strictly monoidal category $H/\tilde{H}$. Its underlying category is the groupoid whose objects are the elements of $H$ and whose morphisms are given by ${\mathrm{Hom}}(h_1,h_2)=\{\tilde{h}\in\tilde{H}\ |\ h_2=\alpha(\tilde{h})h_1\}$; thus the set of morphisms is identified with the set $\tilde{H}\times H$. The monoidal structure $\otimes$ on this groupoid is given on the objects by the group multiplication on $H$ and on the set of morphisms $\tilde{H}\times H$ by the semi-direct product for the action of $H$ on $\tilde{H}$: $$(\tilde{h}_1,h_1)\otimes (\tilde{h}_2,h_2):=(\tilde{h}_1{}^{h_1}\tilde{h}_2,h_1h_2).$$
We may regard any group $H$ as the strictly monoidal category $H=H/\{1\}$.
For a strictly monoidal category $C$ and a crossed module $H/\tilde{H}$, two functors $\phi_1, \phi_2:C\rightarrow H/\tilde{H}$ of strictly monoidal categories are said to be *conjugate-isomorphic* if $\phi_1$ is conjugate to another functor that is isomorphic to $\phi_2$.
Let $k$ be a field with an algebraic closure ${\overline{k}}$, and $G$ a connected reductive group over $k$. Here, we will use the notation $\tilde{G}$ for the simply connected cover of $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}$ (which was denoted previously by $G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$). Then, the commutator map $[\ ,\ ]:G\times G\rightarrow G$ factors through $[\ ,\ ]:G^{{\mathrm{ad}}}\times G^{{\mathrm{ad}}}\rightarrow G$. In particular, as $G^{{\mathrm{ad}}}=\tilde{G}^{{\mathrm{ad}}}$, we get a map $[\ ,\ ]:G^{{\mathrm{ad}}}\times G^{{\mathrm{ad}}}\rightarrow \tilde{G}$ [@Deligne79 2.0.2]. It follows that the conjugation action of $\tilde{G}$ on itself extends to an action of $G$, and thus the natural map $\tilde{G}\rightarrow G$ has a canonical crossed module structure. We write $G/\widetilde{G}({\overline{k}})$ for the resulting strictly monoidal category $G({\overline{k}})/\widetilde{G}({\overline{k}})$, and ${\mathfrak{G}}_{G/\widetilde{G}}$ for the strictly monoidal category ${\mathfrak{G}}_G/\tilde{G}({\overline{k}})$.
### Admissible morphisms
Let $(G,X)$ be a Shimura datum with reflex field $E\subset{\mathbb C}$. We fix an embedding ${\overline{\mathbb Q}}{\hookrightarrow}{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_v}$ for every place $v$. Suppose given a parahoric subgroup ${\mathbf{K}}_p\subset G({{\mathbb Q}_p})$; there exists a unique $\sigma$-stable parahoric subgroup ${\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p$ of $G({\mathfrak{k}})$ such that ${\mathbf{K}}_p={\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p\cap G({{\mathbb Q}_p})$.
Fix $h\in X$. Then, there exists a homomorphism of ${\mathbb C}/{\mathbb R}$-Galois gerbs $$\xi_{\infty}:{\mathfrak{G}}_{\infty}\rightarrow{\mathfrak{G}}_G(\infty)$$ defined by $\xi_{\infty}(z)=w_h^{-1}(z)=\mu_h\cdot\overline{\mu_h}(z),\ z\in{\mathbb C}^{\times}$ and $\xi_{\infty}(w)=\mu_h(-1)\rtimes \iota$, where $w=w(\iota)$. Clearly, its equivalence class depends only on $X$.
For $v\neq\infty, p$, we have the canonical section $\xi_v$ to ${\mathfrak{G}}_G(v)\rightarrow{\mathrm{Gal}}(\overline{{\mathbb Q}}_v/{\mathbb Q}_v)$: $$\xi_v:{\mathfrak{G}}_v={\mathrm{Gal}}(\overline{{\mathbb Q}}_v/{\mathbb Q}_v) \rightarrow{\mathfrak{G}}_G(v)\ :\ \rho\mapsto 1\rtimes\rho.$$
For a cocharacter $\mu$ of $G$, we consider the composite of morphisms of strictly monoidal categories $$\mu_{\widetilde{{\mathrm{ab}}}}:{\mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{m}}}({\overline{\mathbb Q}})\stackrel{\mu}{\rightarrow} G({\overline{\mathbb Q}}) \rightarrow G/\tilde{G}({\overline{\mathbb Q}}).$$
For a cocharacter $\mu$ of $G$ factoring through a maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-torus $T$, the composite $$\psi_{\mu_{\widetilde{{\mathrm{ab}}}}}:{\mathfrak{Q}}\stackrel{i\circ\psi_{T,\mu}}{\rightarrow}{\mathfrak{G}}_G\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}_{G/\tilde{G}}.$$ (of morphisms of strictly monoidal categories) depends only on the $G({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ conjugacy class of $\mu$; One easily verifies that this is isomorphic to the morphism denoted by the same symbol in [@Kisin17 (3.3.1)].
\[defn:admissible\_morphism\] [@LR87 p.166-168], [@Kisin17 (3.3.6)] A morphism $\phi:{\mathfrak{Q}}\rightarrow{\mathfrak{G}}_G$ is called *admissible* if
- The composite $$\phi_{\widetilde{{\mathrm{ab}}}}:{\mathfrak{Q}}\stackrel{\phi}{\rightarrow}{\mathfrak{G}}_G\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}_{G/\tilde{G}}$$ is conjugate-isomorphic to the composite $\psi_{\mu_{\widetilde{{\mathrm{ab}}}}}:{\mathfrak{Q}}\stackrel{i\circ\psi_{\mu}}{\rightarrow}{\mathfrak{G}}_G\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}_{G/\tilde{G}}$.
- For every place $v\neq p$ (including $\infty$), the composite $\phi(v)\circ\zeta_v$ is conjugate to $\xi_v$ (by an element of $G({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_l})$).
- For some (equiv. any) $b\in G({\mathfrak{k}})$ in the $\sigma$-conjugacy class $\mathrm{cls}(\phi(p)\circ\zeta_p)\in B(G)$ (), the following set (which is a union of affine Deligne-Lusztig varieties) $X(\{\mu_X\},b)_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}$ is non-empty: $$X(\{\mu_X\},b)_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}:=\{g\in G({\mathfrak{k}})/{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p\ |\ \mathrm{inv}_{{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p}(g,b\sigma(g))\in{\mathrm{Adm}}_{{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p}(\{\mu_X\})\}.$$ Here, ${\mathrm{Adm}}_{{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p}(\{\mu_X\})$ is the $\{\mu_X\}$-admissible subset (Def. \[defn:mu-admissible\_subset\]) defined for the parahoric subgroup ${\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p\subset G({\mathfrak{k}})$ attached to ${\mathbf{K}}_p$, and $$\mathrm{inv}_{{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p}: G({\mathfrak{k}})/{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p \times G({\mathfrak{k}})/{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p \rightarrow {\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p\backslash G({\mathfrak{k}})/{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p \cong \tilde{W}_{{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p}\backslash \tilde{W}/ \tilde{W}_{{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p}$$ is defined by $(g_1{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p,g_2{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p)\mapsto {\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_pg_1^{-1}g_2{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p$, cf. (\[eqn:parahoric\_double\_coset\]).
Suppose that an admissible morphism $\phi:{\mathfrak{Q}}\rightarrow{\mathfrak{G}}_G$ factors through the pseudo-motivic Galois gerb ${\mathfrak{P}}$. As $G$ is an algebraic group, it further factors through ${\mathfrak{P}}(K,m)$ for some CM field $K$ Galois over ${\mathbb Q}$ and $m\in{\mathbb N}$.
\[rem:Kisin’s\_defn\_of\_admissible\_morphism\] This definition of admissible morphism is slightly different from the original definition by Langlands and Rapoport [@LR87 p.166], in that, instead of condition (1) here, which was introduced by Kisin [@Kisin17 (3.3.6)], they require the equality $pr\circ\phi=pr\circ i\circ\psi_{T,\mu}$, where $pr:{\mathfrak{G}}_G\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}_{G^{{\mathrm{ab}}}}$ is the natural map; so, these two conditions differ only when $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}$ is not simply connected. The original condition however turns out to be adequate only in their set-up assuming that $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$. For example, Satz 5.3 of [@LR87] shows that under that assumption on $G$, every admissible morphism (in the original sense) is conjugate to a special admissible morphism (cf. Lemma \[lem:LR-Lemma5.2\] below). But, they also give an example of $G$ with $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}\neq G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$ ([@LR87], $\S$6, the first example) for which this statement fails to be true (cf. [@Milne92], Remark 4.20). In contrast, with the new condition here, this property always holds (as shown by Kisin for hyperspecial levels, and by Thm. \[thm:LR-Satz5.3\] below for general parahoric levels when $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is quasi-split).
The following lemma was proved by Langlands-Rapoport for unramified $T$ (cf. [@Milne92 4.3]).
\[lem:unramified\_conj\_of\_special\_morphism\] Let $T$ be a torus over ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$, split by a finite Galois extension $K$ of ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$, say of degree $n$, and $\mu\in X_{\ast}(T)$. Let $K_1$ be the composite in ${\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}$ of $K$ and $L_n$, where $L_n$ is the unramified extension of ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$ in ${\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}$ of degree $n=[K:{{\mathbb Q}_p}]$. Then, $\xi_{\mu}^{K_1}$ factors through ${\mathfrak{G}}^{L_n}_p$: let $\xi_{\mu}^{L_n}:{\mathfrak{G}}^{L_n}_p\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}_{T}$ be the resulting morphism. When $\xi_p'$ is an unramified conjugate of $\xi_{\mu}^{L_n}$, we have $$\xi_p'(s_{\rho}^{L_n})={\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\mu(\pi^{-1}))\rtimes \rho,$$ up to conjugation by an element of $T({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$. Here, $K_0=K\cap L_n$ is the maximal subfield of $K$ unramified over ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$, $\pi$ is a uniformizer of $K$, and $\rho$ is any element in ${\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p})$ whose restriction to $L_n$ is the Frobenius automorphism $\sigma$.
Moreover, we have the equality in $X_{\ast}(T)_{{\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})}$: $$w_{T}({\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\mu(\pi^{-1})))=-\underline{\mu},$$ where $\underline{\mu}$ is the image of $\mu\in X_{\ast}(T)$ in $X_{\ast}(T)_{{\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})}$.
Let $d^{L_n}_{\rho,\tau}$ denote the canonical fundamental $2$-cocycle defined in (\[eq:canonical\_fundamental\_cocycle\]) which represents the fundamental class $u_{L_n/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}=[1/n]\in H^2(L_n/{{\mathbb Q}_p})\cong \frac{1}{n}{\mathbb Z}/{\mathbb Z}$. Also, for each of $F=K_1$ and $L_n$, fix a section $s_{\rho}^{F}:{\mathrm{Gal}}(F/{{\mathbb Q}_p})\rightarrow W_{F/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ to $1\rightarrow F^{\times}\rightarrow W_{F/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}\rightarrow {\mathrm{Gal}}(F/{{\mathbb Q}_p})\rightarrow 1$ whose induced $2$-cocycle on ${\mathrm{Gal}}(F/{{\mathbb Q}_p})$ $$d^{F}_{\rho,\tau}:=s^{F}_{\rho}\rho(s^{F}_{\tau})(s^{F}_{\rho\tau})^{-1}\in F^{\times}$$ represents the fundamental class $u_{F/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}\in H^2(F/{{\mathbb Q}_p})\cong \frac{1}{[F:{{\mathbb Q}_p}]}{\mathbb Z}/{\mathbb Z}$. In the case $F=L_n$, we further require that such induced $2$-cocycle is the canonical one. Thus there exists a function $b:{\mathrm{Gal}}(K_1/{{\mathbb Q}_p})\rightarrow K_1^{\times}$ such that $$\label{eqn:inflations_of_two_cocycles}
(d^{K_1}_{\rho,\tau})^{[K_1:L_n]}\cdot\partial(b)_{\rho,\tau}=d^{L_n}_{\rho|_{L_n},\tau|_{L_n}},$$ where $\partial(b)_{\rho,\tau}:=b_{\rho}\rho(b_{\tau})b_{\rho\tau}^{-1}$. In terms of these generators and the function $b_{\rho}$, we obtain a homomorphism $p_{K_1,L_n}:{\mathfrak{G}}^{K_1}_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}^{L_n}_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ defined by $$z\mapsto z^{[K_1:K]}\ (z\in{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}^{\times}),\quad s^{K_1}_{\rho}\mapsto \ b_{\rho}^{-1}s^{L_n}_{\rho}.$$ Then, the morphisms $\xi_{\mu}^{K_1}, \xi_{\mu}^{L_n}\circ p_{K_1,L_n}:{\mathfrak{G}}^{K_1}_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}\rightarrow{\mathfrak{G}}_T$ differ from each other by conjugation with an element of $T({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$.
Recall that for $(T,\mu,K_1)$, $\xi_{\mu}^{K_1}:{\mathfrak{G}}_p\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}_T$ is induced, via obvious pull-back and push-out, from a map $\xi_{\mu,K_1}^{K_1}:W_{K_1/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}\rightarrow T(K_1)\rtimes {\mathrm{Gal}}(K_1/{{\mathbb Q}_p})$: for $a\in K_1^{\times}$ and $\rho\in {\mathrm{Gal}}(K_1/{{\mathbb Q}_p})$, $$\xi_{\mu,K_1}^{K_1}:a\cdot s_{\rho}^{K_1} \mapsto \nu^{K_1}(a)\cdot c^{K_1}_{\rho}\rtimes\rho,$$ where $\nu^{K_1}={\mathrm{N}}_{K_1/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}\mu\in {\mathrm{Hom}}_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}({\mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{m}}},T)$ and $c^{K_1}_{\rho}=\prod_{\tau_1\in{\mathrm{Gal}}(K_1/{{\mathbb Q}_p})}(\rho\tau_1\mu)(d^{K_1}_{\rho,\tau_1})$. Now, for any $x\in T({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$, if we define $\psi'_x:{\mathfrak{G}}^{L_n}_p\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}_T$ by $$z\mapsto \nu^K(z),\quad s^{L_n}_{\rho}\mapsto \nu^K(b_{\rho})\cdot c^{K_1}_{\rho}\cdot x\cdot\rho(x^{-1}),$$ where $\nu^K={\mathrm{N}}_{K/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}\mu$, then it is clear that $\psi'_x\circ p_{K_1,L_n}={\mathrm{Int}}(x)\circ \xi^{K_1}_{\mu}$. This proves the first claim. Since $\psi'_x={\mathrm{Int}}x\circ\psi'_1$, the second statement will follow if there exists $x\in T({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ such that $\psi'_x(s^{L_n}_{\rho})$ equals ${\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\mu(\pi^{-1}))$ whenever $\rho|_{L_n}=\sigma$. According to (the proof of) Lemma \[lem:equality\_restrictions\_to\_kernels\_imply\_conjugacy\], this will follow if the two elements $\nu^K(b_{\rho})\cdot c^{K_1}_{\rho}$, ${\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\mu(\pi^{-1}))$ of $T(K^{{\mathrm{ur}}})$ have the same image under $\kappa_{T_K}:B(T_K){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}X_{\ast}(T)_{{\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/K)}$, where $K^{{\mathrm{ur}}}$ is the maximal unramified extension of $K$ in ${\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}$ with completion $L'$ and $B(T_K)$ is the set of $\sigma$-conjugacy classes in $T(L')$ (with respect to the Frobenius automorphism of $L'/K$). But, as $\kappa_{T_K}$ is induced from $w_{T_{L'}}:T(L')\rightarrow X_{\ast}(T)_{{\mathrm{Gal}}(\overline{L'}/L')}=X_{\ast}(T)$ (), in turn it suffices to show equality of the images under $w_{T_{L'}}$ of $c^{K_1}_{\rho}\cdot\nu^{K}(b_{\rho})$ and ${\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\mu(\pi^{-1}))$ when $\rho|_{{{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}}=\sigma$.
Choose a set of representatives $\Gamma_1\subset{\mathrm{Gal}}(K_1/{{\mathbb Q}_p})$ for the family of left cosets ${\mathrm{Gal}}(K_1/{{\mathbb Q}_p})/{\mathrm{Gal}}(K_1/L_n)$ (so that restriction to $L_n$ gives a bijection $\Gamma_1{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}{\mathrm{Gal}}(L_n/{{\mathbb Q}_p})$) and $\rho\in{\mathrm{Gal}}(K_1/{{\mathbb Q}_p})$ such that $\rho|_{L_n}=\sigma$. Then, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\prod_{\tau_1\in{\mathrm{Gal}}(K_1/{{\mathbb Q}_p})}(\rho\tau_1\mu)(\mathrm{Inf}_{L_n}^{K_1}(d^{L_n/{{\mathbb Q}_p}})_{\rho,\tau_1})&=&\prod_{\tau\in\Gamma_1}\prod_{\gamma\in{\mathrm{Gal}}(K_1/L_n)}(\rho\tau\gamma\mu)(\mathrm{Inf}_{L_n}^{K_1}(d^{L_n/{{\mathbb Q}_p}})_{\rho,\tau\gamma})\\
&=&\rho\prod_{\tau\in{\mathrm{Gal}}(L_n/{{\mathbb Q}_p})}(\tau({\mathrm{N}}_{K_1/L_n}\mu))(d^{L_n}_{\rho|_{L_n},\tau}) \\
&=&\prod_{0\leq i\leq n-1}(\sigma^{i+1}({\mathrm{N}}_{K_1/L_n}\mu))(d^{L_n}_{\sigma,\sigma^i}) \\
&=&({\mathrm{N}}_{K_1/L_n}\mu)(p^{-1})=({\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}\mu)(p^{-1}).\end{aligned}$$ Here, the last equality ${\mathrm{N}}_{K_1/L_n}\mu={\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}\mu$ (in $X_{\ast}(T)$) holds since $\mu$ is defined over $K$ and restriction to $K$ is a bijection ${\mathrm{Gal}}(K_1/L_n){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}{\mathrm{Gal}}(K/K_0)$. Then, by taking $\prod_{\tau\in{\mathrm{Gal}}(K_1/{{\mathbb Q}_p})}(\rho\tau\mu)$ on both sides of (\[eqn:inflations\_of\_two\_cocycles\]), we obtain $$(c^{K_1}_{\rho}\cdot\nu^{K}(b_{\rho}))^{[K_1:K]}\cdot\rho(f)f^{-1}=({\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}\mu)(p^{-1}),$$ where $f=\prod_{\tau\in{\mathrm{Gal}}(K_1/{{\mathbb Q}_p})}\tau\mu(b_{\tau})$. Now applying $w_{T_{L'}}$ to both sides, we get $$\begin{aligned}
[K_1:K] w_{T_{L'}}(c^{K_1}_{\rho}\cdot\nu^{K}(b_{\rho}))&=& w_{T_{L'}}(({\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}\mu)(p^{-1}))\\
&\stackrel{(\ast)}{=}&[K:K_0] w_{T_{L'}}({\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\mu(\pi^{-1}))).\end{aligned}$$ Due to the property [@Kottwitz97 (7.3.2)] of the map $w$, the equality $(\ast)$ is deduced from the following stronger formula (comparing the images under $w_{T_L}$, instead of $w_{T_{L'}}$): $$\label{eqn:comparison_of_two_norms}
w_{T_L}({\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\mu)(p))=[K:K_0] w_{T_L}({\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\mu(\pi))).$$ Here, ${\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\mu)\in X_{\ast}(T)^{{\mathrm{Gal}}(K/K_0)}$ so ${\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\mu)(p)\in {\mathrm{im}}(K_0^{\times}\rightarrow T(K_0))$, while ${\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\mu(\pi))$ is the image of $\mu(\pi)\in T(K)$ under the norm map $T(K)\rightarrow T(K_0)$. To show this formula, by functoriality for tori $T$ endowed with a cocharacter $\mu$, it is enough to prove this formula in the universal case $T={\mathrm{Res}}_{K/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}{\mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{m}}}$ and $\mu=\mu_K$, the cocharacter of $T_K=({\mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{m}}})^{\oplus {\mathrm{Hom}}(K,K)}$ corresponding to the identity embedding $K{\hookrightarrow}K$. Note that in this case $w_{T_L}=v_{T_L}$ as $X_{\ast}(T)$ is an induced ${\mathrm{Gal}}(K/{{\mathbb Q}_p})$-module (). For any extension $E\supset K$, Galois over ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$, there exists a canonical isomorphism $T_{E}\cong (\mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{m},E})^{\oplus{\mathrm{Hom}}(K,E)}$ (product of copies of $\mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{m},E}$, indexed by ${\mathrm{Hom}}_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}(K,E)$) such that $\tau\in{\mathrm{Gal}}(E/{{\mathbb Q}_p})$ acts on $T(E)=(E^{\times})^{\oplus{\mathrm{Hom}}(K,E)}$ by $\tau (x_{\rho})_{\rho\in {\mathrm{Hom}}(K,E)}=(\tau (x_{\rho}))_{\tau\circ\rho}$. Then, $\mu_K=(f_{\rho})_{\rho}\in\prod_{\rho\in{\mathrm{Hom}}(K,K)}X_{\ast}({\mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{m}}})$, where $f_{\rho}=1\in X_{\ast}({\mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{m}}})={\mathbb Z}$ if $\rho$ is the inclusion $K{\hookrightarrow}E$, and $f_{\rho}=0$ otherwise. So, ${\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\mu_K)$ is $(f_{\rho})_{\rho}\in\prod_{\rho}X_{\ast}({\mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{m}}})$, where $f_{\rho}=1$ if $\rho|_{K_0}$ is the inclusion $K_0{\hookrightarrow}K$, and $f_{\rho}=0$ otherwise, and similarly ${\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\mu_K(\pi))=(x_{\rho})_{\rho}$, where $x_{\rho}=\rho(\pi)$ if $\rho|_{K_0}=(K_0{\hookrightarrow}K)$, and $x_{\rho}=1$ otherwise. It follows that the element of $T(K_0)$ $${\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\mu_K)(p)\cdot {\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\mu_K(\pi))^{-[K:K_0]},$$ lies in the maximal compact subgroup of $T(K_0)$, which is nothing but $\ker(v_{T_L})\cap T(K_0)$. This proves the equation (\[eqn:comparison\_of\_two\_norms\]).
Finally, the equality $w_{T}({\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\mu(\pi^{-1})))=-\underline{\mu}$ in $X_{\ast}(T)_{{\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})}$ follows from commutativity of diagram (7.3.1) of [@Kottwitz97]. This completes the proof.
\[lem:LR-Lemma5.2\] Suppose that $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is quasi-split and ${\mathbf{K}}_p$ is a special maximal parahoric subgroup. Then, for any special Shimura sub-datum $(T,h:{\mathbb{S}}\rightarrow T_{{\mathbb R}})$ satisfying the Serre condition (e.g. if $T$ splits over a CM field and the weight homomorphism $w_X:=(\mu_h\cdot\iota(\mu_h))^{-1}$ is defined over ${\mathbb Q}$), the morphism $i\circ\psi_{T,\mu_h}:{\mathfrak{P}}\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}_T{\hookrightarrow}{\mathfrak{G}}_G$ (Lemma \[lem:defn\_of\_psi\_T,mu\]) is admissible, where $i:{\mathfrak{G}}_T\rightarrow{\mathfrak{G}}_G$ is the canonical morphism defined by the inclusion $i:T{\hookrightarrow}G$.
Such admissible morphism $i\circ\psi_{T,\mu_h}$ will be said to be *special*; in our use of this notation, $i$ will be often spared its explanation (or sometimes will be even omitted). This fact was proved in [@LR87 Lem. 5.2] for hyperspecial ${\mathbf{K}}_p$.
The only nontrivial condition in Def. \[defn:admissible\_morphism\] is (3). Let $L$ be a finite Galois extension of ${\mathbb Q}$ splitting $T$ and $v_2$ the place of $L$ induced by the chosen embedding ${\overline{\mathbb Q}}{\hookrightarrow}{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}$. Put $$\nu_p:=(\xi_{-\mu_h}^{L_{v_2}})^{\Delta}=-\sum_{\sigma\in{\mathrm{Gal}}(L_{v_2}/{{\mathbb Q}_p})}\sigma\mu_h\quad (\in{\mathrm{Hom}}_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}({\mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{m}}},T_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}})),$$ and let $J$ be the centralizer in $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ of the image of $\nu_p$. Then, $J$ is a semi-standard ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-Levi subgroup of $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ (i.e. the centralizer of a ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-split torus) which is also quasi-split as $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is so (Lemma \[lem:specaial\_parahoric\_in\_Levi\], (1)). Hence, according to Lemma \[lem:specaial\_parahoric\_in\_Levi\], there exists $g\in G({{\mathbb Q}_p})$ such that $gJ(\mathfrak{k})g^{-1}\cap {\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p$ is a special maximal parahoric subgroup of $gJ(\mathfrak{k})g^{-1}$, where ${\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p\subset G(\mathfrak{k})$ is the special maximal parahoric subgroup associated with ${\mathbf{K}}_p$: it is enough that for a maximal split ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-torus $S$ of $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ contained in $J$, the apartment ${\mathcal{A}}({\mathrm{Int}}g(S),{{\mathbb Q}_p})$ contains a special point in ${\mathcal{B}}(G,{{\mathbb Q}_p})$ giving ${\mathbf{K}}_p$. Set $J':={\mathrm{Int}}g(J)$. Then, by Prop. \[prop:existence\_of\_elliptic\_tori\_in\_special\_parahorics\] (cf. Remark \[rem:properties\_of\_certain\_elliptic\_tori\_in\_special\_parahorics\]), there exists an elliptic maximal ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-torus $T'$ of $J'$ such that $T'_{{{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}}$ contains (equiv. is the centralizer of) a maximal ${{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}$-split ${{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}$-torus, say $S'_1$, of $J'_{{{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}}$ and that the (unique) parahoric subgroup $T'(\mathfrak{k})_1=\ker\ w_{T'_{\mathfrak{k}}}$ of $T'(\mathfrak{k})$ is contained in $J'(\mathfrak{k})\cap {\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p$. Let $\mu'$ be the cocharacter of $T'$ that is conjugate to ${\mathrm{Int}}g(\mu_h)$ under $J'({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ and such that it lies in the closed Weyl chamber of $X_{\ast}(T')$ associated with a Borel subgroup of $G_{\mathfrak{k}}$ (defined over $\mathfrak{k}$) containing $T'_{\mathfrak{k}}$.
Then, ${\mathrm{Int}}g\circ\xi_{-\mu_h}=\xi_{-{\mathrm{Int}}g(\mu_h)}$ and $\xi_{-\mu'}$ are equivalent as homomorphisms from ${\mathfrak{G}}_p$ to ${\mathfrak{G}}_{J'}$. This can be proved by the original argument in [@LR87 Lem. 5.2]: the key fact is that the two cocharacters of ${\mathrm{Int}}g(J)$, ${\mathrm{Int}}g(\nu_p)\in X_{\ast}({\mathrm{Int}}g(T_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}))$, $\nu_p'\in X_{\ast}(T')$ are equal and factor through the center of ${\mathrm{Int}}g(J)$: $$\label{eqn:equality_of_two_cochar}
{\mathrm{Int}}g(\nu_p):=-\sum_{\sigma\in{\mathrm{Gal}}(L_{v_2}/{{\mathbb Q}_p})}\sigma (g\mu_hg^{-1})\qquad =\qquad \nu_p':=-\sum_{\sigma\in{\mathrm{Gal}}(L_{v_2}/{{\mathbb Q}_p})}\sigma\mu',$$ where $L$ is taken to be large enough so that $L_{v_2}$ splits $T'$ (as well as $T$). Indeed, they both map into the center of ${\mathrm{Int}}g(J)$: this is clear for ${\mathrm{Int}}g(\nu_p)$ as $J={\mathrm{Cent}}(\nu_p)$, while $\nu_p'$ maps into a split ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-subtorus of $T'$, so into $Z(J')$ (as $T'$ is elliptic in $J'$). So, their equality can be checked after composing them with the natural projection $J'\rightarrow J'^{{\mathrm{ab}}}=J'/J'^{{\mathrm{der}}}$, but this is obvious since ${\mathrm{Int}}g(\mu_h)$ is conjugate to $\mu'$ under $J'({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$.
But, by Lemma \[lem:unramified\_conj\_of\_special\_morphism\] and commutativity of the diagram (7.3.1) of [@Kottwitz97], we see that for an unramified conjugate $\xi_p'$ of $\xi_{-\mu'}:{\mathfrak{G}}_p\rightarrow{\mathfrak{G}}_{T'}$ under $T'({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$, under the map $\mathrm{inv}_{T'({\mathfrak{k}})_1}:T'({\mathfrak{k}})/T'({\mathfrak{k}})_1\times T'({\mathfrak{k}})/T'({\mathfrak{k}})_1\rightarrow T'({\mathfrak{k}})/T'({\mathfrak{k}})_1\cong X_{\ast}(T')_{I}$ ($I:={\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$), we have the relation $$\mathrm{inv}_{T'({\mathfrak{k}})_1}(1,\xi_p'(s_{\rho}))=\underline{\mu'},$$ where $\rho\in{\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p})$ is a lift of the Frobenius automorphism $\sigma$. Hence, as $T'({\mathfrak{k}})_1\subset {\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p$, $\mathrm{inv}_{{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p}(x_0,\xi_p'(s_{\rho})x_0)$ ($x_0:=1\cdot{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p$) equals the image of $t^{\underline{\mu'}}$ in $\tilde{W}_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}\backslash \tilde{W}/ \tilde{W}_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}\cong X_{\ast}(T')_{I}/\tilde{W}_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}$. It remains to show that $\tilde{W}_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}t^{\underline{\mu'}} \tilde{W}_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}\in{\mathrm{Adm}}_{{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p}(\{\mu_X\})$.
For that, let $\tilde{W}=N({\mathfrak{k}})/T'({\mathfrak{k}})_1$ denote the extended affine Weyl group, where $N$ is the normalizer of $T'$ (note that $T'_{{\mathfrak{k}}}$ contains a maximal split ${\mathfrak{k}}$-torus $(S'_1)_{{\mathfrak{k}}}$). By our choice of $T'$ (and as ${\mathbf{K}}_p$ is special), $\tilde{W}$ is a semi-direct product $X_{\ast}(T')_{I}\rtimes \tilde{W}_{{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p}$, where ${\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p$ is the special maximal parahoric subgroup of $G({\mathfrak{k}})$ corresponding to ${\mathbf{K}}_p$ and $\tilde{W}_{{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p}=(N({\mathfrak{k}})\cap {\mathbf{K}}_p)/T'({\mathfrak{k}})_1$ (which maps isomorphically onto the relative Weyl group $W_0=N({\mathfrak{k}})/T'({\mathfrak{k}})$). To fix a Bruhat order on $\tilde{W}$, we choose a $\sigma$-stable alcove ${\mathbf{a}}$ in the apartment ${\mathcal{A}}(S'_1,{\mathfrak{k}})$ containing a special point, say ${\mathbf{0}}$, corresponding to ${\mathbf{K}}_p$. The choice of ${\mathbf{a}}$ and ${\mathbf{0}}$ give the semi-direct product decomposition $\tilde{W}=W_a\rtimes\Omega_{{\mathbf{a}}}$, where $W_a$ is the extended affine Weyl group of $(G^{{\mathrm{sc}}},T'^{{\mathrm{sc}}})$ and $\Omega_{{\mathbf{a}}}\subset \tilde{W}$ is the normalizer of ${\mathbf{a}}$, and a reduced root system ${}^{{\mathbf{0}}}\Sigma$ (whose roots $R({}^{{\mathbf{0}}}\Sigma)$ are elements of $X^{\ast}(S')_{{\mathbb Q}}$) such that $W_a$, as a subgroup of the group of affine transformations of $X_{\ast}(S')_{{\mathbb R}}$, equals the affine Weyl group $Q^{\vee}({}^{{\mathbf{0}}}\Sigma)\rtimes W({}^{{\mathbf{0}}}\Sigma)$, cf. . Also, the choice of ${\mathbf{a}}$ fixes a set of simple affine roots for $W_a$, in particular a set ${}^{{\mathbf{0}}}\Delta$ of simple roots for ${}^{{\mathbf{0}}}\Sigma$. Then, as each root $\alpha$ of ${}^{{\mathbf{0}}}\Delta$ is proportional to a relative root of $(G^{{\mathrm{sc}}},S'^{{\mathrm{sc}}})$ [@Tits79 1.7], we can find a set $\Delta\subset X^{\ast}(T')$ of simple roots for the root datum of $(G,T')$ with the property that every $\alpha\in{}^{{\mathbf{0}}}\Delta$ is the restriction of a multiple of some $\tilde{\alpha}\in\Delta$. Let $\overline{C}_{{\mathbf{a}}}\subset X_{\ast}(S'_1)_{{\mathbb R}}$ and $\overline{C}\subset X_{\ast}(T')_{{\mathbb R}}$ be the associated closed Weyl chambers. It follows that $\pi(\overline{C})\subset \overline{C}_{{\mathbf{a}}}$, where $\pi$ is the natural surjection $X_{\ast}(T')_{{\mathbb R}}\rightarrow (X_{\ast}(T')_{I})_{{\mathbb R}}=X_{\ast}(S'_1)_{{\mathbb R}}$. Now, let $\mu_0\in X_{\ast}(T')$ be the conjugate of $\mu_h$ lying in $\overline{C}$ (so its image $\underline{\mu_0}$ in $(X_{\ast}(T')_{I})_{{\mathbb R}}$ lies in $\overline{C}_{{\mathbf{a}}}$). Then, it suffices to show that $t^{\underline{\mu'}}\leq t^{\underline{\mu_0}}$ in $\tilde{W}$. But, as $\mu'=w\mu_0$ for some $w\in N({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})/T'({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ and $\mu_0\in \overline{C}$, we see that $\mu_0-\mu'=\sum_{\tilde{\alpha}\in\Delta}n_{\tilde{\alpha}}\tilde{\alpha}^{\vee}\in X_{\ast}(T'^{{\mathrm{sc}}})$ with $n_{\tilde{\alpha}}\in{\mathbb Z}_{\geq0}$ (cf. [@RR96 2.2]). Since for each $\tilde{\alpha}\in\Delta$, we have $\pi(\tilde{\alpha}^{\vee})\in {\mathbb Q}_{\geq0}\alpha^{\vee}$ for some $\alpha\in {}^{{\mathbf{0}}}\Delta$, $t^{\underline{\mu_0}}- t^{\underline{\mu'}}=\pi(\mu_0)-\pi(\mu')\in C_{{\mathbf{a}}}^{\vee}:=\{\sum_{\beta\in{}^{{\mathbf{0}}}\Delta}c_{\beta}\beta^{\vee}\ |\ c_{\beta}\in{\mathbb R}_{\geq0}\}$. By [@Stembridge05 Thm.4.10], this implies the asserted inequality in $\tilde{W}$.
Langlands-Rapoport conjeture {#subsec:Langalnds-Rapoport conjeture}
----------------------------
In this subsection, we give a formulation of the Langlands-Rapoport conjecture for parahoric levels, following Kisin [@Kisin17 (3.3)] and Rapoport [@Rapoport05 $\S$9].
For $v\neq p,\infty$, set $X_v(\phi):=\{g_v\in G({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_v})\ |\ \phi(v)\circ\zeta_v=\Int(g_v)\circ\xi_v\}$, and $$X^p(\phi):=\sideset{}{'}\prod_{v\neq\infty,p} \ X_v(\phi),$$ where $'$ denotes the restricted product of $X_v(\phi)$’s as defined in the line 15-26 on p.168 of [@LR87]. By condition (2) of Def. \[defn:admissible\_morphism\], $X^p(\phi)$ is non-empty (cf. [@Reimann97 B 3.6]), and is a right torsor under $G({\mathbb A}_f^p)$.
To define the component at $p$, put ${\mathbf{K}}_p({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}):={\mathcal{G}}_{{\mathbf{f}}}^{\mathrm{o}}({{\mathbb Z}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$ for the parahoric group scheme ${\mathcal{G}}_{{\mathbf{f}}}^{\mathrm{o}}$ over ${{\mathbb Z}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}$ attached to ${\mathbf{K}}_p$ () and for $b\in G({\mathfrak{k}})$, let ${\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p\cdot b\cdot {\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p$ denote the invariant $\mathrm{inv}_{{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p}(1,b)$. We also recall that for $\theta_g^{{\mathrm{ur}}}:{\mathfrak{D}}\rightarrow{\mathfrak{G}}_{G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}}^{{\mathrm{ur}}}$ (a morphism of ${{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}|{{\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerbs), $\overline{\theta_g^{{\mathrm{ur}}}}$ denotes its inflation to ${\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}$, and $s_{\sigma}\in {\mathfrak{D}}$ is the lift of $\sigma\in{\mathrm{Gal}}({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\mathbb Q}_p})$ chosen in (). Then, we set $$\begin{aligned}
X_p(\phi):=\{ g{\mathbf{K}}_p({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}) \in G({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})/{\mathbf{K}}_p({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}) & | & \phi(p)\circ \zeta_p=\Int(g)\circ \overline{\theta_g^{{\mathrm{ur}}}}\text{ for some }\theta_g^{{\mathrm{ur}}}:{\mathfrak{D}}\rightarrow{\mathfrak{G}}_{G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}}^{{\mathrm{ur}}} \text{ s.t. } \\
& &{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p\cdot b_g\cdot {\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p\in {\mathrm{Adm}}_{{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p}(\{\mu_X\}),\text{ where }\theta_g^{{\mathrm{ur}}}(s_{\sigma})=b_g\sigma \}.\end{aligned}$$ This set is equipped with an action of a $p^r$-Frobenius $\Phi$ ($r:=[\kappa(\wp):{\mathbb{F}_{p}}]$) defined by $$\label{eq:Frob_Phi_1}
\Phi(g{\mathbf{K}}_p({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})):=g\cdot {\mathrm{N}}_rb_g\cdot{\mathbf{K}}_p({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$$ (this definition does not depend on the choice of a representative $g$ in the coset $g{\mathbf{K}}_p({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$, as $b_{gk}=k^{-1}b_g\sigma(k)$ for $k\in G({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$). To see that this action on $G({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})/{\mathbf{K}}_p({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$ leaves $X_p(\phi)$ stable, we use a more explicit description of the set $X_p(\phi)$. When we choose $g_0\in G({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ with $g_0{\mathbf{K}}_p({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})\in X_p(\phi)$ and use it as a reference point, we obtain a bijection $$\label{eqn:X_p(phi)=ADLV}
X_p(\phi){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}X(\{\mu_X\},b_{g_0})_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}\ :\ h{\mathbf{K}}_p({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})\mapsto g_0^{-1}h{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p,$$ where $b_{g_0}\sigma=\theta_{g_0}^{{\mathrm{ur}}}(s_{\sigma})$ for $\theta_{g_0}^{{\mathrm{ur}}}$ with $\phi(p)\circ \zeta_p=\Int(g_0)\circ \overline{\theta_{g_0}^{{\mathrm{ur}}}}$. Indeed, for $h\in G({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$, if ${\mathrm{Int}}h^{-1}\circ\phi(p)\circ\zeta_p=\Int(g_0^{-1}h)^{-1}\circ \overline{\theta_{g_0}^{{\mathrm{ur}}}}$ is unramified, $g:=g_0^{-1}h\in G({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$ (cf. proof of Lemma \[lem:unramified\_morphism\], (3)), and $$b_{h}\sigma=\theta_{h}^{{\mathrm{ur}}}(s_{\sigma})=\Int(g^{-1})\circ \theta_{g_0}^{{\mathrm{ur}}}(s_{\sigma})=g^{-1}b_{g_0}\sigma(g)\sigma,$$ and by definition, $g{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p\in X(\{\mu_X\},b_{g_0})_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}$ if and only if ${\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p\cdot g^{-1}b_{g_0}\sigma(g)\cdot{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p\in {\mathrm{Adm}}_{{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p}(\{\mu_X\})$. So, $h\in X_p(\phi)$ if and only if $g_0^{-1}h {\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p\in X(\{\mu_X\},b_{g_0})_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}$. Then, each $g_0\in G({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ such that $\Int(g_0^{-1})\circ \phi(p)\circ\zeta_p$ is unramified, say inflation of $\theta_{g_0}^{{\mathrm{ur}}}$ (Lemma \[lem:unramified\_morphism\]) gives an absolute Frobenius automorphism $F=\theta_{g_0}^{{\mathrm{ur}}}(s_{\sigma})$ acting on $G({\mathfrak{k}})$ (sending $g\in G({\mathfrak{k}})$ to $b_{g_0}\sigma(g)$). This also induces an action on $G({\mathfrak{k}})/{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p$ as the facet in ${\mathcal{B}}(G_L)$ defining ${\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p$ is stable under $\sigma$, and we readily see that its $r$-th iterate $$\label{eq:Frob_Phi_2}
\Phi=F^r\ :\ g\mapsto (b_{g_0}\sigma)^r(g)=b_{g_0} \sigma(b_{g_0}) \cdots \sigma^{r-1}(b_{g_0})\cdot\sigma^r(g)$$ is identified with the above Frobenius automorphism of $X_p(\phi)$ under (\[eqn:X\_p(phi)=ADLV\]). This $\Phi$ leaves $X(\{\mu_X\},b_{g_0})_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}$ stable, because $(\Phi g)^{-1}\cdot b_{g_0}\cdot\sigma(\Phi g)=\sigma^r(g^{-1}b_{g_0}\sigma(g))$ and ${\mathrm{Adm}}_{{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p}(\{\mu_X\})$ is stable under the action of $\sigma^r$ on $\tilde{W}_{{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p}\backslash \tilde{W}/\tilde{W}_{{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p}$ (as $\mu$ is defined over $E_{\wp}$). Note that there are natural left (or right) actions of $Z({{\mathbb Q}_p})$ on $X_p(\phi)$ and $X(\{\mu_X\},b_{g_0})_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}$ compatible with the above bijection: $z\in Z({{\mathbb Q}_p})$ sends $g\in X(\{\mu_X\},b_{g_0})_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}$ (resp. $g{\mathbf{K}}_p({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})\in X_p(\phi)$) to $zg$ (resp. to $zg{\mathbf{K}}_p({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$). Obviously, $\Phi$ also commutes with the actions of $Z({{\mathbb Q}_p})$.
Let $$I_{\phi}({\mathbb Q}):=\{g\in G({\overline{\mathbb Q}})\ |\ \mathrm{Int}(g)\circ\phi=\phi\}$$ (as the notation suggests, this is the ${\mathbb Q}$-points of an algebraic ${\mathbb Q}$-group $I_{{\mathbb Q}}$, cf. (\[eq:inner-twisting\_by\_phi\])). This group naturally acts on $X^p(\phi)$ and $X_p(\phi)$ from the left and commutes with the (right) action of $G({\mathbb A}_f^p)$. Finally, we define $$S(\phi):=\varprojlim_{{\mathbf{K}}^p} I_{\phi}({\mathbb Q})\backslash (X^p(\phi)/{\mathbf{K}}^p)\times X_p(\phi),$$ where ${\mathbf{K}}^p$ runs through the compact open subgroups of $G({\mathbb Q}^p)$. This set is equipped with an action of $G({\mathbb A}_f^p)\times Z({{\mathbb Q}_p})$ and a commuting action of $\Phi$, and as such is determined, up to isomorphism, by the equivalence class of $\phi$.
We note that under the bijection (\[eqn:X\_p(phi)=ADLV\]) (provided by a choice of $g_0\in G({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ with $g_0{\mathbf{K}}_p({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})\in X_p(\phi)$), the action of $I_{\phi}({\mathbb Q})$ transfers to $X(\{\mu_X\},b_{g_0})_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}$ via the map $$\label{eq:action_of_I_{phi}_on_AffDL}
\Int(g_0^{-1}):I_{\phi}({\mathbb Q})=\mathrm{Aut}(\phi) \rightarrow \mathrm{Aut}(\overline{\theta_{g_0}^{{\mathrm{ur}}}})=\{g\in G({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}) |\ \mathrm{Int}(g)\circ\theta_{g_0}^{{\mathrm{ur}}}=\theta_{g_0}^{{\mathrm{ur}}}\}$$ i.e. $i\in I_{\phi}({\mathbb Q})$ sends $g{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p\in X(\{\mu_X\},b_{g_0})_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}$ to $\Int(g_0^{-1})(i)\cdot g{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p$.
\[conj:Langlands-Rapoport\_conjecture\_ver1\] \[Langlands-Rapoport conjecture, 1987\] Suppose that ${\mathbf{K}}_p\subset G({{\mathbb Q}_p})$ is a parahoric subgroup. Then, there exists an integral model ${\mathscr{S}}_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}(G,X)$ of ${\mathrm{Sh}}_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}(G,X)$ over ${\mathcal{O}}_{E_{\wp}}$ for which there exists a bijection $${\mathscr{S}}_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}(G,X)({\bar{\mathbb{F}}_{p}}){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}\bigsqcup_{[\phi]}S(\phi)$$ compatible with the actions of $Z({{\mathbb Q}_p})\times G({\mathbb A}_f^p)$ and $\Phi$, where $\Phi$ acts on the left side as the $r$-th (geometric) Frobenius. Here, $\phi$ runs through a set of representatives for the equivalence classes of admissible morphisms ${\mathfrak{Q}}\rightarrow{\mathfrak{G}}_G$.
\(1) The original conjecture was made under the assumption that $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}$ is simply connected (due to the expectation that only special admissible morphisms are to contribute to the ${\bar{\mathbb{F}}_{p}}$-points and the existence, when $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}\neq G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$, of a non-special morphism that is admissible in the original sense, cf. Remark \[rem:Kisin’s\_defn\_of\_admissible\_morphism\]).
\(2) In [@Rapoport05 Conj. 9.2], Rapoport gave another version of this conjecture, using a different definition of admissible morphisms, where condition (3) of Def. \[defn:admissible\_morphism\] is replaced by the more natural (from group-theoretical viewpoint) and a priori weaker condition (3’) that *the $\sigma$-conjugacy class $\mathrm{cls}_{G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}}(\phi(p))$ of $b_{\phi}$ lies in $B(G,\{\mu_X\})$*. Our theorem \[thm:non-emptiness\_of\_NS\] together with Theorem A of [@He15] establishes equivalence of these two versions: previously, it was known that (3) $\Rightarrow$ (3’).
Kottwitz triples and Kottwitz invariant
---------------------------------------
Our main references for the material covered here are [@LR87 p.182-183], [@Kottwitz90 $\S2$], and [@Kottwitz92].
### Galois hypercohomology of crossed modules
In order to extend the main results of Langlands and Rapoport to the general case that $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}$ is not necessarily simply connected, (especially, Satz 5.25 of [@LR87], namely Theorem \[thm:LR-Satz5.25\] here), we need to consider Galois cohomology groups of crossed modules and (length-$2$) complexes of tori quasi-isomorphic to them (for example, $H^1_{{\mathrm{ab}}}({\mathbb Q},G)$ instead of the cohomology of the quotient $G^{{\mathrm{ab}}}:=G/G^{{\mathrm{der}}}$). Here we give a (very) brief review of the theory of Galois hypercohomology of crossed modules; for details, see [@Borovoi98], [@Labesse99 Ch.1]. For a connected reductive group $H$ over a field $k$, we denote by $$\rho_H:H^{{\mathrm{sc}}}\rightarrow H$$ the canonical map from the simply connected cover $H^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$ of $H^{{\mathrm{der}}}$ to $H$. Unless stated otherwise, every bounded complex of groups considered in this paper will be concentrated in non-negative homological degrees.
For a connected reductive group $G$ over a field $k$ (of characteristic zero), if $T$ is a maximal $k$-torus of $G$, the complex $(\rho^{-1}(T)\rightarrow T)$ of $k$-tori, where $\rho^{-1}(T)$ and $T$ are placed in degree $-1$ and $0$ respectively, is quasi-isomorphic to its sub-complex $(\rho^{-1}(Z(G))=Z(G^{{\mathrm{sc}}})\rightarrow Z(G))$ (cf. [@Borovoi98 $\S$2, $\S$3]), hence, as an object in the derived category of complexes of commutative algebraic $k$-group schemes, depends only on $G$. We denote it by $G_{{\mathbf{ab}}}$: $$G_{{\mathbf{ab}}}:=\rho^{-1}(T)\rightarrow T.$$ Then, following Borovoi [@Borovoi98], we define the abelianized Galois cohomology group $H^i_{{\mathrm{ab}}}(k,G)\ (i\in{\mathbb Z})$ of $G$ to be the hypercohomology group of $G_{{\mathbf{ab}}}(\bar{k}):=(\rho^{-1}(T)(\bar{k})\rightarrow T(\bar{k}))$, two-term complex of discrete ${\mathrm{Gal}}(\bar{k}/k)$-modules: $$H^i_{{\mathrm{ab}}}(k,G):=\mathbb{H}^i(k,G_{{\mathbf{ab}}}).$$ For $-1\leq i\leq 1$, this group is also equal to the cohomology (group) $$\mathbb{H}^i(k,G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}\stackrel{\rho}{\rightarrow} G)$$ of the crossed module $G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}(\bar{k})\stackrel{\rho}{\rightarrow} G(\bar{k})$ of ${\mathrm{Gal}}(\bar{k}/k)$-groups (*loc. cit.* (3.3.2)): for a proof, see the proof of the next lemma.
\[lem:abelianization\_exact\_seq\] Let $H\subset G$ be a (not necessarily connected) $k$-subgroup containing a maximal $k$-torus of $G$ and $(a_{\tau})_{\tau}$ a cochain on ${\mathrm{Gal}}(\bar{k}/k)$ valued in $H$ whose coboundary $a_{\tau_1}\tau_1(a_{\tau_2})a_{\tau_1\tau_2}^{-1}$ belongs to $Z(H)^{\mathrm{o}}$. Then, for the (simultaneous) inner-twist $\rho_1:\tilde{H}_1\rightarrow H_1$ of the canonical map $\rho:\tilde{H}:=\rho^{-1}(H)\rightarrow H$ via the cocyle $a_{\tau}^{{\mathrm{ad}}}\in Z^1({\mathbb Q},H^{{\mathrm{ad}}})$ (the image of $a_{\tau}$ in $H^{{\mathrm{ad}}}$), there exists a natural exact sequence $$\label{eq:abelianization_from_Levi}
H^1(k,\tilde{H}_1) \stackrel{\rho_{1\ast}}{\longrightarrow} H^1(k,H_1) \stackrel{ab_1}{\longrightarrow} H^1_{{\mathrm{ab}}}(k,G).$$
Note that the condition on (the coboundary of) $a_{\tau}$ allows us to twist $\tilde{H}$ via $a_{\tau}^{{\mathrm{ad}}}$. In the applications, $H$ will be the centralizer of a semi-simple element of $G(k)$.
The first map is the obvious one (induced by $\rho_1$) and the second map is the composite of the natural map $$H^1(k,H_1)\rightarrow \mathbb{H}^1(k,\tilde{H}_1\rightarrow H_1)$$ resulting from the map $(1\rightarrow H_1)\rightarrow (\tilde{H}_1\rightarrow H_1)$ of crossed modules of $k$-groups, and the isomorphisms $$\label{eq:isom_of_abelianized_coh}
\mathbb{H}^1(k,\tilde{H}_1\rightarrow H_1){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}\mathbb{H}^1(k,\tilde{Z}(G)\rightarrow Z(G)){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}\mathbb{H}^1(k,G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}\rightarrow G)$$ ($\tilde{Z}(G):=\rho^{-1}(Z(G))=Z(G^{{\mathrm{sc}}})$) resulting from the quasi-isomorphisms of crossed modules of $k$-groups $$(\tilde{H}_1\rightarrow H_1)\leftarrow (\tilde{Z}(G)\rightarrow Z(G)) \rightarrow (G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}\rightarrow G)$$ (cf. [@Borovoi98], Lem. 2.4.1 and its proof: the key point is that $H_1$ contains $Z(G)$). Now, the exactness follows from [@Borovoi98 Cor. 3.4.3].
### Kottwitz triple {#subsubsec:pre-Kottwitz_triple}
A Kottwitz triple is a triple $(\gamma_0;\gamma=(\gamma_l)_{l\neq p},\delta)$ of elements satisfying certain conditions, where
- $\gamma_0$ is a semi-simple element of $G({\mathbb Q})$ that is elliptic in $G({\mathbb R})$, defined up to conjugacy in $G(\overline{{\mathbb Q}})$;
- for $l\neq p$, $\gamma_l$ is a semi-simple element in $G({\mathbb Q}_l)$, defined up to conjugacy in $G({\mathbb Q}_l)$, which is conjugate to $\gamma_0$ in $G(\overline{{\mathbb Q}}_l)$;
- $\delta$ is an element of $G(L_n)$ (for some $n$), defined up to $\sigma$-conjugacy in $G({\mathfrak{k}})$, such that the norm ${\mathrm{N}}_n\delta$ of $\delta$ is conjugate to $\gamma_0$ under $G(\bar{{\mathfrak{k}}})$, where ${\mathrm{N}}_n\delta:=\delta\cdot\sigma(\delta)\cdots\sigma^{n-1}(\delta)\in G(L_n)$.
There are two conditions to be satisfied by such triple. To explain the first one, put $G_{\gamma_0}:=Z_G(\gamma_0)$ (centralizer of $\gamma_0$ in $G$); if $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}$ is simply connected, this is a connected reductive group. Then, for every place $v$ of ${\mathbb Q}$, we now construct an algebraic ${\mathbb Q}_v$-group $H_0(v)$ and an inner twisting $$\psi_v:(G_{\gamma_0})_{{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_v}}\rightarrow H_0(v)_{{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_v}}$$ over ${\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_v}$. First, for each finite place $v\neq p$ of ${\mathbb Q}$, set $$H_0(v):=Z_{G_{{\mathbb Q}_v}}(\gamma_v).$$ For any $g_v\in G(\overline{{\mathbb Q}}_v)$ with $g_v\gamma_0g_v^{-1}=\gamma_v$, the restriction of ${\mathrm{Int}}(g_v)$ to $(G_{\gamma_0})_{{{\mathbb Q}_v}}$ gives us an inner twisting $\psi_v:(G_{\gamma_0})_{{{\mathbb Q}_v}}\rightarrow H_0(v)$, which is well defined up to inner automorphism of $G_{\gamma_0}$. At $v=p$, we define an algebraic ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-group $H_0(p)$ to be the $\sigma$-centralizer of $\delta$: $$H_0(p):=G_{\delta\theta}:=\{x\in {\mathrm{Res}}_{L_n/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}(G_{L_n})\ |\ x\delta \theta(x^{-1})=\delta\},$$ where $\theta$ is the ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-automorphism of ${\mathrm{Res}}_{L_n/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}(G_{L_n})$ induced by the restriction of $\sigma$ to $L_n$. Then, there exists an inner twisting $\psi_p:(G_{\gamma_0})_{{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}}\rightarrow H_0(p)_{{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}}$, which is canonical up to inner automorphism of $G_{\gamma_0}$. For detailed discussion, we refer to and [@Kottwitz82 $\S$5] (where $\theta$ and $H(p)$ are denoted respectively by $s$ (on p. 801) and $I_{s\delta}$ (on p. 802)). Finally, at the infinite place, we choose an elliptic maximal torus $T_{{\mathbb R}}$ of $G_{{\mathbb R}}$ containing $\gamma_0$ and $h\in X\cap {\mathrm{Hom}}({\mathbb{S}},T_{{\mathbb R}})$. We twist $G_{\gamma_0}$ using the Cartan involution ${\mathrm{Int}}(h(i))$ on $G_{\gamma_0}/Z(G)$, and get an inner twisting $\psi_{\infty}:(G_{\gamma_0})_{{\mathbb C}}\rightarrow H_0(\infty)_{{\mathbb C}}$. So, $H_0(\infty)/Z(G)$ is anisotropic over ${\mathbb R}$.
\[defn:Kottwitz\_triple\] A triple $(\gamma_0;(\gamma_l)_{l\neq p},\delta)$ as in (i) - (iii) (with some $n\in N$) is called a Kottwitz triple of level $n$ if it further satisfies the following two conditions (iv), $\ast(\delta)$:
- There exists a triple $(H_0,\psi,(j_v))$ consisting of a ${\mathbb Q}$-group $H_0$, an inner twisting $\psi:G_{\gamma_0}\rightarrow H_0$ and for each place $v$ of ${\mathbb Q}$, an isomorphism $j_v:(H_0)_{{{\mathbb Q}_v}}\rightarrow H_0(v)$ over ${\mathbb Q}_v$, unramified almost everywhere, such that $j_v\circ\psi$ and $\psi_v$ differ by an inner automorphism of $G_{\gamma_0}$ over ${\overline{\mathbb Q}}_v$.
- the image of $\overline{\delta}$ under the Kottwitz homomorphism $\kappa_{G_{{\mathbb Q}_p}}:B(G_{{\mathbb Q}_p})\rightarrow \pi_1(G_{{\mathbb Q}_p})_{\Gamma(p)}$ () is equal to $\mu^{\natural}$ (defined in (\[eqn:mu\_natural\])).
Two triples $(\gamma_0;(\gamma_l)_{l\neq p},\delta)$, $(\gamma_0';(\gamma_l')_{l\neq p},\delta')$ as in () with $\delta,\delta'\in G(L_n)$ for (iii) are said to be *equivalent*, if $\gamma_0$ is $G({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$-conjugate to $\gamma_0'$, $\gamma_l$ is $G({{\mathbb Q}_l})$-conjugate to $\gamma_l'$ for each finite $l\neq p$, and $\delta$ is $\sigma$-conjugate to $\delta'$ in $G(L_n)$ (i.e. there exists $d\in G(L_n)$ such that $\delta'=d\delta\sigma(d^{-1})$). Clearly, for two such equivalent triples, one of them is a Kottwitz triple of level $n$ if and only if the other one is so. Normally, we consider Kottwitz triples having level $n=m[\kappa(\wp):{\mathbb{F}_{p}}]$ for some $m\geq1$.
We will also consider the following condition:
- Let $H$ be the centralizer in $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ of the maximal ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-split torus in the center of $Z_{G}(\gamma_0)_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$. Then, there exists a cocharacter of $\mu$ of $H$ lying in the $G({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$-conjugacy class $\{\mu_X\}$ such that $$\label{eq:lambda(gamma_0)}
w_H(\gamma_0)=\sum_{i=1}^{n}\sigma^{i-1}\underline{\mu}$$ for some $n\in{\mathbb N}$, where $w_H:H({\mathfrak{k}})\rightarrow \pi_1(H)_I$ is the map from and $\underline{\mu}$ denotes the image of $\mu$ in $\pi_1(H)_I$ ($I={\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$).
We refer to the number $n$ appearing in $\ast(\epsilon)$ as the *level* of this condition (e.g., we will say that the condition $\ast(\epsilon)$ holds for $\gamma_0$ with level $n$).
\[rem:condition\_(ast(gamma\_0))\] 1) Note that $H$ is a semi-standard ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-Levi subgroup of $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ with its center containing the maximal ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-split torus $A_{\epsilon}$ in the center of $Z_{G}(\gamma_0)_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$, hence ${\mathrm{N}}_{K/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}\mu$, being a ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-rational cocharacter of the center of $Z_{G}(\gamma_0)_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$, maps into $A_{\epsilon}$, thus a posteriori into the center of $H$.
2\) As one can readily check, this condition generalizes the condition introduced by Langlands and Rapoport [@LR87 p.183] with the same name $\ast(\epsilon)$ in their set-up that the level subgroup is hyperspecial and $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$. However, in our formulation, even if $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is unramified, we do not (unlike [@LR87]) require $\mu$ to be defined over $L_n$ or even over an unramified extension of ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$.
When the derived group of $G$ is not simply connected, a stable version of the notion of Kottwitz triple is more relevant. Recall [@Kottwitz82 $\S$3] that for a connected reductive group $F$ over a perfect field $F$, two rational elements $x,y\in G(F)$ are said to be *stably conjugate* if there exists $g\in G(\bar{F})$ such that $gxg^{-1}=y$ and $g^{-1}{}^{\tau}g\in G_s^{\mathrm{o}}$ for all $\tau\in {\mathrm{Gal}}(\bar{F}/F)$, where $s$ is the semi-simple part of $x$ in its Jordan decomposition. When we just refer to the relation $gxg^{-1}=y$ for some $g\in G(\bar{F})$, we will say that $x,y$ are $\bar{F}$-(or $G(\bar{F})$-)conjugate or *geometrically* conjugate. By definition, a *stable conjugacy class* in $G(F)$ is an equivalence class in $G(F)$ with respect to this stable conjugation relation.
\[defn:stable\_Kottwitz\_triple\] A Kottwitz triple $(\gamma_0;\gamma=(\gamma_l)_{l\neq p},\delta)$, say of level $n\in{\mathbb N}$, is *stable* if it satisfies the following conditions (in addition to (i) - (iv) and $\ast(\delta)$):
- $\gamma_0\in G({\mathbb Q})$ is defined up to stable conjugacy;
- for each $l\neq p$, $\gamma_0$ is stably conjugate to $\gamma_l$;
- there exists $c\in G({\mathfrak{k}})$ such that $c\gamma_0 c^{-1}={\mathrm{N}}_n\delta$ and $b:=c^{-1}\delta\sigma(c)$ lies in $I_0({\mathfrak{k}})$ for $I_0:=G_{\gamma_0}^{\mathrm{o}}$ (a priori, one only has $b\in G_{\gamma_0}({\mathfrak{k}})$: $\delta^{-1}c\gamma_0 c^{-1}\delta=\sigma(\delta)\cdots\sigma^n(\delta)=\sigma(c\gamma_0 c^{-1})=\sigma(c)\gamma_0\sigma(c^{-1})$);
- Set $I(v):=H(v)^{\mathrm{o}}$ for each place $v$. There exists a triple $(I,\psi,(j_v))$ consisting of a ${\mathbb Q}$-group $I$, an inner twisting $\psi:I_0\rightarrow I$ and for each place $v$ of ${\mathbb Q}$, an isomorphism $j_v:(I)_{{{\mathbb Q}_v}}\rightarrow I(v)$ over ${\mathbb Q}_v$, unramified almost everywhere, such that $j_v\circ\psi$ and $\psi_v$ differ by an inner automorphism of $I_0$ over ${\overline{\mathbb Q}}_v$.
If $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}$ is simply connected, by Steinberg’s theorem ($G_{\gamma_0}=I_0$), every Kottwitz triple is stable.
\[rem:Kottwitz\_triples\] (1) It is easy to verify the following fact: let $(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$ be a stable Kottwitz triple of level $n$. If $\gamma_0'\in G({\mathbb Q})$ is stably conjugate to $\gamma_0$, $\gamma$ is $G({\mathbb A}_f^p)$-conjugate to $\gamma'$, and $\delta'$ is $\sigma$-conjugate to $\delta$ in $G(L_n)$, then $(\gamma_0';\gamma',\delta')$ is also a stable Kottwitz triple (of same level). We say that two stable Kottwitz triples $(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$, $(\gamma_0';\gamma',\delta')$ are *stably equivalent* if they are equivalent as Kottwitz triples and $\gamma_0$, $\gamma_0'$ are stably conjugate. A priori, two stable Kottwitz triples can be equivalent without being stably equivalent (see, however, Prop. \[prop:triviality\_in\_comp\_gp\], (2)).
\(2) By Hasse principle for $H^1({\mathbb Q},I_0^{{\mathrm{ad}}})$, a Kottwitz triple satisfying (i$'$) - (iii$'$) will also fulfill condition (iv$'$) if *some* attached Kottwitz invariant (to be recalled below) is trivial [@Kottwitz90 p.172].
\(3) The condition (iii$'$) should be distinguished from the following stronger condition:
- there exists $c\in G({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$ (not just in $G({\mathfrak{k}})$) fulfilling the same condition as (iii$'$) (i.e. $c\gamma_0 c^{-1}={\mathrm{N}}_n\delta$ and $b:=c^{-1}\delta\sigma(c)\in I_0({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$).
The two conditions (iii$'$), (iii$''$) are the same if $G_{\gamma_0}=I_0$ (by Steinberg’s theorem $H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}},G_{\gamma_0})=\{1\}$), in particular when $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$. In general, condition (iii$''$) seems to be strictly stronger than condition (iii$'$).
\(4) As $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is quasi-split, there exists a norm mapping $\mathscr{N}=\mathscr{N}_n$ from $G(L_n)$ to the set of stable conjugacy classes in $G({{\mathbb Q}_p})$ [@Kottwitz82 $\S$5]: if $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$, for any $\delta\in G(L_n)$, the $G({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$-conjugacy class of ${\mathrm{N}}_n\delta$, being defined over ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$, contains a rational element (i.e. lying in $G({{\mathbb Q}_p})$) by [@Kottwitz82 Thm.4.1] and $\mathscr{N}(\delta)$ is defined to be its stable (=geometric) conjugacy class. For general $G$, one uses a $z$-extension to reduce to the former situation (see *loc. cit.* for a detailed argument). We claim that the new condition (iii$''$) is the same as that *$\mathscr{N}(\delta)$ is the stable conjugacy class of $\gamma_0$* (in which case, we say that $\gamma_0$ is the *stable norm* of $\delta$). Indeed, we first note that condition (iii$''$) holds for a rational element $\gamma_0$ (and $\delta\in G(L_n)$) if and only if it holds for any element of $G({{\mathbb Q}_p})$ stably conjugate to it. Also, it follows immediately from definition that there exists a representative $\gamma_s\in G({{\mathbb Q}_p})$ of the stable conjugacy class $\mathscr{N}(\delta)$ for which (and $\delta$) condition (iii$''$) holds. In particular, we see that the implication $\Leftarrow$ holds. Conversely, if condition (iii$''$) holds for $\gamma_0$ and $\delta$, $\gamma_0$ is stably conjugate to any (semi-simple) rational representative $\gamma_s$ of $\mathscr{N}(\delta)$: for any choice of $c$, $c_s\in G({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$ satisfying (iii$''$) for $\gamma_0$, $\gamma_s$ respectively, we have $\gamma_s=\Int(c_s^{-1}c)(\gamma_0)$ and $$c^{-1}c_s\sigma(c_s^{-1}c)= c^{-1}c_s\cdot b_s^{-1}c_s^{-1}\delta \cdot \delta^{-1}cb=\Int(c^{-1}c_s)(b_s)\cdot b\in I_0({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}).$$ We remark that if $\delta$ satisfies the condition (iii$'$), say $c\gamma_0 c^{-1}={\mathrm{N}}_n\delta$ for $c\in G({\mathfrak{k}})$, then there is found in $G({\mathfrak{k}})$ an element $g$ such that $\gamma_s=\Int(g)(\gamma_0)$ and $g^{-1}\tau(g)\in I_0$ for every $\tau\in W_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ (i.e. $g:=c_s^{-1}c$), but it is not clear whether one can find such $g$ from $G({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ (here, we also demand that $g^{-1}\tau(g)\in I_0$ for every $\tau\in\Gamma_p$), that is, whether $\gamma_s$ and $\gamma_0$ are stably conjugate in the usual sense; to distinguish the two situations, we will say that $\gamma_s$ and $\gamma_0$ are *w-stably conjugate* if the former condition holds. This difference in stable conjugacy relation (occurring only for $p$-adic fields) is harmless in that the kind of results that we need and which were previously established based on the usual stable conjugacy (typically, those of the next susubbsection) continue to hold for the w-stable conjugacy. But one needs to be careful when applying some classical arguments involving stably conjugacy to w-stably conjugacy.
### The sets $\mathfrak{C}_p^{(n)}(\gamma_0)$, $\mathfrak{D}_p^{(n)}(\gamma_0)$. {#subsubsec:w-stable_sigma-conjugacy}
For a (not necessarily connected) group $H$ over a $p$-adic local field $F$, we let $B(H)$ denote the set of $\sigma$-conjugacy classes of elements in $H(L)$ (see for the notation $L$, $\sigma$). We write $[b]_H$ for the $\sigma$-conjugacy class of an element $b\in H(L)$ (the subscript $H$ is inserted when we want to stress the group $H$).
\[defn:D\_p\^[(n)]{}(gamma\_0)\] For a semi-simple $\gamma_0\in G({{\mathbb Q}_p})$ and $n\in{\mathbb N}$,
$\mathfrak{C}_p^{(n)}(\gamma_0)$ denotes the set of $\sigma$-conjugacy classes in $G(L_n)$ of elements $\delta\in G(L_n)$ satisfying conditions (iii$'$) and $\ast(\delta)$ in Def. \[defn:Kottwitz\_triple\] and Def. \[defn:stable\_Kottwitz\_triple\].
$\mathfrak{D}_p^{(n)}(\gamma_0)$ denotes the subset of $B(I_0)$ consisting of $\sigma$-conjugacy classes $[b=c^{-1}\delta\sigma(c)]_{I_0}$ arising from pairs $(\delta;c)$ satisfying conditions (iii$'$) and $\ast(\delta)$.
Note that for any $\delta\in G(L_n)$ such that there exists $c'\in G({\mathfrak{k}})$ with ${\mathrm{N}}_n\delta=c'\gamma_0c'^{-1}$, the $\sigma$-conjugacy class in $B(G_{\gamma_0})$ of $b':=c'^{-1}\delta\sigma(c')\in G_{\gamma_0}({\mathfrak{k}})$ does not depend on the choice of such $c'$. Thus, this gives a well-defined map $\mathfrak{C}_p^{(n)}(\gamma_0) \rightarrow B(G_{\gamma_0}):[\delta]\mapsto [b=c^{-1}\delta\sigma(c)]_{G_{\gamma_0}}$. In fact, this map is injective. Indeed, suppose that there exist $\delta_i\in G(L_n)$ and $c_i\in G({\mathfrak{k}})$ ($i=1,2$) such that $c_i\gamma_0 c_i^{-1}={\mathrm{N}}_n \delta_i$; set $b_i:=c_i^{-1}\delta_i\sigma(c_i)\in G_{\gamma_0}$ as usual. If $b_2=d^{-1}b_1\sigma(d)$ for some $d\in G_{\gamma_0}({\mathfrak{k}})$, then as ${\mathrm{N}}_n b_i=c_i^{-1}{\mathrm{N}}_n \delta_i\sigma^n(c_i)=\gamma_0\cdot c_i^{-1}\sigma^n(c_i)$, we see that $$\gamma_0\cdot c_2^{-1}\sigma^n(c_2)=d^{-1}(\gamma_0\cdot c_1^{-1}\sigma^n(c_1))\sigma^n(d)=\gamma_0\cdot (c_1d)^{-1}\sigma^n(c_1d),$$ namely $x:=c_1dc_2^{-1}\in G(L_n)$ and $\delta_2=x^{-1}\delta_1\sigma(x)$. In particular, $\mathfrak{C}_p^{(n)}(\gamma_0)$ is identified with the subset of $B(G_{\gamma_0})$ consisting of the $\sigma$-conjugacy classes $[b=c^{-1}\delta\sigma(c)]_{G_{\gamma_0}}$ arising from pairs $(\delta;c)$ satisfying conditions (iii$'$) and $\ast(\delta)$. Hence, there exists a cartesian diagram $$\xymatrix{ \mathfrak{C}_p^{(n)}(\gamma_0) \ar@{^(->}[r] & B(G_{\gamma_0}) \\
\mathfrak{D}_p^{(n)}(\gamma_0) \ar@{^{(}->}[r] \ar@{->>}[u] & B(I_0), \ar[u] }$$ where the left vertical map is defined by $[b]_{I_0}\mapsto [b]_{G_{\gamma_0}}$ (this is clearly surjective).
The main goal of this subsection is to give a cohomological description of the sets $\mathfrak{D}_p^{(n)}(\gamma_0)$, $\mathfrak{C}_p^{(n)}(\gamma_0)$ (when $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is quasi-split); see Prop. \[prop:B(gamma\_0)=D(I\_0,G;Qp)\]. For $\delta\in G(L_n)$, let $\mathscr{S}\mathscr{C}(\delta)$ denote the set of the $\sigma$-conjugacy classes in $G(L_n)$ of elements $\delta'\in G(L_n)$ that are *stably $\sigma$-conjugacte* to it (*stable $\sigma$-conjugacy* is to *$\sigma$-conjugacy* as *stable conjugacy* is to *rational conjugacy*, cf. [@Kottwitz82 $\S$5]). This set has a cohomological description: $$\label{eq:sigma-conj_in_stable-sigma-conj}
\mathscr{S}\mathscr{C}(\delta)= {\mathrm{im}}\left(\ker[H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},G_{\delta\theta}^{\mathrm{o}})\rightarrow H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},R)]\rightarrow \ker[H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},G_{\delta\theta})\rightarrow H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},R)]\right)$$ where $R={\mathrm{Res}}_{L_n/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}G$ [@Kottwitz82 p.806] (see also the discussion below). If $\delta$ satisfies condition (iii$''$) of Remark \[rem:Kottwitz\_triples\] (for a fixed $\gamma_0\in G({{\mathbb Q}_p})$), it also parametrizes the $\sigma$-conjugacy classes of elements $\delta'\in G(L_n)$ satisfying the same condition (iii$''$), because an element $\delta'\in G(L_n)$ satisfies (iii$''$) if and only if its stable norm $\mathscr{N}(\delta')$ is equal to the stable conjugacy class of $\gamma_0$ (Remark \[rem:Kottwitz\_triples\], (4)), while two elements of $G(L_n)$ have the same stable norms if and only if they are stably $\sigma$-conjugate [@Kottwitz82 Prop.5.7]. So, when the two conditions (iii$'$), (iii$''$) are the same (which occurs normally when $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$), our set $\mathfrak{C}_p^{(n)}(\gamma_0)$ becomes a subset of $\mathscr{S}\mathscr{C}(\delta)$ and this leads immediately to its simple cohomological description. It turns out (Prop. \[prop:B(gamma\_0)=D(I\_0,G;Qp)\]) that the same description is still valid in the general case (even if the two conditions (iii$'$), (iii$''$) are not necessarily equivalent). However, our proof of it will be rather indirect: in that regards, note that one cannot appeal to the same argument above, since it is not clear whether the $\sigma$-conjugacy classes in $\mathfrak{C}_p^{(n)}(\gamma_0)$ are stably $\sigma$-conjugate in the usual sense (cf. Remark \[rem:Kottwitz\_triples\], (4)) while in the identification just cited of stable $\sigma$-conjugacy in terms of stable norm one uses the usual definition of stable $\sigma$-conjugacy. Instead, we first give a cohomological description for $\mathfrak{D}_p^{(n)}(\gamma_0)$ and use it to obtain the description for $\mathfrak{C}_p^{(n)}(\gamma_0)$. In our next discussion, we follow [@Kottwitz82 $\S$5] (but will use slightly different notations and conventions). We begin with a review of some basic definitions.
Let $E/F$ be a cyclic extension of degee $n$ contained in $\bar{F}$ (of characteristic zero), and let $\sigma$ be a generator of ${\mathrm{Gal}}(E/F)$. Let $G$ be a connected reductive group over $F$, and $R:={\mathrm{Res}}_{E/F}G_E$ the Weil restriction of the base-change of $G$ (this group was denoted by $I$ in [*loc. cit.*]{}). There exists a natural isomorphism $R_E{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}G_E\times \cdots G_E$, where the factors are ordered such that the $i$-th factor corresponds to $\sigma^i\in {\mathrm{Gal}}(E/F)\ (i=1,\cdots,l)$ (note the convention different from that of [*loc. cit.*]{}). The element $\sigma\in {\mathrm{Gal}}(E/F)$ determines an automorphism $\theta\in{\mathrm{Aut}}_F(R)$, which on $R(E)$ takes the form $$(x_1,\cdots,x_{n-1},x_n)\mapsto (x_2,\cdots,x_n,x_1)$$ Note that the composition $$\Delta_{\sigma}:G(E)=R(F)\rightarrow R(E)=G(E)\times \cdots\times G(E)$$ is given by $$x\mapsto (x,x^{\sigma},\cdots, x^{\sigma^{n-1}}).$$ We define an $F$-morphism $N:R\rightarrow R$ by $Nx=x\cdot x^{\theta}\cdots x^{\theta^{n-1}}$; clearly, one has $N\circ \Delta_{\sigma}=\Delta_{\sigma}\circ{\mathrm{N}}$ on $G(E)=R(F)$ (${\mathrm{N}}$ denotes the map ${\mathrm{N}}_n$ on $G(E)$).
For $x\in G(E)=R(F)$, the *$\sigma$-centralizer* of $x$ is by definition the $F$-subgroup of $R$: $$G_{x\theta}=\{g\in R\ :\ gxg^{-\theta}=x\}.$$ (We sometimes write $g^{-\theta}$ for $\theta(x^{-1})$). If $p:R_E=G_E\times\cdots G_E\rightarrow G_E$ denotes the projection onto the factor indexed by the identity element of ${\mathrm{Gal}}(E/F)$, by restriction $p$ induces an isomorphism $$\label{eq:p_x}
p_x:(G_{x\theta})_E\rightarrow (G_E)_{{\mathrm{N}}x}$$ ([*loc. cit.*]{}, Lemma 5.4). Define $G_{x\theta}^{\ast}$ to be the inverse image under the $E$-isomorphism $p_x$ of the subgroup $G_{{\mathrm{N}}x}^{\ast}$ of $G_{{\mathrm{N}}x}$. This is an $F$-subgroup of $G_{x\theta}$ ([*loc. cit.*]{}, Lemma 5.5) which equals the neutral component $G_{x\theta}^{\mathrm{o}}$ of $G_{x\theta}$ if ${\mathrm{N}}x$ is semi-simple, and equals $G_{x\theta}$ when $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}=G_{{\mathrm{sc}}}$.
\(1) Two elements $x,y$ of $R(\bar{F})$ are *$\bar{F}$-$\sigma$-conjugate* if there exists $g\in R(\bar{F})$ such that $y=gxg^{-\theta}$.
\(2) Two elements $x,y$ of $G(E)=R(F)$ are *stably $\sigma$-conjugate* if there exists $g\in R(\bar{F})$ such that $gxg^{-\theta}=y$ and $g^{-1}\cdot {}^{\tau}g\in G_{x\theta}^{\ast}$ for all $\tau\in\Gamma:={\mathrm{Gal}}(\bar{F}/F)$.
For the next definition (of w-stable $\sigma$-conjugacy relation), we work in the following $p$-adic set-up: Let $k$ be an algebraically closed field of char. $p>0$ and $K=W(k)[\frac{1}{p}]$. Suppose that $F$ is a finite extension of ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$ in a fixed algebraic closure $\bar{K}$ of $K$ and let $L$ be the composite of $K$ and $F$ in $\bar{K}$. We also assume that $E\subset L$ and use $\sigma$ again to denote the Frobenius automorphism of $L/F$ (as well as its restriction to $E$).
\(3) Two elements $x,y$ of $G(E)=R(F)$ are *w-stably $\sigma$-conjugate* if there exists $g\in R(L)$ such that $gxg^{-\theta}=y$ and $g^{-1}\cdot {}^{\sigma}g\in G_{x\theta}^{\ast}$.
In the set-up of (3), when ${\mathrm{N}}x$ is semi-simple, two elements $x,y\in G(E)=R(F)$ are stably $\sigma$-conjugate if and only if there exists $g\in R(F^{{\mathrm{ur}}})$ such that $gxg^{-\theta}=y$ and $g^{-1}\cdot {}^{\sigma}g\in G_{x\theta}^{\ast}$, by Steinberg’s theorem $H^1(\bar{F}/F^{{\mathrm{ur}}},G_{x\theta}^{\ast})=\{1\}$. In particular, in this case, we have the implications: stably $\sigma$-conjugacy $\Rightarrow$ w-stably $\sigma$-conjugacy $\Rightarrow$ $\bar{F}$-$\sigma$-conjugacy.[^15]
Now, we give an explicit relation between the equations appearing in condition (iii) and in $\bar{F}$-$\sigma$-conjugacy; this will provide another proof of the lemma. Let $W(\bar{K}/F)$ be the Weil group, i.e. the group of continuous automorphisms of $\bar{K}$ which fix $F$ pointwise and induce on the residue field $k$ an integral power of the Frobenius automorphism (cf. [@Kottwitz85 $\S$1]); when $k={\bar{\mathbb{F}}_{p}}$, the restriction homomorphism $W(\bar{K}/F)\rightarrow {\mathrm{Gal}}(\bar{F}/F)$ identifies $W(\bar{K}/F)$ with the usual absolute Weil group $W_F$ of $F$ ([*loc. cit.*]{}, (1.4)). There exists an exact sequence $1\rightarrow {\mathrm{Gal}}(\bar{K}/L)\rightarrow W(\bar{K}/F)\rightarrow \langle\sigma\rangle \rightarrow 1$ which endows $W(\bar{K}/F)$ with a natural topology such that the injection identify ${\mathrm{Gal}}(\bar{K}/L)$ with an open subgroup. For a connected reductive group $G$ over $F$ and $b\in G(L)$, we define a cocyle $b_{\tau}\in Z^1(W(\bar{K}/F), G(\bar{K}))$ by $b_{\tau}:={\mathrm{N}}_{i(\tau)}b$, where $i(\tau)\in{\mathbb N}$ is determined by $\tau|_L=\sigma^{i(\tau)}$: its cohomology class is the image of $[b]$ under the isomorphism $B(G)=H^1(\langle\sigma\rangle,G(L)) {\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}H^1(W(\bar{K}/F), G(\bar{K}))$.
\[lem:stable-Norm-conjugacy=stable-sigma-conjugacy\] Suppose given $\delta_1$, $\delta_2\in G(E)$, and let $x:=\Delta_{\sigma}(\delta_1)$, $y:=\Delta_{\sigma}(\delta_2)\in R(F)$.
\(1) If $g_0{\mathrm{N}}\delta_1 g_0^{-1}={\mathrm{N}}\delta_2$ for some $g_0\in G(\bar{K})$, then for every $\tau\in W(\bar{K}/F)$, one has $$\alpha_{\tau}:=g_0^{-1}\cdot {\mathrm{N}}_l\delta_2\cdot {}^{\tau}g_0\cdot {\mathrm{N}}_l\delta_1^{-1}\in G_{{\mathrm{N}}\delta_1},$$ where $l=l(\tau)\in{\mathbb N}$ is determined by $\tau|_E=\sigma^l\ (0\leq l<n)$, and there exists $g\in R(\bar{K})$ such that $$gxg^{-\theta}=y,\ \text{ and }\ p_{\delta_1}(g^{-1}\cdot {}^{\tau}g)=\alpha_{\tau},$$ where $p_{\delta_1}:(G_{\delta_1\theta})_E\rightarrow (G_E)_{{\mathrm{N}}\delta_1}$ is the $E$-isomorphism (\[eq:p\_x\]). Moreover, if $g_0$ lies in $G(\bar{F})$ (resp. in $G(L)$), then one can choose such $g$ in $R(\bar{F})$ (resp. in $R(L)$).
\(2) Conversely, if $gxg^{-\theta}=y$ for $g\in R(\bar{K})$, then one has $g_0{\mathrm{N}}\delta_1 g_0^{-1}={\mathrm{N}}\delta_2$, where $g_0\in G(\bar{K})$ is the image of $g$ under the map $\Xi^{(n)}:R(\bar{K})=G(E\otimes\bar{K})\rightarrow G(\bar{K})$ induced by the canonical $E$-algebra homomorphism $E\otimes\bar{K}\rightarrow \bar{K}:l\otimes x\mapsto lx$ (so that $\Xi^{(n)}|_{R(E)}=p$); clearly, if $g$ lies in $R(\bar{F})$ (resp. in $R(L)$), then $g_0$ also lies $G(\bar{F})$ (resp. in $G(L)$).
\(1) The first claim is a formal check (by applying $\tau$ to both sides of $g_0{\mathrm{N}}\delta_1 g_0^{-1}={\mathrm{N}}\delta_2$). For the second claim, we fix an element $\tilde{\sigma}\in {W(\bar{K}/F)}$ lifting $\sigma$. Since $Nx=N\Delta_{\sigma}\delta_1=\Delta_{\sigma}({\mathrm{N}}\delta_1)$, we have the relation in $R(E)=G(E)\times\cdots\times G(E)$: $$Ny=({\mathrm{N}}\delta_2,\cdots,{\mathrm{N}}\delta_2^{\sigma^{n-1}})=f ({\mathrm{N}}\delta_1,\cdots,{\mathrm{N}}\delta_1^{\sigma^{n-1}})f^{-1}=fNx f^{-1}$$ for $f:=(g_0,g_0^{\tilde{\sigma}},\cdots,g_0^{\tilde{\sigma}^{n-1}})$ (for a moment, we write $g^{\tau}$ for $\tau\in {W(\bar{K}/F)}$ instead of ${}^{\tau}g$). Next, we find $h\in R(\bar{K})$ satisfying that $$hxh^{-\theta}=y':=f^{-1}yf^{\theta},$$ namely, that $(h_1,\cdots,h_n)(x_1,\cdots,x_n)(h_2^{-1},\dots,h_n^{-1},h_1^{-1})=(y_1',\cdots,y_n')$: the condition $Nx=Ny'$ holds ([*loc. cit.*]{}, Lemma 5.2), and this guarantees that this system of equations in $h_i$’s are consistent and we may choose $h_1$ arbitrarily. By putting $h_1=1$, we obtain $$h_{i+1}=(y_1'\cdots y_i')^{-1}(x_1\cdots x_i)=(y_{i+1}'\cdots y_n')(x_{i+1}\cdots x_n)^{-1}.$$ for $i=1,\cdots,n-1$. Hence, we have $gxg^{-\theta}=y$ for $g:=fh\in R(\bar{K})$ and it is clear that if $g_0\in G(E')$ for $E'=\bar{F}$ or $L$ (so that $y'$, $h\in R(E')$ too), one also has $g\in R(E')$.
On the other hand, one checks that any $\tau\in{W(\bar{K}/F)}$ acts on $R(\bar{K})=G(\bar{K})\times \cdots\times G(\bar{K})$ by: $$\label{eq:Galois_action_on_R(Kbar)}
(x_1,\cdots,x_n)\mapsto (\tau(x_{n-l+1}),\cdots,\tau(x_{n-l-1}),\tau(x_{n-l})),$$ where $\tau|E=\sigma^l$ with $0\leq l<n$ (“after applying $\tau$, move each component $l$-times to the right"); we set $x_{n+1}:=x_1$, $y_{n+1}:=y_1$. Hence, since $y_i'=f_i^{-1}y_if_{i+1}$ for $1\leq i\leq n$ ($f_{n+1}:=f_1$), it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
p_{\delta_1}(g^{-1}\cdot {}^{\tau}g) &=(f_1h_1)^{-1}\tau(f_{n-l+1}h_{n+l+1})=f_1^{-1}\tau(f_{n-l+1}(y_{n-l+1}'\cdots y_n')(x_{n-l+1}\cdots x_n)^{-1}) \\
&= f_1^{-1}\tau((y_{n-l+1}\cdots y_n) f_1(x_{n-l+1}\cdots x_n)^{-1}) \\
&= f_1^{-1}\tau(\sigma^{n-l}(\delta_2\cdots \delta_2^{\sigma^{l-1}}) f_1 \sigma^{n-l}(\delta_1\cdots \delta_1^{\sigma^{l-1}})^{-1}) \\
&=g_0^{-1}\cdot {\mathrm{N}}_l\delta_2\cdot \tau(g_0)\cdot {\mathrm{N}}_l \delta_1^{-1}\end{aligned}$$ as was asserted. The last claim is clear from the construction.
\(2) Apply $N:R\rightarrow R$ followed by $\Xi^{(n)}:R(\bar{K})\rightarrow G(\bar{K})$ [@Kottwitz82 Lem.5.2].
From this lemma, we make an observation (which itself, however, will not be used in the rest of this work):
Suppose given $(\gamma_0,\delta)\in G({{\mathbb Q}_p})\times G(L_n)$ satisfying condition (iii$'$) of Def. \[defn:stable\_Kottwitz\_triple\]. Then, an element $\delta'\in G(L_n)$ satisfies condition (iii$'$) for the same $\gamma_0$ if and only if $\delta$ and $\delta'$ are w-stably $\sigma$-conjugate.
Next, we recall [@Kottwitz97 4.13, 3.3-3.5] that for any connected reductive $F$-group $H$, the map $$\label{eq:kappa_times_nu} \kappa_{H}\times \bar{\nu}_{H}: B(H) \rightarrow X^{\ast}(Z(\hat{H})^{\Gamma_p})\times\mathcal{N}(H)$$ is injective and for any $b\in H(L)$, the image under $\kappa_{H}$ of $\bar{\nu}_{H}^{-1}(\bar{\nu}_H([b]))$ is a torsor under $H^1(F,J_b)$, where $J_b=J_b^H$ is the $F$-group such that for any $F$-algebra $R$, $$J_b(R)=\{g\in G(L\otimes R)\ |\ b\sigma(g)=gb\}$$ ($\sigma$ acting via its action on $L$): more explicitly, if $$\label{eq:Xi}
\Xi:H(L\otimes\bar{K})\rightarrow H(\bar{K})$$ denotes the map induced by the canonical $L$-algebra homomorphism $L\otimes\bar{K}\rightarrow \bar{K}:l\otimes x\mapsto lx$, the cocycle $b_{\tau}\in Z^1(W,H(\bar{K}))$ ($W:=W(\bar{K}/F)$) defined by $b$ gives rise to a map $$j_b=j_b^H:Z^1(W,J_b(\bar{K}))\rightarrow Z^1(W,H(\bar{K})) : x_{\tau} \mapsto \Xi(x_{\tau})\cdot b_{\tau},$$ which in turn induces an injection (again denoted by $j_b=j_b^H$) $$\label{eq:j_b}
j_b=j_b^H:H^1(F,J_b)\hookrightarrow B(H)=H^1(W,H)$$ whose image is $j_b(H^1(F,J_b))=\bar{\nu}_{H}^{-1}(\bar{\nu}_H([b]))$ (cf. [@Kottwitz97 3.3 - 3.5]).
Now, we assume that $F\subset{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}$ is a $p$-adic local field. Then, for any connected reductive $F$-groups $I_0\subset G$ and a basic $b\in I_0({\mathfrak{k}})$, there exist canonical bijections $$\ker[H^1(F,J_b^{I_0})\rightarrow H^1(F,J_b^G)]=\ker[H^1(F,I_0)\rightarrow H^1(F,M)] =\ker[H^1(F,I_0)\rightarrow H^1(F,G)],$$ where for $H=I_0, G$, $J_b^H$ denotes the corresponding group $J_b$ and $M:=Z_G(\nu)$ for $\nu:=\nu_{I_0}(b)$. The second equality follows from the fact that as $M$ is a Levi-subgroup of $G$, the map $H^1(F,M)\rightarrow H^1(F,G)$ is injective (cf. [@Kottwitz97 (4.13.3)]). To see the first equality, we choose $h\in I_0(L)$ and $n\in{\mathbb N}$ satisfying ${\mathrm{N}}_n(b')=\nu(p)^n$ for $b':=hb\sigma(h^{-1})$ [@Kottwitz85 (4.3)]. Then, the maps $\Int(h):J_b^H{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}J_{b'}^H$ are $F$-isomorphisms and the inclusion $J_{b'}^{I_0}\hookrightarrow J_{b'}^G$ is a simultaneous inner-twist of the inclusion $I_0\hookrightarrow M$, via the cochain $b'_{\tau}\in C^1(W,I_0)$ defined by $b'$ which becomes cocycles in both $I_0^{{\mathrm{ad}}}$ and $M^{{\mathrm{ad}}}$ (more precisely, as $\nu$ maps to $Z(I_0)$, the map $\Xi:I_0({\mathfrak{k}}\otimes\bar{{\mathfrak{k}}})\rightarrow I_0(\bar{{\mathfrak{k}}})$ (\[eq:Xi\]) restricts to an isomorphism $$\Xi_{b'}:J_{b'}^{I_0}(\bar{{\mathfrak{k}}}){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}I_0(\bar{{\mathfrak{k}}})$$ [@Kottwitz97 3.4], which identifies $J_{b'}^{I_0}$ with the inner twist of $I_0$ via the cocycle in $Z^1(F^{{\mathrm{ur}}}/F,I_0^{{\mathrm{ad}}})$ defined by the image of $b'$ in $I_0^{{\mathrm{ad}}}(F^{{\mathrm{ur}}})$). In view of these, the first equality is due to the canonical bijection $H^1(F,H)=H^1(F,H_{{\mathbf{ab}}})$ (for any connected reductive group $H$ over arbitrary non-archimedean local $F$), which also implies that this equality is independent of the choice of a particular simultaneous inner twist $((J_b^{I_0})_{{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}}\hookrightarrow (J_b^G)_{{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}}) {\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}((I_0)_{{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}}\hookrightarrow M_{{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}})$. The resulting injection $$\label{eq:j_[b]^{I_0}}
j_{[b]}^{I_0}:\ker[H^1(F,I_0)\rightarrow H^1(F,G)] \hookrightarrow B(I_0)$$ depends only on the $\sigma$-conjugacy class $[b]_{I_0}$, not on the choice of its representative in $I_0({\mathfrak{k}})$ (which justifies the notation $j_{[b]}^{I_0}$).
Returning to the original set-up (where further $F={{\mathbb Q}_p}$ and $W(\bar{{\mathfrak{k}}}/{{\mathbb Q}_p})=W_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$), we know that:
- For any pair of elements $(\delta,c)\in G(L_n)\times G({\mathfrak{k}})$ satisfying (iii$'$) of Def. \[defn:stable\_Kottwitz\_triple\], the associated element $b:=c^{-1}\delta\sigma(c)$ has Newton quasi-cocharacter $\nu_{I_0}(b)=\frac{1}{n}\nu_{I_0}(\gamma_0)$ (Lemma \[lem:equality\_of\_two\_Newton\_maps\], (2), cf. [@LR87 Lem. 5.15]). In particular, its $\sigma$-conjugacy class $[b]_{I_0}\in B(I_0)$ is basic.
- The functorial map $\Int(c^{-1}):G({\mathfrak{k}}\otimes R){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}G({\mathfrak{k}}\otimes R)$ (for ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-algebras $R$) restricts to a ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-isomorphism $$G_{\delta\theta}^{\mathrm{o}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}J_b^{I_0},$$ Indeed, one has $\gamma_0=(b\sigma)^n\cdot c^{-1}\cdot \sigma^n\cdot c$ (identity in $G({\mathfrak{k}})\rtimes\langle\sigma\rangle$), which implies that an element $g\in G({\mathfrak{k}}\otimes R)$ commutes with $\gamma_0$ and $b\sigma$ if and only if $cgc^{-1}$ does with $\delta\sigma=c(b\sigma)c^{-1}$ and $\sigma^n$ ($\sigma$ acts on $G({\mathfrak{k}}\otimes R)$ via its action on ${\mathfrak{k}}$). The composite of this with $\Xi_b:J_b^{I_0}(\bar{{\mathfrak{k}}}){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}J_{b'}^{I_0}(\bar{{\mathfrak{k}}}){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}I_0(\bar{{\mathfrak{k}}})$ above $$G_{\delta\theta}^{\mathrm{o}}(\bar{{\mathfrak{k}}}) {\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}J_b^{I_0}(\bar{{\mathfrak{k}}}){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}I_0(\bar{{\mathfrak{k}}})$$ equals the restriction to the neutral components of the composite isomorphism $$\label{eq:psi}
\psi:=\Int(c^{-1})\circ p_{\delta}: (G_{\delta\theta})_{{\mathfrak{k}}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}(G_{{\mathfrak{k}}})_{{\mathrm{N}}\delta} {\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}(G_{\gamma_0})_{{\mathfrak{k}}}$$ which satisfies $\psi\cdot{}^{\sigma}\psi^{-1}=\Int(b)$.
- If the pair $(\delta,c)$ is required further to satisfy condition $\ast(\delta)$ of Def. \[defn:Kottwitz\_triple\], the resulting $\sigma$-conjugacy class $[b]_{G}\in B(G)$ is a constant one depending only on $\gamma_0$.
Therefore, with choice of a reference element $b=g_p^{-1}\delta\sigma(g_p)\in I_0({\mathfrak{k}})$, there exist inclusions $$\label{eq:B(G(L_n);gamma_0)}
\mathfrak{D}_p^{(n)}(\gamma_0) \subset j_{[b]}^{I_0}(\ker[H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},I_0)\rightarrow H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},G)])\ \subset B(I_0).$$
On the other hand, the natural diagram $$\label{eq:stable_sigma_conj_diagm}
\xymatrix{ H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},G_{\delta\theta}^{\mathrm{o}}) \ar[r] \ar[d]_{\simeq} & H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},R) \\
H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},I_0) \ar[r] & H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},G), \ar[u] }$$ is commutative, where the map $H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},G)\rightarrow H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},R)=H^1(L_n,G)$ is the restriction map. To see this, we replace these cohomology groups by the respective abelianized cohomology groups (Appendix \[sec:abelianization\_complex\]). Then, the isomorphism $H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},(G_{\delta\theta}^{\mathrm{o}})_{{\mathbf{ab}}}){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},(I_0)_{{\mathbf{ab}}})$ is induced by the restriction of the inner twist $\Int(c^{-1})\circ p_{\delta}$ (\[eq:psi\]) to the abelianization complexes (which is then a ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-isomorphism). Since $p_{\delta}$ is the restriction of $\Xi^{(n)}:G(L_n\otimes{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})\rightarrow G({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ and $\Int(c)$ is the identity on $G_{{\mathbf{ab}}}=(Z(G^{{\mathrm{sc}}})\rightarrow Z(G))$, we see that $H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},(G_{\delta\theta}^{\mathrm{o}})_{{\mathbf{ab}}}){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},G_{{\mathbf{ab}}})$ is induced by the restriction of $\Xi^{(n)}$ to the abelianization complexes. But the identification $H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},{\mathrm{Res}}_{L_n/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}G){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}H^1(L_n,G)$ (the Shapiro lemma) is also induced by $\Xi^{(n)}$, which proves the commutativity.
\[prop:B(gamma\_0)=D(I\_0,G;Qp)\] Suppose given a semi-simple $\gamma_0\in G({{\mathbb Q}_p})$ and $(\delta,c)\in G(L_n)\times G({\mathfrak{k}})$ satisfying conditions (iii$'$) and $\ast(\delta)$. Then, the inclusion (\[eq:B(G(L\_n);gamma\_0)\]) is an equality: $$\mathfrak{D}_p^{(n)}(\gamma_0)= j_{[b]}^{I_0}(\ker[H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},I_0)\rightarrow H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},G)]).$$ Also, we have $$\mathfrak{C}_p^{(n)}(\gamma_0)={\mathrm{im}}\left(\ker[H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},G_{\delta\theta}^{\mathrm{o}})\rightarrow H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},G)]\rightarrow \ker[H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},G_{\delta\theta})\rightarrow H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},R)]\right).$$
Let $\mathfrak{D}_p^{(n)}(\gamma_0)'$ be the subset of $B(I_0)$ consisting of $\sigma$-conjugacy classes $[b=c^{-1}\delta\sigma(c)]_{I_0}$ arising from the pairs $(\delta;c)$ satisfying condition (iii$'$) (but not necessarily $\ast(\delta)$). Then, we claim that $$\mathfrak{D}_p^{(n)}(\gamma_0)'=j_{b}^{I_0}(\ker[H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},G_{\delta\theta}^{\mathrm{o}})\rightarrow H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},R)])$$ Clearly, this is the same as $\mathfrak{D}_p^{(n)}(\gamma_0)'=j_{b}^{I_0}(\ker[H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},G_{\delta\theta}^{\mathrm{o}})\rightarrow H^1(W_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}},R(\bar{{\mathfrak{k}}}))])$, which we now show. The inclusion $\subset$ follows from the facts that any $b'\in \mathfrak{D}_p^{(n)}(\gamma_0)'$ has the property $\nu_{I_0}(b')=\nu_{I_0}(b)$, and that $j_b^{I_0}(H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},J_b^{I_0}))=\bar{\nu}_{I_0}^{-1}(\bar{\nu}_{I_0}([b]))$.
Conversely, any $\beta\in \ker[H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},G_{\delta\theta}^{\mathrm{o}})\rightarrow H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},R)]$ is of the form $[g^{-1}\cdot{}^{\tau}g]$ for some $g\in R({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$. Then, we have $\delta':=g\delta g^{-\theta}\in R({{\mathbb Q}_p})$ and $gN\delta g^{-1}=N\delta'$ (in $R({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$). Hence, if $g_0:=\Xi^{(n)}(g)$ for the map $\Xi^{(n)}:R({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})\rightarrow G({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$ from Lemma \[lem:stable-Norm-conjugacy=stable-sigma-conjugacy\], (2), we have ${\mathrm{N}}\delta'=g_0{\mathrm{N}}\delta g_0^{-1}$ (in $G({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$), that is, $c'\gamma_0c'^{-1}={\mathrm{N}}\delta'$ for $c':=g_0c\in G({\mathfrak{k}})$. The inclusion $\supset$ will be established, if we show that $b':=c'^{-1}\delta'\sigma(c')\in I_0$ and $$j_b^{I_0}(\beta)=[b_{\tau}']$$ for the cocycle $b'_{\tau}$ attached to $b'$ (i.e. $\tau\mapsto {\mathrm{N}}_{l(\tau)}b'$, where $l(\tau)\in{\mathbb N}$ is given by $\tau|_{L_n}=\sigma^{l(\tau)}$ with $0\leq l(\tau)<n$). If $g=(g_1,\cdots,g_n)$ in $R({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})=G({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})\times\cdots\times G({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$ (then, $g_0=\Xi^{(n)}(g)=g_1$), it follows from ${\mathrm{N}}\delta'=g_0{\mathrm{N}}\delta g_0^{-1}$ that $g_i=({\mathrm{N}}_{i-1}\delta')^{-1}\cdot g_1\cdot {\mathrm{N}}_{i-1}\delta$, and thus, as $p_{\delta}({}^\tau g)=\tau(g_{n-l(\tau)+1})$ (\[eq:Galois\_action\_on\_R(Kbar)\]), one has $$p_{\delta}(g^{-1}\cdot {}^{\tau}g)=g_0^{-1}\cdot {\mathrm{N}}_{l(\tau)}\delta'\cdot \tau(g_0)\cdot ({\mathrm{N}}_{l(\tau)}\delta)^{-1}=c\cdot {\mathrm{N}}_{l(\tau)}b'\cdot ({\mathrm{N}}_{l(\tau)}b)^{-1}\cdot c^{-1}$$ for any $\tau\in W$; in particular, $b'\in I_0$. Then, since the map $\Xi:G_{\delta\theta}^{\mathrm{o}}(\bar{{\mathfrak{k}}}){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}J_b^{I_0}(\bar{{\mathfrak{k}}}){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}I_0(\bar{{\mathfrak{k}}})$ equals $\Int(c^{-1})\circ p_{\delta}$ (\[eq:psi\]), we see that $ j_b^{I_0}(g^{-1}\cdot{}^{\tau}g)=\Xi_b(g^{-1}\cdot{}^{\tau}g)\cdot b_{\tau}={\mathrm{N}}_{l(\tau)}b'$.
From the injectivity of (\[eq:kappa\_times\_nu\]), it follows that an element $[b'=c'^{-1}\delta'\sigma(c')]_{I_0}$ of $\mathfrak{D}_p^{(n)}(\gamma_0)'$ lies in the subset $\mathfrak{D}_p^{(n)}(\gamma_0)$ if (and only if) $[b']=[b]$ in $B(G)$, namely if $\beta\in\ker[H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},J_b^{I_0})\rightarrow H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},J_b^G)]$ when $[b']_{I_0}=j_{[b]}^{I_0}(\beta)$ (so that $[b']_{G}=j_{[b]}^{G}(\beta)$, as $j_b$ is functorial with respect to $I_0\rightarrow G$). But, from the commutative diagram (\[eq:stable\_sigma\_conj\_diagm\]), we see that any class in $\ker[H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},I_0)\rightarrow H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},G)]$ already lies in $\mathfrak{D}_p^{(n)}(\gamma_0)'$, so the first statement follows. The second statement is a consequence of the first statement.
### Kottwitz invariant {#subsubsec:Kottwitz_invariant}
Here, we extend, to general groups, the definition of Kottwitz invariant which was previously used (at least in the context of Shimura varieties, as in [@Kottwitz90 $\S$2], [@Kottwitz92 $\S$5]) under the assumption $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$. When $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$, the notion of Kottwitz invariant is well-defined by a Kottwitz triple only. For general groups, however, this is not the case any longer, and we generalize the defintion such that it depends on some auxiliary choices as well as on stable Kottwitz triple; in fact, as we will see, it seems better to regard Kottwitz invariant as being defined on the set $\ker[H^1({\mathbb A}_f,I_0)\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb A}_f,G)]$. Recall our convention for the notation $X_{\ast}(A)$, $X^{\ast}(A)$, and $A^D$: for a locally compact abelian group $A$, they denote the (co)character groups ${\mathrm{Hom}}({\mathbb C}^{\times},A)$, ${\mathrm{Hom}}(A,{\mathbb C}^{\times})$, and the Pontryagin dual group ${\mathrm{Hom}}(A,S^1)$, respectively. Let $\Gamma:={\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb Q}}/{\mathbb Q})$. Let $(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$ be a *stable* Kottwitz triple and put $I_0:=G_{\gamma_0}^{\mathrm{o}}$, $\tilde{I}_0:=\rho^{-1}(I_0)$ for the canonical homomorphism $\rho=\rho_G:G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}\rightarrow G$. The exact sequence $$1\rightarrow Z(\hat{G})\rightarrow Z(\hat{I}_0)\rightarrow Z(\hat{\tilde{I}}_0) \rightarrow 1$$ induces a homomorphism [@Kottwitz84a Cor.2.3] $$\label{eq:boundary_map_for_center_of_dual}
\partial: \pi_0(Z(\hat{\tilde{I}}_0)^{\Gamma})\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb Q},Z(\hat{G})).$$ Let $\ker^1({\mathbb Q},Z(\hat{G}))$ denote the kernel of the localization map $H^1({\mathbb Q},Z(\hat{G}))\rightarrow \prod_v H^1({\mathbb Q}_v,Z(\hat{G}))$. Then we define $\mathfrak{K}(I_0/{\mathbb Q})$ by $$\mathfrak{K}(I_0/{\mathbb Q}) :=\{ a\in \pi_0(Z(\hat{\tilde{I}})^{\Gamma}) \ |\ \partial(a)\in \ker^1({\mathbb Q},Z(\hat{G}))\}.$$ This is known to be a finite group. Since $\gamma_0$ is elliptic, there is also an identification $$\mathfrak{K}(I_0/{\mathbb Q})=\biggl( \bigcap_v Z(\hat{I}_0)^{\Gamma_v}Z(\hat{G}) \biggl)/Z(\hat{G}).$$
The Kottwitz invariant $\alpha(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta;(g_v)_v)$ attached to the stable Kottwitz triple $(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$ and certain auxiliary elements $((g_l)_{l\neq p},g_p)\in G(\bar{{\mathbb A}}_f^p)\times G({\mathfrak{k}})$ is then a character of $\mathfrak{K}(I_0/{\mathbb Q})$. It is defined as a product over all places of ${\mathbb Q}$ of the restrictions to $\mathfrak{K}(I_0/{\mathbb Q})$ of some characters $\tilde{\alpha}_v(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta;(g_v)_{v})\in X^{\ast}(Z(\hat{I}_0)^{\Gamma_v}Z(\hat{G}))$: $$\alpha(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta;(g_v)_v)=\prod_v \tilde{\alpha}_v|_{\bigcap_v Z(\hat{I}_0)^{\Gamma_v}Z(\hat{G})}$$ (it factors through the quotient $( \bigcap_v Z(\hat{I}_0)^{\Gamma_v}Z(\hat{G}) )/Z(\hat{G})$). For each place $v$, $\tilde{\alpha}_v$ is itself defined as the unique extension $\tilde{\alpha}_l(\gamma_0;\gamma_l;g_l)$ ($l\neq p,\infty$), $\tilde{\alpha}_p(\gamma_0;\delta;g_p)$, $\tilde{\alpha}_{\infty}(\gamma_0)$ of another character on $Z(\hat{I}_0)^{\Gamma_v}$: $$\label{eq:alpha(gamma_0;gamma,delta)}
\alpha_l(\gamma_0;\gamma_l;g_l)\ (l\neq p,\infty),\quad \alpha_p(\gamma_0;\delta;g_p),\quad \alpha_{\infty}(\gamma_0)$$ The restriction of $\tilde{\alpha}_v$ to $Z(\hat{G})$ is defined to be[^16] $$\label{eq:restriction_of_alpha_to_Z(hatG)}
\tilde{\alpha}_v|_{Z(\hat{G})}=
\begin{cases}
\ -\mu_{\natural} &\text{ if }\quad v=\infty \\
\quad \mu_{\natural} &\text{ if }\quad v=p \\
\text{ trivial } &\text{ if }\quad v\neq p,\infty.
\end{cases}$$ (Such extension of $\alpha_v\in X^{\ast}(Z(\hat{I}_0)^{\Gamma_v}Z(\hat{G}))$ will be possible, since $\alpha_v$’s have the same restrictions to $Z(\hat{I}_0)^{\Gamma_v}\cap Z(\hat{G})$ as these characters (\[eq:restriction\_of\_alpha\_to\_Z(hatG)\]) on $Z(\hat{G})$, as we will see now). Finally, the characters $\alpha_v\in X^{\ast}(Z(\hat{I}_0)^{\Gamma_v})$ (\[eq:alpha(gamma\_0;gamma,delta)\]) are defined as follows:
For each finite place $l\neq p$, we choose $g_l\in G({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_l})$ such that $$\label{eq:stable_g_l}
g_l\gamma_0g_l^{-1}=\gamma_l,\ \text{ and }\ g_l^{-1}\tau(g_l)\in I_0({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_l})\quad \forall\tau\in\Gamma_l,$$ so that $\tau\mapsto g_l^{-1}\tau(g_l)$ is a cocycle in $Z^1({{\mathbb Q}_l},I_0)$. In view of the canonical isomorphism $H^1({{\mathbb Q}_l},I_0){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}\pi_0(Z(\hat{I}_0)^{\Gamma_l})^D$ [@Kottwitz86 Thm.1.2], the corresponding cohomology class gives a character $\alpha_l(\gamma_0;\gamma_l;g_l)$ of $Z(\hat{I}_0)^{\Gamma_l}$. We note that this class $\alpha_l(\gamma_0;\gamma_l;g_l)$ lives in $\ker[H^1({{\mathbb Q}_l},I_0)\rightarrow H^1({{\mathbb Q}_l},G)]$ and in general depends on the choice of $g_l$ as well as on the pair $(\gamma_0,\gamma_l)$, while its image in $H^1({{\mathbb Q}_l},G_{\gamma_0})$ does not. More precisely, it depends only on the left $I_0({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_l})$-coset $g_lI_0({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_l})$. In [@Labesse99 p.41], the set of the left $I_0({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_l})$-cosets of such elements $g_l$ (i.e. $g_l^{-1}\tau(g_l)\in I_0({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_l}),\forall\tau\in\Gamma_l$) is denoted by $\mathbb{H}^0({{\mathbb Q}_l},I_0\backslash G)$ and the set $\ker[H^1({{\mathbb Q}_l},I_0)\rightarrow H^1({{\mathbb Q}_l},G)]$ by $\mathfrak{D}(I_0,G;{{\mathbb Q}_l})$,[^17] and $\alpha_l(\gamma_0;\gamma_l;g_l)$ is the image of $g_l I_0({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_l})$ under the natural surjective map $$\mathbb{H}^0({{\mathbb Q}_l},I_0\backslash G)\rightarrow \ker[H^1({{\mathbb Q}_l},I_0)\rightarrow H^1({{\mathbb Q}_l},G)]\ :\ g_l I_0({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_l})\mapsto [g_l^{-1}\tau(g_l)].$$ Namely, the invariant $\alpha_l(\gamma_0;-;-)$ can be regarded as a such map. Also for $\eta\in \mathfrak{D}(I_0,G;{{\mathbb Q}_l}):=\ker[H^1({{\mathbb Q}_l},I_0)\rightarrow H^1({{\mathbb Q}_l},G)]$, the fiber of $\eta$ is identified with the set $G({{\mathbb Q}_l})/I_{\eta}({{\mathbb Q}_l})$, where $I_{\eta}=xI_0x^{-1}$ (inner form of $I_0$) for any $x\in \mathbb{H}^0({{\mathbb Q}_l},I_0\backslash G)$ with image $\eta$.
On the other hand, the set $\ker[H^1({{\mathbb Q}_l},G_{\gamma_0})\rightarrow H^1({{\mathbb Q}_l},G)]$ classifies the $G({{\mathbb Q}_l})$-conjugacy classes in the $G({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_l}$)-conjugacy class of $\gamma_0\in G({{\mathbb Q}_l})$, and its subset $$\label{eq:C_l(gamma_0)}
\mathfrak{C}_l(\gamma_0):= {\mathrm{im}}\left(\ker[H^1({{\mathbb Q}_l},I_0)\rightarrow H^1({{\mathbb Q}_l},G)]\rightarrow \ker[H^1({{\mathbb Q}_l},G_{\gamma_0})\rightarrow H^1({{\mathbb Q}_l},G)]\right)$$ classifies the $G({{\mathbb Q}_l})$-conjugacy classes in the *stable* conjugacy class of $\gamma_0\in G({{\mathbb Q}_l})$. The invariant $\alpha_l(\gamma_0;\gamma_l;g_l)$ is then a lifting in $\ker[H^1({{\mathbb Q}_l},I_0)\rightarrow H^1({{\mathbb Q}_l},G)]$ of the $G({{\mathbb Q}_l})$-conjugacy class of $\gamma_l$.
For $v=p$, when we choose $g_p\in G({\mathfrak{k}})$ satisfying condition (iii$'$) of Def. \[defn:stable\_Kottwitz\_triple\] (with $g_p=c$), the element $b:=g_p^{-1}\delta\sigma(g_p)\in I_0({\mathfrak{k}})$ and its $\sigma$-conjugacy class $[b]_{I_0}$ in $B(I_0)$ in general depends on the choice of $g_p$ as well as on the pair $(\gamma_0,\delta)$ while its $\sigma$-conjugacy class in $B(G_{\gamma_0})$ does not. We define $\alpha_p(\gamma_0;\delta;g_p)$ to be the image of this class under the canonical map $\kappa_{I_0}:B(I_0)\rightarrow X^{\ast}(Z(\hat{I}_0)^{\Gamma(p)})$ (or, its restriction $B(I_0)_{basic}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}X^{\ast}(Z(\hat{I}_0)^{\Gamma(p)})$ [@Kottwitz85 Prop.6.2]).
We have seen (Prop. \[prop:B(gamma\_0)=D(I\_0,G;Qp)\]) that with choice of a reference element $[b]_{I_0}$ in $\mathfrak{D}_p^{(n)}(\gamma_0)\subset B(I_0)_{basic}$, the map $\kappa_{I_0}-\kappa_{I_0}([b])$ provides an identification $$\mathfrak{D}_p^{(n)}(\gamma_0)=\ker[H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},I_0)\rightarrow H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},G)]$$ sending $[b]_{I_0}$ to the distinguished element of the target (whose inverse is given by $j_{[b]}$ (\[eq:B(G(L\_n);gamma\_0)\])) and that the set $\mathfrak{C}_p^{(n)}(\gamma_0)$ of $\sigma$-conjugacy classes of elements in $G(L_n)$ satisfying conditions (iii$'$) and $\ast(\delta)$ is identified with $$\label{eq:C_p(gamma_0)}
{\mathrm{im}}\left(\ker[H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},G_{\delta\theta}^{\mathrm{o}})\rightarrow H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},G)]\rightarrow \ker[H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},G_{\delta\theta})\rightarrow H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},R)]\right).$$ Further, we can regard the invariant $\alpha_p$ as being valued in $\ker[H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},G_{\delta\theta}^{\mathrm{o}})\rightarrow H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},G)]$; or, as in the case $l\neq p$, one can also view $\alpha_p$ as a map $$\mathbb{H}^0({{\mathbb Q}_p},I_0\backslash G)\rightarrow \mathfrak{D}(I_0,G;{{\mathbb Q}_p}).$$
For $v=\infty$, we define $\alpha_{\infty}(\gamma_0)$ to be the image of $\mu_h$ in $\pi_1(I_0)_{\Gamma(\infty)}\cong X^{\ast}(Z(\hat{I}_0)^{\Gamma(\infty)})$ for some $h\in X$ factoring through a maximal torus $T$ of $G$ containing $\gamma_0$ and elliptic over ${\mathbb R}$. This character is independent of the choice of $(T,h)$ [@Kottwitz90 Lem.5.1].
Since the image of $\alpha_p$ in $X^{\ast}(Z(\hat{G})^{\Gamma(p)})$ equals that of the $\sigma$-conjugacy class of $b$ in $B(G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}})$ under $\kappa_{G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}}$, it is equal to $\mu^{\natural}$ by condition $\ast(\delta)$, which makes the construction of $\tilde{\alpha}_v$ above possible. It also follows that the product $\prod_v \tilde{\alpha}_v$ is trivial on $Z(\hat{G})$. Clearly, the Kottwitz invariant $\alpha(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta;(g_v)_v)$ is determined by the adelic class $(\alpha_v(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta;g_v))_v\in \ker[H^1({\mathbb A}_f,I_0)\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb A}_f,G)]$ (once we fix a reference $\sigma$-conjugacy class $[b]=[g_p^{-1}\delta\sigma(g_p)]\in B(I_0)$). Here and thereafter, to have uniform notation for all $v$’s, we write $\alpha_v(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta;g_v)$ and $\tilde{\alpha}_v(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta;g_v)$, although for specific $v$, these depend only on either $\gamma_l\ (l\neq p)$ or $\delta$.
Later, we will often use the expression “*stable Kottwitz triple with trivial Kottwitz invariant*". By this, we will mean that for given stable Kottwitz triple $(\gamma_0;(\gamma_l)_{l\neq p},\delta)$ there exist elements $(g_v)_v\in G(\bar{{\mathbb A}}_f^p)\times G({\mathfrak{k}})$ satisfying conditions (\[eq:stable\_g\_l\]), (\[eq:stable\_g\_l\]) such that the associated Kottwitz invariant $\alpha(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta;(g_v)_v)$ vanishes.
Admissible pairs and associated Kottwitz triples
------------------------------------------------
Recall that every parahoric subgroup ${\mathbf{K}}_p\subset G({{\mathbb Q}_p})$ is defined by a $\sigma$-stable facet ${\mathbf{a}}$ in the building ${\mathcal{B}}(G,{\mathfrak{k}})$ which also gives rise to a parahoric subgroup ${\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p\subset G({\mathfrak{k}})$ with ${\mathbf{K}}_p={\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p\cap G({{\mathbb Q}_p})$. To formulate the definition of admissible pair for general parahoric level, we need to consider the coset space $G({\mathfrak{k}})/{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p$ endowed with the obvious action of the semi-direct product $G({\mathfrak{k}})\rtimes\langle\sigma\rangle$, instead of the Bruhat-Tits building ${\mathcal{B}}(G,{\mathfrak{k}})$ which was used in the hyperspecial level case; note that unless ${\mathbf{K}}_p$ is hyperspecial (in which case ${\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p$ equals the whole stabilizer $\mathrm{Stab}({\mathbf{0}})\subset G({\mathfrak{k}})$), $G({\mathfrak{k}})/{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p$ is not a subset of ${\mathcal{B}}(G,{\mathfrak{k}})$ in any natural manner.
[@LR87 p.189] \[defn:admissible\_pair\] A pair $(\phi,\epsilon)$ is called *admissible (of level $n=[\kappa(\wp):{\mathbb{F}_{p}}]m$)* if
- $\phi:{\mathfrak{Q}}\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}_G$ is admissible in the sense of Def. \[defn:admissible\_morphism\].
- $\epsilon\in I_{\phi}({\mathbb Q})(=\{g\in G({\overline{\mathbb Q}})\ |\ \mathrm{Int}(g)\circ\phi=\phi\})$.
- There are $\gamma=(\gamma(v))\in G({\mathbb A}_f^p)$, $y\in X^p(\phi)$, and $x$ in $G({\mathfrak{k}})/{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p$ such that $$\epsilon y=y\gamma\quad \text{ and }\quad \epsilon x=\Phi^mx.$$
Comments on condition (3) are in order: the equation $\epsilon x=\Phi^mx$ requires actions of $I_{\phi}({\mathbb Q})$ and $\Phi$ on $G({\mathfrak{k}})/{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p$. Such actions are specified by choice of $u\in G({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ such that $\xi_p':=\Int(u)\circ\xi_p$ is unramified ($\xi_p:=\phi(p)\circ\zeta_p:{\mathfrak{G}}_p\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}_G(p)$). First, as an automorphism of $G({\mathfrak{k}})/{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p$, $\Phi$ acts by left multiplication by $\Phi_b:=(b\sigma)^{[\kappa(\wp):{\mathbb{F}_{p}}]}$ when $\xi_p'(s_{\widetilde{\sigma}})=b\widetilde{\sigma}$ for a (fixed) lifting $\widetilde{\sigma}\in{\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p})$ of the Frobenius automorphism $\sigma$ of ${{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}$ (recall that $\tau\mapsto s_{\tau}$ is the previously chosen section to the projection ${\mathfrak{G}}_p\rightarrow{\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p})$). Moreover, the choice of $u$ also fixes an action of $I_{\phi}({\mathbb Q})$ on $G({\mathfrak{k}})/{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p$ via the homomorphism $$\Int(u):I_{\phi}({{\mathbb Q}_p})=\mathrm{Aut}(\phi(p))\hookrightarrow \mathrm{Aut}(\phi(p)\circ\zeta_p){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}\mathrm{Aut}(\xi_p')\subset G({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}).$$ (one has $\mathrm{Aut}(\xi_p')\subset G({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$, since $\xi_p'(s_{\tau})=1\rtimes\tau$ for every $\tau\in{\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$, so that $\epsilon'\tau=\epsilon'\cdot \xi_p'(s_{\tau})=\xi_p'(s_{\tau})\cdot \epsilon'=\tau(\epsilon')\tau$ for all $\tau\in{\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$). Then, by existence of $x$ in $G({\mathfrak{k}})/{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p$ satisfying $\epsilon x=\Phi^mx$, we mean that for some (equiv. any) $u\in G({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ such that $\Int(u)\circ\xi_p$ is unramified, there exists $x$ in the coset space $G({\mathfrak{k}})/{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p$ satisfying that $$\label{defn:admissible_pair_(3)a}
\epsilon'x=(b\sigma)^{[\kappa(\wp):{\mathbb{F}_{p}}]m}x,$$ where $\epsilon':=u\epsilon u^{-1}\in G({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$. Here, to define $F=b\sigma$, instead of $\xi_p'$, we could also have used a ${{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerb morphism $\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}$ whose inflation to ${\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}$ is $\xi_p'$: it does not change $b$ (Lemma \[lem:unramified\_morphism\]).
\[rem:admissible\_pair\] (1) Suppose that the anisotropic kernel of $Z(G)$ (maximal anisotropic subtorus of $Z(G)$) remains anisotropic over ${\mathbb R}$ (then $Z(G)({\mathbb Q})$ is discrete in $Z(G)({\mathbb A}_f)$); take ${\mathbf{K}}^p$ to be small enough so that $Z({\mathbb Q})\cap {\mathbf{K}}_p{\mathbf{K}}^p=\{1\}$ and also condition (1.3.7) of [@Kottwitz84b] holds.
Then, conjecture (\[conj:Langlands-Rapoport\_conjecture\_ver1\]) leads to the following description of the finite sets ${\mathscr{S}}_{{\mathbf{K}}}(G,X)({\mathbb F}_{q^m})=[{\mathscr{S}}_{{\mathbf{K}}}(G,X)({\bar{\mathbb{F}}_{p}})]^{\Phi^m=\mathrm{id}}$ for each finite extension ${\mathbb F}_{q^m}$ of ${\mathbb F}_q=\kappa(\wp)$, where $\Phi:=F^r$ is the $r=[\kappa(\wp):{\mathbb{F}_{p}}]$-th relative Frobenius (cf. [@Kottwitz84b 1.3-1.5], [@Milne92 $\S$5]): There exists a bijection (forming a compatible family for varying ${\mathbf{K}}^p$) $$\label{eqn:LRconj-ver2}
{\mathscr{S}}_{{\mathbf{K}}}(G,X)({\mathbb F}_{q^m}){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}\bigsqcup_{(\phi,\epsilon)} S(\phi,\epsilon),$$ where $S(\phi,\epsilon)=I_{\phi,\epsilon}({\mathbb Q})\backslash X_p(\phi,\epsilon)\times X^p(\phi,\epsilon)_{{\mathbf{K}}^p}/{\mathbf{K}}^p$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:LRconj-ver2_constituents}
I_{\phi,\epsilon}&:= \text{ centralizer of }\epsilon\text{ in }I_{\phi}({\mathbb Q}), \\
X^p(\phi,\epsilon)_{{\mathbf{K}}^p}&:= \{ x^p\in X^p(\phi) \ |\ \epsilon x^p=x^p\mod {\mathbf{K}}^p\}, \nonumber \\
X_p(\phi,\epsilon)&:= \{ x_p\in X_p(\phi) \ |\ \epsilon x_p=\Phi^mx_p\} \nonumber \\
&\simeq \{ x_p\in X(\{\mu_X\},b)_{{\mathbf{K}}_p} \ |\ \epsilon' x_p=(b\sigma)^{rm}x_p\}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ In (\[eqn:LRconj-ver2\]), $(\phi,\epsilon)$ runs through a set of representatives for the conjugacy classes of pairs consisting of an admissible morphism $\phi$ and an element $\epsilon\in I_{\phi}({\mathbb Q})(\subset G({\overline{\mathbb Q}}))$. We emphasize that the second identification of $X_p(\phi,\epsilon)$ requires choice of $g_0\in G({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ with $g_0{\mathbf{K}}_p({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})\in X_p(\phi)$ (so that especially, $\Int(g_0^{-1})\circ\phi(p)\circ\zeta_p$ is unramified), which also specifies an action of $(b\sigma)^r$ on $X(\{\mu_X\},b)_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}$ (for the Frobenius $\Phi=b\sigma$ defined in (\[eq:Frob\_Phi\_2\])) as well as an action of $\epsilon\in I_{\phi}({\mathbb Q})$ via $\epsilon':={\mathrm{Int}}g_0^{-1}(\epsilon)$ (\[eq:action\_of\_I\_[phi]{}\_on\_AffDL\]), cf. (\[defn:admissible\_pair\_(3)a\]).
\(2) According to this conjecture (\[eqn:LRconj-ver2\]), an admissible pair $(\phi,\epsilon)$ will contribute to the set ${\mathscr{S}}_{{\mathbf{K}}}(G,X)({\mathbb F}_{q^m})$ if and only if in condition (3) one can find $y\in X^p(\phi)(\subset G(\bar{{\mathbb A}}_f^p))$ and a solution $x\in G({\mathfrak{k}})/{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p$ to the equation $\epsilon x=\Phi^mx$ (i.e. to (\[defn:admissible\_pair\_(3)a\])), further satisfying that $$\label{eqn:effectivity_admssible_pair_condition}
y^{-1}\epsilon y\in {\mathbf{K}}^p,\ \text{ and }\ x\in X(\{\mu_X\},b)_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}$$
Regarding this, we emphasize that in condition (3) of the definition of an admissible pair, $y\in X^p(\phi)$ and $x\in G({\mathfrak{k}})/{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p$ are *not* demanded to satisfy this (seemingly natural) condition (\[eqn:effectivity\_admssible\_pair\_condition\]).[^18]. Indeed, Langlands and Rapoport made this point explicit: *“Es wird übrigens nicht verlangt, dass $x$ in $X_p$ liegt.”* [@LR87 p. 189, line +18]. We remark that the main function of this notion of admissible pair is to attach a Kottwitz triple, but the usefulness of this definition comes from its flexibility that $x$ in (\[defn:admissible\_pair\_(3)a\]) is *not* required to be found in $X(\{\mu_X\},b)_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}$.
\(3) We will call an admissible pair $(\phi,\epsilon)$ ${\mathbf{K}}^p$-*effective*, respectively ${\mathbf{K}}_p$-*effective* if there exist $y\in X^p(\phi)$, respectively $x\in G({\mathfrak{k}})/{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p$ with $\epsilon x=\Phi^mx$, satisfying the conditions (\[eqn:effectivity\_admssible\_pair\_condition\]). Note that if $(\phi,\epsilon)$ is ${\mathbf{K}}^p$-effective and $\epsilon\in G({\mathbb A}_f^p)$, $\epsilon$ itself lies in a compact open subgroup of $G({\mathbb A}_f^p)$ (cf. proof of Lemma \[lem:invariance\_of\_(ast(gamma\_0))\_under\_transfer\_of\_maximal\_tori\], (2)).
Two admissible pairs $(\phi,\epsilon)$, $(\phi',\epsilon')$ are said to be *equivalent* (or *conjugate*) if there exists $g\in G({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ such that $(\phi',\epsilon')=g(\phi,\epsilon)g^{-1}$.
### {#subsubsec:K-triple_attached_to_adm.pair}
Now, we explain how with any admissible pair $(\phi,\epsilon)$, one can associate a Kottwitz triple $(\gamma_0;\gamma:=(\gamma_l)_{l\neq p},\delta)$, cf. [@LR87], p189.
First, we set $\gamma_l:=\gamma(l)$, i.e. $\gamma=y^{-1}\epsilon y\in G({\mathbb A}_f^p)$ for some $y\in X^p(\phi)$. When we replace $y$ by $yh, h\in G({\mathbb A}_f^p)$, $\gamma$ goes over to $h^{-1}\gamma h$, thus the $G({\mathbb A}_f^p)$-conjugacy class of $\gamma$ is well-determined by the pair $(\phi,\epsilon)$. Also, one easily sees that if $(\phi',\epsilon')=g(\phi,\epsilon)g^{-1}\ (g\in G({\overline{\mathbb Q}}))$, the corresponding $G({\mathbb A}_f^p)$-conjugacy classes of $(\gamma_l')_{l\neq p}$, $(\gamma_l)_{l\neq p}$ are the same, since $y\mapsto gy$ gives a bijection $X^p(\phi){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}X^p({\mathrm{Int}}g\circ\phi)$.
Next, to find $\gamma_0$, we use Lemma \[lem:LR-Lemma5.23\] below, which is a generalization of Lemma 5.23 of [@LR87]. If an admissible pair $(\phi,\epsilon)$ satisfies that $\phi=i\circ\psi_{T,\mu_h}$ and $\epsilon\in T({\mathbb Q})$ for a special Shimura datum $(T,h)$, then we will say that it is *nested* [^19] in $(T,h)$ and that the (admissible) pair $(i\circ\psi_{T,\mu_h},\epsilon)$ is a *special* (admissible) pair. Hence, this lemma says that every admissible pair is conjugate to an admissible pair that is nested (in particular, well-located) in a special Shimura sub-datum of $(G,X)$. Then, we define $\gamma_0$ to be any (semi-simple) rational element of $G$ that is $G({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$-conjugate to $\epsilon$ and also lies in a maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-torus $T'$ of $G$ that is elliptic at ${\mathbb R}$, which we now know exists; note that any such $\gamma_0$ given by Lemma \[lem:LR-Lemma5.23\] is always semi-simple. By definition, this rational element is well-defined up to $G({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$-conjugacy.
Finally, to define $\delta$, we choose $u\in G({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ such that ${\mathrm{Int}}u\circ \xi_p\ (\xi_p:=\phi(p)\circ\zeta_p)$ is unramified. When ${\mathrm{Int}}u\circ \xi_p$ is the inflation of a morphism $\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}:{\mathfrak{D}}\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}_{G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}}^{{\mathrm{ur}}}$ of Galois ${{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\mathbb Q}_p}$-gerbs, we define $b\in G({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$ by $\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}(s_{\sigma})=b\sigma$, and put $\epsilon'=u\epsilon u^{-1}\in G({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$.
\[lem:Kottwitz84-a1.4.9\_b3.3\] (1) Let $\Psi=b\sigma^n\in G({\mathfrak{k}})\rtimes\langle\sigma\rangle$ such that $n\neq0$. Then, $\Psi$ is conjugate under $G({\mathfrak{k}})$ to $\sigma^n$ if and only if $\Psi$ fixes some point in $G({\mathfrak{k}})/{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p$.
\(2) Let $H$ be a quasi-split group over a $p$-adic field, either a local field $F$ or the completion $L$ of its maximal unramified extension $F^{{\mathrm{ur}}}$ in $\overline{F}$. Then, the map $v_{H_L}:H({\mathfrak{k}})\rightarrow {\mathrm{Hom}}(X_{\ast}(Z(\widehat{H}))^I,{\mathbb Z})$ () vanishes on any special maximal bounded subgroup of $H({\mathfrak{k}})$ (not just on special parahoric subgroups).
\(1) This is Lemma 1.4.9 of [@Kottwitz84b] when $x^{\mathrm{o}}$ is a hyperspecial point, and its proof continues to work in our setup: note that the parahoric group scheme over ${{\mathbb Z}_p}^{{\mathrm{ur}}}$ attached to $x^{\mathrm{o}}$ has connected special fiber, so the result of Greenberg [@Greenberg63 Prop. 3] still applies.
\(2) When $H$ is unramified and $F$ is a local field, this is (stated and) proved in Lemma 3.3 of [@Kottwitz84a] (where $\lambda_H$ is the same as the restriction of $w_{H_L}$ to $H(F)$). But one easily sees that for general quasi-split $H$, the same argument works with the map $v_{H_L}$ and any special maximal bounded subgroup (instead of special parahoric subgroup). More explicitly, as the relation (3.3.4) in *loc. cit.* continues to hold, one just needs to note (in the last step of the original argument) that for a maximal split torus $S$ of $G$ whose apartment contains a given special point $x^{\mathrm{o}}\in{\mathcal{B}}(G,L)$ and $T=Z_G(S)$, the subgroup $T({\mathfrak{k}})_0:=T({\mathfrak{k}})\cap \mathrm{Fix} (x^{\mathrm{o}})$ equals $\ker(v_{T})$ [@HainesRapoport08]; it is the maximal bounded subgroup of $T({\mathfrak{k}})$.
\[lem:delta\_from\_b&gamma\_0\] There exists $c\in G({\mathfrak{k}})$ such that $\delta:=cb\sigma(c^{-1})$ lies in $G(L_n)$ and that ${\mathrm{N}}_n\delta$ and $\gamma_0$ are conjugate under $G({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$.
By definition (cf. \[defn:admissible\_pair\_(3)a\]) and Lemma \[lem:Kottwitz84-a1.4.9\_b3.3\], there exists $c\in G({\mathfrak{k}})$ such that $$c(\epsilon'^{-1}F^n)c^{-1}=\sigma^n.$$ If we define $\delta\in G({\mathfrak{k}})$ by $$\delta\sigma:=cFc^{-1}=c(b\sigma)c^{-1},$$ i.e. $\delta=cb\sigma(c^{-1})$, then it follows (as shown on p. 291 of [@Kottwitz84b]) that $\delta\in G(L_n)$ and $\sigma^n=c(\epsilon'^{-1}F^n) c^{-1}=c\epsilon'^{-1}c^{-1}(\delta\sigma)^n=(c\epsilon'^{-1}c^{-1}{\mathrm{N}}_n\delta)\sigma^n$, i.e. ${\mathrm{N}}_n\delta=c\epsilon'c^{-1}$, so that $$\label{eqn:stable_conjugacy_reln_betwn_Nmdelta_and_gamma_0}
{\mathrm{N}}_n\delta=c\epsilon'c^{-1}=(cu)\epsilon (cu)^{-1}=(cug)\gamma_0(cug)^{-1},$$ where $\epsilon= g\gamma_0 g^{-1}$ for $g\in G({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$. This implies that ${\mathrm{N}}_n\delta$ and $\gamma_0$ are conjugate under $G({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$.
Choose $\delta\in G(L_n)$ as in Lemma \[lem:delta\_from\_b&gamma\_0\]: its $\sigma$-conjugacy class in $G(L_n)$ is uniquely determined by the admissible pair $(\phi,\epsilon)$. We will say that the admissible pair $(\phi,\epsilon)$ *gives rise to* the triple $(\gamma_0;(\gamma_l)_{l\neq p},\delta)$ (or, the triple $(\gamma_0;(\gamma_l)_{l\neq p},\delta)$ *is attached to* the pair $(\phi,\epsilon)$); then $\epsilon$ and $\gamma_0$ are $G({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$-conjugate, among others. Also note that by definition (cf. ()), the $\sigma$-conjugacy class $\mathrm{cls}(\phi)\in B(G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}})$ attached to $\phi(p)$ (the pull-back of $\phi$ to ${\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p})$) is $[\delta]\in B(G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}})$.
\[rem:two\_different\_b’s\] For $\gamma_0\in G({{\mathbb Q}_p})$, let $\mathfrak{C}_p^{(n)}(\gamma_0)'$ be the set of $\sigma$-conjugacy classes in $G(L_n)$ of elements $\delta\in G(L_n)$ for which there exists $c'\in G({\mathfrak{k}})$ with ${\mathrm{N}}_n\delta=c'\gamma_0c'^{-1}$ (i.e. it is the same set as $\mathfrak{C}_p^{(n)}(\gamma_0)$ of Def. \[defn:D\_p\^[(n)]{}(gamma\_0)\] except that we do not demand the condition $\ast(\delta)$); then the map $$\mathfrak{C}_p^{(n)}(\gamma_0)' \hookrightarrow B(G_{\gamma_0}) \quad ;\quad \delta\mapsto [b']=[c'^{-1}\delta\sigma(c')]$$ is well-defined and injective (cf. ).
Suppose that a pair $(\gamma_0,\delta)\in G({\mathbb Q})\times G(L_n)$ arises from an admissible pair $(\phi,\epsilon)$, that is, that $\gamma_0=\Int(g)(\epsilon)$ for some $g\in G({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$, $\delta=cb\sigma(c^{-1})$ for some $c\in G({\mathfrak{k}})$ and $b\sigma=\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}(s_{\sigma})$, where $\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}$ is a ${{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerb morphism whose inflation to ${\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}$ equals $\Int(u)\circ\xi_p$ for some $u\in G({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$. Then, in general, $b':=c'^{-1}\delta\sigma(c')$ defined by $c'\in G({\mathfrak{k}})$ with ${\mathrm{N}}_n\delta=c'\gamma_0 c'^{-1}$ is different from $b$ defined by $\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}(s_{\sigma})=b\sigma$ (which thus depends on the choice of $u$).
But, if $\epsilon\in G({\mathbb Q})$ and $\phi$ factors through ${\mathfrak{G}}_{I_0}\subset{\mathfrak{G}}_G$ (for example, if $(\phi,\epsilon)$ is well-located in a maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-torus $T$ or if $G_{\epsilon}$ is already connected), we can take $\gamma_0=\epsilon$ and also pick an element $u$ making $\Int(u)\circ\phi(p)\circ\zeta_p$ unramified (say, inflation of $\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}$) from $I_0({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$. With such choice of $\gamma_0$ and $u$, we have the equality $$[b]=[b']\text{ in }B(G_{\gamma_0})$$ (these $\sigma$-conjugacy classes $[b]$, $[b']$ in $B(G_{\gamma_0})$ do not depend on the choices involved, i.e. choices of any of $u\in I_0({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$, $c, c'\in G({\mathfrak{k}})$). In fact, we can choose $c'$ such that $b':=c'^{-1}\delta\sigma(c')$ equals $b$ (as elements in $G_{\gamma_0}({\mathfrak{k}})$). Indeed, by construction (cf. proof of Lemma \[lem:delta\_from\_b&gamma\_0\]), we have $\delta=cb\sigma(c^{-1})$ for some $c\in G({\mathfrak{k}})$ such that $c(\epsilon'^{-1}(b\sigma)^n)c^{-1}=\sigma^n$ ($\epsilon':=u\epsilon u^{-1}=\epsilon$), so that ${\mathrm{N}}_n\delta=c\epsilon'c^{-1}=c\gamma_0c^{-1}$ in (\[eqn:stable\_conjugacy\_reln\_betwn\_Nmdelta\_and\_gamma\_0\]). Then we can take $c$ for $c'$, so that $b'=c^{-1}\delta\sigma(c)=b$. In particular, there exists a representative in $I_0({\mathfrak{k}})$ of $[b']\in B(G_{\gamma_0})$.
It is immediate that equivalent admissible pairs give rise to equivalent Kottwitz triples. However, non-equivalent admissible pairs can also give equivalent Kottwitz triples, and there is a cohomological expression for the number of non-equivalent admissible pairs giving rise to a given Kottwitz triple (see Theorem \[thm:LR-Satz5.25\]).
\[prop:Kottwitz\_triple\] Every special admissible pair $(\phi,\epsilon)$ of level $n=[\kappa(\wp):{\mathbb{F}_{p}}]m$ gives rise to a stable Kottwitz triple $(\gamma_0;(\gamma_l)_{l\neq p},\delta)$ of level $n$ (Def. \[defn:Kottwitz\_triple\]) for which there exist $(g_v)_v\in G(\bar{{\mathbb A}}_f^p)\times G({\mathfrak{k}})$ satisfying (\[eq:stable\_g\_l\]), (\[eq:stable\_g\_l\]) such that the associated Kottwitz invariant $\alpha(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta;(g_v)_v)$ vanishes.
Recall that an admissible pair $(\phi,\epsilon)$ is special if there exists a special Shimura sub-datum $(T,h)$ such that $\phi=\psi_{T,\mu_h}$ and $\epsilon\in T({\mathbb Q})$, and that every admissible pair is conjugate to a special one (Lemma \[lem:LR-Lemma5.23\]).
First, condition (i) of (and (i$'$) of Def. \[defn:stable\_Kottwitz\_triple\] as well) is clear. By Lemma \[lem:properties\_of\_psi\_T,mu\], we have $(g_v)_{v\neq p,\infty}\in T(\bar{{\mathbb A}}_f^p)\cap X^p(\phi)$ which implies that we may take $\gamma_l$ to be $\gamma_0\in T({{\mathbb Q}_l})$, thereby establishing condition (ii$'$): note that condition (ii) itself just follows from condition (2) of Def. \[defn:admissible\_morphism\]. Condition (iii) was proved in Lemma \[lem:delta\_from\_b&gamma\_0\]. For condition (iii$'$), we have seen in Remark \[rem:two\_different\_b’s\] that one can find $\delta\in G(L_n)$ and $c\in G({\mathfrak{k}})$ satisfying that $c\gamma_0c^{-1}={\mathrm{N}}_n\delta$ and $b:=c^{-1}\delta\sigma(c)\in T({\mathfrak{k}})$: there exist $u\in T({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ and $c\in G({\mathfrak{k}})$ such that $\Int(u)\circ\phi(p)\circ\zeta_p$ is the inflation of a ${{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerb morhism $\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}$ and $c\gamma_0^{-1}\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}(s_{\sigma})^nc^{-1}=\sigma^n$, and one defines $\delta:=cb\sigma(c^{-1})$ for $b\sigma:=\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}(s_{\sigma})$. That the condition $\ast(\delta)$ holds is a consequence of $\phi$ being admissible (specifically, condition (3) of Def. \[defn:admissible\_morphism\]) in view of [@He15 Thm. A]. Therefore, the triple $(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$ just defined is a stable Kottwitz triple. Finally, it remains to verify vanishing of the Kottwitz invariant $\alpha(\gamma_0;(\gamma_l)_{l\neq p},\delta;(g_v)_v)$ for suitable elements $(g_v)_v\in G(\bar{{\mathbb A}}_f^p)\times G({\mathfrak{k}})$; as observed before [@Kottwitz90 p.172], this will also establish condition (iv) (alternatively, we can take $I_{\phi,\epsilon}$ for $I$ in condition (iv), [@Milne92 Lem6.10]). We take $g_v=1$ for $v=l\neq p$ and $g_p=c$ above. Then, we have $\alpha_l=1$ for $l\neq p$, and $\alpha_v$’s for $v=p,\infty$ are $\pm1$ times the restrictions of the character of $\hat{T}$ defined by $\mu_h$ with different signs (Lemma \[lem:unramified\_conj\_of\_special\_morphism\]), from which the vanishing of $\alpha(\gamma_0;(\gamma_l)_{l\neq p},\delta;(g_v)_v)$ is obvious.
Every admissible morphism is conjugate to a special admissible morphism
=======================================================================
We make some comments on various assumptions called upon in this section. First, there are two running assumptions: (1) $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is quasi-split, and (2) $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ splits over a tamely ramified extension of ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$ (more precisely, $G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is a product $\prod_i {\mathrm{Res}}_{F_i/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}G_i$ of simple groups each of which is the restriction of scalars ${\mathrm{Res}}_{F_i/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}G_i$ of an absolutely simple group $G_i$ over a field $F_i$ such that $G_i$ splits over a tamely ramified extension of $F_i$): condition (2) is directly invoked only in Lemma \[lem:LR-Lemma5.11\] which however is used in all the main results of this section. Secondly, the level subgroup can be arbitrary parahoric subgroup (except in Thm. \[thm:non-emptiness\_of\_NS\], (2)), and $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}$ is not assumed to be simply connected, unlike in the original work [@LR87]. Finally, every statement involving the pseudo-motivic Galois gerb ${\mathfrak{P}}$ (instead of the quasi-motivic Galois gerb ${\mathfrak{Q}}$) will (for safety) assume that the Serre condition holds for the Shimura datum $(G,X)$ (i.e. the center $Z(G)$ splits over a CM field and the weight homomorphism $w_X$ is defined over ${\mathbb Q}$). Of course, in every statement we will make explicit the assumptions that we impose.
Transfer of maximal tori and strategy of proof of Theorem \[thm:LR-Satz5.3\]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
### {#section-1}
In the work of Langlands-Rapoport, a critical role is played by the notion of *transfer* (or *admissible embedding*) *of maximal torus*. Recall [@Kottwitz84b $\S$9] that for a connected reductive group $G$ over a field $F$, if $\psi:H_{\overline{F}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}G_{\overline{F}}$ is an inner-twisting and $T$ is a maximal $F$-torus of $H$, an $F$-embedding $i:T\rightarrow G$ is called *admissible* if it is of the form ${\mathrm{Int}}g\circ\psi|_T$ for some $g\in G(\overline{F})$ (equiv. of the form $\psi\circ {\mathrm{Int}}h|_T$ for some $h\in H(\overline{F})$). Whether an $F$-embedding $i:T\rightarrow G$ is admissible or not depends only on the conjugacy class of the inner-twisting $\psi$. We will also say that $T$ *transfers to* $G$ (with a conjugacy class of inner twistings $\psi:H_{\overline{F}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}G_{\overline{F}}$ understood) if there exists an admissible $F$-embedding $T\rightarrow G$ (with respect to the same conjugacy class of inner twistings). Usually, this notion is considered when $H$ is a quasi-split inner form of $G$, due to the well-known fact [@PR94 p.340] that *every maximal torus in a reductive group transfers to its quasi-split inner form*, but here we do not necessarily restrict ourselves to such cases. In fact, we will consider more often the identity inner twisting $\mathrm{Id}_G:G_{\overline{F}}=G_{\overline{F}}$, in which case if ${\mathrm{Int}}g:T_{\overline{F}}{\hookrightarrow}G_{\overline{F}}\stackrel{=}{\rightarrow}G_{\overline{F}}$ is an admissible embedding, we will also let ${\mathrm{Int}}g$ denote both the ${\mathbb Q}$-isomorphism $T\rightarrow {\mathrm{Int}}g(T)$ of ${\mathbb Q}$-tori and the induced morphism of Galois gerbs ${\mathfrak{G}}_T\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}_{{\mathrm{Int}}g(T)}$; of course the latter is also the restriction of ${\mathrm{Int}}g$, regarded as an automorphism of the Galois gerb ${\mathfrak{G}}_G$, to ${\mathfrak{G}}_T$.
### {#subsubsec:well-located_admissible_morphism}
We say that an admissible morphism $\phi:{\mathfrak{P}}\rightarrow{\mathfrak{G}}_G$ is *well-located*[^20] if $\phi(\delta_n)\in G({\mathbb Q})$ for all sufficiently large $n$. Here, $\delta_n$ is the element in $P(K,m)({\mathbb Q})$ introduced in Lemma \[lem:Reimann97-B2.3\], (2) for any ${\mathfrak{P}}(K,m)$ which $\phi$ factors through: $\phi(\delta_n)$ does not depend on the choice of such ${\mathfrak{P}}(K,m)$ by the compatibility property of $\delta_n$ (*loc. cit.*). More generally, for a ${\mathbb Q}$-subgroup $H$ of $G$, we will say that an admissible morphism $\phi:{\mathfrak{P}}\rightarrow{\mathfrak{G}}_G$ is *well-located in $H$* if $\phi(\delta_n)\in H({\mathbb Q})$ for all sufficiently large $n$ and $\phi$ factors through ${\mathfrak{G}}_H \subset {\mathfrak{G}}_G$; note the second additional requirement. For example, every special admissible morphism $i\circ\psi_{T,\mu_h}$ (for a special Shimura sub-datum $(T,h)$) is always well-located (in $T$). Indeed, $\delta_n\in P(K,m)({\mathbb Q})$ (for sufficiently large $n$ divisible by $m$) and the restriction of $i\circ\psi_{T,\mu_h}$ to kernels is defined over ${\mathbb Q}$ [@LR87 p.143, second paragraph].
Recall the ${\mathbb Q}$-group scheme $I_{\phi}=\underline{\mathrm{Isom}}(\phi,\phi)$ (\[eq:Isom(phi\_1,phi\_2)\]). When $\phi:{\mathfrak{P}}\rightarrow{\mathfrak{G}}_G$ is well-located, this group scheme is identified in a natural way with the inner twist via $\phi$ of the ${\mathbb Q}$-group scheme $$I:=Z_G(\phi(\delta_n)),$$ the centralizer ${\mathbb Q}$-group of $\phi(\delta_n)\in G({\mathbb Q})$ for any sufficiently large $n$ ($I$ is connected and does not depend on the choice of such $n$). More precisely, if $\phi(q_{\rho})=g_{\rho}\rtimes\rho$ for the chosen section $\rho\mapsto q_{\rho}$ to ${\mathfrak{P}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb Q}}/{\mathbb Q})$ (Remark \[rem:comments\_on\_zeta\_v\], (3)), the $1$-cochain $\rho\mapsto g_{\rho}$ takes values in $I({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ and its image in $I^{{\mathrm{ad}}}({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ is a cocycle (although the original cochain $\rho\mapsto g_{\rho}$ itself is not). The group $I_{\phi}$ is then defined by its cohomology class in $H^1({\mathbb Q},I^{{\mathrm{ad}}})$; so, there exists an inner twisting ${\overline{\mathbb Q}}$-isomorphism $$\label{eq:inner-twisting_by_phi}
\psi:I_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}(I_{\phi})_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}},$$ under which $$I_{\phi}({\mathbb Q})=\{g\in I({\overline{\mathbb Q}})\ |\ g_{\rho}\rho(g)g_{\rho}^{-1}=g\}=\{g\in G({\overline{\mathbb Q}})\ |\ {\mathrm{Int}}(g)\circ\phi=\phi\}.$$
We will also say that an admissible pair $(\phi,\epsilon)$ is *well-located* if $\phi$ is a well-located admissible morphism and $\epsilon\in I_{\phi}({\mathbb Q})$ lies in $G({\mathbb Q})$ (a priori, $\epsilon\in I_{\phi}({\mathbb Q})$ is only an element of $G({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ via $I_{\phi}({\mathbb Q})\subset I_{\phi}({\overline{\mathbb Q}})=I({\overline{\mathbb Q}})\subset G({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$). If $\phi$ is well-located in $H$ and $\epsilon\in I_{\phi}({\mathbb Q})\cap H({\mathbb Q})$ for a ${\mathbb Q}$-subgroup $H$ of $G$, the admissible pair $(\phi,\epsilon)$ will be said to be *well-located in $H$*. Clearly, any admissible pair $(\phi,\epsilon)$ nested in some special Shimura datum $(T,h)$ is well-located (in $T$).
We also note that for any admissible morphism $\phi$ mapping into ${\mathfrak{G}}_T$ for a maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-torus $T$, the torus $T$ is also a ${\mathbb Q}$-subgroup of $I_{\phi}$ (so $T({\mathbb Q})\subset I_{\phi}({\mathbb Q})=\{g\in G({\overline{\mathbb Q}})\ |\ {\mathrm{Int}}(g)\circ\phi=\phi\}$). Indeed, suppose that $\phi:{\mathfrak{P}}\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}_T$ factors through ${\mathfrak{P}}(K,m)$ for a CM field $K$ Galois over ${\mathbb Q}$ and $m\in{\mathbb N}$. We need to check that any $\epsilon\in T({\mathbb Q})$ commutes with $\phi(\delta_n)$ and $\phi(q_{\rho})$ (for all $n\gg 1$ and $\rho\in{\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb Q}}/{\mathbb Q})$). But, the first is obvious and for the second, in general, for $x\in G({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$, we have $$\phi(q_{\rho})x\phi(q_{\rho})^{-1}=(g_{\rho}\rho)x(g_{\rho}\rho)^{-1}=(g_{\rho}\rho)x(\rho^{-1}(g_{\rho}^{-1})\rho^{-1})=g_{\rho}\rho(x)g_{\rho}^{-1}\cdot1,$$ so that $\epsilon\in T({\mathbb Q})$ and $g_{\rho}\in T({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ together imply that $\epsilon\in I_{\phi}({\mathbb Q})$.
\[thm:LR-Satz5.3\] Assume that $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is quasi-split, and that $G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is a product $\prod_i {\mathrm{Res}}_{F_i/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}G_i$ of simple groups each of which is the restriction of scalars ${\mathrm{Res}}_{F_i/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}G_i$ of an absolutely simple group $G_i$ over a field $F_i$ such that $G_i$ splits over a tamely ramified extension of $F_i$. Let ${\mathbf{K}}_p$ be a parahoric subgroup of $G({{\mathbb Q}_p})$.
\(1) Every admissible morphism $\phi:{\mathfrak{P}}\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}_G$ is conjugate to a special admissible morphism $i\circ\psi_{T,\mu_h}:{\mathfrak{P}}\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}_T{\hookrightarrow}{\mathfrak{G}}_G$ (for some special Shimura sub-datum $(T,h\in{\mathrm{Hom}}({\mathbb{S}},T_{{\mathbb R}})\cap X)$ and $i:{\mathfrak{G}}_T\rightarrow{\mathfrak{G}}_G$ the canonical morphism defined by the inclusion $i:T{\hookrightarrow}G$).
\(2) Let $\phi:{\mathfrak{P}}\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}_G$ be a *well-located* (i.e. $\phi(\delta_n)\in G({\mathbb Q})$ for all $n\gg1$) admissible morphism. Then, for any maximal torus $T$ of $G$, elliptic over ${\mathbb R}$, such that
- $\phi(\delta_n)\in T({\mathbb Q})$ for a sufficiently large $n$ (i.e. $T\subset I:=Z_G(\phi(\delta_n))$), and
- $T_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}\subset I_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is elliptic,
$\phi$ is conjugate to a special admissible morphism $\psi_{T',\mu_{h'}}$, where $T'={\mathrm{Int}}g'(T)$ for some transfer of maximal torus ${\mathrm{Int}}g':T{\hookrightarrow}G\ (g'\in G({\overline{\mathbb Q}}))$ (with respect to the identity inner twisting, i.e. the composite map $T_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}{\hookrightarrow}G_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}\stackrel{{\mathrm{Int}}g'}{{\longrightarrow}}G_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}$ is defined over ${\mathbb Q}$).
- If furthermore $T_{{{\mathbb Q}_l}}\subset G_{{{\mathbb Q}_l}}$ is elliptic at some prime $l\neq p$ and $H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},T)=0$,
we may find such transfer of maximal torus ${\mathrm{Int}}g':T{\hookrightarrow}G$ which is also conjugation by an element of $G({{\mathbb Q}_p})$ (i.e. ${\mathrm{Int}}g':T_{{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}}\rightarrow G_{{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}}$ equals ${\mathrm{Int}}y$ for some $y\in G({{\mathbb Q}_p})$).
In the case where the level subgroup ${\mathbf{K}}_p$ is hyperspecial and $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$, the first statement is Satz 5.3 of [@LR87]. The second statement is new; it was motivated by gaining control on special admissible morphism (especially on the torus $T$) that is conjugate to a given admissible morphism. To establish these statements, we will adapt the arguments from the proof of *loc. cit.*, which we now review briefly. It can be divided into three steps:
- The first step is to replace a given admissible morphism $\phi$ by its conjugate that is well-located (i.e. when we denote the conjugate again by $\phi$, we have $\phi(\delta_n)\in G({\mathbb Q})$).
- The second step is to show that there is a conjugate ${\mathrm{Int}}g\circ\phi:{\mathfrak{P}}\rightarrow{\mathfrak{G}}_G\ (g\in G({\overline{\mathbb Q}}))$ of $\phi$ in step I which factors through ${\mathfrak{G}}_T$ for *some* maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-torus $T$ (of $G$) that is elliptic over ${\mathbb R}$. Again, let us denote this conjugate ${\mathrm{Int}}g\circ\phi$ by $\phi$.
- The final step is to find an admissible embedding ${\mathrm{Int}}g':T {\hookrightarrow}G$ (with respect to the identity inner twisting $\mathrm{id}:G_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}=G_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}$, $g'\in I({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$) such that ${\mathrm{Int}}g'\circ\phi:{\mathfrak{P}}\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}_{{\mathrm{Int}}g'(T)}$ becomes a special admissible morphism.
We point out that while the first two steps will be established by arguments in Galois cohomology which do not use level subgroups, we need to validate the third step for parahoric level subgroups (see Lemma \[lem:LR-Lemma5.11\] below) and also that in the original argument (i.e. proof of [@LR87], Satz 5.3), the assumption $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$ was needed only in the third step. For the finer claim (2), it is also necessary to strengthen the second step in addition to the third one. For that purpose (and some other potential applications), we formalize (with some improvements incorporated) these steps into two propositions respectively: Prop. \[prop:existence\_of\_admissible\_morphism\_factoring\_thru\_given\_maximal\_torus\], Prop. \[prop:equivalence\_to\_special\_adimssible\_morphism\]. We first introduce these propositions, postponing their proofs to the next subsection.
\[prop:existence\_of\_admissible\_morphism\_factoring\_thru\_given\_maximal\_torus\] Let $\phi:{\mathfrak{P}}\rightarrow{\mathfrak{G}}_G$ be an admissible morphism and $T$ a maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-torus of $G$, elliptic over ${\mathbb R}$, having properties (i) and (ii) of Thm. \[thm:LR-Satz5.3\], (2). Then, there exists $g\in I({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ such that ${\mathrm{Int}}g\circ\phi$ maps ${\mathfrak{P}}$ into ${\mathfrak{G}}_T({\hookrightarrow}{\mathfrak{G}}_G)$.
Notice that here we only modify $\phi$ (while keeping $T$). This proposition can be regarded as a souped-up version of the second step above, in the following sense. In the original second step (i.e. [@LR87], p. 176, from line 1 to -5), we are given an admissible morphism $\phi$ and want to find a maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-torus $T$ such that some conjugate of $\phi$ maps into ${\mathfrak{G}}_{T}\subset {\mathfrak{G}}_G$. There, $\phi$ is considered somewhat as given and one looks for $T$ with this property. As such, the choice of $T$ is restricted by $\phi$, namely, for arbitrary $\phi$ there is very little room of choice for such $T$. In our case, however, we start with some fixed torus $T$ and demand that a conjugate of $\phi$ factors through ${\mathfrak{G}}_T$. It turns out that this becomes possible if $T$ satisfies properties (i) and (ii) of Thm. \[thm:LR-Satz5.3\], (2).
Also we note that the new pair $({\mathrm{Int}}g\circ\phi,T)$ still enjoys properties (i) and (ii), since ${\mathrm{Int}}g\circ\phi(\delta_n)=g\phi(\delta_n)g^{-1}=\phi(\delta_n)$ (as $g\in I({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$).
The next proposition is also an enhanced version of the third step above.
\[prop:equivalence\_to\_special\_adimssible\_morphism\] If an admissible morphism $\phi:{\mathfrak{P}}\rightarrow{\mathfrak{G}}_G$ is well-located in a maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-torus $T$ of $G$ that is elliptic over ${\mathbb R}$, there exists an admissible embedding of maximal torus ${\mathrm{Int}}g'|_{T}:T{\hookrightarrow}G$ such that ${\mathrm{Int}}g'\circ\phi:{\mathfrak{P}}\rightarrow{\mathfrak{G}}_{T'}$ is special, where $T':={\mathrm{Int}}g'(T)$ (${\mathbb Q}$-torus), i.e. ${\mathrm{Int}}g'\circ\phi=\psi_{T',\mu_{h'}}$ for some $h'\in X\cap{\mathrm{Hom}}({\mathbb{S}},T'_{{\mathbb R}})$.
If $T$ further fulfills condition (iii) of Thm. \[thm:LR-Satz5.3\], one can find such transfer of maximal torus ${\mathrm{Int}}g'$ (i.e. ${\mathrm{Int}}g'\circ\phi$ becomes special admissible) which also satisfies that
- ${\mathrm{Int}}g'|_{T_{{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}}}:T_{{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}}{\hookrightarrow}G_{{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}}$ equals ${\mathrm{Int}}y|_{T_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}}:T_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}{\hookrightarrow}G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ for some $y\in G({{\mathbb Q}_p})$.
In particular, $T_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ and $T'_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ are conjugate under $G({{\mathbb Q}_p})$.
In the original case of hyperspecial ${\mathbf{K}}_p$, the first statement of this proposition is established in the course of proving Satz 5.3 (more precisely, in the part beginning from Lemma 5.11 until the end of the proof of that theorem; this is also the only part in the proof of Satz 5.3 that requires the assumption $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$, cf. Footnote \[ftn:sc-assumption1\]). On the other hand, we remark that the idea of exploiting a transfer of maximal torus $i:T{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}T'$ which becomes $G({{\mathbb Q}_p})$-conjugacy first appeared in our previous work [@Lee16 Thm. 4.1.1], and will find similar application here later.
Finally, we point out that the three properties (i) - (iii) of Theorem \[thm:LR-Satz5.3\] remain intact under any transfer of maximal torus. Indeed, an inner automorphism does not interfere with the center and a transfer of maximal torus $i:T\rightarrow G$ also restricts to a ${\mathbb Q}$-isomorphism $i:Z(Z_{G}(t)){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}Z(Z_{G}(i(t)))$ for any $t\in T({\mathbb Q})$.
In the next subsection, we present the proofs of Prop. \[prop:existence\_of\_admissible\_morphism\_factoring\_thru\_given\_maximal\_torus\], \[prop:equivalence\_to\_special\_adimssible\_morphism\], and Theorem \[thm:LR-Satz5.3\].[^21]
Proofs of Propositions \[prop:existence\_of\_admissible\_morphism\_factoring\_thru\_given\_maximal\_torus\], \[prop:equivalence\_to\_special\_adimssible\_morphism\], and Theorem \[thm:LR-Satz5.3\]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recall that we have fixed a continuous section $\rho\mapsto q_{\rho}$ to the projection ${\mathfrak{P}}{\twoheadrightarrow}{\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb Q}}/{\mathbb Q})$ (Remark \[rem:comments\_on\_zeta\_v\], (3)).
\[lem:criterion\_for\_admissible\_morphism\_to\_land\_in\_torus\] Let $\phi:{\mathfrak{P}}\rightarrow{\mathfrak{G}}_G$ be a well-located admissible morphism. Let $T$ be a maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-torus of $I:=Z_G(\phi(\delta_n))\ (n\gg1)$ and $\psi:I_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}(I_{\phi})_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}$ the inner twisting (\[eq:inner-twisting\_by\_phi\]).
If for some $a\in G({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$, ${\mathrm{Int}}a^{-1}:T_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}{\hookrightarrow}G_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}$ induces a ${\mathbb Q}$-rational map from $T$ to $I_{\phi}$, the latter being regarded as a ${\overline{\mathbb Q}}$-subgroup of $G_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}$ via the inner twisting $\psi$, ${\mathrm{Int}}a\circ\phi$ factors through ${\mathfrak{G}}_T\subset {\mathfrak{G}}_G$.
f $a\in I({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$, the converse also holds: if ${\mathrm{Int}}a\circ\phi$ factors through ${\mathfrak{G}}_T$, $\psi\circ{\mathrm{Int}}a^{-1}|_T:(T)_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}\hookrightarrow I_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}(I_{\phi})_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}$ is ${\mathbb Q}$-rational (i.e. is a transfer of the maximal torus $T\subset I$ into $I_{\phi}$ with respect to $\psi$).
In particular, a conjugate of $\phi$ maps into ${\mathfrak{G}}_T$ if $T\subset I$ transfers to $I_{\phi}$ with respect to the inner twisting $I_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}(I_{\phi})_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}$ (\[eq:inner-twisting\_by\_phi\]).
As $\phi$ is well-located, $\phi(\delta_n)\in Z(I_{\phi})({\mathbb Q})$ and thus ${\mathrm{Int}}a\circ\phi(\delta_n)\in T({\mathbb Q})$. This is equivalent to that $({\mathrm{Int}}a\circ\phi)^{\Delta}$ maps $P$ to $T$, as $\{\delta_n^k\}_{k\in{\mathbb N}}$ is Zariski-dense in $P(K,n)$ (for any suitable CM field $K$) (Lemma \[lem:Reimann97-B2.3\], (2)). Next, via $\psi$ we identify $I_{\phi}({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ with $I({\overline{\mathbb Q}})\subset G({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ endowed with the twisted Galois action $g\mapsto g_{\rho}\rho(g)g_{\rho}^{-1}$, where $g\mapsto\rho(g)$ is the original Galois action on $G({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$. Let $\phi(q_{\rho})=g_{\rho}\rho$. Then, the condition means that $$\label{eqn:transfer_from_I_to_I_phi}
g_{\rho}\rho(a^{-1}ta)g_{\rho}^{-1}=a^{-1}\rho(t)a$$ for all $t\in T({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$, which is the same as that $ag_{\rho}\rho(a)^{-1}\in T({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$, as $Z_G(T)=T$. As $a\phi a^{-1}(q_{\rho})=ag_{\rho}\rho(a)^{-1} \rho$, this implies the assertion.
### Proof of Proposition \[prop:existence\_of\_admissible\_morphism\_factoring\_thru\_given\_maximal\_torus\].
Let $I=Z_G(\phi(\delta_n))$ and $\psi:I_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}(I_{\phi})_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}$ the inner twisting defined by $\phi$ (\[eq:inner-twisting\_by\_phi\]); by our assumption that $\phi(\delta_n)\in T({\mathbb Q})$, $T$ is a ${\mathbb Q}$-subgroup of $I$. So, by Lemma \[lem:criterion\_for\_admissible\_morphism\_to\_land\_in\_torus\], it suffices to prove that $T$ transfers to $I_{\phi}$ (with respect to the conjugacy class of $\psi$). Since $T_{{{\mathbb Q}_v}}$ is elliptic in $I_{{{\mathbb Q}_v}}$ at a place $v$ (i.e. at $v=\infty, p$), according to [@LR87 Lem. 5.6] (in which $G^{\ast}$ does not need to be quasi-split; see also the discussion in $\S$9 of [@Kottwitz84a], particularly 9.4.1, 9.5), it suffices to check that $T$ transfers to $I_{\phi}$ everywhere locally (with respect to $\psi_{{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_v}}$). At $v=\infty, p$, this already follows from the condition that $T_{{{\mathbb Q}_v}}$ is an elliptic torus of $I_{{{\mathbb Q}_v}}$ [@LR87 Lem. 5.8, 5.9]. At a finite place $v\neq p$, since $\phi\circ\zeta_v$ is conjugate to the canonical trivialization $\xi_v:{\mathfrak{G}}_v\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}_G(v)=G({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_v})\rtimes{\mathfrak{G}}_v$ (Def. \[defn:admissible\_morphism\], (2)), the inner-twisting $\psi_{{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_l}}:I_{{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_v}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}(I_{\phi})_{{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_v}}$ (via the chosen embedding ${\overline{\mathbb Q}}{\hookrightarrow}{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_v}$), after conjugation, descends to an ${{\mathbb Q}_v}$-isomorphism $$I_{{{\mathbb Q}_v}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}(I_{\phi})_{{{\mathbb Q}_v}}.\qedhere$$
As was explained after the statement of Theorem \[thm:LR-Satz5.3\], Proposition \[prop:equivalence\_to\_special\_adimssible\_morphism\] is a strengthening of the third step in the proof of Satz 5.3 in [@LR87]. The proof of this step in *loc. cit.* itself proceeds in three steps: Lemma 5.11, Lemma 5.12, and the rest of the proof of Satz 5.3 (p.181, line 1-19 of [@LR87]). Again we will prove our proposition along the same line. First, we need some facts from Bruhat-Tits theory.
\[lem:specaial\_parahoric\_in\_Levi\] (1) Let $G$ be a (connected) reductive group over a field $F$. Then, for any $F$-split $F$-torus $A_M$ in $G$, its centralizer $M:=Z_G(A_M)$ is an $F$-Levi subgroup of $G$ (i.e. a Levi factor defined over $F$ of an $F$-parabolic subgroup of $G$). If $G$ is quasi-split, then so is $M$.
From now on, we suppose that $F$ is a complete discrete valued field with perfect residue field (mainly, local fields or ${\mathfrak{k}}=\mathrm{Frac}(W({\bar{\mathbb{F}}_{p}}))$), and $G$ a connected reductive group over $F$. As before, let $M=Z_G(A_M)$ for a split $F$-torus $A_M$, and fix a maximal split $F$-torus $S$ of $G$ containing $A_M$. Let ${\mathcal{A}}^G={\mathcal{A}}^G(S,F)$ and ${\mathcal{A}}^M={\mathcal{A}}^M(S,F)$ denote respectively the apartments in the buildings ${\mathcal{B}}(G,F)$ and ${\mathcal{B}}(M,F)$ corresponding to $S$.
\(2) Every affine root $\alpha$ of ${\mathcal{A}}^G$ whose vector part $a=v(\alpha)\in \Phi(G,S)$ is a root in $\Phi(M,S)$ is also an affine root of ${\mathcal{A}}^M$.
\(3) For any special maximal parahoric subgroup $K$ of $G(F)$ associated with a special point in ${\mathcal{A}}^G$, the intersection $K\cap M(F)$ is also a special maximal parahoric subgroup of $M(F)$.
\(1) These are standard. For the first claim, see [@BT65 Thm. 4.15]. The second claim is easily seen. We use the fact that for a (connected) reductive group $H$ over a field $F$, $H$ is quasi-split if and only if for a (equiv. any) maximal $F$-split torus of $H$, its centralizer in $H$ is a (maximal) torus.
Now, as any torus containing $A_M$ is a subgroup of $M=Z_{G}(A_M)$, so is any maximal $F$-split torus of $G$ containing $A_M$; choose one and call it $S$. As $G$ is quasi-split, the centralizer $T:=Z_{G}(S)$ of $S$ is a torus of $G$, thus is itself contained in $M$. Now, $T$ is also the centralizer of $S$ in $M$.
\(2) This also follows readily from definition. First, we recall that the relative root datum $\Phi(M,S)=(X_{\ast}(S),R_{\ast}(M),X^{\ast}(S),R^{\ast}(M))$ for $(M,S)$ is a closed sub-datum of the root datum $\Phi(G,S)=(X_{\ast}(S),R_{\ast}(G),X^{\ast}(S),R^{\ast}(G))$ defined by a subset $I$ of the set $\Delta=\{a_1,\cdots,a_n\}$ of simple roots (for some ordering on $R^{\ast}(G)$) [@BT65 Thm. 4.15]: $$\label{eqn:basis_of_simple_roots_for_Levi}
R^{\ast}(M)=R^{\ast}(G)\cap \sum_{a_i\in I}{\mathbb Z}a_i,$$ and $A_M=(\cap_{\alpha\in I}\ker(\alpha))^{\mathrm{o}}$ (the largest split $F$-torus in the center $Z(M)$). Next, for an affine function $\alpha$ on $\mathcal{A}(S,F)\cong X_{\ast}(S)_{{\mathbb R}}$ (regarded as a common affine space without any apartment structure) whose vector part belongs to $\Phi$, let $X_{\alpha}^G$ be defined as in [@Tits79 1.4] with respect to $G$, i.e. $$X_{\alpha}^G=\{u\in U_{v(\alpha)}(F)\ |\ u=1\text{ or }\alpha(v(\alpha),u)\geq \alpha\}.$$ Here, for $a\in R^{\ast}(G,S)$, $U_a$ refers to the associated root group. This an unipotent $F$-group, which was denoted by ${}_FU_a$ or $U_{(a)}$ in [@BT65], 5.2.[^22] When $a\in R^{\ast}(M,S)$, as $U_{a}\subset M$ for $a\in R^{\ast}(M)$, it follows from definition that this $U_a$ is the same group as that defined regarding $a$ as a root for $(M,S)$. Similarly, if $v(\alpha)\in R^{\ast}(M)$, the same is also true of the affine function $\alpha(v(\alpha),u)$. In more detail, its definition uses only the properties of *root (group) datum* (of type some root system) in the sense of [@BT72 6.1]. For $S$ and $U_{a}\ (a\in R^{\ast}(G,S))$ as above, there exist certain $S$-right cosets $\{M_a\}_{a\in R^{\ast}(G,S)}$ such that the family of subgroups $$\{S,\{U_{a},M_{a}\}_{a\in \Phi(G,S)}\}$$ becomes a root group datum of type $\Phi(G,S)$ (in $G$) (in fact $M_a$ is then a subset of the group generated by $\{S,U_{a},U_{-a}\}$, cf. [@BT72 (6.1.2), (9)]). In particular, the element $m(u)$ (for each $u\in U_a(F)\backslash\{1\}$) appearing in [@Tits79 1.4] belongs to $M_a$ and is determined solely by the root group datum $\{S,\{U_{a},M_{a}\}_{a\in \Phi(G,S)}\}$ [@BT72 (6.1.2), (2)]. But, as $\Phi(M,S)$ is *(quasi-)closed* in $\Phi(G,S)$ and $U_{a}\subset M$ for $a\in R^{\ast}(M)$, the subset $\{T,\{U_{\alpha},M_{\alpha}\}_{\alpha\in \Phi(M,S)}\}$ is also a root datum of type $\Phi(M,S)$ (in $G$), cf. [@BT72 7.6]. Hence we can drop the superscript $G$ in $X_{\alpha}^G$ without ambiguity. Now, we recall the definition [@Tits79 1.6] that an affine function $\alpha$ is an *affine root* of $G$ (relative to $S$ and $F$) if $X_{\alpha}$ is not contained in $X_{\alpha+\epsilon}\cdot U_{2v(\alpha)}\ (=X_{\alpha+\epsilon}\text{ if }2v(\alpha)\notin\Phi$) for any strictly positive constant $\epsilon$. The claim in question is immediate from this definition and the above discussions.
\(3) It is shown in [@HainesRostami10 Lem. 4.1.1] that $K\cap M(F)$ is a parahoric subgroup of $M(F)$. So we just have to show that it is special maximal parahoric. Using the special point ${\mathbf{0}}\in {\mathcal{A}}^G(S,F)$, we may embed ${\mathcal{B}}(M,F)$ into ${\mathcal{B}}(G,F)$ such that ${\mathbf{0}}$ lies in the image [@BT72 7.6.4], [@BT84 4.2.17-18]. Let ${\mathcal{A}}((M^{{\mathrm{der}}}\cap S)^{\mathrm{o}},F)$ be the apartment corresponding to the maximal split $F$-torus $(M^{{\mathrm{der}}}\cap S)^{\mathrm{o}}$ of $M^{{\mathrm{der}}}$. As the affine hyperplanes in ${\mathcal{A}}^{M}$ form a subset of those in ${\mathcal{A}}^{G}$, it is obvious that ${\mathbf{0}}$ is contained in a unique facet ${\mathbf{a}}_{{\mathbf{0}}}^{M}$ in ${\mathcal{A}}^{M}$, i.e. in $${\mathbf{a}}^{M}_{{\mathbf{0}}}\cong X_{\ast}(Z(M))_{{\mathbb R}}\times \{v_{{\mathbf{0}}}\}.$$ for some unique facet $v_{{\mathbf{0}}}$ in the apartment ${\mathcal{A}}((M^{{\mathrm{der}}}\cap S)^{\mathrm{o}},F)$ (recall that $M$ is the centralizer of a split torus $Z(M)$ which then must be the center). Now, we claim that $v_{{\mathbf{0}}}$ is a vertex of ${\mathcal{A}}((M^{{\mathrm{der}}}\cap S)^{\mathrm{o}},F)$. Indeed, as ${\mathbf{0}}$ is a special point, we may identify the affine space ${\mathcal{A}}^{G}$ with the vector space $X_{\ast}(S)_{{\mathbb R}}$ (${\mathbf{0}}$ becoming the origin) so that the root hyperplanes $\{H_{\alpha}\}_{\alpha\in R^{\ast}(G,S)}$ are all affine hyperplanes. Clearly, ${\mathbf{0}}=\cap_{\alpha\in R^{\ast}(G,S)}H_{\alpha}\cap X_{\ast}((G^{{\mathrm{der}}}\cap S)^{\mathrm{o}})_{{\mathbb R}} $. Let $I\subset \Delta$ be the subset defining the root datum $\Phi(M,S)$ as in (2); so, the center $Z(M)$ is equasl to $\cap_{\alpha\in I}H_{\alpha}$ (intersection of root hyperplanes in $X_{\ast}(S)_{{\mathbb R}}$). But, by (2), $\{H_{\alpha}\}_{\alpha\in I}$ is also a subset of affine hyperplanes in the apartment ${\mathcal{A}}^M$ of $(M,S)$, and ${\mathbf{0}}$ is contained in the intersection of these linearly independent affine hyperplanes in ${\mathcal{A}}(M,S)$, whose dimension is thus equal to rank $r_M$ of $Z(M)$. Hence, ${\mathbf{0}}$ is contained in a facet of ${\mathcal{A}}^M$ of dimension at most $r_M$, which implies that the facet $v_{{\mathbf{0}}}$ is of zero-dimension, i.e. a vertex in the building for $M^{{\mathrm{der}}}$.
Once we know that $v_{{\mathbf{0}}}$ is a vertex, the fact that it is a special vertex also follows readily from (2). Indeed, by definition [@Tits79 1.9], we need to check that every root of $a\in\Phi(M,S)$ is the vector part of an affine roof of $(M,S)$ vanishing at $v_{{\mathbf{0}}}(\in {\mathcal{A}}^{M^{{\mathrm{der}}}})$. We know that $a$ also belongs to $\Phi(G,S)$, thus since ${\mathbf{0}}$ is special, there exists an affine root $\alpha$ of $(G,S)$ with vector part $v(\alpha)=a$ and vanishing at ${\mathbf{0}}$. But, by (2), such $\alpha$ is also an affine root of ${\mathcal{A}}^M$, and as such, it must vanish on the facet in ${\mathcal{A}}^M$ containing ${\mathbf{0}}$, i.e. on ${\mathbf{a}}^M_{{\mathbf{0}}}\cong X_{\ast}(Z(M))_{{\mathbb R}}\times \{v_{{\mathbf{0}}}\}$.
\[lem:LR-Lemma5.11\] Assume that $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is quasi-split and that $G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is a product $\prod_i {\mathrm{Res}}_{F_i/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}G_i$ of simple groups each of which is the restriction of scalars ${\mathrm{Res}}_{F_i/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}G_i$ of an absolutely simple group $G_i$ over a field $F_i$ such that $G_i$ splits over a tamely ramified extension of $F_i$.
Let $T_1\subset G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ be a maximal ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-torus, split by a finite Galois extension $K$ of ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$, $b\in T_1({\mathfrak{k}})$, and $\{\mu\}$ a $G({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$-conjugacy class of minuscule cocharacters of $G_{{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}}$. Let ${\mathbf{K}}_p$ be a (not necessarily special maximal) parahoric subgroup of $G({{\mathbb Q}_p})$.
If $X(\{\mu\},b)_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}\neq\emptyset$, there exists $\mu\in X_{\ast}(T_1)\cap \{\mu\}$ such that $$\label{eq:equality_on_the_kernel}
{\mathrm{N}}_{K/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}\mu=[K:{{\mathbb Q}_p}]\nu_b,$$ where $\nu_b\in X_{\ast}(T_1)_{{\mathbb Q}}$ is the Newton homomorphism attached to $b$.
In particular, if $\phi$ is an admissible morphism well-located in a maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-torus $T$ of $G$ that is elliptic over ${\mathbb R}$, there exists $\mu\in X_{\ast}(T)\cap\{\mu_X\}$ such that $\phi$ and $\psi_{T,\mu}$ coincide on the kernel of ${\mathfrak{P}}$.
Here, $i\circ\psi_{T,\mu}$ is not necessarily admissible, because $\mu$ may not be $\mu_{h'}$ for some $h'\in X$.
This is proved in Lemma 5.11 of [@LR87] when ${\mathbf{K}}_p$ is a hyperspecial subgroup. We will adapt its argument for general parahoric subgroups. We first show how the first statement implies the second one. Since the kernel of the Galois gerb ${\mathfrak{P}}$ is the projective limit of $P(L,m)({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$, where $L$ runs through CM Galois extensions of ${\mathbb Q}$ and $m\in{\mathbb N}$ varies with respect to divisibility (cf. ), we only need to show it after restricting $\phi$ and $\psi_{T,\mu}$ to $P(L,m)$ (for all sufficiently large Galois CM field $L$ and $m$). Let $L$ be a CM-field splitting $T$. Then, the Galois-gerb morphisms $\psi_{T,\mu}:{\mathfrak{P}}\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}_T$ and $\zeta_p:{\mathfrak{G}}_p\rightarrow{\mathfrak{P}}(p)$ factor through ${\mathfrak{P}}^L$ and ${\mathfrak{G}}_p^{L_{v_2}}$, respectively (Lemma \[lem:defn\_of\_psi\_T,mu\], (2) and Remark \[rem:comments\_on\_zeta\_v\]), where as usual $v_2$ denotes (by abuse of notation) the place of $L$ induced by the fixed embedding $L{\hookrightarrow}{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}$. Let $\zeta_p^{L_{v_2}}:{\mathfrak{G}}_p^{L_{v_2}}\rightarrow{\mathfrak{P}}(p)$ denote the induced morphism. Then, according to the definition of $\psi_{T,\mu}$ (cf. [@LR87], p. 143-144), when $\mu+\iota\mu$ is defined over ${\mathbb Q}$, for sufficiently large $m\in{\mathbb N}$, $\psi_{T,\mu}(\delta_m)$ is the unique element $t$ in $T({\mathbb Q})$ such that for all $\lambda\in X^{\ast}(T)$, $\lambda(t)$ is a Weil number and $$|\prod_{\sigma\in{\mathrm{Gal}}(L_{v_2}/{\mathbb Q}_p)}\sigma\lambda(t)|_p=q^{-\langle\lambda,{\mathrm{N}}_{L_{v_2}/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}\mu\rangle}$$ holds with $q=p^m$. Further, $\psi_{T,\mu}(p)\circ\zeta_p:{\mathfrak{G}}_p^{L_{v_2}}\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}_T(p)$ is conjugate to $\xi_{-\mu}^{L_{v_2}}$ by an element of $T({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ (Lemma \[lem:properties\_of\_psi\_T,mu\], (2)), where $\xi_{-\mu}^{L_{v_2}}:{\mathfrak{G}}_p^{L_{v_2}}\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}_T(p)$ is the morphism defined in Definition \[defn:psi\_T,mu\] for $(T_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}},\mu,L_{v_2})$. On the other hand, by enlarging $L$ if necessary, we may assume that $\phi$ also factors through ${\mathfrak{P}}^L$, and that there exists a Galois ${{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\mathbb Q}_p}$-gerb morphism $\xi_p':{\mathfrak{D}}_l\rightarrow{\mathfrak{G}}_{T_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}}^{{\mathrm{ur}}}$ whose inflation to ${\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}$ is $T({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$-conjugate to $\xi_p=\phi(p)\circ\zeta_p$, where $l:=[L_{v_2}:{{\mathbb Q}_p}]$, (Lemma \[lem:unramified\_morphism\], (2), or Lemma \[lem:unramified\_conj\_of\_special\_morphism\]). Then, for $b\sigma:=\xi_p'(s_{\sigma}^l)$, we have $$-[L_{v_2}:{{\mathbb Q}_p}]\nu_b=\nu_p:=\phi(p)^{\Delta}\circ(\zeta_p^{L_{v_2}})^{\Delta}.$$ Next, recall (cf. ) that each character of $P(L,m)$ is regarded as a Weil $q=p^m$-number in $L$, with the correspondence being realized in terms of $\delta_m$ by $\chi\mapsto \chi(\delta_m)$ (Lemma \[lem:Reimann97-B2.3\], (2)), and that for a Weil $q$-number $\pi$, $\chi_{\pi}$ is the notation regarding it as a character of $P(L,m)$. For $\lambda\in X^{\ast}(T)$, writing $\lambda\circ\phi^{\Delta}(\delta_m)$ as $\pi_{\lambda}$ for short (so that $\chi_{\pi_{\lambda}}=\lambda\circ\phi^{\Delta}$), we see that $$\begin{aligned}
|\prod_{\sigma\in{\mathrm{Gal}}(L_{v_2}/{\mathbb Q}_p)}\sigma\lambda(\phi^{\Delta}(\delta_m))|_p&=&
|\prod_{\sigma\in{\mathrm{Gal}}(L_{v_2}/{\mathbb Q}_p)}\sigma\pi_{\lambda}|_p\\
&=&q^{\langle \chi_{\pi_{\lambda}},\nu_2^{L_{v_2}}\rangle}=q^{\langle\lambda\circ\phi^{\Delta},(\zeta_p^{L_{v_2}})^{\Delta}\rangle} \\
&=&q^{\langle \lambda,\nu_p\rangle}.\end{aligned}$$ Here, the third equality is the property of $\nu_2^{L_{v_2}}=(\zeta_p^{L_{v_2}})^{\Delta}$ (Def. \[defn:Weil-number\_torus\], (\[eqn:cocharacters\_nu\^K\]), cf. ). This shows that the first statement implies the second claim.
Now, we establish the first statement. We remark that we will reduce the general parahoric subgroup case to a situation involving only a special maximal parahoric subgroup.
Let $T_1^{\textrm{split}}$ be the maximal ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-split subtorus of $T_1$, $M$ the centralizer of $T_1^{\textrm{split}}$; thus $T_1\subset M$, and $M$ is a semi-standard ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-Levi subgroup (Lemma \[lem:specaial\_parahoric\_in\_Levi\], (1)). Below, there will be given a special point ${\mathbf{0}}$ of the Bruhat-Tits building ${\mathcal{B}}(G,{\mathfrak{k}})$. Then, one can find a ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-torus $S'$ in $M$ whose extension to ${{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}$ becomes a maximal ${{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}$-split torus of $M_{{{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}}$, and a $M({\mathfrak{k}})\rtimes{\mathrm{Gal}}({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\mathbb Q}_p})$-equivariant embedding ${\mathcal{B}}(M,{\mathfrak{k}}){\hookrightarrow}{\mathcal{B}}(G,{\mathfrak{k}})$ such that ${\mathbf{0}}$ lies in the image of the apartment ${\mathcal{A}}^{M}_{{\mathfrak{k}}}\subset{\mathcal{B}}(M,{\mathfrak{k}})$ corresponding to $S'$. Note that the centralizer $T':=Z_{G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}}(S')$ is a maximal torus of $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ (thus, a maximal torus of $M$ as well), as $G_{{\mathfrak{k}}}$ is quasi-split by a theorem of Steinberg.
We recall that for a facet ${\mathbf{f}}^{\sigma}$ in ${\mathcal{B}}(G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}},{{\mathbb Q}_p})$, there exists a unique $\sigma$-stable facet ${\mathbf{f}}$ in ${\mathcal{B}}(G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}},{\mathfrak{k}})$ with ${\mathbf{f}}^{\langle\sigma\rangle}={\mathbf{f}}^{\sigma}$ [@BT84 5.1.28]. Let ${\mathcal{G}}_{{\mathbf{f}}}^{{\mathrm{o}}}$ be the smooth ${\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathfrak{k}}}$-group scheme canonically attached to ${\mathbf{f}}$, so that it has connected geometric fibers and the elements of ${\mathcal{G}}_{{\mathbf{f}}}^{{\mathrm{o}}}({\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathfrak{k}}})$ fixes ${\mathbf{f}}$ pointwise (cf. [@BT84 5.2]). Then, $$K_{{\mathbf{f}}}({\mathfrak{k}}):={\mathcal{G}}_{{\mathbf{f}}}^{{\mathrm{o}}}({\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathfrak{k}}}),\quad K_{{\mathbf{f}}}({{\mathbb Q}_p}):={\mathcal{G}}_{{\mathbf{0}}}^{{\mathrm{o}}}({\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathfrak{k}}})^{\sigma}$$ are the pararhoric groups associated with the facet ${\mathbf{f}}$ (or ${\mathbf{f}}^{\sigma}$) (cf. [@HainesRapoport08], Prop. 3).
Let ${\mathcal{A}}^{G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}}_{{\mathfrak{k}}}$ be the apartment corresponding to $S'$. By conjugation, we assume that the given $\sigma$-stable facet ${\mathbf{f}}$ defining ${\mathbf{K}}_p$ (i.e. ${\mathbf{K}}_p=K_{{\mathbf{f}}}({{\mathbb Q}_p})$) lies in ${\mathcal{A}}^{G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}}_{{\mathfrak{k}}}$. We fix a $\sigma$-stable alcove ${\mathbf{a}}$ in ${\mathcal{A}}^{G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}}_{{\mathfrak{k}}}$ whose closure contains ${\mathbf{f}}$, and let $K_{{\mathbf{a}}}({\mathfrak{k}})$ be the corresponding Iwahoric subgroup of $G({\mathfrak{k}})$. The alcove ${\mathbf{a}}$ then must contain some (not necessarily $\sigma$-stable) special point ${\mathbf{0}}$ in its closure. If $K_{{\mathbf{0}}}({\mathfrak{k}})\subset G({\mathfrak{k}})$ denotes the associated special maximal parahoric subgroup, we have the inclusion $K_{{\mathbf{a}}}({\mathfrak{k}})\subset K_{{\mathbf{0}}}({\mathfrak{k}})$ since ${\mathbf{0}}$ is in the closure of ${\mathbf{a}}$. Now, as both ${\mathbf{a}}$ and ${\mathbf{f}}$ are $\sigma$-stable, according to [@He15 Thm.1.1], the condition $X(\{\mu\},b)_{K_{{\mathbf{f}}}({{\mathbb Q}_p})}\neq\emptyset$ implies that $X(\{\mu\},b)_{K_{{\mathbf{a}}}({{\mathbb Q}_p})}\neq\emptyset$. Let $\mu_B$ be a dominant representative of $\{\mu\}$, where we choose the dominant Weyl chamber *opposite* to the unique Weyl chamber containing the base alcove ${\mathbf{a}}$ with apex at the special vertex ${\mathbf{0}}$ (following the convention of [@HeRapoport15]). Also, recall (\[eqn:splitting\_of\_EAWG2\]) that the choice of a base alcove ${\mathbf{a}}$ presents the extended affine Weyl group $\widetilde{W}$ as the semidirect product $W_a\rtimes \Omega_{{\mathbf{a}}}$ of the affine Weyl group $W_a$ (attached to $S'$) with the normalizer subgroup $\Omega_{{\mathbf{a}}}\subset \widetilde{W}$ of ${\mathbf{a}}$, thereby fixes a Bruhat order $\leq$ on $\widetilde{W}$ as well.
Let $g_1\in G({\mathfrak{k}})$ be such that $g_1 K_{{\mathbf{a}}}({\mathfrak{k}})\in X(\{\mu_X\},b)_{K_{{\mathbf{a}}}({\mathfrak{k}})}$, i.e. if $$\label{eqn:Iwahori_invariant}
\mathrm{inv}_{K_{{\mathbf{a}}}({\mathfrak{k}})}(g_1,b\sigma(g_1))=\widetilde{W}_{K_{{\mathbf{a}}}({\mathfrak{k}})}\cdot w_1\cdot \widetilde{W}_{K_{{\mathbf{a}}}({\mathfrak{k}})}\quad (w_1\in \widetilde{W}),$$ under the isomorphism $K_{{\mathbf{a}}}({\mathfrak{k}})\backslash G({\mathfrak{k}})/K_{{\mathbf{a}}}({\mathfrak{k}})\simeq \widetilde{W}_{K_{{\mathbf{a}}}({\mathfrak{k}})}\backslash\widetilde{W}/\widetilde{W}_{K_{{\mathbf{a}}}({\mathfrak{k}})}$, there exists $\mu'\in X_{\ast}(T')\cap W_0\cdot\mu_B$ that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:Iwahori_inequality}
\widetilde{W}_{K_{{\mathbf{a}}}({\mathfrak{k}})}\cdot w_1\cdot \widetilde{W}_{K_{{\mathbf{a}}}({\mathfrak{k}})} &\leq&\widetilde{W}_{K_{{\mathbf{a}}}({\mathfrak{k}})}\cdot t^{\underline{\mu'}}\cdot \widetilde{W}_{K_{{\mathbf{a}}}({\mathfrak{k}})}. \end{aligned}$$ Here, we used the notations from (); namely, $\underline{\mu'}$ is the image of $\mu'$ in $X_{\ast}(T')_{\Gamma_{{\mathfrak{k}}}}$, and for $\lambda\in X_{\ast}(T')_{\Gamma_{{\mathfrak{k}}}}$, $t^{\lambda}$ denotes the corresponding element of $\widetilde{W}$ via $X_{\ast}(T')_{\Gamma_{{\mathfrak{k}}}}\cong T'({\mathfrak{k}})/T'({\mathfrak{k}})_1\subset \widetilde{W}$. Since $K_{{\mathbf{a}}}({\mathfrak{k}})\subset K_{{\mathbf{0}}}({\mathfrak{k}})$, the same relations (\[eqn:Iwahori\_invariant\]), (\[eqn:Iwahori\_inequality\]) continue to hold with $K_{{\mathbf{a}}}({\mathfrak{k}})$ replaced by $K_{{\mathbf{0}}}({\mathfrak{k}})$ (see [@Rapoport05 (3.5)] for (\[eqn:Iwahori\_inequality\])). Be warned that this does not mean that $X(\{\mu\},b)_{K_{{\mathbf{0}}}({\mathfrak{k}})}\neq\emptyset$: the latter definition makes sense only when the point ${\mathbf{0}}$ is $\sigma$-stable.
Therefore, we are given a string of ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-subgroups of $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$: $$S'\subset T'\subset M \supset T_1,$$ where
- $M$ is a semi-standard ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-Levi subgroup of $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ (i.e. $M$ is the centralizer of a ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-split torus of $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$);
- $S'$ is a ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-torus in $M$ whose extension to ${{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}$ becomes a maximal ${{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}$-split torus of $M_{{{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}}$ (thus $S'$ is also such a torus for $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$);
- $T'=Z_{G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}}(S')$ (thus, a maximal torus of $M$ and also of $G$);
- $T_1$ is an elliptic maximal torus of $M$ which $\nu_b$ factors through.
These satisfy the following properties: There exists a special point ${\mathbf{0}}$ of ${\mathcal{B}}(G,{\mathfrak{k}})$ which lies in the image of the apartment ${\mathcal{A}}^{M}_{{\mathfrak{k}}}\subset{\mathcal{B}}(M,{\mathfrak{k}})$ corresponding to $S'$, under a suitable embedding ${\mathcal{B}}(M,{\mathfrak{k}}){\hookrightarrow}{\mathcal{B}}(G,{\mathfrak{k}})$. Also, the relations (\[eqn:Iwahori\_invariant\]), (\[eqn:Iwahori\_inequality\]) hold with $K_{{\mathbf{a}}}({\mathfrak{k}})$ replaced by $K_{{\mathbf{0}}}({\mathfrak{k}})$ (for some $g_1$, $w_1$, $\mu'$ as in there). In this set up, we establish the existence of $\mu\in X_{\ast}(T_1)\cap \{\mu\}$ satisfying (\[eq:equality\_on\_the\_kernel\]). We proceed in the following steps; we remark that in the first three steps, it is not necessary that $b\in T_1({\mathfrak{k}})$, and it suffices that $b\in M({\mathfrak{k}})$.
- Let $Q$ be a ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-parabolic subgroup of $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ of which $M$ is a Levi factor. Then, by Iwasawa decomposition $G({\mathfrak{k}})=Q({\mathfrak{k}}) K_{{\mathbf{0}}}({\mathfrak{k}})$, we may assume $g_1\in Q({\mathfrak{k}})$: this follows from the classical Iwasawa decomposition $G({\mathfrak{k}})=Q({\mathfrak{k}}) \mathrm{Fix}({\mathbf{0}})$ [@Tits79 3.3.2] and that $\mathrm{Fix}({\mathbf{0}})\subset T'({\mathfrak{k}})\cdot K_{{\mathbf{0}}}({\mathfrak{k}})$. Indeed, $\mathrm{Fix}({\mathbf{0}})\subset G({\mathfrak{k}})=K_{{\mathbf{0}}}({\mathfrak{k}})T'({\mathfrak{k}}) K_{{\mathbf{0}}}({\mathfrak{k}})$, so any $g\in \mathrm{Fix}({\mathbf{0}})$ is written as $k_1 tk_2$ with $k_1,k_2\in K_{{\mathbf{0}}}({\mathfrak{k}})$ and $t\in T'({\mathfrak{k}})\cap \mathrm{Fix}({\mathbf{0}})$. But, as $K_{{\mathbf{0}}}({\mathfrak{k}})$ is normal in $\mathrm{Fix}({\mathbf{0}})$, we see that $g\in T'({\mathfrak{k}})\cdot K_{{\mathbf{0}}}({\mathfrak{k}})$. When one writes $g_1=nm$ with $m\in M({\mathfrak{k}})$ and $n\in N_Q({\mathfrak{k}})$ ($N_Q$ being the unipotent radical of $Q$), one has that $$g_1^{-1}b\sigma(g_1)=m^{-1}b\sigma(m)n',$$ where $$n'=\sigma(m)^{-1}b^{-1}n^{-1}b\sigma(n)\sigma(m).$$ One readily checks that $n'\in N({\mathfrak{k}})$.
- Define $\mu''\in X_{\ast}(T')$ by $$m^{-1}b\sigma(m)\in (K_{{\mathbf{0}}}({\mathfrak{k}})\cap M({\mathfrak{k}}))\ t^{\underline{\mu''}}\ (K_{{\mathbf{0}}}({\mathfrak{k}})\cap M({\mathfrak{k}})),$$ using the Cartan decomposition for $(M,K_{{\mathbf{0}}}({\mathfrak{k}})\cap M({\mathfrak{k}}))$ (as $K_{{\mathbf{0}}}({\mathfrak{k}})\cap M({\mathfrak{k}})$ is a special maximal parahoric subgroup of $M({\mathfrak{k}})$, by Lemma \[lem:specaial\_parahoric\_in\_Levi\], (3)). Note the equality: $$w_{G}(t^{\underline{\mu''}})=w_{G}(m^{-1}b\sigma(m))=w_{G}(m^{-1}b\sigma(m)n')=w_{G}(w_1)=w_{G}(t^{\underline{\mu'}}),$$ where the last equality holds since by definition of the Bruhat order on $\widetilde{W}=W_a\rtimes \Omega_{{\mathbf{a}}}$, $w_1$ and $t^{\underline{\mu'}}$ have the same component in $\Omega_{{\mathbf{a}}}$ and $w_{G}(=w_{G_{{\mathfrak{k}}}})$ is trivial on the image in $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}({\mathfrak{k}})$ of $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}^{{\mathrm{sc}}}({\mathfrak{k}})$ ($G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$ being the universal covering of $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}^{{\mathrm{der}}}$) [@Kottwitz97 7.4]. It follows that the images of $\mu',\mu''\in X_{\ast}(T')$ in $\pi_1(G)_{\Gamma_{{\mathfrak{k}}}}$ are the same.
On the other hand, if $k_1,k_2\in K_0({\mathfrak{k}})\cap M({\mathfrak{k}})$ are such that $m^{-1}b\sigma(m)=k_1t^{\underline{\mu''}}k_2$, then $m^{-1}b\sigma(m)n'=k_1t^{\underline{\mu''}}k_2n'=k_1t^{\underline{\mu''}}n''k_2$ for some $n''\in N({\mathfrak{k}})$. Consequently, we see that $$K_{{\mathbf{0}}}({\mathfrak{k}})\ t^{\underline{\mu''}}\ N_Q({\mathfrak{k}})\cap K_{{\mathbf{0}}}({\mathfrak{k}})w_1 K_{{\mathbf{0}}}({\mathfrak{k}})\neq\emptyset.$$ By (\[eqn:Iwahori\_inequality\]), this implies that with respect to the Bruhat order on $\widetilde{W}_{K_{{\mathbf{0}}}({\mathfrak{k}})}\backslash\widetilde{W}/\widetilde{W}_{K_{{\mathbf{0}}}({\mathfrak{k}})}$, $$\widetilde{W}_{K_{{\mathbf{0}}}({\mathfrak{k}})}\cdot t^{\underline{\mu''}}\cdot \widetilde{W}_{K_{{\mathbf{0}}}({\mathfrak{k}})} \leq \widetilde{W}_{K_{{\mathbf{0}}}({\mathfrak{k}})}\cdot t^{\underline{\mu'}}\cdot \widetilde{W}_{K_{{\mathbf{0}}}({\mathfrak{k}})}.$$ Indeed, the argument of the proof of [@HainesRostami10], Lemma 10.2 establishes the following fact: for $x,y\in \widetilde{W}$, if $K_{{\mathbf{0}}}({\mathfrak{k}})yN_Q({\mathfrak{k}})\cap K_{{\mathbf{0}}}({\mathfrak{k}})x K_{{\mathbf{0}}}({\mathfrak{k}})\neq\emptyset$, then $y\leq x'$ for some $x'\in\widetilde{W}_{K_{{\mathbf{0}}}({\mathfrak{k}})}\cdot x\cdot \widetilde{W}_{K_{{\mathbf{0}}}({\mathfrak{k}})}$. Also, if $x\leq y$ in the Bruhat order on $\widetilde{W}$, then $\widetilde{W}_{K_{{\mathbf{0}}}({\mathfrak{k}})}\cdot x \cdot\widetilde{W}_{K_{{\mathbf{0}}}({\mathfrak{k}})} \leq \widetilde{W}_{K_{{\mathbf{0}}}({\mathfrak{k}})}\cdot y\cdot \widetilde{W}_{K_{{\mathbf{0}}}({\mathfrak{k}})}$ [@KR00 8.3].
- By [@Tits79 1.7], with our choice of the special vertex ${\mathbf{0}}$, the affine space ${\mathcal{A}}(S',{\mathfrak{k}})$ is identified with the real vector space $V:=X_{\ast}(S')_{{\mathbb R}}=X_{\ast}(T')_I\otimes{\mathbb R}$ (with the origin being ${\mathbf{0}}$), and there exists a reduced root system ${}^{{\mathbf{0}}}\Sigma$ whose roots belong to $X^{\ast}(S'^{{\mathrm{sc}}})_{{\mathbb R}}$ and such that $W_a$ is isomorphic to its affine Weyl group $$W_a \cong Q^{\vee}({}^{{\mathbf{0}}}\Sigma)\rtimes W({}^{{\mathbf{0}}}\Sigma).$$ Also, the choice of the alcove ${\mathbf{a}}$ containing ${\mathbf{0}}$ determines a set $\mathrm{S}_{{\mathbf{a}}}$ of simple affine roots on ${\mathcal{A}}(S',{\mathfrak{k}})$, and $\widetilde{W}_{K_{{\mathbf{0}}}({\mathfrak{k}})}\simeq W_0$ is the subgroup of $W_a$ generated by the subset ${}^{{\mathbf{0}}}\Delta$ consisting of the simple affine roots whose corresponding affine hyperplanes pass through ${\mathbf{0}}$ (thus, ${}^{{\mathbf{0}}}\Delta$ is a set of simple roots for ${}^{{\mathbf{0}}}\Sigma$).
Let $\underline{\mu'}_0$, $\underline{\mu''}_0$ denote the dominant representatives of $W_0\cdot\underline{\mu'}$, $W_0\cdot\underline{\mu''}\subset X_{\ast}(T')_I$, where $I=\Gamma_{{\mathfrak{k}}}={\mathrm{Gal}}(\overline{{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\mathfrak{k}})$. Then, we claim that $$\underline{\mu''}_0\leq \underline{\mu'}_0.$$ for the dominance order on $Q^{\vee}({}^{{\mathbf{0}}}\Sigma)=X_{\ast}(T'^{{\mathrm{sc}}})_I$ (determined by the choice of the alcove ${\mathbf{a}}$); in particular, $\underline{\mu'}_0- \underline{\mu''}_0$ is a linear combination of positive coroots in ${}^{{\mathbf{0}}}\Sigma$ with non-negative *integer* coefficients [@Stembridge05 Lem. 4.11].
Indeed, in this set-up of the Coxeter group $W_a$ endowed with a set of generators $\mathrm{S}_{{\mathbf{a}}}$, the claim follows from [@Stembridge05] (more precisely, Prop. 1.1, Prop. 1.5, Prop. 1.8), applied with the choice $\theta={\mathbf{0}}$, noting the following two facts: First, for $w=t^{\underline{\nu}}\in W_a$ with $\underline{\nu}\in X_{\ast}(T^{{\mathrm{sc}}})_I$, $w\theta$ is identified with $\underline{\nu}\in V$. Secondly, $W_0 t^{\underline{\mu''}} W_0\leq W_0 t^{\underline{\mu'}} W_0$ if and only if $w''\leq w'$, where $w''$ (resp. $w'$) is the (unique) element of minimal length in the coset $W_0 t^{\underline{\nu''}} W_0$ (resp. $W_0 t^{\underline{\nu'}} W_0$) with $\underline{\nu''}\in X_{\ast}(T^{{\mathrm{sc}}})_I$ being the component of $\underline{\mu''}\in X_{\ast}(T)_I(\subset \widetilde{W}=W_a\rtimes \Omega_{{\mathbf{a}}})$ (resp. $\underline{\nu'}\in X_{\ast}(T^{{\mathrm{sc}}})_I$ being the component of $\underline{\mu'}\in X_{\ast}(T)_I$).
On the other hand, we claim that under our assumption on $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$, $$\underline{\mu''}\in \underline{W\cdot\mu'}$$ for the absolute Weyl group $W$ of $(G,T')$. Indeed, as this statement concerns only the differences $w\cdot\underline{\mu'}_0-\underline{\mu''}_0$ ($w\in W$) which always lie in $X_{\ast}(T'^{{\mathrm{sc}}})_I$ and the root system ${}^{{\mathbf{0}}}\Sigma$ which is determined by $G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$, one can assume that $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}^{{\mathrm{sc}}}={\mathrm{Res}}_{F/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}H$ for an absolutely simple, quasi-split, semi-simple group $H$ over a finite extension $F$ of ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$ which splits over a tamely ramified extension of $F$. Then, since $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}}^{{\mathrm{sc}}}=\prod_{\iota\in{\mathrm{Hom}}(F_0,{{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})}{\mathrm{Res}}_{F_{\iota}^{{\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}}H_{F_{\iota}^{{\mathrm{ur}}}}$ where $F_0$ is the maximal subfield of $F$ unramified over ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$ and $F_{\iota}^{{\mathrm{ur}}}:=F\otimes_{F_0,\iota}{{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}$, and for a maximal torus $T^{{\mathrm{ur}}}$ of $H_{F_{\iota}^{{\mathrm{ur}}}}$, we have $$X_{\ast}({\mathrm{Res}}_{F_{\iota}^{{\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}}T^{{\mathrm{ur}}})_I=X_{\ast}(T^{{\mathrm{ur}}})_{{\mathrm{Gal}}(\bar{F}_{\iota}^{{\mathrm{ur}}}/F_{\iota}^{{\mathrm{ur}}})},$$ we may reduce to $H_{F^{{\mathrm{ur}}}}$ for such $H$, where $F^{{\mathrm{ur}}}$ is the maximal unramified extension (in $\bar{F}$) of $F$, and thus further assume that $H$ is absolutely simple, residually split, and splits over a tamely ramified extension of $F$. We may exclude the split case which is trivial. Then, according to the list of such groups provided in the proof of Prop. \[prop:existence\_of\_elliptic\_tori\_in\_special\_parahorics\], we are left with the groups of type $B\operatorname{-}C_m$, $C\operatorname{-}BC_m$, $C\operatorname{-}B_m$.
In the first two cases, one can readily check (cf. [@Tits79]) that each root $\beta$ in ${}^{{\mathbf{0}}}\Sigma$ is also a relative root for $(H_{F^{{\mathrm{ur}}}},S')$ (thus lifts to a root $\tilde{\beta}\in X^{\ast}(T')$ for $(H_{F^{{\mathrm{ur}}}},T')$), where $S'$ now refers to a maximal $F^{{\mathrm{ur}}}$-split torus in $H_{F^{{\mathrm{ur}}}}$ and $T'$ is its centralizer (a maximal torus of $H_{F^{{\mathrm{ur}}}}$). Hence as $\mu'$ is a minuscule coweight for $(G,T')$, for each root $\beta$ in ${}^{{\mathbf{0}}}\Sigma$, we have $$|\langle\beta,\underline{\mu'}\rangle|=|\frac{1}{[K':{{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}]}\sum_{\tau\in{\mathrm{Gal}}(K'/{{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})}\langle\tilde{\beta},\tau\mu'\rangle|\leq 1,$$ where $K'/{{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}$ is a finite Galois extension splitting $T'_{{{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}}$ (as element of $Q^{\vee}({}^{{\mathbf{0}}}\Sigma)_{{\mathbb Q}}=X_{\ast}(S')_{{\mathbb Q}}$, one has $\underline{\mu'}=\frac{1}{[K'/{{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}]}\sum_{\tau\in{\mathrm{Gal}}(K'/{{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})}\tau\mu'$). As $\langle\beta,\underline{\mu'}\rangle\in{\mathbb Z}$, we see that $\underline{\mu'}\in Q^{\vee}({}^{{\mathbf{0}}}\Sigma)$ is minuscule for ${}^{{\mathbf{0}}}\Sigma$, and thus $\underline{\mu''}_0\in W_0\cdot\underline{\mu'}_0$ by [@Kottwitz84b Lem. 2.3.3], [@RR96 Lem. 2.2].
In the remaining case ($C\operatorname{-}B_m$), it is not true any longer that the roots of ${}^{{\mathbf{0}}}\Sigma$ are also relative roots for $(H_{F^{{\mathrm{ur}}}},S')$: see below. But, we claim that one still has $\underline{\mu''}\in \underline{W\cdot\mu'}$ (but, not necessarily $\underline{\mu''}_0\in W_0\cdot\underline{\mu'}_0$). In this case $H$ is the universal covering of the special orthogonal group ${\mathrm{SO}}$ attached to a non-degenerate orthogonal space of even dimension $2n+2$ over $F$ of Witt index $n$, as described in [@Tits79 Example 1.16] whose notations we use: there exists a maximal split torus $S$ of ${\mathrm{SO}}$ with a basis $\{a_1,\cdots,a_n\}$ of $X^{\ast}(S)$ such that if $a_{-i}:=-a_i$, $a_{ij}:=a_i+a_j$, the relative roots of $H$ are $$\Phi=\{a_{ij}\ |\ i,j\in I,\ j\neq\pm i\}\cup \{a_i\ |\ i\in I\},$$ where $I=\{\pm1,\cdots,\pm n\}$. As we assume that ${\mathrm{SO}}$ is ramified, the reduced root system ${}^{{\mathbf{0}}}\Sigma$ is of type $C_n$ with a set of simple roots $\{a_{1,-2},\cdots,a_{n-1,-n},2a_{n}\}$ (*loc. cit.*). Let $\{e_1,\cdots,e_n\}\subset X_{\ast}(S)$ be the dual basis of $\{a_1,\cdots,a_n\}$ and $T\subset {\mathrm{SO}}$ the centralizer of $S$ (maximal torus); there exists a basis of $X_{\ast}(T)$ consisting of $\{e_1,\cdots,e_n,e_{n+1}\}$ with the non-trivial element ${\mathrm{Gal}}(E/F)$ acting on $e_{n+1}$ by multiplication with $-1$, where $E$ is the splitting field of $H$ (which we assume to be a ramified extension of $F$). Also, we may assume $S'^{{\mathrm{sc}}}=S^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$, $T'^{{\mathrm{sc}}}=T^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$, where $S^{{\mathrm{sc}}}=\pi^{-1}(S)$, $T^{{\mathrm{sc}}}=\pi^{-1}(T)$ for the surjection $\pi:H\rightarrow {\mathrm{SO}}$. Then as a lattice in $X_{\ast}(S^{{\mathrm{sc}}})_{{\mathbb Q}}=(X_{\ast}(T^{{\mathrm{sc}}})_I)_{{\mathbb Q}}\ (I={\mathrm{Gal}}(\bar{F}/F^{{\mathrm{ur}}}))$, $Q^{\vee}({}^{{\mathbf{0}}}\Sigma)$ equals $X_{\ast}(T^{{\mathrm{sc}}})_I$, which, as a free ${\mathbb Z}$-module, is generated by $\{e_i\pm e_j, 1\leq i\neq j\leq n\}$ and (the image in $X_{\ast}(T^{{\mathrm{sc}}})_I$ of) $e_{n}-e_{n+1}$ (in the quotient $X_{\ast}(T^{{\mathrm{sc}}})_I$, $e_{i}-e_{n+1}$ and $e_{i}+e_{n+1}$ are the same): for each $1\leq i\leq n-1$, $e_i-e_{i+1}$ equals the coroot corresponding to the root $a_{i,-i-1}$, and $e_{n}-e_{n+1}$ equals “the shortest simple coroot” corresponding to $2a_n$ (as element of $X_{\ast}(S)_{{\mathbb Q}}$, $e_{i}-e_{n+1}\in X_{\ast}(T^{{\mathrm{sc}}})_I$ is $e_{i}$ for each $1\leq i\leq n$). To prove the claim, we may replace $\underline{\mu'}$ and $\underline{\mu''}$ by their $W_0$-orbits so that $\underline{\mu'}_0=\underline{\mu'}$ and $\underline{\mu''}_0=\underline{\mu''}$. If $\mu'-\mu''=\sum_{i=1}^{n}c_i(e_i-e_{i+1})+c_{n+1}(e_n+e_{n+1})\ (c_i\in{\mathbb Z})$, its image in $Q^{\vee}({}^{{\mathbf{0}}}\Sigma)=X_{\ast}(T^{{\mathrm{sc}}})_I$ is $\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}c_i(e_i-e_{i+1})+(c_n+c_{n+1})(e_n-e_{n+1})$, so $c_i\geq0$ for $1\leq i\leq n-1$ and $c_n+c_{n+1}\geq0$ by assumption. Then replacing $\mu''$ by $\nu:=\mu''+c_n((e_n-e_{n+1})-\iota(e_n-e_{n+1}))$ does not change $\underline{\mu''}$ and now $\mu'-\nu$ lies in the dominant semigroup of the coroot lattice $Q^{\vee}({\mathrm{SO}},T)$. Since $\mu'\in X_{\ast}(T)$ is a minuscule cocharacter of $(G,T)$, it follows again ([@Kottwitz84b Lem. 2.3.3], [@RR96 Lem. 2.2]) that $\underline{\mu''}=\underline{\nu}\in \underline{W\cdot\mu'}$.
Therefore, there exist $w\in W$ and $\mu_1\in \langle \tau x-x\ |\ \tau\in{\mathrm{Gal}}(\overline{{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\mathfrak{k}}), x\in X_{\ast}(T')\rangle$ such that $$\label{eq:LR-Lemma5.11_Step_3}
\mu''=w\mu'\cdot\mu_1$$ (multiplicative notation).
- So far, we have not used $T_1$ at all and in fact only used that $b\in M$. Now, we will use the condition that $b\in M({\mathfrak{k}})$ is basic and $T_1$ is elliptic in $M$; as will be clear below, it is not even necessary that $b\in T_1({\mathfrak{k}})$. Let us put $\nu_p:=[K:{{\mathbb Q}_p}]\nu_b\in X_{\ast}(T_1)$. For an (arbitrary, for a moment) cocharacter $\mu\in X_{\ast}(T_1)$, as ${\mathrm{N}}_{K/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}\mu$ and $\nu_p$ are both ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-rational, the equation (\[eq:equality\_on\_the\_kernel\]) holds if and only if $$\label{eqn:defining_property_of_mu}
[K:{{\mathbb Q}_p}]\langle\chi,\mu\rangle=\langle\chi,\nu_p\rangle$$ for every ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-rational character $\chi$ of $T_1$, and for that matter, we may consider only the cocharaters $\chi$ lying in the submodule $mX^{\ast}(T_1)^{{\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p})}\subset X^{\ast}(T_1)^{{\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p})}$ for any fixed $m\in{\mathbb N}$. In the following, we take $m:=|\pi_0(T_1\cap M^{{\mathrm{der}}})|$.
Then, since $T_1$ is *elliptic* in $M$, any $\chi\in mX^{\ast}(T_1)^{{\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p})}$, vanishing on $T_1\cap M^{{\mathrm{der}}}$, can be regarded as a ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-rational character $\chi^{{\mathrm{ab}}}$ of $M^{{\mathrm{ab}}}=M/M^{{\mathrm{der}}}\cong T_1/(T_1\cap M^{{\mathrm{der}}})$, thus also as that of $M$ (via the canonical projection $p:M\rightarrow M^{{\mathrm{ab}}}$) such that $\langle\chi,\mu\rangle=\langle\chi^{{\mathrm{ab}}},p\circ\mu\rangle$ (the first pairing is defined for $X^{\ast}(T_1)\times X_{\ast}(T_1)$ and the second one for $X^{\ast}(M^{{\mathrm{ab}}})\times X_{\ast}(M^{{\mathrm{ab}}})$). For a cocharacter $\nu$ of $M$, we will often write $\langle\chi^{{\mathrm{ab}}},\nu\rangle$ for $\langle\chi^{{\mathrm{ab}}},p\circ\nu\rangle$.
Now, as $T_1$, $T'$ are both maximal tori of $M$, there exists $g\in M(\overline{{\mathfrak{k}}})$ with $T_1=gT'g^{-1}$. Set $$\mu:=gw(\mu')g^{-1}\in X_{\ast}(T_1)\cap W\cdot\{\mu\}$$ Then, as $\chi$ is ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-rational, it holds that $\langle\chi,g\mu_1 g^{-1}\rangle=\langle\chi^{{\mathrm{ab}}},p\circ g\mu_1 g^{-1}\rangle=\langle\chi^{{\mathrm{ab}}},p\circ\mu_1\rangle=0$, thus $$\langle\chi,\mu\rangle=\langle\chi^{{\mathrm{ab}}},p\circ\mu\rangle=\langle\chi^{{\mathrm{ab}}},p\circ gw(\mu')g^{-1}\cdot g\mu_1g^{-1}\rangle=\langle\chi^{{\mathrm{ab}}},p\circ\mu''\rangle.$$
On the other hand, for any ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-rational character $\lambda$ of $M$, by definition of $\mu''$ we have $$|\lambda(m^{-1}b\sigma(m))|=p^{-\langle\lambda,\mu''\rangle},$$ and by definition of $\nu_b$ [@Kottwitz85 (4.3)] there exists $n\in{\mathbb N}$ such that $|\lambda(b\cdot\sigma(b)\cdots \sigma^{n-1}(b))|=p^{-\langle\lambda,n\nu_b\rangle}$. Hence, we find that with $l:=n[K:{{\mathbb Q}_p}]$, $$p^{-l\langle\lambda,\mu''\rangle} = |\lambda(m^{-1}b\sigma(m)\cdots\sigma^{-(l-1)}(m)\sigma^{l-1}(b)\sigma^l(m))| =p^{-\langle\lambda,n\nu_p\rangle}.$$ Thus by substituting $\lambda=\chi^{{\mathrm{ab}}}$ (for $\chi\in mX^{\ast}(T_1)^{{\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p})}$) and using that $\langle\chi^{{\mathrm{ab}}},\nu_p\rangle=\langle\chi,\nu_p\rangle$, one obtains the equality (\[eqn:defining\_property\_of\_mu\]).
This completes the proof.
In our proof, we have a maximal ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-torus $T'=Z_{G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}}(S')$. In the proof of [@LR87], Lemma 5.11, there appears (on p. 177, line -5) a maximal torus of $M$ which is also denoted by $T'$. The role of their $T'$ is played by our $S'$, namely, being a maximal ${\mathfrak{k}}$-split torus, is to provide apartments in ${\mathcal{B}}(G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}},{\mathfrak{k}})$ and ${\mathcal{B}}(M,{\mathfrak{k}})$ (i.e. whose underlying affine spaces are both $X_{\ast}(T')_{{\mathbb R}}$) which share the given (hyper)special point. Meanwhile, our $T'_{{\mathfrak{k}}}$ is the centralizer of a maximal ${\mathfrak{k}}$-split torus $S'_{{\mathfrak{k}}}$ and enters into the proof as such, for example, via the Iwasawa and Cartan decompositions (cf. [@Tits79 3.3.2]). On the other hand, in the original proof where $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is unramified, the unramified conditions (or words) show up for the simple reason that their $T'$ is an unramified ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-torus.
The next lemma is our strengthening of Lemma 5.12 of [@LR87]. Its proof does not involve the level subgroup ${\mathbf{K}}_p$.
\[lem:LR-Lemma5.12\] Let $\phi$, $\psi_{T,\mu}$ be as in Lemma \[lem:LR-Lemma5.11\]. Then, there exists an admissible embedding of maximal torus ${\mathrm{Int}}g':T{\hookrightarrow}G\ (g'\in G({\overline{\mathbb Q}}))$ (with respect to the identity inner twisting $G_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}=G_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}$) such that
- ${\mathrm{Int}}g'\circ\phi$ equals $\psi_{T',\mu_{h'}}$ on the kernel of ${\mathfrak{P}}$, for some $h'\in X_{\ast}(T')\cap X$.
Moreover, if $T_{{{\mathbb Q}_l}}$ is elliptic in $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_l}}$ for some prime $l\neq p$, there exist $g'\in G({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ and $h'\in X$ satisfying, in addition to (i), that
- there exists $y\in G({{\mathbb Q}_p})$ such that $(T'_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}},\mu_{h'})={\mathrm{Int}}y(T_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}},\mu)$.
The first statement, i.e. existence of a transfer of maximal torus ${\mathrm{Int}}g':T{\hookrightarrow}G$ with the property (i) is the assertion of Lemma 5.12 of [@LR87] which we reproduce now, while the existence of such element with the additional property (ii) (under the given assumption on $T_{{{\mathbb Q}_l}}$) is due to the author.
Let $T^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$ denote the inverse image of $T\cap G^{{\mathrm{der}}}$ under the isogeny $G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}\rightarrow G^{{\mathrm{der}}}$; it is a maximal torus of $G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$. Choose $w\in N_{G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}}(T^{{\mathrm{sc}}})({\mathbb C})$ such that $\mu=w(\mu_h)$. We have the cocycle $\alpha^{\infty}\in Z^1({\mathrm{Gal}}({\mathbb C}/{\mathbb R}),G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}({\mathbb C}))$ defined by $$\alpha^{\infty}_{\iota}=w\cdot\iota(w^{-1}).$$ One readily checks that this has values in $T^{{\mathrm{sc}}}({\mathbb C})$. Indeed, according to [@Shelstad79 Prop. 2.2], the automorphism $\Int(w^{-1})$ of $T^{{\mathrm{sc}}}_{{\mathbb C}}$ is defined over ${\mathbb R}$, so $\Int(w^{-1})(\iota(t))=\iota(\Int(w^{-1})t)=\Int(\iota(w^{-1}))(\iota(t))$ for all $t\in T^{{\mathrm{sc}}}({\mathbb C})$, i.e. $\iota(w)w^{-1}\in Z_{G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}}(T^{{\mathrm{sc}}})({\mathbb C})=T^{{\mathrm{sc}}}({\mathbb C})$, and so is $w\iota(w^{-1})=\iota(\iota(w)w^{-1})$. Let $\phi$, $\psi_{T,\mu}$ be as in Lemma \[lem:LR-Lemma5.11\]. Then, according to Lemma 7.16 of [@Langlands83], one can find a global cocycle $\alpha\in Z^1({\mathbb Q},T^{{\mathrm{sc}}})$ mapping to $\alpha^{\infty}\in H^1({\mathbb Q}_{\infty},T^{{\mathrm{sc}}})$. If furthermore $T_{{{\mathbb Q}_l}}$ is elliptic in $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_l}}$ for some prime $l\neq p$, we can choose $\alpha\in Z^1({\mathbb Q},T^{{\mathrm{sc}}})$ mapping to $\alpha^{\infty}\in H^1({\mathbb Q}_{\infty},T^{{\mathrm{sc}}})$ and having trivial image in $H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},T^{{\mathrm{sc}}})$, according to [@Lee16 Lem. 4.1.2], which we now recall with its proof. It is a variant of the original argument of [@LR87 Lem. 5.12].
[@Lee16 Lem. 4.1.2] \[lem:Lee14-lem.4.1.2\] Let $T$ be a maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-torus of $G$ which is elliptic at some finite place $l\neq p$.
\(1) The natural map $(\pi_1(T^{{\mathrm{sc}}})_{\Gamma(l)})_{\mathrm{tors}} \rightarrow (\pi_1(T^{{\mathrm{sc}}})_{\Gamma})_{\mathrm{tors}}$ is surjective.
\(2) The diagonal map $H^1({\mathbb Q},T^{{\mathrm{sc}}})\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb R},T^{{\mathrm{sc}}})\oplus H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},T^{{\mathrm{sc}}})$ is surjective.
\(1) This map equals the composite: $$(\pi_1(T^{{\mathrm{sc}}})_{\Gamma(l)})_{\mathrm{tors}}{\hookrightarrow}\pi_1(T^{{\mathrm{sc}}})_{\Gamma(l)}\twoheadrightarrow \pi_1(T^{{\mathrm{sc}}})_{\Gamma}\twoheadrightarrow (\pi_1(T^{{\mathrm{sc}}})_{\Gamma})_{\mathrm{tors}},$$ where the last two maps are obviously surjective. Therefore, it is enough to show that $\pi_1(T^{{\mathrm{sc}}})_{\Gamma(l)}$ is a torsion group. But, as $T^{{\mathrm{sc}}}_{{\mathbb Q}_l}$ is anisotropic, $\widehat{T^{{\mathrm{sc}}}}^{\Gamma(l)}$ is a finite group, and so is $\pi_1(T^{{\mathrm{sc}}})_{\Gamma(l)}=X^{\ast}(\widehat{T^{{\mathrm{sc}}}}^{\Gamma(l)})={\mathrm{Hom}}(\widehat{T^{{\mathrm{sc}}}}^{\Gamma(l)},{\mathbb C}^{\times})$.
\(2) For every place $v$ of ${\mathbb Q}$, non-archimedean or not, there exists a canonical isomorphism [@Kottwitz84a (3.3.1)] $$H^1({{\mathbb Q}_v},T^{{\mathrm{sc}}}){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}\pi_0(\widehat{T^{{\mathrm{sc}}}}^{\Gamma_v})^D={\mathrm{Hom}}(\pi_0(\widehat{T^{{\mathrm{sc}}}}^{\Gamma_v}),{\mathbb Q}/{\mathbb Z})\cong X^{\ast}(\widehat{T^{{\mathrm{sc}}}}^{\Gamma_v})_{\mathrm{tors}}\cong(X_{\ast}(T^{{\mathrm{sc}}})_{\Gamma_v})_{\mathrm{tors}},$$ and a short exact sequence [@Kottwitz86 Prop.2.6] $$H^1({\mathbb Q},T^{{\mathrm{sc}}})\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb Q},T^{{\mathrm{sc}}}(\overline{{\mathbb A}}))=\oplus_v H^1({{\mathbb Q}_v},T^{{\mathrm{sc}}})
\stackrel{\theta}{\rightarrow} \pi_0(Z(\widehat{T^{{\mathrm{sc}}}})^{\Gamma})^D=(\pi_1(T^{{\mathrm{sc}}})_{\Gamma})_{\mathrm{tors}},$$ where $\theta$ is the composite $$\oplus_v H^1({{\mathbb Q}_v},T^{{\mathrm{sc}}}){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}\oplus_v \pi_0(Z(\widehat{T^{{\mathrm{sc}}}})^{\Gamma_v})^D\rightarrow \pi_0(Z(\widehat{T^{{\mathrm{sc}}}})^{\Gamma})^D$$ (the second map is the direct sum of the maps considered in (1)). Let $(\gamma^{\infty},\gamma^p)\in H^1({\mathbb R},T^{{\mathrm{sc}}})\oplus H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},T^{{\mathrm{sc}}})$. By (1), there exists a class $\gamma^l\in H^1({\mathbb Q}_l,T^{{\mathrm{sc}}})$ with $\sum_{v=l,\infty,p}\theta(\gamma^{v})=0$. Then, the element $(\beta^v)_v\in H^1({\mathbb Q},T^{{\mathrm{sc}}}(\overline{{\mathbb A}}))$ such that $\beta^{v}=\gamma^{v}$ for $v=l,\infty,p$ and $\beta^{v}=0$ for $v\neq l,\infty,p$ goes to zero in $ \pi_0(Z(\widehat{T^{{\mathrm{sc}}}})^{\Gamma})^D$. By exactness of the sequence, we find a class $\gamma$ in $H^1({\mathbb Q},T^{{\mathrm{sc}}})$ which maps to the class $(\beta^v)_v$.
Now, by changing $w$ (to another $w'\in N_G(T)({\mathbb C})$) if necessary, we may further assume that $\alpha^{\infty}$ is equal (as cocycles) to the restriction of $\alpha$ to ${\mathrm{Gal}}({\mathbb C}/{\mathbb R})$. Then, since the restriction map $H^1({\mathbb Q},G^{{\mathrm{sc}}})\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb Q}_{\infty},G^{{\mathrm{sc}}})$ is injective (the Hasse principle), $\alpha$ becomes trivial as a cohomology class in $G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$: $$\xymatrix{
H^1({\mathbb Q}_{\infty},T^{{\mathrm{sc}}})\ar[r] & H^1({\mathbb Q}_{\infty},G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}) & \alpha^{\infty}_{\iota}=w\iota(w^{-1}) \ar@{|->}[r] & 0 & \\
H^1({\mathbb Q},T^{{\mathrm{sc}}})\ar[r] \ar[u] & H^1({\mathbb Q},G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}) \ar@{^{(}->}[u] & \alpha \ar@{|->}[u] \ar@{|->}[r] & \alpha'\ \ar@{^{(}->}[u] \ar@{=>}[r] & \alpha'=0}$$ In other words, there exists $u\in G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ such that $$\alpha_{\rho}=u^{-1}\rho(u),$$ for all $\rho\in{\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb Q}}/{\mathbb Q})$. It then follows that ${\mathrm{Int}}u: (T)_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}\rightarrow G_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}$ is an admissible embedding of maximal torus with respect to the identity inner twisting of $G_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}$ (i.e. the homomorphism ${\mathrm{Int}}u$ and thus the torus $T'=\Int(T)$ as well are defined over ${\mathbb Q}$). We also note that since the restriction of ${\mathrm{Int}}u$ to $Z(G)$ is the identity, $T'_{{\mathbb R}}$ is also elliptic in $G_{{\mathbb R}}$. Then, for $\phi':={\mathrm{Int}}u\circ\phi$ and $\mu':={\mathrm{Int}}u(\mu)\in X_{\ast}(T')$, we have $\psi_{T',\mu'}={\mathrm{Int}}u\circ \psi_{T,\mu_h}=\phi'$ on the kernel $P$, by functoriality of the construction of $\psi_{T,\mu}$ with respect to the pair $(T,\mu)$ [@LR87 Satz 2.3]. Furthermore, since $$u^{-1}\iota(u)=\alpha_{\iota}=\alpha^{\infty}_{\iota}=w\iota(w^{-1})$$ for $\iota\in{\mathrm{Gal}}({\mathbb C}/{\mathbb R})$, one has that $uw\in G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}({\mathbb R})$ and $\mu'={\mathrm{Int}}u(\mu)=\mu_{h'}$ for $h':={\mathrm{Int}}(uw)(h)\in X$. This establishes the first claim (existence of a transfer of maximal torus ${\mathrm{Int}}g':T{\hookrightarrow}G$ with the property (i)).
Next, when we assume that $T_{{{\mathbb Q}_l}}$ is elliptic for some $l\neq p$, by Lemma \[lem:Lee14-lem.4.1.2\], we may choose $\alpha\in Z^1({\mathbb Q},T^{{\mathrm{sc}}})$ such that it maps to $\alpha^{\infty}\in H^1({\mathbb Q}_{\infty},T^{{\mathrm{sc}}})$ and to zero in $H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},T^{{\mathrm{sc}}})$. Then, by repeating the argument above, we find $u\in G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ such that $\alpha_{\rho}=u^{-1}\rho(u)$ for all $\rho\in{\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb Q}}/{\mathbb Q})$. As $\alpha|_{{\mathrm{Gal}}/{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p})}$ is trivial, there exists $x\in T({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ such that $x\rho(x^{-1})=\alpha_{\rho}=u^{-1}\rho(u)$ for all $\rho\in {\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p})$, in other words. $y:=ux\in G({{\mathbb Q}_p})$. But, the homomorphism ${\mathrm{Int}}u:T_{{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}}\rightarrow T'_{{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}}$ also equals ${\mathrm{Int}}u={\mathrm{Int}}y$; in particular, it is defined over ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$. This proves (ii) and finishes the proof of Lemma \[lem:LR-Lemma5.12\].
### Proof of Proposition \[prop:equivalence\_to\_special\_adimssible\_morphism\].
We proceed in parallel with the arguments on p.181, line 1-19 of [@LR87]. By Lemma \[lem:LR-Lemma5.11\] and Lemma \[lem:LR-Lemma5.12\], after some transfer of tori (always with respect to the identity inner twist $\mathrm{Id}_G$) whose restriction to the torus becomes a conjugation by an element of $G({{\mathbb Q}_p})$ when $T_{{{\mathbb Q}_l}}$ is elliptic in $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_l}}$ for some $l\neq p$, we may assume that $\phi$ coincide with $i\circ\psi_{T,\mu_h}$ on the kernel for some $h\in X$ factoring through $T_{{\mathbb R}}$. If further $H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},T)=0$, the cocharacter $\mu$ in Lemma \[lem:LR-Lemma5.11\] satisfies $[b]_{T_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}}=\underline{\mu}$ under the isomorphism $\kappa_{T_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}}:B(T_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}X_{\ast}(T_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}})_{{\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p})}$, so we may assume that $\phi(p)\circ\zeta_p$ is conjugate to $i\circ\psi_{T,\mu_h}(p)\circ\zeta_p$ under $T({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$. Given this, one readily checks that the map ${\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb Q}}/{\mathbb Q})\rightarrow T({\overline{\mathbb Q}}):\rho\mapsto b_{\rho}$ defined by $$\phi(q_{\rho})=b_{\rho}\cdot i\circ\psi_{T,\mu_h}(q_{\rho})$$ is a cocycle, where $\rho\mapsto q_{\rho}$ is the chosen section to the projection ${\mathfrak{P}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb Q}}/{\mathbb Q})$ (Remark \[rem:comments\_on\_zeta\_v\]). We claim that its image in $H^1({\mathbb Q},G)$ under the natural map $H^1({\mathbb Q},T)\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb Q},G)$ is trivial. As before, a diagram helps to visualize the proof: $$\xymatrix{
& H^1({\mathbb Q}_{\infty},G') & & & 0 & \\
H^1({\mathbb Q}_{\infty},T)\ar@{^{(}->}[ur] \ar[r] & H^1({\mathbb Q}_{\infty},G) & f(H^1({\mathbb Q}_{\infty},G^{{\mathrm{sc}}})) \ar@{_{(}->}[l] & 0=b^{\infty}_{\rho} \ar@{^{(}->}[ur] \ar@{|->}[rr] & & 0 \\
H^1({\mathbb Q},T)\ar[r] \ar[u] & H^1({\mathbb Q},G) \ar[u] & f(H^1({\mathbb Q},G^{{\mathrm{sc}}})) \ar@{_{(}->}[l] \ar@{^{(}->}[u] & b_{\rho} \ar@{|->}[u] \ar@{|->}[rr] & & b_{\rho}'=0\ \ar@{^{(}->}[u] }$$ Here, $G'$ is the inner twist of $G_{{\mathbb R}}$ by $\phi(\infty)\circ\zeta_{\infty}$ (i.e. by the cocycle $\iota\mapsto h_{\iota}\in Z^1({\mathbb Q}_{\infty},G^{{\mathrm{ad}}}_{{\mathbb R}})$ with $\phi(\infty)\circ\zeta_{\infty}(w(\iota))=h_{\iota}\iota$) and $f$ is the canonical homomorphism from the universal covering $G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$ of $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}$ to $G$ (or the map induced on the cohomology sets). The restriction of $[b_{\rho}]\in H^1({\mathbb Q},T)$ to ${\mathbb R}={\mathbb Q}_{\infty}$ is trivial, since it maps to zero in $H^1({\mathbb Q}_{\infty},G')$ and that map is injective [@LR87 Lem. 5.14]. According to Lemma \[lem:isom\_of\_monoidal\_functors\_into\_croseed\_modules\] below, condition (1) of Def. \[defn:admissible\_morphism\] implies that the image $b_{\rho}'$ of $b_{\rho}$ under the map $H^1({\mathbb Q},T) \rightarrow H^1({\mathbb Q},G)$ lies in the image of $H^1({\mathbb Q},G^{{\mathrm{sc}}})$ in $H^1({\mathbb Q},G)$. But, the Hasse principle holds for such image according to [@Borovoi98 Thm.5.12],[^23] so we deduce that $b_{\rho}'\in H^1({\mathbb Q},G)$ is zero. If $$b_{\rho}=v\rho(v^{-1}),\quad v\in G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}({\overline{\mathbb Q}}),$$ then, ${\mathrm{Int}}v^{-1}:T_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}{\hookrightarrow}G_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}$ is an admissible embedding of maximal torus (with respect to the identity twisting $G_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}=G_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}$), i.e. the image $T':=v^{-1}Tv$ and the isomorphism ${\mathrm{Int}}v^{-1}:T_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}{\hookrightarrow}T'_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}$ are all defined over ${\mathbb Q}$. One has to check that $\mu'$ is $\mu_{h'}$ for some $h'\in X$. This can be seen as follows. Since the cohomology class $[b_{\sigma}]\in H^1({\mathbb Q}_{\infty},T)$ is trivial, there exists $t_{\infty}\in T({\mathbb C})$ such that $t_{\infty}^{-1}\iota(t_{\infty})=b_{\iota}=v\iota(v^{-1})$, which implies that $t_{\infty}v\in G({\mathbb R})$. Then, $$\mu'=v^{-1}\mu_h v=(t_{\infty}v)^{-1}\cdot\mu_h\cdot (t_{\infty}v)=\mu_{h'}$$ for $h':=(t_{\infty}v)^{-1}\cdot h\cdot (t_{\infty}v)\in X$.
Finally, when $H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},T)=0$, there is $x\in T({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ such that $i\circ\psi_{T,\mu_h}(p)\circ\zeta_p=x(\phi(p)\circ\zeta_p)x^{-1}$ (as ${\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerb morphisms ${\mathfrak{G}}_p\rightarrow{\mathfrak{G}}_{T_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}}$). But, as $\phi$ and $i\circ\psi_{T,\mu_h}$ are the same on the kernel $P$, the two ${\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerb morphisms $$i\circ\psi_{T,\mu_h}(p),\ x\phi(p)x^{-1}\ :{\mathfrak{P}}(p)\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}_{T_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}}$$ agree on the kernel $P_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$. It follows that $i\circ\psi_{T,\mu_h}(p)$ and $x\phi(p)x^{-1}$ are equal on the whole ${\mathfrak{P}}(p)$. In other words, the restriction of $b_{\rho}$ to ${\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p})$ is zero: $$x^{-1}\rho(x)=b_{\rho}=v\rho(v^{-1})$$ for all $\rho\in {\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p})$, and $xv\in G({{\mathbb Q}_p})$. But, the homomorphism ${\mathrm{Int}}v^{-1}:T_{{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}}\rightarrow T'_{{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}}$ also equals ${\mathrm{Int}}v^{-1}={\mathrm{Int}}(xv)^{-1}$. It follows from this and the discussion in the beginning of the proof that if the initial torus $T$ satisfies that $T_{{{\mathbb Q}_l}}\subset G_{{{\mathbb Q}_l}}$ is elliptic at some $l\neq p$, we may find a transfer of maximal torus ${\mathrm{Int}}g':T{\hookrightarrow}G$ such that ${\mathrm{Int}}g'\circ\phi$ is special admissible and that ${\mathrm{Int}}g'|_{T_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}}={\mathrm{Int}}y|_{T_{{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}}}$ for some $y\in G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$. This completes the proof of Proposition \[prop:equivalence\_to\_special\_adimssible\_morphism\]. $\square$
\[lem:isom\_of\_monoidal\_functors\_into\_croseed\_modules\] Let $I$ be a (not necessarily connected) ${\mathbb Q}$-subgroup of $G$ containing $Z(G)$. Let $\phi,\psi:{\mathfrak{P}}\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}_I$ be Galois gerb morphisms into the neutral Galois gerb of $I$ such that $\phi^{\Delta}=\psi^{\Delta}$ and maps into $Z(I)$; thus, the cochain $\tau\in{\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb Q}}/{\mathbb Q})\mapsto a_{\tau}\in I({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ defined by $\psi(q_{\tau})=a_{\tau}\phi(q_{\tau})$ becomes a coccyle in $Z^1({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi})$, where $I_{\phi}$ is the twist of $I$ via $\phi$.
Then, the induced morphisms $\phi_{\widetilde{{\mathrm{ab}}}}, \psi_{\widetilde{{\mathrm{ab}}}}:{\mathfrak{P}}\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}_{G/\tilde{G}}={\mathfrak{G}}_G/\tilde{G}$ are conjugate-isomorphic if and only if the cohomology class $[a_{\tau}]\in H^1({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi})$ lies in the image of the natural map $H^1({\mathbb Q},\tilde{I}_{\phi})\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi})$, where $\tilde{I}_{\phi}$ is the twist of $\tilde{I}:=\rho^{-1}(I)$ via $\phi$ ($\rho:\tilde{G}\rightarrow G$ being the canonical morphism).[^24] If $I$ is a maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-torus of $G$ (so that $I_{\phi}=I$), the image of $[a_{\tau}]$ in $H^1({\mathbb Q},G)$ lies in the image of the canonical map $H^1({\mathbb Q},\tilde{G})\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb Q},G)$.
For $g=z\cdot \tilde{g}\ \in G({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ with $z\in Z(G)({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ and $\tilde{g}\in \tilde{G}({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$, $(\Int(g)\circ\psi)_{\widetilde{{\mathrm{ab}}}}$ and $\phi_{\widetilde{{\mathrm{ab}}}}$ are isomorphic if and only if $(\phi_1)_{\widetilde{{\mathrm{ab}}}}$ and $\phi_{\widetilde{{\mathrm{ab}}}}$ are so, where $\phi_1:=\Int(z)\circ\psi$. In the latter case, by definition, there exists a family of elements $\{\tilde{h}_x\in \mathrm{Mor}(\phi(x),\phi_1(x))=\tilde{G}({\overline{\mathbb Q}})\}_{x}$ indexed by $x\in{\mathfrak{P}}$, such that $$\phi_1(x)=\rho(\tilde{h}_{x})\phi(x),$$ namely when we define $a_x\in I_{\phi}({\overline{\mathbb Q}})=I({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ by $\psi(x)=a_x\phi(x)$ for $x\in{\mathfrak{P}}$, one has $$\label{eq:equality_in_cohomology_of_crossed_modules_I}
a_{x}\cdot z x(z^{-1})=\rho(\tilde{h}_{x}).$$ In particular, we have $\tilde{h}_{x}\in \rho^{-1}(I)$ (by our assumption $Z(G)\subset I$). Here, $x\in {\mathfrak{P}}$ acts on $z\in Z(G)({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ via the projection $\pi:{\mathfrak{P}}\rightarrow {\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb Q}}/{\mathbb Q})$; as $\phi^{\Delta}=\psi^{\Delta}$, $x\mapsto a_x$ factors through the projection $\pi:{\mathfrak{P}}\rightarrow {\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb Q}}/{\mathbb Q})$ (i.e. $a_{x}=a_{y}$ when $\pi(x)=\pi(y)$) and induces the cocycle $a_{\tau}\in Z^1({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi})$ in the statement. We claim that in this situation, the cochain $x\mapsto \tilde{h}_{x}$ on the group ${\mathfrak{P}}$ valued in $\tilde{G}({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ is a cocycle with respect to the action of ${\mathfrak{P}}$ on $\tilde{G}({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ defined by conjugation via $\phi$, i.e. with respect to the action: $$\tilde{h}\mapsto {}^{\phi(x)}\tilde{h}:=\Int(g_x)(\sigma_x(\tilde{h})),$$ where $\phi(x)=g_x \sigma_x\in I({\overline{\mathbb Q}})\rtimes{\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb Q}}/{\mathbb Q})$. This follows from the fact that the faimly $\{\tilde{h}_x\in\tilde{G}({\overline{\mathbb Q}})\}_{x\in{\mathfrak{P}}}$ is an isomorphism between strict monoidal functors. Indeed, for every $x,y\in{\mathfrak{P}}$, there are two morphisms from $\phi(xy)$ to $\phi_1(x)\phi_1(y)$ arising from the famly $\{\tilde{h}_x\}$: one is $\tilde{h}_{xy}$ (via $\phi_1(x)\phi_1(y)=\phi_1(xy)$) and the other one is $\tilde{h}_x\cdot {}^{\phi(x)}\tilde{h}_y$: $$\phi_1(x)\phi_1(y)=\tilde{h}_x\phi(x)\tilde{h}_y\phi(y)=\tilde{h}_x{}^{\phi(x)}\tilde{h}_y\phi(x)\phi(y)=\tilde{h}_x{}^{\phi(x)}\tilde{h}_y\phi(xy).$$ That the family $\{\tilde{h}_x\}$ is an isomorphism between strict monoidal functors means the equality of these two morphisms: $$\label{eq:coycle_on_fP_valued_in_Iuc}
\tilde{h}_{xy}=\tilde{h}_x\cdot {}^{\phi(x)}\tilde{h}_y.$$ In particular, as ${\mathrm{im}}(\phi^{\Delta})\subset Z(I)({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ and $\rho(\tilde{h}_y)\in I({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$, the restriction of $\tilde{h}_x$ to the torus ${\mathfrak{P}}^{\Delta}=P({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ is an algebraic homomorphism $P({\overline{\mathbb Q}})\rightarrow \rho^{-1}(I)({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$, which in view of (\[eq:equality\_in\_cohomology\_of\_crossed\_modules\_I\]) further factors through $\ker\rho$, thus is trivial. Hence, it follows that the cochain $\tau\mapsto \tilde{h}_{\tau}:=\tilde{h}_{q_{\tau}}$ is a cocycle in $Z^1({\mathbb Q},\tilde{I}_{\phi})$. Then, the equation (\[eq:equality\_in\_cohomology\_of\_crossed\_modules\_I\]) in turn shows that the cohomology class $[a_{\tau}]\in H^1({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi})$ equals the image of $[\tilde{h}_{\tau}]\in H^1({\mathbb Q},\tilde{I}_{\phi})$ in $H^1({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi})$.
Conversely, suppose that $[a_{\tau}]\in H^1({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi})$ lies in the image of the canonical map $H^1({\mathbb Q},\tilde{I}_{\phi})\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi})$. Using the decomposition $I_{\phi}=Z(G)\cdot \rho(\tilde{I}_{\phi})$ (which holds as $Z(G)\subset I_{\phi}$), we may find $z\in Z(G)({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ and a normalized cocycle $\tilde{h}_{\tau}\in Z^1({\mathbb Q},\tilde{I}_{\phi})$ such that $a_{\tau}\cdot z\tau(z^{-1})=\rho(\tilde{h}_{\tau})$ holds for all $\tau\in{\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb Q}}/{\mathbb Q})$. If we extend $a_{\tau}$, $\tilde{h}_{\tau}$ to cochains on ${\mathfrak{P}}$ by setting $a_x:=a_{\pi(x)}$, $\tilde{h}_{x}:=\tilde{h}_{\pi(x)}$ for $x\in {\mathfrak{P}}$ (which implies the relations (\[eq:coycle\_on\_fP\_valued\_in\_Iuc\]) for $x\in P({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$, $y=q_{\tau}$), one easily checks that $a_x$ and $\tilde{h}_x$ are cocylces in $Z^1({\mathfrak{P}},I_{\phi})$ and $Z^1({\mathfrak{P}},\tilde{I}_{\phi})$, respectively. Then, the discussion above implies that the relation (\[eq:equality\_in\_cohomology\_of\_crossed\_modules\_I\]), i.e. $\Int(z)\circ\psi(x)=\rho(\tilde{h}_x)\phi(x)$ holds for all $x\in{\mathfrak{P}}$, which says that $(\Int(z)\circ\psi)_{\widetilde{{\mathrm{ab}}}}$ and $\phi_{\widetilde{{\mathrm{ab}}}}$ are isomorphic.
Next, if $I$ is a maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-torus, we have $I_{\phi}=I$, and the conjugation action $\tilde{h}\mapsto {}^{\phi(x)}\tilde{h}$ of $x\in{\mathfrak{P}}$ on $\tilde{I}({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ becomes the usual Galois action via $\pi$. Namely, now $\tau\mapsto \tilde{h}_{\tau}:=\tilde{h}_{q_{\tau}}$ is a cocycle in $Z^1({\mathbb Q},\tilde{I})$. With these facts, the relation (\[eq:equality\_in\_cohomology\_of\_crossed\_modules\_I\]) gives the conclusion as before.
\[lem:equality\_restrictions\_to\_kernels\_imply\_conjugacy\] Let $T$ be a ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-torus, and for $i=1,2$, $\theta_i:{\mathfrak{G}}_p\rightarrow{\mathfrak{G}}_T$ an unramified morphism of ${\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerbs; let $\theta_i^{{\mathrm{ur}}}:{\mathfrak{D}}\rightarrow{\mathfrak{G}}_{T_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}}^{{\mathrm{ur}}}$ be a morphism of ${{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerbs such that $\theta_i$ is the inflation $\overline{\theta_i^{{\mathrm{ur}}}}$ of $\theta_i^{{\mathrm{ur}}}$. If $\mathrm{cls}(\theta_1^{{\mathrm{ur}}})=\mathrm{cls}(\theta_2^{{\mathrm{ur}}})$ in $B(T_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}})$, then $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$ are conjugate under $T({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$.
To ease the notations, we continue to use $\theta_i$ for such $\theta_i^{{\mathrm{ur}}}$. The condition implies that the restrictions $\theta_i^{\Delta}$ of $\theta_i$ to the kernel $\mathbb{D}$ are equal, hence the two maps $\theta_i\ (i=1,2)$ are conjugate under $T({\mathfrak{k}})$. We will show that there exists $x_p\in T({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$ with $\theta_2=\Int(x_p)\circ\theta_1$, i.e. such that $$\theta_2(s_{\tau})=x_p\theta_1(s_{\tau})x_p^{-1}$$ for all $\tau\in{\mathrm{Gal}}({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\mathbb Q}_p})$. The map $\tau\mapsto b_{\tau}:{\mathrm{Gal}}({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\mathbb Q}_p})\rightarrow T({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$ defined by $$\theta_2(s_{\tau})=b_{\tau}\theta_1(s_{\tau})$$ is a cocycle in $Z^1({\mathrm{Gal}}({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\mathbb Q}_p}),T({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}))$ with $b_{\sigma}=b_2b_1^{-1}=t_p\sigma(t_p^{-1})$, where $t_p\in T({\mathfrak{k}})$ is such that $b_2=t_pb_1\sigma(t_p^{-1})$. Let $\langle\sigma\rangle$ be the infinite cyclic group $\langle\sigma\rangle$ generated by $\sigma$ (endowed with discrete topology). The surjections $\langle\sigma\rangle \twoheadrightarrow {\mathrm{Gal}}(L_n/{{\mathbb Q}_p})\ (n\in{\mathbb N})$ combined with the inclusions $T(L_n){\hookrightarrow}T({\mathfrak{k}})$ induce, via inflations, an injective map $$H^1({\mathrm{Gal}}({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\mathbb Q}_p}),T({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})) \hookrightarrow B(T_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}})=H^1(\langle\sigma\rangle,T({\mathfrak{k}})).$$ As the image of our cohomology class $[b_{\tau}]\in H^1({\mathrm{Gal}}({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\mathbb Q}_p}),T({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}))$ under this map is $[b_{\sigma}]=[1]$, the claim follows.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Proof of Theorem \[thm:LR-Satz5.3\].</span> (1) We follow the original proof of Satz 5.3, as explained after the statement of Theorem \[thm:LR-Satz5.3\].[^25] The first step is to replace given $\phi$ by a conjugate $\phi_0={\mathrm{Int}}g_0\circ \phi\ (g_0\in G({\overline{\mathbb Q}}))$ of it whose restriction to the kernel $\phi_0^{\Delta}:P_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}\rightarrow G_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}$ is defined over ${\mathbb Q}$ (which amounts to that $\phi_0(\delta_n)\in G({\mathbb Q})$ for all sufficiently large $n\in{\mathbb N}$, [@LR87 Lem. 5.5]). This is Lemma 5.4 of [@LR87]. This lemma is a statement just concerned with the restriction $\phi^{\Delta}$, whose proof only requires that $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is *quasi-split* and does not use the level subgroup at all.
The second step is to find a conjugate $\phi_1={\mathrm{Int}}g_1\circ\phi_0$ of $\phi_0$ (produced in the first step) that factors through ${\mathfrak{G}}_{T_1}$ for some maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-torus $T_1$ (elliptic over ${\mathbb R}$, as usual). As discussed before (after statement of Prop. \[prop:existence\_of\_admissible\_morphism\_factoring\_thru\_given\_maximal\_torus\]), this is shown on p. 176, from line 1 to -5 of *loc. cit.*, and the arguments given there again do not make any use of the level (hyperspecial) subgroup and thus carries over to our situation. The basic idea is, in view of Lemma \[lem:criterion\_for\_admissible\_morphism\_to\_land\_in\_torus\], to find a maximal torus $T_1$ of $I=Z_G(\phi_0(\delta_n))$ that can transfer to $I_{\phi}$. (An argument in similar style appears in the proof of Prop. \[prop:existence\_of\_admissible\_morphism\_factoring\_thru\_given\_maximal\_torus\]).
The final step is to find a conjugate $\phi:{\mathfrak{P}}\rightarrow{\mathfrak{G}}_{T}$ of $\phi_1:{\mathfrak{P}}\rightarrow{\mathfrak{G}}_{T_1}$ which becomes a special admissible morphism $i\circ\psi_{T,\mu_h}$ (for some special Shimura sub-datum $(T,h)$ and the canonical morphism $i:{\mathfrak{G}}_T\rightarrow{\mathfrak{G}}_G$ defined by the inclusion $i:T{\hookrightarrow}G$). This is accomplished by successive admissible embeddings of maximal tori. It begins with showing existence of $\mu_1\in X_{\ast}(T_1)$ lying in the conjugacy class $\{\mu_h\}$ such that $\phi_1:{\mathfrak{P}}\rightarrow{\mathfrak{G}}_{T_1}$ coincides with $\psi_{T_1,\mu_1}$ on the *kernel* of ${\mathfrak{P}}$. In the original proof, this is done in Lemma 5.11 which is also the only place in the proof of Satz 5.3 where the level subgroup is involved in an explicit manner (through non-emptiness of the set $X_p(\phi)\simeq X(\{\mu_X\},b)_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}$). But, it continues to hold, as Lemma \[lem:LR-Lemma5.11\] here, for general parahoric subgroup ${\mathbf{K}}_p$ with the general definition of $X(\{\mu_X\},b)_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}$. After this, one performs two admissible embeddings. First, we need to find an admissible embedding of maximal torus ${\mathrm{Int}}g_2: T_1{\hookrightarrow}G$ such that ${\mathrm{Int}}g_2\circ\phi_1$ equals a special admissible morphism $\psi_{T_2,\mu_{h_2}}$ again just on the *kernel* of ${\mathfrak{P}}$ (here $T_2={\mathrm{Int}}g_2(T_1)$ and $(T_2,h_2)$ is a special Shimura sub-datum); note the difference from the previous step where $\mu_1$ did not need to be $\mu_h$ for some $h\in X$. In *loc. cit.*, this is shown in Lemma 5.12 whose argument we adapted to prove Lemma \[lem:LR-Lemma5.12\] here (which also refines the original lemma a bit). Let $\phi_2:={\mathrm{Int}}g_2\circ\phi_1:{\mathfrak{P}}\rightarrow{\mathfrak{G}}_{T_2}$ be the admissible morphism just obtained. Then, one looks for the last admissible embedding of maximal torus $\Int(g_3):T_2{\hookrightarrow}G$ making finally $\Int(g_3)\circ\phi_2:{\mathfrak{P}}\rightarrow{\mathfrak{G}}_{{\mathrm{Int}}g_3(T_2)}$ special admissible. In *loc. cit.*, this is carried out from after Lemma 5.12 to the rest of the proof of Satz 5.3; this part of the argument was adapted to prove Prop. \[prop:equivalence\_to\_special\_adimssible\_morphism\] here. Now, we see that $$(T,\phi):=({\mathrm{Int}}g_3(T_2),\Int(g_3)\circ\phi_2)=({\mathrm{Int}}(\prod_{i=2}^3g_i)(T_1),\Int(\prod_{i=0}^3g_i)\circ\phi)$$ is a special admissible morphism which is a conjugate of $\phi$.
\(2) This is proved by the same argument from (1) with applying Prop. \[prop:existence\_of\_admissible\_morphism\_factoring\_thru\_given\_maximal\_torus\] in the second step and then Prop. \[prop:equivalence\_to\_special\_adimssible\_morphism\] in the third step. Note that as explained before, the three properties (i) - (iii) continue to hold under any transfer of maximal torus. $\square$
\[lem:LR-Lemma5.23\] Retain the assumptions of Theorem \[thm:LR-Satz5.3\]. For any pair $(\phi,\epsilon)$ consisting of an admissible morphism $\phi$ and $\epsilon\in I_{\phi}({\mathbb Q})$, there exists an equivalent pair $(\phi',\epsilon')=\Int(g)(\phi,\epsilon)\ (g\in G({\overline{\mathbb Q}}))$ and a special Shimura sub-datum $(T',h')$, such that $(\phi',\epsilon')$ is nested in $(T',h')$ ().
In the original setting of [@LR87] (i.e. ${\mathbf{K}}_p$ is hyperspeiclal and $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$), this is their Lemma 5.23, where however Langlands and Rapoport assume that $(\phi,\epsilon)$ is admissible. As we will see, this assumption is not necessary and their proof works in our situation without essential change. Most importantly, the level subgroup ${\mathbf{K}}_p$ enters the proof only through Lemma 5.11 of *loc. cit.* which is generalized by our Lemma \[lem:LR-Lemma5.11\].
By Lemma \[lem:criterion\_for\_admissible\_morphism\_to\_land\_in\_torus\], it suffices to show that for any maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-torus $T$ of $I_{\phi}$ containing $\epsilon$ (i.e. $\epsilon\in T({\mathbb Q})\subset I_{\phi}({\mathbb Q})$), there exists $g\in G({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ such that the composite map $$G_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}} \stackrel{{\mathrm{Int}}g}{\leftarrow} G_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}\supset I_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}} \stackrel{\psi^{-1}}{\leftarrow} (I_{\phi})_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}} \hookleftarrow T_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}$$ is defined over ${\mathbb Q}$, where $\psi:I_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}(I_{\phi})_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}$ is the inner twisting (\[eq:inner-twisting\_by\_phi\]): Indeed, then $T_1:={\mathrm{Int}}g(T)$ is a ${\mathbb Q}$-subgroup of $Z_G({\mathrm{Int}}g(\epsilon))\subset G$, and $\phi_1:={\mathrm{Int}}g\circ\phi$ maps into ${\mathfrak{G}}_{T_1}$ by Lemma \[lem:criterion\_for\_admissible\_morphism\_to\_land\_in\_torus\] (applied to $(g,T_1)$ for the role of $(a,T)$), and so the admissible pair $({\mathrm{Int}}g\circ\phi,{\mathrm{Int}}g(\epsilon))$ is well-located in ${\mathrm{Int}}g(T)$. Note that ${\mathrm{Int}}g(T)_{{\mathbb R}}$ is elliptic in $G_{{\mathbb R}}$ since $Z(G)$ is a ${\mathbb Q}$-subgroup of $I_{\phi}$ and $(I_{\phi}/Z(G))_{{\mathbb R}}$ is anisotropic [@LR87 Lem. 5.1]. Therefore, we can apply Prop. \[prop:equivalence\_to\_special\_adimssible\_morphism\] to $({\mathrm{Int}}g\circ\phi, {\mathrm{Int}}g(T))$ and obtain a desired pair $(\phi'=\psi_{T',\mu_{h'}},T')$ by an admissible embedding; as $\epsilon\in {\mathrm{Int}}g(T)({\mathbb Q})$, the image of $\epsilon$ under that admissible embedding belongs to $T'({\mathbb Q})$.
To find $g\in G({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ with the required property, we choose an element $\epsilon_1\in I_{\phi}({\mathbb Q})$ whose centralizer in $G$ is $T$ (i.e. a strongly regular semi-simple element of $G({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ lying in $T({\mathbb Q})\subset I_{\phi}({\mathbb Q})$, so its centralizer in $I_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}=(I_{\phi})_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}$ is also $T$). The conjugacy class of $\epsilon_1$ in $I({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ is rational, as $I$ is an inner form of $I_{\phi}$. When one chooses an inner twist $\psi_0: G_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}\rightarrow G^{\ast}_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}$ with $G^{\ast}$ being quasi-split, by the same reason, the conjugacy class of $x:=\psi_0(\epsilon_1)$ in $G^{\ast}({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ is also rational. Then, since the centralizer of $x$ is connected, such conjugacy class contains a rational element by [@Kottwitz82], Thm. 4.7 (2) (the obstruction to the existence of such a rational element lives in $H^2({\mathbb Q},C_x)$, where $C_x$ is the group of connected components of $Z_{G^{\ast}}(x)$, cf. Lemma 4.5 of *loc. cit.*).[^26] Thus, we can find an inner twist $\psi_1: G_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}\rightarrow G^{\ast}_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}$ such that $\epsilon_1^{\ast}:=\psi_1(\epsilon_1)\in G^{\ast}({\mathbb Q})$; let $T^{\ast}$ be the centralizer of $\epsilon_1^{\ast}$ in $G^{\ast}$ (a maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-torus of $G^{\ast}$).
Now, by the proof of [@LR87 Lem. 5.23] (more precisely by the argument in the last paragraph on p.190, where the only necessary condition is that $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is quasi-split), there exists a transfer of maximal torus ${\mathrm{Int}}g:T^{\ast}{\hookrightarrow}G$ with respect to the inner twist $\psi_1^{-1}$, namely the map $${\mathrm{Int}}g\circ \psi_1^{-1}|_{T^{\ast}}:T^{\ast}_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}{\hookrightarrow}G^{\ast}_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}\stackrel{\psi_1^{-1}}{\rightarrow} G_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}\stackrel{{\mathrm{Int}}g}{\rightarrow} G_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}$$ is defined over ${\mathbb Q}$, and thus $g\epsilon_1 g^{-1}\in G({\mathbb Q})$. We claim that then the (a priori ${\overline{\mathbb Q}}$-rational) embedding $$\varphi:={\mathrm{Int}}g\circ\psi^{-1}|_{T_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}}: T_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}\hookrightarrow (I_{\phi})_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}I_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}} \hookrightarrow G_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}\stackrel{{\mathrm{Int}}g}{\rightarrow} G_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}$$ is in fact ${\mathbb Q}$-rational. Indeed, as the centralizer $T=Z_{I_{\phi}}(\epsilon_1)$ is a maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-torus, this ${\mathbb Q}$-torus is also the ${\mathbb Q}$-subgroup of $I_{\phi}$ generated by $\epsilon_1$, and thus $\{\epsilon_1^n\}_{n\in{\mathbb N}}$ are also Zariski dense in $T_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}$ (Lemma \[lem:Zariski\_group\_closure\] below). So, for any $\rho\in{\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb Q}}/{\mathbb Q})$, we have ${}^{\rho}\varphi=\varphi$, as these maps coincide on $\{\epsilon_1^n\}_{n\in{\mathbb N}}$.
We record some useful elementary facts on the subgroup generated by a semi-simple element in a reductive group.
\[lem:Zariski\_group\_closure\] Let $G$ be a reductive group $G$ over a field $k$ and $\epsilon\in G(k)$ a semi-simple element; let $S$ be the $k$-subgroup of $G$ generated by $\epsilon$.
\(1) If $\epsilon':=g\epsilon g^{-1}\in G(k)$ for $g\in G(\bar{k})$, the $k$-subgroup of $G$ generated by $\epsilon'$ equals $\Int(g)(S)$.
\(2) For any field extension $k'/k$, the $k'$-subgroup of $G_{k'}$ generated by $\epsilon$ equals $S_{k'}$, and the elements $\{\epsilon^n\}_{n\in{\mathbb N}}$ are Zariski dense in $S_{k'}$.
\(1) As $G_{\epsilon}=Z_G(S)$, the map $\Int(g):S\rightarrow \Int(g)(S)$ is a $k$-isomorphism of $k$-groups, and thus $\Int(g)(S)$ is the $k$-subgroup of $G$ generated by $\epsilon'$. (2) This follows from the following easy fact: if one takes a $k$-torus $T\subset G$ containing $\epsilon$, the $k$-subgroup $S$ (of multiplicative type) of $T$ generated by $\epsilon$ is the kernel of the surjective homomorphism $T\rightarrow T'$ of $k$-tori, where $T'$ is defined by $X^{\ast}(T')=\{\chi\in X^{\ast}(T)\ |\ \chi(\epsilon)=1\}$.
At this point, we give an application of the results obtained thus far, namely we establish non-emptiness of Newton strata for general parahoric levels, under the condition that $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is quasi-split. To talk about the reduction of a Shimura variety at a prime, we need to choose an integral model, i.e. a flat model ${\mathscr{S}}_{{\mathbf{K}}}$ over ${\mathcal{O}}_{E_{\wp}}$ with generic fiber being the canonical model ${\mathrm{Sh}}_{{\mathbf{K}}}(G,X)_{E_{\wp}}$. For the following result, it is enough to fix an integral model over ${\mathcal{O}}_{E_{\wp}}$ having the extension property that every $F$-point of ${\mathrm{Sh}}_{{\mathbf{K}}}(G,X)$ for a finite extension $F$ of $E_{\wp}$ extends uniquely to ${\mathscr{S}}_{{\mathbf{K}}}$ over its local ring (for example, a normal integral model); see [@KisinPappas15] for a construction of such integral model.
\[thm:non-emptiness\_of\_NS\] Suppose that $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is quasi-split and that $G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is a product $\prod_i {\mathrm{Res}}_{F_i/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}G_i$ of simple groups each of which is the restriction of scalars ${\mathrm{Res}}_{F_i/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}G_i$ of an absolutely simple group $G_i$ over a field $F_i$ such that $G_i$ splits over a tamely ramified extension of $F_i$. Let ${\mathbf{K}}_p$ be a parahoric subgroup of $G({{\mathbb Q}_p})$ and ${\mathbf{K}}={\mathbf{K}}_p{\mathbf{K}}^p$ for a compact open subgroup ${\mathbf{K}}^p$ of $G({\mathbb A}_f^p)$.
\(1) Then, for any $[b]\in B(G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}},\{\mu_X\}$) (), there exists a special Shimura sub-datum $(T,h\in{\mathrm{Hom}}({\mathbb{S}},T_{{\mathbb R}})\cap X)$ such that the Newton homomorphism $\nu_{G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}}([b])$ equals the $G({\mathfrak{k}})$-conjugacy class of $$\frac{1}{[K_{v_2}:{{\mathbb Q}_p}]}{\mathrm{N}}_{K_{v_2}/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}\mu_h\quad (\in X_{\ast}(T)_{{\mathbb Q}}),$$ where $K_{v_2}\subset{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}$ is any finite extension of ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$ splitting $T$.
In particular, if $(G,X)$ is of Hodge type, for $g_f\in G({\mathbb A}_f)$, the reduction in ${\mathscr{S}}_{{\mathbf{K}}}\otimes{\bar{\mathbb{F}}_{p}}$ of the special point $[h,g_f\cdot{\mathbf{K}}]\in {\mathrm{Sh}}_{{\mathbf{K}}}(G,X)({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ has the $F$-isocrystal represented by $${\mathrm{N}}_{K_{v_2}/K_0}(\mu_h(\pi)),$$ where $K_0\subset K_{v_2}$ is the maximal unramified subextension and $\pi$ is a uniformizer of $K_{v_2}$.
\(2) Suppose that ${\mathbf{K}}_p$ is *special maximal* parahoric. Moreover, assume that $G$ splits over a tamely ramified cyclic extension of ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$ and is of classical Lie type. Then, one can choose a special Shimura datum $(T,h\in{\mathrm{Hom}}({\mathbb{S}},T_{{\mathbb R}})\cap X)$ as in (1) such that furthermore the unique parahoric subgroup of $T({{\mathbb Q}_p})$ is contained in ${\mathbf{K}}_p$.
\(3) Suppose that $(G,X)$ is a Shimura datum of Hodge type. Then the reduction ${\mathscr{S}}_{{\mathbf{K}}}(G,X)\otimes{\bar{\mathbb{F}}_{p}}$ has non-empty ordinary locus if and only if $\wp$ has absolute height one (i.e. $E(G,X)_{\wp}={\mathbb Q}_p$).
\(1) We follow the strategy of our proof of the corresponding result in the hyperspecial case given in [@Lee16], Thm. 4.1.1 and Thm. 4.3.1. Let $[b]\in B(G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}},\{\mu\}$). Since $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is quasi-split, there exist a representative $b\in G({\mathfrak{k}})$ of $[b]$ and a maximal torus $T_p$ of $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ such that the Newton homomorphism $\nu_b:\mathbb{D}\rightarrow G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}}$ is ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-rational and factors through $T_p$ [@Kottwitz86 Prop. 6.2]. By the argument of Step 1 in the proof of [@Lee16], Thm. 4.1.1, we may further assume that $T_p=(T_0)_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ for a maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-torus $T_0$ of $G$ such that $(T_0)_{{{\mathbb Q}_v}}\subset G_{{{\mathbb Q}_v}}$ is elliptic maximal for $v=\infty$ and some prime $v=l\neq p$. Then, Lemma \[lem:LR-Lemma5.11\] tells us that there exists $\mu'\in X_{\ast}(T_0)\cap \{\mu\}$ such that the relation (\[eq:equality\_on\_the\_kernel\]) holds in $X_{\ast}(T_0)$: $${\mathrm{N}}_{K_{v_2}/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}\mu'=[K_{v_2}:{{\mathbb Q}_p}]\ \nu_b,$$ where $K$ is a finite Galois extension of ${\mathbb Q}$ splitting $T_0$ and $v_2$ is the place of $K$ induced by the pre-chosen embedding ${\overline{\mathbb Q}}{\hookrightarrow}{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}$ (here, the sign is correct by Lemma \[lem:Newton\_hom\_attached\_to\_unramified\_morphism\]). Next, by the argument of Step 2 in *loc. cit.* (which corresponds to that of Lemma \[lem:LR-Lemma5.12\] here), we can find a transfer of maximal torus ${\mathrm{Int}}u:T_0{\hookrightarrow}G$ such that ${\mathrm{Int}}u (\mu')=\mu_h$ for some $h\in X\cap {\mathrm{Hom}}({\mathbb{S}},T_{{\mathbb R}})$, where $T={\mathrm{Int}}u(T_0)$ (again, be wary of the sign difference from [@Lee16]), and that ${\mathrm{Int}}u|_{(T_0)_{{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}}}={\mathrm{Int}}y$ for some $y\in G({{\mathbb Q}_p})$. By the latter property, for $(T,\mu_h, {\mathrm{Int}}u (b))$ we still have the equality $${\mathrm{N}}_{K_{v_2}/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}\mu_h=[K_{v_2}:{{\mathbb Q}_p}]\ \nu_{yb\sigma(y)^{-1}}$$ (here, ${\mathrm{N}}_{K_{v_2}/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is taken on $X_{\ast}(T)$). This proves the first statement of (1). According to Lemma \[lem:unramified\_conj\_of\_special\_morphism\] and [@RR96 Thm. 1.15], the element of $T({\mathfrak{k}})$ $$b_T:={\mathrm{N}}_{K_{v_2}/K_0}(\mu_h(\pi))$$ has the Newton homomorphism $\nu_{b_T}=\frac{1}{[K_{v_2}:{{\mathbb Q}_p}]}{\mathrm{N}}_{K_{v_2}/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}\mu_h=\nu_{yb\sigma(y)^{-1}}$. As $\kappa_{T_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}}(b_T)=\mu^{\natural}\in X_{\ast}(T)_{{\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p})}$ and $(\overline{\nu},\kappa):B(G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}})\rightarrow \mathcal{N}(G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}})\times\pi_1(G)_{{\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p})}$ is injective [@Kottwitz97 4.13], we see the equality of isocrystals $[b]=[b_T]\in B(G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}})$. Given this, the second statement is proved in the same fashion as in the hyperspecial case, using [@Lee16 Lem. 3.24].
\(2) Let $(T_1,h_1)$ be a special Shimura sub-datum produced in (1). Thanks to our additional assumptions and Prop. \[prop:existence\_of\_elliptic\_tori\_in\_special\_parahorics\], in its construction, we could have started with a maximal torus $T_p$ of $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ such that the unique parahoric subgroup of $T_p({{\mathbb Q}_p})$ is contained in a $G({{\mathbb Q}_p})$-conjugate of ${\mathbf{K}}_p$. Then, also by the fine property of our methods (it uses only transfers of maximal tori which become conjugacy by $G({{\mathbb Q}_p})$-elements), the torus $T_1$ produced in (1) can be assumed to further satisfy that the unique parahoric subgroup of $T_1({{\mathbb Q}_p})$ is contained in $g_p{\mathbf{K}}_pg_p^{-1}$ for some $g_p\in G({{\mathbb Q}_p})$. As $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ splits over a cyclic extension of ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$, $G({\mathbb Q})$ is dense in $G({{\mathbb Q}_p})$ by a theorem of Sansuc [@Sansuc81 Cor.3.5,(ii)], thus there exists $g_0\in G({\mathbb Q})\cap {\mathbf{K}}_p\cdot g_p^{-1}$. Then, one easily checks that the new special Shimura datum $(T,h):=\Int(g_0)(T_1,h_1)$ satisfies the required properties.
\(3) Again. the proof is the same as that in the hyperspecial case given in [@Lee16 Cor. 4.3.2]. In more detail, as was observed in *loc. cit.*, it suffices to construct a special Shimura sub-datum $(T,\{h\})$ with the property that there exists a ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-Borel subgroup $B$ of $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ containing $T_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ such that $\mu_h\in X_{\ast}(T)$ lies in the closed Weyl chamber determined by $(T_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}},B)$. Indeed, then we have $E(T,h)_{\mathfrak{p}}=E(G,X)_{\wp}$, where $\mathfrak{p}$ and $\wp$ denote respectively the places of each reflex field induced by the given embedding ${\overline{\mathbb Q}}{\hookrightarrow}{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}$. We remark that this is the property (ii) found in the proof of *loc. cit.*, and for our conclusion one does not really need the property (i) from it. But, since $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is quasi-split, there exists a Borel subgroup $B'$ defined over ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$. Moreover, by the same argument as was used in (1) (i.e. Step 1 in the proof of [@Lee16 Thm. 4.1.1]), we may assume that $B$ contains $T'_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ for a maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-torus $T'$ of $G$ such that $T'_{{{\mathbb Q}_v}}\subset G_{{{\mathbb Q}_v}}$ is elliptic for $v=\infty$ and some prime $v=l\neq p$. Let $\mu'\in \{\mu_X\}\cap X_{\ast}(T')$ be the cocharacter lying in the closed Weyl chamber determined by $(T'_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}},B')$. Then, the argument in (1) again produces a special Shimura sub-datum $(T,\{h\})$ such that $(T,\mu_h)={\mathrm{Int}}y(T',\mu_{h'})$ for some $y\in G({{\mathbb Q}_p})$, and $(T,\{h\})$ is the looked-for special Shimura sub-datum. Note that as we do not need the property (i) in the original proof of [@Lee16 Thm. 4.1.1], the condition in (2) on splitting of $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is no longer necessary.
For more on the Newton stratification, we refer to the recent survey article [@Viehmann15].
Admissible pairs and Kottwitz triples
=====================================
We retain the same assumptions as in the previous section.
Criterion for an ${\mathbb R}$-elliptic rational element to arise from an admissible pair
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[lem:invariance\_of\_(ast(gamma\_0))\_under\_transfer\_of\_maximal\_tori\] Let $\gamma_0\in G({\mathbb Q})$ be a semi-simple element.
\(1) Suppose $\gamma_0\in T({\mathbb Q})$ for a maximal torus $T\subset G$. Then condition $\ast(\epsilon)$ in holds for $\gamma_0$ if and only if it holds for $\gamma_0':={\mathrm{Int}}g(\gamma_0)$ for a transfer of maximal torus ${\mathrm{Int}}g:T{\hookrightarrow}G$.
\(2) If $\gamma_0':={\mathrm{Int}}g(\gamma_0)\in G({\mathbb Q})$ for some $g\in G({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$, for each place $v$ of ${\mathbb Q}$, the image of $\gamma_0$ in $G^{{\mathrm{ad}}}({{\mathbb Q}_l})$ lies in a compact open subgroup of $G^{{\mathrm{ad}}}({{\mathbb Q}_l})$ if and only if $\gamma_0'$ is so.
\(1) Let $H$ be the centralizer of the maximal ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-split torus in the center of $(G_{\epsilon})_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ and $H'$ the similarly defined group for $\gamma_0'$. Choose $\mu\in X_{\ast}(T)\cap \{\mu_X\}$ which is conjugate under $H$ to a cocharacter satisfying condition $\ast(\epsilon)$. Let $K$ be a finite Galois extension of ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$ over which $\mu$ is defined, $K_0\subset K$ its maximal unramified sub-extension, and $\pi$ a uniformizer of $K$. In view of the equality $$w_{H}({\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\mu(\pi)))=\underline{\mu},$$ where $\underline{\mu}$ is the image of $\mu$ in $\pi_1(H)_{{\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p})}$ (commutativity of diagram (7.3.1) of [@Kottwitz97]), condition $\ast(\epsilon)$ holds for $\gamma_0$ if and only if $$\label{eq:ast(gamma_0)}
\gamma_0\cdot{\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\mu(\pi))^{-1}\in \ker(w_H)\cap T({\mathfrak{k}}).$$ By the Steinberg’s theorem $H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}},T)=0$, we may find $g_p\in G({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$ such that $\Int(g)|_{T_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}}=\Int(g_p)|_{T_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}}$. Hence, it follows from funtoriality (with respect to $\Int(g_p):H\rightarrow H':=\Int(g_p)(H)$) of the functor $w_H$ [@Kottwitz97 $\S$7] that (\[eq:ast(gamma\_0)\]) holds if and only if the same condition holds for $(\gamma_0',T',\mu')=\Int(g_p)(\gamma_0,T,\mu)$.
\(2) Let $P$ and $P'$ be the ${\mathbb Q}$-subgroups of $G$ generated by $\gamma_0$, $\gamma_0'$, respectively. Then, the ${\overline{\mathbb Q}}$-isomorphism ${\mathrm{Int}}g:G_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}G_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}$ restricts to a ${\mathbb Q}$-isomorphism $P{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}P'$, thus if the image of $\gamma_0$ in $G^{{\mathrm{ad}}}({{\mathbb Q}_l})$ lies in a compact open subgroup of $G^{{\mathrm{ad}}}({{\mathbb Q}_l})$, then as it also lies in a compact open subgroup of $Q({{\mathbb Q}_l})$, where $Q$ is the image of $P$ in $G^{{\mathrm{ad}}}$, the same property holds for $\gamma_0'$.
\[thm:LR-Satz5.21\] Retain the same assumptions from Thm. \[thm:LR-Satz5.3\]. Also assume that $G$ is of classical Lie type. Let ${\mathbf{K}}_p$ be a special maximal parahoric subgroup of $G({{\mathbb Q}_p})$ and $\gamma_0$ an element of $G({\mathbb Q})$ that is ${\mathbb R}$-elliptic.
\(1) If $\gamma_0$ satisfies condition $\ast(\epsilon)$ of , there exists a *special* admissible pair $(\phi,\epsilon)$ (i.e. nested in a special Shimura sub-datum) such that $\epsilon$ is stably conjugate to $\gamma_0$ (in fact, $\epsilon$ is the image of $\gamma_0$ under a transfer of a maximal torus $T_0$ containing $\gamma_0$). For some $t\in{\mathbb N}$, the admissible pair $(\phi,\gamma_0^t)$ is also ${\mathbf{K}}_p$-effective (cf. Remark \[rem:admissible\_pair\]).
Moreover, if $H$ is the centralizer of the maximal ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-split torus in the center of $(G_{\epsilon})_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$, the following property holds:
$(\heartsuit)$: there exist an unramified $H({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$-conjugate $\xi_p'=\Int(g_p)\circ\xi_p\ (g_p\in H({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}))$ of $\xi_p:=\phi(p)\circ\zeta_p$ and $x\in H({\mathfrak{k}})$ such that $x(\epsilon'^{-1}\cdot \xi_p'(s_{\tilde{\sigma}})^n)x^{-1}=\tilde{\sigma}^n$, where $\epsilon':=\Int(g_p)(\epsilon)$ and $\tilde{\sigma}\in{\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p})$ is any fixed lifting of the Frobenius automorphism $\sigma$.
\(2) If there exists $\delta\in G(L_n)$ (with $[\kappa(\wp):{\mathbb{F}_{p}}]|n$) such that $\gamma_0$ and ${\mathrm{N}}_n(\delta)$ are $G({\mathfrak{k}})$-conjugate and the set $$\label{eq:Y_p(delta)}
Y_p(\delta):=\left\{\ x\in G({\mathfrak{k}})/{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p\ \vert \ \sigma^nx=x,\ \mathrm{inv}_{{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p}(x,\delta\sigma x)\in {\mathrm{Adm}}_{{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p}(\{\mu_X\}) \ \right\}$$ is non-empty, condition $\ast(\epsilon)$ holds for the stable conjugacy class of $\gamma_0$ with level $n$.
In the original set-up of [@LR87], where ${\mathbf{K}}_p$ is hyperspecial and $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$, statement (1) is Satz 5.21 there (recall that in such case, condition $\ast(\epsilon)$ also recovers the original condition). The statement (2) is due to us (even in the set-up of [@LR87]). This is a key to the proof of the aforementioned effectivity criterion of Kottwitz triple which was the missing ingredient in the arguments in [@LR87] deducing (the constant coefficient case of) the Kottwitz formula (Thm. \[thm\_intro:Kottwitz\_formula\]) from the Langlands-Rapoport conjecture (Conj. \[conj:Langlands-Rapoport\_conjecture\_ver1\]).
Before entering into the proof, we discuss an explicit expression of the Frobenius automorphism $\Phi=F^n$ attached to a special admissible morphism. Let $\phi=i\circ\psi_{T,\mu_h}$ be a special admissible morphism, where $(T,h)$ is a special Shimura sub-datum and $i:{\mathfrak{G}}_T\rightarrow{\mathfrak{G}}_G$ is as usual the canonical morphism induced by the inclusion $T{\hookrightarrow}G$. Put $\xi_p:=\phi(p)\circ\zeta_p$; so $\xi_p$ and $\xi_{-\mu_h}$ are conjugate under $T({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ (and in particular, $\xi_p^{\Delta}=\xi_{-\mu_h}^{\Delta}$). Now assume the following condition:
($\dagger$) *${\mathrm{N}}_{K/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}\mu_h$ maps into the center of a semi-standard ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-Levi subgroup $H$ of $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ containing $T_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$*,
where $K$ is a finite Galois extension of ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$ splitting $T$; later, for $H$, we will take the centralizer of the maximal ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-split torus in the center of $(G_{\epsilon})_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ for some admissible pair $(\phi,\epsilon)$ well-located in $T$ (cf. condition $\ast(\epsilon)$). Next, suppose given an *elliptic* maximal ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-torus $T'$ of $H$. We choose $j\in H({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ with $T'={\mathrm{Int}}(j)(T_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}})$, and set $$\mu':={\mathrm{Int}}(j)(\mu_h)\ \ \in X_{\ast}(T').$$ We take $K$ to be big enough so that $K$ splits $T'$ as well. Let $\pi$ be a uniformizer of $K$ and $K_0$ the maximal subfield of $K$ unramified over ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$. If $K_1$ is the composite of $K$ and $L_s$ with $s=[K:{{\mathbb Q}_p}]$ and $\xi_{-\mu'}^{K_1}$ denotes the pull-back of $\xi_{-\mu'}^{K}$ to ${\mathfrak{G}}_p^{K_1}$, by Lemma \[lem:unramified\_conj\_of\_special\_morphism\], there exists $t_p\in T'({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ such that $\Int(t_p)(\xi_{-\mu'}^{K_1})$ is an unramified morphism mapping into ${\mathfrak{G}}_{T'}$ and as such also factors through ${\mathfrak{G}}_p^{L_s}$. Moreover, we can choose $t_p$ further such that if $\xi_p':{\mathfrak{G}}_p^{L_s}\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}_{T'}$ denotes the induced (unramified) morphism of Galois ${\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p}$-gerbs, $$\label{eq:xi_p'}
F=\xi_p'(s_{\sigma}^{L_s})={\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\mu'(\pi)) \sigma.$$ From now on, we write $\xi_{-\mu_h}$, $\xi_{-\mu'}$ for $\xi_{-\mu_h}^{K}$, $\xi_{-\mu'}^{K}$, respectively. In this set-up, we have the following facts:
\[lem:Phi\_for\_special\_morphism\] (1) The following two ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-rational cocharacters of $H$ are equal: $${\mathrm{N}}_{K/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}\mu'={\mathrm{N}}_{K/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}\mu_h$$ We set $\nu_p':=-{\mathrm{N}}_{K/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}\mu'\in X_{\ast}(T')^{{\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p})}$.
\(2) Let $[K:K_0]=e_K$, $[K_0:{{\mathbb Q}_p}]=f_K$. For any $j\in {\mathbb N}$ divisible by $[K:{{\mathbb Q}_p}]=e_Kf_K$, we have $$F^j=(p^{-\nu_p'}\cdot u_0)^{\frac{j}{[K:{{\mathbb Q}_p}]}}\sigma^{j}$$ for some $u_0\in T'({{\mathbb Q}_p})_1(:=\ker (w_{T'})\cap T'({{\mathbb Q}_p}))$. In particular, $b_j:=F^j\sigma^{-j}\in T'({{\mathbb Q}_p})$. Moreover, in the case $K=K_0$, if we take $\pi=p$, we have $u_0=1$.
\(1) This was already noted in the proof of Lemma \[lem:LR-Lemma5.2\]: indeed, first we see that they both map into the center of $H$: for ${\mathrm{N}}_{K/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}\mu_h$, this is by our assumption on it, while $\nu_p'=-{\mathrm{N}}_{K/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}\mu'$ maps into a ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-split sub-torus of the elliptic maximal torus $T'$ of $H$, so factors through the center $Z(H)$. But, also their projections into $H^{{\mathrm{ab}}}=H/H^{{\mathrm{der}}}$ are the same, since $\mu'$, $\mu_h$ are conjugate under $H({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$. Clearly this proves the claim.
\(2) Put $u:=\pi^{e_K}p^{-1}\in {\mathcal{O}}_K^{\times}$ and $t':=j/[K:{{\mathbb Q}_p}]$. Using (\[eq:xi\_p’\]), we express $F^j$ in terms of $\nu_p'$: $$\begin{aligned}
F^{j}&=({\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\mu'(\pi)) \sigma)^j={\mathrm{N}}_{K/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}(\mu'(\pi^{e_K}))^{t'} \sigma^{j} \\
&=(p^{{\mathrm{N}}_{K/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}\mu'}\cdot {\mathrm{N}}_{K/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}(\mu'(u)))^{t'} \sigma^{j} \\
&=p^{-t'\nu_p'}\cdot u_0^{t'} \sigma^{j}\end{aligned}$$ where $u_0:={\mathrm{N}}_{K/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}(\mu'(u))$. A priori, $u_0\in T'({{\mathbb Q}_p})_0(=\ker(v_{T'})\cap T'({{\mathbb Q}_p}))$ (maximal compact subgroup of $T'({{\mathbb Q}_p})$), but in fact it belongs to $T'({{\mathbb Q}_p})_1(=\ker (w_{T'})\cap T'({{\mathbb Q}_p}))$. To see that, by funtoriality for tori $T$ endowed with a cocharacter $\mu\in X_{\ast}(T)$, we can take $T'={\mathrm{Res}}_{K/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}{\mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{m}}}$ and $\mu'=\mu_K$, the cocharacter of $T'_K={\mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{m}}}^{{\mathrm{Hom}}(K,K)}$ corresponding to the identity embedding $K{\hookrightarrow}K$. But in this case, $X_{\ast}(T')$ is an induced ${\mathrm{Gal}}(K/{{\mathbb Q}_p})$-module, so $w_{T'}=v_{T'}$, and clearly $u_0\in \ker_{v_{T'}}$.
Now, let us prove Theorem \[thm:LR-Satz5.21\].
To a large extent, we follow the original strategy, but using some of those facts that were established in our general setting of (special maximal) parhoric level, especially Prop. \[prop:existence\_of\_elliptic\_tori\_in\_special\_parahorics\] and Lemma \[lem:unramified\_conj\_of\_special\_morphism\].
\(1) Suppose that $\gamma_0\in G({\mathbb Q})$ is ${\mathbb R}$-elliptic and satisfies $\ast(\epsilon)$ of . Set $I_0:=G_{\gamma_0}^{\mathrm{o}}$; by the well-known fact that every semisimple element in a connected reductive group lies in a maximal torus, we have $\gamma_0\in I_0({\mathbb Q})$.
First, we prove the existence of a maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-torus $T_0$ of $I_0$ such that $(T_0)_{{\mathbb R}}$ is elliptic in $G_{{\mathbb R}}$ and $(T_0)_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is elliptic in $(I_0)_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$. Indeed, we choose a maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-torus $T_{\infty}$ of $G$ that contains $\gamma_0$ (so $T_{\infty}\subset I_0$) and is elliptic in $G$ over ${\mathbb R}$ (which exists as $\gamma_0$ is elliptic over ${\mathbb R}$). We also choose an elliptic maximal ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-torus $T_p$ of $(I_0)_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ (which exists as $(I_0)_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is reductive, [@PR94 Thm.6.21]). Then, one can deduce (cf. Step 1 of the proof of Thm. 4.1.1 of [@Lee16]) that there exists a maximal ${\mathbb Q}$–torus $T_0$ of $I_0$ which is $I_0({\mathbb Q}_v)$-conjugate to $T_v$ for each $v=\infty$ and $p$.
Again, let $H$ be the centralizer of the maximal ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-split torus in the center of $(G_{\gamma_0})_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ (so, $(G_{\gamma_0})_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}\subset H$). Let $\mu_0$ be a cocharacter of $T_0$ that is conjugate under $H({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ to some $\mu$ satisfying condition $\ast(\epsilon)$. Clearly, condition $\ast(\epsilon)$ still holds for $\mu_0$. Moreover, as $(T_0)_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is elliptic in $(I_0)_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$, we see that when $K$ is a finite Galois extension of ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$ splitting $T_0$, the following property (which implies the condition ($\dagger$)) holds:
($\dagger\dagger$) *${\mathrm{N}}_{K/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}(\mu_0)$ (${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-rational cocharacter of $T_0$) maps into the center of $I_0$, thus into the maximal ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-split torus of the center of $H$.* Then, with such $(T_0,\mu_0)$, one applies the argument of proof of Lemma \[lem:LR-Lemma5.12\] to find an admissible embedding of maximal torus ${\mathrm{Int}}g_0:T_0{\hookrightarrow}G$ such that $\Int(g_0)(\mu_0)=\mu_h$ for some special Shimura sub-datum $(T:=\Int(g_0)(T_0),h)$. By Lemma \[lem:invariance\_of\_(ast(gamma\_0))\_under\_transfer\_of\_maximal\_tori\], conditions $\ast(\epsilon)$ and ($\dagger\dagger$) continue to hold for $(\epsilon:={\mathrm{Int}}g_0(\gamma_0),T,\mu_h)$. Now, we check that the resulting pair $$(\phi,\epsilon):=(i\circ\psi_{T,\mu_h},{\mathrm{Int}}g_0(\gamma_0)\in T({\mathbb Q}))$$ is admissible and also the pair $(\phi,\epsilon^t)$ is ${\mathbf{K}}_p$-effective admissible for some $t\in{\mathbb N}$ (Def. \[defn:admissible\_pair\], Remark \[rem:admissible\_pair\]); as $\Int(g_0)$ is a transfer of maximal torus, $\epsilon$ is stably conjugate to $\gamma_0$. As we are working with special maximal parahoric ${\mathbf{K}}_p$, by Lemma \[lem:LR-Lemma5.2\], $\phi=i\circ\psi_{T,\mu_h}$ is admissible.[^27] Since $\epsilon\in T({\mathbb Q})$ and $\phi$ factors through ${\mathfrak{G}}_T$, condition (2) of Def. \[defn:admissible\_pair\] holds, and as $\phi$ is special admissible, we have $T(\bar{{\mathbb A}}_f^p)\cap X^p(\phi)\neq\emptyset$ by Lemma \[lem:properties\_of\_psi\_T,mu\], so condition (3) at $l\neq p$ is satisfied. So, it remains to establish condition (3) at $p$ (i.e. existence of $x\in G({\mathfrak{k}})/{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p$ with $\epsilon x=\Phi^m x$).
Let us use $H$ again to denote the centralizer of the maximal ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-split torus in the center of $(G_{\epsilon})_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$. As $H$ is a semi-standard ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-Levi subgroup of the quasi-split $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$, there exists $g\in G({{\mathbb Q}_p})$ such that $H({{\mathbb Q}_p})\cap {}^g{\mathbf{K}}_p$ is a special maximal parahoric subgroup of $H({{\mathbb Q}_p})$ (Lemma \[lem:specaial\_parahoric\_in\_Levi\], cf. proof of Lemma \[lem:LR-Lemma5.2\]). Then, we apply Prop. \[prop:existence\_of\_elliptic\_tori\_in\_special\_parahorics\] to $H({{\mathbb Q}_p})\cap {}^g{\mathbf{K}}_p$ and choose an elliptic maximal ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-torus $T'$ of $H$ such that $T'_{{{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}}$ contains (equiv. is the centralizer of) a maximal ${{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}$-split ${{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}$-torus of $H_{{{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}}$ and that the (unique) parahoric subgroup $T'({\mathfrak{k}})_1$ of $T'({\mathfrak{k}})$ is contained in $T'({\mathfrak{k}})\cap {}^g{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p$ (as usual, ${\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p$ being the parahoric subgroup of $G({\mathfrak{k}})$ corresponding to ${\mathbf{K}}_p$); in fact, $T'({\mathfrak{k}})_1=T'({\mathfrak{k}})\cap {}^g{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p$. Next, with this choice of $T'\subset H$, we let $$K,\ \mu',\ \xi_p',\ \cdots$$ be defined as in the beginning of this discussion: recall that $\xi_p'$ is an unramified morphism from ${\mathfrak{G}}_p^{L_s}$ to ${\mathfrak{G}}_{T'}$ ($s=[K:{{\mathbb Q}_p}]$) which is conjugate to $\xi_{-\mu'}$ under $T'({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ and satisfies (\[eq:xi\_p’\]). Since the property ($\dagger$) holds, we have the equality ${\mathrm{N}}_{K/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}\mu'={\mathrm{N}}_{K/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}\mu_h$ of Lemma \[lem:Phi\_for\_special\_morphism\], (1). This equality then implies (see the proof of Lemma \[lem:LR-Lemma5.2\]) that the two Galois ${\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p}$-gerb morphisms into ${\mathfrak{G}}_{H}$, $$\xi_{-\mu_h},\quad \xi_{-\mu'}$$ are conjugate under $H({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$, thus so are $\xi_p=\phi(p)\circ\zeta_p$ and $\xi_{-\mu'}$. Hence, there exists $v\in H({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ such that $\xi_p'={\mathrm{Int}}(v)(\xi_p)$. Set $$\epsilon':={\mathrm{Int}}(v)(\epsilon)\in H({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}).$$ A priori, this is only an element of $H({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$, but since it commutes with an unramified morphism $\xi_p'$, it belongs to $H({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$. Given this, we can even find $v'\in H({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$ with $\epsilon'={\mathrm{Int}}(v')(\epsilon)$: the neutral component $T_{\epsilon}$ (resp. $T_{\epsilon'}$) of the group (of multiplicative type) generated by $\epsilon$ (resp. by $\epsilon'$) are tori, and $T_{\epsilon'}=\Int(v)(T_{\epsilon})$. Hence, by the theorem of Steinberg ($H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}},T_{\epsilon})=0$), we can find $t\in T_{\epsilon}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ such that $v':=vt\in H({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$. As the last preparation, for each $j\in{\mathbb N}$, let us define $b_j\in T'(K_0)$ by (cf. (\[eq:xi\_p’\])) $$b_j \sigma^{j}:=F^j=({\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\mu'(\pi))\sigma)^{j}.$$ We have $b_n = \prod_{i=1}^n\sigma^i({\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\mu'(\pi)))$. We will also write $b$ for $b_1$.
Now, since one has $$\label{eq:Kottwitz97-(7.3.1)}
w_{H}({\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\mu'(\pi)))=\underline{\mu'}.$$ (commutativity of diagram (7.3.1) of [@Kottwitz97]), condition $\ast(\epsilon)$ implies that $$w_{H}(\epsilon) =\sum_{i=1}^n\sigma^{i-1}\underline{\mu'}=\sum_{i=1}^n\sigma^{i-1}w_{H}({\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\mu'(\pi))),$$ thus we have $$\begin{aligned}
[K:{{\mathbb Q}_p}]w_{H}(\epsilon) &=\sum_{j=1}^{[K:{{\mathbb Q}_p}]}\sigma^{j-1}(\sum_{i=1}^n\sigma^{i-1}w_{H}({\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\mu'(\pi))))\\
&=nw_{H}(\prod_{j=1}^{[K:{{\mathbb Q}_p}]}\sigma^{j-1}({\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\mu'(\pi)))) \\
&=w_{H}(p^{n{\mathrm{N}}_{K/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}\mu_h}).\end{aligned}$$ Here, the first equality holds as $\epsilon\in H({{\mathbb Q}_p})$ (so $\sigma(w_H(\epsilon))=w_H(\epsilon)$) and the next two equalities follow from Lemma \[lem:Phi\_for\_special\_morphism\], (2): $\prod_{j=1}^{[K:{{\mathbb Q}_p}]}\sigma^{j-1}({\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\mu'(\pi)))={\mathrm{N}}_{K/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}(\mu'(pu))\in T'({{\mathbb Q}_p})$ ($\pi^{e_K}=pu$). Let $Z_{\epsilon}:=Z(G_{\epsilon})$ and $Z_{\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}}$ be the center of $G_{\epsilon}$ and its neutral component, respectively. By property ($\dagger\dagger$), ${\mathrm{N}}_{K/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}\mu_h$ maps into $Z_{\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}}$, hence the equation above shows that the element of $Z_{\epsilon}({{\mathbb Q}_p})$: $$k_0:=\epsilon^{-[K:{{\mathbb Q}_p}]}\cdot p^{n{\mathrm{N}}_{K/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}\mu_h}$$ lies in $\ker(v_H)\cap Z_{\epsilon}({{\mathbb Q}_p})$. We claim that for some $a\in{\mathbb N}$, $$\label{eq:k_0_is_bounded}
k_0^{a}\in \ker(v_{Z_{\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}}}),$$ i.e. $k_0^a$ lies in the maximal compact subgroup of $T({{\mathbb Q}_p})$. First, take $a_1\in{\mathbb N}$ with $\epsilon^{a_1}\in Z_{\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}}({\mathbb Q})$, so that $k_0^{a_1}\in Z_{\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}}({{\mathbb Q}_p})$. Let $A_{\epsilon}$ and $B_{\epsilon}$ be respectively the isotropic kernel and the anisotropic kernel of $Z_{\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}}$. Then, there exists $a_2\in{\mathbb N}$ such that $k_0^{a_1a_2}=x\cdot y$ with $x\in A_{\epsilon}({{\mathbb Q}_p})$ and $y\in B_{\epsilon}({{\mathbb Q}_p})$. Since $v_H=v_{H^{{\mathrm{ab}}}}\circ p_H$ for the quotient map $p_H:H\rightarrow H^{{\mathrm{ab}}}$,[^28] there are the implications: $$v_{B_{\epsilon}}(y)=0\ \Rightarrow\ v_{H^{{\mathrm{ab}}}}(p_H(y))=0\ \Rightarrow\ v_{H^{{\mathrm{ab}}}}(p_H(x))=0.$$ Then, since $A_{\epsilon}\subset Z(H)$ and the natural map $Z(H)\rightarrow H^{{\mathrm{ab}}}$ is an isogeny, it follows that $v_{A_{\epsilon}}(x)=0$. Therefore, $a:=a_1a_2$ satisfies that $k_0^{a}\in \ker(v_{Z_{\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}}})$; in particular, $k_0^a$ lies in a compact (thus bounded) subgroup of $T({{\mathbb Q}_p})$. We also note in passing that when $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$ (so that $H^{{\mathrm{der}}}=H^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$ too), the same argument establishes that $k_0^{a}\in \ker(w_{Z_{\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}}})$ (since in such case $w_H=w_{H^{{\mathrm{ab}}}}\circ p_H$).
Then, by (\[eq:k\_0\_is\_bounded\]) we see that for sufficiently large $t$ divisible by $a[K:{{\mathbb Q}_p}]$, the element $k_t\in H({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:epsilon'^{-1}F^n}
k_t \sigma^{nt} & := (\epsilon'^{-1}F^n)^{t} \\
&= v' \epsilon^{-t} v'^{-1} \cdot (p^{-\nu_p'}\cdot u_0)^{\frac{nt}{[K:{{\mathbb Q}_p}]}} \sigma^{nt} \nonumber \\
&= v' (\epsilon^{-[K:{{\mathbb Q}_p}]}\cdot p^{n{\mathrm{N}}_{K/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}\mu_h})^{\frac{t}{[K:{{\mathbb Q}_p}]}} v'^{-1} \cdot u_0^{\frac{nt}{[K:{{\mathbb Q}_p}]}} \sigma^{nt} \nonumber \\
&= v' k_0^{\frac{t}{[K:{{\mathbb Q}_p}]}} v'^{-1}\cdot (u_0)^{\frac{nt}{[K:{{\mathbb Q}_p}]}} \sigma^{nt} \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ lies in any given neighborhood of $1$ in $H({\mathfrak{k}})$.[^29] In particular, for sufficiently large $t$, $k_t$ lies in the special maximal parahoric subgroup $H({\mathfrak{k}})\cap {}^g{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p$ of $H({\mathfrak{k}})$, which then implies existence of $h\in H({\mathfrak{k}})\cap {}^g{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p$ such that $$(\epsilon'^{-1}\Phi^m)^{t}=h\sigma^{tn}(h^{-1})\rtimes \sigma^{tn}.$$ by [@Greenberg63 Prop.3]. We fix such $t\in{\mathbb N}$. We see that $\epsilon'^{-t}\Phi^{mt}$ fixes $hg x^{\mathrm{o}}=g x^{\mathrm{o}}$ ($x^{\mathrm{o}}:=1\cdot {\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p$, the base point of $G({\mathfrak{k}})/{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p$). Moreover, by Lemma \[lem:unramified\_conj\_of\_special\_morphism\] and commutativity of the diagram (7.3.1) of [@Kottwitz97], we have $$\mathrm{inv}_{T'({\mathfrak{k}})_1}(T'({\mathfrak{k}})_1,F T'({\mathfrak{k}})_1)=\underline{\mu'}.$$ Then, since $g^{-1}T'({\mathfrak{k}})_1g \subset {\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p$, it follows (see the proof of Lemma \[lem:LR-Lemma5.2\]) that $$\mathrm{inv}_{{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p}(gx^{\mathrm{o}},F gx^{\mathrm{o}})=\tilde{W}_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}\ t^{\underline{g^{-1}\mu'g}}\ \tilde{W}_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}\in{\mathrm{Adm}}_{{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p}(\{\mu_X\})$$ (regarding $g^{-1}\mu'g$ as a cocharacter of $g^{-1}T'g$). This proves that $(\phi,\epsilon^t)$ is ${\mathbf{K}}_p$-effective admissible.
Next, we show that there exists $e\in H({\mathfrak{k}})$ such that $$e^{-1}(\epsilon')^{-1}\Phi^m e=\sigma^n,$$ which will establish the admissibility of $(\phi,\epsilon)$. We first claim that there exists $c\in H({\mathfrak{k}})$ such that $$c^{-1}(\epsilon')^{-1}\Phi^m c\in \rho(H^{{\mathrm{sc}}}({\mathfrak{k}}))\times\sigma^n,$$ where $\rho:H^{{\mathrm{sc}}}\rightarrow H$ is the canonical morphism. By Lemma \[lem:kernel\_of\_w\] below, it suffices to show that $w_{H}(\epsilon'^{-1}b_n)=0$ (recall that $\Phi^m=F^n=b_n \sigma^n$). By (\[eq:xi\_p’\]), $b_n=\prod_{i=1}^n\sigma^{i-1}({\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\mu'(\pi)))$ so $$w_H(b_n)=\sum_{i=1}^n\sigma^{i-1}\underline{\mu'}=\sum_{i=1}^n\sigma^{i-1}\underline{\mu_h}=w_H(\epsilon)=w_H(\epsilon')$$ (the first equality is (\[eq:Kottwitz97-(7.3.1)\])).
Next, we proceed as in the proof (on p. 193) of [@LR87], Satz 5.21, to find $d\in \rho(H^{{\mathrm{sc}}}({\mathfrak{k}}))\cap {}^g{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p$ such that $d^{-1}c^{-1}\epsilon'^{-1}\Phi^mcd=\sigma^n$. For that, when we pick $k'\in H^{{\mathrm{sc}}}({\mathfrak{k}})$ mapping to $c^{-1}\epsilon'^{-1}b_n \sigma^{n}(c)$ (i.e. $\rho(k') \sigma^n=c^{-1}(\epsilon'^{-1}\Phi^m)c$), by [@Kottwitz85 Prop. 5.4], it suffices to show that $k'$ is basic (in $B(H^{{\mathrm{sc}}})$). By definition [@Kottwitz85 (4.3.3)], this is the same as the existence of $d'\in H^{{\mathrm{sc}}}({\mathfrak{k}})$ with $(k' \sigma^n)^{t}=d'(1\rtimes\sigma^{nt})d'^{-1}$ for some sufficiently large $t$. But, we have $$c^{-1}(\epsilon'^{-1}\Phi^m)^{t}c=c^{-1}k_t\sigma^{nt}(c) \sigma^{nt}=(c^{-1}k_tc)(c^{-1}\sigma^{nt}(c)) \sigma^{nt},$$ and for sufficiently large $t\in{\mathbb N}$, both $c^{-1}k_tc$ and $c^{-1}\sigma^{tn}(c)$ are contained in any neighborhood of $1$ in $H({\mathfrak{k}})$, in particular, in the special maximal parahoric subgroup $H({\mathfrak{k}})\cap {}^g{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p$ of $H({\mathfrak{k}})$. Thus, if $k'_t:=k'\cdot\sigma^n(k')\cdots \sigma^{n(t-1)}(k')\in H^{{\mathrm{sc}}}({\mathfrak{k}})$ (i.e. $\rho(k_t') \sigma^{nt}=c^{-1}(\epsilon'^{-1}\Phi^m)^{t}c$), $\rho(k_t')$ lies in the special maximal parahoric subgroup $H^{{\mathrm{der}}}({\mathfrak{k}})\cap {}^g{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p$ of $H^{{\mathrm{der}}}({\mathfrak{k}})$. In view of the canonical equality of reduced buildings ${\mathcal{B}}(H^{{\mathrm{sc}}},{\mathfrak{k}})={\mathcal{B}}(H^{{\mathrm{der}}},{\mathfrak{k}})$, this implies that $k_t'$ also lies in the stabilizer in $H^{{\mathrm{sc}}}({\mathfrak{k}})$ of the corresponding special vertex, which is itself a special maximal parahoric subgroup of $H^{{\mathrm{sc}}}({\mathfrak{k}})$ (as $w_{H^{{\mathrm{sc}}}}$ is trivial). Hence, again by [@Greenberg63 Prop.3] there exists $d'\in H^{{\mathrm{sc}}}({\mathfrak{k}})$ such that $k'_t=d'\sigma^{nt}(d'^{-1})$, as required.
\(2) Suppose that $c\gamma_0c^{-1}={\mathrm{N}}_n(\delta)$ for $c\in G({\mathfrak{k}})$; then, $b:=c^{-1}\delta\sigma(c)\in Z_{G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}}(\gamma_0)({\mathfrak{k}})$; thus, $\gamma_0,b\in H({\mathfrak{k}})$. As a matter of fact, the arguments coming next work in general for *any* semi-standard ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-Levi subgroup $H$ of $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ containing $\gamma_0$ and $b$.
We proceed in several steps:
- First, we claim existence of $c_1\in G({\mathfrak{k}})$ such that for $\delta':=c_1b\sigma(c_1^{-1})$, one has $$\label{eq:stable_conjugacy_1}
c_1\gamma_0c_1^{-1}={\mathrm{N}}_n(\delta'),$$ and $c_1^{-1}{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p \in X(\{\mu_X\},b)_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}$, i.e. $$\label{eq:Deligne-Lustizg_1}
{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p\cdot \delta'\cdot {\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p \in {\mathrm{Adm}}_{{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p}(\{\mu_X\}).$$ Indeed, pick $g{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p\in Y_p(\delta)$. Then, as $g^{-1}\sigma^n(g)\in {\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p$, by [@Greenberg63 Prop.3], there exists $k_0\in {\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p$ with $g^{-1}\sigma^n(g)=k_0\sigma^n(k_0^{-1})$, i.e. $d:=(gk_0)^{-1}\in G(L_n)$. Clearly, $c_1:=dc$ satisfies the required conditions: $${\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p\cdot g^{-1}\delta\sigma(g)\cdot {\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p= {\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p\cdot c_1b\sigma(c_1^{-1})\cdot {\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p.$$ We observe that $\delta'=d\delta\sigma(d^{-1})$, i.e. $\delta'$ is $\sigma$-conjugate to $\delta$ under $G(L_n)$.
- From this point, we adapt the argument of the proof of Lemma \[lem:LR-Lemma5.11\] (however, working with $H$ in place of $M$). We recall its set-up as we need it. First we choose a maximal ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-split torus in $H$ and a maximal ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-split torus $S$ in $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ containing it; as $H$ is the centralizer of a ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-split torus, we have $S\subset H$ and $S$ is also a maximal ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-split torus in $H$. Then, we pick a ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-torus $S'$ of $H$ whose extension to ${{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}$ becomes a maximal ${{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}$-split torus of $H_{{{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}}$ containing $S_{{{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}}$; thus $S'$ is again such a torus for $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ and the centralizer $T':=Z_{G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}}(S')$ is a maximal torus of both $G$ and $H$: $$S\subset S'\subset T'=Z_{G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}}(S')\subset H.$$ As in the proof of Lemma \[lem:LR-Lemma5.11\], we may choose $S'$ such that the given special point ${\mathbf{0}}$ of ${\mathcal{B}}(G,{\mathfrak{k}})$ lies in the image of the apartment ${\mathcal{A}}^{H}_{{\mathfrak{k}}}\subset{\mathcal{B}}(H,{\mathfrak{k}})$ of $S'$ (regarding $S'$ as a maximal ${\mathfrak{k}}$-split torus of $H$) under a suitable embedding ${\mathcal{B}}(H,{\mathfrak{k}}){\hookrightarrow}{\mathcal{B}}(G,{\mathfrak{k}})$.
We also choose a ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-parabolic subgroup $Q$ of $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ of which $H$ is a Levi factor; let $N_Q$ be the unipotent radical of $Q$. Now, we claim that there exists $m\in H({\mathfrak{k}})$ such that $$\label{eq:stable_conjugacy_2}
{\mathrm{N}}_n(m^{-1}b\sigma(m))^{-1}\cdot m^{-1}\gamma_0m \in H({\mathfrak{k}})\cap ({\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p\cdot N_Q({\mathfrak{k}}))$$ and that $$\label{eq:Deligne-Lustizg_2}
{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p\cdot m^{-1}b\sigma(m)n' \cdot {\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p \in {\mathrm{Adm}}_{{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p}(\{\mu_X\})$$ for some $n'\in N_Q({\mathfrak{k}})$. Indeed, using the Iwasawa decomposition as presented in Step (1) of Lemma \[lem:LR-Lemma5.11\], we write $$c_1^{-1}=nmk$$ with $n\in N_Q({\mathfrak{k}})$, $m\in H({\mathfrak{k}})$, and $k\in {\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p$, so that $$\begin{aligned}
\delta' & =c_1b\sigma(c_1)^{-1}=k^{-1}m^{-1}n^{-1}b\sigma(n)\sigma(m)\sigma(k) \\
& =k^{-1}m^{-1}b\sigma(m)n'\sigma(k)\end{aligned}$$ for $n':=\sigma(m)^{-1}b^{-1}n^{-1}b\sigma(n)\sigma(m)$ (which belongs to $N_Q({\mathfrak{k}})$, as $H$ normalizes $N_Q$), and (\[eq:Deligne-Lustizg\_1\]) becomes $${\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p\cdot \delta'\cdot {\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p={\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p\cdot m^{-1}b\sigma(m)n'\cdot {\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p.$$ On the other hand, the left-hand side of (\[eq:stable\_conjugacy\_1\]) becomes $$c_1\gamma_0c_1^{-1}=k^{-1}m^{-1}n^{-1}\gamma_0 nmk =k^{-1}m^{-1}\gamma_0m n_1 k$$ for $n_1:=m^{-1}\gamma_0^{-1}n^{-1}\gamma_0nm\in N_Q({\mathfrak{k}})$, so that if $b_1:=m^{-1}b\sigma(m)\in H({\mathfrak{k}})$, the right-hand side of (\[eq:stable\_conjugacy\_1\]) becomes (again using that $H$ normalizes $N_Q$): $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{N}}_n(\delta') &={\mathrm{N}}_n(k^{-1}b_1n'\sigma(k)) \\
&= k^{-1}\cdot b_1n'\cdot \sigma(b_1)\sigma(n')\cdots\sigma^{n-1}(b_1)\sigma^{n-1}(n')\cdot \sigma^n(k) \\
& =k^{-1}{\mathrm{N}}_n(b_1)n_2\sigma^n(k).\end{aligned}$$ for some $n_2\in N_Q({\mathfrak{k}})$. Therefore, (\[eq:stable\_conjugacy\_1\]) becomes: $$m^{-1}\gamma_0m\cdot n_1\cdot k= {\mathrm{N}}_n(b_1)\cdot n_2 \cdot \sigma^n(k),$$ which reduces to: $${\mathrm{N}}_n(b_1)^{-1}\cdot m^{-1}\gamma_0m \cdot n_3=\sigma^n(k)k^{-1}$$ for some $n_3 \in N({\mathfrak{k}})$ (i.e. $n_3$ is defined by $hn_3=\sigma^n(k)k^{-1}=n_2^{-1}h\cdot n_1$ for $h:={\mathrm{N}}_n(b_1)^{-1}\cdot m^{-1}\gamma_0m\in H({\mathfrak{k}})$), which establishes (\[eq:stable\_conjugacy\_2\]).
- Next, we claim that $$\label{eq:vanishing_of_w_H}
w_H(H({\mathfrak{k}})\cap ({\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p\cdot N_Q({\mathfrak{k}})))=0.$$ For that, recalling that $S'_{{\mathfrak{k}}}$ is a maximal ${\mathfrak{k}}$-split torus of $G_{{\mathfrak{k}}}$ such that $T'=Z_{G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}}(S')\subset H$, we choose a Borel subgroup $B'$ of $G_{{\mathfrak{k}}}$ containing $T'_{{\mathfrak{k}}}$ and $N_Q$. Then, we pick a Borel subgroup $B$ of $H_{{\mathfrak{k}}}$ containing $T'_{{\mathfrak{k}}}$ and contained in $B'$; let $N_B$ be its unipotent radical. Thanks to the condition that $H({\mathfrak{k}})\cap {\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p$ is also a special maximal parahoric subgroup of $H({\mathfrak{k}})$ (cf. Lemma \[lem:specaial\_parahoric\_in\_Levi\]), it is enough to show that $$H({\mathfrak{k}})\cap ({\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p\cdot N_Q({\mathfrak{k}})) \subseteq (H({\mathfrak{k}})\cap {\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p)\cdot N_B({\mathfrak{k}}).$$
Suppose given $m=kn$ for some $m\in H({\mathfrak{k}})$, $k\in{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p$, and $n\in N_Q({\mathfrak{k}})$. Since $H({\mathfrak{k}})\cap {\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p$ is a special maximal parahoric subgroup of $H({\mathfrak{k}})$, we use the Iwasawa decomposition for $(H({\mathfrak{k}}),H({\mathfrak{k}})\cap {\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p,T',B)$, to write $$m=k_0 t u$$ where $k_0\in H({\mathfrak{k}})\cap {\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p$, $t\in T'({\mathfrak{k}})$, and $u\in N_B({\mathfrak{k}})$. So, we have $k_0^{-1}k=t(un^{-1})$. Then, since one has $$B'({\mathfrak{k}})\cap{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p=(T'({\mathfrak{k}})\cap{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p)\cdot (N_{B'}({\mathfrak{k}})\cap{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p)$$ [@BT84], 5.2.4, applied to $(G({\mathfrak{k}}),{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p, T'_{{\mathfrak{k}}},B')$), we must have $t\in {\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p$, $un^{-1}\in {\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p$.
- Let $\mu''\in X_{\ast}(T')$ be the cocharacter defined in Step (2) of Lemma \[lem:LR-Lemma5.11\], i.e. defined by the Cartan decomposition $$m^{-1}b\sigma(m)\in (K_{{\mathbf{0}}}({\mathfrak{k}})\cap H({\mathfrak{k}}))\ t^{\underline{\mu''}}\ (K_{{\mathbf{0}}}({\mathfrak{k}})\cap H({\mathfrak{k}}))$$ for $(m^{-1}b\sigma(m),H,K_{{\mathbf{0}}}({\mathfrak{k}})\cap H({\mathfrak{k}}))$ ($K_{{\mathbf{0}}}({\mathfrak{k}})={\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p$). Then, recalling the cocharacter $\mu'\in X_{\ast}(T')\cap \{\mu_X\}$ (\[eqn:Iwahori\_inequality\]), the argument of Step (3) of Lemma \[lem:LR-Lemma5.11\] (which uses condition (\[eq:Deligne-Lustizg\_2\])) established the relation (\[eq:LR-Lemma5.11\_Step\_3\]) $$\mu''=w\mu'\cdot\mu_1$$ for some $w\in W$ and $\mu_1\in \langle \tau x-x\ |\ \tau\in{\mathrm{Gal}}(\overline{{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\mathfrak{k}}), x\in X_{\ast}(T')\rangle$; in particular, one has $w_H(m^{-1}b\sigma(m))=\underline{\mu''}=\underline{w\mu'}$ in $\pi_1(H)_{{\mathrm{Gal}}(\overline{{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\mathfrak{k}})}$. Therefore, by (\[eq:vanishing\_of\_w\_H\]) we have $$\begin{aligned}
w_H(\gamma_0) &=w_H(m^{-1}\gamma_0m)=w_H({\mathrm{N}}_n(m^{-1}b\sigma(m))) \\
&=\sum_{i=1}^n\sigma^{i-1}w_H(m^{-1}b\sigma(m))=\sum_{i=1}^n\sigma^{i-1}\underline{w\mu'}.\end{aligned}$$ As $w\mu'\in X_{\ast}(T')\cap \{\mu_X\}$, the lemma is proved.
This completes the proof of the theorem.
\[lem:kernel\_of\_w\] Let $H$ be a connected reductive group over ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$. For any element $h\in H({\mathfrak{k}})$ with $w_H(h)=0$, there exists $c\in H({\mathfrak{k}})$ such that $ch\sigma^n(c^{-1})\in \rho(H^{{\mathrm{sc}}}({\mathfrak{k}}))$, where $\rho:H^{{\mathrm{sc}}}\rightarrow H$ is the canonical homomorphism
Using the fact [@Kottwitz84b (3.3.3)] that for any maximal ${\mathfrak{k}}$-split torus $S$ of $H_{{\mathfrak{k}}}$ and its centralizer $T$, one has $$H({\mathfrak{k}})=\rho(H^{{\mathrm{sc}}}({\mathfrak{k}}))T({\mathfrak{k}}),$$ we write $h=\rho(h')t$, where $h'\in H^{{\mathrm{sc}}}({\mathfrak{k}})$ and $t\in T({\mathfrak{k}})$. Since $w_H$ vanishes on $\rho(H^{{\mathrm{sc}}}({\mathfrak{k}}))$ (cf. diagrams (7.4.1), (7.4.2) of [@Kottwitz97]), we have $w_H(t)=0$. When we put $T^{{\mathrm{sc}}}:=\rho^{-1}(T)$ (maximal torus of $H^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$), as $X_{\ast}(T^{{\mathrm{sc}}})$ is an induced module for $I={\mathrm{Gal}}(\bar{{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\mathfrak{k}})$ [@BT84 4.4.16] so that one has $$X_{\ast}(T)_I/X_{\ast}(T^{{\mathrm{sc}}})_I=\pi_1(H)_I$$ [@HainesRapoport08 p.196], and as $w_{T^{{\mathrm{sc}}}}$ is surjective, we can find $t'\in T^{{\mathrm{sc}}}({\mathfrak{k}})$ with $w_{T}(\rho(t')t^{-1})=0$. Hence, by [@Greenberg63 Prop.3] there exists $c\in T({\mathfrak{k}})$ with $\rho(t')t^{-1}=c^{-1}\sigma^n(c)$, namely with $c\rho(t')\sigma^n(c^{-1})=t$. Finally, as $\rho(H^{{\mathrm{sc}}}({\mathfrak{k}}))$ is a normal subgroup of $H({\mathfrak{k}})$, this establishes the claim.
\[rem:equality\_of\_two\_ADLVs\] In [@LR87], Satz 5.21, Langlands and Rapoport also claim that the converse of Theorem \[thm:LR-Satz5.21\], (1) holds (again when ${\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p$ is hyperspecial and $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$):
*If $(\phi,\epsilon)$ is an admissible pair and $\gamma_0\in G({{\mathbb Q}_p})$ is stably conjugate to $\epsilon$, then $\gamma_0$ satisfies the condition $\ast(\epsilon)$ [@LR87 p.183].*
We believe that this statement becomes true only under some additional assumption, for example if *the set* $$X_p(\phi,\epsilon)=\{ x_p\in X_p(\phi)\ |\ \epsilon x_p=\Phi^mx_p\}$$ *is non-empty*.
Indeed, this results from Theorem \[thm:LR-Satz5.21\], (2) and the following observation (cf. [@Kottwitz84b 1.4]):
\(1) if we choose $u\in G({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ with $u^{-1}{\mathbf{K}}_p({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})\in X_p(\phi)$ (so, $\xi_p'=\Int(u)\circ\phi(p)\circ\zeta_p$ is unramified), say the inflation of a ${{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerb morphism $\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}:{\mathfrak{D}}\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}_{G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}}^{{\mathrm{ur}}}$, $\Int(u)$ (\[eqn:X\_p(phi)=ADLV\]) gives a bijection between $X_p(\phi,\epsilon)$ and the set $$\label{eq:X_p(b,epsilon')}
X_p(b,\epsilon'):=\{ x\in X(\{\mu_X\},b)_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}\ |\ \epsilon' x=(b\sigma)^nx \},$$ where $\epsilon':=u\epsilon u^{-1}\in G({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$ and $b\sigma:=F:=\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}(s_{\sigma})$; so, $\epsilon'\in J_b({{\mathbb Q}_p})=\{h\in G({\mathfrak{k}})\ |\ (b\sigma)h=h(b\sigma)\}$.
\(2) For $b\in G({\mathfrak{k}})$ and $\epsilon'\in J_b({{\mathbb Q}_p})$, if the equation $$\label{eq:stably_conjugacy_rel'n}
y\epsilon'^{-1}(b\sigma)^n y^{-1}= \sigma^n$$ has a solution $y=c\in G({\mathfrak{k}})$, then $\delta:=cb\sigma(c^{-1})$ belongs to $G(L_n)$ and satisfies $$\label{eq:stably_conjugacy_rel'n'}
c\epsilon' c^{-1}={\mathrm{N}}_n\delta,$$ and the mapping $x\mapsto cx$ gives a bijection $$X_p(b,\epsilon')\rightarrow Y_p(\delta).$$ Conversely, for a pair $(\epsilon',\delta)\in G({\mathfrak{k}})\times G(L_n)$ satisfying the relation (\[eq:stably\_conjugacy\_rel’n’\]) for some $c\in G({\mathfrak{k}})$, we have $\epsilon'\in J_b({{\mathbb Q}_p})$ for $b:=c^{-1}\delta\sigma(c)$ (since then $\delta\sigma$ commutes with ${\mathrm{N}}_n\delta$), and the mapping $x\mapsto c^{-1}x$ gives a bijection $Y_p(\delta)\rightarrow X_p(b,\epsilon')$.
Criterion for a Kottwitz triple to come from an admissible pair
---------------------------------------------------------------
We continue to work in the same set-up from the previous subsection.
\[prop:phi(delta)=gamma\_0\_up\_to\_center\] Let $(\phi,\gamma_0)$ be an admissible pair, say of level $n$ (cf. Def. \[defn:admissible\_pair\]). Suppose that some conjugate of $\gamma_0$ belongs to $G({\mathbb Q})$ and its image in $G^{{\mathrm{ad}}}({\mathbb A}_f^p)$ lies in a compact subgroup of $G^{{\mathrm{ad}}}({\mathbb A}_f^p)$.
\(1) For any sufficiently large $k\in{\mathbb N}$ divisible by $n$, the element $\phi(\delta_k)\cdot \gamma_0^{-\frac{k}{n}}$ of $G({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ lies in the center of $G$.
\(2) Assume that the weight homomorphism $w_X=(\mu_h\cdot\iota(\mu_h))^{-1}\ (h\in X)$ is rational. If $\gamma_0$ is a Weil $q=p^n$-element of weight $-w=-w_X$, in the sense that for the ${\mathbb Q}$-subgroup $S$ (of multiplicative type) generated by $\gamma_0$ and any character $\chi$ of $S$, $\chi(\gamma_0)\in{\overline{\mathbb Q}}$ is a Weil $q=p^n$-number of weight $-\langle \chi,w_X\rangle\in{\mathbb Z}$ in the usual sense, then $\gamma_0^{\frac{k}{n}}=\phi(\delta_k)$ for any sufficiently large $k\in{\mathbb N}$ divisible by $n$.
\(3) If the anisotropic kernel of $Z(G)$ remains anisotropic over ${\mathbb R}$ and $\gamma_0\in G({\mathbb A}_f^p)$ lies in a compact subgroup of $G({\mathbb A}_f^p)$, then $\gamma_0^{\frac{k}{n}}=\phi(\delta_k)$ for any sufficiently large $k\in{\mathbb N}$ divisible by $n$. In particular, $(\phi,\gamma_0)$ is already well-located.
The first statement (1) is asserted in [@LR87], p.194 (line -8) - p.195 (line 12) with a sketchy proof. Here we will give a detailed proof. To show the proposition, we need a fact which was stated in [@LR87], p.195, line 5-9, but without an explanation:
\[lem:equality\_of\_two\_Newton\_maps\] (1) Let $\phi:{\mathfrak{P}}\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}_G$ be an admissible morphism such that $\phi(\delta_k)\in T({\mathbb Q})$ for a maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-torus $T$ of $G$ and for all $k\gg1$. Let $I:=Z_G(\phi(\delta_k))\ (k\gg1)$ and $b\in I({\mathfrak{k}})$ defined by an unramified conjugate of $\xi_p:=\phi(p)\circ\zeta_p:{\mathfrak{G}}_p\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}_{I}(p)$ under $I({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ as in Lemma \[lem:unramified\_morphism\], (4). Then, the Newton homomorphism $\nu_{\phi(\delta_k)}\in X_{\ast}(T)_{{\mathbb Q}}^{{\mathrm{Gal}}_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}}$ equals $k\nu_b\in {\mathrm{Hom}}_{{\mathfrak{k}}}(\mathbb{D},I)$: $\nu_{\phi(\delta_k)}=k\nu_b$.
\(2) Let $\epsilon\in G({{\mathbb Q}_p})$ be a semi-simple element and suppose that there exists $\delta\in G(L_n)$ such that ${\mathrm{N}}_n\delta=c'\epsilon c'^{-1}$ for some $c'\in G({\mathfrak{k}})$; let $I_0:=G_{\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}}$. If $b':=c'^{-1}\delta\sigma(c')\in G_{\epsilon}({\mathfrak{k}})$ belongs to $I_0$, the two Newton homomorphisms $\nu_{\epsilon}$, $\nu_{b'}\in {\mathrm{Hom}}_{{\mathfrak{k}}}(\mathbb{D},I_0)$ are related by: $\nu_{\epsilon}=n\nu_{b'}$. In particular, in this case $[b']_{I_0}\in B(I_0)$ is basic [@Kottwitz85 (5.1)].
\(3) For any admissible pair $(\phi,\epsilon)$ well-located in a maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-torus $T$ of $G$, we have equality of quasi-cocharacters of $T$: $\frac{1}{k}\nu_{\phi(\delta_k)}=\frac{1}{n}\nu_{\epsilon}\ (k\gg1)$.
\(1) Fix a CM field $K$ Galois over ${\mathbb Q}$ and $m\gg1$ such that $\phi^{\Delta}$ factors through $P^K$ and $P^K=P(K,m)$, and denote by $(\phi^{K})^{\Delta}$ the resulting morphism $P(K,m)\rightarrow G$. Then for every $\lambda\in X^{\ast}(T)$, the ${\overline{\mathbb Q}}$-character $\lambda\circ(\phi^{K})^{\Delta}$ of $P(K,m)$ is also a Weil $p^m$-number $\pi$, in which case if we write $\chi_{\pi}:=\lambda\circ(\phi^{K})^{\Delta}$, we have $\chi_{\pi}(\delta_k)=\pi^{\frac{k}{m}}$ for every $k\in{\mathbb N}$ divisible by $m$ (cf. ). Next, let $w$ be the place of $K$ induced by $\iota_p$. When we regard any $\lambda\in X^{\ast}(T_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}})^{{\mathrm{Gal}}_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}}$ as a ${\overline{\mathbb Q}}$-character of $T$ via the chosen embedding $\iota_p:{\overline{\mathbb Q}}{\hookrightarrow}{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}$, we have $$|\lambda(\phi^K(\delta_k))|_p^{[K_w:{{\mathbb Q}_p}]}=|\lambda(\phi^K(\delta_k))|_w=|\chi_{\pi}(\delta_k)|_w=|\pi|_w^{\frac{k}{m}}=p^{k\nu_2(\pi,w)}=p^{k\langle\chi_{\pi},\nu_2^{K}\rangle}=p^{k\langle\lambda,(\xi_p^{K_w})^{\Delta}\rangle},$$ where $(\xi_p^{K_w})^{\Delta}=(\phi^{K})^{\Delta}_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}\circ (\zeta_p^{K_w})^{\Delta}:({\mathfrak{G}}_p^{K_w})^{\Delta}\rightarrow P(K,m)_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}\rightarrow I_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ (by assumption, $(\xi_p^{K_w})^{\Delta}\in X_{\ast}(T)^{{\mathrm{Gal}}_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}}$); note that here, $\lambda$ can be considered as a ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-character in the first three expressions, while the $3^{\text{rd}}$ equality makes sense only when $\chi_{\pi}$ is a ${\overline{\mathbb Q}}$-character. This shows [@Kottwitz85 2.8, 4.4] that the Newton homomorphism $\nu_{\phi(\delta_k)}\in X_{\ast}(T)_{{\mathbb Q}}^{{\mathrm{Gal}}_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}}={\mathrm{Hom}}_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}(\mathbb{D},T_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}})$ attached to $\phi(\delta_k)\in T({{\mathbb Q}_p})$ is $-\frac{k}{[K_w:{{\mathbb Q}_p}]}(\xi_p^{K_w})^{\Delta}=-k\xi_p^{\Delta}$.
On the other hand, let $(\xi_p^{K_w})'$ be an unramified conjugate of $\xi_p^{K_w}$ under $I({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$. If $(\xi_p^{K_w})'$ factors through ${\mathfrak{D}}_n$ (for some $n\in{\mathbb N}$), the Newton homomorphism $\nu_b$ attached to $b$ is $\frac{1}{n}(\xi_p^{K_w})'^{-1}|_{{\mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{m}}}}$ (Lemma \[lem:Newton\_hom\_attached\_to\_unramified\_morphism\], cf. [@LR87], Anmerkung). In our case, we may assume that $n=[K_w:{{\mathbb Q}_p}]$, by Remark \[rem:comments\_on\_zeta\_v\], (2) and Lemma \[lem:unramified\_morphism\], (2). Since the restrictions of $\xi_p'$ and $\xi_p$ to the kernel of ${\mathfrak{D}}_n$ are the same, we have $\nu_b=-\frac{1}{[K_w:{{\mathbb Q}_p}]}(\xi_p^{K_w})^{\Delta}$, which proves the claim.
\(2) This is proved in Lemma 5.15 of [@LR87]. We briefly sketch its arguments. First, we observe that for any $c'\in G({\mathfrak{k}})$ and $n'\in {\mathbb N}$, $c_{n'}:=c'^{-1}\sigma^{n'}(c')$ belongs to $G_{\epsilon}({\mathfrak{k}})$ and lies in any small neighborhood of $1$ in $I_0({\mathfrak{k}})$ as $n'$ becomes large (in fact, even becomes $1$ if $c'\in G({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$). Secondly, if we choose a maximal ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-torus $T_1$ of $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ containing $\epsilon$, then the Newton quasi-cocharacter $\nu_{\epsilon}$ of $\epsilon\in T_1({{\mathbb Q}_p})$ satisfies [@Kottwitz85 4.4] that for every ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-rational $\lambda\in X_{\ast}(T_1)$, one has $$|\lambda(\epsilon)|_p=p^{-\langle\lambda,\nu_{\epsilon}\rangle}.$$ It follows from this equation that $\nu_1:=\frac{1}{n}\nu_{\epsilon}\in X_{\ast}(T_1)_{{\mathbb Q}}^{{\mathrm{Gal}}_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}}$ maps into the (connected) center of $G_{\epsilon}$ and that $p^{-n\nu_1}\epsilon\in T_1({{\mathbb Q}_p})$ lies in the maximal compact subgroup of $T_1({{\mathbb Q}_p})$. Especially, $(p^{-n\nu_1}\epsilon)^k$ also lies in any small neighborhood of $1$ in $I_0$ if $k$ becomes large. Therefore, according to [@Greenberg63 Prop. 3], for sufficiently large $k\in{\mathbb N}$, there exists $d\in I_0({\mathfrak{k}})$ such that with $n'=nk$, $$\epsilon^k c_{n'}=p^{n'\nu_1}d^{-1}\sigma^{n'}(d).$$ Here, we used the fact that $(I_0)_{{\mathfrak{k}}}$ admits a smooth ${\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathfrak{k}}}$-integral model with connected special fiber (e.g. parahoric group schemes, cf. [@HainesRapoport08]). Finally, from ${\mathrm{N}}_n\delta=c'\epsilon c'^{-1}$, one easily checks that $$\label{eq:geom_conj_at_p}
{\mathrm{N}}_{n'}b'=\epsilon^k c_{n'}(=p^{n'\nu_1}d^{-1}\sigma^{n'}(d)).$$ It follows from this equality and the definition [@Kottwitz85 4.3] that when $b'\in I_0({\mathfrak{k}})$, $\nu_1\in{\mathrm{Hom}}_{{\mathfrak{k}}}(\mathbb{D},I_0)$ is the Newton homomorphism of $b'$.
\(3) Clearly, we can choose the element $b$ of (1) in $T({\mathfrak{k}})$ (by using an unramified conjugate of $\xi_p$ under $T({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$; so, the Newton homomorphism $\nu_b$ is regarded to be attached to $b\in T({\mathfrak{k}})$, i.e. as an element of $X_{\ast}(T)_{{\mathbb Q}}^{{\mathrm{Gal}}_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}}$, and as such, for every $s\gg1$ there exists $e_{s}\in \ker(w_T)$ such that ${\mathrm{N}}_{s}b=e_sp^{s\nu_b}$. Let $b'\in G_{\epsilon}({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$ be defined by the admissible pair $(\phi,\epsilon)$ as in (2), except that $b'$ does not necessarily lie in $G_{\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}}({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$. Then, according to Remark \[rem:two\_different\_b’s\], their $\sigma$-conjugacy classes in $B(G_{\epsilon})$ are equal; in particular, if $G_{\epsilon}$ is connected, the claim in question follows immediately from (1), (2), as $b'$ is basic in $G_{\epsilon}$. Hence, in view of (\[eq:geom\_conj\_at\_p\]), for any $k\gg1$, there exists $d'\in G_{\epsilon}({\mathfrak{k}})$ such that $$p^{n'\nu_b}e_{n'}={\mathrm{N}}_{n'}b=p^{k\nu_{\epsilon}}\cdot d'^{-1}\sigma^{n'}(d')$$ holds in $G_{\epsilon}({\mathfrak{k}})$ with $n'=nk$. Since $d'^{-1}\sigma^{n'}(d')$ belongs to $T({\mathfrak{k}})$ ($\nu_{\epsilon}$ maps into the center of $G_{\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}}$) and lies in any neighborhood of $1$ in $G_{\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}}({\mathfrak{k}})$ for $k\gg1$, this is possible only when $n\nu_b=\nu_{\epsilon}$.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Proof of Proposition \[prop:phi(delta)=gamma\_0\_up\_to\_center\] continued.</span> Clearly, all the statements remain intact under any conjugation $\Int(g)\ (g\in G({\overline{\mathbb Q}}))$ with the property that $\Int(g)(\gamma_0)\in G({\mathbb Q})$, thus we may and do assume (by Lemma \[lem:LR-Lemma5.23\]) that $(\phi,\gamma_0)$ is well-located in a maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-torus $T$ of $G$ (which is necessarily elliptic over ${\mathbb R}$); in this case, the assumption says that $\gamma_0$ lies in the (unique maximal) compact subgroup of $T/Z(G)({\mathbb A}_f^p)$.
\(1) As $\delta_{kd}=\delta_k^{d}$, it is enough to show that for some $k\in{\mathbb N}$ (divisible by $n$), the image of $\phi(\delta_k)\cdot \gamma_0^{-\frac{k}{n}}$ in $G^{{\mathrm{ad}}}({\mathbb Q})$ is a torsion element. For that, we use the fact that for any linear algebraic group $G$ over a number field $F$, $G(F)$ is discrete in $G({\mathbb A}_F)$, so for any compact subgroup $K\subset G({\mathbb A}_F)$, $G(F)\cap K$ will be finite, particularly, a torsion group. We will check that for every place $v$ of ${\mathbb Q}$, the image of $\phi(\delta_k)\cdot \gamma_0^{-\frac{k}{n}}$ in $T/Z(G)({{\mathbb Q}_v})$ lies in the maximal compact (open) subgroup of $T/Z(G)({{\mathbb Q}_v})$. Recall that for an $F$-torus $T$ and any finite place $v$ of $F$, the maximal compact subgroup $H$ of $T(F_v)$ equals $$\bigcap_{\chi\in X^{\ast}(T),\ F_v-\text{rational}}\ker(\mathrm{val}_v\circ\chi),$$ where $\mathrm{val}_v$ is the (normalized) valuation on $F_v$. For every finite place $l\neq p$, the image of $\gamma_0$ in $T/Z(G)({{\mathbb Q}_l})$ is a unit (i.e. lies in a compact subgroup) by assumption, and so is $\phi(\delta_k)$ by definition of $\delta_k$ (in fact, $\phi(\delta_k)$ is itself a unit in $T({{\mathbb Q}_l})$ for every $l\neq p$). As $T/Z(G)$ is anisotropic over ${\mathbb R}$, the claim is trivial for the archimedean place. Hence, it suffices to show that for every ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-rational character $\chi$ of $T/Z(G)$, $|\chi(\phi(\delta_k))|_p=|\chi(\gamma_0^{\frac{k}{n}})|_p$. In fact, we will show this for ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-rational characters $\chi$ of $T$. Choose a finite Galois CM-extension $L$ of ${\mathbb Q}$ and $m\in{\mathbb N}$ such that $\phi$ factors through ${\mathfrak{P}}(L,m)$. Then, for all sufficiently large $k\in{\mathbb N}$ divisible by $[L:{\mathbb Q}]n$ and for any ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-rational character $\chi$ of $T$, one has $$|\chi(\phi(\delta_k))|_p=p^{-\langle\chi,\nu_{\phi(\delta_k)}\rangle}=p^{-\frac{k}{n}\langle\chi,\nu_{\gamma_0}\rangle}=|\chi(\gamma_0)|_p^{\frac{k}{n}}.$$ due to Lemma \[lem:equality\_of\_two\_Newton\_maps\], (3) (for the second equality).
\(2) The additional assumption tells us that $|\chi(\phi(\delta_k))|_{\infty}=|\chi(\gamma_0^{\frac{k}{n}})|_{\infty}$ for every ${\mathbb Q}_{\infty}$-rational character $\chi$ of $S$, and also implies that $\gamma_0\in G({\mathbb A}_f^p)$ itself lies in a compact open subgroup of $G({\mathbb A}_f^p)$. Hence, by the argument of (1), $\phi(\delta_k)\cdot \gamma_0^{-\frac{k}{n}}\in G({\mathbb Q})$ is a torsion element.
\(3) It is well-known that the stated condition implies that for any maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-torus $T_0$ of $G$, elliptic over ${\mathbb R}$, $T_0({\mathbb Q})$ is discrete in $T_0({\mathbb A}_f)$; this is the condition what Kisin called *the Serre condition for $T_0$*, [@Kisin17 (3.7.3)]. Then, again we resort to the argument of (1).
\[lem:canonical\_decomp\_of\_epsilon\] For any ${\mathbb Q}$-group $T$ of multiplicative type such that ${\mathbb Q}\operatorname{-}\mathrm{rk}(T)={\mathbb R}\operatorname{-}\mathrm{rk}(T)$, there exist a positive integer $s$ and elements $\pi_0$, $t\in T({\mathbb Q})$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
(a)\quad & \epsilon^s=\pi_0 t,\\
(b)\quad &\pi_0\in K_l\text{ for all }l\neq p, \nonumber \\
(c)\quad &t\in K_p, \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where for each finite place $v$ of ${\mathbb Q}$, $K_v$ denotes the maximal compact subgroup of $T^{\mathrm{o}}({\mathbb Q}_v)$. The pair $(\pi_0,t)$ is uniquely determined by $\epsilon$, up to taking simultaneous powers. In particular, the construction of $(\pi_0,t;s)$ is functorial in $(T,\epsilon)$: $f:(T,\epsilon) \rightarrow (T',\epsilon')$ is a morphism of pairs as above, $f$ matches the corresponding elements $(\pi_0,t)$, $(\pi_0',t')$ (for the same $s$)
Clearly, if one wants, one may further assume that $\pi_0,t\in T^{\mathrm{o}}({\mathbb Q})$.
(cf. [@Kottwitz92 Lem. 10.12]) The uniqueness up to taking simultaneous powers of a pair of elements $(\pi_0,t)$ satisfying the properties (a) - (c) is an easy consequence of the property that $T({\mathbb Q})$ is discrete in $T({\mathbb A}_f)$ (implied by ${\mathbb Q}\operatorname{-}\mathrm{rk}(T)={\mathbb R}\operatorname{-}\mathrm{rk}(T)$). For existence, it follows from the same property that the canonical map $\varphi:T({\mathbb Q})\rightarrow X:=\oplus_{v\neq\infty} (T({{\mathbb Q}_v})/K_v)$ has finite kernel and cokernel, so if we consider the two elements $(a_v)_v,\ (b_v)_v\in X$ where $a_v=1$, $b_v=\epsilon\mod K_v$ for $v\neq p$, and $a_v=\epsilon\mod K_p$, $b_p=1$, then some (common) power $(a_v)^r$, $(b_v)^r$ are the images of elements $a$, $b$ of $T({\mathbb Q})$. As $\epsilon^r$ and $ab$ have the same images under $\varphi$, some powers of them are equal: $\epsilon^s=\pi_0t$ where $\pi_0:=a^{s/r}, t:=b^{s/r}$.
\[prop:canonical\_decomp\_of\_epsilon\] Suppose that ${\mathbb Q}\operatorname{-}\mathrm{rk}(Z(G))={\mathbb R}\operatorname{-}\mathrm{rk}(Z(G))$. For an admissible pair $(\phi,\epsilon)$, let $T_{\epsilon}^{\phi}$ denote the ${\mathbb Q}$-subgroup (of multiplicative type) of $I_{\phi}$ generated by $\epsilon$ and $(\pi_0^{\phi},t^{\phi})$ elements of $T_{\epsilon}^{\phi}({\mathbb Q})$ attached to $(T_{\epsilon}^{\phi},\epsilon)$ by Lemma \[lem:canonical\_decomp\_of\_epsilon\] (for some $s^{\phi}\in{\mathbb N}$). Then the followings hold.
\(1) For any field $k\supset{\mathbb Q}$ and $g\in G(\bar{k})$ with $\Int(g)(\epsilon)\in G(k)$, the elements $\Int(g)(\pi_0^{\phi})$, $\Int(g)(t^{\phi})$ belong to the $k$-subgroup of $G_{k}$ generated by $\Int(g)(\epsilon)$, and if $k\subset {\overline{\mathbb Q}}$, they are the elements (in ${\mathrm{Int}}g(T_{\epsilon}^{\phi}({\mathbb Q}))=T_{\epsilon'}^{\phi'}({\mathbb Q})$) attached to $(\phi',\epsilon'):=\Int(g)(\phi,\epsilon)$ (for the same $s^{\phi}\in{\mathbb N}$).
\(2) Suppose that $\epsilon\in G({\mathbb Q})$ and let $T_{\epsilon}^G$ be the ${\mathbb Q}$-subgroup of $G$ generated by $\epsilon$ with associated elements $\pi_0^G,t^G$ of $T_{\epsilon}^G({\mathbb Q})$ (for some $s^G\in{\mathbb N}$). Then, as subsets of $G({\overline{\mathbb Q}})\ (\supset I_{\phi}({\mathbb Q}))$, we have $T_{\epsilon}^{\phi}({\mathbb Q})=T_{\epsilon}^G({\mathbb Q})$, and $\pi_0^{\phi}=\pi_0^G$, $t^{\phi}=t^G$ when $s^{\phi}=s^{G}$; in this case, we simply write $T_{\epsilon}$, $\pi_0,t,s$.
\(3) For any sufficiently large $k\in{\mathbb N}$, the pair $(\phi,(\pi_0^{\phi})^k)$ is also admissible. In particular, when $(\phi,\epsilon)$ is well-located, the map $\phi^{\Delta}:P\rightarrow G$ factors through $T_{\epsilon}$.
We observe that when ${\mathbb Q}\operatorname{-}\mathrm{rk}(Z(G))={\mathbb R}\operatorname{-}\mathrm{rk}(Z(G))$, for any admissible pair $(\phi,\epsilon)$, we also have ${\mathbb Q}\operatorname{-}\mathrm{rk}(T_{\epsilon})={\mathbb R}\operatorname{-}\mathrm{rk}(T_{\epsilon})$, since $(I_{\phi}/Z(G))_{{\mathbb R}}$ is an ${\mathbb R}$-subgroup of the compact inner form of $G^{{\mathrm{ad}}}_{{\mathbb R}}$ defined by $\phi(\infty)\circ\zeta_{\infty}$.
Now, let $(\phi,\epsilon)$ be an arbitrary admissible pair. From Lemma \[lem:Zariski\_group\_closure\], we know the followings: when $\epsilon':={\mathrm{Int}}g(\epsilon)\in G(k)$, ${\mathrm{Int}}g$ induces a $k$-isomorphism between the $k$-subgroups of $G_k$ generated by $\epsilon$ and $\epsilon'$, and when $k={\mathbb Q}$, it also induces ${\mathbb Q}$-isomorphisms between the ${\mathbb Q}$-groups $T_{\epsilon}\subset I_{\phi}$ and $T_{\epsilon'}\subset I_{\phi'}$, where $\phi':={\mathrm{Int}}g\circ\phi$; this proves (1) by uniqueness up to powers of the pair $(\pi_0,t)$ (Lemma \[lem:canonical\_decomp\_of\_epsilon\]). If $(\phi,\epsilon)$ is also well-located, the ${\overline{\mathbb Q}}$-embedding $(T_{\epsilon})_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}\hookrightarrow (I_{\phi})_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}I_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}\hookrightarrow G_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}$ (\[eq:inner-twisting\_by\_phi\]) induces a ${\mathbb Q}$-isomorphism $T_{\epsilon}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}T_{\epsilon}^G$. Therefore, if $\epsilon\in G({\mathbb Q})$ and $(\phi',\epsilon'):={\mathrm{Int}}g(\phi,\epsilon)\ (g\in G({\overline{\mathbb Q}}))$ is well-located, we have ${\mathbb Q}$-isomorphisms $$T_{\epsilon}^{\phi} {\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}T_{\epsilon'}^{\phi'} \cong T_{\epsilon'}^G {\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}T_{\epsilon}^G,$$ fixing the Zariski dense subset $\{\epsilon^n\}_{n\in{\mathbb Z}}$ (of both $T_{\epsilon}^{\phi}({\mathbb Q})$ and $T_{\epsilon}^G({\mathbb Q})$), thus when both are regarded as subgroups of $G({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$, the induced map $T_{\epsilon}^{\phi}({\mathbb Q}) {\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}T_{\epsilon}^G({\mathbb Q})$ is the identity. By uniqueness up to powers of the pair $(\pi_0,t)$ (Lemma \[lem:canonical\_decomp\_of\_epsilon\]), this proves the claim of (2); in particular, $\pi_0^{\phi}$, $t^{\phi}$ (a priori, elements of $G({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$) both lie in $G({\mathbb Q})$.
In view of this discussion, to prove statement (3), we may assume (by Lemma \[lem:LR-Lemma5.23\]) that $(\phi,\epsilon)$ is *nested* in a maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-torus $T$ of $G$ that is elliptic over ${\mathbb R}$ (i.e. $\phi=\psi_{T,\mu_h}$ for some $h\in X\cap{\mathrm{Hom}}({\mathbb{S}},T_{{\mathbb R}})$ and $\epsilon\in T({\mathbb Q})$); thus, $T_{\epsilon}$ is a ${\mathbb Q}$-subgroup of $T$ via the inner-twisting $(I_{\phi})_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}I_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}$ (\[eq:inner-twisting\_by\_phi\]). In this situation, we establish statement (3), assuming that $t\in T({{\mathbb Q}_p})_1=T({{\mathbb Q}_p})\cap\ker(w_{T})$, which is allowed, as $T({{\mathbb Q}_p})_1$ is a subgroup with finite index of the maximal compact subgroup of $T({{\mathbb Q}_p})$. We only need to check condition (c) of Def. \[defn:admissible\_pair\]. For $v=l\neq p$, $\phi(l)\circ\zeta_l$ is conjugate under $T({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_l})$ to the canonical neutralization $\xi_l$ of ${\mathfrak{G}}_T(l)$ (Lemma \[lem:properties\_of\_psi\_T,mu\]), thus as $\epsilon\in T({\mathbb Q})$, condition (c) for $v=l$ holds. At $v=p$, we choose $u\in T({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ such that $\Int(u)\circ\phi(p)\circ\zeta_p$ is unramified, say the inflation of a ${{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerb morphism $\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}:{\mathfrak{D}}\rightarrow{\mathfrak{G}}^{{\mathrm{ur}}}_{T_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}}$, from which we obtain $b\in T({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$ by $b\sigma=\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}(s_{\sigma})$. Since $(\phi,\epsilon)$ is admissible, by Lemma \[lem:Kottwitz84-a1.4.9\_b3.3\], there exists $c\in G({\mathfrak{k}})$ such that $c(\epsilon^{-1}\cdot(b\sigma)^n)c^{-1}=\sigma^n$, where $n$ is the level of $(\phi,\epsilon)$. Since $t$ lies in the parahoric subgroup $T({{\mathbb Q}_p})_1$ of $T({{\mathbb Q}_p})$, we can find $t_p\in T({\mathfrak{k}})$ such that $t=t_p^{-1}\sigma^{ns}(t_p)$ [@Greenberg63 Prop.3]. So, we have $(ct_p)(\pi_0^{-1}\cdot(b\sigma)^{ns})(ct_p)^{-1}=\sigma^n$, as was asserted. Next, since for every $k\gg1$, $(\phi,\pi_0^k\in G({\mathbb Q}))$ is also an admissible pair with $\pi_0^k$ lying in a compact subgroup of $G({\mathbb A}_f^p)$, we can apply Prop. \[prop:phi(delta)=gamma\_0\_up\_to\_center\] by the assumption ${\mathbb Q}\operatorname{-}\mathrm{rk}(Z(G))={\mathbb R}\operatorname{-}\mathrm{rk}(Z(G))$ to see that the image of $\phi^{\Delta}$ is generated by $\pi_0^k$ for any sufficiently large $k\in{\mathbb N}$.
### {#section-2}
For the next discussion, it is also necessary to use Tate hypercohomology groups $\widehat{\mathbb{H}}^i\ (i\in{\mathbb Z})$ of (bounded) complexes of discrete $\mathcal{G}$-modules for a finite group $\mathcal{G}$: they are defined by means of either the complete (standard) resolution of the trivial ${\mathbb Z}[\mathcal{G}]$-module ${\mathbb Z}$ or hypercochains in the usual manner (cf. [@Koya90 $\S$1]).[^30] In this work, we will be only interested in the bounded complexes $A^{\bullet}$ of discrete $\mathcal{G}$-modules *whose positive terms are zero*, in which case one has $$\widehat{\mathbb{H}}^i(\mathcal{G},A^{\bullet})=\begin{cases}
\mathbb{H}^0(\mathcal{G},A^{\bullet})/{\mathrm{N}}_{\mathcal{G}}\mathcal{H}^0(A^{\bullet}) &\text{ if } i=0\\
\mathbb{H}^i(\mathcal{G},A^{\bullet}) &\text{ if } i>0, \end{cases}$$ where $\mathcal{H}^0(A^{\bullet})$ denotes the $0$-th cohomology $\mathcal{G}$-module of the complex $A^{\bullet}$ and ${\mathrm{N}}_\mathcal{G}$ is the norm map [@Koya90 Prop.1.2].
For a diagonalizable ${\mathbb C}$-group $D$ with (algebraic) action of a finite group $\mathcal{G}$, the canonical surjection and injection $$\label{eq:H^0_H^-1}
\pi_0(D^{\mathcal{G}})\twoheadrightarrow \widehat{\mathbb{H}}^{0}(\mathcal{G},D)=\widehat{\mathbb{H}}^{1}(\mathcal{G},X_{\ast}(D)),\quad \widehat{\mathbb{H}}^{-1}(\mathcal{G},X^{\ast}(D))\hookrightarrow X^{\ast}(D)_{\mathcal{G},{\mathrm{tors}}},$$ identify the canonical duality $X^{\ast}(D)_{\mathcal{G},{\mathrm{tors}}} {\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}\pi_0(D^{\mathcal{G}})^D$ with the duality induced from the cup-product pairing $$\widehat{\mathbb{H}}^{1}(\mathcal{G},X_{\ast}(D))\otimes\widehat{\mathbb{H}}^{-1}(\mathcal{G},X^{\ast}(D))\rightarrow \widehat{\mathbb{H}}^{0}(\mathcal{G},{\mathbb Z})=\frac{1}{|\mathcal{G}|}{\mathbb Z}.$$
For a field $k$, either global or local, we let $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:C_k}
C_k:=\begin{cases} k^{\times} & \text{ if }k\text{ is local},\\
{\mathbb A}_k^{\times}/k^{\times} & \text{ if }k\text{ is global}.\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ For a number field $F$ and a bounded complex of $F$-tori $T^{\bullet}=(\cdots\rightarrow T^i \rightarrow \cdots)$ (concentrated in non-positive degrees) and $i\in{\mathbb Z}$, we define $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{H}^i({\mathbb A}_F/F,T^{\bullet})&:=\mathbb{H}^i(F,T^{\bullet}(C_{\overline{F}})) \\
& =\varinjlim_{E}\mathbb{H}^i(E/F,T^{\bullet}(C_E)),\end{aligned}$$ where $E$ runs through finite Galois extensions of $F$, $T^{\bullet}(C_{\overline{F}})$ denotes the complex of discrete $\Gamma_F$-modules $\cdots\rightarrow T^i({\mathbb A}_{\overline{F}})/T^i(\overline{F})\rightarrow\cdots$ and $T^{\bullet}(C_E)$ is defined similarly.
\[lem:identification\_of\_Kottwitz\_A(H)\] (1) Let $H$ be a (connected) reductive group over a field, either global or local, and $T$ a maximal $k$-torus of $H$; set $\tilde{T}:=\rho_H^{-1}(T)$. If $k'$ is a finite Galois extension of $k$ splitting $T$, the two pairings are compatible: $$\xymatrix{ \pi_0(Z(\hat{H})^{\mathcal{G}}) \ar@{->>}[d] & \bigotimes & \pi_1(H)_{\mathcal{G},{\mathrm{tors}}} \ar[r] & {\mathbb Q}/{\mathbb Z}\ar@{=}[d] \\
\widehat{\mathbb{H}}^{0}(k'/k,X^{\ast}(H_{{\mathbf{ab}}})) & \bigotimes & \widehat{\mathbb{H}}^{1}(k'/k,H_{{\mathbf{ab}}}(C_{k'})) \ar[r] \ar@{^(->}[u] & {\mathbb Q}/{\mathbb Z}},$$ where the bottom pairing is the local/global Tate-Nakayama pairings for the complex $H_{{\mathbf{ab}}}=(\tilde{T}\rightarrow T)$ (cf. [@KottwitzShelstad99 A.2.2]).[^31] Moreover, the two vertical maps are bijections if the extension $k'/k$ has sufficiently large degree.
\(1) First, we note that the bottom local/global Tate-Nakayama pairings are perfect pairings: its proof can be easily reduced to the classical Tate-Nakayama duality for tori (cf. proof of (A.2.2) of [@KottwitzShelstad99]). In view of the canonical maps (\[eq:H\^0\_H\^-1\]), the existence of the vertical maps and the compatibility of the pairings deduced from the canonical isomorphisms $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{\mathbb{H}}^{0}(k'/k,Z(\hat{H}))^D &=\widehat{\mathbb{H}}^{-1}(k'/k,\hat{H}_{{\mathbf{ab}}})^D \\
&\stackrel{(a)}{=}\widehat{\mathbb{H}}^{0}(k'/k,X^{\ast}(T)\rightarrow X^{\ast}(\tilde{T}))^D \\
&\stackrel{(b)}{=}\widehat{\mathbb{H}}^{1}(k'/k,H_{{\mathbf{ab}}}(C_{k'})) \\
&\stackrel{(c)}{=}\widehat{\mathbb{H}}^{-1}(k'/k,\pi_1(H)),
$$ where the equalities are as follows:
\(a) For any two-term complex $D_{-1}\rightarrow D_0$ of diagonalizable ${\mathbb C}$-groups with ${\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/k)$-action, the exponential sequence $0\rightarrow X_{\ast}(D_i)\rightarrow \mathrm{Lie}(D_i) \rightarrow D_i\rightarrow 0$ gives an isomorphism, for all $i\in{\mathbb Z}$, $$\label{eq:connecting_isom_diagonal_gp}
\widehat{\mathbb{H}}^i(k'/k,D_{-1}\rightarrow D_0) = \widehat{\mathbb{H}}^{i+1}(k'/k,X_{\ast}(D_{-1})\rightarrow X_{\ast}(D_0)),$$ (First, establish this for a single term complex using the cohomology long exact sequence of the associated exponential sequence. Then, the general case follows from it by an appropriate application of the five lemma).
\(b) For a single term complex, this is the classical Tate-Nakayma duality (cf. [@Milne13]). Then, one uses the five lemma in an obvious way.
\(c) Apply the five lemma to the isomorphisms from the long cohomology exact sequence attached to the short exact sequence $0\rightarrow X_{\ast}(\tilde{T})\rightarrow X_{\ast}(T)\rightarrow \pi_1(H)\rightarrow 0$ to the long exact sequence $$\cdots \rightarrow \widehat{\mathbb{H}}^{i}(k'/k,\tilde{T}(C_{k'})) \rightarrow \widehat{\mathbb{H}}^{i}(k'/k,T(C_{k'})) \rightarrow \widehat{\mathbb{H}}^{i}(k'/k,H_{{\mathbf{ab}}}(C_{k'})) \rightarrow \widehat{\mathbb{H}}^{i+1}(k'/k,\tilde{T}(C_{k'})) \rightarrow \cdots,$$ provided by cup-product with the fundamental class in $H^2(k'/k,C_{k'})$, to see that the same cup-product gives an isomorphism $$\widehat{\mathbb{H}}^{i-1}(k'/k,\pi_1(H)) {\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}\widehat{\mathbb{H}}^{i+1}(k'/k,H_{{\mathbf{ab}}}(C_{k'})).$$
Finally, the two maps (\[eq:H\^0\_H\^-1\]) become isomorphisms if the degree $[k':k]$ is sufficiently large [@Milne92 Prop.B.4].
\[prop:triviality\_in\_comp\_gp\] Suppose that $(G,X)$ is a Shimura datum of abelian type [@Milne94].
\(1) For any semi-simple element $\epsilon\in G({\mathbb Q})$ with centralizer $G_{\epsilon}$, we have $$\label{eq:trivaility_of_Sha^{infty,p}}
\Sha^{\infty,p}({\mathbb Q},\pi_0(G_{\epsilon})):=\ker[H^1({\mathbb Q},\pi_0(G_{\epsilon}))\rightarrow \prod_{v\neq\infty,p}H^1({{\mathbb Q}_v},\pi_0(G_{\epsilon}))]=0.$$
\(2) If two stable Kottwitz triples are (geometrically) equivalent, they are also stably equivalent.
\(1) For a general connected reductive group $G$, the finite ${\mathbb Q}$-group $\pi_0(G_{\epsilon})=G_{\epsilon}/G_{\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}}$ is canonically isomorphic to a subgroup $C_{\epsilon}$ of $\ker(\rho)(\subset Z(G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}))$ (for the canonical morphism $\rho:G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}\rightarrow G^{{\mathrm{der}}}\hookrightarrow G$) [@Kottwitz82 Lem. 4.5]. To prove the statement, we will use an explicit information on the possible ${\mathbb Q}$-groups for $\pi_0(G_{\epsilon})$ when $G$ comes from an abelian-type Shimura datum $(G,X)$.
We first show that when $G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}=\prod_{i\in I} G_i$ is the decomposition into simple factors, there exist subgroups $U_i\subset Z(G_i)\ (i\in I)$ such that $\pi_0(G_{\epsilon})=\prod_{i\in I}U_i$. For this, we choose $y\in G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$ and $z\in Z(G)$ be such that $\epsilon=\rho(y)z$, and consider the map $\theta:G_{\epsilon}\rightarrow \ker(\rho)$ defined by $\theta(g)=hyh^{-1}y^{-1}$, where $h\in G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$ is any element whose image in $G^{{\mathrm{ad}}}$ is the same as that of $g$. Then one knows (*loc. cit.*) that $\theta(g)$ is independent of the choice of $y$ and $h$, and $\theta: G_{\epsilon}\rightarrow \ker(\rho)$ is a homomorphism with $\ker(\theta)=G_{\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}}$. We have $\rho^{-1}(G_{\epsilon})=\{h\in G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}\ |\ hyhy^{-1}\in \ker(\rho)\}$ and ${\mathrm{im}}(\theta)=\{ hyhy^{-1}\ |\ h\in \rho^{-1}(G_{\epsilon})\}$. If $C_i\ (i\in I)$ denotes the projection to $G_i$ of $\ker(\rho)$, it is clear that $\rho^{-1}(G_{\epsilon})=\prod_{i\in I}\{h_i\in G_i\ |\ h_iy_ih_iy_i^{-1}\in C_i\}$, where $y_i\in G_i\ (i\in I)$ is the $i$-th component of $y$, from which the claim follows.
Next, when $G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}=\prod_{i\in I} G_i$ as above, we have $Z(G^{{\mathrm{sc}}})=\prod_{i\in I}{\mathrm{Res}}_{F_i/{\mathbb Q}}Z_i$, where $Z_i$ is the center of some absolutely simple (simply-connected) group over a number field $F_i$; each $F_i$ is a totally real field as $(G,X)$ is a Shimura datum [@Deligne79]. For abelian-type Shimura datum $(G,X)$, Satake classified such $Z_i$’s [@Satake67 $\S$5], [@Satake80 Appendix] (cf. [@Lee12 Prop.2.6]): if $Z$, $F$ are $Z_i$, $F_i$ for some $i\in I$, $$\label{eq:simple_factors_abelian_type}
Z = \begin{cases}
V_{E/F,N}:=\{x\in E^{\times}\ |\ {\mathrm{N}}_{E/F}(x)=1,\ x^N=1\} & \text{ if } G_i \text{ is of Lie type } A,\ D,\\
\qquad \mu_2 & \text{ if } G_i \text{ is of Lie type } B,\ C,\\
\quad \mu_2\times\mu_2,\quad \mu_4,\quad {\mathrm{Res}}_{E/F}\mu_2 & \text{ if } G_i \text{ is of Lie type } D,
\end{cases}$$ Here, in the first and the third cases, $E/F$ is a quadratic extension (in the type $A$ case, $E/F$ is a CM-field with its totally real subfield of index $2$). One can readily check that any subgroup of ${\mathrm{Res}}_{F/{\mathbb Q}}Z$ (in particular, each $U_i$ in $\pi_0(G_{\epsilon})=\prod_{i\in I}U_i$) is the Weil restriction to ${\mathbb Q}$ of either again a group of the same kind in this list or $\mu_n$ (over a number field) for some $n\in{\mathbb N}$. Then, to prove (\[eq:trivaility\_of\_Sha\^[infty,p]{}\]), it suffices to establish the same statement for any such finite ${\mathbb Q}$-group $U$. This follows from the observation that for such $U$, there exists a finite place $l\neq p$ of ${\mathbb Q}$ such that the map $H^1({\mathbb Q},U)\rightarrow H^1({{\mathbb Q}_l},U)$ is injective. Indeed, each such $U$ equals ${\mathrm{Res}}_{K/{\mathbb Q}}V$, where $K$ is a number field and $V$ is a finite $K$-group whose splitting field $K'$ is abelian over $K$ (more precisely, $V$ is either $\mu_n$ or $\mu_2\times\mu_2$ or $V_{E/K,N}$ in (\[eq:simple\_factors\_abelian\_type\])). Hence, there exists a finite place $v$ of $K$ not dividing $p$ that remains prime in $K'$ (by Cebotarev density theorem) so that $H^1(K,V){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}H^1(K_v,V)$; or for $\mu_n$, one can appeal to the stronger fact [@NSW08 Thm.9.1.9] (one applies the case (ii) with $S$ being the set of all places and $T=S\backslash \{\infty,p\}$, by noting that the “special case” there cannot occur in our situation).
\(2) Suppose that two stable Kottwitz triples $(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$, $(\gamma_0';\gamma',\delta')$ are (geometrically) equivalent, and choose $g\in G({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ such that $\gamma_0'=g\gamma_0g^{-1}$. Then the cohomology class in $H^1({\mathbb Q},\pi_0(G_{\gamma_0}))$ of the cocycle $g^{-1}\cdot{}^{\tau}g\in Z^1({\mathbb Q},G_{\gamma_0})$ lies in $\Sha^{\infty,p}({\mathbb Q},\pi_0(G_{\epsilon}))$, so is trivial by (1), which amounts to saying that $g_0$ and $g_0'$ are stably conjugate.
\[lem:isom\_of\_H\^1(Ql)\_of\_inner-twist\] Let $G$ be a connected reductive group over a field $k$ such that $H^1(k,H)=\{1\}$ for every simply-connected semi-simple $k$-group $H$. Let $\epsilon, \epsilon'\in G(k)$ be elements which are stably conjugate. Put $I_0:=G_{\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}}$ and $I_0':=G_{\epsilon'}^{\mathrm{o}}$. If $g\in G(\bar{k})$ satisfies that $\epsilon'=\Int(g)(\epsilon)$ and $g^{-1}\cdot{}^{\tau}g\in Z^1(k,I_0)$ for every $\tau\in{\mathrm{Gal}}(\bar{k}/k)$, $\Int(g)$ induces isomorphisms $$H^1(k,I_0){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}H^1(k,I_0'),\quad H^1(k,G_{\epsilon}){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}H^1(k,G_{\epsilon'}).$$
Note that $I_0$ and $I_0'$ are inner-twists of each other and $\Int(g)$ induces a $k$-isomorphism $\pi_0(G_{\epsilon}){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}\pi_0(G_{\epsilon'})$. In particular, we have an isomorphism $(Z(I_0^{{\mathrm{sc}}})\rightarrow Z(I_0)){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}(Z(I_0'^{{\mathrm{sc}}})\rightarrow Z(I_0'))$ of crossed modules of algebraic groups. Considering the maps induced by $\Int(g)$ between the exact sequence of Galois cohomology groups $1=H^1(k,I_0^{{\mathrm{sc}}}) \rightarrow H^1(k,I_0) \rightarrow \mathbb{H}^{i}(k,Z(I_0^{{\mathrm{sc}}})\rightarrow Z(I_0))$ to its analogue for $\epsilon'$, we see that $\Int(g)$ gives an isomorphism (of abelian groups) $H^1(k,I_0){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}H^1(k,I_0')$. Then, it is easy to deduce the second isomorphism by examining the maps induced by $\Int(g)$ between the exact sequence $$\cdots\rightarrow H^0(k,\pi_0(G_{\epsilon})) \rightarrow H^1(k,I_0) \rightarrow H^1(k,G_{\epsilon}) \rightarrow H^1(k,\pi_0(G_{\epsilon}))$$ and its analogue for $\epsilon'$.
Following Kisin [@Kisin17 (4.4)], we introduce some Galois cohomology notations. For a crossed module of algebraic ${\mathbb Q}$-groups $H'\rightarrow H$, we set $$\label{eq:Sha^{infty}}
\Sha^{\infty}({\mathbb Q},H'\rightarrow H)=\ker\left[H^1({\mathbb Q},H'\rightarrow H)\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb R},H'\rightarrow H)\right].$$ When $H$ is a *connected* reductive ${\mathbb Q}$-group, the natural map $$\Sha^{\infty}({\mathbb Q},H):=\Sha^{\infty}({\mathbb Q},\{e\}\rightarrow H)\ \rightarrow\ \Sha^{\infty}({\mathbb Q},H^{{\mathrm{sc}}}\rightarrow H)$$ is a bijection, thus $\Sha^{\infty}({\mathbb Q},H)$ is an abelian group in a natural way. For a general *${\mathbb Q}$-subgroup* $H$ of $G$, we introduce a pointed set $$\Sha^{\infty}_G({\mathbb Q},H):=\ker\left[ \Sha^{\infty}({\mathbb Q},H) \rightarrow \Sha^{\infty}({\mathbb Q},G)\right].$$ If $H$ is connected, by the above fact this is an abelian group. We also define $\Sha^{\infty}_G({\mathbb Q},H_1)$ for an inner-twist $H_1$ of a *connected* reductive subgroup $H$ of $G$ as follows. Let $I_0$ be a *connected* reductive ${\mathbb Q}$-subgroup of $G$ and $I_1$ an inner twist of $I_0$. Then, we define $$\label{eq:Sha^{infty}_G}
\Sha^{\infty}_G({\mathbb Q},I_1):=\ker\left[ \Sha^{\infty}({\mathbb Q},I_1){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}\Sha^{\infty}({\mathbb Q},I_0) \rightarrow \Sha^{\infty}({\mathbb Q},G)\right],$$ where the isomorphism $\Sha^{\infty}({\mathbb Q},I_1){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}\Sha^{\infty}({\mathbb Q},I_0)$ arises from the canonical isomorphisms (see the proof of Lemma \[lem:abelianization\_exact\_seq\], cf. [@Kisin17 Lem.4.4.3]): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Kisin17_Lem.4.4.3}
\Sha^{\infty}({\mathbb Q},I_1){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}\Sha^{\infty}({\mathbb Q},I_{1{\mathbf{ab}}}) {\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}\Sha^{\infty}({\mathbb Q},I_{0{\mathbf{ab}}}){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}\Sha^{\infty}({\mathbb Q},I_0)\end{aligned}$$
The first statement of the next theorem is the effectivity criterion of Kottwitz triple alluded before.
\[thm:LR-Satz5.25\] Keep the assumptions of Theorem \[thm:LR-Satz5.21\]. Let $(\gamma_0;\gamma=(\gamma_l)_{l\neq p},\delta)$ be a stable Kottwitz triple with trivial Kottwitz invariant. Suppose that one of the following two conditions holds: (a) $Z(G)$ has same ranks over ${\mathbb Q}$ and ${\mathbb R}$, or (b) the weight homomorphism $w_X$ is rational and $\gamma_0$ is a Weil $p^n$-element of weight $-w_X$, where $n$ is the level of $(\gamma_0;(\gamma_l)_{l\neq p},\delta)$ (cf. Prop. \[prop:phi(delta)=gamma\_0\_up\_to\_center\]).
If $Y_p(\delta)\neq \emptyset$ (\[eq:Y\_p(delta)\]), the Kottwitz triple $(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$ is *effective*, that is, there exists an admissible pair $(\phi,\epsilon)$ giving rise to it. In this case, the number $i(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$ of non-equivalent admissible pairs giving rise to the triple $(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$ equals the cardinality of the set $$\begin{aligned}
\Sha_G({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi,\epsilon})^+
&:={\mathrm{im}}\left[ \widetilde{\Sha}_G({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi,\epsilon})^+ \rightarrow H^1({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi,\epsilon}) \right]\end{aligned}$$ for *any* such admissible pair $(\phi,\epsilon)$ (giving rise to the triple), where $I_{\phi,\epsilon}$ denotes the centralizer of $\epsilon$ in $I_{\phi}$ and $\widetilde{\Sha}_G({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi,\epsilon})^+:=\ker[\Sha^{\infty}_G({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}})\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb A},I_{\phi,\epsilon})]$.
Recall that “having trivial Kottwitz invariant” is our shortened expression for the condition that there exist elements $(g_v)_v\in G(\bar{{\mathbb A}}_f^p)\times G({\mathfrak{k}})$ satisfying conditions (\[eq:stable\_g\_l\]), (\[eq:stable\_g\_l\]) such that the associated Kottwitz invariant $\alpha(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta;(g_v)_v)$ vanishes.
\[rem:LR-Satz5.25\] (1) *By this theorem*, we see that the number $|\Sha_G({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi,\epsilon})^+|$, being equal to $i(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$, depends only on the effective Kottwitz triple $(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$, not on the choice of an admissible pair giving rise to it. When $G_{\gamma_0}$ is connected so that $I_{\phi,\epsilon}$ is also connected (see below for why), the set $\Sha_G({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi,\epsilon})^+$ is identical to the group denoted by $\Sha_G({\mathbb Q},G_{\gamma_0})$ in [@Kisin17] or to the set appearing in [@LR87 Lem. 5.24] if $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$. For this set, one knows that it is a finite abelian group, depends only on $\gamma_0$, and remains invariant under inner twist of $G_{\gamma_0}$, but in the general case the author does not know either of these facts for our set $\Sha_G({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi,\epsilon})^+$ (except for finiteness which follows indirectly from its appearance in the formula in Thm. \[thm:Kottwitz\_formula:Kisin\]).
\(2) Compare this theorem with Satz 5.25 of [@LR87] which asserts (in the case where the level is hyperspecial and $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$) that a Kottwitz triple with trivial Kottwitz invariant is effective if the condition $\ast(\epsilon)$ holds. Our condition $Y_p(\delta)\neq \emptyset$ is more natural and is what one really needs. Indeed, according to Remark \[rem:admissible\_pair\] (and the discussion in the introduction), Langlands-Rapoport conjecture implies that the cardinality of the set ${\mathscr{S}}_{{\mathbf{K}}}({\mathbb F}_{q^m})$ (for each $m\in{\mathbb N}$) is a sum of certain quantities, the sum being over all *effective* Kottwtiz triples (up to equivalence) with trivial Kottwitz invariant (or over the Kottwitz triples satisfying condition $\ast(\epsilon)$ with trivial Kottwitz invariant if one resorts to [@LR87 Satz5.25]). But, since one easily sees that $Y_p(\delta)\neq \emptyset$ when the corresponding summand is non-zero, the effectivity criterion of Kottwitz triple (Theorem \[thm:LR-Satz5.25\]) tells us that in the summation one may as well take simply *all* Kottwitz triples with trivial Kottwitz invariant (see Theorem \[thm:Kottwitz\_formula:LR\] and its proof).
By Theorem \[thm:LR-Satz5.21\], there exists an admissible pair $(\phi_1,\epsilon)$ that is nested in a special Shimura sub-datum $(T,h)$, i.e. $\phi_1=\psi_{T,\mu_h}$ and $\epsilon\in T({\mathbb Q})$ (and satisfies condition $(\heartsuit)$) and also such that $\epsilon$ is stably conjugate to $\gamma_0$; thus we may assume that $\gamma_0=\epsilon$. Then, the restriction of $\phi_1$ to the kernel of ${\mathfrak{P}}$ is determined by $\epsilon$ alone, and its image ${\mathrm{im}}(\phi_1^{\Delta})$ lies in the center of $G_{\epsilon}$. Indeed, if $T_{\epsilon}$ is the ${\mathbb Q}$-subgroup of $G$ generated by $\epsilon\in G({\mathbb Q})$ and $(\pi_0,t)$ are the elements of $T_{\epsilon}({\mathbb Q})$ determined by $\epsilon$ as in Prop. \[prop:canonical\_decomp\_of\_epsilon\] (for some $s\in{\mathbb N}$), we have $\phi_1^{\Delta}(\delta_k)=\pi_0^{k/n}\in T_{\epsilon}({\mathbb Q})$ for any sufficiently large $k$ (Prop. \[prop:phi(delta)=gamma\_0\_up\_to\_center\]). Hence, one can twist $G_{\epsilon}$ and $G_{\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}}$ via $\phi_1$ (they are the inner twists of these groups by the cocycle $(g_{\rho}^{{\mathrm{ad}}})_{\rho}\in Z^1({\mathbb Q},(G_{\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}})^{{\mathrm{ad}}})$, where $\phi(q_{\rho})=g_{\rho} \rho$ and $g_{\rho}^{{\mathrm{ad}}}$ is the image of $g_{\rho}$ in $(G_{\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}})^{{\mathrm{ad}}}$. Clearly, the resulting twist of $G_{\epsilon}$ equals $I_{\phi_1,\epsilon}$ (recall that $I_{\phi_1}$ itself is the twist of $I_{\phi_1^{\Delta}}:=Z_G({\mathrm{im}}(\phi_1^{\Delta}))$ via $\phi_1$, cf. (\[eq:inner-twisting\_by\_phi\])). We also see that if $G_{\gamma_0}$ is connected, so is $I_{\phi_1,\epsilon}$.
The next step in the proof is to modify $\phi_1$ using a suitable cocycle in $Z^1({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi_1,\epsilon})$, to get a new admissible morphism $\phi$ such that $(\phi,\epsilon)$ becomes an admissible pair which produces the given Kottwitz triple $(\gamma_0;(\gamma_l)_{l\neq p},\delta)$. By construction, this modification (of an admissible morphism $\phi_1$ by a cocycle in $Z^1({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi_1,\epsilon})$) does not change the restriction of $\phi_1$ to the kernel; in particular, we still have $\epsilon\in \mathrm{Aut}(\phi)$. Under the assumption $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$, such modification was carried out in the proof of Satz 5.25 in [@LR87] and this part of that proof does not require any condition on the level subgroup. In the next lemma, we provide its generalization that works without the restriction $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$.
\[lem:LR-Lem5.26,Satz5.25\] Let $(\phi_1,\epsilon)$ be a well-located admissible pair. Let $I_1$ (resp. $H_1$) be the twist of $I_0:=G_{\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}}$ (resp. of $H_0:=G_{\epsilon}$) by $\phi_1$ (i.e. $H_1=I_{\phi_1,\epsilon}$ and $I_1=I_{\phi_1,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}}$).
\(1) For any cochain $a=\{a_{\sigma}\}$ on ${\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb Q}}/{\mathbb Q})$ with values in $H_0({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$, the map $\phi:{\mathfrak{P}}\rightarrow{\mathfrak{G}}_G$ defined by $\phi|_P=\phi_1|_P$ and $\phi(q_{\rho})=a_{\rho}\phi_1(q_{\rho})$ is a morphism of Galois gerbs over ${\mathbb Q}$ if and only if $a$ is a cocycle in $Z^1({\mathbb Q},H_1)$; in this case, we write $\phi=a\phi_1$.
\(2) For $a\in Z^1({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi_1})$, the morphism $\phi=a\phi_1$ is admissible if and only if its cohomology class $[a]\in H^1({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi_1})$ lies in $$\label{eq:Sha^{infty}_G}
\Sha^{\infty}_G({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi_1}):=\ker[\Sha^{\infty}({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi_1}){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}\Sha^{\infty}({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi_1^{\Delta}})
\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb Q},G_{{\mathbf{ab}}})],$$ where $I_{\phi_1^{\Delta}}:=Z_G({\mathrm{im}}(\phi_1^{\Delta}))$, the isomorphism $\Sha^{\infty}({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi_1}){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}\Sha^{\infty}({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi_1^{\Delta}})$ is (\[eq:Kisin17\_Lem.4.4.3\]) and the map $H^1({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi_1^{\Delta}})\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb Q},G_{{\mathbf{ab}}})$ is (\[eq:abelianization\_from\_Levi\]).
If $a\in Z^1({\mathbb Q},H_1)$, the morphism $\phi=a\phi_1$ is admissible if and only if the class $[a]\in H^1({\mathbb Q},H_1)$ lies in the subset $$\label{eq:Sha^{infty}_G'}
\Sha^{\infty}_G({\mathbb Q},H_1):=\ker[H^1({\mathbb Q},H_1)\rightarrow H^1_{{\mathrm{ab}}}({\mathbb Q},G)\oplus H^1({\mathbb R},G')],$$ where $G'$ is the inner form of $G_{{\mathbb R}}$ defined by $\phi_1(\infty)\circ\zeta_{\infty}$ (so $(G')^{{\mathrm{ad}}}$ is compact and $(I_{\phi_1})_{{\mathbb R}}$ is a subgroup of $G'$ in a natural way). In this case, the pair $(\phi=a\phi_1,\epsilon)$ is admissible if moreover the localization $a(p)\in Z^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},H_1)$ lies in $Z^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},I_1)$ and property $(\heartsuit)$ of Thm. \[thm:LR-Satz5.21\] holds for $(\phi_1,\epsilon)$; then the admissible pair $(\phi,\epsilon)$ also enjoys the property $(\heartsuit)$.
\(3) For any $a\in \Sha_G({\mathbb Q},H_1)^+$, the admissible pairs $(\phi_1,\epsilon)$, $(a\phi_1,\epsilon)$ have equivalent associated Kottwitz triples.
\(4) If $(\epsilon;\gamma=(\gamma_l),\delta)$ is a stable Kottwitz triple with trivial Kottwitz invariant, there exists a cocycle $a=\{a_{\sigma}\}\in Z^1({\mathbb Q},I_1)$ such that the pair $(\phi=a\phi_1,\epsilon)$ is an admissible pair giving rise to $(\epsilon,(\gamma_l),\delta)$.
When $H_1$ is connected (i.e. $H_1=I_1$), as $\ker[H^1({\mathbb R},I_1)\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb R},G')]=0$ [@LR87 Lem. 5.14, 5.28], the set (\[eq:Sha\^[infty]{}\_G’\]) becomes $\Sha^{\infty}_G({\mathbb Q},I_1)$ (\[eq:Sha\^[infty]{}\_G\]), which is known to be an abelian group [@Kisin17 4.4.2].
\(1) This is a straightforward verification: the cocycle condition (for the ${\mathbb Q}$-structure of $H_1$) amounts to $\phi:{\mathfrak{P}}\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}_G$ being a group homomorphism.
\(2) This statement is Lemma 5.26 of [@LR87] under the assumption $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$ (so that $I_0=H_0$ and $I_1=H_1$, and $H^1({\mathbb Q},G^{{\mathrm{ab}}})$ is used instead of $H^1_{{\mathrm{ab}}}({\mathbb Q},G)=H^1({\mathbb Q},G_{{\mathbf{ab}}})$).[^32] We adapt its proof (on p196, line -14, *loc. cit.*). Note that $H_1$ is a ${\mathbb Q}$-subgroup of $I_{\phi_1}$ (as both are twists of $G_{\epsilon}\subset Z_G(\phi_1^{\Delta})$ via $\phi_1$). Set $\tilde{I}_{\phi_1^{\Delta}}:=\rho^{-1}(I_{\phi_1^{\Delta}})$, where $\rho:G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}\rightarrow G$ is the canonical morphism.
First, by Lemma \[lem:abelianization\_exact\_seq\] (applied to the twist $\tilde{I}_{\phi_1}\rightarrow I_{\phi_1}$ of $\tilde{I}_{\phi_1^{\Delta}}\rightarrow I_{\phi_1^{\Delta}}$ via $\phi_1$), the triviality of the image of $[a]$ in $H^1_{{\mathrm{ab}}}({\mathbb Q},G)$ is the same as that $[a]\in{\mathrm{im}}(H^1({\mathbb Q},\tilde{I}_{\phi_1})\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi_1}))$ (and also the same as that $[a]\in{\mathrm{im}}(H^1({\mathbb Q},\tilde{H}_1)\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb Q},H_1))$ if $[a]\in H^1({\mathbb Q},H_1)$). By Lemma \[lem:isom\_of\_monoidal\_functors\_into\_croseed\_modules\], this condition is equivalent to the condition that $\phi_{\widetilde{{\mathrm{ab}}}}$ is conjugate-isomorphic to $\psi_{\mu_{\widetilde{{\mathrm{ab}}}}}$, i.e. to condition (1) of Def. \[defn:admissible\_morphism\] for $\phi=a\phi_1$.
Secondly, it is easy to see that $\phi(\infty)\circ\zeta_{\infty}$ is conjugate to $\xi_{\infty}$ if and only if the image of $[a]\in H^1({\mathbb R},I_{\phi_1})$ in $H^1({\mathbb R},G')$ is trivial. We note that since $I_{\phi_1}$ is connected, the natural map $H^1({\mathbb R},I_{\phi_1})\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb R},G')$ is injective [@LR87 Lem. 5.14, 5.28], [@Kisin17 Lem. 4.4.5].
Next, we show that for $a\in \Sha^{\infty}_G({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi_1})$, the morphism $\phi=a\phi_1$ is already admissible: we have to check the remaining conditions (2), (3) of Def. \[defn:admissible\_morphism\]. We fix $(g_l)_{l\neq p}\in X^p(\phi_1)$; then, for each finite $l\neq p$, one has $g_l^{-1}\phi_1(P({{\mathbb Q}_l}))g_l\in G({{\mathbb Q}_l})$ as $g_l^{-1}\phi_1(P({{\mathbb Q}_l}))g_l$ commutes with $g_l^{-1}\phi_1(q_{\rho})g_l=\rho$ for all $\rho\in\Gamma_l$. Set $I_l:=Z_{G_{{{\mathbb Q}_l}}}(\Int(g_l^{-1})\circ\phi_1^{\Delta})\subset G_{{{\mathbb Q}_l}}$. Then, as $I_{\phi_1}$ is the inner twist of $I_{\phi_1^{\Delta}}$ by $\phi_1$ (i.e. for $g\in I_{\phi_1}({\overline{\mathbb Q}})=I_{\phi_1^{\Delta}}({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ and $\rho\in{\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb Q}}/{\mathbb Q})$, $\rho(g)=\phi_1(q_{\rho})g \phi_1(q_{\rho})^{-1}$) and $g_l^{-1}I_{\phi_1^{\Delta}}g_l=I_l$ is a ${{\mathbb Q}_l}$-group, $\Int(g_l^{-1})$ induces a ${{\mathbb Q}_l}$-isomorphism from $(I_{\phi_1})_{{{\mathbb Q}_l}}$ to the inner twist of $I_l$ via the canonical trivialization $\Int(g_l^{-1})\circ \phi_1(l)\circ\zeta_l=\xi_l$, i.e. to $I_l$ itself. Since the image of $[a]$ in $H^1_{{\mathrm{ab}}}({\mathbb Q},G)$ is trivial by assumption and $H^1({{\mathbb Q}_l},G^{{\mathrm{sc}}})=\{1\}$, the localization of $a(l)$ at $l$ satisfies $$[a(l)]\in \ker[H^1({{\mathbb Q}_l},I_{\phi_1}){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}H^1({{\mathbb Q}_l},I_l)\rightarrow H^1({{\mathbb Q}_l},G)].$$ Then, for any $h_l\in G({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_l})$ such that $g_l^{-1}a_{\tau}g_l=h_l\cdot{}^{\tau}h_l^{-1}\in I_l$ for $\tau\in\Gamma_l$, one has $g_lh_l\in X^p(\phi)$. Further, by a similar argument it is easy to see that when $a\in Z^1({\mathbb Q},H_1)$ (not just in $Z^1({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi_1})$), the pair $(\phi,\epsilon\in I_{\phi}({\mathbb Q}))$ satisfies condition (3) of admissible pair for every finite place $l\neq p$ (Def. \[defn:admissible\_pair\]).
At $p$, if $H$ denotes the centralizer (in $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$) of the maximal ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-split torus in the center of $G_{\epsilon}$ and $\xi_p:=\phi_1(p)\circ\zeta_p$, then $\xi_p^{\Delta}$ maps into the center of $H$ by Prop. \[prop:canonical\_decomp\_of\_epsilon\], (3), and thus we have $$\label{eq:H_centralizes_J_0,epsilon}
(G_{\epsilon})_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}\subset H\subset J:=Z_{G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}}(\xi_p^{\Delta}).$$ In particular, we can twist both $\tilde{H}:=\rho^{-1}(H)$ and $\tilde{J}:=\rho^{-1}(J)$ via $\xi_p$ to obtain $\tilde{H}_{\xi_p}$ and $\tilde{J}_{\xi_p}$. Then, we claim that $$H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},\tilde{H}_{\xi_p})=H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},\tilde{J}_{\xi_p})=\{1\}.$$ Of course, since $\tilde{H}$ and $\tilde{J}$ are connected reductive groups over a $p$-adic local field, this is equivalent to vanishing of $H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},\tilde{H})$ and $H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},\tilde{J})$. The latter is proved in the discussion proceeding Lemma 5.18 of [@LR87] when $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$, and the same argument works in our case, so we will just give a sketch of the proof for $H$ only. Let $A$ be the connected center of $H\cap G^{{\mathrm{der}}}_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ (a split ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-torus) and $T\subset G^{{\mathrm{der}}}_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ the centralizer of a maximal ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-split torus of $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ containing $A$. The simple roots $\alpha_1,\cdots,\alpha_s$ of $T$ in $G$ can be divided into two sets, the roots $\alpha_1,\cdots,\alpha_r$ of $T$ in $H$ and the others $\alpha_{r+1},\cdots,\alpha_s$. Let $\{\omega_1,\cdots,\omega_s\}$ be the corresponding fundamental weights which form a basis of $X^{\ast}(\tilde{T})$ for $\tilde{T}=\rho^{-1}(T)$, and $R\subset \tilde{T}$ be the kernel of $\{\omega_1,\cdots,\omega_r\}$. Note that $R$ is an induced torus since the basis $\{\omega_{r+1},\cdots,\omega_s\}$ of $X^{\ast}(R)$ is permuted under the canonical action of ${\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p})$ which equals the naive action as $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is quasi-split. Now, the claim follows from the fact that $\tilde{H}$ is the semi-direct product of a simply connected semi-simple group over ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$ (i.e. $H^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$) and $R$. We can find $f_{1p}\in X_p(\phi_1)\cap J({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ so that $\xi_p':=\Int(f_{1p}^{-1})\circ\xi_p$ is an unramified morphism. Indeed, clearly it suffices to show this for any conjugate of $\xi_p$ that is well-located. So we may assume that $\phi_1$ is special admissible, in which case the claim is established in the proof of Lemma \[lem:LR-Lemma5.2\]. Let $\tilde{J}_{\xi_p'}$ be the twist of $\tilde{J}$ by $\xi_p'$. By the same argument as above, we have $H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},\tilde{J}_{\xi_p'})=\{1\}$. Therefore, there exists $h_p\in \tilde{J}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ such that for $\tau\in{\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p})$, $$\label{eq:a_{tau}'}
a_{\tau}':=f_{1p}^{-1}a_{\tau}f_{1p}=h_p\cdot \xi_p'(s_{\tau})h_p^{-1}\xi_p'(s_{\tau})^{-1}.$$ (Here and in the rest of proof, we write $h_p$ for $\rho(h_p)$ when there is no danger of confusion). Then, for $f_{p}:=f_{1p} h_p$, as $\phi(p)\circ\zeta_p=a\xi_p$, we have $$\Int(f_{p}^{-1})\circ\phi(p)\circ\zeta_p(s_{\tau})=\xi_p'(s_{\tau})h_p^{-1}\xi_p'(s_{\tau})^{-1}h_p\cdot\Int(h_p^{-1})\circ\xi_p'(s_{\tau})=\xi_p'(s_{\tau})$$ which shows that $\phi$ is an admissible morphism and $f_{p}\in X_p(\phi)$. This proves the claims in (2) on admissibility of $\phi=a\phi_1$ in the two cases $a\in Z^1({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi_1})$, $a\in Z^1({\mathbb Q},H_1)$.
Now, we consider the case that $a\in Z^1({\mathbb Q},H_1)$ and its class in $H^1({\mathbb Q},H_1)$ lies in the subset $\Sha^{\infty}_G({\mathbb Q},H_1)$ (\[eq:Sha\^[infty]{}\_G’\]). We furthermore assume that the localization $a(p)\in Z^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},H_1)$ lies in $Z^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},I_1)$ and property $(\heartsuit)$ of Thm. \[thm:LR-Satz5.21\] holds for $(\phi_1,\epsilon)$. Then, since $H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}},I_1)=\{1\}$, we may assume (by replacing $a(p)$ with a cohomologous one) that $a(p)\in Z^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},I_1)$ is unramified, i.e. $a_{\tau}$ is induced from a normalized cocycle in $Z^1(L_{n'},I_1)$ for some $n'\in{\mathbb N}$.
We choose $f_{1p}$ from $H({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ such that $\xi_p':=\Int(f_{1p}^{-1})\circ\xi_p$ is an unramified morphism, and define $\xi_p'$, $h_p$, $f_{p}\in H({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ by the same recipe as before from this $f_{1p}$ (using that $H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},\tilde{H}_{\xi_p})=\{1\}$); then, since both $\xi_p'$ and $a'_{\tau}$ are unramified, we must have $h_p\in \tilde{H}({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$. Also, we set $$\epsilon_1':=\Int(f_{1p}^{-1})(\epsilon),\quad \epsilon':=\Int(f_{p}^{-1})(\epsilon)=\Int(h_p^{-1})(\epsilon_1');$$ then, $\epsilon_1',\epsilon'$ are elements of $H({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$ (as they centralize unramified morphisms of ${\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerbs) which are conjugate under $H({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$. Then for any lifting $\tilde{\sigma}\in {\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p})$ of the Frobenius automorphism $\sigma\in {\mathrm{Gal}}({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\mathbb Q}_p})$, by admissibility of $(\phi_1,\epsilon)$ there exists $c_1\in H({\mathfrak{k}})$ such that $$\label{eq:c_1}
c_1(\epsilon_1'^{-1}\xi_p'(s_{\tilde{\sigma}})^n)c_1^{-1}=\tilde{\sigma}^n$$ (as $\xi_p'$ is unramified, it is the inflation of a ${{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerb morphism $\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}$ and we have $\xi_p'(s_{\tilde{\sigma}})=\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}(s_{\sigma})$). Let $\xi_p'(s_{\tilde{\sigma}})^n=b_n\rtimes\tilde{\sigma}^n$ with $b_n\in H({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$. Then, it follows from the existence of $c_1\in H({\mathfrak{k}})$ satisfying (\[eq:c\_1\]) that $w_H(\epsilon_1')=w_H(b_n)$. Since $\epsilon'$ is conjugate to $\epsilon_1'$ under $H({\mathfrak{k}})$, we also have $w_H(\epsilon')=w_H(b_n)$. If we can show that for any neighborhood $V$ of the identity in $H({\mathfrak{k}})$, there exists $t\in{\mathbb N}$ such that $(\epsilon'^{-1}\xi_p'(s_{\tilde{\sigma}})^n)^t\in V\rtimes\tilde{\sigma}^{nt}$, then, we can repeat the arguments of the proof of Thm. \[thm:LR-Satz5.21\], (2), to conclude that $(\phi,\epsilon)$ is an admissible pair which again enjoys the property $(\heartsuit)$.
As $a\in Z^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},H_{\xi_p})$, for every $\tau\in {\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p})$ and any $n'\in{\mathbb N}$, we have $$(a_{\tau}'\xi_p'(s_{\tau}))^{n'}=a_{\tau^{n'}}'\xi_p'(s_{\tau})^{n'},$$ thus as both $a_{\tau}'$ and $\xi_p'$ commute with $\epsilon_1'$ and as $a_{\tau}'$ is unramified, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:epsilon'{-1}xi'{n}}
(\epsilon'^{-1}\xi_p'(s_{\tilde{\sigma}})^{n})^t &\stackrel{}{=} h_p^{-1}\epsilon_1'^{-t}(h_p\xi_p'(s_{\tilde{\sigma}})h_p^{-1})^{nt}h_p =h_p^{-1}\epsilon_1'^{-t}(a_{\tilde{\sigma}}'\xi_p'(s_{\tilde{\sigma}}))^{nt}h_p \\ &\stackrel{}{=} h_p^{-1} a_{\sigma^{nt}}'(\epsilon_1'^{-1}\xi_p'(s_{\tilde{\sigma}})^{n})^th_p \nonumber. \end{aligned}$$ So, for $t\gg1$ with $a\in Z^1(L_{nt}/{{\mathbb Q}_p},I_1)$, $(\epsilon'^{-1}\xi_p'(s_{\tilde{\sigma}})^{n})^t=(c_1h_p)^{-1}\sigma^{nt}(c_1h_p)$ lies in any given neighborhood of the identity in $H({\mathfrak{k}})$, as was required.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Proofs of (3) and (4)</span>. Under the assumption $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$, this claim is established in the proof of Satz 5.25 of [@LR87] (more precisely, in the part from the third paragraph on p.195 to the end of the proof). This argument again carries over to our general case if one works systematically with $\tilde{I}_0$, $\tilde{I}_1$, and the abelianized cohomology groups $H^1_{{\mathrm{ab}}}(k,H(C_k))$, instead of, respectively, $I_0\cap G^{{\mathrm{der}}}$, its twist via $\phi_1$, and the groups $\pi_0(Z(\widehat{H})^{{\mathrm{Gal}}(\bar{k}/k)})^D$ (where $H$ is some reductive group over a field $k$, either global or local). As the original proof is quite sketchy and our general setting requires careful modifications of the original arguments, again we give a detailed proof.
Let $(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$ be a stable Kottwitz triple such that there exist elements $(g_v)_v\in G(\bar{{\mathbb A}}_f^p)\times G({\mathfrak{k}})$ satisfying (\[eq:stable\_g\_l\]), (iii$'$) which gives trivial Kottwitz invariant, and that $\delta$ satisfies $Y_p(\delta)\neq\emptyset$. First, we look for an admissible pair $(\phi,\epsilon)$ giving rise to $(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$. By Thm. \[thm:LR-Satz5.21\], after replacing $\gamma_0$ by a rational element stably conjugate to it, we can find an admissible pair $(\phi_1=\psi_{T,\mu_h},\gamma_0\in T({\mathbb Q}))$ that is nested in a special Shimura sub-datum $(T,h)$ and satisfies the condition $(\heartsuit)$ there. Then there exists a stable Kottwitz triple $(\gamma_0;\gamma_1,\delta_1)$ attached to this special admissible pair $(\phi_1,\gamma_0)$ such that for every $l\neq p$, one may take $\gamma_{1l}:=\gamma_0$ (as $T(\bar{{\mathbb A}}_f^p)\cap X^p(\phi_1)\neq\emptyset$). We will find a cocycle $a\in Z^1({\mathbb Q},H_1)$ (in fact, in $Z^1({\mathbb Q},I_1)$) such that $(a\phi_1,\gamma_0)$ becomes an admissible pair giving rise to $(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$ as an attached stable Kottwitz triple. We note that since $(\phi_1,\gamma_0)$ has property $(\heartsuit)$, the pair $(a\phi_1,\gamma_0)$ will be admissible if $[a]\in \ker[H^1({\mathbb Q},H_1)\rightarrow H^1_{{\mathrm{ab}}}({\mathbb Q},G)\oplus H^1({\mathbb R},G')]$, by (2).
In the following, only assuming that $(\phi:=a\phi_1,\epsilon:=\gamma_0)$ is an admissible pair for $a\in Z^1({\mathbb Q},H_1)$, we give an explicit description of an associated (stable) Kottwitz triple $(\gamma_0';\gamma'=(\gamma'_l)_{l\neq p},\delta')$, in terms of $(\gamma_0;\gamma_1=(\gamma_{1l})_{l\neq p},\delta_1)$ and $[a]$ (cf. [@LR87 Lem. 5.27]); statement (3) will follow from this description. Moreover, we will see that if $a\in Z^1({\mathbb Q},I_1)$, there exists a stable Kottwitz triple $(\gamma_0';\gamma'=(\gamma'_l)_{l\neq p},\delta')$ attached to $(\phi=a\psi_{T,\mu_h},\epsilon\in T({\mathbb Q}))$ such that $\gamma_0'=\epsilon(=\gamma_0)$.
Recall () that any stable Kottwitz triple $(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$ together with a choice of elements $(g_v)_v\in G(\bar{{\mathbb A}}_f^p)\times G({\mathfrak{k}})$ satisfying (\[eq:stable\_g\_l\]), (\[eq:stable\_g\_l\]) gives rise to an adelic class $$(\alpha_v(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta;g_v))_v\in \bigoplus_v X^{\ast}(Z(\hat{I}_0)^{\Gamma_v})$$ whose finite part $(\alpha_v)_{v\neq\infty}$ measures the difference between $\gamma_0$ and $(\gamma,{\mathrm{N}}_n\delta)$ ($n$ being the level of the triple).
For $l\neq p$, it was shown in the proof of (2) that for any $g_{1l}\in X_l(\phi_1,\epsilon)$, $[g_{1l}^{-1}a_{\tau}g_{1l}]\in H^1({{\mathbb Q}_l},G)$ is trivial and if one chooses $h_l\in G({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_l})$ such that $$g_{1l}^{-1}a_{\tau}g_{1l}=h_l\cdot{}^{\tau}h_l^{-1}$$ for every $\tau\in\Gamma_l$, one has $g_{l}':=g_{1l}h_l\in X_l(\phi,\epsilon)$, from which we obtain the $l$-components $$\gamma_{1l}:=\Int(g_{1l}^{-1})(\epsilon),\quad \gamma'_l:=\Int(g_{l}'^{-1})(\epsilon)\ \in G({{\mathbb Q}_l})$$ of some (not necessarily stable) Kottwitz triples attached to $(\phi_1,\epsilon)$ and $(\phi,\epsilon)$ respectively. The $G({{\mathbb Q}_l})$-conjugacy classes of $\gamma_l$ and $\gamma_l'$ (in the geometric conjugacy classes of $\gamma_0$) are determined by the cohomology classes of the cocycles in $Z^1({{\mathbb Q}_l},G_{\gamma_0})$: $$\label{eq:cocycles_at_l}
g_{1l}\cdot{}^{\tau}g_{1l}^{-1},\quad g_{l}'\cdot{}^{\tau}g_{l}'^{-1}=a_{\tau}\cdot g_{1l}\cdot{}^{\tau}g_{1l}^{-1}.$$ (these cohomology classes in $H^1({{\mathbb Q}_l},G_{\gamma_0})$ do not depend on the choice of $g_{1l}$ and $h_l$.)
Now, we consider the case that $a(l)\in Z^1({{\mathbb Q}_l},I_1)$. If there exists $g_{1l}\in X_l(\phi_1,\epsilon)$ further satisfying that $$g_{1l}\cdot{}^{\tau}g_{1l}^{-1} \in I_0({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_l})$$ for every $\tau\in\Gamma_l$, so that $g_{l}'\cdot{}^{\tau}g_{l}'^{-1}\in I_0({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_l})$ as well (this will be the case, for example, if $(\phi_1,\epsilon)$ is nested in a special Shimura sub-dtaum), as $(I_1)_{{{\mathbb Q}_l}}$ is the inner twist of $(I_0)_{{{\mathbb Q}_l}}$ via $\phi_1(l)\circ\zeta_l (\tau)$, i.e. via the cocycle $g_{1l}\cdot{}^{\tau}g_{1l}^{-1}\in Z_1({{\mathbb Q}_l},I_0)$, there exists a natural isomorphism $$H^1({{\mathbb Q}_l},I_1)=H^1({{\mathbb Q}_l},(I_1)_{{\mathbf{ab}}})\ {\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}\ H^1({{\mathbb Q}_l},(I_0)_{{\mathbf{ab}}})=H^1({{\mathbb Q}_l},I_0).$$ Then the cohomology classes $\alpha_l(\gamma_0;\gamma_{1l};g_{1l})$, $\alpha_l(\gamma_0;\gamma_{l}';g_{l}')$ in $H^1({{\mathbb Q}_l},I_0)=H^1({{\mathbb Q}_l},(I_0)_{{\mathbf{ab}}})$ of the cocyles $g_{1l}\cdot{}^{\tau}g_{1l}^{-1}$, $g_{l}'\cdot{}^{\tau}g_{l}'^{-1}$ satisfy the relation: $$\label{eq:difference_of_alpha_l's}
\alpha_l(\gamma_0;\gamma'_l;g_{l}')=\alpha_l(\gamma_0;\gamma_{1l};g_{1l})+[a(l)]\ \in\ \ker[H^1({{\mathbb Q}_l},I_0)\rightarrow H^1({{\mathbb Q}_l},G)]$$ (Apply [@Borovoi98], Lemma 3.15.1 to $(I_1)_{{\mathbf{ab}}}={}_{\psi}(I_0)_{{\mathbf{ab}}}$, $\psi:=g_{1l}\cdot{}^{\tau}g_{1l}^{-1}$, $\psi':=a(l)$.)
At $v=p$, we first fix some choices. As in the proof of (2), we choose $f_{1p}\in H({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ such that $\xi_p':=\Int(f_{1p}^{-1})\circ\xi_p$ is an unramified morphism, and let $h_p$, $f_p=f_{1p}h_p\in H({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ be defined as there. When $\xi_p'(s_{\tilde{\sigma}})=b\rtimes s_{\tilde{\sigma}}$ for $b\in H({\mathfrak{k}})$, by construction (of $\delta_1$), there exists $x_1\in G({\mathfrak{k}})$ such that $x_1(\epsilon_1'^{-1}\xi_p'(s_{\tilde{\sigma}})^n)x_1^{-1}=\tilde{\sigma}^n$ and $\delta_1=x_1b\sigma(x_1^{-1})$; we set $$c_{1p}:=x_1f_{1p}^{-1}\in G(\bar{{\mathfrak{k}}}),$$ so that $c_{1p}\epsilon c_{1p}^{-1}=x_1\epsilon_1'x_1^{-1}={\mathrm{N}}_n(\delta_1)$.
Next, from this relation $c_{1p}\epsilon c_{1p}^{-1}={\mathrm{N}}_n(\delta_1)$, we obtain a cocycle in $Z^1(W_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}},G_{\epsilon}(\bar{{\mathfrak{k}}}))$ ($\epsilon:=\gamma_0$): $$\label{eq:cocycle_b_{tau}}
b_{\tau}:=c_{1p}^{-1}\cdot{\mathrm{N}}_{i(\tau)}\delta_1\cdot {}^{\tau}c_{1p},$$ where $W_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is the Weil group of ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$ and $i(\tau)\in{\mathbb Z}$ is defined by $\tau|_{L_n}=\sigma^{i(\tau)}\ (0\leq i(\tau)< n)$. As $B(G_{\epsilon})$ is naturally identified with $H^1(\langle\sigma\rangle,G_{\epsilon}({\mathfrak{k}}))$, the inflation map induces an injection $B(G_{\epsilon})\hookrightarrow H^1(W_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}},G_{\epsilon}(\bar{{\mathfrak{k}}}))$ which becomes a bijection if $G_{\epsilon}$ is connected [@Kottwitz85 $\S$1].
Similarly, since $\Int(f_p^{-1})\circ\phi(p)\circ\zeta_p=\xi_p'$, by construction of $\delta'$ (as we are assuming that $(\phi,\epsilon)$ is admissible), there exists $x'\in G({\mathfrak{k}})$ such that $x'(\epsilon'^{-1}\xi_p'(s_{\tilde{\sigma}})^n)x'^{-1}=\tilde{\sigma}^n$ and $\delta'=x'b\sigma(x')^{-1}$. As before, for $c_{p}':=x'f_{1p}^{-1}$, we obtain a cocycle in $Z^1(W_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}},G_{\epsilon}(\bar{{\mathfrak{k}}}))$ $$\label{eq:cocycle_b_{tau}'}
b_{\tau}':=c_{p}'^{-1}\cdot{\mathrm{N}}_{i(\tau)}\delta'\cdot {}^{\tau}c_{p}'.$$
Then, since $a_{\tau}\cdot f_{1p}\xi_p'(s_{\tau})f_{1p}^{-1}=\phi(p)\circ\zeta_p(s_{\tau})=f_p\xi_p'(s_{\tau})f_p^{-1}$ for any $\tau\in W_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$, there is the relation $$\label{eq:a_{tau}b_{tau}=b_{tau}'}
a_{\tau}\cdot b_{\tau}=b_{\tau}'.$$
Now, suppose that $a\in Z^1({\mathbb Q},I_1)$ and that $[a]\in \Sha^{\infty}_G({\mathbb Q},I_1)$; then, since $(\phi_1,\epsilon)$ satisfies the condition $(\heartsuit)$ of Thm. \[thm:LR-Satz5.21\], we know that $(\phi=a\phi_1,\epsilon)$ is also admissible. Because the admissible pair $(\phi_1,\epsilon)$ is nested in a special Shimura sub-datum, we can find $c_1\in G({\mathfrak{k}})$ satisfying (iii$'$), i.e. such that $$c_1\epsilon c_1^{-1}={\mathrm{N}}_n\delta_1,\ \text{ and }\ b(\epsilon;\delta_1;c_1):=c_1^{-1}\delta_1\sigma(c_1)\in I_0({\mathfrak{k}})$$ (Remark \[rem:two\_different\_b’s\]); this $b(\epsilon;\delta_1;c_1)$ and its $\sigma$-conjugacy class $[b(\epsilon;\delta_1;c_1)]_{I_0}$ in $B(I_0)$ both depend on $c_1$ as well as on the pair $(\epsilon,\delta_1)$, while its $\sigma$-conjugacy class in $G_{\epsilon}({\mathfrak{k}})$ does not. Also, the $\sigma$-conjugacy class of $\delta_1$ in $G(L_n)$ is completely determined by the $\sigma$-conjugacy class $[b(\epsilon;\delta_1;c_1)]\in B(G_{\epsilon})$. We see that under the composite map $B(I_0)\rightarrow B(G_{\epsilon})\hookrightarrow H^1(W_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}},G_{\epsilon}(\bar{{\mathfrak{k}}}))$, the $\sigma$-conjugacy class $[b(\epsilon;\delta_1;c_1)]_{I_0}$ maps to the cohomology class $[b_{\tau}]$, since $$b(\epsilon;\delta_1;c_1)=c_1^{-1}\delta_1\sigma(c_1)=y_1\cdot b_{\tilde{\sigma}}\cdot \tilde{\sigma}(y_1^{-1}),$$ where $y_1=c_1^{-1}c_{1p}\in G_{\epsilon}(\bar{{\mathfrak{k}}})$ and $\tilde{\sigma}$ is any lifting in $W_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ of $\sigma$. Then, similarly we can also find $c'$ such that $b(\epsilon;\delta';c'):=c'^{-1}\delta'\sigma(c')$ lies in $I_0({\mathfrak{k}})$. Indeed, if $v\in G_{\epsilon}(\bar{{\mathfrak{k}}})$ is chosen such that $vb_{\tau}{}^{\tau}v^{-1}$ belongs to $I_0(\bar{{\mathfrak{k}}})$ for every $\tau\in W_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$, so does $vb_{\tau}'{}^{\tau}v^{-1}$ by (\[eq:a\_[tau]{}b\_[tau]{}=b\_[tau]{}’\]). Since $H^1(\langle\sigma\rangle,I_0({\mathfrak{k}})){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}H^1(W_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}},I_0(\bar{{\mathfrak{k}}}))$, there exist $c'\in G(\bar{{\mathfrak{k}}})$ and $b'\in I_0({\mathfrak{k}})$ such that $c'^{-1}\cdot{\mathrm{N}}_{i(\tau)}\delta'\cdot {}^{\tau}c'={\mathrm{N}}_{i(\tau)}b'$ for every $\tau\in W_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$, which implies that $c'\in G({\mathfrak{k}})$ and $b(\epsilon;\delta';c'):=c'^{-1}\delta'\sigma(c')(=b')\in I_0$. In this case, it follows from Lemma \[lem:equality\_of\_two\_Newton\_maps\], (2) and (\[eq:a\_[tau]{}b\_[tau]{}=b\_[tau]{}’\]) that one has $$\label{eq:difference_of_alpha_p's}
\kappa_{I_0}(b(\epsilon;\delta';c'))=\kappa_{I_0}(b(\epsilon;\delta_1;c_1))+a(p)\ \text{ and }\ \nu_{I_0}(b(\epsilon;\delta';c'))=\nu_{I_0}(b(\epsilon;\delta_1;c_1)).$$ In particular, we conclude that when $a\in Z^1({\mathbb Q},I_1)$, with the elements $g_l$, $g_{l}'=g_{1l}h_l$, $\delta_1$, $c_1$, $\delta'$, $c'$ chosen above, the triple $$(\gamma_0,\gamma':=(g_l'^{-1}\epsilon g_l')_l,\delta')$$ is a stable Kottwitz triple attached to $(\phi=a\psi_{T,\mu_h},\epsilon=\gamma_0\in T({\mathbb Q}))$ which further satisfies the relations (\[eq:difference\_of\_alpha\_l’s\]), (\[eq:difference\_of\_alpha\_p’s\]). Also, note that these two relations imply statement (3).
Before continuing with the discussion, we recall the fact (Appendix \[sec:abelianization\_complex\]) that the abelianization complexes $I_{0{\mathbf{ab}}}$ and $I_{1{\mathbf{ab}}}$ of $I_0$ and $I_1$ are canonically isomorphic in the derived category of commutative algebraic ${\mathbb Q}$-group schemes (since they are both quasi-isomorphic to $Z(I_0^{{\mathrm{sc}}})\rightarrow Z(I_0)$), and the same is true of $\tilde{I}_{0{\mathbf{ab}}}$ and $\tilde{I}_{1{\mathbf{ab}}}$. Now, we set $$(\alpha(v):=\alpha_v(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta;g_v)\cdot \alpha_v(\gamma_0;\gamma_1,\delta_1;g_{1v})^{-1})_v\in \bigoplus_{v} \mathbb{H}^1({{\mathbb Q}_v},I_{0{\mathbf{ab}}}),$$ where $(g_v)_v$ are some elements used to define $\alpha_v(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta;g_v)$ for the given stable Kottwitz triple $(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$ (their choice does not matter), and $g_{1l}$, $g_{1p}:=c_1$ are as described above. A priori, $\alpha(v)$ is an element of $X^{\ast}(Z(\hat{I}_0)^{\Gamma_v})$, but one easily verifies that it belongs to the subgroup $\mathbb{H}^1({{\mathbb Q}_v},I_{0{\mathbf{ab}}})\subset X^{\ast}(Z(\hat{I}_0)^{\Gamma_v})_{{\mathrm{tors}}}$. Indeed, this is clear for $v\neq p$ by definition: for every finite prime $l\neq p$, each $\alpha_l$ itself belongs to $\mathbb{H}^1({{\mathbb Q}_l},I_0)=\mathbb{H}^1({{\mathbb Q}_l},I_{0{\mathbf{ab}}})=X^{\ast}(Z(\hat{I}_0)^{\Gamma_l})_{{\mathrm{tors}}}$, and $\alpha_{\infty}=0$. For $v=p$, according to Lemma \[lem:equality\_of\_two\_Newton\_maps\], (2), the Newton quasi-cocharacters $\nu_{I_0}(b(\gamma_0;\delta;g_p))$, $\nu_{I_0}(b(\gamma_0;\delta_1;g_{1p}))\in \mathcal{N}(I_0)$ are equal and do not depend on the choice of $g_p$, $g_{1p}$. We have seen (cf. [@Kottwitz97 4.13, 3.5]) that the set $B(I_0)$ is identified with a subset of $X^{\ast}(Z(\hat{I}_0)^{\Gamma_v})\times\mathcal{N}(I_0)$ via $\kappa_{I_0}\times \nu_{I_0}$ and the image under $\kappa_{I_0}$ of any fibre of $\nu_{I_0}$ is a torsor under $X^{\ast}(Z(\hat{I}_0)^{\Gamma_p})_{{\mathrm{tors}}}=\mathbb{H}^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},I_{0{\mathbf{ab}}})$. Clearly, the claim follows from these facts; we also see that $[\alpha(p)]=\kappa_{I_0}(b(\gamma_0;\delta;g_p))-\kappa_{I_0}(b(\gamma_0;\delta_1;g_{1p}))$.
Therefore, in view of these discussions, to prove effectivity of the given stable Kottwitz triple $(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$, it suffices to find a global class $[\widetilde{a}]\in H^1({\mathbb Q},\tilde{I}_{1})$ whose localizations $[\tilde{a}(v)]$ go over to $(\alpha(v))$ under the map $\oplus f_v:=\oplus \mu_v\circ {\mathbf{ab}}_v$ in the commutative diagram: $$\label{eq:H^1_{ab}_for_(I'->I)}
\xymatrix{ \bigoplus_v H^1({{\mathbb Q}_v},I_{1}) \ar[r] & \bigoplus_v \mathbb{H}^1({{\mathbb Q}_v},I_{1{\mathbf{ab}}}) & \mathfrak{K}(I_{1}/{\mathbb Q})^D \\
\bigoplus_v H^1({{\mathbb Q}_v},\tilde{I}_{1}) \ar[u] \ar[r]^(.45){{\mathbf{ab}}} \ar[ru]^{\oplus f_v} & \bigoplus_v \mathbb{H}^1({{\mathbb Q}_v},\tilde{I}_{1{\mathbf{ab}}}) \ar[u]_{\mu=\oplus_v\mu_v} \ar[r]^(.5){\lambda} & \mathbb{H}^1({\mathbb A}/{\mathbb Q},\tilde{I}_{1{\mathbf{ab}}}) \ar@{->>}[u]_{\nu} \\
\bigoplus_v \mathbb{H}^0({{\mathbb Q}_v},\tilde{I}_{1}\rightarrow I_{1}) \ar[r]^(.5){\overline{{\mathbf{ab}}}} \ar[u] & \bigoplus_v \mathbb{H}^0({{\mathbb Q}_v},G_{{\mathbf{ab}}}) \ar[u]_{\xi} \ar@{->>}[r] & {\mathrm{im}}(\lambda\circ\xi) \ar@{^(->}[u] }$$ Here, the first two columns (consisting of adelic cohomology groups) are each a part of the cohomology long exact sequence for the crossed module $\tilde{I}_1\rightarrow I_1$ [@Borovoi98 (3.4.3.1)] and for the distinguished triangle (\[eq:DT\_of\_CX\_of\_tori\]) attached to the morphism $\tilde{I}_{1{\mathbf{ab}}}\rightarrow I_{1{\mathbf{ab}}}$; so, they are exact. The two horizontal maps for $H^1$ between these two columns are the abelianization maps for $I_1$, $\tilde{I}_1$, and the left lower commutative diagram (containing the map $\overline{{\mathbf{ab}}}$) is induced from an obvious commutative diagram of crossed modules (replace the complexes of tori $\tilde{I}_{1{\mathbf{ab}}}[1]$, $G_{{\mathbf{ab}}}$ by the quasi-isomorphic complexes $(\tilde{I}^{{\mathrm{sc}}}_1\rightarrow \tilde{I}_1)[1]$, $\tilde{I}_1\rightarrow I_1$); in particular, the map $\overline{{\mathbf{ab}}}$ is an isomorphism. The map $\lambda$ comes from the long exact sequence for $\tilde{I}_{1{\mathbf{ab}}}$: $$\cdots \longrightarrow \mathbb{H}^1({\mathbb Q},\tilde{I}_{1{\mathbf{ab}}}) \longrightarrow \mathbb{H}^1({\mathbb A},\tilde{I}_{1{\mathbf{ab}}}) \stackrel{\lambda}{\longrightarrow} \mathbb{H}^1({\mathbb A}/{\mathbb Q},\tilde{I}_{1{\mathbf{ab}}})\longrightarrow \mathbb{H}^{2}({\mathbb Q},\tilde{I}_{1{\mathbf{ab}}}) \longrightarrow \cdots,$$ and $\nu$ is the dual of the inclusion $\mathfrak{K}(I_1/F) \hookrightarrow \pi_0(Z(\hat{\tilde{I}}_1)^{\Gamma})$ under the identification $\mathbb{H}^1({\mathbb A}/{\mathbb Q},\tilde{I}_{1{\mathbf{ab}}})=\pi_0(Z(\hat{\tilde{I}}_1)^{\Gamma})^D$ (Lemma \[lem:identification\_of\_Kottwitz\_A(H)\]). Since ${\mathrm{im}}[H^1({\mathbb Q},\tilde{I}_{1})\rightarrow \bigoplus_v H^1({\mathbb Q}_v,\tilde{I}_{1})]=\ker(\lambda\circ{\mathbf{ab}})$ [@Borovoi98 Thm.5.16] (cf. [@Kottwitz85 Prop.2.6]), hence it suffices to find an adelic cohomology class $$[\tilde{a}(v)]\in \oplus_vH^1({{\mathbb Q}_v},\tilde{I}_{1})$$ such that $\alpha(v)=f_v([\tilde{a}(v)])$ for each $v$ and $\lambda\circ{\mathbf{ab}}([\tilde{a}(v)])=0$. We find such class $([\tilde{a}(v)])_v$ as follows. We first note that $(\alpha(v))$ lifts to an element $\tilde{\alpha}=(\tilde{\alpha}(v))_v\in \bigoplus_v \mathbb{H}^1({{\mathbb Q}_v},\tilde{I}_{1{\mathbf{ab}}})$. In view of the cohomology exact sequence attached to the distinguished triangle (\[eq:DT\_of\_CX\_of\_tori\]), this amounts to vanishing of the image of $(\alpha(v))_v$ in $\bigoplus_v \mathbb{H}^1({{\mathbb Q}_v},G_{{\mathbf{ab}}}) (\subset \bigoplus_v X^{\ast}(Z(\hat{G})^{\Gamma_v})_{{\mathrm{tors}}})$, which then follows from the fact (\[eq:restriction\_of\_alpha\_to\_Z(hatG)\]) that for any Kottwitz triple $(\epsilon;\gamma,\delta)$, the image of the invariant $\alpha_v(\epsilon;\gamma,\delta;g_v)$ in $X^{\ast}(Z(\hat{G})^{\Gamma_v})$ is independent of the triple. Now, by assumption (of vanishing of Kottwitz invariants), we have $\nu\circ\lambda(\tilde{\alpha})=0$ in $\mathfrak{K}(I_1/{\mathbb Q})^D$. Hence, by Lemma \[lem:proof\_of\_Kottwitz86\_Thm.6.6\] below (which asserts exactness of the third column of (\[eq:H\^1\_[ab]{}\_for\_(I’->I)\])), we may further assume that $(\tilde{\alpha}(v))_v\in \ker(\lambda)$. Since the (local) abelianization map ${\mathbf{ab}}_v$ is surjective for every place $v$ (even bijective for finite $v$) [@Borovoi98 Thm.5.4], we can find $([\tilde{a}(v)])_{v\neq\infty} \in \bigoplus_{v\neq\infty} H^1({{\mathbb Q}_v},\tilde{I}_{1})$ mapping to $(\tilde{\alpha}(v))_{v\neq\infty}$. For $v=\infty$, we use the condition that $\alpha(\infty)=0$, by which and the exactness of the vertical sequence for $\tilde{I}_{1{\mathbf{ab}}}\rightarrow I_{1{\mathbf{ab}}}$, we find an element $\bar{\alpha}(\infty)\in \mathbb{H}^0({\mathbb R},\tilde{I}_{1{\mathbf{ab}}}\rightarrow I_{1{\mathbf{ab}}})$ mapping to $\tilde{\alpha}(\infty)$. Then, using that $\overline{{\mathbf{ab}}}$ is an isomorphism, we define $\tilde{a}(\infty)$ to be the the image of $\bar{\alpha}(\infty)$ under the map $\mathbb{H}^0({\mathbb R},\tilde{I}_{1}\rightarrow I_{1})\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb R},\tilde{I}_1)$. The cohomology class $([\tilde{a}(v)])_v$ thus found is the one that we are looking for.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Proof of Thm. \[thm:LR-Satz5.25\] continued.</span> It remains to prove the statement on $i(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$. Suppose given two admissible pairs $(\phi_1,\epsilon_1)$, $(\phi,\epsilon)$ whose associated Kottwitz triples are equivalent. By conjugation, we may assume that $(\phi_1,\epsilon_1)$ is nested in a special Shimura sub-datum and $\epsilon=\epsilon_1\in G({\mathbb Q})$; so, as was explained in the beginning of this proof, one has $\phi^{\Delta}=\phi_1^{\Delta}$ and $\phi=a\phi_1$ for a cocycle $a_{\tau}\in Z^1({\mathbb Q},H_1)$ whose cohomology class lies in $\ker[H^1({\mathbb Q},H_1)\rightarrow H^1_{{\mathrm{ab}}}({\mathbb Q},G)\oplus H^1({\mathbb R},G')]$, by Lemma \[lem:LR-Lem5.26,Satz5.25\], (2).
We claim that for every finite place $v$, the localization $[a(v)]\in H^1({{\mathbb Q}_v},H_1)$ is trivial. Indeed, according to the previous discussion (cf. (\[eq:cocycles\_at\_l\])), there exist $(g_l)_{l\neq p}\in X^p(\phi_1,\epsilon)$ and $(h_l)_{l\neq p}\in G(\bar{{\mathbb A}}_f^p)$ such that $g_l^{-1}a_{\tau}g_l=h_l\cdot{}^{\tau}h_l^{-1}$ for all $l\neq p$ and $\tau\in\Gamma_l$, thereby $(g_l':=g_lh_l)_{l\neq p}\in X^p(\phi,\epsilon)$ as well. Also, $\gamma_{1l}=\Int(g_l^{-1})(\epsilon)$, $\gamma_l'=\Int(g_l'^{-1})(\epsilon)$ are the $l$-components of some Kottwitz triples attached to $(\phi_1,\epsilon)$, $(\phi,\epsilon)$. Since $\gamma_{1l}$, $\gamma_l'$ are conjugate under $G({{\mathbb Q}_l})$ by assumption, we may modify $h_l$ (with right translation by an element of $G({{\mathbb Q}_l})$) so that $\Int(g_l^{-1})(\epsilon)=\Int(g_l'^{-1})(\epsilon)$ and so $x_l:=g_lh_l^{-1}g_l^{-1}\in G_{\epsilon}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_l})$. Then, one easily checks that for every $\tau\in\Gamma_l$, $$a_{\tau}=x_l^{-1}\cdot\phi_1(l)\circ\zeta_l(\tau)\cdot x_l\cdot \phi_1(l)\circ\zeta_l(\tau)^{-1}.$$ In particular, $[a]_{H_1}\in H^1({\mathbb Q},H_1)$ maps to zero in $H^1({{\mathbb Q}_v},\pi_0(H_1))$ for every $v\neq p,\infty$, and thus by Prop. \[prop:triviality\_in\_comp\_gp\], we may assume that $a\in Z^1({\mathbb Q},I_1)$ for $I_1=H_1^{\mathrm{o}}$ (note that as $\pi_0(G_{\epsilon})$ is commutative (proof of Prop. \[prop:triviality\_in\_comp\_gp\]), it is isomorphic to its inner twist $\pi_0(H_1)$). At $v=p$, by standard recipe (Subsec. () and proof of Lemma \[lem:delta\_from\_b&gamma\_0\]), the admissible pairs $(\phi_1,\epsilon=\gamma_0)$, $(\phi,\epsilon=\gamma_0)$ give rise to $\delta_1,\delta'\in G(L_n)$ such that $(\gamma_0;(\gamma_{1l})_l,\delta_1)$, $(\gamma_0;(\gamma_l')_l,\delta')$ are associated Kottwiz triples. We recall the cocycles $b_{\tau}$ (\[eq:cocycle\_b\_[tau]{}\]), $b_{\tau}'$ (\[eq:cocycle\_b\_[tau]{}’\]) in $Z^1(W_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}},H_0(\bar{{\mathfrak{k}}}))$ whose constructions involve $\delta_1$, $\delta'$, and some other elements $c_{1p},c_p'\in G(\bar{{\mathfrak{k}}})$. Now, if $\delta_1$ and $\delta'$ are $\sigma$-conjugate in $G(L_n)$, say $\delta'=d\delta_1\sigma(d^{-1})$, after replacing $x'$ by $d^{-1}x'$ (in the construction of $\delta'$) and $c_p'$ by $d^{-1}c_p'$, we may assume that $\delta'=\delta_1$ and $c_p'\epsilon c_p'^{-1}={\mathrm{N}}_n(\delta')$, and it follows that $e:=c_{1p}^{-1}c_p'\in H_0(\bar{{\mathfrak{k}}})$ and $$b_{\tau}'=e^{-1}\cdot b_{\tau}\cdot {}^{\tau}e\quad (\tau\in W_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}).$$ Hence, $a_{\tau}=e^{-1}\cdot (b_{\tau}\cdot {}^{\tau}e\cdot b_{\tau}^{-1})$ becomes trivial in $H^1(W_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}},H_1(\bar{{\mathfrak{k}}}))$. But, $[a_{\tau}]_{H_1}\in H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},H_1)$ lies in the subset $H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\mathbb Q}_p},H_1)\hookrightarrow H^1({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\mathbb Q}_p},H_1)$ since $[a_{\tau}]_{I_1}\in H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},I_1)$ is so, by the Steinberg’s theorem $H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}},I_1)=\{1\}$. Hence, the cohomology class $[a_{\tau}]\in H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},H_1)$ is trivial, since the inflation maps for $W_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}\twoheadrightarrow {\mathrm{Gal}}(L_{n'}/{{\mathbb Q}_p})$ for $n'\in{\mathbb N}$ induce an injection $H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\mathbb Q}_p},H_1)\hookrightarrow H^1(W_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}},H_1(\bar{{\mathfrak{k}}}))$.
Also, $[a(\infty)]_{H_1}\in \ker[H^1({\mathbb Q},H_1)\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb R},G')]$ implies that $[a(\infty)]_{I_1}=0$ in $H^1({\mathbb R},I_1)$, since $(I_1)_{{\mathbb R}}\subset G'$ is connected so that $\ker[H^1({\mathbb Q},I_1)\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb R},G')]=\{1\}$ [@LR87 Lem. 5.14, 5.28] (or, [@Kisin17 Lem.4.4.5]). Hence, one has $$[a]_{I_1}\in \ker[\Sha^{\infty}_G({\mathbb Q},I_1)\rightarrow \prod_{v} H^1({{\mathbb Q}_v},H_1)],$$ where $v$ runs through *all* places of ${\mathbb Q}$ (including $\infty$). Finally, it follows from the previous discussion that the subset of $H^1({\mathbb Q},I_1)$ consisting of $[a]$’s such that the admissible pairs $(\phi_1,\epsilon)$ and $(a\phi_1,\epsilon)$ produce the same equivalence classes of Kottwitz triples is in bijection with $${\mathrm{im}}[\ker[\Sha^{\infty}_G({\mathbb Q},I_1)\rightarrow \prod_{v} H^1({{\mathbb Q}_v},H_1)]\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb Q},H_1)]$$ i.e. with $\Sha^{\infty}_G({\mathbb Q},H_1)^+$.
\[lem:proof\_of\_Kottwitz86\_Thm.6.6\] Let $G$ be a connected reductive group over a number field $F$ and $I$ an $F$-Levi subgroup of $G$.[^33] Set $\tilde{I}:=\rho^{-1}(I)$ for the canonical homomorphism $\rho:G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}\rightarrow G$, $\Gamma:={\mathrm{Gal}}(\overline{F}/F)$, and $\Gamma_v:={\mathrm{Gal}}(\bar{F}_v/F_v)$ for any place $v$ of $F$. The kernel of the natural map $$\nu:\mathbb{H}^1({\mathbb A}_F/F,\tilde{I}_{{\mathbf{ab}}})=\pi_0(Z(\hat{\tilde{I}})^{\Gamma})^D\rightarrow \mathfrak{K}(I/F)^D$$ equals the image of $\lambda:\mathbb{H}^1({\mathbb A}_F,\tilde{I}_{{\mathbf{ab}}}) \rightarrow \mathbb{H}^1({\mathbb A}_F/F,\tilde{I}_{{\mathbf{ab}}})$ of the kernel of $$\mu:\mathbb{H}^1({\mathbb A}_F,\tilde{I}_{{\mathbf{ab}}})\rightarrow \mathbb{H}^1({\mathbb A}_F,I_{{\mathbf{ab}}}).$$ In other words, we have an equality $$\mathrm{coker}[\mathbb{H}^0({\mathbb A}_F,G_{{\mathbf{ab}}})\rightarrow \mathbb{H}^1({\mathbb A}_F/F,\tilde{I}_{{\mathbf{ab}}})]=\mathfrak{K}(I/F)^D.$$
\[eq:K\_Labesse\_Kottwitz\] (1) It is easy to see that for a reductive $H$ over $F$ and for each place $v$ of $F$, the map $\mathbb{H}^1(F_v,H)\rightarrow \pi_0(Z(\hat{H})^{\Gamma_v})^D$ that was constructed by Kottwitz in [@Kottwitz86 Thm.1.2] factors through the abelianization map $\mathbb{H}^1(F_v,H)\rightarrow \mathbb{H}^1(F_v,H_{{\mathbf{ab}}})$ and the induced map $$\mathbb{H}^1(F_v,H_{{\mathbf{ab}}})\rightarrow \pi_0(Z(\hat{H})^{\Gamma_v})^D.$$ is a monomorphism (and an isomorphism for non-archimedean $v$), equal to the map in Lemma \[lem:identification\_of\_Kottwitz\_A(H)\] (the point is that both monomorphisms are induced by Tate-Nakayama duality); this also equals the monomorphism constructed by Borovoi [@Borovoi98 Prop.4.1, 4.2]. If $H^{{\mathrm{der}}}=H^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$, this map for archimedean $v$ is also surjective, because then $H_{{\mathbf{ab}}}$ is quasi-isomorphic to an *$F$-torus* whose dual torus is $Z(\hat{H})$ (i.e. $H^{{\mathrm{ab}}}=H/H^{{\mathrm{der}}}$), so that Tate-Nakayama duality for tori applies.
\(2) This lemma is mentioned, without proof, in *Remarque* on p.43 of [@Labesse99] ($\mathbb{H}^1({\mathbb A}_F/F,\tilde{I}_{{\mathbf{ab}}})$ is the same as $\mathbb{H}^0_{{\mathbf{ab}}}({\mathbb A}_F/F,I\backslash G):=\mathbb{H}^0({\mathbb A}_F/F,I_{{\mathbf{ab}}}\rightarrow G_{{\mathbf{ab}}})$ defined there, cf. [@Labesse99 Prop.1.8.1] and (\[eq:DT\_of\_CX\_of\_tori\])). Earlier, this was also observed in the proof of Thm. 6.6 of [@Kottwitz86] when $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$, in which case, according to (1), the maps $\lambda$, $\mu$ become the natural maps: $$\lambda:\oplus_v \pi_0(Z(\hat{\tilde{I}})^{\Gamma_v})^D \rightarrow \pi_0(Z(\hat{\tilde{I}})^{\Gamma})^D,\quad \mu: \oplus_v \pi_0(Z(\hat{\tilde{I}})^{\Gamma_v})^D \rightarrow \oplus_v \pi_0(Z(\hat{I})^{\Gamma_v})^D$$ which are defined only in terms of $Z(\hat{\tilde{I}})$, $Z(\hat{I})$, and which are the definitions for these maps used in [@Kottwitz86 Thm.6.6].[^34]
Since we could not find a proof (in the general case) in literatures, we present a proof. In our proof, we work systematically with the abelianized cohomology groups $H^1(k,H_{{\mathbf{ab}}}(C_k))$ (for $H=I,\tilde{I},G$) instead of $\pi_0(Z(\hat{H})^{{\mathrm{Gal}}(\bar{k}/k)})^D$. Also, we use Galois (hyper)cohomology of complexes of ${\mathbb Q}$-tori of length $2$, especially their Poitou-Tate-Nakayama local/global dualities, as expounded in [@Borovoi98], [@Demarche11], [@KottwitzShelstad99 Appendix A], [@Labesse99 Ch.1].
(of Lemma \[lem:proof\_of\_Kottwitz86\_Thm.6.6\]) We have two diagrams (the left diagram defines $\mathfrak{K}(I/F)$ by being cartesian and the right one is its dual): $$\label{eq:dual_of_connecting_map_Z(hat{G})}
\xymatrix{ \pi_0(Z(\hat{\tilde{I}})^{\Gamma}) \ar[r]^(.44){\partial} & H^1(F,Z(\hat{G})) & \pi_0(Z(\hat{\tilde{I}})^{\Gamma})^D \ar@{->>}[d]_{\nu} & H^1(F,Z(\hat{G}))^D \ar[l]_{\partial^D} \ar@{->>}[d]^{i^D} \\ \mathfrak{K}(I/F) \ar@{^(->}[u] \ar[r] & \ker^1(F,Z(\hat{G})) \ar@{^(->}[u]_{i} & \mathfrak{K}(I/F)^D & \ker^1(F,Z(\hat{G}))^D \ar[l] },$$ from which we see the equality: $$\begin{aligned}
\ker(\nu)&=\mathrm{im}(\partial^D)(\ker(i^D)).\end{aligned}$$ We need to describe the maps $\partial^D$, $i^D$ in terms of the complexes $G_{{\mathbf{ab}}}$, $\tilde{I}_{{\mathbf{ab}}}$. For that, we recall some facts.
For a connected reductive group $G$ over a field $k$ and a Levi $k$-subgroup $I$ of $G$, the map (\[eq:boundary\_map\_for\_center\_of\_dual\]) $$\partial:\pi_0(Z(\hat{\tilde{I}})^{\Gamma})\rightarrow H^1(F,Z(\hat{G}))$$ is identified in a natural manner with the connecting homomorphism $$\widehat{\mathbb{H}}^{-1}(k'/k,\hat{\tilde{I}}_{{\mathbf{ab}}}) \rightarrow \widehat{\mathbb{H}}^0(k'/k,\hat{G}_{{\mathbf{ab}}}),$$ in the long exact sequence of Tate-cohomology arising from the distinguished triangle (\[eq:DT\_of\_dualCX\_of\_tori\]), where $k'$ is a finite Galois extension of $k$ splitting $T$. Indeed, we recall [@Kottwitz84b Lem. 2.2, Cor. 2.3] that the given map is the connecting homomorphism $\mathrm{Ext}^1_{\Gamma}(X^{\ast}(Z(\hat{\tilde{I}})),{\mathbb Z})\rightarrow \mathrm{Ext}^2_{\Gamma}(X^{\ast}(Z(\hat{G})),{\mathbb Z})$ in the long exact sequence of the cohomology $\mathrm{Ext}^{\bullet}_{\Gamma}(-,{\mathbb Z})$ for the exact sequence of $\Gamma$-modules: $0\rightarrow X^{\ast}(Z(\hat{\tilde{I}}))\rightarrow X^{\ast}(Z(\hat{I}))\rightarrow X^{\ast}(Z(\hat{G}))\rightarrow0$. As was shown in *loc. cit.* (and using that $\pi_0(D^{\Gamma})=\widehat{\mathbb{H}}^{0}(\Gamma,D)$), one has a functorial isomorphism $\mathrm{Ext}^n_{\Gamma}(X^{\ast}(D),{\mathbb Z})=\widehat{H}^{n-1}(\Gamma,D)\ (n\geq1)$ for any diagonalizable ${\mathbb C}$-group $D$ with $\Gamma$-action. Since $Z(\hat{\tilde{I}})[1]=\hat{\tilde{I}}_{{\mathbf{ab}}}$, $Z(\hat{G})[1]=\hat{G}_{{\mathbf{ab}}}$ (\[eq:center\_of\_complex\_dual\]), the claim follows.
For a connected reductive group $H$ over $F$ (number field), we $j^i_{H}$ denote the injection (arising from a suitable cohomology long exact sequence for $H_{{\mathbf{ab}}}$): $$j^i_{H}:\mathbb{H}^i({\mathbb A}_F,H_{{\mathbf{ab}}})/\mathbb{H}^i(F,H_{{\mathbf{ab}}}) \hookrightarrow \mathbb{H}^i({\mathbb A}_F/F,H_{{\mathbf{ab}}}).$$
Next, there exist natural isomorphisms [@Kottwitz84b 11.2.2, 4.2.2], [@KottwitzShelstad99 D.2.C], [@Borovoi98 Thm.5.13] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:identification_of_TS-gps}
\ker^1(F,Z(\hat{G}))^D=\ker^1(F,G) =\ker^1(F,G_{{\mathbf{ab}}}),\end{aligned}$$ where for $i\geq0$, we define (cf. [@KottwitzShelstad99 (C.1)], [@Labesse99 1.4]) $$\begin{aligned}
\ker^i(F,G_{{\mathbf{ab}}})&:=\ker(H^i(F,G_{{\mathbf{ab}}})\rightarrow H^i({\mathbb A}_F,G_{{\mathbf{ab}}})) \\
&=\ker(H^i(F,G_{{\mathbf{ab}}})\rightarrow \oplus_vH^i(F_v,G_{{\mathbf{ab}}})) \ \text{ if }i\geq1\end{aligned}$$ (When $i\geq1$, there exists a canonical isomorphism $H^i({\mathbb A}_F,G_{{\mathbf{ab}}})= \oplus_vH^i(F_v,G_{{\mathbf{ab}}})$, [@Borovoi98 Lem.4.5], [@KottwitzShelstad99 Lem. C.1.B], [@Labesse99 Prop.1.4.1]).
\[lem:commutativity\_of\_duality\_diagram\] There exists a commutative diagram induced by the global and local Tate-Nakayama dualities: $$\xymatrix{ \ker^1(F,G_{{\mathbf{ab}}}) \ar[r] & \ker^2(F,\tilde{I}_{{\mathbf{ab}}}) \\
H^1(F,Z(\hat{G}))^D \ar[r]^(0.55){\partial^D} \ar@{->>}[u]^{i^D} & \pi_0(Z(\hat{\tilde{I}})^{\Gamma})^D \ar@{->>}[u] \\
\mathbb{H}^0({\mathbb A}_F,G_{{\mathbf{ab}}})/\mathbb{H}^0(F,G_{{\mathbf{ab}}}) \ar[r]^{\bar{\xi}} \ar@{^(->}[u]^{j^0_G} & \mathbb{H}^1({\mathbb A}_F,\tilde{I}_{{\mathbf{ab}}})/\mathbb{H}^1(F,\tilde{I}_{{\mathbf{ab}}}) \ar@{^(->}[u]_{j^1_{\tilde{I}}} }$$ where $\bar{\xi}$ is induced by the connecting homomorphism $\xi:\mathbb{H}^0({\mathbb A}_F,G_{{\mathbf{ab}}})\rightarrow \mathbb{H}^1({\mathbb A}_F,\tilde{I}_{{\mathbf{ab}}})$ in the long exact sequence of cohomology attached to the distinguished triangle (\[eq:DT\_of\_CX\_of\_tori\]).
The two vertical sequences are short exact sequences.
In view of the discussion above and the isomorphism (\[eq:connecting\_isom\_diagonal\_gp\]), $\partial^D$ equals the dual of the obvious connecting homomorphism $$\widehat{\mathbb{H}}^1(k'/k,X^{\ast}(G_{{\mathbf{ab}}}))^D \longrightarrow \widehat{\mathbb{H}}^{0}(k'/k,X^{\ast}(\tilde{I}_{{\mathbf{ab}}}))^D,$$ Hence, the existence and exactness of each vertical sequence is easily deduced by reading the relevant parts of the Poitou-Tate exact sequence for two-term complexes of tori [@Demarche11 Thm.6.1] (take $\hat{C}=X^{\ast}(H_{{\mathbf{ab}}})$ for $H=\tilde{I}, G$ in *loc. cit.*): to identify the upper diagram, use the identification (\[eq:identification\_of\_TS-gps\]) and the fact [@KottwitzShelstad99 Lem. C.3.B, C.3.C]) that $$\ker^1(F,G_{{\mathbf{ab}}})=[\ker^0(F,\hat{G}_{{\mathbf{ab}}})_{\mathrm{red}}]^D=[\ker^1(F,X_{\ast}(\hat{G}_{{\mathbf{ab}}}))]^D.$$ The commutativity of the daigram follows from the compatibility of the global and local Tate-Nakayama dualities.
Now, as $\mathrm{im}(\xi)=\ker(\mu)$, by Lemma \[lem:commutativity\_of\_duality\_diagram\] we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\ker(\nu)&=\mathrm{im}(\partial^D\circ j^0_G)=\mathrm{im}(\nu\circ\xi)\\
&=\mathrm{im}(\nu)(\ker\mu) \end{aligned}$$ as was asserted.
Proofs of Kottwitz formula: Cardinality of fixed point set of Frobenius-twisted Hecke correspondence
====================================================================================================
In this section, we present two proofs of the Kottwitz formula [@Kottwitz90 (3.1)], [@Kottwitz92 (19.6)]. The first proof assumes the Langlands-Rapoport conjecture, i.e. Conjecture \[conj:Langlands-Rapoport\_conjecture\_ver1\], and is merely a generalization, to arbitrary automorphic sheaves, of the arguments of [@LR87] in the constant coefficient case. The second proof is unconditional, relying heavily on the geometric results obtained by Kisin [@Kisin17]. But we do not use his version of the Langlands-Rapoprt conjecture [@Kisin17 Thm.(0.3)] which is too weak to invoke the first proof for, and instead we emulate the arguments of the first proof. In both proofs, the effectivity criterion of Kottwitz triple (Thm. \[thm:LR-Satz5.25\], Thm. \[thm:LR-Satz5.25b2\]) is crucial.
The main part of the Kottwitz conjecture is concerned with obtaining a group-theoretic description of the cardinality of the fixed point set of a Hecke correspondence twisted by a Frobenius automorphism acting on each subset of ${\mathscr{S}}_{K}({\mathbb F})$ indexed by an admissible morphism $\phi$ or on each isogeny class. In [@Kottwitz84b $\S$1], Kottwitz discusses how one can arrive at such description from a description of the mod-$p$-point set as provided by the Langlands-Rapoport conjecture (but at that time his deduction was based on some earlier version of it suggested by Langlands [@Langlands76], [@Langlands79]). This argument by Kottwitz was one of the motivations for the work [@LR87] and will also serve as a guide for our unconditional proof.
Proof of Kottwitz conjecture under Langlands-Rapoport conjecture {#subsec:Proof_of_K-formula1}
----------------------------------------------------------------
Since in this section we will work exclusively with the mod-$\wp$ reductions of ${\mathscr{S}}_{K^p}$ and ${\mathscr{S}}:=\varprojlim_{H^p}{\mathscr{S}}_{H^p}$, we denote these $\kappa(\wp)$-schemes again by ${\mathscr{S}}_{K^p}$ and ${\mathscr{S}}$. Any element $g\in G({\mathbb A}_f^p)$ gives rise to a Hecke correspondence (from ${\mathscr{S}}_{K^p}$ to itself): $$\label{eq:Hecke_corr_f}
{\mathscr{S}}_{K^p}\stackrel{p_1'}{\longleftarrow} {\mathscr{S}}_{K^p_g} \stackrel{p_2}{\longrightarrow} {\mathscr{S}}_{K^p}.$$ where $K^p_g:=K^p\cap gK^pg^{-1}$, the right-hand map $p_2$ is the natural projection induced by the inclusion $K^p_g\subset K^p$ and the left-hand map $p_1'$ is the composite of the natural projection ${\mathscr{S}}_{K^p_g}\stackrel{p_1}{\rightarrow} {\mathscr{S}}_{gK^pg^{-1}}$ (induced by the inclusion $K^p_g\subset gK^pg^{-1}$) with the (right) action by $g$: ${\mathscr{S}}_{gK^pg^{-1}} {\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}{\mathscr{S}}_{K^p}$; we denote by $f$ this Hecke correspondence. We are interested in the fixed point set of the composition $\Phi^m\circ f$ of the morphism $\Phi^m$ and the correspondence $f$, namely the fixed point set of the correspondence: $$\label{eq:Hecke_corr_twisted_by_Frob}
{\mathscr{S}}_{K^p}\stackrel{p_1'}{\longleftarrow} {\mathscr{S}}_{K^p_g} \stackrel{p_2'=\Phi^m\circ p_2}{\longrightarrow} {\mathscr{S}}_{K^p}.$$ By definition, a fixed point of this correspondence $\Phi^m\circ f$ is a point in ${\mathscr{S}}_{K^p_g}({\bar{\mathbb{F}}_{p}})$ whose images in ${\mathscr{S}}_{K^p}({\bar{\mathbb{F}}_{p}})$ under $p_1'$ and $p_2'=\Phi^m\circ p_2$ coincide.
Now we assume that Langlands-Rapoport conjecture (Conj. \[conj:Langlands-Rapoport\_conjecture\_ver1\]) holds; we also assume that $(G,X)$ satisfies the Serre condition. Then, it is clear that for each admissible morphism $\phi$, the correspondences $f$, $\Phi^m\circ f$ restrict to correspondences from $S_{K^p}(\phi)$ to itself: $$S_{K^p}(\phi) \stackrel{p_1'}{\longleftarrow} S_{K^p_g}(\phi) \stackrel{p_2,p_2'}{\longrightarrow} S_{K^p}(\phi).$$ where $S_{K^p}(\phi)=I_{\phi}({\mathbb Q})\backslash [X_p(\phi)\times (X^p(\phi)/K^p)]$ and $S_{K^p_g}(\phi)$ is defined similarly. From now on, we assume $K^p$ to be small enough so that the following conditions hold: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{item:Langlands-conditions}
(a) &\text{ If }\epsilon\in I_{\phi}({\mathbb Q})\text{ and }\epsilon x= xg\text{ for some }x\in X^p(\phi)/K^p_g\times X_p(\phi),\text{ then }\epsilon\in Z({\mathbb Q})_K:=Z({\mathbb Q})\cap K. \\
(b) &\ I_{\phi}^{{\mathrm{der}}}\cap K\cap Z(G)({\mathbb Q})=\{1\}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ This is possible by [@Langlands79 p.1171-1172] (cf. [@Kottwitz84b 1.3.7, 1.3.8], [@Milne92 Lem. 5.5]).
Under these conditions, an elementary argument ([@Kottwitz84b $\S$1.4], [@Milne92 Lem. 5.3]) establishes that the fixed point subset of $\Phi^m\circ f$ acting on $S_{K^p}(\phi)$ decomposes into disjoint subsets: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:fixed_pt_set_of_Heck-corresp1}
S_{K^p}(\phi)^{p_1'=p_2'} &= \bigsqcup_{\epsilon} I_{\phi,\epsilon}({\mathbb Q})\backslash X(\phi,\epsilon)_{K^p_g},\end{aligned}$$ where the index $\epsilon$ runs through a set of representatives in $I_{\phi}({\mathbb Q})$ for the conjugacy classes of $I_{\phi}({\mathbb Q})/Z({\mathbb Q})_K$, $I_{\phi,\epsilon}({\mathbb Q})$ is the centralizer of $\epsilon$ in $I_{\phi}({\mathbb Q})$ (we regard $I_{\phi,\epsilon}$ as an algebraic ${\mathbb Q}$-subgroup of $I_{\phi}$), and $$X(\phi,\epsilon)_{K^p_g} := \{\ x\in X(\phi)/K^p_g \ \ |\ \ \epsilon p_1'(x)=\Phi^m p_2(x)\ \}= X_p(\phi,\epsilon)\times (X^p(\phi,\epsilon;g)/K^p_g)$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
X_p(\phi,\epsilon) &:=\{\ x_p\in X_p(\phi) \ \ |\ \ \epsilon x_p=\Phi^m x_p\ \}, \\
X^p(\phi,\epsilon;g) &:=\{\ x^p\in X^p(\phi) \ \ |\ \ \epsilon x^pg=x^p\text{ mod }K^p\ \},\end{aligned}$$ where $\Phi$ is the Frobenius automorphism acting on $X_p(\phi)$ (\[eq:Frob\_Phi\_1\]). When $g=1$, this gives the description in Remark \[rem:admissible\_pair\] (with $X^p(\phi,\epsilon):=X^p(\phi,\epsilon;1)$).
In particular, we see that if the set $I_{\phi,\epsilon}({\mathbb Q})\backslash X(\phi,\epsilon)_{K^p_g}$ is non-empty for some $\epsilon\in I_{\phi}({\mathbb Q})$, the pair $(\phi,\epsilon)$ is an admissible pair in the sense of Def. \[defn:admissible\_pair\]. We want a description of the set $X_p(\phi,\epsilon)$ in terms of the (equivalence class of) Kottwitz triple attached to the pair $(\phi,\epsilon)$.
We choose $u\in G({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ such that $\xi_p'=\Int(u)\circ\phi(p)\circ\zeta_p$ is unramified, say the inflation of a ${{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerb morphism $\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}:{\mathfrak{D}}\rightarrow{\mathfrak{G}}_{G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}}^{{\mathrm{ur}}}$ (for example, $u\in G({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ with $u^{-1}{\mathbf{K}}_p({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})\in X_p(\phi)$), which then gives $b\sigma=\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}(s_{\sigma})\in G({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})\rtimes\langle\sigma\rangle$ and $\epsilon':=\Int(u)(\epsilon)\in G({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$ via the embedding of ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-groups $$\label{eq:int(u)}
\Int(u):(I_{\phi})_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}=I_{\phi(p)}:=\underline{\mathrm{Aut}}(\phi(p))\ \hookrightarrow\ \underline{\mathrm{Aut}}(\phi(p)\circ\zeta_p)\ {\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}\ \underline{\mathrm{Aut}}(\xi_p')=\underline{\mathrm{Aut}}(\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}),$$ where for a morphism $\theta$ of $k'/k$-Galois gerbs ($k'/k$ being a Galois extension), $\underline{\mathrm{Aut}}(\theta)$ is the $k$-algebraic group defined in (\[eq:Isom(phi\_1,phi\_2)\]). Under this embedding, the ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-group $(I_{\phi})_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is identified with the centralizer of $\mathrm{im}(\Int(u)\circ\phi(p)^{\Delta})$ in $\underline{\mathrm{Aut}}(\xi_p')$, since ${\mathrm{im}}(\phi(p))$ is generated by ${\mathrm{im}}(\phi(p)\circ\zeta_p)$ and ${\mathrm{im}}(\phi(p)^{\Delta})$. When $u^{-1}{\mathbf{K}}_p({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})\in X_p(\phi)$, multiplying by $u$ gives an identification (\[eqn:X\_p(phi)=ADLV\]) $$u:(X_p(\phi),\Phi){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}(X(\{\mu_X\},b)_{{\mathbf{K}}_p},(b\sigma)^r)$$ of sets with operator (see (\[eq:Frob\_Phi\_1\]), (\[eq:Frob\_Phi\_2\])), where $r=[\kappa(\wp):{\mathbb{F}_{p}}]$. The group $I_{\phi}({{\mathbb Q}_p})$ acts on both sides in compatible manners with the Frobenius operators: the left action is the canonical one and the right action is induced from this action via (\[eq:int(u)\]), so that this identification is $I_{\phi}({{\mathbb Q}_p})$-equivariant for these actions. Under this identification, the equation $\epsilon x_p=\Phi^mx_p$ translates to $$\epsilon' (ux_p)=(b\sigma)^{rm}(ux_p)$$ Note that since $\epsilon'$ commutes with $\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}(s_{\sigma})=b\sigma$, we then have $(\epsilon')^sx_p=(b\sigma)^{rms}x_p$ for any $s\in{\mathbb N}$.
From the pair $(\epsilon',b)$, by Lemma \[lem:delta\_from\_b&gamma\_0\], we can find $c\in G({\mathfrak{k}})$ such that $$\label{eq:(epsilon,b,c)->delta1}
c(\epsilon'^{-1}(b\sigma)^m)c^{-1}=\sigma^n,$$ ($n=rm$) so that one has $\delta:=cb\sigma(c^{-1})\in G(L_n)$ and ${\mathrm{N}}_n\delta=c\epsilon'c^{-1}$.
We also choose $v\in X^p(\phi,\epsilon;g)$ and set $\gamma=(\gamma_l)_{l\neq p}:=v\epsilon v^{-1}\in G({\mathbb A}_f^p)$. Then, for any $\gamma_0\in G({\mathbb Q})$ stably conjugate to $\epsilon\in G({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$, the triple $$(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$$ is a Kottwitz triple of level $n=rm$ attached to $(\phi,\epsilon)$ which has trivial Kottwitz invariant (, Prop. \[prop:Kottwitz\_triple\]).
The cardinality of the set $I_{\phi,\epsilon}({\mathbb Q})\backslash X(\phi,\epsilon)$ will be expressed in terms of this triple $(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$ and $g$ (as a product of orbital and twisted-orbital integrals and a certain constant). This is explained in [@Kottwitz84b $\S$1.5] (cf. [@Kottwitz92 $\S$16]) in the case $g=1$. We extend this argument to general $g\in G({\mathbb A}_f^p)$ in the style similar to that of [@Kottwitz92] in PEL-type cases.[^35] Let us use the following notation: for an algebraic group $H$ over a field $k$ (of characteristic zero) and a subset $S\subset H(k)$, $H_S$ denotes the simultaneous centralizer in $H$ of the elements of $S$, except for the notation $T_{\epsilon}$ from Prop. \[prop:canonical\_decomp\_of\_epsilon\] (subgroup generated by $\epsilon$). For a place $v$ of ${\mathbb Q}$, let $I_{\phi(v)}$ be the twist of the ${{\mathbb Q}_v}$-group $I_{{{\mathbb Q}_v}}=Z_{G_{{{\mathbb Q}_v}}}(\phi(v)^{\Delta})$ by $\phi(v)$ so that $I_{\phi(v)}({{\mathbb Q}_v})=\mathrm{Aut}(\phi(v))=\{g_v\in G({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_v})\ |\ \Int(g_v)\circ\phi(v)=\phi(v) \}$.
\[lem:isom\_Int(cu)\] Assume that ${\mathbb Q}\operatorname{-}\mathrm{rk}(Z(G))={\mathbb R}\operatorname{-}\mathrm{rk}(Z(G))$. Let $(\phi,\epsilon)$ be an admissible pair and $(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$ an associated Kottwitz triple.
\(1) The ${\mathbb Q}$-group $I_{\phi,\epsilon}$ is an inner form of $G_{\gamma_0}$. Moreover, if $(\phi,\epsilon)$ is well-located in a maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-torus $T$ of $G$ that is elliptic over ${\mathbb R}$, there exists an inner twisting $(I_{\phi,\epsilon})_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}(G_{\gamma_0})_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}$ that restricts to the identity map of $T$ and also induces an inner twisting $(I_{\phi,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}})_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}(G_{\gamma_0}^{\mathrm{o}})_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}$.
\(2) For any $v_l^{-1}\in X_l(\phi,\epsilon)$, $\Int(v_l):(I_{\phi})_{{{\mathbb Q}_l}} \hookrightarrow G_{{{\mathbb Q}_l}}$ induces an isomorphism of ${{\mathbb Q}_l}$-groups $$\Int(v_l):(I_{\phi,\epsilon})_{{{\mathbb Q}_l}}=I_{\phi(l),\epsilon}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}G_{\gamma_l},$$ where $\gamma_l:=\Int(v_l)(\epsilon)\in G({{\mathbb Q}_l})$ and $G_{\gamma_l}$ is the centralizer of $\gamma_l$ in $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_l}}$.
\(3) For $u\in G({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ (\[eq:int(u)\]) and $c\in G({\mathfrak{k}})$ (Lemma \[lem:delta\_from\_b&gamma\_0\]) above, $\Int(cu)$ induces an isomorphism of ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-groups $$\label{eq:Int(cu)}
\Int(cu):\ (I_{\phi,\epsilon})_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}=I_{\phi(p),\epsilon}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}G_{\delta\sigma},$$ where $G_{\delta\sigma}$ is the $\sigma$-centralizer of $\delta\in G(L_n)$ [@Kottwitz82 p.802] ($G_{\delta\sigma}$ is a closed subgroup of ${\mathrm{Res}}_{L_n/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}(G)$ such that $G_{\delta\sigma}({{\mathbb Q}_p})=\{ y\in G(L_n)\ |\ y(\delta\sigma)=(\delta\sigma)y\}$, and one also has $(G_{\delta\sigma})_{L_n}\simeq Z_{G_{L_n}}({\mathrm{N}}_n\delta)$).
\(4) For every place $v$ of ${\mathbb Q}$, we have a natural identification: $$(I_{\phi,\epsilon})_{{{\mathbb Q}_v}}=I_{\phi(v),\epsilon}=I_{\phi(v)\circ\zeta_v,\epsilon}.$$
Unlike the case $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$, in general, the isomorphism class of $I_{\phi,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}}$ *as inner form of $G_{\gamma_0}^{\mathrm{o}}$* (i.e. a preimage in $H^1({\mathbb Q},(G_{\gamma_0}^{\mathrm{o}})^{{\mathrm{ad}}})$ of the corresponding class in $H^1({\mathbb Q},\mathrm{Aut}(G_{\gamma_0}^{\mathrm{o}}))$) is not uniquely determined by the LR-pair $(\phi,\epsilon)$ or the associated Kottwitz triple.
Since for any $g\in G({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$, $\Int(g)$ induces ${\mathbb Q}$-isomorphisms $$I_{\phi}=\underline{\mathrm{Aut}}(\phi){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}I_{\phi'}=\underline{\mathrm{Aut}}(\phi'),\quad I_{\phi,\epsilon}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}I_{\phi',\epsilon'}$$ for $\phi':=\Int(g)\circ\phi$ and $\epsilon':=\Int(g)(\epsilon)$, in all proofs, by admissible embeddings of maximal tori (Lemma \[lem:LR-Lemma5.23\]), we may and do assume that $\epsilon\in G({\mathbb Q})$, in which case the inner twisting $(I_{\phi})_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}I_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}$ (\[eq:inner-twisting\_by\_phi\]) induces a ${\mathbb Q}$-isomorphism $T_{\epsilon}^{\phi}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}T_{\epsilon}^G$ between their ${\mathbb Q}$-subgroups generated by $\epsilon$ (Prop. \[prop:canonical\_decomp\_of\_epsilon\], (2)); we simply write $T_{\epsilon}$ for this group, and let $(\pi_0,t)$ be the elements of $T_{\epsilon}({\mathbb Q})$ (for some $s\in{\mathbb N}$) attached to $(T_{\epsilon},\epsilon)$ by Lemma \[lem:canonical\_decomp\_of\_epsilon\].
\(1) To prove that $I_{\phi,\epsilon}$ is an inner form of $G_{\gamma_0}$, it suffices to show that $Z_G(\phi^{\Delta},\epsilon)$ (simultaneous centralizer in $G$ of the image of $\phi^{\Delta}$ and $\epsilon)$ equals $G_{\epsilon}$ (as $I_{\phi,\epsilon}$ and $G_{\gamma_0}$ are respectively ${\mathbb Q}$-inner forms of $Z_G(\phi^{\Delta},\epsilon)$ and $G_{\epsilon}$). This follows from Prop. \[prop:canonical\_decomp\_of\_epsilon\], according to which we have $$Z_G(\phi^{\Delta},\epsilon)=Z_G(\pi_0^k,\epsilon)=Z_G(\pi_0^k,T_{\epsilon})=G_{\epsilon}.$$ When $(\phi,\epsilon)$ is well-located in a maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-torus $T$ of $G$ that is elliptic over ${\mathbb R}$, since $I_{\phi,\epsilon}$ is the inner-twist of $Z_G(\phi^{\Delta},\epsilon)$ via $\phi$, we see that there exists a $T$-equivariant inner twisting $(I_{\phi,\epsilon})_{{\mathbb Q}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}(G_{\gamma_0})_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}$ which also induces an inner twisting $(I_{\phi,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}})_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}(G_{\gamma_0}^{\mathrm{o}})_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}$.
\(2) According to Prop. \[prop:canonical\_decomp\_of\_epsilon\], we know that $\Int(v_l)(\pi_0^k)$ also lies in the ${{\mathbb Q}_l}$-subgroup of $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_l}}$ generated by $\Int(v_l)(\epsilon)$ (which equals $\Int(v_l)(T_{\epsilon})$). Since $v_l\in X_l(\phi)$, $\Int(v_l)$ identifies $(I_{\phi})_{{{\mathbb Q}_l}}=\underline{\mathrm{Aut}}(\phi(l))$ with the centralizer in $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_l}}$ of the image of $\Int(v_l)\circ\phi(l)^{\Delta}$, which in turn equals the centralizer of $\Int(v_l)(\pi_0^k)$ for any $k\gg1$ (by Prop. \[prop:phi(delta)=gamma\_0\_up\_to\_center\] and Lemma \[lem:Zariski\_group\_closure\], (2)). So, under $\Int(v_l)$, $(I_{\phi,\epsilon})_{{{\mathbb Q}_l}}$ is identified with the simultaneous centralizer in $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_l}}$ of $\Int(v_l)(\pi_0^k)$ and $\Int(v_l)(\epsilon)$, hence with the centralizer of $\Int(v_l)(\epsilon)$ alone.
\(3) Recall that under the embedding ${\mathrm{Int}}(u):(I_{\phi})_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}} \hookrightarrow \underline{\mathrm{Aut}}(\xi_p')$ (\[eq:int(u)\]), the ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-group $(I_{\phi})_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is identified with the centralizer of $\mathrm{im}(\Int(u)\circ\phi(p)^{\Delta})$ in $\underline{\mathrm{Aut}}(\xi_p')$. We put $(\epsilon',\pi_0',t')=\Int(u)(\epsilon,\pi_0,t)$ (elements of $T_{\epsilon}':=\Int(u)(T_{\epsilon})$). Since the image of $\Int(u)\circ\phi(p)^{\Delta}$ is generated by $\pi_0'^k$ for any $k\gg1$ (by Prop. \[prop:phi(delta)=gamma\_0\_up\_to\_center\]), $\Int(u)$ induces an isomorphism $$\Int(u):(I_{\phi,\epsilon})_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}} {\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}\underline{\mathrm{Aut}}(\xi_p')_{\pi_0'^k,\epsilon'}.$$ Suppose that $\xi_p'$ is the inflation of a morphism of ${{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerbs, say $\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}:{\mathfrak{D}}\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}_{G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}}^{{\mathrm{ur}}}$; then, $\underline{\mathrm{Aut}}(\xi_p')=\underline{\mathrm{Aut}}(\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}})$. We also choose $N\in{\mathbb N}$ for which $\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}$ factors through ${\mathfrak{D}}_N={\mathfrak{D}}_{L_N}$ and, as such, is induced (by inflation to ${{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}$) from a morphism ${\mathfrak{D}}^{L_N}_{p,L_N}\rightarrow G(L_N)\rtimes {\mathrm{Gal}}(L_N/{{\mathbb Q}_p})$ of $L_N/{{\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerbs (cf. ). Then, as $(\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}})^{\Delta}=-N\nu_b$ for $b=\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}(s_{\sigma})$ and its Newton homomorphism $\nu_b$ (Lemma \[lem:Newton\_hom\_attached\_to\_unramified\_morphism\]), it follows from definition of ${\mathfrak{D}}_N$ that $$N\nu_{b}\in{\mathrm{Hom}}_{L_N}({\mathbb{G}_{\mathrm{m}}},G),\ \text{ and }\quad {\mathrm{N}}_N(b)=(N\nu_{b})(p).$$ Since $(b\sigma)^N=(N\nu_b)(p)\sigma^N$, any $g\in G({\mathfrak{k}})$, if it commutes with both $b\sigma$ and ${\mathrm{im}}(\nu_b)$, also must commute with $\sigma^N$. Hence, for any ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-algebra $R$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\underline{\mathrm{Aut}}(\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}})(R)
&=\{ g\in Z_{G({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}\otimes R)}(\nu_b)\ |\ gb\sigma(g^{-1})=b\} \\
&=\{ g\in Z_{G({\mathfrak{k}}\otimes R)}(\nu_b)\ |\ gb\sigma(g^{-1})=b\} \\
&=J_b(R),\end{aligned}$$ where $J_{b}$ is the algebraic ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-group whose set of $R$-points for any ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-algebra $R$ is given by $J_b(R):=\{g\in G({\mathfrak{k}}\otimes R)\ |\ g(b\sigma)=(b\sigma)g\}$ (in the last equality we used the fact that $\nu_{hb\sigma(h^{-1})}=h\nu_bh^{-1}$ for any $h\in G({\mathfrak{k}})$). Therefore, it follows that $\Int(u)$ induces isomorphisms $(I_{\phi})_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}\underline{\mathrm{Aut}}(\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}})_{\pi_0'^k}=(J_b)_{\pi_0'^k}$, $$(I_{\phi,\epsilon})_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}} {\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}\underline{\mathrm{Aut}}(\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}})_{\pi_0'^k,\epsilon'} = (J_b)_{\pi_0'^k,\epsilon'}=(J_b)_{\epsilon'},$$ for any sufficiently large $k\in{\mathbb N}$, because the image of $\Int(u)\circ\phi(p)^{\Delta}$ (which also contains the image of $\nu_b$) is generated by $\pi_0'^k\ (k\gg1)$ (Prop. \[prop:phi(delta)=gamma\_0\_up\_to\_center\]) and $\pi_0'$ lies in the subgroup of $G_{{\mathfrak{k}}}$ generated by $\epsilon'$ (Prop. \[prop:canonical\_decomp\_of\_epsilon\], Lemma \[lem:Zariski\_group\_closure\]).
Finally, as one has $c(\epsilon'^{-1}(b\sigma)^n)c^{-1}=\sigma^n$ (\[eq:(epsilon,b,c)->delta1\]), $\Int(c)$ induces an isomorphism $$\Int(c): (J_b)_{\epsilon'} {\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}G_{\delta\sigma}.$$
\(4) As it is clear that $(I_{\phi,\epsilon})_{{{\mathbb Q}_v}}=I_{\phi(v),\epsilon}$, this is proved by the same argument as in (2): $$I_{\phi(v),\epsilon}=I_{\phi(v)\circ\zeta_v,\pi_0^k,\epsilon}=I_{\phi(v)\circ\zeta_v,\epsilon}. \qedhere$$
For a stable Kottwitz triple $(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$ attached to an admissible pair $(\phi,\epsilon)$, any cohomology class in $H^1({\mathbb A}_f^p,I_0)\oplus B(I_0)_{basic}(\cong H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},I_0))$ defining a Kottwitz invariant gives a class in $H^1({\mathbb Q},(G_{\gamma_0}^{\mathrm{o}})^{{\mathrm{ad}}})$ which presents $I_{\phi,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}}$ as an inner form of $G_{\gamma_0}^{\mathrm{o}}$.
\[lem:local\_inner-twistings\_of\_Z\_G(gamma\_0)\] Keep the assumption from Lemma \[lem:isom\_Int(cu)\].
\(1) For a *stable* Kottwitz triple $(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$ of level $n$ attached to an admissible pair $(\phi,\epsilon)$, let us choose $(g_l)_{l\neq p}\in G(\bar{{\mathbb A}}_f^p)$ and $g_p\in G({\mathfrak{k}})$ satisfying (\[eq:stable\_g\_l\]), (\[eq:stable\_g\_l\]), i.e. such that $g_l\gamma_0g_l^{-1}=\gamma_l$ and $g_v^{-1}\cdot{}^{\tau}g_v\in I_0({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_v})$ for $v\neq p$ and $\tau\in\Gamma_v$, while $g_p\gamma_0 g_p^{-1}={\mathrm{N}}_n\delta$ and $b:=g_p^{-1}\delta\sigma(g_p)\in I_0$.
Then, $I_{\phi,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}}$ is an inner form of $I_0:=G_{\gamma_0}^{\mathrm{o}}$ corresponding to the class $\beta\in H^1({\mathbb Q},(I_0)^{{\mathrm{ad}}})$ whose localizations are given by: $$\label{eq:local_inner-class}
\beta(v)=\begin{cases} [pr(g_l^{-1}\cdot{}^{\tau}g_l)] &\text{ if } v=l\neq p \\
[pr(b)] &\text{ if } v=p
\end{cases}$$ where $pr:I_0\rightarrow I_0^{{\mathrm{ad}}}$ is the canonical map, and $[pr(b)]$ denotes the $\sigma$-conjugacy class of $pr(b)\in (I_0)^{{\mathrm{ad}}}({\mathfrak{k}})$ which in fact lies in the subset $H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p}, (I_0)^{{\mathrm{ad}}})$ since $[b]\in B( I_0)$ is basic (cf. Lemma \[lem:equality\_of\_two\_Newton\_maps\], [@Kottwitz85 4.5]). Also, $\beta(\infty)$ is the (unique) class corresponding to the compact inner form of $(I_0)_{{\mathbb R}}$. In particular, as an inner form of $G_{\gamma_0}^{\mathrm{o}}$, $I_{\phi,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}}$ is uniquely determined by the cosets $G({{\mathbb Q}_l}) g_l$ and $G(L_n) g_p$.
\(2) When $(\phi,\epsilon)$ is nested in a special Shimura sub-datum, there exists a choice of $(g_v)_v\in G(\bar{{\mathbb A}}_f^p)\times G({\mathfrak{k}})$ as in (1) such that the twisting $(I_{\phi,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}})_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}(G_{\gamma_0}^{\mathrm{o}})_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}$ in Lemma \[lem:isom\_Int(cu)\], (1) (which is the twisting via $\phi$, cf. (\[eq:inner-twisting\_by\_phi\])) fits the local descriptions (\[eq:local\_inner-class\]).
\(1) Since $(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$ is a stable Kottwitz triple, there exist $(g_l)_{l\neq p}$ and $c\in G({\mathfrak{k}})$ as in the statement. Then, for each $l\neq p$, we have an inner-twisting $$\label{eq:inner-twisting_at_l_of_G(gamma_0)}
\varphi_l:(I_0)_{{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_l}} \stackrel{\Int(g_l)}{\longrightarrow} (G_{\gamma_l}^{\mathrm{o}})_{{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_l}} \stackrel{\Int(v_l^{-1})}{\longrightarrow} (I_{\phi,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}})_{{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_l}},$$ where $v_l^{-1}\in X_l(\phi,\epsilon)$ (Lemma \[lem:isom\_Int(cu)\]). So, we have $\varphi_l^{-1}\cdot {}^{\tau}\varphi_l=\Int(g_l^{-1}\cdot{}^{\tau}g_l)$ for every $\tau\in\Gamma_l$. At $p$, there exists an inner-twisting $$\label{eq:inner-twisting_at_p_of_G(gamma_0)}
\varphi_p:(I_0)_{{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}} \stackrel{\psi_p^{-1}}{\longrightarrow} (G_{\delta\sigma}^{\mathrm{o}})_{{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}} \stackrel{\Int((cu)^{-1})}{\longrightarrow} (I_{\phi,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}})_{{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}},$$ where $u\in G({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ and $c\in G({\mathfrak{k}})$ are as in Lemma \[lem:isom\_Int(cu)\], and $\psi_p$, which is a morphism $(G_{\delta\sigma}^{\mathrm{o}})_{{\mathfrak{k}}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}(I_0)_{{\mathfrak{k}}}$ defined over ${\mathfrak{k}}$, is the composite of the two isomorphisms (defined over $L_n$ and ${\mathfrak{k}}$) $$(G_{\delta\sigma}^{\mathrm{o}})_{L_n}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}G_{{\mathrm{N}}_n\delta}^{\mathrm{o}},\quad \Int(g_p^{-1}): (G_{{\mathrm{N}}_n\delta}^{\mathrm{o}})_{{\mathfrak{k}}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}(I_0)_{{\mathfrak{k}}}$$ [@Kottwitz82 Lem. 5.4]. One has $$\psi_p\cdot {}^{\sigma}\psi_p^{-1}=\Int(b).$$ Since $[b]\in B(I_0)$ is basic, by definition there exist $n'=nk\ (k\gg1)$ and $d\in I_0({\mathfrak{k}})$ such that $d{\mathrm{N}}_{n'}b\sigma^{n'}(d^{-1})=\nu_{b}(p)$, thus gives a cocycle $\sigma\mapsto pr(db\sigma(d^{-1}))\in Z^1(L_{n'}/{{\mathbb Q}_p},(I_0)^{{\mathrm{ad}}})$ whose class maps to $[pr(b)]\in B((I_0)^{{\mathrm{ad}}})=H^1(W_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}},(I_0)^{{\mathrm{ad}}}(\bar{{\mathfrak{k}}}))$. Hence, we see that $[pr(b)]$ defines the inner-twisting $(I_0)_{{{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}} {\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}(G_{\delta\sigma}^{\mathrm{o}})_{{{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}}$ above, which proves the claim for $\beta(p)$.
Finally, note that these local data determine an *inner form of $I_0$* uniquely, by the Hasse principle for connnected (semisimple) adjoint groups over number fields.
\(2) Suppose that $\phi=\psi_{T,\mu_h}$, $\epsilon\in T({\mathbb Q})$ for a special Shimura sub-datum $(T,h)$. Recall (Remark \[rem:two\_different\_b’s\]) that in this case, $\gamma_l=\gamma_0\in T({\mathbb Q})$ for every $l\neq p$ and $\delta=cb\sigma(c^{-1})$ for some $c\in G({\mathfrak{k}})$ and $b\sigma=\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}(s_{\sigma})$, where $\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}$ is a ${{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerb morphism whose inflation to ${\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}$ equals an unramified $T({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$-conjugate of $\xi_p=\phi(p)\circ\zeta_p$. So, $b\in T({\mathfrak{k}})$, and we can take $g_l:=1$ and $g_p:=c$. On the other hand, since $\phi(l)\circ\zeta_l$ is conjugate to the canonical trivialization $\xi_l$ under $T({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_l})$, we find that the local cohomology class in $H^1({{\mathbb Q}_v},(I_0)^{{\mathrm{ad}}})$ representing the inner twist $(I_{\phi,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}})_{{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_v}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}(I_0)_{{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_v}}$ is trivial if $v=l$ and equals $[pr(b)]\in H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\mathbb Q}_p},(I_0)^{{\mathrm{ad}}})$. This proves the claim.
Note that due to Hasse-principle on $\pi_0(G_{\gamma_0})$ (Prop. \[prop:triviality\_in\_comp\_gp\]), we also see that $I_{\phi,\epsilon}$ is the twist of $G_{\gamma_0}$ by (the image under $H^1({\mathbb Q},G_{\gamma_0}^{\mathrm{o}})\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb Q},G_{\gamma_0}^{{\mathrm{ad}}})$ of) the same cohomology class.
\[lem:uniqueness\_of\_inner-class\_with\_same\_K-triples\] Let $(\phi,\epsilon)$ and $(\phi',\epsilon')$ be two admissible pairs. If their associated Kottwitz triples are equivalent, then the ${\mathbb Q}$-groups $I_{\phi,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}}$, $I_{\phi',\epsilon'}^{\mathrm{o}}$ are isomorphic as inner forms of $G_{\gamma_0}^{\mathrm{o}}$.
Let $(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$ and $(\gamma_0';\gamma',\delta')$ be some stable Kottwitz triples attached to $(\phi,\epsilon)$ and $(\phi',\epsilon')$ respectively such that the $G({\mathbb A}_f^p)$-conjugacy classes of $\gamma$, $\gamma'$ and the $\sigma$-conjugacy classes $\delta$, $\delta'$ in $G(L_n)$ are the same; then, according to Prop. \[prop:triviality\_in\_comp\_gp\] they are stably conjugate and thus we may assume that $\gamma_0'=\gamma_0$. It follows from Lemma \[lem:local\_inner-twistings\_of\_Z\_G(gamma\_0)\] that the isomorphism class of $I_{\phi,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}}$ as an inner twist of $I_0$ is determined by choice of elements $g_l$ and $g_0$ as in Lemma \[lem:local\_inner-twistings\_of\_Z\_G(gamma\_0)\] by means of the corresponding local cohomology classes (\[eq:local\_inner-class\]) in $H^1({{\mathbb Q}_v},(I_0)^{{\mathrm{ad}}})$. Then, since $\gamma'=h_l\gamma_lh_l^{-1}$ and $\delta'=d\delta\sigma(d)^{-1}$ for some $h_l\in G({{\mathbb Q}_l})$ and $d\in G(L_n)$, we may choose the elements $(g_v)_v$, $(g_v')_v$ in such a way that those cohomology classes are the same, hence the claim follows.
Let us fix $(v_l)_l\in \prod'_{l\neq\infty,p}X_l(\phi)$; then, for almost all $l\neq p$, $\Int(v_l)$ extends to an embedding of reductive ${\mathbb Z}_l$-group schemes $(I_{\phi})_{{\mathbb Z}_l} \hookrightarrow G_{{\mathbb Z}_l}$ (cf. [@LR87 p.168]). By taking the restricted product, over the finite primes $l\neq p$, of $\Int(v_l):I_{\phi}({{\mathbb Q}_l})=\mathrm{Aut}(\phi(l))\rightarrow \mathrm{Aut}(\xi_l)=G({{\mathbb Q}_l})$, this also specify isomorphisms $$\label{eq:Int(v)}
\Int(v):I_{\phi}({\mathbb A}_f^p) {\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}G({\mathbb A}_f^p),\quad I_{\phi,\epsilon}({\mathbb A}_f^p) {\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}G({\mathbb A}_f^p)_{\gamma},$$ where $G({\mathbb A}_f^p)_{\gamma}$ denotes the centralizer of $\gamma$ in $G({\mathbb A}_f^p)$.
Set ${\mathbf{K}}_q:=G(L_n)\cap {\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p$ ($q=p^n$). Define $\phi_p$ to be the characteristic function of the subset (union of double cosets) of ${\mathbf{K}}_q\backslash G(L_n)/{\mathbf{K}}_q$ corresponding to the following set, cf. Definition \[defn:mu-admissible\_subset\]: $$\label{eq:Adm_K(mu)}
\mathrm{Adm}_{{\mathbf{K}}_q}(\{\mu\}):=\{w\in{\mathbf{K}}_q\backslash G(L_n)/{\mathbf{K}}_q\ |\ w\leq \tilde{W}_{{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p}t^{\lambda}\tilde{W}_{{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p}\text{ for some }\lambda\in\Lambda(\{\mu\})\}.$$ Here, in the inequality, $w$ also denotes its image in ${\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p\backslash G({\mathfrak{k}})/{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p\simeq \tilde{W}_{{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p}\backslash \tilde{W}/\tilde{W}_{{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p}$ (\[eqn:parahoric\_double\_coset\]) ($\tilde{W}$ is the relative Weyl group of $G_{{\mathfrak{k}}}$ and $\tilde{W}_{{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p}=\tilde{W}\cap{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p$). Let $dy_p$ (resp. $dy^p$) denote the Haar measure on $G(L_n)$ (resp. on $G({\mathbb A}_f^p)$) giving measure $1$ on ${\mathbf{K}}_q$ (resp. on $K^p$). We also choose an (arbitrary, for the moment) Haar measure $di_p$ (resp. $di^p$) on $G_{\delta\sigma}^{\mathrm{o}}({{\mathbb Q}_p})$ (resp. on $G_{\gamma}^{\mathrm{o}}({\mathbb A}_f^p)$) that gives rational measure to compact open subgroups of $G_{\delta\sigma}^{\mathrm{o}}({{\mathbb Q}_p})$ (resp. of $G_{\gamma}^{\mathrm{o}}({\mathbb A}_f^p)$). Then, we write $d\bar{y}_p$ $d\bar{y}^p$ for the quotient of $dy_p$ by $di_p$ and that of $dy^p$ by $di^p$, respectively.
\[lem:fixed-pt\_subset\_of\_Frob-Hecke\_corr\] Assume that $Z(G)$ has same ranks over ${\mathbb Q}$ and ${\mathbb R}$. We take $K^p$ small enough so that conditions of (\[item:Langlands-conditions\]) hold and $Z(G)({\mathbb Q})\cap K=\{1\}$. Let $(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$ be a Kottwitz triple attached to an admissible pair $(\phi,\epsilon)$. Then, we have $$|I_{\phi,\epsilon}({\mathbb Q})\backslash X(\phi,\epsilon)_{K^p_g}|= \frac{\mathrm{vol}(I_{\phi,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}}({\mathbb Q})\backslash I_{\phi,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}}({\mathbb A}_f))}{[I_{\phi,\epsilon}({\mathbb Q}):I_{\phi,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}}({\mathbb Q})]} \cdot \mathrm{O}_{\gamma}(f^p)\cdot \mathrm{TO}_{\delta}(\phi_p),$$ where $\mathrm{TO}_{\delta}(\phi_p)$ (twisted orbital integral) and $\mathrm{O}_{\gamma}(f^p)$ (orbital integral) are defined by: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:(twisted-)orbital_integral}
\mathrm{TO}_{\delta}(\phi_p)&=\int_{G_{\delta\sigma}^{\mathrm{o}}({{\mathbb Q}_p})\backslash G(L_n)}\phi_p(y_p^{-1}\delta\sigma(y_p)) d\bar{y}_p,\\
\mathrm{O}_{\gamma}(f^p)&=\int_{G_{\gamma}^{\mathrm{o}}({\mathbb A}_f^p)\backslash G({\mathbb A}_f^p)}f^p((y^p)^{-1}\gamma y^p) d\bar{y}^p, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Here, $f^p$ is the characteristic function of $K^pg^{-1}K^p$ in $G({\mathbb A}_f^p)$, and the Haar measure $di_p$ on $G_{\delta\sigma}^{\mathrm{o}}({{\mathbb Q}_p})$ (resp. $di^p$ on $G_{\gamma}^{\mathrm{o}}({\mathbb A}_f^p)$) is obtained from a Haar measure on $I_{\phi,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}}({{\mathbb Q}_p})$ (resp. on $I_{\phi,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}}({\mathbb A}_f^p)$) that gives rational measures to compact open subgroups of $I_{\phi,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}}({{\mathbb Q}_p})$ (resp. of $I_{\phi,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}}({\mathbb A}_f^p)$) via the isomorphism $\Int(cu)$ (\[eq:Int(cu)\]) (resp. via $\Int(v)$ (\[eq:Int(v)\])).
The argument given in [@Kottwitz84b $\S$1.4, $\S$1.5] (cf. [@Kottwitz92 p.432]) works without change, since the necessary isomorphisms (1.4.7), (1.4.8) in [@Kottwitz84b] follow from Lemma \[lem:isom\_Int(cu)\]. Then, the cardinality in question becomes the triple product $$\mathrm{vol}(I_{\phi,\epsilon}({\mathbb Q})\backslash I_{\phi,\epsilon}({\mathbb A}_f))\cdot \int_{G_{\gamma}({\mathbb A}_f^p)\backslash G({\mathbb A}_f^p)}f^p((y^p)^{-1}\gamma y^p) d\bar{y}^p\cdot \int_{G_{\delta\sigma}({{\mathbb Q}_p})\backslash G(L_n)}\phi_p(y_p^{-1}\delta\sigma(y_p)) d\bar{y}_p$$ (the quotient measures $d\bar{y}^p$, $d\bar{y}_p$ being defined similarly). The statement follows from this.
\[eq:|widetilde[Sha]{}\_G(Q,I\_[phi,epsilon]{})\^+|\] For any admissible pair $(\phi,\epsilon)$, the set $\widetilde{\Sha}_G({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi,\epsilon})^+:=\ker[\Sha^{\infty}_G({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}})\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb A},I_{\phi,\epsilon})]$ (cf. Thm. \[thm:LR-Satz5.25\]) is a finite set which depends only on the associated (equivalence class of) Kottwitz triple $(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$. Its cardinality $i(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$ is given by $$|\widetilde{\Sha}_G({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi,\epsilon})^+|=|\ker[ \ker^1({\mathbb Q},I_0)\rightarrow \ker^1({\mathbb Q},G)]| \cdot |\mathfrak{D}(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)|,$$ with $I_0:=G_{\gamma_0}^{\mathrm{o}}$ as usual and $$\mathfrak{D}(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta) :={\mathrm{im}}[\Sha^{\infty}_G({\mathbb Q},I_0)\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb A}_f,I_0)] \cap
\ker [H^1({\mathbb A}_f,G_{\gamma,\delta}^{\mathrm{o}})\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb A}_f,G_{\gamma,\delta})],$$ where $H^1({\mathbb A}_f,G_{\gamma,\delta}^{\mathrm{o}}):=\oplus_l H^1({{\mathbb Q}_v},G_{\gamma_l}^{\mathrm{o}})\oplus H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},G_{\delta\sigma}^{\mathrm{o}})$ and $H^1({\mathbb A}_f,G_{\gamma,\delta})$ is defined similarly.
The intersection in the definition of $\mathfrak{D}(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$ makes sense because there exist inner twists $(I_0)_{{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_v}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}(G_{\gamma_v}^{\mathrm{o}})_{{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_v}}\ (v\neq p)$, $(G_{\delta\sigma}^{\mathrm{o}})_{{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}}$ (Lemma \[lem:isom\_Int(cu)\]), thereby canonical identifications $$H^1({\mathbb A}_f,I_0) \cong H^1({\mathbb A}_f,(I_0)_{{\mathbf{ab}}}) \cong H^1({\mathbb A}_f,(G_{\gamma,\delta}^{\mathrm{o}})_{{\mathbf{ab}}}) \cong H^1({\mathbb A}_f,G_{\gamma,\delta}^{\mathrm{o}})$$ (the middle isomorphism is independent of the choice of the inner twists just mentioned).
When $I_{\phi,\epsilon}$ is connected (e.g., if $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$), one has $|\mathfrak{D}(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)|=1$ and the constant $|\widetilde{\Sha}_G({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi,\epsilon})^+|$ depends only on the stable conjugacy class of $\gamma_0$ (rather than on the whole triple $(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$). But, the author does not know the same property in the general case (for a non-connected group $H$, $H^1({{\mathbb Q}_v},H)$ may not be invariant under inner twists of $H$). Also, we note that the constant $\ker^1({\mathbb Q},I_0)$ appears in [@Kottwitz92 Lem.17.2] with a similar interpretation (see the discussion on p.441-442 of *loc. cit.* for the appearance of the constant $|\ker[ \ker^1({\mathbb Q},I_0)\rightarrow \ker^1({\mathbb Q},G)]|$).
This set is equal to $\ker[\Sha^{\infty}_G({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}})\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb A}_f,I_{\phi,\epsilon})]$ (no $\infty$-component in the target). According to Lemma \[lem:isom\_Int(cu)\], the local groups $(I_{\phi,\epsilon})_{{{\mathbb Q}_v}}$ (for all places $v$ of ${\mathbb Q}$) are determined by the associated Kottwitz triple, and this implies by the Hasse principle for $(I_{\phi,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}})^{{\mathrm{ad}}}$ that the same is also true of the connected ${\mathbb Q}$-group $I_{\phi,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}}$ and the set $\widetilde{\Sha}_G({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi,\epsilon})^+$. Moreover, the two ${\mathbb Q}$-groups $I_{\phi,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}}$ and $I_{\phi,\epsilon}$ are simultaneous inner twists of $I_0=G_{\gamma_0}^{\mathrm{o}}$ and $G_{\gamma_0}$ via a single cochain in $C^1({\mathbb Q},I_0)$ which induces cocycles both in $G_{\gamma_0}^{{\mathrm{ad}}}$ and $I_{\gamma_0}^{{\mathrm{ad}}}$. The map $\Sha^{\infty}_G({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}})\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb A}_f,I_{\phi,\epsilon})$ factors through $$\Sha^{\infty}_G({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}}) \stackrel{j}{\rightarrow} H^1({\mathbb A}_f,I_{\phi,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}}) \rightarrow
H^1({\mathbb A}_f,I_{\phi,\epsilon})$$ Hence, our set $\widetilde{\Sha}_G({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi,\epsilon})^+$ is the disjoint union of $j^{-1}(\beta)$’s with $\beta$ running through $$\label{eq:D(gamma_0;gamma,delta)}
\ker[H^1({\mathbb A}_f,I_{\phi,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}})\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb A}_f,I_{\phi,\epsilon})]\cap {\mathrm{im}}(j).$$ The map $j$ is identified, via abelianizations, with $\Sha^{\infty}_G({\mathbb Q},I_0)\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb A}_f,I_0)$ (recall that by definition, $\Sha^{\infty}_G({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}})=\ker[\Sha^{\infty}({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}})\cong \Sha^{\infty}({\mathbb Q},I_0)\rightarrow \Sha^{\infty}({\mathbb Q},G)]$, where the isomorphism is given by the isomorphism of the corresponding abelianized cohomology groups), hence it follows that the set (\[eq:D(gamma\_0;gamma,delta)\]) is equal to $\mathfrak{D}(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$. We claim that for each $\beta=j(\alpha) \in\mathfrak{D}(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$, there are bijections $$j^{-1}(\beta)\ {\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}\ \ker[H^1({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}})_{\alpha}\stackrel{{\mathbf{ab}}^1}{\longrightarrow} H^1({\mathbb Q},G_{{\mathbf{ab}}})]\ {\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}\ \ker[\ker^1({\mathbb Q},I_0)\rightarrow \ker^1({\mathbb Q},G)],$$ where $H^1({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}})_{\alpha}$ denotes the subset of $H^1({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}})$ consisting of the elements having the same image in $H^1({\mathbb A},I_{\phi,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}})$ as $\alpha$ and ${\mathbf{ab}}^1$ is the composite map $${\mathbf{ab}}^1:H^1({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}})\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb Q},(I_{\phi,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}})_{{\mathbf{ab}}})=H^1({\mathbb Q},(I_0)_{{\mathbf{ab}}})\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb Q},G_{{\mathbf{ab}}})$$ (or its restriction $\Sha^{\infty}({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}})=\Sha^{\infty}({\mathbb Q},(I_{\phi,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}})_{{\mathbf{ab}}})\rightarrow \Sha^{\infty}({\mathbb Q},G_{{\mathbf{ab}}})=\Sha^{\infty}({\mathbb Q},G)$). The first bijection is clear. The second bijection is a consequence of the existence of a bijection $H^1({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}})_{\alpha} {\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}\ker[H^1({\mathbb Q},I_a^{\mathrm{o}})\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb A},I_a^{\mathrm{o}})]$ commuting with the natural maps ${\mathbf{ab}}^1$ into $H^1({\mathbb Q},G_{{\mathbf{ab}}})$, where $a$ is any cocycle in $H^1({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}})$ representing $\alpha$ and $I_a^{\mathrm{o}}$ is the inner twist of $I_{\phi,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}}$ via $a$: this in turn results from [@Serre02 Prop.35bis], the commutative diagram of Lemma 3.15.1 of [@Borovoi98] combined with the vanishing of $\alpha$ in $H^1({\mathbb Q},G_{{\mathbf{ab}}})$, and the well-known fact that for any *connected* reductive group $H$ over ${\mathbb Q}$, the finite abelian group $\ker^1({\mathbb Q},H)$ is unchanged under inner twists. Note that the set $\ker[H^1({\mathbb A}_f,I_{\phi,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}})\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb A}_f,I_{\phi,\epsilon})]$, being the image of the finite set $\pi_0(I_{\phi,\epsilon})({\mathbb A}_f)$ in $H^1({\mathbb A}_f,I_{\phi,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}})$, is also finite, which implies the same property for $\mathfrak{D}(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$ and $\widetilde{\Sha}_G({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi,\epsilon})^+$. The formula for $|\widetilde{\Sha}_G({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi,\epsilon})^+|$ is immediate from this discussion.
Now, we assume that the level subgroup ${\mathbf{K}}_p$ is hyyperspecial and give an expression for the number of fixed points of the correspondence $\Phi^m\circ f$ (\[eq:Hecke\_corr\_twisted\_by\_Frob\]), and, more generally, a weighted sum over the same fixed point set with weight being given by the trace of that correspondence acting on the stalk of some lisse sheaf. We briefly recall the set-up. For more details, see [@Kottwitz92 $\S$6, 16]. We fix a rational prime $l\neq p$. Let $\xi$ be a finite-dimensional representation of $G$ on a vector space $W$ over a number field $L$, and let $\lambda$ be a place of $L$ lying above $l$. We consider the $\lambda$-adic representation $W_{\lambda}:=W\otimes_L{L_{\lambda}}$ of $G({\mathbb A}_f^p)$ induced from the natural one of $G({{\mathbb Q}_l})$ via the projection $G({\mathbb A}_f^p)\rightarrow G({{\mathbb Q}_l})$. Since $Z({\mathbb Q})$ is discrete in $Z({\mathbb A}_f)$ by our assumption ($Z(G)$ has same ranks over ${\mathbb Q}$ and ${\mathbb R}$), it gives rise to lisse sheaves ${\mathscr{F}}_{K^p}$ on the spaces ${\mathscr{S}}_{K^p}$ for varying $K^p$’s: the projective limit ${\mathscr{S}}=\varprojlim_{H^p}{\mathscr{S}}_{H^p}$ is a Galois covering of ${\mathscr{S}}_{K^p}$ with Galois group $K^p$ if $K^p$ is small enough such that $K\cap Z(G)({\mathbb Q})=\{1\}$ [@Deligne79 2.1.9-12], and we have ${\mathscr{F}}_{K^p}={\mathscr{S}}\times W_{\lambda}/K^p$, where $k=(k_v)\in K^p$ acts on $W_{\lambda}$ via $\xi_{L_{\lambda}}(k_l^{-1})$. It is clear that there are canonical isomorphisms $$\cdot g:{\mathscr{F}}_{gK^pg^{-1}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}(\cdot g)^{\ast}{\mathscr{F}}_{K^p},\quad p_2^{\ast}{\mathscr{F}}_{K^p} ={\mathscr{F}}_{K^p_g},\quad \Phi:\Phi^{\ast}{\mathscr{F}}_{K^p}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}{\mathscr{F}}_{K^p},$$ where for any $g\in G({\mathbb A}_f^p)$, $\cdot g$ denotes the right action ${\mathscr{S}}_{gK^pg^{-1}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}{\mathscr{S}}_{K^p}$. Thus, the associated correspondence $\Phi^m\circ f$ (\[eq:Hecke\_corr\_twisted\_by\_Frob\]) extends in a natural manner to the sheaf ${\mathscr{F}}_{K^p}$. In particular, for any fixed point $x'\in {\mathscr{S}}_{K^p_g}({\mathbb F})$ of $\Phi^m\circ f$ and $x:=p_1'(x')=p_2'(x')\in {\mathscr{S}}_{K^p}({\mathbb F})$, the correspondence $\Phi^m\circ f$ gives an automorphism of the stalk ${\mathscr{F}}_x$ (we write ${\mathscr{F}}$, ${\mathscr{F}}'$ for ${\mathscr{F}}_{K^p}$, ${\mathscr{F}}_{K^p_g}$): $$\label{eq:Frob-Hecke_corr_at_stalk}
{\mathscr{F}}_x=(\Phi^{m})^{\ast}({\mathscr{F}})_{p_2(x')}\ \stackrel{\Phi^m}{\longrightarrow}\ {\mathscr{F}}_{p_2(x')} =(p_2^{\ast}{\mathscr{F}})_{x'}={\mathscr{F}}'_{x'}\ \stackrel{p_1^{\ast}(\cdot g)}{\longrightarrow}\ (p_1'^{\ast}{\mathscr{F}})_{x'}={\mathscr{F}}_x.$$ We are interested in computing the sum: $$\label{eq:fixed-pt_set_of_Frob-Hecke_corr}
T(m,f):=\sum_{x'\in\mathrm{Fix}} \mathrm{tr}(\Phi^m\circ f;{\mathscr{F}}_x),$$ where $\mathrm{Fix}$ denotes the set of fixed points of $\Phi^m\circ f$.
Let $A_G$ denote the maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-split torus in the center of $G$. In the next theorem, we return to an arbitrary Shimura datum $(G,X)$ of Hodge type and take $G$ to be the smallest algebraic (connected reductive) ${\mathbb Q}$-group such that every $h\in X$ factors through $G_{{\mathbb R}}$ (i.e. $G$ is the Mumford-Tate group of a generic $h\in X$). In particular, $(G,X)$ satisfies both the Serre condition and the condition that $Z(G)$ has same ranks over ${\mathbb Q}$ and ${\mathbb R}$ (thus, $Z_G({\mathbb R})/A_G({\mathbb R})$ is also compact).
\[thm:Kottwitz\_formula:LR\] Keep the notation from the previous sections and the above discussion. We assume that $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is unramified, and $(G,X)$ is of Hodge type. Fix a hyperspecial parahoric subgroup ${\mathbf{K}}_p$ and take $K^p$ to be sufficiently small such that conditions (a), (b) of (\[item:Langlands-conditions\]) hold and $K\cap Z(G)({\mathbb Q})=\{1\}$.
Suppose that Langlands-Rapoport conjecture, Conj. \[conj:Langlands-Rapoport\_conjecture\_ver1\], holds for $Sh_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}(G,X)$.
\(1) We have the following expression for (\[eq:fixed-pt\_set\_of\_Frob-Hecke\_corr\]): $$T(m,f)=\sum_{(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)} c(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)\cdot \mathrm{O}_{\gamma}(f^p)\cdot \mathrm{TO}_{\delta}(\phi_p)\cdot \mathrm{tr}\xi(\gamma_0),$$ with $$c(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta):=i(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)\cdot |\pi_0(G_{\gamma_0})({\mathbb Q})|^{-1} \cdot \tau(I_0)\cdot \mathrm{vol}(A_G({\mathbb R})^{\mathrm{o}}\backslash I_0(\infty)({\mathbb R}))^{-1}$$ where $I_0:=G_{\gamma_0}^{\mathrm{o}}$, $i(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)=|\widetilde{\Sha}_G({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi,\epsilon})^+|$ (Lemma \[eq:|widetilde[Sha]{}\_G(Q,I\_[phi,epsilon]{})\^+|\]), $\tau(I_0)$ is the Tamagawa number of $I_0$, and $I_0(\infty)$ is the (unique) inner form of $(I_0)_{{\mathbb R}}$ having compact adjoint group. Also, the sum is over a set of representatives $(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$ of all equivalence classes of stable Kottwitz triples of level $n=m[\kappa(\wp):{\mathbb{F}_{p}}]$ having trivial Kottwitz invariant.
\(2) For any $f^p$ in the Hecke algebra $\mathcal{H}(G({\mathbb A}_f^p)/\!\!/ K^p)$, there exists $m(f^p)\in{\mathbb N}$, depending on $f^p$, such that for each $m\geq m(f^p)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_i(-1)^i\mathrm{tr}( & \Phi^m\times f^p | H^i_c(Sh_{K}(G,X)_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}},{\mathscr{F}}_K)) \\
& = \sum_{(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)} c(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)\cdot \mathrm{O}_{\gamma}(f^p)\cdot \mathrm{TO}_{\delta}(\phi_p) \cdot \mathrm{tr}\xi(\gamma_0)\end{aligned}$$ where the sum is over a set of representatives $(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$ of all equivalence classes of stable Kottwitz triples of level $n=m[\kappa(\wp):{\mathbb{F}_{p}}]$ having trivial Kottwitz invariant. If $G^{{\mathrm{ad}}}$ is anisotropic or $f^p$ is the identity, we can take $m(f^p)$ to be $1$ (irrespective of $f^p$).
We remind readers again that “having trivial Kottwitz invariant” means that there exist elements $(g_v)_v\in G(\bar{{\mathbb A}}_f^p)\times G({\mathfrak{k}})$ satisfying conditions (\[eq:stable\_g\_l\]), (\[eq:stable\_g\_l\]) such that the associated Kottwitz invariant $\alpha(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta;(g_v)_v)$ vanishes, and the fact that for stable Kottwitz triples, stable equivalence is the same as (geometric) equivalence (Prop. \[prop:triviality\_in\_comp\_gp\]).
In the definition of $c(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$, the volume of (the quotient of) ${\mathbb R}$-groups is defined with respect to the unique Haar measure $di_{\infty}$ on $I_0({\mathbb R})$ (or equivalently on $I_0(\infty)({\mathbb R})$ by transfer of measure) such that the product of $di^p,di_p,di_{\infty}$ is the canonical measure on $I_0({\mathbb A})$ that is used to define the Tamagawa number $\tau(I_0)$ (cf. [@Labesse01 $\S$1.2]). Then, as $Z_G({\mathbb R})/A_G({\mathbb R})$ is compact, one has $$\label{eq:Tamagawa_number}
\mathrm{vol}(I_0({\mathbb Q})\backslash I_0({\mathbb A}_f))=\tau(I_0)\cdot \mathrm{vol}(A_{G}({\mathbb R})^{\mathrm{o}}\backslash I_0({\mathbb R}))^{-1}.$$
We may assume that $f^p$ is the characteristic function of $K^pg^{-1}K^p$ of some $g\in G({\mathbb A}_f^p)$. For an admissible morphism $\phi$ and a comact open subgroup $K^p$ of $G({\mathbb A}_f^p)$, the fixed point subset $$\mathrm{Fix}_{\phi}:=S_{K^p}(\phi)^{\Phi^m\circ f=\mathrm{Id}}=\{x'\in S_{K^p_g}(\phi)\ |\ p_1'(x')=p_2'(x')\}$$ is a disjoint union $\sqcup_{\epsilon\in I_{\phi}({\mathbb Q})} I_{\phi,\epsilon}({\mathbb Q})\backslash X(\phi,\epsilon)_{K^p_g}$ (\[eq:fixed\_pt\_set\_of\_Heck-corresp1\]). We claim that for any $x'\in \mathrm{Fix}_{\phi}$ and $x:=p_1'(x')=p_2'(x')\in S_{K^p}(\phi)$, there is an equality: $$\mathrm{tr}(\Phi^m\circ f;{\mathscr{F}}_x)=\mathrm{tr}\xi(\gamma_0),$$ where $\gamma_0$ is any element in $G({\mathbb Q})$ stably conjugate to the $\epsilon$ such that $x'\in I_{\phi,\epsilon}({\mathbb Q})\backslash X(\phi,\epsilon)_{K^p_g}$. In particular, this trace depends only on (the stable conjugacy class of) $\gamma_0$, so on the (equivalence class of) Kottwitz triples attached to the admissible pair $(\phi,\epsilon)$. Indeed (cf. [@Kottwitz92 $\S$16]), choose $x_p\in X_p(\phi,\epsilon)$, $x^p\in X^p(\phi,\epsilon;g)$ such that $x'=[x_p,x^p]\in I_{\phi,\epsilon}({\mathbb Q})\backslash X(\phi,\epsilon)_{K^p_g}$. It also gives a point $\tilde{x}=[x_p,x^p]$ of $$S(\phi):=I_{\phi}({\mathbb Q})\backslash X_p(\phi)\times X^p(\phi)=\varprojlim_{H^p}({\mathscr{S}}_{H^p}({\mathbb F})\cap S_{H^p}(\phi))$$ lying above $x'$, and $\epsilon x^pgk=x^p$ for some $k\in K^p$. So, one has $$\Phi^m(\tilde{x})=[\Phi^mx_p,x^p]=[x_p,\epsilon ^{-1} x^p]=\tilde{x}gk.$$ If we use this point $\Phi^m(\tilde{x})$ of $S(\phi)$ to identify the stalk ${\mathscr{F}}_x$ with $W_{\lambda}$, we have $\beta(w)=\xi(k^{-1}g^{-1})w$: the automorphism (\[eq:Frob-Hecke\_corr\_at\_stalk\]) becomes $$[\Phi^m(\tilde{x}),w] \mapsto [\tilde{x},w] \mapsto [\tilde{x}g,\xi(g^{-1})w]= [\tilde{x}gk,\xi(k^{-1}g^{-1})w],$$ hence $\mathrm{tr}(\Phi^m\circ f;{\mathscr{F}}_x)=\mathrm{tr}\xi(\gamma_0)$ as $k^{-1}g^{-1}=(x^p)^{-1}\epsilon x^p\in G({\mathbb A}_f^p)$ is conjugate to $\gamma_0$ under $G(\bar{{\mathbb A}}_f^p)$.
Now, we have the following successive equalities: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:T(m,f)1}
T(m,f) &=\sum_{\phi} \sum_{x'\in\mathrm{Fix}_{\phi}} \mathrm{tr}(\Phi^m\circ f;{\mathscr{F}}_{p_1'(x')}) \\
& =\sum_{(\phi,\epsilon)} |I_{\phi,\epsilon}({\mathbb Q})\backslash X(\phi,\epsilon)_{K^p_g}| \cdot \mathrm{tr}\xi(\gamma_0) \nonumber \\ & =\sum_{(\phi,\epsilon)} \frac{\mathrm{vol}(I_0({\mathbb Q})\backslash I_0({\mathbb A}_f))}{[I_{\phi,\epsilon}({\mathbb Q}):I_{\phi,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}}({\mathbb Q})]} \cdot \mathrm{O}_{\gamma}(f^p)\cdot \mathrm{TO}_{\delta}(\phi_p) \cdot \mathrm{tr}\xi(\gamma_0) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Here, in the first line, $\phi$ runs through a set of representatives for the equivalence classes of admissible morphisms, so the first equality results from Langlands-Rapoport conjecture, Conj. \[conj:Langlands-Rapoport\_conjecture\_ver1\]. In the second line, $(\phi,\epsilon)$ runs through a set of representatives for the equivalence classes of admissible pairs. We have just seen that if $\epsilon\in I_{\phi}({\mathbb Q})$ is such that $x'\in\mathrm{Fix}_{\phi}$ belongs to the subset $I_{\phi,\epsilon}({\mathbb Q})\backslash X(\phi,\epsilon)_{K^p_g}$ in the decomposition (\[eq:fixed\_pt\_set\_of\_Heck-corresp1\]), we have $\mathrm{tr}(\Phi^m\circ f;{\mathscr{F}}_{p_1'(x')})=\mathrm{tr}\xi(\gamma_0)$ for any Kottwitz triple $(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$ attached to the admissible pair $(\phi,\epsilon)$, which gives the second equality. The third equality is Lemma \[lem:fixed-pt\_subset\_of\_Frob-Hecke\_corr\].
Next, we rewrite the last expression of (\[eq:T(m,f)1\]) using (equivalence classes of) *effective* Kottwitz triples as a new summation index. For each equivalence class of effective Kottwitz triple $(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$, we fix a (well-located) admissible pair $(\phi_1,\epsilon_1)$ giving rise to it. Then, the set of admissible pairs producing the same equivalence class of Kottwitz triple is in bijection with $\Sha_G({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi_1,\epsilon_1})^+={\mathrm{im}}\left[ \widetilde{\Sha}_G({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi_1,\epsilon_1})^+ \rightarrow H^1({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi_1,\epsilon_1}) \right]$. More explicitly, for each $$[a]\in \widetilde{\Sha}_G({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi_1,\epsilon_1})^+=\ker\left[\Sha^{\infty}_G({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi_1,\epsilon_1}^{\mathrm{o}})\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb A},I_{\phi_1,\epsilon_1})\right]$$ (class of $a\in Z^1({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi_1,\epsilon_1}^{\mathrm{o}})$), the admissible pair corresponding to the image of $[a]$ in $H^1({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi_1,\epsilon_1})$ is the twist $(\phi:=a\phi_1,\epsilon_1)$ (Lemma \[lem:LR-Lem5.26,Satz5.25\]) and the associated groups $I_{\phi,\epsilon_1}^{\mathrm{o}}$, $I_{\phi,\epsilon_1}$ are the (simultaneous) inner twists of $I_{\phi_1,\epsilon_1}^{\mathrm{o}}$ and $I_{\phi_1,\epsilon_1}$ via $a$. Let us write $I_a^{\mathrm{o}}$ and $I_a$ for these twists (of course, their isomorphism classes as ${\mathbb Q}$-algebraic groups depend only on the cohomology class $[a]\in H^1({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi_1,\epsilon_1}^{\mathrm{o}})$). Then, the last line of (\[eq:T(m,f)1\]) becomes the first line of the following identity: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:T(m,f)-2}
T(m,f) & =\sum_{(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)}\sum_{[a]\in \widetilde{\Sha}_G({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi_1,\epsilon_1})^+} \frac{1}{|\ker[H^1({\mathbb Q},I_a^{\mathrm{o}})\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb Q},I_a)]|} \cdot \frac{\mathrm{vol}(I_a^{\mathrm{o}}({\mathbb Q})\backslash I_a^{\mathrm{o}}({\mathbb A}_f))}{[I_a({\mathbb Q}):I_a^{\mathrm{o}}({\mathbb Q})]} \\
& \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \cdot \mathrm{O}_{\gamma}(f^p)\cdot \mathrm{TO}_{\delta}(\phi_p) \cdot \mathrm{tr}\xi(\gamma_0) \nonumber \\
&=\sum_{(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)} c_1(\gamma_0)\cdot |\pi_0(G_{\gamma_0})({\mathbb Q})|^{-1} \cdot i(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta) \cdot \mathrm{O}_{\gamma}(f^p)\cdot \mathrm{TO}_{\delta}(\phi_p) \cdot \mathrm{tr}\xi(\gamma_0), \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $c_1(\gamma_0):=\tau(I_0)\cdot \mathrm{vol}(A_{G}({\mathbb R})^{\mathrm{o}}\backslash I_0(\infty)({\mathbb R}))^{-1}$.
Here, in the first line, the fist sum is over a set of representatives of the equivalence classes of *effective* Kottwitz triples $(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$ and in the second sum $[a]$ runs through the set $\widetilde{\Sha}_G({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi,\epsilon})^+$. Two elements $[a],[a']$ of $\widetilde{\Sha}_G({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi_1,\epsilon_1})^+$ give equivalent admissible pairs $(a\phi_1,\epsilon_1)$, $(a'\phi_1,\epsilon_1)$ if and only if $[a]$, $[a']$ map to the same element in $H^1({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi_1,\epsilon_1})$. So, to establish the first equality, we need to prove that for each $[a]\in \widetilde{\Sha}_G({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi_1,\epsilon_1})^+$, the set of such elements in $ \widetilde{\Sha}_G({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi_1,\epsilon_1})^+$ is in bijection with $\ker[H^1({\mathbb Q},I_a^{\mathrm{o}})\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb Q},I_a)]$; this will then also show that the latter set has the same size for all the elements $[a]$ in $ \widetilde{\Sha}_G({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi_1,\epsilon_1})^+$ that map to the same element in $H^1({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi_1,\epsilon_1})$. First, the subset of $H^1({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi_1,\epsilon_1}^{\mathrm{o}})$ consisting of such elements is in bijection with $\ker[H^1({\mathbb Q},I_a^{\mathrm{o}})\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb Q},I_a)]$ [@Serre02 Prop.35bis]. So, it suffices to show that if $[a']\in H^1({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi_1,\epsilon_1}^{\mathrm{o}})$ has the same image in $H^1({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi_1,\epsilon_1})$ as $[a]$, then $[a']\in \widetilde{\Sha}_G({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi_1,\epsilon_1})^+$. Since $(I_{\phi_1})_{{\mathbb R}}$ is a subgroup of the inner form $G'$ of $G_{{\mathbb R}}$ that has compact adjoint group, the map $H^1({\mathbb R},I_{\phi_1,\epsilon_1}^{\mathrm{o}})\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb R},G')$ is injective [@Kisin17 4.4.5], which implies that $[a']\in \Sha^{\infty}({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi_1,\epsilon_1}^{\mathrm{o}})=\ker[ H^1({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi_1,\epsilon_1}^{\mathrm{o}})\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb R},I_{\phi_1,\epsilon_1}^{\mathrm{o}})]$. Similarly, the map $\Sha^{\infty}({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi_1,\epsilon_1}^{\mathrm{o}})\cong \Sha^{\infty}({\mathbb Q},G_{\epsilon_1}^{\mathrm{o}})\rightarrow \Sha^{\infty}({\mathbb Q},G)$ factors through $\Sha^{\infty}({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi_1})$, which implies that $[a']\in \Sha^{\infty}_G({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi_1,\epsilon_1}^{\mathrm{o}})$.
For the second equality, we use the following two facts (E1), (E2):
(E1) There exists an equality of numbers: $$|\ker[H^1({\mathbb Q},I_a^{\mathrm{o}})\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb Q},I_a)]|\cdot [I_a({\mathbb Q}):I_a^{\mathrm{o}}({\mathbb Q})] =|\pi_0(G_{\gamma_0})({\mathbb Q})|.$$ Indeed, we recall [@Serre02 5.5] that for any (not-necessarily connected) reductive ${\mathbb Q}$-group $I$ (especially for $I=I_{\phi_1,\epsilon_1}$), the exact sequence $1\rightarrow I^{\mathrm{o}}\rightarrow I\rightarrow \pi_0(I) \rightarrow 1$ gives rise to a natural action $\pi_0(I)({\mathbb Q})$ on $H^1({\mathbb Q},I^{\mathrm{o}})$ which we normalize to be a left action and write $c\cdot \alpha$ for $c\in \pi_0(I)({\mathbb Q})$ and $\alpha \in H^1({\mathbb Q},I^{\mathrm{o}})$. One easily checks that for $c\in \pi_0(I)({\mathbb Q})$ and $[a] \in H^1({\mathbb Q},I^{\mathrm{o}})$, $c\cdot [a]$ equals the image of $c$ under the composite map $$\pi_0(I)({\mathbb Q}) =\pi_0(I_a)({\mathbb Q}) \stackrel{\partial_a}{\rightarrow} H^1({\mathbb Q},I_a^{\mathrm{o}}) {\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}H^1({\mathbb Q},I^{\mathrm{o}}),$$ where $\partial_a$ is the obvious coboundary map attached to the inner twist $I_a$ of $I$ via $a$ and the last bijection is defined by $[x_{\tau}]\mapsto [x_{\tau}a_{\tau}]$ (and thus sends the distinguished element to $[a_{\tau}]$) [@Serre02 Prop.35bis.]. So, the stabilizer subgroup of $[a]$ for the action of $\pi_0(I)({\mathbb Q})$ on $H^1({\mathbb Q},I^{\mathrm{o}})$ is isomorphic to $\ker(\partial_a)=I_a({\mathbb Q})/I_a^{\mathrm{o}}({\mathbb Q})$ and the orbit of $[a]$ is in bijection with ${\mathrm{im}}(\partial_a)=\ker[H^1({\mathbb Q},I_a^{\mathrm{o}})\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb Q},I_a)]$. So, we obtain the equality $$|\ker[H^1({\mathbb Q},I_a^{\mathrm{o}})\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb Q},I_a)]|\cdot [I_a({\mathbb Q}):I_a^{\mathrm{o}}({\mathbb Q})]=|\pi_0(I)({\mathbb Q})|$$ (In particular, this product quantity is independent of the inner twist of $I$ by a cocycle in $Z^1({\mathbb Q},I^{\mathrm{o}})$.) Our claim follows since $G_{\gamma_0}=I_a$ for some cocyle $a$ (with $I=I_{\phi_1,\epsilon_1}$) and $\pi_0(I_{\phi_1,\epsilon_1})=\pi_0(G_{\gamma_0})$.
(E2) Since for $(\phi,\epsilon):=(a\phi_1,\epsilon_1)$, $I_{\phi,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}}$ is an inner-twist $I_0$ and the Tamagawa number is invariant under inner twist, by (\[eq:Tamagawa\_number\]) one has the equality: $$\mathrm{vol}(I_{\phi,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}}({\mathbb Q})\backslash I_{\phi,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}}({\mathbb A}_f))= \tau(I_0)\cdot \mathrm{vol}(A_{G}({\mathbb R})^{\mathrm{o}}\backslash I_0(\infty)({\mathbb R}))^{-1}.$$
Hence, the summand in the first line of (\[eq:T(m,f)-2\]) indexed by an admissible pair $(\phi,\epsilon)$ and a class $[a]\in \widetilde{\Sha}_G({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi_1,\epsilon_1})^+$ depends only on the associated (equivalence class of) Kottwitz triple $(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$, and thus the second equality holds. In the expression of the second line, the index $(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$ originally should run through a set of representatives of *effective* Kottwitz triples (i.e. arising from an admissible pair, so having trivial Kottwitz invariant). But, according to Thm. \[thm:LR-Satz5.25\], any Kottwitz triple $(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$ with trivial Kottwitz invariant is effective if its twisted-orbital integral $\mathrm{TO}_{\delta}(\phi_p)$ is non-zero: one easily checks (cf. [@Kottwitz84b $\S$1.4, $\S$1.5]) that non-vanishing of $\mathrm{TO}_{\delta}(\phi_p)$ is equivalent to non-emptiness of the set $Y_p(\delta)$ (\[eq:Y\_p(delta)\]). Therefore, in this sum we may as well take simply (a set of representatives of) *all* Kottwitz triples with trivial Kottwitz invariant. This finishes the proof of (1).
\(2) The first claim follows from (1) in view of the Deligne’s conjecture proved by Fujiwara [@Fujiwara97], [@Var07]. When ${\mathscr{S}}_K$ is proper or $f^p$ is the identity, we can simply invoke the Grothendieck-Lefschetz fixed point formula for lisse sheaves. The properness holds if $G^{{\mathrm{ad}}}$ is anisotropic since the valuative criterion holds by [@Lee12].
\[rem:comments\_on\_Milne92\] Milne [@Milne92 Cor.7.10] claimed to have proved this theorem, in the original setting (i.e when the level group ${\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p$ is hyperspecial and $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$). His proof is incomplete and flawed, in two respects. First, as was mentioned before, he misquotes the definition of *admissible pair* [@LR87 p.189] (a pair $(\phi,\epsilon)$ is admissible in his sense if and only if it is admissible in the original sense and also ${\mathbf{K}}_p$-effective in our sense, cf. Remark \[rem:admissible\_pair\]), so his statements in *loc. cit.* using this terminology/notion require critical reading. Secondly and more seriously, in the proof of his Corollary 7.10, he claims that *if a Frobenius triple does not satisfy the condition of (7.5) then it contributes zero to the sum on the right* (a *Frobenius triple* in Milne’s work is the same as a Kottwitz triple with trivial Kottwitz invariant). This non-trivial statement (which is simply an *effectivity criterion of Kottwitz triple*) was never justified in *loc. cit.*, nor elsewhere, until our proof of Theorem \[thm:LR-Satz5.21\] (which is also valid in a more general setting). Also, we remark that for *general* $g$, one needs extra arguments, more than what Milne outlines based on [@Kottwitz84b] which was intended mainly for $g=1$ (or at best for those $g$’s lying in a compact open subgroup of $G({\mathbb A}_f^p)$).
Unconditional proof of Kottwitz conjecture {#subsec:uncond_proof_K-formula}
------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we prove Kottwitz conjecture for Shimura varieties of Hodge-type with hyperspecial level. The main ingredients are as follows:
- Definition/description of isogeny classes (in terms of affine Deligne-Lusztig varieties) [@Kisin17 Prop. 2.1.3] and their moduli interpretation (*loc. cit.* Prop. 1.4.15), and the resulting description of ${\mathscr{S}}_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}(G,X)({\bar{\mathbb{F}}_{p}})$ as disjoint union of isogeny classes;
- Strong CM-lifting theorem (*loc. cit.* Cor. 2.2.5);
- Generalization of the Tate’s theorem on endomorphisms of abelian varieties over finite fields (*loc. cit.* Cor. 2.3.2);
- Twisting method of isogeny classes or CM points (*loc. cit.* Prop. 4.4.8, 4.4.13);
- Effectivity criterion of Kottwitz triples (Thm. \[thm:LR-Satz5.25b2\]).
Our arguments will run in parallel to those of Langlands and Rapoport in the previous subsection which derive Kottwitz conjecture from Langlands-Rapoport conjecture. For that, we have to reformulate the above geometric results of Kisin into purely group-theoretic statements.
\(1) For a ${\mathbb Q}$-torus $T$ and a connected reductive ${\mathbb Q}$-group $G$ with ${\overline{\mathbb Q}}\operatorname{-}\mathrm{rk}(T)={\overline{\mathbb Q}}\operatorname{-}\mathrm{rk}(G)$, a *stable conjugacy class of ${\mathbb Q}$-embeddings* $T\hookrightarrow G$ is, by definition, an equivalence class of ${\mathbb Q}$-embeddings $T\hookrightarrow G$ with respect to stable conjugacy relation: two ${\mathbb Q}$-embeddings $i_T,i_T':T\hookrightarrow G$ are *stably conjugate* if and only if there exists $g\in G({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ such that $i_T'=\Int(g)\circ i_T$ (in particular, $\Int(g)|_{i_T(T)}$ induces a transfer of maximal torus $i_T(T){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}i_T'(T)$).
\(2) For a Shimura datum $(G,X)$, a *stable conjugacy class of special Shimura sub-data* $(T,h)$ is, by definition, an equivalence class of special Shimura sub-datum $(T,h)$ with respect to the following (stable conjugacy) equivalence relation: two special Shimura sub-data $(T,h)$, $(T',h')$ are *stably conjugate* if and only if there exist $g\in G({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ inducing a ${\mathbb Q}$-isomorphism ${\mathrm{Int}}(g)|_T:T{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}T'$ and $g_{\infty}\in G({\mathbb R})$ such that $\Int(g)|_{T_{{\mathbb R}}}=\Int(g_{\infty})|_{T_{{\mathbb R}}}$ and $h'=\Int(g_{\infty})(h)$.
We remind the reader that we have fixed an embedding ${\overline{\mathbb Q}}\hookrightarrow {\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}$.
\[thm:Kisin17\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\] [@Kisin17 Cor.1.4.13, Prop.2.1.3, Cor.2.2.5] As a set with action by $\langle\Phi\rangle\times Z_G({{\mathbb Q}_p})\rtimes G({\mathbb A}_f^p)$, ${\mathscr{S}}_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}({\bar{\mathbb{F}}_{p}})$ is a disjoint union of subsets $S({\mathscr{I}})$, called *isogeny classes*, endowed with an action by the same group: $$\label{eq:isogeny_decomp}
{\mathscr{S}}_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}({\bar{\mathbb{F}}_{p}}){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}\bigsqcup_{{\mathscr{I}}}S({\mathscr{I}}).$$
\(1) For each isogeny class $S({\mathscr{I}})$, there exist a connected reductive ${\mathbb Q}$-group $I_{{\mathscr{I}}}$, an element $b\in G({\mathfrak{k}})$, and embeddings of group schems (over ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$ and ${{\mathbb Q}_l}$ for every finite $l\neq p$) $$i_p:(I_{{\mathscr{I}}})_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}} \hookrightarrow J_b,\quad i_l:(I_{{\mathscr{I}}})_{{{\mathbb Q}_l}} \hookrightarrow G_{{{\mathbb Q}_l}}$$ such that for almost all $l\neq p$, $i_l$ extends to an embedding $i_l:(I_{{\mathscr{I}}})_{{\mathbb Z}_l}\hookrightarrow G_{{\mathbb Z}_l}$ between reductive ${\mathbb Z}_l$-group schemes $(I_{{\mathscr{I}}})_{{\mathbb Z}_l}$, $G_{{\mathbb Z}_l}$, and in terms of which, one has $$S({\mathscr{I}}):=I_{{\mathscr{I}}}({\mathbb Q})\backslash [X(\{\mu_X\},b)_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}\times G({\mathbb A}_f^p)].$$ Here, $I_{{\mathscr{I}}}$ acts on $X(\{\mu_X\},b)_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}\times G({\mathbb A}_f^p)$ diagonally via $i_p\times i^p$, where $i^p$ denotes the restricted product $\prod_{l\neq p}'i_l$, and $\Phi$ acts on $S({\mathscr{I}})$ via its action on $X(\{\mu_X\},b)_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}$ by $(b\sigma)^r$ ($r=[\kappa(\wp):{\mathbb{F}_{p}}]$) while $g\in G({\mathbb A}_f^p)$ acts on $S({\mathscr{I}})$ via its right translation of $G({\mathbb A}_f^p)$.
\(2) The ${\mathbb Q}$-group $I_{{\mathscr{I}}}$ has the same ${\overline{\mathbb Q}}$-rank as $G$. There exists an embedding $Z(G)\subset I_{{\mathscr{I}}}$ such that $(I_{{\mathscr{I}}}/Z(G))_{{\mathbb R}}$ is a subgroup of a compact inner form of $G^{{\mathrm{ad}}}_{{\mathbb R}}$.
\(3) For every maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-torus $T\subset I_{{\mathscr{I}}}$, there exists a stable conjugacy class of ${\mathbb Q}$-embeddings $$i_T:T\hookrightarrow G$$ with the following properties:
For a choice of embedding $i_T$, there exist a $G({\mathfrak{k}})\times G({\mathbb A}_f^p)$-conjugate of the triple of (1), denoted again by $(b,i_p, i^p)$, with $b\in i_T(T)({\mathfrak{k}})$, and $h\in X\cap {\mathrm{Hom}}({\mathbb{S}},i_T(T)_{{\mathbb R}})$ such that
\(i) the embeddings $i_p:I_{{\mathscr{I}}}({{\mathbb Q}_p})\hookrightarrow J_b({{\mathbb Q}_p})$, $i^p:I_{{\mathscr{I}}}({\mathbb A}_f^p)\hookrightarrow G({\mathbb A}_f^p)$ are $T({{\mathbb Q}_p})\times T({\mathbb A}_f^p)$-equivariant: $$\label{eq:(i_p,i^p)_adapted_to_i_T}
i_p|_{T({{\mathbb Q}_p})}=i_T|_{T({{\mathbb Q}_p})},\quad {i^p}|_{T({\mathbb A}_f^p)}=i_T|_{T({\mathbb A}_f^p)},$$ ($i_T|_{T({{\mathbb Q}_p})}$ factors through $J_{b}({{\mathbb Q}_p})\subset G({\mathfrak{k}})$, as $b\in i_T(T)({\mathfrak{k}})$) and that
\(ii) the two elements $[b]$, $[b_1]$ of $B(i_T(T))$ are equal, where $b_1$ is an element of $i_T(T)({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$ defined by any unramifed $i_T(T)({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$-conjugate of $\psi_{i_T(T),\mu_h}(p)\circ\zeta_p$.
Moreover, the stable conjugacy class of ${\mathbb Q}$-embeddings $i_T$ depends only on the $I_{{\mathscr{I}}}({\mathbb Q})$-conjugacy class of the embedding $T\subset I_{{\mathscr{I}}}$.
\(4) For any special Shimura sub-datum $(T,h)$ of $(G,X)$, if ${\mathscr{I}}={\mathscr{I}}_{T,h}$ is the isogeny class of the reduction of the special point $[h,1]\in Sh_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}(G,X)({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$, there exists an $I_{{\mathscr{I}}}({\mathbb Q})$-conjugacy class of ${\mathbb Q}$-embeddings $$j_{T,h}:T\hookrightarrow I_{{\mathscr{I}}}$$ with the following properties:
\(iii) for any choice of $j_{T,h}$ in the conjugacy class, the associated (by the claim of (3)) stable conjugacy class of ${\mathbb Q}$-embeddings $i_T:T\hookrightarrow G$ contains the inclusion $T\subset G$.
\(iv) for any maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-torus $T\subset I_{{\mathscr{I}}}$ and any choice of $i_T:T\hookrightarrow G$, the $I_{{\mathscr{I}}}({\mathbb Q})$-conjugacy class of embeddings $T\stackrel{i_T}{\rightarrow}i_T(T)\stackrel{j_{i_T(T),h}}{\hookrightarrow} I_{{\mathscr{I}}}$ obtained from $(i_T(T),h)$ contains the inclusion $T\subset I_{{\mathscr{I}}}$.
Moreover, the isogeny class ${\mathscr{I}}_{T,h}$ and the conjugacy class of $j_{T,h}$ both depend only on the stable conjugacy class of $(T,h)$.
\(1) The statement (3) needs some explanation. Note that for a triple $(b,i_p,i^p)$ as in (1) and any $(g_p,g^p)\in G({\mathfrak{k}})\times G({\mathbb A}_f^p)$, we obtain a new triple $$(b':=g_pb\sigma(g_p^{-1}),\ \Int(g_p)\circ i_p:(I_{{\mathscr{I}}})_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}\hookrightarrow J_b{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}J_{b'},\ \Int(g^p)\circ i^p),$$ which again satisfies (1): left multiplication by $g_p\times g^p$ induces a $\langle\Phi\rangle\times Z_G({{\mathbb Q}_p})\rtimes G({\mathbb A}_f^p)$-equivariant bijection $$I_{{\mathscr{I}}}({\mathbb Q})\backslash X(\{\mu_X\},b)_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}\times G({\mathbb A}_f^p) {\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}I_{{\mathscr{I}}}({\mathbb Q})\backslash X(\{\mu_X\},b')_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}\times G({\mathbb A}_f^p).$$ Furthermore, as will be evident from the proof, such new triple enjoys all the other properties. Two such triples will be said to be *equivalent*: we will not distinguish them.
\(2) We will say that a triple $(b,i_p,i^p)$ in (1) is *adapted to* a given embedding $i_T$ if it satisfies conditions (i) and (ii) of (3). For fixed $i_T$, any two triples $(b,i_p,i^p)$ adapted to $i_T$ (in fact, satisfying just condition (i)) differ by conjugation by an element of $i_T(T)({\mathfrak{k}})\times i_T(T)({\mathbb A}_f^p)$ (since $\mathrm{rk}(T)=\mathrm{rk}(G)$ and $T({{\mathbb Q}_p})$ is Zariski-dense in $T_{{\mathfrak{k}}}$) and thus for such triples the $\sigma$-conjugacy of $b$ in $B( i_T(T))$ does not depend on the choice of the triple.
\(3) In (3), we are not asserting that there exists a unique stable conjugacy class of ${\mathbb Q}$-embeddings $T\hookrightarrow G$ satisfying the conditions.
Later, we will provide further information on the group $I_{{\mathscr{I}}}$ and the embeddings $(i_p,i^p)$. But, before moving on, we derive a first (primitive) description of the fixed point set of the Frobenius-twsted Hecke correspondence $\Phi^m\circ f$ (\[eq:Hecke\_corr\_twisted\_by\_Frob\]) acting on an isogeny class $S({\mathscr{I}})_{K^p}:=S({\mathscr{I}})/K^p\subset {\mathscr{S}}_{K}({\bar{\mathbb{F}}_{p}})$: $$S({\mathscr{I}})_{K}\stackrel{p_1'}{\longleftarrow} S({\mathscr{I}})_{K_g} \stackrel{p_2'=\Phi^m\circ p_2}{\longrightarrow} S({\mathscr{I}})_{K}.$$ By the same (elementary) argument ([@Kottwitz84b $\S$1.4], [@Milne92 Lem. 5.3]) which yielded the description (\[eq:fixed\_pt\_set\_of\_Heck-corresp1\]), under the same assumption on $K^p$, the fixed point set decomposes into disjoint subsets (cf. [@Kottwitz84b 1.4.3, 1.4.4]): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:fixed_pt_set_of_Heck-corresp2}
S_{K}({\mathscr{I}})^{\Phi^m\circ f=\mathrm{Id}} &= \bigsqcup_{\epsilon} I_{{\mathscr{I}},\epsilon}({\mathbb Q})\backslash [ X_p({\mathscr{I}},\epsilon)\times X^p({\mathscr{I}},\epsilon,g)/K^p_g ] ,\end{aligned}$$ where the index $\epsilon$ runs through a set of representatives in $I_{{\mathscr{I}}}({\mathbb Q})$ for the conjugacy classes of $I_{{\mathscr{I}}}({\mathbb Q})/Z({\mathbb Q})_K$, $I_{{\mathscr{I}},\epsilon}$ is the centralizer of $\epsilon$ in $I_{{\mathscr{I}}}$ (regarded as an algebraic ${\mathbb Q}$-subgroup of $I_{{\mathscr{I}}}$), and $$\begin{aligned}
X_p({\mathscr{I}},\epsilon) &:=\{\ x_p\in X(\{\mu_X\},b)_{{\mathbf{K}}_p} \ \ |\ \ i_p(\epsilon) x_p=(b\sigma)^n x_p\ \}, \\
X^p({\mathscr{I}},\epsilon,g) &:=\{\ x^p\in G({\mathbb A}_f^p) \ |\ \ i^p(\epsilon) x^pg=x^p\text{ mod }K^p\ \}.\end{aligned}$$
(of Thm. \[thm:Kisin17\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\]) For the proof, we use freely the notations of [@Kisin17]. In this proof, all references will be to this work, unless stated otherwise. We first give a very brief review of some results in *loc. cit.* that are necessary for the proof of the theorem.
\(A) There exists a ${\mathbb Z}_{(p)}$-lattice $V_{{\mathbb Z}_{(p)}}$ of $V$ and a set of tensors $\{s_{\alpha}\}_{\alpha}$ on it which defines the reductive closed ${{\mathbb Z}_p}$-subgroup scheme $G_{{{\mathbb Z}_p}}$ of $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ giving the hyperspecial subgroup ${\mathbf{K}}_p$ (i.e. ${\mathbf{K}}_p=G_{{{\mathbb Z}_p}}({{\mathbb Z}_p})$) [@Kisin10 Prop.1.3.2]. Let $\pi:{\mathcal{A}}\rightarrow {\mathscr{S}}_K$ be the universal abelian scheme over ${\mathscr{S}}_K$ (for sufficiently small $K^p$) and $\mathcal{V}=R^1\pi_{\ast}\Omega^{\bullet}$ the first relative de Rham chomology (algebraic vector bundle). The tensors $\{s_{\alpha}\}_{\alpha}$ give rise to horizontal sections $\{s_{\alpha,{\mathrm{B}}}\}_{\alpha}$ on the local system $R^1\pi^{\mathrm{an}}_{\ast}({\mathbb Z}_{(p)})$ over $Sh_K(G,X)$ (with $\pi^{\mathrm{an}}$ denoting the analytification of $\pi$) and sections $\{s_{\alpha,{\mathrm{dR}}}\}_{\alpha}$ on $\mathcal{V}=R^1\pi_{\ast}\Omega^{\bullet}$ which correspond to each other (for the same $\alpha$) via the de Rham isomorphism over ${\mathbb C}$ [@Kisin17 1.3.6].
\(B) Suppose $x\in {\mathscr{S}}_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}(k)$ for a finite extension $k\subset {\bar{\mathbb{F}}_{p}}$ of $\kappa(\wp)$. Let ${\mathcal{A}}_x$ be the underlying abelian variety over $k$ and ${\bar{x}}$ the ${\bar{\mathbb{F}}_{p}}$-point induced by $x$. Let $H^1_{{\text{\'et}}}({\mathcal{A}}_{{\bar{x}}}/{{\mathbb Q}_l})$ and $H_{{\mathrm{cris}}}^1({\mathcal{A}}_x/K_0)$ be respectively the $l$-adic étale and the cristalline cohomology groups of ${\mathcal{A}}_{{\bar{x}}}$ (for $l\neq p$) and ${\mathcal{A}}_x$, where $K_0:=W(k)[1/p]\ (\subset{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$. We let $H^{{\text{\'et}}}_1({\mathcal{A}}_{{\bar{x}}},{{\mathbb Q}_l}):={\mathrm{Hom}}_{{{\mathbb Q}_l}}(H^1_{{\text{\'et}}}({\mathcal{A}}_{{\bar{x}}}/{{\mathbb Q}_l}),{{\mathbb Q}_l})$ and $H^{{\mathrm{cris}}}_1({\mathcal{A}}_x/K_0):={\mathrm{Hom}}_{K_0}(H^1_{{\mathrm{cris}}}({\mathcal{A}}_{x}/K_0),K_0)$ denote their linear dual (homology) groups. The latter group is equipped with the Frobenius operator $\phi$: $\phi(f)(v):=p^{-1}\cdot{}^{\sigma}f(Vv)$ for $f\in H_1^{{\mathrm{cris}}}$ and $v\in H^1_{{\mathrm{cris}}}$, where $V$ is the Verschiebung on $H^1_{{\mathrm{cris}}}$. Recall that the relative Frobenius morphism ${\mathrm{Fr}}_{{\mathcal{A}}_{x}/k}$ of ${\mathcal{A}}_{x}/k$ acts on these homology spaces (${{\mathbb Q}_l}$ and $K_0$-linearly) by the geometric $p^{[k:{\mathbb{F}_{p}}]}$-Frobenius ${\mathrm{Fr}}_k^{-1}$ in ${\mathrm{Gal}}({\bar{\mathbb{F}}_{p}}/k)$ and by the inverse of $\phi^{[k:{\mathbb{F}_{p}}]}$, respectively.
Then, there exist tensors $\{s_{\alpha,l,x}\}_{\alpha}$ on $H^1_{{\text{\'et}}}({\mathcal{A}}_{{\bar{x}}}/{{\mathbb Q}_l})\ (l\neq p)$ and tensors $\{s_{\alpha,0,x}\}_{\alpha}$ on $H_{{\mathrm{cris}}}^1({\mathcal{A}}_x/K_0)$ which are Frobenius invariant (for the geometric Frobenius acting on $H^1_{{\text{\'et}}}({\mathcal{A}}_{{\bar{x}}}/{{\mathbb Q}_l})$ and the absolute Frobenius automorphism acting on $H^1_{{\mathrm{cris}}}({\mathcal{A}}_x/K_0)$); for the construction of $s_{\alpha,l,x}$ and $s_{\alpha,0,x}$, see [@Kisin10 (2.2)] and [@Kisin17 Prop.1.3.9, 1.3.10] respectively. Also, there exist isomorphisms matching the respective tensors for each $\alpha$: $$\label{eq:isom_eta}
\begin{split}
\eta_l:(V,\{s_{\alpha}\})\otimes{{\mathbb Q}_l}&{\stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow}}(H^{{\text{\'et}}}_1({\mathcal{A}}_{{\bar{x}}},{{\mathbb Q}_l}),\{s_{\alpha,l,x}\}) , \\
\eta_p:(V,\{s_{\alpha}\})\otimes K_0 &{\stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow}}(H^{{\mathrm{cris}}}_1({\mathcal{A}}_x/K_0),\{s_{\alpha,0,x}\}).
\end{split}$$ Most of the time, we are just contented with an isomorphism defined over ${{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}$ (or even over ${\mathfrak{k}}$): $$\label{eq:isom_eta_nr}
\eta_p^{{\mathrm{ur}}}:(V,\{s_{\alpha}\})\otimes {{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow}}(H^{{\mathrm{cris}}}_1({\mathcal{A}}_x/{{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}),\{s_{\alpha,0,x}\}).$$ For almost all $l\neq p$ (in particular, such that $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_l}}$ is unramified), we may assume that the following conditions hold: there exist a ${\mathbb Z}_{(l)}$-lattice $V_{{\mathbb Z}_{(l)}}$ of $V$ such that the tensors $\{s_{\alpha}\}_{\alpha}$ live on it and defines a reductive ${\mathbb Z}_l$-subgroup scheme $G_{{\mathbb Z}_l}$ of $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_l}}$, and a similar statement holds true of the lattice $H^{{\text{\'et}}}_1({\mathcal{A}}_{{\bar{x}}},{\mathbb Z}_l)$ and the tensors $\{s_{\alpha,l,x}\}$. Further, for these ${\mathbb Z}_l$-structures, there exists an ${\mathbb Z}_l$-isomorphism extending $\eta_l$; we denote it again by $\eta_l$.
\(C) We define $\gamma_l\in G({{\mathbb Q}_l})$ ($l\neq p$), $\gamma_p\in G(K_0)$ by $$\label{eq:gamma_v}
\gamma_v^{-1}:=\Int(\eta_v^{-1})({\mathrm{Fr}}_{{\mathcal{A}}_{x}/k}).$$ These elements $\gamma_l$, $\gamma_p$ are well-defined up to conjugacy in $G({{\mathbb Q}_l})$ and $G(K_0)$, respectively. We also define $\delta\in \mathrm{GL}(V_{K_0})$ by $$\delta(1_V\otimes\sigma):=\Int(\eta_p^{-1})(\phi),$$ so one has $\gamma_p={\mathrm{N}}_n\delta:=\delta\sigma(\delta)\cdots\sigma^{n-1}(\delta)$ ($n=[K_0:{{\mathbb Q}_p}]$).
Let $k'\subset{\bar{\mathbb{F}}_{p}}$ be a finite extension of $k$. For each finite place $l\neq p$ of ${\mathbb Q}$, let $I_{l/k'}$ be the centralizer of $\gamma_l^{[k':k]}\in G({{\mathbb Q}_l})$ and define $I_{p/k'}$ to be the $\sigma$-centralizer $G_{\delta\sigma}$ of $\delta$ in $G(K_0')$, where $K_0':=W[k'][\frac{1}{p}]$ [@Kottwitz82 p.802]: $G_{\delta\sigma}$ is a closed subgroup of ${\mathrm{Res}}_{K_0'/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}(G)$ such that $G_{\delta\sigma}({{\mathbb Q}_p})=\{ y\in G(K_0')\ |\ y(\delta\sigma)=(\delta\sigma)y\}$. One has $(G_{\delta\sigma})_{K_0'}\simeq Z_{G_{K_0'}}({\mathrm{N}}_n\delta)$.
The increasing sequence of subgroups $\{I_{l/k'}\}_{k'\subset{\bar{\mathbb{F}}_{p}}}$ of $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_l}}$ stabilizes to a subgroup $I_l$, which also equals the centralizer of $\gamma_l^n$ in $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_l}}$ for (any) sufficiently large $n\in{\mathbb N}$. By similar reasoning (cf. [@Kisin17 (2.1.2)]), there exists a ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-subgroup $I_p$ of $J_{\delta}$ which equals $I_{p/k'}$ for all sufficiently large $k'\subset{\bar{\mathbb{F}}_{p}}$. Write ${\mathrm{Aut}}_{{\mathbb Q}}({\mathcal{A}}_{{\bar{x}}})$ for the automorphism group of ${\mathcal{A}}_{{\bar{x}}}$ in the isogeny category, and let $I_{x}\subset {\mathrm{Aut}}_{{\mathbb Q}}({\mathcal{A}}_{{\bar{x}}})$ denote the subgroup consisting of elements fixing all the tensors $\{s_{\alpha,l,x}\}_{\alpha}\ (l\neq p)$, $\{s_{\alpha,0,x}\}_{\alpha}$, regarded as an algebraic ${\mathbb Q}$-subgroup of ${\mathrm{Aut}}_{{\mathbb Q}}({\mathcal{A}}_{{\bar{x}}})$.
\[thm:Kisin17\_Cor.2.3.2;Tate\_isom\] [@Kisin17 Cor.2.3.2] For every finite place $v$ of ${\mathbb Q}$, the restriction of $\Int(\eta_v)^{-1}$ if $v\neq p$ or of $\Int(\eta_p^{{\mathrm{ur}}})^{-1}$ if $v=p$ to $(I_{x})_{{{\mathbb Q}_v}}$ induces an isomorphism $$\Int(\eta_v)^{-1}(v\neq p),\ \Int(\eta_p^{{\mathrm{ur}}})^{-1}\ :\ (I_{x})_{{{\mathbb Q}_v}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}I_v.$$
Now, we enter into the proof of the theorem (Thm. \[thm:Kisin17\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\]). Recall the chosen embedding $\sigma_p:{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}\hookrightarrow {\mathbb C}$ of $E(G,X)$-algebras.
\(1) For each $x\in {\mathscr{S}}_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}({\bar{\mathbb{F}}_{p}})$, if $x$ is defined over a finite field $k\subset {\bar{\mathbb{F}}_{p}}$, any choice of isomorphisms $\eta_l$ (\[eq:isom\_eta\]), $\eta_p^{{\mathrm{ur}}}$ (\[eq:isom\_eta\_nr\]) gives an element $b\in G({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$ by $\Int(\eta_p^{{\mathrm{ur}}})(b\sigma)=F$, and embeddings defined over ${{\mathbb Q}_l}$ and ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$ $$i_{x,l}:(I_{x})_{{{\mathbb Q}_l}} \hookrightarrow G_{{{\mathbb Q}_l}},\quad i_{x,p}:(I_{x})_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}} \hookrightarrow J_b.$$ Of course, different choice of $\eta^p:=\prod'\eta_l$, $\eta_p^{{\mathrm{ur}}}$ gives rise to an equivalent triple $(b,i_{x}^p:=\prod'i_{x,l},i_{x,p})$. For almost all $l\neq p$, so that, among others, one can find a ${\mathbb Z}_l$-isomorphism $\eta_l$ for the ${\mathbb Z}_l$-structures explained above, $i_{x,l}$ extends to an embedding $(I_x)_{{\mathbb Z}_l}\hookrightarrow G_{{\mathbb Z}_l}$ of ${\mathbb Z}_l$-group schemes.
Then, there exists a $\langle\Phi\rangle\times Z_G({{\mathbb Q}_p})\rtimes G({\mathbb A}_f^p)$-equivariant map $$\iota_x:X(\{\mu_X\},b)_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}\times G({\mathbb A}_f^p)\rightarrow {\mathscr{S}}_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}({\bar{\mathbb{F}}_{p}}),$$ where $\langle\Phi\rangle$ is the cyclic group generated by $\Phi$ [@Kisin17 Cor. 1.4.13]; the image of $\iota_x$ is the *isogeny class* containing $x$. This gives rise to the decomposition (\[eq:isogeny\_decomp\]) $$\bigsqcup_{x} I_{x}({\mathbb Q})\backslash [X(\{\mu_X\},b)_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}\times G({\mathbb A}_f^p)] {\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}{\mathscr{S}}_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}({\bar{\mathbb{F}}_{p}}),$$ where $x$ runs through a set of representatives of (i.e. points lying in) the isogeny classes [@Kisin17 Prop. 2.1.3].
\(2) The ${\mathbb Q}$-group $I_{x}$ has the same ${\overline{\mathbb Q}}$-rank as $G$ [@Kisin17 Cor. 2.1.7].
\(3) It is shown in the proof of [@Kisin17 Thm. 2.2.3] that for every maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-torus $T\subset I_{x}\subset {\mathrm{Aut}}_{{\mathbb Q}}({\mathcal{A}}_{{\bar{x}}})$, and for any choice of a cocharacter $\mu_T\in X_{\ast}(T)$ satisfying the conditions of [@Kisin17 Lem.2.2.2] (in particular, $\mu_X$ lies in the conjugacy class $c(G,X)$), there exists a point $x'$ in the isogeny class of $x$ which lifts to a $K$-valued point $\tilde{x}'$ of ${\mathscr{S}}_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}$ for a finite extension $K\subset{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}$ of $K_0$ in such a way that the action of $T$ on ${\mathcal{A}}_{x'}$ (in the isogeny category) lifts to ${\mathcal{A}}_{\tilde{x}'}$ and $\mu_T^{-1}$ induces the Hodge filtration on $H^1_{{\mathrm{cris}}}({\mathcal{A}}_{x'}/K)\cong H^1_{{\mathrm{dR}}}({\mathcal{A}}_{\tilde{x}'}/K)$ (defined by ${\mathcal{A}}_{\tilde{x}'}$). We choose one such $\mu_T$ and denote $x'$ again by $x$, thereby assume that $x$ itself is a point lifting to $\tilde{x}$. This implies that $T$ is a subgroup of $G$, via a choice of an isomorphism ${\mathbb Q}$-vector spaces endowed with a set of tensors $$\label{eq:Betti-isom}
\eta_{{\mathrm{B}}}:(H^{{\mathrm{B}}}_1({\mathcal{A}}_{\sigma_p(\tilde{x})},{\mathbb Q}),\{s_{\alpha,{\mathrm{B}},\sigma_p(\tilde{x})}\}) {\stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow}}(V,\{s_{\alpha}\})$$ and thus $\sigma_p(\tilde{x})$ is a special (=CM) point on $Sh_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}(G,X)({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$; $\eta_{{\mathrm{B}}}$ is well-defined up to action of $G({\mathbb Q})$ on $V$ and is provided by the moduli interpretation of ${\mathrm{Sh}}_{{\mathbf{K}}}(G,X)({\mathbb C})$. That is, we obtain an embedding and a special Shimura sub-datum $$\label{eq:CM-lifting_via_T}
i_T:T\hookrightarrow G,\quad h\in X\cap {\mathrm{Hom}}({\mathbb{S}},i_T(T)_{{\mathbb R}})$$ (such that $\sigma_p(i_T\circ\mu_T)=\mu_h$).
For such embedding $i_T$ and $h$, we claim that there exist isomorphisms $\eta_l$ (\[eq:isom\_eta\]), $\eta_p^{{\mathrm{ur}}}$ (\[eq:isom\_eta\_nr\]) which are *$T$-equivariant* with respect to $i_T:T\hookrightarrow G$ and the action of $T$ on ${\mathcal{A}}_{x}$. By construction of $i_T$ via the choice of $\eta_B$ (\[eq:Betti-isom\]), it suffices to find such $T$-equivariant isomorphisms with $(H^{{\mathrm{B}}}_1({\mathcal{A}}_{\sigma_p(\tilde{x})},{\mathbb Q}),\{s_{\alpha,{\mathrm{B}},\sigma_p(\tilde{x})}\})$ replacing $(V,\{s_{\alpha}\})$ (for the lifted action of $T$ on ${\mathcal{A}}_{\tilde{x}}$). For $l\neq p$, this is clear since there exist *canonical* $T$-equivariant isomorphisms of ${{\mathbb Q}_l}$-vector spaces matching the respective tensors: $$\label{eq:isom_epsilon_l}
\begin{split}
\epsilon_l:(H^{{\text{\'et}}}_1({\mathcal{A}}_{{\bar{x}}},{{\mathbb Q}_l}),\{s_{\alpha,l,x}\}) &{\stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow}}(H^{{\text{\'et}}}_1(({\mathcal{A}}_{\tilde{x}})_{{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}},{{\mathbb Q}_l}),\{s_{\alpha,l,\tilde{x}}\})\\
& {\stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow}}(H^{{\mathrm{B}}}_1({\mathcal{A}}_{\sigma_p(\tilde{x})},{\mathbb Q}),\{s_{\alpha,{\mathrm{B}},\sigma_p(\tilde{x})}\})\otimes{{\mathbb Q}_l}.
\end{split}$$ (In fact, the tensors $s_{\alpha,l,\tilde{x}}$ are constructed by the second isomorphism, cf. [@Kisin10 (2.2)]). For $p$, we also have canonical isomorphisms of ${\mathbb C}$-vector spaces matching the respective tensors: $$\label{eq:isom_epsilon_C}
\begin{split}
(H^{{\mathrm{cris}}}_1({\mathcal{A}}_{x}/K),\{s_{\alpha,0,x}\})\otimes_{\sigma_p}{\mathbb C}& {\stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow}}(H^{{\mathrm{dR}}}_1({\mathcal{A}}_{\tilde{x}}/K),\{s_{\alpha,{\mathrm{dR}},\tilde{x}}\})\otimes_{\sigma_p}{\mathbb C}\\
&{\stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow}}(H^{{\mathrm{B}}}_1({\mathcal{A}}_{\sigma_p(\tilde{x})},{\mathbb Q}),\{s_{\alpha,{\mathrm{B}},\sigma_p(\tilde{x})}\})\otimes{\mathbb C}.
\end{split}$$ Clearly, these isomorphisms are *$T$-equivariant*. For the fact that the first isomorphism matches the respective tensors, see the proof of [@Kisin10 Prop.2.3.5] (cf. [@Kisin17 Prop.1.3.9]). This implies that the functor which associates with a $K_0$-algebra $R$ the set of $T$-equivariant, tensor-matching, $R$-linear isomorphisms $H^{{\mathrm{cris}}}_1({\mathcal{A}}_{x}/K_0)\otimes R {\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}H^{{\mathrm{B}}}_1({\mathcal{A}}_{\sigma_p(\tilde{x})},{\mathbb Q})\otimes R$ is a $K_0$-torsor under $T_{K_0}$ (use that $T({\mathbb Q})$ is Zariski-dense in $T_{K_0}$ since $T$ is unirational). So by Steinberg’s theorem $H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}},T)=\{1\}$ (cf. [@Lee16 3.2.2]), one can find a ${{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}$-isomorphism $$\label{eq:isom_epsilon_ur_p}
\epsilon_p:(H^{{\mathrm{cris}}}_1({\mathcal{A}}_{x}/K_0),\{s_{\alpha,0,x}\})\otimes_{K_0}{{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow}}(H^{{\mathrm{B}}}_1({\mathcal{A}}_{\sigma_p(\tilde{x})},{\mathbb Q}),\{s_{\alpha,{\mathrm{B}},\sigma_p(\tilde{x})}\})\otimes{{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}.$$ taking $s_{\alpha,{\mathrm{dR}},\tilde{x}}$ to $s_{\alpha,{\mathrm{B}},\sigma_p(\tilde{x})}$ for every $\alpha$ and intertwining the two $T$-actions.
For such $T$-equivariant $\eta_l$, $\eta_p^{{\mathrm{ur}}}$, the resulting embeddings $i_{x,p}:I_{x}({{\mathbb Q}_p})\hookrightarrow J_b({{\mathbb Q}_p})$, $i^p_{x}:I_{x}({\mathbb A}_f^p)\hookrightarrow G({\mathbb A}_f^p)$ clearly satisfy (\[eq:(i\_p,i\^p)\_adapted\_to\_i\_T\]), where $b\in G({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$ is given by that $b\sigma$ is the absolute Frobenius element acting on $H^{{\mathrm{cris}}}_1({\mathcal{A}}_x/{{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$ via $\eta_p^{{\mathrm{ur}}}$. Note that we have $b\in i_T(T)({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$ because $b$ commutes with $i_T(T)({{\mathbb Q}_p})$, thus $b\in Z_{G({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})}(i_T(T)({{\mathbb Q}_p}))=i_T(T)({{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}})$ (the equality holds since $T$ is unirational so that $T({{\mathbb Q}_p})$ is Zariski dense in $T$). Since ${\mathcal{A}}_{x}$ is the reduction of the CM point $[h,1]\in Sh_{K_T}(i_T(T),\{h\})\in Sh_K(G,X)$ (for $K_{T}:=i_T(T)({\mathbb A}_f)\cap K$), property (ii) of (3) follows from Lemma \[lem:properties\_of\_psi\_T,mu\] and [@Lee16 Lem.3.2.4].
Next, let $j_x:T\subset I_{x}$ be a maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-torus and $T'=\Int(a)(T)$ for $a\in I_{x}({\mathbb Q})$. Then, we claim that for any $\mu_{T'} \in X_{\ast}(T')$ satisfying the conditions of [@Kisin17 Lem.2.2.2], if $\tilde{x}'$ and $i_{T'}:T'\hookrightarrow G$ are the resulting CM-lifting of a suitable point $x'$ in the isogeny class of $x$ and the embedding discussed above (which is obtained by the construction of [@Kisin17 Thm.2.2.3], via an isomorphism (\[eq:Betti-isom\])), the two embeddings of $T$ into $G$ $$i_{T'}\circ\Int(a),\ i_T\ :\ T\hookrightarrow G$$ are stably conjugate. It suffices to show that for *any* two quasi-isogenies $\theta_i:\mathcal{A}_x\rightarrow \mathcal{A}_{x_i}\ (i=1,2)$ respecting weak polarizations and matching the respective etale and crystalline tensors, and such that $x_i$ lifts to a point $\tilde{x}_i$ in characteristic zero in a way that $\theta_{i\ast}:T{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}T_i\subset I_{x_i}$ lifts to $G$ via an isomorphism (\[eq:Betti-isom\]), the resulting embeddings $i_1,i_2:T\hookrightarrow G$ are stably conjugate. Since the isomorphisms induced by $\theta_2\circ\theta_1^{-1}$ $$(H^{{\text{\'et}}}_1({\mathcal{A}}_{{\bar{x}}_1},{{\mathbb Q}_l}),\{s_{\alpha,l,x_1}\}){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}(H^{{\text{\'et}}}_1({\mathcal{A}}_{{\bar{x}}_2},{{\mathbb Q}_l}),\{s_{\alpha,l,x_2}\}),\ (H^{{\mathrm{cris}}}_1({\mathcal{A}}_{x_1}/{\mathfrak{k}}),\{s_{\alpha,0,x_1}\}){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}(H^{{\mathrm{cris}}}_1({\mathcal{A}}_{x_2}/{\mathfrak{k}}),\{s_{\alpha,0,x_2}\})$$ are compatible with $\theta_{1\ast}$, $\theta_{2\ast}$, the functor, defined on the category of ${\mathbb Q}$-algebras, of isomorphisms $H^{{\mathrm{B}}}_1({\mathcal{A}}_{\sigma_p(\tilde{x}_1)},{\mathbb Q}){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}H^{{\mathrm{B}}}_1({\mathcal{A}}_{\sigma_p(\tilde{x}_2)},{\mathbb Q})$ preserving the Betti tensors and compatible with $i_1$, $i_2$ is non-empty, thus becomes a $T$-torsor by (2). In particular, it has a ${\overline{\mathbb Q}}$-valued point, which implies the claim. This fact also implies that to obtain $i_T$, we may use the embedding $T\subset {\mathrm{Aut}}_{{\mathbb Q}}({\mathcal{A}}_{\tilde{y}})$ for any point $y\in {\mathscr{I}}$ which lifts to a special-point lifting $\tilde{y}$, regarding $T$ as a subtorus of $I_{y}$ via any quasi-isogeny ${\mathcal{A}}_{y}\rightarrow {\mathcal{A}}_{x}$.
Now, for each isogeny class ${\mathscr{I}}$, we fix a ${\bar{\mathbb{F}}_{p}}$-point $x$ lying in it and define the group $I_{{\mathscr{I}}}$ to be $I_{x}$. By choosing isomorphisms $\eta_l\ (l\neq p)$ (\[eq:isom\_eta\]), $\eta_p^{{\mathrm{ur}}}$ (\[eq:isom\_eta\]) defined over ${\mathfrak{k}}$ such that for almost all $l\neq p$, $\eta_l$ extends over ${\mathbb Z}_l$, we obtain an element $b\in G({\mathfrak{k}})$ and embeddings $i^p:=i_{x}^p:(I_{x})_{{\mathbb A}_f}\hookrightarrow G_{{\mathbb A}_f}$, $i_p:=i_{x,p}:(I_{x})_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}\hookrightarrow J_b$ of group schemes over ${\mathbb A}_f^p$ and ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$. We have already shown statements (1) - (3) for $I_{x}$.
For (4), if ${\mathscr{I}}$ is the isogeny class of the reduction $x'$ of the special point $[h,1]$ and $x$ is the prechosen point of ${\mathscr{I}}$, the natural ${\mathbb Q}$-embedding $j_{x'}:T\hookrightarrow {\mathrm{Aut}}_{{\mathbb Q}}({\mathcal{A}}_{x'})$ factors through the subgroup $I_{x'}$ defined as above for $x'$. We define $j_{T,h}$ to be the composite $T\hookrightarrow I_{x'}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}I_{x}$ for any isomorphism $I_{x'}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}I_{x}$ induced by a choice of an isogeny ${\mathcal{A}}_{x'} \rightarrow {\mathcal{A}}_{x}$ preserving the (étale and crystalline) tensors and the weak polarizations. Clearly, the $I_{x}({\mathbb Q})$-isogeny class of such embeddings does not depend on the choice of the isogeny. In view of this construction, the properties of (4) are immediate. The last property that the isogeny class ${\mathscr{I}}_{T,h}$ depends only on the stable conjugacy class of $(T,h)$ will be established later in Prop. \[prop:Kisin17\_Prop.4.4.8\].
\[defn:admissible\_pair2\] (cf. Def. \[defn:admissible\_pair\]) A pair $({\mathscr{I}},\epsilon)$ consisting of an isogeny class ${\mathscr{I}}\subset{\mathscr{S}}_{{\mathbf{K}}}({\bar{\mathbb{F}}_{p}})$ and an element $\epsilon$ of $I_{{\mathscr{I}}}({\mathbb Q})$ is *admissible* of level $n=m[\kappa(\wp):{\mathbb{F}_{p}}]$ ($m\in{\mathbb N}$) if for a triple $(b\in G({\mathfrak{k}}),i_p,i^p)$ in Theorem \[thm:Kisin17\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\], there exists $x_p\in G({\mathfrak{k}})/{\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p$ such that $$i_p(\epsilon)x_p=(b\sigma)^nx_p$$ (equiv. there exists $x\in G({\mathfrak{k}})$ such that $i_p(\epsilon)x\rtimes \sigma^n=(b\rtimes\sigma)^nx$, cf. Lemma \[lem:Kottwitz84-a1.4.9\_b3.3\]). Two such pairs $({\mathscr{I}},\epsilon)$, $({\mathscr{I}}',\epsilon')$ are said to be *equivalent* if ${\mathscr{I}}={\mathscr{I}}'$ and $\epsilon'=\Int(g)(\epsilon)$ for some $g\in I_{{\mathscr{I}}}({\mathbb Q})$.
Clearly, the admissibility condition in this definition does not depend on the choice of a representative $(b,i_p)$ in its equivalence class.
We have the same name “admissible” for two different (but closely related) definitions: admissible in the sense of Def. \[defn:admissible\_pair\] for a pair $(\phi,\epsilon)$ consisting of a Galois gerb morphism $\phi:{\mathfrak{P}}\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}_G$ and an element $\epsilon\in I_{\phi}({\mathbb Q})(\subset G({\overline{\mathbb Q}}))$, and admissible in the above sense for a pair $({\mathscr{I}},\epsilon)$ consisting of an isogeny class ${\mathscr{I}}$ and an element $\epsilon\in I_{{\mathscr{I}}}({\mathbb Q})$. To avoid confusion, we will use the words *LR-pair*, *LR-admissible* in the former situation and the words *K-pair*, *K-admissible* in the latter situation.
Next, with any K-admissible K-pair $({\mathscr{I}},\epsilon\in I_{{\mathscr{I}}}({\mathbb Q}))$, say, of level $n=mr$, we associate a Kottwitz triple imitating the recipe for admissible LR-pairs. First, by Lemma \[lem:Kottwitz84-a1.4.9\_b3.3\] again, there exists $c\in G({\mathfrak{k}})$ such that $$\label{eq:(epsilon,b,c)->delta2}
c(i_p(\epsilon)^{-1}(b\rtimes\sigma)^n)c^{-1}=\sigma^n,$$ which implies that $\delta:=cb\sigma(c^{-1})\in G(L_n)$ and ${\mathrm{N}}_n\delta=c\epsilon'c^{-1}$; the $\sigma$-conjugacy class of $\delta$ in $G(L_n)$ depends only on the K-pair $({\mathscr{I}},\epsilon)$ (i.e. depends on the choice of neither $c$ or of a representative $(b,i_p)$ in its equivalence class. We put $\gamma=(\gamma_l)_{l\neq p}:=i^p(\epsilon)$; its $G({\mathbb A}_f^p)$-conjugacy class is also uniquely attached to $({\mathscr{I}},\epsilon)$. To define $\gamma_0\in G({\mathbb Q})$, we choose a maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-torus $T\subset I_{{\mathscr{I}}}$ with $\epsilon\in T({\mathbb Q})$, and fix an embedding $i_T:T\hookrightarrow G$ and embeddings $(i_p,i^p)$ accordingly as in Thm. \[thm:Kisin17\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\] (especially, satisfying condition (3)). Then, we obtain a triple of elements in $G({\mathbb Q})\times G(L_n)\times G({\mathbb A}_f^p)$ $$\label{eq:K-triple_for_isogeny_adm.pair}
(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta):=(i_T(\epsilon);i^p(\epsilon),cb\sigma(c^{-1})),$$ where $n$ is the level of $({\mathscr{I}},\epsilon)$. We will show below that this triple is a stable Kottwitz-triple with trivial Kottwitz invariant whose stable equivalence class depends only on the K-pair $({\mathscr{I}},\epsilon)$ (in particular, not depending on the choices of $i_T$ and $T$); cf. , , . For that end and for our proof of Kottwitz conjecture coming later, the following simple observations are critical:
\[lem:key\_observations\] (1) A K-pair $({\mathscr{I}},\epsilon\in I_{{\mathscr{I}}}({\mathbb Q}))$ is K-admissible (i.e. admissible in the sense of Def. \[defn:admissible\_pair2\]) if and only if for a (equiv. any) maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-torus $T$ of $I_{{\mathscr{I}}}$ containing $\epsilon$, the special LR-pair $(\psi_{i_T(T),\mu_h},i_T(\epsilon))$ is LR-admissible (i.e. admissible in the sense of Def. \[defn:admissible\_pair\]), where $i_T:T\hookrightarrow G$, $h\in X\cap {\mathrm{Hom}}({\mathbb{S}},i_T(T)_{{\mathbb R}})$, and $(b\in i_T(T)({\mathfrak{k}}),i_p,i^p)$ are as in Thm. \[thm:Kisin17\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\].
In this case, the triple $(\gamma_0;\delta,\gamma):=(i_T(\epsilon);cb\sigma(c^{-1}),i^p(\epsilon))$ (\[eq:K-triple\_for\_isogeny\_adm.pair\]) is stably equivalent to the stable Kottwitz triple attached to the special LR-pair $(\psi_{i_T(T),\mu_h},i_T(\epsilon))$ as constructed in Prop. \[prop:Kottwitz\_triple\].
Moreover, its stable equivalence class does not depend on the choice of $c$, $i_T$, $T$. We denote its equivalence class by $\kappa({\mathscr{I}},\epsilon)$; we use similar notation $\kappa(\phi,\epsilon)$ for an LR-admissible LR-pair $(\phi,\epsilon)$.
\(2) A special LR-pair $(\psi_{T,\mu_h},\epsilon\in T({\mathbb Q}))$ is LR-admissible if and only if the K-pair $({\mathscr{I}},j_{T,h}(\epsilon))$ is K-admissible, where ${\mathscr{I}}\subset {\mathscr{S}}_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}({\bar{\mathbb{F}}_{p}})$ is the isogeny class of the reduction of $[h,1]\in Sh_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}(G,X)({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ and $j_{T,h}:T\hookrightarrow I_{{\mathscr{I}}}$ is any embedding in the $I_{{\mathscr{I}}}({\mathbb Q})$-conjugacy class attached to $(T,h)$ in Thm. \[thm:Kisin17\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\], (4). In this case the two Kottwitz triples $\kappa(\psi_{T,\mu_h},\epsilon)$, $\kappa({\mathscr{I}},j_{T,h}(\epsilon))$ are equivalent.
\(1) Set $\phi:=\psi_{i_T(T),\mu_h}$. Since one has $i_T(T)(\bar{{\mathbb A}}_f^p)\cap X^p(\phi)\neq\emptyset$ for any *special* admissible morphism $\phi$ into ${\mathfrak{G}}_{i_T(T)}$ (Lemma \[lem:properties\_of\_psi\_T,mu\]), to check LR-admissibility for the special LR-pair $(\psi_{i_T(T),\mu_h},i_T(\epsilon))$, we only need to consider condition (3) of Def. \[defn:admissible\_pair\] at $p$. Let us choose some unramified conjugate $\xi_p':=\Int(u)\circ\xi_p$ of $\xi_p=\phi(p)\circ\zeta_p:{\mathfrak{G}}_p\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}_{i_T(T)}(p)$ under $i_T(T)({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$, and let $b'\in T({\mathfrak{k}})$ be defined by $b'\sigma=\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}(s_{\sigma})$ when $\xi_p'$ is the inflation of a ${{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerb morphism $\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}$. Then, since we have $[b']=[b]$ in $B(i_T(T))$ and $i_p|_{T({{\mathbb Q}_p})}=i_T|_{T({{\mathbb Q}_p})}$ (Thm. \[thm:Kisin17\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\], (3)), it is immediate that the equation ${\mathrm{Int}}u(i_T(\epsilon))x\rtimes\sigma^n(=i_T(\epsilon)x\rtimes\sigma^n)=(b'\rtimes\sigma)^nx$ has a solution in $G({\mathfrak{k}})$ (i.e. $(\phi,i_T(\epsilon))$ is LR-admissible) if and only if $i_p(\epsilon)x\rtimes\sigma^n=(b\rtimes\sigma)^nx$ has one (i.e. $({\mathscr{I}},\epsilon)$ is K-admissible). In this case, if we choose $d\in i_T(T)({\mathfrak{k}})$ with $b=db'\sigma(d^{-1})$, from $c(i_p(\epsilon)^{-1}(b\rtimes\sigma)^n)c^{-1}=\sigma^n$, we obtain $cd(i_T(\epsilon)^{-1}(b'\rtimes\sigma)^n)(cd)^{-1}=\sigma^n$. Since $(cd)b'\sigma(cd)^{-1}=cb\sigma(c^{-1})=:\delta$ and $i_T(T)(\bar{{\mathbb A}}_f^p)\cap X^p(\psi_{i_T(T),\mu_h})\neq\emptyset$, it follows from definition (cf. ) that the triple $(i_T(\epsilon);i_T(\epsilon),\delta)$ is a Kottwitz triple attached to the LR-admissible LR-pair $(\psi_{i_T(T),\mu_h},i_T(\epsilon))$. It is easy to see that this is a stable Kottwitz triple with trivial Kottwitz invariant that was constructed in Prop. \[prop:Kottwitz\_triple\] (Remark \[rem:two\_different\_b’s\]).
Next, we show that the stable equivalence class of $(i_T(\epsilon);i_T(\epsilon),\delta)$ does not depend on the choices of $i_T$ and $T$. It suffices to show this independence for its (geometric) equivalence class, because for stable Kottwitz triples $(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$, the $G({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$-conjugacy relation for $\gamma_0$ is the same as the stable conjugacy relation (Prop. \[prop:triviality\_in\_comp\_gp\]). Since the $G({\mathbb A}_f^p)\times G({\mathfrak{k}})$-conjugacy class of $(i^p,(i_p,b\sigma))$ is completely determined by the isogeny class ${\mathscr{I}}$, the $G({{\mathbb Q}_l})$-conjugacy class of $\gamma$ and the $\sigma$-conjugacy class in $G(L_n)$ of $\delta$ depends only on the K-pair $({\mathscr{I}},\epsilon)$. By contrast, a priori the stable conjugacy class of $\gamma_0$ depends on the choice of $T$ and $i_T$. But, as $\gamma_0=i_p(\epsilon)$, we find that the $G({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$-conjugacy class of $\gamma_0$ is also determined only by the K-pair $({\mathscr{I}},\epsilon)$.
\(2) This follows from (1), because the inclusion $T\subset G$ lies in the distinguished stable conjugacy class of embeddings $T\hookrightarrow G$ attached to $j_{T,h}:T\hookrightarrow I_{{\mathscr{I}}}$ as in Thm. \[thm:Kisin17\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\], (3) (property (iv) of Thm. \[thm:Kisin17\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\], (4)). Note that a (resp. stable) Kottwitz triple attached to an LR-admissible pair $(\phi,\epsilon)$ that is well-located (resp. nested) in a maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-torus $T$ of $G$ remains (resp. stably) equivalent under a transfer of maximal torus $\Int(g):T\hookrightarrow G\ (g\in G({\overline{\mathbb Q}}))$.
Next, we proceed with our task of describing the fixed point set $S_{K^p}({\mathscr{I}})^{\Phi^m\circ f=\mathrm{Id}}$ towards the ultimate goal of expressing its cardinality in terms of the triple $(\gamma_0;\delta,\gamma)$ and $g$. First, we need an analogue of Prop. \[prop:canonical\_decomp\_of\_epsilon\].
\[prop:canonical\_decomp\_of\_epsilon2\] Assume that ${\mathbb Q}\operatorname{-}\mathrm{rk}(Z(G))={\mathbb R}\operatorname{-}\mathrm{rk}(Z(G))$. For any K-admissible K-pair $({\mathscr{I}},\epsilon)$, there exist $s\in{\mathbb N}$ and $\pi_0, t\in T_{\epsilon}({\mathbb Q})$, where $T_{\epsilon}$ is the subgroup (of multiplicative type) of $I_{{\mathscr{I}}}$ generated by $\epsilon\in G({\mathbb Q})$, satisfying the properties of Lemma \[lem:canonical\_decomp\_of\_epsilon\]: we have $$(a)\ \epsilon^s=\pi_0 t\ ;\qquad (b)\ \pi_0\in K_l \text{ for all }l\neq p\ ;\qquad (c)\ t\in K_p,$$ for the maximal compact subgroup $K_v$ of $T_{\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}}({\mathbb Q}_v)$ (for each finite place $v$). Also, the K-pair $({\mathscr{I}},\pi_0^k)$ is K-admissible for every $k\gg1$. The pair $(\pi_0,t)$ is uniquely determined by $\epsilon$, up to taking simultaneous powers.
Any ${\mathbb Q}$-torus of $I_{{\mathscr{I}}}$ has the same ranks over ${\mathbb Q}$ and ${\mathbb R}$ by Thm. \[thm:Kisin17\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\] and our assumption on $Z(G)$. Under that condition, the construction of $\pi_0, t\in T_{\epsilon}({\mathbb Q})$ satisfying the properties (a) - (c) of Lemma \[lem:canonical\_decomp\_of\_epsilon\] uses only the ${\mathbb Q}$-group structure of the ${\mathbb Q}$-group $T_{\epsilon}$ (of multiplicative type) and $\epsilon$. To see the second statement, we choose a maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-torus $T$ of $I_{{\mathscr{I}}}$ containing $\epsilon$, and the data $i_T:T\hookrightarrow G$, $h\in X\cap {\mathrm{Hom}}({\mathbb{S}},i_T(T)_{{\mathbb R}})$, $(b\in i_T(T)({\mathfrak{k}}),i_p,i^p)$ in Thm. \[thm:Kisin17\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\]. Then that $({\mathscr{I}},\pi_0^k)$ is K-admissible for all $k\gg1$ follows from LR-admissibility of $(\psi_{i_T(T),\mu_h},i_T(\pi_0)^k)$ which in turn is implied by that of $(\psi_{i_T(T),\mu_h},i_T(\epsilon))$ (Lemma \[lem:key\_observations\], Prop. \[prop:canonical\_decomp\_of\_epsilon\]).
For a group $A$, we consider the following equivalence relation $\sim$ among the set of pairs $(a,n)$ with $a\in A$, $n\in{\mathbb N}$: $(a,n)\sim (a',n')$ if there exists $N\in{\mathbb N}$ such that $a^{n'N}=(a')^{nN}$. We define a *germ of an element* of $A$ to be an equivalence class of pairs $(a,n)$ for this equivalence relation. For an algebraic group $G$ over a field $k$ (say, of characteristic zero) and a germ $\pi$ of an element of $G(k)$, if $(\pi_n,n)$ is a representative of $\pi$, the Zariski closures in $G$ of the subgroups generated by $\pi_n^e\ (e\in{\mathbb N})$ form a decreasing sequence (with $e$’s being ordered multiplicatively) of subgroups, thus stabilizes to a $k$-subgroup. It is then easy to see that this $k$-group depends only on the given germ $\pi$, not on the choice of representative $(\pi_n,n)$; we call this subgroup of $G$ the *subgroup generated by* the germ $\pi$. Also we call the centralizer in $G$ of this subgroup the *centralizer* (in $G$) of the germ $\pi$ and denote it by $G_{\pi}$.
\[thm:Kisin17\_Cor.2.3.2\] [@Kisin17 Cor.2.3.2] Assume that ${\mathbb Q}\operatorname{-}\mathrm{rk}(Z(G))={\mathbb R}\operatorname{-}\mathrm{rk}(Z(G))$. Let ${\mathscr{I}}\subset{\mathscr{S}}_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}({\bar{\mathbb{F}}_{p}})$ be an isogeny class.
There exists a unique germ $\pi_{{\mathscr{I}}}$ of an element in $Z(I_{{\mathscr{I}}})({\mathbb Q})$, called the *germ of Frobenius endomorphism* of ${\mathscr{I}}$, with the following properties:
\(a) There exist a representative $i_p:(I_{{\mathscr{I}}})_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}\hookrightarrow J_b$ of the $G({\mathfrak{k}})$-conjugacy class of Thm. \[thm:Kisin17\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\] and a representative $(\pi_N,N)$ of $\pi=\pi_{{\mathscr{I}}}$ such that one has $b\in G(L_N)$ and $i_p(\pi_N)={\mathrm{N}}_Nb$;
\(b) The embeddings $i_l:(I_{{\mathscr{I}}})_{{{\mathbb Q}_l}} \hookrightarrow G_{{{\mathbb Q}_l}}\ (l\neq p)$, $i_p:(I_{{\mathscr{I}}})_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}\hookrightarrow J_b$ of Thm. \[thm:Kisin17\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\] induce isomorphisms of group schemes $$i_l:(I_{{\mathscr{I}}})_{{{\mathbb Q}_l}} {\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}I_{i_l(\pi)},\quad i_p:(I_{{\mathscr{I}}})_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}I_{i_p(\pi)},$$ where $I_{i_l(\pi)}$ and $I_{i_p(\pi)}$ denote respectively the centralizer in $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_l}}$ of the germ $i_l(\pi)$ and the centralizer in $J_b$ of the germ $i_p(\pi)$. Also for almost all $l\neq p$, the ${\mathbb Z}_l$-embedding $i_l:(I_{{\mathscr{I}}})_{{\mathbb Z}_l} \hookrightarrow G_{{\mathbb Z}_l}$ of Thm. \[thm:Kisin17\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\] induces an isomorphism $(I_{{\mathscr{I}}})_{{\mathbb Z}_l} {\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}(G_{{\mathbb Z}_l})_{i_l(\pi)}$.
\(c) For any representative $(\pi_n,n)$ of $\pi_{{\mathscr{I}}}$, the K-pair $({\mathscr{I}},\pi_n^k)$ is K-admissible for all $k\gg1$ and $\pi_n$ lies in a compact subgroup of $I_{{\mathscr{I}}}({{\mathbb Q}_l})$ for every finite place $l\neq p$. For any K-admissible K-pair $({\mathscr{I}},\epsilon)$ of level $n$ and each triple $(\pi_0,t\in T_{\epsilon}({\mathbb Q});s\in{\mathbb N})$ attached to $\epsilon$ as in Prop. \[prop:canonical\_decomp\_of\_epsilon2\], $(\pi_0,ns)$ represents the germ $\pi_{{\mathscr{I}}}$.
There is a natural candidate for $\pi_n\ (k\gg1)$, i.e. the $p^n$-th relative Frobenius endomorphism in $Z(I_{{\mathscr{I}}})({\mathbb Q})$ of the isogeny class ${\mathscr{I}}$. The uniqueness (as a germ of element in $Z(I_{{\mathscr{I}}})({\mathbb Q})$) will follow from (c).
Property (b) is Thm. \[thm:Kisin17\_Cor.2.3.2;Tate\_isom\], i.e. Kisin’s generalization of the Tate’s theorem on the endomorphisms of abelian varieties over finite fields. We choose a point $x$ in ${\mathscr{I}}$ defined over a finite field ${\mathbb F}_q$ and via some $K_0:=W({\mathbb F}_q)[1/p]$-linear isomorphism $V\otimes K_0 {\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}H^{{\mathrm{cris}}}_1({\mathcal{A}}_x/K_0)$ matching the tensors $s_{\alpha}$, $s_{\alpha,0,x}$ on both sides, we identify the Frobenius automorphism on $H_{{\mathrm{cris}}}^1({\mathcal{A}}_x/K_0)$ with $\delta\sigma$ for $\delta\in G(K_0)$. From this choice, we obtain a datum $(b=\delta,i_p:(I_{\phi})_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}\hookrightarrow J_b)$ in Thm. \[thm:Kisin17\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\]; note that in this case, we have $$\label{eq:(delta,i_p)}
i_p(\pi_N)={\mathrm{N}}_N\delta$$ for any $N\in N$ with ${\mathbb F}_q\subset {\mathbb F}_{p^N}$; this establishes (a). Now, property (b) for $l\neq p$ is immediate from Thm. \[thm:Kisin17\_Cor.2.3.2;Tate\_isom\]. In the $p$-adic case, *loc. cit.* says that for any $N\gg1$, $i_p$ identifies $(I_{{\mathscr{I}}})_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ with the $\sigma$-centralizer $G_{\delta\sigma}(\subset {\mathrm{Res}}_{L_N/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}(G))$ inside $J_{\delta}$. But, since ${\mathrm{N}}_N\delta\rtimes\sigma^N=(\delta\rtimes\sigma)^N$, for any ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-algebra $R$, an element $g\in G({\mathfrak{k}}\otimes_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}} R)$ commutes simultaneously with $\delta\sigma$ and $\sigma^N$ if and only if it does so with $\delta\sigma$ and ${\mathrm{N}}_N\delta=i_p(\pi_N)$, thus one has $$\begin{aligned}
G_{\delta\sigma}(R) &=\{ g\in G(L_N\otimes_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}} R)\ |\ \delta\sigma(g)=g\delta \} \\
&=\{g\in G({\mathfrak{k}}\otimes_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}} R)\ |\ \sigma^Ng=g,\ \delta\sigma(g)=g\delta \} \\
&=J_{\delta,i_p(\pi_N)}(R),\end{aligned}$$ as was asserted. The second statement on the extension of $i_l$ over ${\mathbb Z}_l$ is clear, since for almost all $l\neq p$, $i_l(\pi_N)\in G_{{\mathbb Z}_l}({\mathbb Z}_l)$ for all $N\gg1$ according to (c) below.
Next, for property (c), the K-admissibility of $({\mathscr{I}},\pi_N)$ (for $N\gg1$) follows from (a), since for the choice of $(b,i_p)$ there, one has $i_p(\pi_N)^{-1}(b\rtimes\sigma)^N=\sigma^N$. Also, being a relative Frobenius endomorphism, for every $l\neq p$, the eigenvalues of $\pi_N$ are all $l$-adic units, which implies that the subgroup of $Z(I_{{\mathscr{I}}})({{\mathbb Q}_l})$ generated by $\pi_N$ is bounded (thus, its closure is compact). The last claim of (c) can be established by the argument of the proof of Prop. \[prop:phi(delta)=gamma\_0\_up\_to\_center\]. Take a maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-torus $T$ of $I_{{\mathscr{I}}}$ containing $\epsilon$ (which automatically also contains the germ $\pi$), and let $i_T:T\hookrightarrow G$, $h\in X\cap{\mathrm{Hom}}({\mathbb{S}},i_T(T)_{{\mathbb R}})$ be as in Thm. \[thm:Kisin17\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\]. By Lemma \[lem:key\_observations\] and Prop. \[prop:canonical\_decomp\_of\_epsilon2\] , we know that the LR-pair $(\phi:=\psi_{i_T(T),\mu_h},i_T(\pi_0^k))$ is LR-admissible of level $nsk$ for all $k\gg1$, hence we have $\pi_0^{k}=\psi_{i_T(T),h}(\delta_{nsk})$ (Prop. \[prop:phi(delta)=gamma\_0\_up\_to\_center\]). If $A/{\mathbb F}_{p^{nsk}}$ is the abelian variety over a finite field ${\mathbb F}_{p^{nsk}}$ for $k\gg1$ corresponding to the CM point $[h,1]\in Sh_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}(G,X)({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$, it follows from the theory of complex multiplication (cf. [@CCO14 A.2.5.7, A.2.5.8]) that $\psi_{i_T(T),h}(\delta_{nsk})$ is the relative Frobenius of $A/{\mathbb F}_{p^{nsk}}$, hence equals $\pi_{nsk}$.
\[lem:Tate\_thm2\] Assume that ${\mathbb Q}\operatorname{-}\mathrm{rk}(Z(G))={\mathbb R}\operatorname{-}\mathrm{rk}(Z(G))$. Let $({\mathscr{I}},\epsilon)$ be a K-admissible K-pair. We fix a maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-torus $T$ of $I_{{\mathscr{I}}}$ containing $\epsilon$, and also $(i_T,h)$, $(b,i_p,i^p)$ as in Thm. \[thm:Kisin17\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\]. Let $(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$ be an associated Kottwitz triple (\[eq:K-triple\_for\_isogeny\_adm.pair\]).
\(1) The embedding $i^p:(I_{{\mathscr{I}}})_{{\mathbb A}_f^p} \hookrightarrow G_{{\mathbb A}_f^p}$ induces an isomorphism of ${\mathbb A}_f^p$-group scheme $$i^p:(I_{{\mathscr{I}},\epsilon})_{{\mathbb A}_f^p} {\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}G_{\gamma},$$ where $G_{\gamma}$ is the centralizer of $\gamma$ in $G_{{\mathbb A}_f^p}$.
\(2) If the couple $(b,i_p)$ of Thm. \[thm:Kisin17\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\] is chosen such that $b\in i_T(T)({\mathfrak{k}})$, and we fix $c\in G({\mathfrak{k}})$ (\[eq:(epsilon,b,c)->delta2\]), the embedding $\Int(c)\circ i_p:(I_{{\mathscr{I}}})_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}\hookrightarrow J_b{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}J_{\delta}$ induces an isomorphism of ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-groups $$\label{eq:Int(cu)2}
\Int(c)\circ i_p:\ (I_{{\mathscr{I}},\epsilon})_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}G_{\delta\sigma},$$ where $G_{\delta\sigma}(\subset {\mathrm{Res}}_{L_n/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}(G))$ is the $\sigma$-centralizer of $\delta\in G(L_n)$.
\(3) There exists an inner twisting $(I_{{\mathscr{I}},\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}})_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}(G_{\gamma_0}^{\mathrm{o}})_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}$ that restricts to $i_T:T{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}i_T(T)$. It also induces an inner twisting $(I_{{\mathscr{I}},\epsilon})_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}(G_{\gamma_0})_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}$.
As in the case of LR-admissible LR-pairs, the isomorphism class of $I_{{\mathscr{I}},\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}}$ as an inner form of $G_{\gamma_0}^{\mathrm{o}}$ is not uniquely determined by the K-pair $({\mathscr{I}},\epsilon)$ or the associated Kottwitz triple (unless $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$).
\(1) By Thm. \[thm:Kisin17\_Cor.2.3.2\] and Prop. \[prop:canonical\_decomp\_of\_epsilon2\] (plus Lemma \[lem:Zariski\_group\_closure\]), $i_l$ induces isomorphisms (for any $k\gg1$) $$(I_{{\mathscr{I}},\epsilon})_{{{\mathbb Q}_l}} {\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}Z_{G_{{{\mathbb Q}_l}}}(i_l(\pi_{nsk}),i_l(\epsilon)) {\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}Z_{G_{{{\mathbb Q}_l}}}(i_l(\pi_0^k),i_l(\epsilon)) {\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}Z_{G_{{{\mathbb Q}_l}}}(i_l(\epsilon)),$$ where $(\pi_{nsk},nsk)$ is a representative of the germ $\pi_{{\mathscr{I}}}$ and $(s\in{\mathbb N},\pi_0\in T_{\epsilon}({\mathbb Q}))$ are as in Prop. \[prop:canonical\_decomp\_of\_epsilon2\] (the groups in the middle denote the simultaneous centralizers of the elements inside the round brackets).
\(2) Again, as in the case $l\neq p$, it follows from Thm. \[thm:Kisin17\_Cor.2.3.2\] and Prop. \[prop:canonical\_decomp\_of\_epsilon2\] (plus Lemma \[lem:Zariski\_group\_closure\]) that $i_p$ induces isomorphisms (for any $k\gg1$) $$\label{eq:i_{p,epsilon}}
(I_{{\mathscr{I}},\epsilon})_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}} {\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}Z_{J_b}(i_p(\pi_{nsk}),i_p(\epsilon)) {\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}Z_{J_b}(i_p(\pi_0^k),i_p(\epsilon)) {\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}Z_{J_b}(i_p(\epsilon)).$$ Then, as one has $c(i_p(\epsilon)^{-1}(b\sigma)^n)c^{-1}=\sigma^n$ (\[eq:(epsilon,b,c)->delta2\]), $\Int(c)$ induces an isomorphism $$\Int(c): Z_{J_b}(i_p(\epsilon)) {\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}G_{\delta\sigma}$$ (cf. proof of Lemma \[lem:isom\_Int(cu)\]).
\(3) An inner class of a connected reductive ${\mathbb Q}$-group is determined by the canonical Galois action on the Dynkin diagram which is given by a homomorphism ${\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb Q}}/{\mathbb Q})\rightarrow {\mathrm{Aut}}(X_{\ast}(T))/N_G(T)$ acting on a based root datum $(X^{\ast}(T),\Delta,X_{\ast}(T),\Delta^{\vee})$ for any maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-torus $T$ ($\Delta\subset X^{\ast}(T)$ being a set of simple roots, as usual). Hence, using that the ${\mathbb Q}$-groups $I_{{\mathscr{I}},\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}}$, $G_{\gamma_0}^{\mathrm{o}}$ share the same maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-torus $T{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}i_T(T)$, it suffices to show that the two homomorphisms ${\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb Q}}/{\mathbb Q})\rightarrow {\mathrm{Aut}}(X_{\ast}(T))/N_G(T)$ canonically attached to them are the same. By Chebotarev density theorem, it is enough to check this locally for places in a set of Dirichlet density $1$. For a place $v$, the equality of the restrictions of the homomorphisms to ${\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_v}/{{\mathbb Q}_v})$ follows from the existence of $T$-equivariant inner-twistings $$(I_{{\mathscr{I}},\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}})_{{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_v}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}(G_{\gamma_0}^{\mathrm{o}})_{{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_v}}.$$ For finite $v$, such inner-twisting is provided by (1) and (2): for $l\neq p$, it suffices that $\gamma_0$ and $\gamma_l$ are stably conjugate. For $p$, one uses the fact that there exists a $T$-equivariant inner-twisting $(G_{\delta\sigma})_{K_0}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}(G_{K_0})_{\gamma_p}$, where $K_0=W(k)[1/p]$ and $\gamma_p={\mathrm{N}}_{n}\delta\in i_T(T)(K_0)$ (cf. [@Kottwitz82 Lem.5.4]).
Next, we prove an analogue of Thm. \[thm:LR-Satz5.25\]. For that, adapting the idea of Kisin of twisting an isogeny class ${\mathscr{I}}$ by cohomology classes in $\Sha^{\infty}_G({\mathbb Q},I_{{\mathscr{I}}})$, we also twist arbitrary K-admissible K-pair $({\mathscr{I}},\epsilon\in I_{{\mathscr{I}}}({\mathbb Q}))$ by certain cohomology classes in $${\mathrm{im}}[\Sha^{\infty}_G({\mathbb Q},I_{{\mathscr{I}},\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}})\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb Q},I_{{\mathscr{I}},\epsilon})].$$ Here, the groups $\Sha^{\infty}_G({\mathbb Q},I_{{\mathscr{I}}})$, $\Sha^{\infty}_G({\mathbb Q},I_{{\mathscr{I}},\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}})$ are defined as follows. Recall $\pi_{{\mathscr{I}}}$, the germ of Frobenius endomorphism attached to ${\mathscr{I}}$ (Lemma \[thm:Kisin17\_Cor.2.3.2\]). Using any maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-torus $T\subset I_{{\mathscr{I}}}$ and a fixed choice of embedding $i_T:T\hookrightarrow G$ as in Thm. \[thm:Kisin17\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\], we obtain a germ $i_T(\pi_{{\mathscr{I}}})$ of element in $G({\mathbb Q})$. Let $I_0\subset G$ be its centralizer. Then, the fact (Thm. \[thm:Kisin17\_Cor.2.3.2\]) that $I_{{\mathscr{I}}}$ is an inner-form of $I_0$ allows us to define (as in (\[eq:Sha\^[infty]{}\_G\])) $$\Sha^{\infty}_G({\mathbb Q},I_{{\mathscr{I}}}):=\ker\left[\Sha^{\infty}({\mathbb Q},I_{{\mathscr{I}}}) {\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}\Sha^{\infty}({\mathbb Q},I_0) \rightarrow \Sha^{\infty}({\mathbb Q},G)\right],$$ where the first isomorphism is induced by *any* inner-twisting $(I_{{\mathscr{I}}})_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}(I_0)_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}$ and the second map by the inclusion $I_0\subset G$: this kernel is independent of all the choices made, especially of $T$, (cf. [@Kisin17 (4.4.7)]). The group $\Sha^{\infty}_G({\mathbb Q},I_{{\mathscr{I}},\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}})$ is defined similarly. As we will see, such twisting procedure corresponds to twisting an admissible morphism $\phi:{\mathfrak{P}}\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}_G$ (resp. an LR-admissible LR-pair $(\phi,\epsilon)$) by cohomology classes in $\Sha^{\infty}_G({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi})$ (resp. classes in $\Sha_G({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi,\epsilon})^+$) as explained in Lemma \[lem:LR-Lem5.26,Satz5.25\].
Now, suppose given an isogeny class ${\mathscr{I}}$ and $T\subset I_{{\mathscr{I}}}$ a maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-torus. We fix a ${\mathbb Q}$-embedding $i_T:T\hookrightarrow G$ and $h\in X\cap {\mathrm{Hom}}({\mathbb{S}},i_T(T)_{{\mathbb R}})$ as in Thm. \[thm:Kisin17\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\]. Let $\tilde{\beta}\in \Sha^{\infty}({\mathbb Q},T)$ and assume that the image of $i_T(\tilde{\beta})\in \Sha^{\infty}({\mathbb Q},i_T(T))$ in $H^1({\mathbb Q},G)$ is trivial. Thus, there exists $\tilde{\omega}\in G({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ such that the cochain $\tau\mapsto \tilde{\omega}^{-1}\cdot{}^{\tau}\tilde{\omega}$ on ${\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb Q}}/{\mathbb Q})$ belongs to $Z^1({\mathbb Q},i_T(T))$ and as such one has $$\label{eq:tilde{omega}}
[\tilde{\omega}^{-1}\cdot{}^{\tau}\tilde{\omega}]=i_T(\tilde{\beta})$$ in $H^1({\mathbb Q},i_T(T))$. Equivalently, $\Int(\tilde{\omega}):G_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}G_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}$ gives a transfer of maximal torus $i_T(T)\hookrightarrow G$ whose base-change $\Int(\tilde{\omega})_{{\mathbb R}}:i_T(T)_{{\mathbb R}}\hookrightarrow G_{{\mathbb R}}$ is induced from conjugation by an element in $G({\mathbb R})$. Therefore, for such $\tilde{\omega}$, the pair $$\label{eq:stable-conj._of_special_SD}
(i_T(T)^{\tilde{\beta}}, h^{\tilde{\beta}}):=(\Int(\tilde{\omega})(i_T(T)),\Int(\tilde{\omega})(h))$$ is another special Shimura sub-datum of $(G,X)$, which is easily seen to depend only on $(i_T(T),h)$ and the cohomology class $\tilde{\beta}\in \Sha^{\infty}({\mathbb Q},T)$.
\[prop:Kisin17\_Prop.4.4.8\] (1) [@Kisin17 Prop.4.4.8] Let ${\mathscr{I}}$ be an isogeny class and $\beta_1,\beta_2\in \Sha^{\infty}_G({\mathbb Q},I_{{\mathscr{I}}})$. For each $i=1,2$, choose a maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-torus $T_i\subset I_{{\mathscr{I}}}$ such that $\beta_i\in H^1({\mathbb Q},I_{{\mathscr{I}}})$ is the image of some $\tilde{\beta}_i\in H^1({\mathbb Q},T_i)$ (which exists by [@Borovoi98 Thm.5.11]), and fix $i_{T_i}:T_i\hookrightarrow G$, $h_i\in X\cap {\mathrm{Hom}}({\mathbb{S}},i_{T_i}(T_i)_{{\mathbb R}})$, and $\tilde{\omega}_i\in G({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ as above. Then, the isogeny classes ${\mathscr{I}}_i\ (i=1,2)$ of the reductions of $[\Int(\tilde{\omega}_i)(h_i),1]$ are the same if and only if $\beta_1=\beta_2$.
In particular, for any $\beta\in \Sha^{\infty}_G({\mathbb Q},I_{{\mathscr{I}}})$, the corresponding isogeny class depends only on $\beta$ (not on the choices of auxiliary data $T$, $\tilde{\beta}$, $i_{T}$, $h$, $\tilde{\omega}$), and when we denote it by ${\mathscr{I}}^{\beta}$, the assignment $\beta\mapsto {\mathscr{I}}^{\beta}$ defines an inclusion of $\Sha^{\infty}_G({\mathbb Q},I_{{\mathscr{I}}})$ into the set of isogeny classes in ${\mathscr{S}}_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}(G,X)({\bar{\mathbb{F}}_{p}})$.
\(2) Let $({\mathscr{I}},\epsilon)$ be a K-admissible K-pair. Then, for any $\beta\in {\mathrm{im}}[\Sha^{\infty}_G({\mathbb Q},I_{{\mathscr{I}},\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}})\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb Q},I_{{\mathscr{I}},\epsilon})]$, there exists a K-pair $({\mathscr{I}}^{\beta},\epsilon^{\beta})$ with the following properties:
- as an isogeny class, ${\mathscr{I}}^{\beta}$ is the twist of ${\mathscr{I}}$ by the image of $\beta$ in $\Sha^{\infty}_G({\mathbb Q},I_{{\mathscr{I}}})$;
- for any maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-torus $T$ of $I_{{\mathscr{I}},\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}}$ such that $\beta$ is the image of some $\tilde{\beta}\in H^1({\mathbb Q},T)$, the $I_{{\mathscr{I}}^{\beta}}({\mathbb Q})$-conjugacy class of $\epsilon^{\beta}$ contains $$\Int(\tilde{\omega})(i_T(\epsilon))\ \in\ i_T(T)^{\tilde{\beta}}({\mathbb Q}),$$ where $i_T:T\hookrightarrow G$ and $\tilde{\omega}$ are as before and $\Int(\tilde{\omega})(i_T(\epsilon))$ is regarded as an element of $I_{{\mathscr{I}}^{\beta}}({\mathbb Q})$ via any embedding $j_{i_T(T)^{\tilde{\beta}},h^{\tilde{\beta}}}:i_T(T)^{\tilde{\beta}}\hookrightarrow I_{{\mathscr{I}}^{\beta}}$ in Thm. \[thm:Kisin17\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\], (4).
Moreover, the assignment $\beta\mapsto ({\mathscr{I}}^{\beta},\epsilon^{\beta})$ gives a well-defined inclusion of ${\mathrm{im}}[\Sha^{\infty}_G({\mathbb Q},I_{{\mathscr{I}},\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}})\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb Q},I_{{\mathscr{I}},\epsilon})]$ into the set of equivalence classes of K-pairs.
\(1) As indicated in the statement, this is [@Kisin17 Prop.4.4.8].
\(2) We use a moduli interpretation of ${\mathscr{I}}^{\beta}$ (which was also the key ingredient of the proof of (1)). For any $\beta\in {\mathrm{im}}[\Sha^{\infty}_G({\mathbb Q},I_{{\mathscr{I}},\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}})\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb Q},I_{{\mathscr{I}},\epsilon})]$, we can find a maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-torus $T$ of $I_{{\mathscr{I}},\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}}$ such that $\beta$ is the image of some $\tilde{\beta}\in H^1({\mathbb Q},T)$ [@Borovoi98 Thm.5.11], which then must lie in $\Sha^{\infty}_G({\mathbb Q},T)$ [@Kisin17 4.4.5]. We fix $i_T:T\hookrightarrow G$, $\tilde{\omega}$ as in (1). If $x\in {\mathscr{I}}$ denotes the reduction of $[h,1]$, the reduction of $[\Int(\tilde{\omega})(h),1]$ is $\mathbf{i}_{\omega}(x)$ in the notation of (4.4.7) of [@Kisin17]. Its underlying abelian variety $\mathcal{A}_{\mathbf{i}_{\omega}(x)}$ is isomorphic to the twist $\mathcal{A}_{x}^{\mathcal{P}}$ of $\mathcal{A}_{x}$ by the $T$-torsor $\mathcal{P}$ corresponding to $\tilde{\beta}\in H^1({\mathbb Q},T)$ (*loc. cit.* 4.1.6), and there exists a natural ${\overline{\mathbb Q}}$-isogeny between the corresponding weakly polarized abelian varieties endowed with a set of (crystalline and étale) cycles (i.e. $s_{\alpha,0,x}$, $s_{\alpha,l,x}\ (l\neq p)$ in the notation of the proof of Thm. \[thm:Kisin17\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\]) $$\label{eq:Qb-isogeny_theta}
\theta_{\tilde{\omega}}:\mathcal{A}_{x}^{\mathcal{P}}\otimes_{{\mathbb Q}}{\overline{\mathbb Q}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}\mathcal{A}_{x}\otimes_{{\mathbb Q}}{\overline{\mathbb Q}},$$ which is unique up to $T({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$-conjugacy, once we fix an identification $I_{{\mathscr{I}}}({\mathbb Q})= I_x({\mathbb Q})$: in more detail, such ${\overline{\mathbb Q}}$-isogeny is induced by a point of $\mathcal{P}({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ (i.e. a homomorphism $\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{P}}\rightarrow {\overline{\mathbb Q}}$) from a universal isomorphism (in the isogeny category, cf. *loc. cit.* 4.1.6) $$\label{eq:univ_isogeny_theta}
\mathcal{A}_x^{\mathcal{P}}\otimes_{{\mathbb Q}}\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{P}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}\mathcal{A}_{x}\otimes_{{\mathbb Q}}\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{P}}.$$ Two points $p_1,p_2\in{\mathrm{Hom}}(\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{P}},{\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ differ by a point $t\in T({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ acting on $\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{P}}$, and it is easy to see that then the resulting ${\overline{\mathbb Q}}$-isogenies $\mathcal{A}_{x}^{\mathcal{P}}\otimes_{{\mathbb Q}}{\overline{\mathbb Q}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}\mathcal{A}_{x}\otimes_{{\mathbb Q}}{\overline{\mathbb Q}}$ differ by composition with $t\in I_{x}({\mathbb Q})$.
Now, when $\epsilon\in T({\mathbb Q})$, it is obvious from the definition (*loc. cit.* 4.1.6) that $\epsilon$ gives an automorphism of the group functor represented by $\mathcal{A}_x^{\mathcal{P}}$, namely a self-isogeny $$\epsilon^{\mathcal{P}} \in \mathrm{Aut}_{{\mathbb Q}}(\mathcal{A}_x^{\mathcal{P}})$$ (as an element of $\mathrm{Aut}_{{\mathbb Q}}(\mathcal{A}_x^{\mathcal{P}})$, this still depends on $\mathcal{P}$, i.e. on $\tilde{\beta}$) and in fact lies in $I_{\mathbf{i}_{\omega}(x)}({\mathbb Q})$ (*loc. cit.* 4.1.6, and Lemma 4.1.5, 4.1.7). Also, the universal isomorphism (\[eq:univ\_isogeny\_theta\]) takes $\epsilon^{\mathcal{P}}$ to $\epsilon$, so for any ${\overline{\mathbb Q}}$-isogeny $\theta_{\tilde{\omega}}$ (\[eq:Qb-isogeny\_theta\]) one has $$\epsilon^{\mathcal{P}} =\Int(\theta_{\tilde{\omega}}^{-1})(\epsilon).$$
Let $I_{\mathbf{i}_{\omega}(x),\epsilon}:=Z_{I_{\mathbf{i}_{\omega}(x)}}(\epsilon)$. We consider the ${\mathbb Q}$-scheme $\mathcal{Q}_{\epsilon}$ of isomorphisms $$\mathcal{A}_x^{\mathcal{P}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow}}\mathcal{A}_{x},$$ compatible with the weak polarizations and which fix the crystalline and the etale tensors $\{s_{\alpha,0,x}\}$, $\{s_{\alpha,l,x}\}\ (l\neq p)$ and further takes $\epsilon^{\mathcal{P}}$ to $\epsilon$. One readily sees (*loc. cit.*, proof of Prop. 4.4.8) that this is a $I_{{\mathscr{I}},\epsilon}$-torsor which admits a $T$-equivariant map $\mathcal{P}\rightarrow\mathcal{Q}_{\epsilon}$, hence is isomorphic to the $I_{{\mathscr{I}},\epsilon}$-torsor associated with $\beta\in H^1({\mathbb Q},I_{{\mathscr{I}},\epsilon})$. This implies that the assignment $\beta\mapsto ({\mathscr{I}}^{\mathcal{P}},\epsilon^{\mathcal{P}})$ gives a well-defined inclusion of ${\mathrm{im}}[\Sha^{\infty}_G({\mathbb Q},I_{{\mathscr{I}},\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}})\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb Q},I_{{\mathscr{I}},\epsilon})]$ into the set of equivalence classes of K-pairs, where $\mathcal{P}$ is the $T$-torsor corresponding to any choice of $\tilde{\beta}\in H^1({\mathbb Q},T)$ mapping to $\beta$ (for a maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-torus $T$ of $I_{x,\epsilon}$). In particular, the $I_{\mathbf{i}_{\omega}(x)}({\mathbb Q})$-conjugacy class of $\epsilon^{\mathcal{P}}$ depends only on $\beta$; we let $\epsilon^{\beta}$ denote any representative of the associated $I_{{\mathscr{I}}^{\beta}}({\mathbb Q})$-conjugacy class (via some identification $I_{{\mathscr{I}}^{\beta}}=I_{\mathbf{i}_{\omega}(x)}$) and write $({\mathscr{I}}^{\beta},\epsilon^{\beta})$ for $({\mathscr{I}}^{\mathcal{P}},\epsilon^{\mathcal{P}})$.
Next, it remains to show the equality (up to $I_{{\mathscr{I}}^{\beta}}({\mathbb Q})$-conjugacy): $$j^{\tilde{\beta}}(i_T(\epsilon)^{\tilde{\beta}}) = \epsilon^{\beta},$$ where $i_T(\epsilon)^{\tilde{\beta}}:=\Int(\tilde{\omega})(i_T(\epsilon))$ and $j^{\tilde{\beta}}:=j_{i_T(T)^{\tilde{\beta}},h^{\tilde{\beta}}}:i_T(T)^{\tilde{\beta}}\hookrightarrow I_{{\mathscr{I}}^{\beta}}$ is any member in its conjugacy class of such embeddings in Thm. \[thm:Kisin17\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\], (4). Recall that we have fixed identifications $I_{{\mathscr{I}}}=I_x$, $I_{{\mathscr{I}}^{\beta}}=I_{\mathbf{i}_{\omega}(x)}$. Let us fix $\tilde{\omega}\in G({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ such that $[\tilde{\omega}^{-1}\cdot{}^{\tau}\tilde{\omega}]=\tilde{\beta}$ in $H^1({\mathbb Q},T)$. This also fixes a canonical ${\overline{\mathbb Q}}$-isogeny $$\theta_{\tilde{\omega}}:{\mathcal{A}}_{\sigma_p(\tilde{x})}^{\mathcal{P}}\otimes_{{\mathbb Q}}{\overline{\mathbb Q}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}{\mathcal{A}}_{\sigma_p(\tilde{x})}\otimes_{{\mathbb Q}}{\overline{\mathbb Q}}$$ which preserves the Betti tensors and is compatible with the weak polarizations; the twist ${\mathcal{A}}_{\sigma_p(\tilde{x})}^{\mathcal{P}}$ is the underlying abelian variety of the special point $[h^{\tilde{\beta}},1]$ ($h^{\tilde{\beta}}=\Int(\tilde{\omega})(h)$. By reduction, this gives the ${\overline{\mathbb Q}}$-isogeny (\[eq:Qb-isogeny\_theta\]) (we use the same notation). The isogeny induces an inner-twisting $$\Int(\theta_{\tilde{\omega}}^{-1}):{\mathrm{Aut}}_{{\mathbb Q}}({\mathcal{A}}_{\sigma_p(\tilde{x})})_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}} {\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}{\mathrm{Aut}}_{{\mathbb Q}}({\mathcal{A}}_{\sigma_p(\tilde{x})}^{\mathcal{P}})_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}},\quad (I_{x})_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}(I_{\mathbf{i}_{\omega}(x)})_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}$$ whose corresponding cocycle $(\theta_{\tilde{\omega}}\cdot {}^{\tau}\theta_{\tilde{\omega}}^{-1})_{\tau}\in Z^1({\mathbb Q}, {\mathrm{Aut}}_{{\mathbb Q}}({\mathcal{A}}_{\sigma_p(\tilde{x})}))$ equals (as cochains) $\tilde{\omega}^{-1}\cdot {}^{\tau}\tilde{\omega}\in Z^1({\mathbb Q},i_T(T))=Z^1({\mathbb Q},T)$ (*loc. cit.* Lemma 4.1.2). Hence, by restriction, $\Int(\theta_{\tilde{\omega}}^{-1})$ induces a ${\mathbb Q}$-isomorphism $T{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}T^{\tilde{\beta}}$ for some maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-torus $T^{\tilde{\beta}}\subset I_{\mathbf{i}_{\omega}(x)}$. The Hodge structure on $H^{{\mathrm{B}}}_1({\mathcal{A}}_{\sigma_p(\tilde{x})}^{\mathcal{P}},{\mathbb Q})$ is given by $h^{\tilde{\beta}}=\Int(\tilde{\omega})(h)$ via the isomorphism $$H^{{\mathrm{B}}}_1({\mathcal{A}}_{\sigma_p(\tilde{x})}^{\mathcal{P}},{\mathbb Q}) {\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}H^{{\mathrm{B}}}_1({\mathcal{A}}_{\sigma_p(\tilde{x})},{\mathbb Q})^{\mathcal{P}} \stackrel{\eta_{{\mathrm{B}}}^{\mathcal{P}}}{{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}} V^{\mathcal{P}} \stackrel{\tilde{\omega}}{{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}} V,$$ where the first isomorphism is the canonical one induced by $\theta_{\tilde{\omega}}$ (*loc. cit.* Lemma 4.1.7), and the third one is the multiplication by $\tilde{\omega}$ which identifies $V^{\mathcal{P}}:=(V\otimes\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{P}})^T\subset V_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}$ with $V$ (cf. *loc. cit.* proof of Prop. 4.2.6). Also, $\eta_{{\mathrm{B}}}:H^{{\mathrm{B}}}_1({\mathcal{A}}_{\sigma_p(\tilde{x})},{\mathbb Q}){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}V$ is an isomorphism as in (\[eq:Betti-isom\]) which, together with $\tilde{x}=[h,1]$, defines the embedding $i_T:T\hookrightarrow G$. Therefore, there exists an isomorphism $i_{T^{\tilde{\beta}}}:T^{\tilde{\beta}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}i_T(T)^{\tilde{\beta}}$ making a commutative diagram $$\label{eq:new_embedding_T-beta}
\xymatrix{ i_T(T) \ar[r]^{\Int(\tilde{\omega})} & i_T(T)^{\tilde{\beta}} \\ T \ar[u]^{i_T} \ar[r]_{\Int(\theta_{\tilde{\omega}}^{-1})} & T^{\tilde{\beta}} \ar@{->}[u]_{i_{T^{\tilde{\beta}}}} }$$
By definition, $\mathbf{i}_{\omega}(x)$ is the reduction of the special point $[h^{\tilde{\beta}},1]$. So, we see that the ${\mathbb Q}$-embedding $i_{T^{\tilde{\beta}}}$ lies in the stable conjugacy class attached, by Thm. \[thm:Kisin17\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\], to the maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-torus $T^{\tilde{\beta}}\subset I_{\mathbf{i}_{\omega}(x)}$. Now, as $\epsilon^{\beta}=\Int(\theta_{\tilde{\omega}}^{-1})(\epsilon)$, we have $$i_T(\epsilon)^{\tilde{\beta}}=i_{T^{\tilde{\beta}}}(\epsilon^{\beta}).$$ Then, since the $I_{{\mathscr{I}}^{\beta}}({\mathbb Q})$-isogeny class of $j_{i_T(T)^{\tilde{\beta}},h^{\tilde{\beta}}}\circ i_{T^{\tilde{\beta}}}:T^{\tilde{\beta}}\hookrightarrow I_{\mathbf{i}_{\omega}(x)}$ contains the inclusion $T^{\tilde{\beta}}\subset I_{\mathbf{i}_{\omega}(x)}$ (Thm. \[thm:Kisin17\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\], (4)), the claim follows.
\[thm:LR-Satz5.25b2\] Keep the previous notation. Let $(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$ be a stable Kottwitz triple with trivial Kottwitz invariant. If $\mathrm{O}_{\gamma}(f^p)\cdot \mathrm{TO}_{\delta}(\phi_p)\neq 0$, then there exists a K-admissible pair $({\mathscr{I}},\epsilon)$ giving rise to $(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$, in which case the number of equivalence classes of such admissible pairs equals the cardinality of the set $$\Sha_G({\mathbb Q},I_{{\mathscr{I}},\epsilon})^+:={\mathrm{im}}[\Sha^{\infty}_G({\mathbb Q},I_{{\mathscr{I}},\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}})\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb Q},I_{{\mathscr{I}},\epsilon})]\cap \ker^1({\mathbb Q},I_{{\mathscr{I}},\epsilon}).$$
We remind the readers again that “having trivial Kottwitz invariant” means that there exist elements $(g_v)_v\in G(\bar{{\mathbb A}}_f^p)\times G({\mathfrak{k}})$ satisfying conditions (\[eq:stable\_g\_l\]), (\[eq:stable\_g\_l\]) such that the associated Kottwitz invariant $\alpha(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta;(g_v)_v)$ vanishes. This is our second version of effectivity criterion of Kottwitz triple.
In view of Lemma \[lem:key\_observations\], the effectivity statement is a consequence of the effectivity statement for LR-admissible LR-pairs (Thm. \[thm:LR-Satz5.25\]) and Lemma \[lem:LR-Lemma5.23\]. More precisely, there exists an LR-admissible LR-pair $(\phi,\epsilon)$ giving rise to given (stable) Kottwitz triple $(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$ (Thm. \[thm:LR-Satz5.25\]). Then, this LR-pair is conjugate to a special one $(\psi_{T,\mu_h},\epsilon\in T({\mathbb Q}))$ for a special Shimura sub-datum $(T,h)$ (Lemma \[lem:LR-Lemma5.23\]), which gives rise to a K-admissible K-pair $({\mathscr{I}},j_{T,h}(\epsilon))$, where ${\mathscr{I}}$ is the isogeny class of the reduction of the special point $[h,1]\in Sh_K(G,X)({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ and $j_{T,h}:T\hookrightarrow I_{{\mathscr{I}}}$ is any embedding as given in Thm. \[thm:Kisin17\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\], (4). The conclusion follows by Lemma \[lem:key\_observations\].
Next, we prove the statement on the number of equivalence classes of K-admissible K-pairs producing a given Kottwitz triple. Let $({\mathscr{I}},\epsilon)$ be a K-admissible K-pair and $\beta\in {\mathrm{im}}[\Sha^{\infty}_G({\mathbb Q},I_{{\mathscr{I}},\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}})\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb Q},I_{{\mathscr{I}},\epsilon})]$. We can find a maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-torus $T\subset I_{{\mathscr{I}},\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}}$ and $\tilde{\beta}\in\Sha^{\infty}_G({\mathbb Q},T)$ that maps to $\beta$ [@Borovoi98 Thm.5.11], [@Kisin17 4.4.5]. Fix $i_{T}:T\hookrightarrow G$, $h\in X\cap {\mathrm{Hom}}({\mathbb{S}},i_{T}(T)_{{\mathbb R}})$, and $\tilde{\omega}\in G({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ as in Prop. \[prop:Kisin17\_Prop.4.4.8\] (cf. (\[eq:tilde[omega]{}\])). Let $T_1:=T^{\tilde{\beta}}\subset I_{{\mathscr{I}}^{\beta}}$ and $i_{T_1}:T_1\hookrightarrow G$ be as in (\[eq:new\_embedding\_T-beta\]); one has $$\Int(\tilde{\omega})(i_T(T),i_T(\epsilon))=(i_{T_1}(T_1),i_{T_1}(\epsilon^{\beta}))$$ for some representative $\epsilon^{\beta}\in I_{{\mathscr{I}}^{\beta}}({\mathbb Q})$ in its $I_{{\mathscr{I}}^{\beta}}({\mathbb Q})$-conjugacy class in Prop. \[prop:Kisin17\_Prop.4.4.8\]. Also, $h_1:=h^{\tilde{\beta}}=\Int(\tilde{\omega})(h)\in X$, and we have two special LR-pairs $$\label{eq:twisting_LR-pairs}
(\phi:=\psi_{i_T(T),\mu_h},i_T(\epsilon)),\quad (\phi_1:=\psi_{i_{T_1}(T_1),\mu_{h_1}},i_{T_1}(\epsilon^{\beta})).$$ By Lemma \[lem:key\_observations\], (1), LR-admissibility of the LR-pair $(\phi,i_T(\epsilon))$ follows from K-admissibility of the K-pair $({\mathscr{I}},\epsilon)$.
By conjugating the LR-pair $(\phi_1,i_{T_1}(\epsilon^{\beta}))$ back by $\Int(\tilde{\omega}^{-1})$, we obtain another LR-pair $$(\phi':=\Int(\tilde{\omega}^{-1})\circ\phi_1,i_T(\epsilon))$$ which is also well-located in $i_T(T)$ and shares the same Frobenius descent element $i_T(\epsilon)$ as the original LR-pair $(\phi,i_T(\epsilon))$. One has $$\phi'(q_{\rho})=\tilde{\omega}^{-1}\cdot{}^{\rho}\tilde{\omega}\cdot \phi(q_{\rho})$$ for every $\rho\in{\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb Q}}/{\mathbb Q})$ ($\rho\mapsto q_{\rho}$ is the chosen section to ${\mathfrak{P}}\twoheadrightarrow {\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb Q}}/{\mathbb Q})$). Indeed, construction of the morphism $\psi_{T,\mu}:{\mathfrak{P}}\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}_T$ is functorial in the pairs $(T,\mu)$ [@LR87 Satz.2.3], thus if $\phi'(q_{\rho})=g_{\rho}'\rtimes\rho$ and $\phi(q_{\rho})=g_{\rho}\rtimes\rho$ with $g_{\rho}',g_{\rho}\in G({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$, we have $g_{\rho}'=\Int(\tilde{\omega})(g_{\rho})$ since $\Int(\tilde{\omega}):T{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}T'$ is ${\mathbb Q}$-rational and sends $\mu$ to $\mu'$, which implies the claim. Therefore we see that the LR-pair $(\phi',i_{T}(\epsilon))$ is obtained from the original LR-pair $(\phi,i_T(\epsilon))$ by twisting with $i_T(\tilde{\beta}) \in {\mathrm{im}}[\Sha^{\infty}_G({\mathbb Q},T)\stackrel{i_T}{\rightarrow} H^1({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi,i_T(\epsilon)})]$ (cf. Lemma \[lem:LR-Lem5.26,Satz5.25\]). In particular, the special LR-pair $(\phi_1,i_{T_1}(\epsilon^{\beta}))$ is LR-admissible if the image of $\beta$ in $H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},I_{\phi,i_T(\epsilon)})$ vanishes.
Now, suppose further that $\beta\in \ker^1({\mathbb Q},I_{{\mathscr{I}},\epsilon})$; then, we also have $\beta\in \ker^1({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi,i_T(\epsilon)})$, since one already has $\beta \in {\mathrm{im}}[\Sha^{\infty}_G({\mathbb Q},T)\stackrel{i_T}{\rightarrow} \Sha^{\infty}_G({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi,i_T(\epsilon)})]$ and there exists a $T$-equivariant ${\mathbb Q}$-isomorphism $I_{{\mathscr{I}},\epsilon}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}I_{\phi,i_T(\epsilon)}$ (proof of [@Kisin17 Prop.4.4.13]). Since the special LR-pair $(\phi_1,i_{T_1}(\epsilon^{\beta}))$ is LR-admissible, by Lemma \[lem:key\_observations\], (2), the K-pair $({\mathscr{I}}^{\beta},\epsilon^{\beta})$ is also K-admissible and one has equivalences of Kottwitz triples: $$\label{eq:twistng_K-triples}
{\mathfrak{k}}({\mathscr{I}}^{\beta},\epsilon^{\beta}) \sim {\mathfrak{k}}(\phi_1,i_{T_1}(\epsilon^{\beta})) \sim {\mathfrak{k}}(\phi',i_T(\epsilon)),\quad {\mathfrak{k}}({\mathscr{I}},\epsilon) \sim {\mathfrak{k}}(\phi,i_T(\epsilon)).$$ Therefore, by Lemma \[lem:LR-Lem5.26,Satz5.25\], (3), one has ${\mathfrak{k}}({\mathscr{I}}^{\beta},\epsilon^{\beta})\sim {\mathfrak{k}}({\mathscr{I}},\epsilon)$, and by Prop. \[prop:Kisin17\_Prop.4.4.8\], we obtain an inclusion $$\Sha_G({\mathbb Q},I_{{\mathscr{I}},\epsilon})^+\hookrightarrow \{\text{ K-admissible K-pairs }\}/\sim \ :\ \beta\mapsto ({\mathscr{I}}^{\beta},\epsilon^{\beta})$$ such that the K-admissible K-pairs in the image have equivalent associated Kottwitz triples (with trivial Kottwitz invariant) as $({\mathscr{I}},\epsilon)$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\Sha_G({\mathbb Q},I_{{\mathscr{I}},\epsilon})^+&:={\mathrm{im}}[\Sha^{\infty}_G({\mathbb Q},I_{{\mathscr{I}},\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}})\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb Q},I_{{\mathscr{I}},\epsilon})]\cap \ker^1({\mathbb Q},I_{{\mathscr{I}},\epsilon}).\end{aligned}$$
It remains to show that the image of this inclusion exhausts all the K-admissible K-pairs whose associated Kottwitz triples are equivalent to that of $({\mathscr{I}},\epsilon)$. Let $({\mathscr{I}}',\epsilon')$ be such a K-admissible K-pair whose associated Kottwitz triple $(\gamma_0';\gamma',\delta')$ is conjugate to $(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$. By construction (cf. Lemma \[lem:key\_observations\]), we may assume that the Kottwitz triple $(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$ is of the form (\[eq:K-triple\_for\_isogeny\_adm.pair\]) defined by choice of a maximal torus $T\subset I_{{\mathscr{I}}}$ containing $\epsilon$, and an accompanying choice of ${\mathbb Q}$-embedding $i_{T}:T\hookrightarrow G$ as in Thm. \[thm:Kisin17\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\]: one has $\gamma_0=i_{T}(\epsilon)$, $\gamma=\gamma_0$, and the Kottwitz triple is stable, among others. Recall (Thm. \[thm:Kisin17\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\]) that $i_T$ is defined by a certain cocharacter $\mu_T$ of $T$ which produces a special point $\tilde{x}$ lifting some point $x\in {\mathscr{I}}$ corresponding to $h\in X\cap {\mathrm{Hom}}({\mathbb{S}},i_{T}(T)_{{\mathbb R}})$ such that $\sigma_p(i_T\circ\mu_T)=\mu_{h}$; we identify $I_{{\mathscr{I}}}=I_{x}$. Moreover, we may take $b\in i_T(T)({\mathfrak{k}})$ to be defined by $b\sigma:=\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}(s_{\sigma})$, where $\theta^{{\mathrm{ur}}}:{\mathfrak{D}}\rightarrow {\mathfrak{G}}_{i_T(T)_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}}^{{\mathrm{ur}}}$ is a ${{\mathbb Q}_p^{\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerb morphism whose inflation $\overline{\theta}^{{\mathrm{ur}}}$ is an unramified $i_T(T)({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$-conjugate of $\psi_{i_T(T),\mu_h}(p)\circ\zeta_p$. The Kottwitz triple $(\gamma_0';\gamma',\delta')$ is similarly defined. Let $I_0=G_{\gamma_0}^{\mathrm{o}}$ and $I_0'=G_{\gamma_0'}^{\mathrm{o}}$ be the connected centralizers of $\gamma_0$ and $\gamma_0'$ respectively.
We will construct inner twistings $$\varphi: (I_{{\mathscr{I}},\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}})_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}} {\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}(I_0)_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}},\quad \varphi': (I_{{\mathscr{I}}',\epsilon'}^{\mathrm{o}})_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}} {\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}(I_0')_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}$$ and a ${\mathbb Q}$-embedding $$T\hookrightarrow I_{{\mathscr{I}}',\epsilon'}^{\mathrm{o}}$$ such that $\varphi|_{T}=i_T$ and $i_T':=\varphi'|_{T_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}}:T_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}\hookrightarrow (I_0')_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}$ is ${\mathbb Q}$-rational, and further $$i_T'=\Int(g)\circ i_T$$ for some $g\in G({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$. We proceed in three steps.
In the first step, by Lemma \[lem:Tate\_thm2\], the data $(T,i_T,b\in i_T(T)({\mathfrak{k}}))$ determine an inner twisting $$\varphi: I_{{\mathscr{I}},\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}}\otimes_{{\mathbb Q}}{\overline{\mathbb Q}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}I_0\otimes_{{\mathbb Q}}{\overline{\mathbb Q}}$$ that is $T$-equivariant with respect to $T\subset I_{{\mathscr{I}},\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}}$ and $i_T:T\hookrightarrow I_0$.
In the second step, we construct a ${\mathbb Q}$-embedding $T\hookrightarrow I_{{\mathscr{I}}',\epsilon'}^{\mathrm{o}}$ with certain local properties. We choose a point $x'\in {\mathscr{I}}'$ and an identification $I_{{\mathscr{I}}'}=I_{x'}$. By construction, there exist a maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-torus $T'$ of $I_{x'}$ containing $\epsilon'$ and a ${\mathbb Q}$-embedding $i_{T'}:T'\hookrightarrow G$ giving rise to $(\gamma_0';\gamma',\delta')$ by (\[eq:K-triple\_for\_isogeny\_adm.pair\]). The equivalence of the Kottwiz triples attached to $({\mathscr{I}},\epsilon)$, $({\mathscr{I}}',\epsilon')$ implies the existence, for every place $v$ of ${\mathbb Q}$, of “natural” local isomorphisms $$\label{eq:rho_v}
\rho_v:(I_{x,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}})_{{{\mathbb Q}_v}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}(I_{x',\epsilon'}^{\mathrm{o}})_{{{\mathbb Q}_v}}$$ taking $\epsilon$ to $\epsilon'$, where $I_{x,\epsilon}$ and $I_{x',\epsilon'}$ are as usual the centralizers of $\epsilon$ and $\epsilon'$ respectively. Indeed, let $\pi_0\in T_{\epsilon}({\mathbb Q})(\subset I_{x}({\mathbb Q}))$ and $\pi_0'\in T_{\epsilon'}({\mathbb Q})(\subset I_{x'}({\mathbb Q}))$ be the elements as in Lemma \[prop:canonical\_decomp\_of\_epsilon2\]. Then, for every finite place $l\neq p$, we have $i_{T'}(\pi_0')=\Int(h_l)(i_T(\pi_0))$ for every $h_l\in G({{\mathbb Q}_l})$ such that $\gamma_l'=\Int(h_l)(\gamma_l)$: use functoriality of the construction of $\pi_0$, $\pi_0'$ (Lemma \[lem:canonical\_decomp\_of\_epsilon\]) and Lemma \[lem:Zariski\_group\_closure\]. Hence, there exists an isomorphism of ${{\mathbb Q}_l}$-vector spaces endowed with $k$-Frobenius automorphism action ($[k:{\mathbb F}_p]\gg1$) and Frobenius-invariant tensors $$\label{eq:x->x'_at_l}
(H^{{\text{\'et}}}_1({\mathcal{A}}_{\bar{x}},{{\mathbb Q}_l}),{\mathrm{Fr}}_{{\mathcal{A}}_x/k},\{s_{\alpha,l,x}\}) {\stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow}}(H^{{\text{\'et}}}_1({\mathcal{A}}_{\bar{x}'},{{\mathbb Q}_l}),{\mathrm{Fr}}_{{\mathcal{A}}_{x'}/k},\{s_{\alpha,l,x'}\})$$ taking $\epsilon\in I_{x}$ to $\epsilon'\in I_{x'}$, by existence of a $i_T$(or $i_{T'}$)-equivariant isomorphism (\[eq:isom\_eta\]) for $x$ and $x'$. From this we obtain a desired ${{\mathbb Q}_v}$-isomorphism $\rho_l$ by [@Kisin17 Cor.2.3.2] (i.e. Thm. \[thm:Kisin17\_Cor.2.3.2;Tate\_isom\] here). For an analogous statement at $p$, recall that $\delta=cb\sigma(c^{-1})\in G(L_n)$ for some $c\in G({\mathfrak{k}})$ such that $c^{-1}i_T(\epsilon)^{-1}(b\sigma)^nc=\sigma^n$ and $\delta'=c'b'\sigma(c'^{-1})$ for a similar $c'$. Then, if $\delta'=h_p\delta\sigma(h_p^{-1})$ for $h_p\in G(L_n)$, we have $i_{T'}(\epsilon')=c'{\mathrm{N}}_n\delta'c'^{-1}=\Int(c'h_p)({\mathrm{N}}_n\delta)=\Int(h_p')(i_T(\epsilon))$ and $b'=h_p'b\sigma(h_p'^{-1})$ for $h_p':=c'^{-1}h_pc\in G({\mathfrak{k}})$. Hence, there exists an isomorphism of isocrystals over ${\bar{\mathbb{F}}_{p}}$ endowed with Frobenius-invariant tensors $$\label{eq:x->x'_at_p}
(H^{{\mathrm{cris}}}_1({\mathcal{A}}_{x}/{\mathfrak{k}}),\phi,\{s_{\alpha,0,x}\}) {\stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow}}(H^{{\mathrm{cris}}}_1({\mathcal{A}}_{x'}/{\mathfrak{k}}),\phi',\{s_{\alpha,0,x'}\})$$ taking $\epsilon$ to $\epsilon'$, by existence of a $i_T$(or $i_{T'}$)-equivariant isomorphism (\[eq:isom\_eta\_nr\]) for $x$ and $x'$, and again we obtain a desired ${{\mathbb Q}_p}$-isomorphism $\rho_p$ by the isomorphism $(I_{x,\epsilon})_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}} {\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}Z_{J_b}(i_p(\epsilon))$ (\[eq:i\_[p,epsilon]{}\]). At infinity, the two groups $(I_{x,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}})_{{\mathbb R}}$, $(I_{x',\epsilon'}^{\mathrm{o}})_{{\mathbb R}}$ are both the unique (as inner classes) inner forms of $I_0$ with compact adjoint group which gives a required $\rho_{\infty}$. The existence of these $\rho_v$’s implies (by Chebotarev density theorem) that the canonical action of ${\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb Q}}/{\mathbb Q})$ on the Dynkin diagrams of $I_{x,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}}$, $I_{x',\epsilon'}^{\mathrm{o}}$ are the same, i.e. there exists an inner-twist $$\rho:(I_{x,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}})_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}(I_{x',\epsilon'}^{\mathrm{o}})_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}$$ whose base-change $\rho_{{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_v}}$ is conjugate to $(\rho_v)_{{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_v}}$ for every $v$. We have $\rho(\epsilon)=\epsilon'$ as $\rho_v$ has the same property.[^36] Next, we show the existence of $g'\in I_{x',\epsilon'}^{\mathrm{o}}({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ such that the restriction of $\Int(g')\circ\rho$ to $T_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}}$ induces a ${\mathbb Q}$-embedding $T{\hookrightarrow}I_{x',\epsilon'}^{\mathrm{o}}$, in other words, that *the maximal torus $T$ of $I_{x,\epsilon}$ transfers to $I_{x',\epsilon'}^{\mathrm{o}}$ with respect to the $I_{x',\epsilon'}^{\mathrm{o}}({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$-conjugacy class of the inner twisting $\rho$*. Since $T_{{\mathbb R}}$ is elliptic in $(I_{x,\epsilon})_{{\mathbb R}}$, according to [@LR87 Lemma 5.6], this follows from the condition that for each place $v$ of ${\mathbb Q}$, $T_{{{\mathbb Q}_v}}$ transfers into $(I_{x',\epsilon'}^{\mathrm{o}})_{{{\mathbb Q}_v}}$ with respect to the conjugacy class of $\rho_{{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_v}}$ ([@Kottwitz84a $\S$9]): in more detail, when there exist transfers locally everywhere, the obstruction to finding a global transfer of $T$ in $I_{x',\epsilon'}^{\mathrm{o}}$ lies in $\mathrm{ker}^2({\mathbb Q},T^{{\mathrm{sc}}})$ (locally trivial elements in $H^2({\mathbb Q},T^{{\mathrm{sc}}})$), where $T^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$ is the inverse image of $T$ under the natural map $(I_{x',\epsilon'}^{\mathrm{o}})^{{\mathrm{sc}}}{\rightarrow}I_{x',\epsilon'}^{\mathrm{o}}$ [@Kottwitz84a 9.5].[^37] On the other hand, $\mathrm{ker}^2({\mathbb Q},T^{{\mathrm{sc}}})$ vanishes if $T^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$ becomes anisotropic at one place (see the last part of the proof of Lemma 14.1 in [@Kottwitz92]). Therefore, we have shown the existence of a ${\mathbb Q}$-embedding $T\hookrightarrow I_{x',\epsilon'}^{\mathrm{o}}$ such that for every place $v$ of ${\mathbb Q}$, its base-change to ${\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_v}$ is induced from an isomorphism as in (\[eq:x->x’\_at\_l\]), (\[eq:x->x’\_at\_p\]), over ${\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_l}$ and ${\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}$.
In the final step, for the embedding $T\subset I_{{\mathscr{I}}',\epsilon'}^{\mathrm{o}}$ just constructed, the *same* cocharacter $\mu_h\in X_{\ast}(T)$ still satisfies the conditions of [@Kisin17 Lem.2.2.2], thus determines a special point $\tilde{x}'$ lifting some point in ${\mathscr{I}}'$, denoted again by $x'$, thereby also an embedding $$i_{T}':T\hookrightarrow G$$ (via a choice of an isomorphism (\[eq:Betti-isom\])) and an element $b'\in i_T'(T)({\mathfrak{k}})$ (cf. proof of Thm. \[thm:Kisin17\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\]). The pair $(i_T',b')$ gives a (new) stable Kottwitz triple attached to $({\mathscr{I}}',\epsilon')$ (\[eq:K-triple\_for\_isogeny\_adm.pair\]), which is still stably equivalent to $(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$, as they are (geometrically) equivalent (Prop. \[prop:triviality\_in\_comp\_gp\]); by abuse of notation, we continue to denote the new triple by $(\gamma_0';\gamma',\delta')$. Again, by Lemma \[lem:Tate\_thm2\], the datum $(i_T',b'\in i_T'(T)({\mathfrak{k}}))$ gives rise to an inner twisting $$\varphi':I_{{\mathscr{I}}',\epsilon'}^{\mathrm{o}}\otimes_{{\mathbb Q}}{\overline{\mathbb Q}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}I_0'\otimes_{{\mathbb Q}}{\overline{\mathbb Q}}$$ that is $T$-equivariant with respect to $T\hookrightarrow I_{{\mathscr{I}}',\epsilon'}^{\mathrm{o}}$ and $i_T':T\hookrightarrow I_0'$.
It remains to see that there exists $g\in G({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ such that $$i_T'=\Int(g)\circ i_T.$$ Indeed, by the property of the embedding $T\hookrightarrow I_{{\mathscr{I}}',\epsilon'}^{\mathrm{o}}$, there exists a ${\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}$-isomorphism $$(H^{{\mathrm{cris}}}_1({\mathcal{A}}_{x}/{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}),\{s_{\alpha,0,x}\},T) {\stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow}}(H^{{\mathrm{cris}}}_1({\mathcal{A}}_{x'}/{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}),\{s_{\alpha,0,x'}\},T)$$ which matches the tensors and is compatible with $T$-actions and the Frobenius automorphisms (for $k$ large enough, especially such that $x$ and $x'$ are both defined over $k$). This implies, via the existence of special points $\tilde{x}$, $\tilde{x}'$ lifting $x$, $x'$ (up to isogeny), the existence of a similar ${\overline{\mathbb Q}}$-morphism $$(H^{{\mathrm{B}}}_1({\mathcal{A}}_{\tilde{x}}/{\mathbb Q}),\{s_{\alpha,\tilde{x}}\},T) {\stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow}}(H^{{\mathrm{B}}}_1({\mathcal{A}}_{\tilde{x}'}/{\mathbb Q}),\{s_{\alpha,\tilde{x}'}\},T)$$ which proves the claim.
Therefore, for every $\tau\in{\mathrm{Gal}}({\overline{\mathbb Q}}/{\mathbb Q})$, we have $$\tilde{\beta}_{\tau}:=i_T^{-1}(g^{-1}\tau(g))\in T({\overline{\mathbb Q}}).$$ We denote by $\tilde{\beta}\in H^1({\mathbb Q},T)$ its cohomology class. When $h'\in X\cap{\mathrm{Hom}}({\mathbb{S}},i_T'(T)_{{\mathbb R}})$ is the homomorphism defining $\tilde{x}'$ (i.e. $\sigma_p(i_T'\circ\mu_T)=\mu_{h'}$), it follows from $h'=\Int(g)(h)$ that the image of $i_T(\tilde{\beta})$ in $H^1({\mathbb R},K_{\infty})$ is trivial, where $K_{\infty}$ is the centralizer of $h$ (compact-modulo-center inner form of $G_{{\mathbb R}}$). Therefore, $i_T(\tilde{\beta})$ belongs to the subgroup $\Sha^{\infty}_G({\mathbb Q},i_T(T))$ [@Kisin17 Lem. 4.4.5]. Moreover, we have ${\mathscr{I}}'={\mathscr{I}}^{\beta'}$, where $\beta'$ denotes the image of $\tilde{\beta}$ in $\Sha^{\infty}_G({\mathbb Q},I_{{\mathscr{I}}})$ (via $i_T$): if $\tilde{\beta}_{\iota}=g_{\infty}^{-1}\iota(g_{\infty})$ for $g_{\infty}\in K_{\infty}({\mathbb C})(=G({\mathbb C}))$, ${\mathscr{I}}^{\beta'}$ is the isogeny class of the reduction of the special point $[\Int(gg_{\infty}^{-1})(h),1]\in Sh_{{\mathbf{K}}_p}(G,X)({\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p})$. Clearly, we have $({\mathscr{I}}',\epsilon')=({\mathscr{I}}^{\beta},\epsilon^{\beta})$, where $\beta$ is the image of $\tilde{\beta}$ in ${\mathrm{im}}[\Sha^{\infty}_G({\mathbb Q},I_{{\mathscr{I}},\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}})\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb Q},I_{{\mathscr{I}},\epsilon})]$.
Now, the statement that the image $\beta$ of $\tilde{\beta}$ in $H^1({\mathbb Q},I_{{\mathscr{I}},\epsilon})$ vanishes in $\prod_{v\neq\infty} H^1({\mathbb Q}_v,I_{{\mathscr{I}},\epsilon})$ follows from the similar statement for the LR-pairs (\[eq:twisting\_LR-pairs\]), i.e. Thm. \[thm:LR-Satz5.25\], in view of the relations (\[eq:twistng\_K-triples\]). This completes the proof.
\[thm:Kottwitz\_formula:Kisin\] Let $(G,X)$ be a Shimura datum of Hodge type. Fix a hyperspecial subgroup ${\mathbf{K}}_p$ and take $K^p$ to be sufficiently small such that conditions (a), (b) of (\[item:Langlands-conditions\]) hold and $K\cap Z(G)({\mathbb Q})=\{1\}$.
\(1) We have the following expression for (\[eq:fixed-pt\_set\_of\_Frob-Hecke\_corr\]): $$T(m,f)=\sum_{(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)} c(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)\cdot \mathrm{O}_{\gamma}(f^p)\cdot \mathrm{TO}_{\delta}(\phi_p)\cdot \mathrm{tr}\xi(\gamma_0),$$ with $$c(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta):=i(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)\cdot |\pi_0(G_{\gamma_0})({\mathbb Q})|^{-1} \cdot \tau(I_0)\cdot \mathrm{vol}(A_G({\mathbb R})^{\mathrm{o}}\backslash I_0(\infty)({\mathbb R}))^{-1}$$ where $I_0:=G_{\gamma_0}^{\mathrm{o}}$, $i(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)=|\widetilde{\Sha}_G({\mathbb Q},I_{\phi,\epsilon})^+|$ (Lemma \[eq:|widetilde[Sha]{}\_G(Q,I\_[phi,epsilon]{})\^+|\]), $\tau(I_0)$ is the Tamagawa number of $I_0$, and $I_0(\infty)$ is the (unique) inner form of $(I_0)_{{\mathbb R}}$ having compact adjoint group. Also, the sum is over a set of representatives $(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$ of all (stable) equivalence classes of *stable* Kottwitz triples of level $n=m[\kappa(\wp):{\mathbb{F}_{p}}]$ having trivial Kottwitz invariant.
\(2) Then, for any $f^p$ in the Hecke algebra $\mathcal{H}(G({\mathbb A}_f^p)/\!\!/ K^p)$, there exists $m(f^p)\in{\mathbb N}$, depending on $f^p$, such that for each $m\geq m(f^p)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Lef-number1}
\sum_{i}(-1)^i\mathrm{tr}( & \Phi^m\times f^p | H^i_c(Sh_{K}(G,X)_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}},{\mathscr{F}}_K)) \\
& = \sum_{(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)} c(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)\cdot \mathrm{O}_{\gamma}(f^p)\cdot \mathrm{TO}_{\delta}(\phi_p) \cdot \mathrm{tr}\xi(\gamma_0), \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where the sum is over a set of representatives $(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$ of *all* (stable) equivalence classes of *stable* Kottwitz triples of level $n$ having trivial Kottwitz invariant. If $G^{{\mathrm{ad}}}$ is anisotropic or $f^p$ is the identity, we can take $m(f^p)$ to be $1$ (irrespective of $f^p$).
Given the results established in this subsection, the proof is the same as that of Thm. \[thm:Kottwitz\_formula:LR\].
The proof of this theorem also shows:
\[cor:geom\_effectivity\_of\_K-triple\] Under the same assumption as Thm. \[thm:Kottwitz\_formula:Kisin\], a Kottwitz triple $(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$ of level $n$ with trivial Kottwitz invariant is *geometrically effective* in the sense that it arises from a ${\mathbb F}_{p^n}$-valued point of ${\mathscr{S}}$ if and only if $\mathrm{TO}_{\delta}(\phi_p)$ is non-zero.
In particular, an ${\mathbb R}$-elliptic stable conjugacy class of $\gamma_0\in G({\mathbb Q})$ arises from an ${\mathbb F}_{p^n}$-valued point of ${\mathscr{S}}$ for some $n\in{\mathbb N}$ if and only if there exists $\delta\in G(L_n)$ such that $\gamma_0$ is stably conjugate to ${\mathrm{N}}_n\delta$ and $\mathrm{TO}_{\delta}(\phi_p)\neq0$.
Stabilization
=============
In this section, we stabilize the right-hand side of the formula (\[eq:Lef-number1\]), namely express it as a weighted sum, over the elliptic endoscopic data $\underline{H}$ of $G$, of the elliptic part of the geometric side of the stable trace formula for a suitable function on an endoscopic group $H_1({\mathbb A})$ for $\underline{H}$. We follow closely the arguments of Kottwitz [@Kottwitz90 $\S$4, $\S$7], [@Kottwitz10] who however worked out this process under the assumption that $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$. For the general case, we need to adapt some of his arguments, borrowing necessary ingredients from [@Labesse04].
Endoscopic transfer of (twisted) orbital integrals
--------------------------------------------------
Let $F$ be a local or global field of characteristic zero with a fixed $\bar{F}$, $\Gamma:={\mathrm{Gal}}(\bar{F}/F)$, and $G$ a connected reductive group over $F$. For $L$-group, we will use the Weil form: ${}^LG=\hat{G}\rtimes W_F$. We recall ([@LS87 (1.2)], [@KottwitzShelstad99 2.1], [@Shelstad08 $\S$5]) that an *endoscopic datum* of $G$ is a tuple $(H,\mathcal{H},s,\xi)$, where
- $H$ is a quasi-split connected reductive group over $F$,
- $\mathcal{H}$ is a split extension of $W_F$ by $\hat{H}$ (complex dual group of $H$) such that the action of $W_F$ on $\hat{H}$ given by any splitting coincides with an $L$-action of $W_F$ (defined by the $F$-structure of $H$) up to conjugation under $\hat{H}$,
- $s$ is a semi-simple element of $\hat{G}$,
- $\xi:\mathcal{H}\rightarrow {}^LG$ is an $L$-homomorphism such that (a) $\Int(s)\circ\xi=a\xi$ for a cocycle $a\in Z^1(W_F,Z(\hat{G}))$ that is trivial if $F$ is local, or is locally trivial if $F$ is global, and that (b) $\xi|_{\hat{H}}$ is an isomorphism of $\hat{H}$ wth the connected component $\hat{G}_s^{\mathrm{o}}$ of the centralizer of $s$ on $\hat{G}$.
An endoscopic datum $(H,\mathcal{H},s,\xi)$ is said to be *elliptic* if $\xi(Z(\hat{H})^{\Gamma})^{\mathrm{o}}\subset Z(\hat{G})$. An isomorphism from $(H,\mathcal{H},s,\xi)$ to $(H',\mathcal{H}',s',\xi')$ is a conjugation by an element $g\in \hat{G}$ such that $g\xi(\mathcal{H})g^{-1}=\xi'(\mathcal{H}')$ and $gsg^{-1}=s'$ modulo $Z(\hat{G})$; it then induces an $F$-isomorphism $H{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}H'$ dual to $\Int(g)^{-1}:\hat{H}'{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}\hat{H}$ (such isomorphism is uniquely determined from $\Int(g)^{-1}$ by requiring it to preserve some chosen $F$-splittings of $H$ and $H'$) [@KottwitzShelstad99 p.16]. We remind the readers that $\mathcal{H}$ is not necessarily an $L$-group (although one can attach an $L$-action on $\hat{H}$ by requiring it to fix some given splitting of $\hat{H}$). This weakness is compensated by the notion of a $z$-pair ([@KottwitzShelstad99 2.2], [@Shelstad08 $\S$5]). A $z$-pair for an endoscopic datum $(H,\mathcal{H},s,\xi)$ is a pair $(H_1,\xi_1)$, where
- $H_1$ is a $z$-extension of $H$ [@Kottwitz82 $\S$1], i.e. an extension $1\rightarrow Z_1\rightarrow H_1\rightarrow H\rightarrow 1$, where $H_1$ is a connected reductive group over $F$ with $H_1^{{\mathrm{der}}}=H_1^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$ and $Z_1$ is an induced central torus,
- $\xi_1$ is an embedding of extensions $\mathcal{H}\rightarrow {}^LH_1$ that extends the embedding $\hat{H}\rightarrow \hat{H}_1$
For an endoscopic datum $(H,\mathcal{H},s,\xi)$ and a $z$-pair $(H_1,\xi_1)$, let $\lambda_{H_1}$ be the (quasi-)character on $Z_1({\mathbb A}_F)/Z_1(F)$ if $F$ is global, or on $Z_1(F)$ if $F$ is local, corresponding (via Langlands correspondence for tori[^38]) to the $L$-homomorphism $W_{F}\stackrel{c}{\rightarrow} \mathcal{H}\rightarrow {}^LH_1\rightarrow {}^LZ_1$, where $c$ is a splitting of $\mathcal{H}\rightarrow W_{F}$ as specified in the definition of endoscopic data (any two splittings define the same character).
For local $F$, let $C_{c,\lambda_{H_1}}^{\infty}(H_1(F))$ denote the space of complex-valued, smooth (i.e. $C^{\infty}$ if $F$ is archimedean, or locally constant if $F$ is nonarchimedean) functions $f^{H_1}$ on $H_1(F)$ whose supports are compact modulo $Z_1(F)$ and that satisfy $f^{H_1}(zh)=\lambda_{H_1}(z)^{-1} f^{H_1}(h)$ for all $z\in Z_1(F)$ and $h\in H_1(F)$. For $\gamma_{H_1}\in H_1(F)$ and $f^{H_1}\in C_1^{\infty}(H_1(F))$, we define the *stable orbital integral* of $f^{H_1}$ along the stable conjugacy class of $\gamma_{H_1}$ by $$\mathrm{SO}_{\gamma_{H_1}}(f^{H_1}):= \sum_{\gamma_{1}'} e(I_{\gamma_1'}) a(\gamma_1') \mathrm{O}_{\gamma_{1}'}(f^{H_1}),$$ Here, $\gamma_{1}'$ runs through a set of representatives for the $H_1(F)$-conjugacy classes of elements in $H_1(F)$ inside the stable conjugacy class of $\gamma_{H_1}$, $e(I_{\gamma_1'})$ is the sign attached to $I_{\gamma_1'}:=(H_1)_{\gamma_{1}'}^{\mathrm{o}}$ by Kottwitz [@Kottwitz83], $$\label{eq:a(gamma)}
a(\gamma_1'):=|\ker[H^1(F,I_{\gamma_1'})\rightarrow H^1(F,H_{\gamma_1'})]|,$$ and $\mathrm{O}_{\gamma_{1}'}$ is the orbital integral $\int_{I_{\gamma_1'}(F)\backslash H_1(F)}f^{H_1}(\bar{x}^{-1}\gamma \bar{x}) d\bar{x}$ (\[eq:(twisted-)orbital\_integral\]) with suitable choices of Haar measures on $H_1(F)$, $I_{\gamma_1'}(F)$ being understood.
We fix an inner twist $\psi:G{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}G^{\ast}$ with quasi-split $G^{\ast}$. We recall ([@Langlands83] III.1, Diagram D, [@LS87 (1.3)]) that an *admissible* embedding of a maximal $F$-torus $T_H$ of $H$ to $G$ is a composite of two $F$-isomorphisms $$\label{eq:admissible_embedding}
T_H{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}T_{\ast}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}T,$$ where $T_H{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}T_{\ast}$ is an $F$-embedding into $G^{\ast}$ of $G$ defined by a choice of Borel pairs $(T_H,B_H)$, $(T_{\ast},B_{\ast})$ via the associated isomorphism $\hat{T}_{\ast}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}\hat{T}_H$ (which is also called *admissible*) and the map $T{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}T_{\ast}$ is of the form $\Int(x)\circ \psi\ (x\in G^{\ast}(\bar{F}))$ (cf. [@Shelstad82 (2.4)]); in this case, we say that $T$ *comes from* $T_H$, and also say that a semi-simple element $\gamma_H$ of $H(F)$ *comes from* or *transfers to* $G(F)$ if $\gamma_H=j^{-1}(\gamma)$ for an admissible embedding $j:T_H\rightarrow T$ and some $\gamma\in G(F)$ with $\gamma\in T(F)$, in which case $\gamma_H$ is said to be a *norm* (or simply an *image*) of $\gamma$. A semi-simple element $\gamma_H$ of $H(F)$, if it transfers to $G(F)$, does to a unique stable conjugacy class.
We use the (global/local) Langlands-Shelstad transfer factors $\Delta$ [@LS87] (cf. [@KottwitzShelstad99], [@KottwitzShelstad12]): it is a ${\mathbb C}$-valued map defined on the set $H(F)_{\mathrm{ss},(G,H)\operatorname{-}\mathrm{reg}}\times G(F)_{\mathrm{ss}}$ of pairs consisting of a $(G,H)$-regular (in the sense of [@Kottwitz86 3.1]), semi-simple element of $H(F)$ and a semi-simple element of $G(F)$. The value $\Delta(\gamma_H,\gamma)$ depends only on the stable conjugacy class of $\gamma_H$ and the $G(F)$-conjugacy class of $\gamma$, and is zero unless $\gamma_H$ is $(G,H)$-regular and is a norm of $\gamma$. The transfer factor is defined up to a nonzero constant: one needs to choose a reference pair $(\gamma_H',\gamma')\in H(F)\times G(F)$, where $\gamma_H'$ is a strongly $G$-regular element and is a norm of a strongly regular $\gamma'$, and what is canonically defined is the relative transfer factor $\Delta(\gamma_H,\gamma;\gamma_H',\gamma')$. Then, assigning the complex number $\Delta(\gamma_H',\gamma')$ arbitrarily, one sets $$\Delta(\gamma_H,\gamma):=\Delta(\gamma_H',\gamma') \cdot \Delta(\gamma_H,\gamma;\gamma_H',\gamma').$$ For any $z$-pair $(H_1,\xi_1)$, the definition of $\Delta$ extends to $H_1(F)_{\mathrm{ss},(G,H_1)\operatorname{-}\mathrm{reg}}\times G(F)_{\mathrm{ss}}$ (by definition, an element $\gamma_{H_1}\in H_1(F)$ is $(G,H_1)$-regular if its image in $H(F)$ is $(G,R)$-regular). As a matter of fact, for the definition of $\Delta$ for an endoscopic datum $(H,\mathcal{H},s,\xi)$ and a $z$-pair $(H_1,\xi_1)$, in this work we will use the one adopted by Kottwitz in [@Kottwitz90 p.178] which, in the case $H_1=H$, $\mathcal{H}={}^LH$, is the same as the original definition of [@LS87] for the endoscopic datum $(H,\mathcal{H},s^{-1},\xi)$, and also is the one denoted by $\Delta'$ in [@KottwitzShelstad12 (1.0.4), $\S$ 5.1].
For two algebraic groups $H\subset G$ over a field $F$, we let $\mathfrak{D}(H,G;F)$ denote the set $\ker[H^1(F,H)\rightarrow H^1(F,G)]$. When $F$ is a number field and for $R={\mathbb A}_F$, ${\mathbb A}_{F,f}$, we also use the notation $\mathfrak{D}(H,G;R):=\ker[H^1(R,H)\rightarrow H^1(R,G)]$.
Following [@Kottwitz92 $\S$7], we construct a function $f^{H_1}$ on $H_1({\mathbb A})$ with desired stable orbital integrals. We assume that $H$ is unramified at $p$ and there exists an (elliptic) maximal torus of $H_{{\mathbb R}}$ that transfers to an elliptic maximal torus of $G_{{\mathbb R}}$; otherwise, we define $f^{H_1}$ to be $0$. Under these conditions, $f^{H_1}$ will be a product of three functions $f^{H_1,p}$, $f^{H_1}_p$, $f^{H_1}_{\infty}$ on $H_1({\mathbb A}_f^p)$, $H_1({{\mathbb Q}_p})$, $H_1({\mathbb R})$, respectively, constructed now.
### Untwisted endoscopy: $v\neq p,\infty$
We state the transfer conjecture and the fundamental lemma, which were conjectured by Langlands-Shelstad [@LS87] and proved by Ngo [@Ngo10] after reduction steps of Waldspurger [@Waldspurger97], [@Waldspurger06] (see also the references therein for related works).
\[thm:untwisted\_endoscopy\_transfer\] For every $f\in C_c^{\infty}(G(F))$, there exists an $f^{H_1}\in C_{c,\lambda_{H_1}}^{\infty}(H_1(F))$ such that for any $(G,H_1)$-regular, semi-simple element $\gamma_{H_1}$ of $H_1(F)$, the stable orbital integral $\mathrm{SO}^{H_1(F)}_{\gamma_{H_1}}(f^{H_1})$ is zero unless (the image in $H(F)$ of) $\gamma_{H_1}$ transfers to $G(F)$, in which case $$\label{eq:untwisted_endo-transfer1}
\mathrm{SO}^{H_1(F)}_{\gamma_{H_1}}(f^{H_1})= \sum_{\alpha\in \mathfrak{D}(I_0,G;F)} \ \langle \tilde{\alpha},s\rangle \Delta(\gamma_{H_1},\gamma_0) e(I_{\gamma_{\alpha}}) \mathrm{O}^{G(F)}_{\gamma_{\alpha}}(f),$$ where we fix an element $\gamma_0$ of $G(F)$ whose norm is $\gamma_{H_1}$ and set $I_0:=G_{\gamma_0}^{\mathrm{o}}$, and for each $\alpha\in \mathfrak{D}(I_0,G;F):=\ker[H^1(F,I_0)\rightarrow H^1(F,G)]$, we choose an element $\gamma_{\alpha}$ of $G(F)$ whose $G(F)$-conjugacy class (in the stable conjugacy class of $\gamma_0$) corresponds to the image of $\alpha$ in $H^1(F,G_{\gamma_0})$ under (\[eq:C\_l(gamma\_0)\]), and denote by $\tilde{\alpha}$ the lifting of $\alpha$ to $X^{\ast}(Z(\hat{I}_0)^{\Gamma}Z(\hat{G}))$ whose restriction to $Z(\hat{G})$ is trivial.
Moreover, when $G$, $H$, $(H_1,\xi_1)$ are unramified in the sense of [@Waldspurger08 4.4], there exist normalizations of the transfer factor $\Delta$ and the measures used in the definition of the (stable) orbital integrals such that if $f$ is the characteristic function $\mathbf{1}_{K(\mathcal{O})}$ on a hyperspecial subgroup $K(\mathcal{O})$ of $G(F)$, then we may take $f^{H_1}$ to be the function $f_{K_1,\lambda_{H_1}}\in C_{c,\lambda_{H_1}}^{\infty}(H_1(F))$ defined by $$f_{K_1,\lambda_{H_1}}(x) :=
\begin{cases} \quad 0 & \text{ if }x\notin Z_1(F)K_1(\mathcal{O}) \\ \lambda_{H_1}(z)^{-1} & \text{ if } x=zk \text{ with }
z\in Z_1(F),\ k\in K_1(\mathcal{O}) \end{cases},$$ where $K_1(\mathcal{O})$ is the hyperspecial subgroup of $H_1(F)$ attached to $K(\mathcal{O})$ as constructed in [@Waldspurger08 4.1-4.4].
One says that the function $f^{H_1}$ is a *transfer* of $f$ and the pair $(f,f^{H_1})$ has *matching orbital integrals*.
\[rem:untwisted\_endoscopy\_transfer\] (1) As the local conjecture for $\Delta$ [@Kottwitz86 5.6] holds [@LS87 (4.2)], there exists a relation (cf. [@Kottwitz90 p.169, line -9]) $$\Delta(\gamma_{H_1},\gamma_{\alpha}) =\langle \tilde{\alpha},s\rangle \Delta(\gamma_{H_1},\gamma)$$ Hence, the right-hand side of (\[eq:untwisted\_endo-transfer1\]) is also equal to $$\sum_{\gamma} \Delta(\gamma_{H_1},\gamma) e(I_{\gamma}) a(\gamma) \mathrm{O}^{G(F)}_{\gamma}(f),$$ where $\gamma$ runs through a set of representatives for the semi-simple $G(F)$-conjugacy classes in $G(F)$ (whose norms are $\gamma_{H_1}$): use the fact [@Serre02 Prop.35bis] that for any $\alpha\in \mathfrak{D}(I_0,G;F)$, the set of $\beta$’s in $\mathfrak{D}(I_0,G;F)$ having the same image in $H^1(F,G_{\gamma_0})$ as $\alpha$ is in bijection with $\mathfrak{D}(I_{\gamma_{\alpha}},G_{\gamma_{\alpha}};F)$.
\(2) A priori, this theorem is proved for strongly $G$-regular elements $\gamma_{H_1}$ of $H_1(F)$ (cf. [@Waldspurger08 4.8]). Then, the identity as well as the definitions of transfer factors extend to general $(G,H_1)$-regular elements $\gamma_{H_1}$, by the argument of proof of [@LS90 Lemma 24.A]: this lemma in fact does the same job for the case $H=H_1$ under the assumption $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$, and is based on the special case of [@Kottwitz88 Prop.2] that $H$ is a quasi-split inner form of $G$, but not necessarily $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$. Also essentially the same argument is repeated in [@Kottwitz10 Prop. A.3.14] for base change twisted endoscopic transfer, assuming $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$ (one can combine the arguments of [@Kottwitz88 Prop.2] and [@Kottwitz10 Prop. A.3.14] to directly obtain a proof in our general set-up).
### Base-change twisted endoscopy: $v=p$
Here, we assume that $G$ and the given endoscopic datum $(H,\mathcal{H},s,\xi)$ are both unramified in the sense of [@Waldspurger08 4.4]. This implies that $\mathcal{H}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}{}^LH$ and $\xi$, as an $L$-homomorphism ${}^LH\rightarrow {}^LG$, is the identity on the inertia subgroup $I$ of $W_F$ (*loc. cit.*, $\S$5.1).
For each $n\in{\mathbb N}$, we let $L_n$ denote the unramified extension of $F$ in $\bar{F}$ with $[L_n:F]=n$, and $R:={\mathrm{Res}}_{L_n/F}G$. We recall the stable norm map $\mathscr{N}$ from the set of stable $\sigma$-conjugacy classes in $G(L_n)=R(F)$ to the set of stable conjugacy classes in $G(F)$ ([@Kottwitz86 $\S$5] and ). Suppose that $\gamma_0\in G(F)$ is the stable norm of some $\delta\in G(L_n)$. Then, for $I_0:=G_{\gamma_0}^{\mathrm{o}}$, any element of $\ker[H^1(F,I_0)\rightarrow H^1(F,G)]$ (rather, its image in $H^1(F,G_{\delta\theta})$ via the canonical isomorphism $H^1(F,I_0)=H^1(F,G_{\delta\theta}^{\mathrm{o}})$) determines a unique $\sigma$-conjugacy class in $G(L_n)$ that is stably $\sigma$-conjugate to $\delta$, in view of the cohomological description (\[eq:sigma-conj\_in\_stable-sigma-conj\]) of the set of such $\sigma$-conjugacy classes and the commutative diagram (\[eq:stable\_sigma\_conj\_diagm\]). Moreover, if we fix $c\in G(L)$ such that $c\gamma_0c^{-1}={\mathrm{N}}_n\delta$ and $b:=c^{-1}\delta\sigma(c)\in I_0$ (then, $b\in I_0(L)$ is basic), the composite of $\kappa_G$ (\[eq:kappa\_G\]) and $j_{[b]}^{I_0}$ (\[eq:j\_\[b\]\^[I\_0]{}\]) $$\kappa_G\circ j_{[b]}^{I_0} : \ker[H^1(F,I_0)\rightarrow H^1(F,G)] \rightarrow B(I_0) \rightarrow B(G)\rightarrow X^{\ast}(Z(\hat{G})^{\Gamma})$$ is constant with image $\kappa_G([b])=\kappa_G([\delta])$ (cf. ).
Let $\theta$ be the $F$-automorphism of $R$ induced by $\sigma=\sigma|_{L_n}$. There exists a natural choice of an embedding $i:{}^LG\rightarrow {}^LR$ and an automorphism $\hat{\theta}$ of $\hat{G}$. Let $\tilde{s}$ be the element of $\mathfrak{Z}$, the centralizer of $i\circ\xi(\hat{H})$ in $\hat{R}$, defined in [@Kottwitz10 (A.1.3.1)], so that the composite $i\circ\xi: \hat{H}\rightarrow\hat{G}\rightarrow \hat{R}$ identifies $\hat{H}$ with the identity component of the $\hat{\theta}$-centralizer of $\tilde{s}$ in $\hat{R}$. Further, let $\tilde{\xi}:\mathcal{H}={}^LH\rightarrow {}^LR$ be the *allowed* embedding defined by that $\tilde{\xi}=i\circ\xi$ on $\hat{H}$ and $\tilde{\xi}(\tilde{\sigma})=\tilde{s}\cdot i\circ\xi(\tilde{\sigma})$ for any lift $\tilde{\sigma}\in W_F$ of $\sigma$. Then, the datum $(H,\tilde{s},\tilde{\xi})$ is a twisted endoscopic datum of $(R,\theta)$.
We may assume that $s\in Z(\hat{H})^{\Gamma}Z(\hat{G})$, by condition (iv) of the definition: there exists $z\in Z(\hat{G})$ such that $sz\in Z(\hat{H})^{\Gamma}Z(\hat{G})$. For any $(G,H)$-regular, semi-simple element $\gamma_H$ of $H(F)$ which transfers to $\gamma_0\in G(F)$, if $I_{H}:=H_{\gamma_H}^{\mathrm{o}}$, $I_0:=G_{\gamma_0}^{\mathrm{o}}$, one regards $s$ as an element of $Z(\hat{I}_0)^{\Gamma}Z(\hat{G})$ via the canonical $\Gamma$-equivariant homomorphisms $Z(\hat{H})\hookrightarrow Z(\hat{I}_H){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}Z(\hat{I}_0)$. In this base-change situation, the twisted endoscopic transfer established by Waldspurger [@Waldspurger08] gives the following statement.
\[thm:twisted\_endoscopy\_transfer\] Suppose given $\mu_0\in X^{\ast}(Z(\hat{G})^{\Gamma})$. For every $f\in C_c^{\infty}(G(L_n))$ with the property that the twisted orbital integral $\mathrm{TO}^{G(F)}_{\delta}(f)$ is zero if $\kappa_G([\delta])\neq\mu_0$, there exists an $f^{H_1}\in C_{c,\lambda_{H_1}}^{\infty}(H_1(F))$ such that for each $(G,H_1)$-regular, semi-simple element $\gamma_{H_1}$ of $H_1(F)$ with image $\gamma_H$ in $H(F)$, the stable orbital integral $\mathrm{SO}^{H_1(F)}_{\gamma_{H_1}}(f^{H_1})$ is zero unless $\gamma_H$ transfers to an element $G(F)$ which is a stable norm of an element $\delta$ of $G(L_n)$ with $\kappa([\delta])=\mu_0$, in which case, if we fix such an $\gamma_0\in G(F)$ (i.e. $\gamma_0$ is a transfer of $\gamma_H$ and $\gamma_0=\mathscr{N}\delta$), we have $$\label{eq:twisted_endo-transfer1}
\mathrm{SO}^{H_1(F)}_{\gamma_{H_1}}(f^{H_1}) = \sum_{\alpha\in\mathfrak{D}(I_0,G;F)} \langle \tilde{\alpha},s\rangle \Delta(\gamma_{H_1},\gamma_0) e(G_{\delta_{\alpha}\theta}^{\mathrm{o}}) \mathrm{TO}^{G(F)}_{\delta_{\alpha}}(f),$$ where for each $\alpha\in \mathfrak{D}(I_0,G;F)$, we choose an element $\delta_{\alpha}$ of $G(L_n)$ whose stable $\sigma$-conjugacy class corresponds to the image of $\alpha$ in $H^1(F,G_{\delta\theta})$ and $\tilde{\alpha}$ is the lifting of $j_{[b]}^{I_0}(\alpha)\in B(I_0)_{basic}\cong X^{\ast}(Z(\hat{I}_0)^{\Gamma})$ to $X^{\ast}(Z(\hat{I}_0)^{\Gamma}Z(\hat{G}))$ whose restriction to $Z(\hat{G})$ is $\mu_0$.
In our application, for $\mu_0$ we will take the element $\mu^{\natural}$ (\[eqn:mu\_natural\]).
When $\gamma_{H_1}$ is strongly $G$-regular, semi-simple and $\gamma$ is strongly regular, the identity (\[eq:twisted\_endo-transfer1\]) is just the transfer theorem [@Waldspurger08] for the base-change twisted endoscopic datum $(H,\tilde{s},\tilde{\xi})$ introduced earlier. Indeed, first when $G_{\gamma}$ (equiv. $G_{\delta\theta}$) is connected, the right hand side of (\[eq:twisted\_endo-transfer1\]) can be rewritten as the right hand side of: $$\label{eq:twisted_endo-transfer2}
\mathrm{SO}^{H_1(F)}_{\gamma_{H_1}}(f^{H_1}) = \sum_{\delta} \langle \tilde{\alpha}(\gamma_0;\delta),s\rangle \Delta(\gamma_{H_1},\gamma_0) e(G_{\delta\theta}) \mathrm{TO}^{G(F)}_{\delta}(f),$$ where $\delta$ runs through a set of $\sigma$-conjugacy classes of elements in $G(L_n)$ whose stable norm $\mathscr{N}\delta$ is $\gamma_0\in G(F)$ and such that the attached invariant $\alpha(\gamma_0;\delta)\in B(I_0)$ maps to $\mu^{\natural}$ under $\kappa_G$, and $\tilde{\alpha}(\gamma_0;\delta)$ is the extension of $\alpha(\gamma_0;\delta)$ to $X^{\ast}(Z(\hat{I}_0)^{\Gamma}Z(\hat{G}))$ whose restriction to $Z(\hat{G})$ is $\mu^{\natural}$. Secondly, when $\gamma_{H_1}$ is strongly $G$-regular, semi-simple and $\gamma_0$ is strongly regular, one has the relation $$\Delta(\gamma_{H_1},\delta)=\langle \tilde{\alpha}(\gamma_0;\delta),s\rangle \Delta(\gamma_{H_1},\gamma_0),$$ between the twisted transfer factor $\Delta(\gamma_{H_1},\delta)$ and the standard transfer factor $\Delta(\gamma_{H_1},\gamma_0)$ [@KottwitzShelstad12 Thm.5.6.2] (note that this result corrects the sign mistake in A.3.11.1 of [@Kottwitz10]). Then, assuming that $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$, Kottwitz extended this identity (\[eq:twisted\_endo-transfer2\]) to general $(G,H)$-regular semi-simple elements $\gamma_H$ of $H(F)$ [@Kottwitz10 Prop,A.3.14], using the arguments alluded to in (\[rem:untwisted\_endoscopy\_transfer\]) and [@Kottwitz10 Prop.A.3.12]. We will see in the proof below that the same arguments continue to work for our version (\[eq:twisted\_endo-transfer1\]). Note that the right hand side of (\[eq:twisted\_endo-transfer2\]) does not make sense in our situation since the invariant $\alpha(\gamma_0;\delta)\in B(I_0)$ is not well-defined by the pair $(\gamma_0;\delta)$ unless $G_{\gamma}$ is connected. This is why we had to rewrite it as in (\[eq:twisted\_endo-transfer1\]).
We keep the notation and assumption of [@Kottwitz10 A.3.11]. We only need to consider the case that $\gamma_H$ transfers to $\gamma_0\in G(F)$ which is a stable norm of $\delta\in G(L_n)$ with $\kappa([\delta])=\mu_0$. We may choose an elliptic maximal torus $T_H$ of $I_H=H_{\gamma_H}^{\mathrm{o}}$, an admissible embedding $T_H{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}T\subset G$ sending $\gamma_H$ to $\gamma_0$, and an $F$-embedding $k:T\hookrightarrow G_{\delta\theta}^{\mathrm{o}}$ (which exist since $T_H$ and $T$ are elliptic in $I_H$ and $I_0$, respectively).
Then, there exists an open neighborhood $U$ of $1$ in $T(F)$ such that for all $t\in U$, $\Delta(\gamma_{H_1}(t),\gamma_0(t))$ is constant whenever $\gamma_{H_1}(t):=t^n\gamma_{H_1}$ is strongly $G$-regular (semisimple) and $\gamma_0(t):=t^n\gamma_0\in T(F)$ is strongly regular (semisimple) [@LS87 2.4]. We set $\delta(t):=k(t)\delta$ (so, $\mathscr{N}\delta(t)=\gamma_0(t)$). Also, for strongly regular $\gamma_0(t)$ (whose centralizer is thus $T$) and for $\alpha\in \mathfrak{D}(T,G;F)$, the stable $\sigma$-conjugacy class of $\delta(t)_{\alpha}:=k(t)\delta_{\alpha}$ corresponds to $\alpha\in H^1(F,T){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}H^1(F,G_{\delta(t)\theta})$. Hence, for $t\neq1\in U$ such that $\gamma_0(t)$ is strongly regular, the right hand side of (\[eq:twisted\_endo-transfer1\]) for $\gamma_{H_1}(t)$ and $\gamma_0(t)$ equals $\sum_{\alpha\in\mathfrak{D}(T,G;F)} \langle \tilde{\alpha},s\rangle \Delta(\gamma_{H_1},\gamma_0) \mathrm{TO}^{G(F)}_{\delta(t)_{\alpha}}(f)$. Clearly, the pairing $\langle \tilde{\alpha},s\rangle$ and $\delta(t)_{\alpha}$ alll depend only on the image of $\alpha$ in $\mathfrak{D}(I_0,G;F)$. Also, the map $\mathfrak{D}(T,G;F)\rightarrow \mathfrak{D}(I_0,G;F)$ is surjective [@Kottwitz86 10.2]. Therefore, the degree $0$ part of its Shalika germ about $1$ equals [@Clozel90 (7.6)] $$|\mathfrak{D}(T,I_0;F)|\cdot (-1)^{q(I_0^{\ast})}\cdot \sum_{\alpha\in\mathfrak{D}(I_0,G;F)} \langle \tilde{\alpha},s\rangle \Delta(\gamma_{H_1},\gamma_0) e(G_{\delta_{\alpha}\theta}^{\mathrm{o}}) \mathrm{TO}^{G(F)}_{\delta_{\alpha}}(f),$$ where $I_0^{\ast}$ is a (common) quasi-split inner form of $I_0$ and $G_{\delta_{\alpha}\theta}^{\mathrm{o}}$ and $q(I_0^{\ast})$ is the $F$-rank of $(I_0^{\ast})^{{\mathrm{der}}}$. By comparing this with the degree $0$ part of the Shalika germ about $1$ of the function $t\mapsto \mathrm{SO}^{H_1(F)}_{\gamma_{H_1}(t)}(f^{H_1})$, we obtain the identity (\[eq:twisted\_endo-transfer1\]).
### Stabilization at $\infty$
We fix an elliptic maximal torus $T$ of $G_{{\mathbb R}}$; by assumption, there exist an (elliptic) maximal torus $T_{H}$ of $(H)_{{\mathbb R}}$ and an admissible embedding $j_0:T_{H}\rightarrow T$ (defined over ${\mathbb R}$), and thus, the maximal split tori $A_{H_{{\mathbb R}}}$, $A_{G_{{\mathbb R}}}$ in the centers of $H_{{\mathbb R}}$ and $G_{{\mathbb R}}$ are canonically isomorphic.
[@Kottwitz92 (7.4)], [@Morel10 Rem.6.2.2] \[thm:pseudo-coeff\] There exists a function $h_{\infty}$ on $H_1({\mathbb R})$, compactly supported modulo $Z_{H_1}({\mathbb R})^{\mathrm{o}}$, such that for every semisimple element $\gamma_{H_1}$ of $H_1({\mathbb R})$, the stable orbital integral $\mathrm{SO}_{\gamma_{H_1}}(h_{\infty})$ equals $0$ unless $\gamma_{H_1}$ is $(G,H_1)$-regular and elliptic, in which case $$\mathrm{SO}_{\gamma_{H_1}}(h_{\infty}) = \langle \tilde{\alpha}_{\infty}(\gamma_0),s\rangle \cdot \Delta_{\infty}(\gamma_{H_1},\gamma_0) \cdot e(I_{\infty}) \cdot \mathrm{tr}\xi_{{\mathbb C}}(\gamma_0) \cdot \mathrm{vol}(A_{G_{{\mathbb R}}}({\mathbb R})^{\mathrm{o}}\backslash I_0(\infty)({\mathbb R}))^{-1},$$ where the terms on the right side are as follows (cf. [@Kottwitz90 p.182]): $\gamma_0:=j_0(\gamma_H)$, $I_0(\infty)$ is the inner form of $(I_0)_{{\mathbb R}}:=Z_{G}(\gamma_0)^{\mathrm{o}}_{{\mathbb R}}$ with anisotropic adjoint $I_0(\infty)^{{\mathrm{ad}}}$, and $e(I_{\infty})$ is the sign attached to $I_{\infty}$ by Kottwitz [@Kottwitz83]. The element $\tilde{\alpha}_{\infty}(\gamma_0)\in X^{\ast}(Z(\hat{I_0})^{\Gamma(\infty)}Z(\hat{G}))$ is the extension of $\alpha_{\infty}(\gamma_0)\in X^{\ast}(Z(\hat{I_0})^{\Gamma(\infty)})$ (as defined in ) whose restriction to $Z(\hat{G})$ is $-\mu_0$.
Basically, the arguments on p. 182–186 of [@Kottwitz90] carry over to our general setting without essential change, and here we will be just contented with explanation of the necessary modifications which mainly concern generalization (for $(G,\mathcal{H},H_1,\xi_1)$) of certain properties of the transfer factor $\Delta_{\infty}$ (which were stated for $(G,H)$ in *loc. cit.*): recall that in the Kottwitz’s set-up (i.e. $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$), the split extension $\mathcal{H}$ in the endoscopic datum is the $L$-group ${}^LH$ of $H$ and one does not need a $z$-pair $(H_1,\xi_1)$ (i.e. $H_1=H$, $\xi_1=id$). To state the required generalization (and fix notations), it seems unavoidable to repeat, in our setting, the discussion of Kottwitz in *loc. cit.* (see (a)- (e) below). In the following discussion, as we will work exclusively with groups over ${\mathbb R}$ and their dual groups, we will simply write $G$, $H$, $H_1$ ... for their base-changes to ${\mathbb R}$.
\(a) We fix an ${\mathbb R}$-splitting $spl_{\hat{G}}=(\mathcal{T},\mathcal{B},\{X_{\alpha}\})$ of $\hat{G}$ (as usual, $(\mathcal{T},\mathcal{B})$ is a (Borel) pair of $\hat{G}$, $\{X_{\alpha^{\vee}}\}$ is a collection of root vectors), and, assuming $s\in\mathcal{T}$, take $spl_{\hat{H}}=(\mathcal{T},\mathcal{B}_{\hat{H}}=\mathcal{B}\cap \hat{H},\{X_{\alpha^{\vee}}\})$ for an ${\mathbb R}$-splitting of $\hat{H}$ ($\alpha^{\vee}$ runs through $R(\mathcal{T},\hat{H})$); this also determines an ${\mathbb R}$-splitting $spl_{\hat{H}_1}=(\mathcal{T}_{1},\mathcal{B}_{\hat{H}_1},\cdots)$ of $\hat{H}_1$ and an embedding ${}^LH\rightarrow {}^LH_1$. Also, when $\mathfrak{B}$ denotes the set of Borel subgroups of $G_{{\mathbb C}}$ containing $T$ and $\mathcal{B}_{H_1}$ the similar set for $(H_1,T_{H_1})$, for $B\in \mathfrak{B}$, let $\iota_B$ denote one-half the sum of $B$-positive roots of $T$ in $G$ and $\Delta_B(-)$ the function on $T({\mathbb R})$ defined by $$\Delta_B(\gamma)=\prod_{\alpha>^B0}(1-\alpha(\gamma)^{-1}),$$ with $\alpha$ running through the $B$-positive roots of $T$.
\(b) To any $B\in \mathfrak{B}$ (more precisely, to the associated *based* $\chi$-data) and any ${\mathbb R}$-splitting $spl_{\hat{G}}$ of $\hat{G}$, Langlands and Shelstad [@LS87 (2.6)] construct a canonical admissible embedding: $$\eta_{B}:{}^LT\rightarrow {}^LG$$ which is is uniquely determined up to $\mathcal{T}$-conjugacy. In more detail, $\eta_{B}|_{\hat{T}}$ is the isomorphism $\hat{T}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}\mathcal{T}$ determined by the chosen (Borel) pairs $(T,B)$, $(\mathcal{T},\mathcal{B})$, the restriction of $\eta_{B}$ to ${\mathbb C}^{\times}=W_{{\mathbb C}}\subset {}^LT$ is given by $z\mapsto (z/|z|)^{\iota_B}$, and $\eta_{B}(\tau)$ for $\tau\in{\mathrm{Gal}}({\mathbb C}/{\mathbb R})\subset W_{{\mathbb R}}$ has a certain explicit description in terms of the splitting $spl_{\hat{G}}$.
\(c) Let $J$ be the set of admissible isomorphisms $j:T_{H}\rightarrow T$ (\[eq:admissible\_embedding\]); $\Omega_G:=\Omega(T({\mathbb C}),G({\mathbb C}))$ acts on $J$ simply transitively [@Shelstad79 Prop.2.2]. Then, any pair $(j,B)\in J\times \mathfrak{B}$ determines unique Borel subgroups $B_{H}\in \mathfrak{B}_{H}$, $B_{H_1}\in \mathfrak{B}_{H_1}$ (in the usual manner via identifications of the associated based root data), in which case we write $(j,B)\mapsto B_{H}, B_{H_1}$. Any choice of pairs $(\mathcal{T}_1,\mathcal{B}_{\hat{H}_1})$, $(T_1,B_{H_1})$ (in particular any choice of $(j,B)$) presents the (absolute) Weyl group $\Omega_{H_1}=\Omega(T_1({\mathbb C}),H_1({\mathbb C}))$ as a subgroup of $\Omega_G$. Given $(j,B)\in J\times \mathfrak{B}$, we can write any $\omega\in \Omega_G$ as $\omega=\omega_{H_1}\omega_{\ast}$ uniquely, where $\omega_{H_1}\in \Omega_{H_1}$ and $\omega_{\ast}$ belongs to the set $ \Omega_{\ast}$ of $\omega\in\Omega_G$ such that $(j,\omega(B))$ and $(j,B)$ have the same image under $J\times \mathfrak{B}\rightarrow \mathfrak{B}_{H_1}$.
\(d) For any elliptic $L$-parameter $\varphi:W_{{\mathbb R}}\rightarrow{}^LG$, we may assume (by conjugation under $\hat{G}$) that it factors through $\mathcal{T}$ and $\varphi(z)=z^{\Lambda}\bar{z}^{\Lambda'}\ (z\in {\mathbb C}^{\times})$ for a unique $\Lambda, \Lambda' \in X_{\ast}(\mathcal{T})_{{\mathbb C}}$ satisfying that $\Lambda-\Lambda'\in X_{\ast}(\mathcal{T})$ and $\langle\Lambda,\alpha^{\vee}\rangle>0$ for all $\mathcal{B}$-positive roots $\alpha^{\vee}$. With this tuning, for any $B\in \mathfrak{B}$, we obtain an $L$-parameter $\varphi_B:W_{{\mathbb R}}\rightarrow {}^LT$ such that $\varphi=\eta_B\circ\varphi_B$. Let $$\chi_B=\chi(\varphi,B)\in {\mathrm{Hom}}_{cont}(T({\mathbb R}),{\mathbb C}^{\times})$$ be the quasi-character on $T({\mathbb R})$ corresponding to $\varphi_B$ by the Langlands correspondence for tori: $H^1(W_{{\mathbb R}},\hat{T})={\mathrm{Hom}}_{cont}(T({\mathbb R}),{\mathbb C}^{\times})$.
For $B_{H_1}\in \mathfrak{B}_{H_1}$ and an elliptic $L$-parameter $\varphi:W_{{\mathbb R}}\rightarrow{}^LH_1$, we let $\eta_{B_{H_1}}$ and $\chi_{B_{H_1}}$ be respectively the admissible embedding ${}^LT_{H_1}\rightarrow {}^LH_1$ and the associated quasi-character $\chi_{B_{H_1}}$ of $T_{H_1}({\mathbb R})$ defined as above for $(T_{H_1},B_{H_1})$. In fact, we are interested in the (elliptic) $L$-parameters for $H_1$ with certain properties. Indeed, let $\Phi_{temp}(H_1,\lambda_1)$ denote the set of equivalence classes of tempered $L$-parameters $\varphi_{H_1}$ whose associated character on $Z_1({\mathbb R})$ equals $\lambda_{H_1}$ and $\Phi_{temp}(G)$ the set of equivalence classes of temped $L$-parameters of $G$. Then, the pair of embeddings $\xi:\mathcal{H}\rightarrow {}^LG$, $\xi_1:\mathcal{H}\rightarrow {}^LH_1$ gives rise to a map $$\label{eq:endoscopic_transfer_L-paramters}
\Phi_{temp}(H_1,\lambda_1) \rightarrow \Phi_{temp}(G),$$ cf. [@Shelstad10 $\S$2] (When $H_1=H$ and $\xi_1=id$, this map simply sends $\varphi_{H_1}$ to the composite $\xi\circ\varphi_{H_1}$). Any $L$-parameter $\varphi_{H_1}\in \Phi_{temp}(H_1,\lambda_1)$ whose image in $\Phi_{temp}(G)$ is elliptic is also elliptic.
\(e) The (local) Langlands-Shelstad transfer factors [@LR87] are determined only up to a constant and their definition requires certain auxiliary choices, namely choices of *$a$-data* and *$\chi$-data* (the transfer factors themselves are independent of these choices). Given $B\in\mathfrak{B}$, for $\chi$-data we will use the *based* choice [@Shelstad08 $\S$9] defined by the corresponding positive system $R(T,B)$ of roots, and for $a$-data, we set $$a_{\alpha}:=i=:-a_{-\alpha},\quad \forall\alpha\in R(T,B)$$ (recall that since $T$ is elliptic, every root is imaginary so that $a_{\alpha}$ must be purely imaginary). Then, for any choice of $(j,B)\in J\times \mathfrak{B}$, with the resulting choice of based $\chi$-data and Borel subgroup $B_{H_1}\in \mathfrak{B}_{H_1}$ (i.e. $(j,B)\mapsto (B_{H_1})$), Kottwitz and Shelstad [@KottwitzShelstad99 p.38-40] construct a $1$-cocycle in $Z^1(W_{{\mathbb R}},\mathcal{T}_1)$ or equivalently a quasi-character on $T_1({\mathbb R})$ $$a_{j,B}\in {\mathrm{Hom}}_{cts}(T_{H_1}({\mathbb R}),{\mathbb C}^{\times})$$ from the associated embeddings $\xi$, $\xi_1$, $\eta_{B}$, and $\eta_{B_{H_1}}$, which, in the case $H_1=H$ and $\xi_1=id$ (so, $\xi:\mathcal{H}={}^LH\rightarrow {}^LG$), is defined by $\xi\circ\eta_{B_H}\circ\hat{j}=a_{j,B}\cdot\eta_B$ (using that $\xi\circ\eta_{B_H}\circ\hat{j}|_{\hat{T}}=\eta_B|_{\hat{T}}$). In [@Kottwitz90 p.184] $a_{j,B}$ was denoted by $\chi_{G,H}$. Here, in the general case, we follow the discussion of [@Shelstad08 $\S$10], where $\eta_{B}$, $\eta_{B_{H_1}}$, and $a_{j,B}$ are denoted by $\xi_T$, $\xi_{T_{H_1}}$, and $a_{T_1}$, respectively. Then, we claim that $a_{j,B}$ satisfies the following property:
Suppose that $\varphi_{H_1}$ is an elliptic $L$-parameter lying in $\Phi_{temp}(H_1,\lambda_1)$ and $\varphi$ is its image under the map (\[eq:endoscopic\_transfer\_L-paramters\]). Then, for every (strongly) $G$-regular elliptic $\gamma_{H_1}\in T_{H_1}({\mathbb R})$ which is an image of $\gamma\in T({\mathbb R})$ (i.e. $\gamma_H$ is the image of $\gamma$ under *some* admissible embedding $T_H\rightarrow T$ (\[eq:admissible\_embedding\])) and any $\omega=\omega_{1}\omega_{\ast}$ with $\omega_{1}\in \Omega_{H_1}$ and $\omega_{\ast}\in\Omega_{\ast}$, one has $$\label{eq:transfer_factor-III_2}
a_{j,\omega(B)}(\gamma_{H_1},\gamma) \cdot \chi_{\omega_{1}(B_{1})}(\gamma_{H_1})=\chi_{\omega(B)}(\gamma).$$ The left-hand side factors through $T_{H_1}({\mathbb R})/Z_1({\mathbb R})=T_H({\mathbb R})$ (as a function in $\gamma_{H_1}$) and the comparison is done through $j:T_H({\mathbb R}){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}T({\mathbb R})$. Note that $(j,\omega(B))\mapsto \omega_{1}(B_{H_1})$ when $(j,B)\mapsto B_{H_1}$, so we may reduce to the situation $\omega=\omega_{H_1}=\omega_{\ast}=id$, in which case one just needs to check the obvious relation among the corresponding Langlands parameters for the quasi-characters $\chi_{B_{H_1}}$, $a_{j,B}$, $\chi_{B}$. Such verification can be found in [@Shelstad08 $\S$11], [@Shelstad10 $\S$7.b].
Now, it is not difficult to see that the original arguments of Kottwitz (especially, those on p.186 of [@Kottwitz90]) continue to work in our general setting if the following statement holds for the transfer factor $\Delta_{\infty}$: There exists a constant $c$ (depending only on $G$, the endoscopic datum $(H,\cdots)$ plus the $z$-pair $(H_1,\xi_1)$, and $j$, but not on $B$) such that for all $(G,H_1)$-regular $\gamma_{H_1}\in T_{H_1}({\mathbb R})$ and $\gamma=j_1(\gamma_{H_1})$ ($j_1$ denoting the composite $T_{H_1}\rightarrow T_H\stackrel{j}{\rightarrow} T$) $$\label{eq:transfer_factor}
\Delta_{\infty}(\gamma_{H_1},\gamma)=c\cdot (-1)^{q(G)+q(H_1)}\cdot a_{j,B}(\gamma)\cdot \Delta_B(\gamma^{-1})\cdot \Delta_{B_{H_1}}(\gamma_{H_1}^{-1})^{-1}.$$ As explained in [@Kottwitz90 p.186], by a continuity argument due to Shelstad, one only needs to establish this equality for strongly $G$-regular $\gamma_{H_1}\in T_{H_1}({\mathbb R})$, so from now on we will assume that. Recall that our transfer factor $\Delta_{\infty}$ for the endoscopic datum $(H,\mathcal{H},s,\xi)$ is equal to the transfer factor $\Delta_{\infty}^{\mathrm{LS}}$ defined by Langlands and Shelstad for the endoscopic datum $(H,\mathcal{H},s^{-1},\xi)$. We will establish the identity (\[eq:transfer\_factor\]) for $\Delta_{\infty}^{\mathrm{LS}}$ and at the same time show that $\Delta_{\infty}(\gamma_{H_1},\gamma)=C\cdot \Delta_{\infty}^{\mathrm{LS}}(\gamma_{H_1},\gamma)$ for some non-zero constant $C$ which depends only on the set of data $\{G, (H,\cdots), (H_1,\xi_1), j\}$ above, but neither on $B$ nor on the strongly $G$-regular pair $(\gamma_{H_1},\gamma)$.
The (local) Langlands-Shelstad transfer factor $\Delta_{\infty}^{\mathrm{LS}}$ [@LS87], [@LS90], [@KottwitzShelstad99] is a product of five terms: $$\Delta_{\infty}^{\mathrm{LS}}=\Delta_{I}\cdot \Delta_{II} \cdot \Delta_{III_1} \cdot \Delta_{III_2}\cdot \Delta_{IV},$$ up to a constant. Recall that we need to fix a reference pair $(\gamma_{H_1}',\gamma')$ for which we take any pair such that $\gamma'=j_1(\gamma_{H_1}')$. The transfer factor $\Delta_{\infty}(\gamma_{H_1},\gamma)$ is defined to be zero unless $\gamma_{H_1}$ is an image of $\gamma\in G({\mathbb R})$ under an admissible embedding $T_H{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}T'\subset G$ (not necessarily $j$ even if $T'=T$). When we discuss the factors $\Delta_{\bullet}$ ($\bullet=\infty,I,II,\cdots$), we will not assume that $\gamma=j_1(\gamma_{H_1})$ (but, only that $\gamma_{H_1}\in T_{H_1}({\mathbb R})$ and $\gamma\in T({\mathbb R})$), and then will use that condition for $\Delta_{III_1}$ when we establish (\[eq:transfer\_factor\]). More precisely, following Shelstad [@Shelstad08 $\S$8-$\S$11], we will group together the (relative) terms $\Delta_{II}$, $\Delta_{III_2}$, $\Delta_{IV}$ and will verify that the right-hand side of (\[eq:transfer\_factor\]) is a non-zero constant multiple of their product $\Delta_{II_+}:=\Delta_{II}\cdot \Delta_{III_2}\cdot \Delta_{IV}$ (the constant depending only on the set of data $\{G, (H,\cdots), (H_1,\xi_1), j\}$ above, but not on $B$) and that the (relative) term $\Delta_I$ also depends only on the same set of data, but not on the pair $(\gamma_{H_1},\gamma)$, while $\Delta_{III_1}(\gamma_{H_1},\gamma;\gamma_{H_1}',\gamma')=1$ whenever $\gamma=j_1(\gamma_{H_1})$, $\gamma'=j_1(\gamma_{H_1}')$.
First, we split $\Delta_{II}$ into a product of $\Delta_{II}^{\ast}(\gamma_{H_1},\gamma):=\prod_{\alpha}\chi_{\alpha}(\alpha(\gamma)-1)$ and $\prod_{\alpha}\chi_{\alpha}(a_{\alpha})^{-1}$, where in both products, $\alpha$ runs over the $B$-positive roots of $(T,G)$ *outside $H_1$* [@Shelstad08 p.232] (use that $T$ is elliptic in $G$). We note that the second product, which a priori depends on the choice of $a$-data and based $\chi$-data, so on $B$, equals $(-i)^{1/2(\mathrm{dim}G-\mathrm{dm}H_1)}$. Also, from [@Shelstad08 p.232, line+19], we have $$\Delta_{II}^{\ast}(\gamma_{H_1},\gamma) \Delta_{IV}(\gamma_{H_1},\gamma)=(-1)^{1/2(\mathrm{dim} G -\mathrm{dim} H_1)} \Delta_B(\gamma^{-1}) \Delta_{B_{H_1}}(\gamma_{H_1}^{-1})^{-1}.$$ Moreover, by definition [@Shelstad08 $\S$10-$\S$11], we have $$\Delta_{III_2}(\gamma_{H_1},\gamma)= a_{j,B}(\gamma_{H_1})$$ if $\gamma_{H_1}$ is the image of $\gamma$ (under some admissible embedding from $T_H$ into $G$). Therefore, we have proved that the right-hand side of (\[eq:transfer\_factor\]) is a constant multiple of $\Delta_{II_+}$. It also follows from the discussion on p. 234-245 of [@Shelstad08] that when we write $\Delta_{II_+}^{j,B}$ for $\Delta_{II_+}$ defined for $(j,B)\in J\times \mathfrak{B}$, for any $\omega\in \Omega_G$, one has $$\Delta_{II_+}^{j,\omega(B)}=\det \omega_{\ast} \cdot \Delta_{II_+}^{j,B},$$ where $\det \omega_{\ast}=\det (\omega_{\ast};X^{\ast}(T))$. It is also evident from the definition [@LS87 (3.2)] that the term $\Delta_{I}$ depends only on the admissible embedding $j:T_H\rightarrow T$, but not on $B$: strictly speaking, the discussion in *loc. cit.* applies to the admissible embedding $j_{\ast}:T_H{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}T_{\ast}$ in (\[eq:admissible\_embedding\]) (which is a part of the datum of admissible embedding $j$). In more detail, $\Delta_{I}(\gamma_{H_1},\gamma;\gamma_{H_1}',\gamma')$ is the ratio $\Delta_{I}(\gamma_{H_1},\gamma)\Delta_{I}(\gamma_{H_1}',\gamma')^{-1}$ with both terms being defined by the same recipe and $\Delta_{I}(\gamma_{H_1},\gamma)=\langle \lambda(T_{\ast}^{{\mathrm{sc}}}),\mathbf{s}_{T_{\ast}}\rangle$, where both $\lambda(T_{\ast}^{{\mathrm{sc}}})\in H^1({\mathbb R},T_{\ast}^{{\mathrm{sc}}})$ and $\mathbf{s}_{T_{\ast}}\in \pi_0((\hat{T}_{\ast}/Z(\hat{G}))^{\Gamma_{\infty}})$ depend only on $j_{\ast}$ [@LS87 (2.3.3) and p.241]. Finally, for the term $\Delta_{III_1}^{\ast}$ (which is the only genuine relative term $\Delta_{III_1}(\gamma_{H_1},\gamma;\gamma_{H_1}',\gamma')$ in $\Delta_{\infty}(\gamma_{H_1},\gamma;\gamma_{H_1}',\gamma')$), it follows from the discussion in [@LS87 (3.4)] that when $\gamma=j_1(\gamma_{H_1})$, $\gamma'=j_1(\gamma_{H_1}')$, the cohomology classes $v(\sigma)$, $\bar{v}(\sigma)$ (thus, $\mathrm{inv}\left(\frac{\gamma_{H_1},\gamma_G}{\bar{\gamma}_{H_1},\bar{\gamma}_G}\right)$ as well) there become trivial so that $\Delta_{III_1}(\gamma_{H_1},\gamma;\gamma_{H_1}',\gamma')=1$. Therefore, we see that the statement on the identity (\[eq:transfer\_factor\]) holds for the Langlands-Shelstad transfer factor $\Delta_{\infty}^{\mathrm{LS}}$. Furthermore, if we change $s$ to $s^{-1}$ in the endoscopic datum, the only terms being affected are $\Delta_{I}$ and $\Delta_{III_1}$: they both change to their inverses. Hence, the two transfer factors $\Delta_{\infty}(\gamma_{H_1},\gamma)$ and $\Delta_{\infty}^{\mathrm{LS}}(\gamma_{H_1},\gamma)$ are proportional.[^39] This completes the proof.
Stabilization of Lefschetz number formula {#subsec:stabilization_of_LNF}
-----------------------------------------
We recall the definition of the elliptic part of the geometric side of the stable trace formula.
Let $G$ be a connected reductive group over a number field $F$ and $\mathscr{E}_{\mathrm{ell}}(G)$ a set of representatives for the isomorphism classes of elliptic endoscopic data of $G$. For each $\underline{H}=(H,\mathcal{H},s,\xi)\in \mathscr{E}_{\mathrm{ell}}(G)$, we fix a $z$-pair $(H_1,\xi_1)$. Recall the quasi-character $\lambda_{H_1}$ on $Z_1({\mathbb A}_F)/Z_1(F)$ for the central $F$-torus $Z_1$ in $H_1$. Let $C_{c,\lambda_{H_1}}^{\infty}(H_1({\mathbb A}_F))$ denote the space of ${\mathbb C}$-valued smooth functions on $H_1({\mathbb A}_F)$ whose supports are compact modulo $Z_1({\mathbb A}_F)$ and that satisfy $f^{H_1}(zh)=\lambda_{H_1}(z)^{-1} f^{H_1}(h)$ for all $z\in Z_1({\mathbb A}_F)$ and $h\in H_1({\mathbb A}_F)$.
[@Kottwitz86 9.2] Let $\underline{H}=(H,\mathcal{H},s,\xi)\in \mathscr{E}_{\mathrm{ell}}(G)$ and $(H_1,\xi_1)$ a $z$-pair of it.
\(1) For a semi-simple element $\gamma_{H_1}$ of $H_1({\mathbb A}_F)$ and $f^{H_1}\in C_{c,\lambda_{H_1}}^{\infty}(H_1({\mathbb A}_F))$, we define the adelic stable orbital integral of $f^{H_1}$ along the adelic stable conjugacy class of $\gamma_{H_1}$ by $$\mathrm{SO}_{\gamma_{H_1}}(f^{H_1}):=\sum_{\alpha} e(\gamma_{\alpha}) \mathrm{O}_{\gamma_{\alpha}}(f^{H_1}),$$ where $\alpha$ runs through $\mathfrak{D}(I_0,H_1;{\mathbb A}_F)=\ker[H^1({\mathbb A}_F,I_0)\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb A}_F,H_1)]$ with $I_0=(H_1)_{\gamma_{H_1}}^{\mathrm{o}}$, $\gamma_{\alpha}$ is an element of $H_1({\mathbb A}_F)$ whose $H_1({\mathbb A}_F)$-conjugacy class in the adelic stable conjugacy class of $\gamma_{H_1}\in H_1({\mathbb A}_F)$ corresponds to $\alpha$, and the number $e(\gamma_{\alpha})=\prod_ve(I_{\alpha,v})$ is the Kottwitz sign with $I_{\alpha,v}$ being the connected centralizer in $H_{1,F_v}$ of the $v$-component of $\gamma_{\alpha}$. The adelic orbital integral is defined with respect to the Tamagawa (or canonical) measure on $H_1({\mathbb A})$ [@Labesse01].
\(2) For $f^{H_1}\in C_{c,\lambda_{H_1}}^{\infty}(H_1({\mathbb A}_F))$, we define the *elliptic part of the geometric side of the stable trace formula* for $f^{H_1}$ to be $$\label{eq:epgsstf}
{\mathrm{ST}}_{{\mathrm{ell}}}^{H_1}(f^{H_1}):=\tau(H) \sum_{\gamma_{H}\in E_{\mathrm{st}}(H)} |\pi_0(H_{\gamma_H})(F)|^{-1} \mathrm{SO}_{\gamma_{H_1}}(f^{H_1}),$$ where for each $\gamma_H\in E_{\mathrm{st}}(H)$, a set of representatives for the elliptic semi-simple stable conjugacy classes in $H(F)$, we fix an (elliptic) semisimple $\gamma_{H_1}\in H_1(F)$ lifting $\gamma_H$ (The stable orbital integral $\mathrm{SO}_{\gamma_{H_1}}(f^{H_1})$ depends only on $\gamma_H$, not on the choice of the lift $\gamma_{H_1}$).
For $\underline{H}=(H,\mathcal{H},s,\xi)\in \mathscr{E}_{\mathrm{ell}}(G)$, we write $\mathrm{Aut}(\underline{H})$ for its automorphism group and $$\mathrm{Out}(\underline{H}):=\mathrm{Aut}(\underline{H})/H^{{\mathrm{ad}}}({\mathbb Q})$$ for the outer automorphism group. We also put $$\mathrm{tr}(\Phi^m\times f^p | H_c(Sh_{K/{\overline{\mathbb Q}}},{\mathscr{F}}_K)):=\sum_{i}(-1)^i\mathrm{tr}( \Phi^m\times f^p | H^i_c(Sh_{K}(G,X)_{{\overline{\mathbb Q}}},{\mathscr{F}}_K)).$$
\[thm:EP\_GS\_STF\] With the same setup as Thm. \[thm:Kottwitz\_formula:Kisin\], for every $f^p$ in the Hecke algebra $\mathcal{H}(G({\mathbb A}_f^p)/\!\!/ K^p)$, there exists $m(f^p)\in{\mathbb N}$, depending on $f^p$, with the following property: for each $m\geq m(f^p)$, there exists a function $f^{H_1}=f^{H_1}(m)\in C^{\infty}_{c,\lambda_{H_1}}(H_1({\mathbb A}))$ such that one has $$\mathrm{tr}(\Phi^m\times f^p | H_c(Sh_{K/{\overline{\mathbb Q}}},{\mathscr{F}}_K))=\sum_{\underline{H}\in \mathscr{E}_{\mathrm{ell}}(G)} \iota(G,\underline{H}) {\mathrm{ST}}_{{\mathrm{ell}}}^{H_1}(f^{H_1}),$$ where $$\iota(G,\underline{H}):=\tau(G) \tau(H)^{-1} |\mathrm{Out}(\underline{H})|^{-1}.$$ If $G^{{\mathrm{ad}}}$ is ${\mathbb Q}$-anisotropic or $f^p$ is the identity, we can take $m(f^p)$ to be $1$.
We will rewrite the right hand expression of (\[eq:Lef-number1\]) as a similar sum with a different index set (in certain cohomology groups). Let $E_{\mathrm{st}}(G)$ be a set of representatives of stable conjugacy classes of ${\mathbb Q}$-elliptic semisimple elements in $G({\mathbb Q})$. First, we rearrange its summation index as $$\label{eq:rearrangement}
\sum_{\gamma_0}\sum_{(\gamma,\delta)},$$ where in the first sum $\gamma_0$ runs through the subset of ${\mathbb R}$-elliptic elements in $E_{\mathrm{st}}(G)$ and in the second sum $(\gamma,\delta)$ runs through the set of elements $(\gamma,\delta)$ of $\prod'\mathfrak{C}_l(\gamma_0)\times \mathfrak{C}_p^{(n)}(\gamma_0)$ with trivial Kottwitz invariant, cf. (\[eq:C\_l(gamma\_0)\]), Def. \[defn:D\_p\^[(n)]{}(gamma\_0)\], Prop. \[prop:B(gamma\_0)=D(I\_0,G;Qp)\] (the restricted product $\prod'$ means that almost all $\gamma_l$’s are the distinguished elements). Here and thereafter, $\gamma$ and $\delta$ will also denote, by abuse of notation, their $G({\mathbb A}_f)$-conjugacy class and $\sigma$-conjugacy class in $G(L_n)$ respectively. For each $\gamma_0\in E_{\mathrm{st}}(G)$, let us fix a reference element $\delta_0$ of $\mathfrak{C}_p^{(n)}(\gamma_0)$. With such choice of $\{\delta_0\}_{E_{\mathrm{st}}(G)}$, we will lift the summation index $(\gamma,\delta)$ of (\[eq:rearrangement\]) to the source of the surjective map $$\mathfrak{D}(I_0,G;{\mathbb A}_f)=\mathfrak{D}(I_0,G;{\mathbb A}_f^p)\oplus \mathfrak{D}(G_{\delta\theta}^{\mathrm{o}},G;{{\mathbb Q}_p}) \stackrel{i_{\ast}^{\delta_0}}{\longrightarrow} \sideset{}{'}\prod\mathfrak{C}_l(\gamma_0)\times \mathfrak{C}_p^{(n)}(\gamma_0).$$ which sends the distinguished element to $(\gamma_0,\delta_0)$. Recall that a Kottwitz triple $(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)$ having trivial Kottwitz invariant means that there exists $(\alpha^p=(\alpha_l)_{\l\neq p};\alpha_p)$ in the source of this map $i_{\ast}^{\delta_0}$ such that the product $\alpha=\prod_v \tilde{\alpha}_v$ (including the $\infty$-component $\tilde{\alpha}_{\infty}$) of their extensions $\tilde{\alpha}_v\in X^{\ast}(Z(\hat{I_0})^{\Gamma_v}Z(\hat{G}))$ (\[eq:restriction\_of\_alpha\_to\_Z(hatG)\]) is trivial as a character of $\mathfrak{K}(I_0/{\mathbb Q})=\left( \bigcap_v Z(\hat{I}_0)^{\Gamma_v}Z(\hat{G}) \right)/Z(\hat{G})$. This suggests to take the second summation of (\[eq:rearrangement\]) over the subset $\mathfrak{D}(I_0,G;{\mathbb A}_f)_1$ of $\mathfrak{D}(I_0,G;{\mathbb A}_f)$ consisting of the elements whose Kottwitz invariant is trivial, by taking into account the cardinality of the subset $$\mathfrak{D}(\gamma_0;\alpha^p,\alpha_p):=\{ (x^p,x_p)\in \mathfrak{D}(I_0,G;{\mathbb A}_f)_1\ |\ i_{\ast}^{\delta_0}(x^p,x_p)=i_{\ast}^{\delta_0}(\alpha^p,\alpha_p)\}.$$
If we fix $(\alpha^p,\alpha_p)\in \mathfrak{D}(I_0,G;{\mathbb A}_f)_1$, an element of $(x^p,x_p)\in \mathfrak{D}(I_0,G;{\mathbb A}_f)$ also has trivial Kottwitz invariant if and only if their difference $(\alpha^p-x^p,\alpha_p-x_p,0)$ (trivial component at $\infty$) lies in the kernel of the canonical map $$\mathfrak{D}(I_0,G;{\mathbb A}) \rightarrow \mathfrak{E}(I_0,G;{\mathbb A}) \rightarrow \mathfrak{K}(I_0/{\mathbb Q})^D,$$ where $\mathfrak{E}(I_0,G;{\mathbb A}):=\ker[H^1({\mathbb A},(I_0)_{{\mathbf{ab}}})\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb A},G_{{\mathbf{ab}}})]$ and the second map comes from the canonical isomorphism $$\mathfrak{K}(I_0/{\mathbb Q})^D=\mathrm{coker}[H^0({\mathbb A},G_{{\mathbf{ab}}})\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb A}/{\mathbb Q},(\tilde{I}_0)_{{\mathbf{ab}}})]$$ (Lemma \[lem:proof\_of\_Kottwitz86\_Thm.6.6\], cf. [@Labesse99 Remarque on p.43]: note that $H^0_{{\mathbf{ab}}}({\mathbb A}/{\mathbb Q},I_0\backslash G)= H^1({\mathbb A}/{\mathbb Q},(\tilde{I}_0)_{{\mathbf{ab}}})$). Hence, if $(\gamma,\delta):=i_{\ast}(\alpha^p,\alpha_p)$, we have an identification $$\begin{aligned}
\mathfrak{D}(\gamma_0;\alpha^p,\alpha_p) \simeq &\ker[\mathfrak{D}(I_0,G;{\mathbb A})\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb A}_f^p,G_{\gamma_0})\oplus H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},G_{\delta\theta})\oplus H^1({\mathbb R},I_0)\oplus\mathfrak{K}(I_0/{\mathbb Q})^D] \\
=&{\mathrm{im}}[ \ker[H^1({\mathbb Q},I_0)\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb A}_f^p,G_{\gamma_0})\oplus H^1({{\mathbb Q}_p},G_{\delta\theta})\oplus H^1({\mathbb R},I_0)\oplus H^1({\mathbb Q},G)]\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb A},I_0)] \\
=&{\mathrm{im}}\left[\ker [\Sha^{\infty}_G({\mathbb Q}, G_{\alpha}^{\mathrm{o}})\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb A},G_{\alpha})] \rightarrow H^1({\mathbb A},G_{\alpha}^{\mathrm{o}}) \right] \\
\cong&\mathfrak{D}(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)\quad (\text{Lemma }\ref{eq:|widetilde{Sha}_G(Q,I_{phi,epsilon})^+|}),\end{aligned}$$ where $G_{\alpha}$ is the inner twist of $G_{\gamma_0}$ determined by $\alpha=(\alpha_v)$; one has $G_{\alpha_l}\simeq G_{\gamma_l}$, $G_{\alpha_p} \simeq G_{\delta\theta}$, and $\Sha^{\infty}_G({\mathbb Q}, I_0)=\Sha^{\infty}_G({\mathbb Q}, G_{\alpha}^{\mathrm{o}})$. Also, in the second equality, we used the exactness of the sequence [@Labesse99 Cor.1.8.6] $$H^1({\mathbb Q},I_0)\rightarrow H^1({\mathbb A},I_0) \rightarrow \mathfrak{K}(I_0/{\mathbb Q})^D.$$
Therefore, by Thm. \[thm:Kottwitz\_formula:Kisin\], Lemma \[eq:|widetilde[Sha]{}\_G(Q,I\_[phi,epsilon]{})\^+|\] and the formula (\[eq:Tamagawa\_number\]), we have the equalities $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathrm{tr}(\Phi^m\times f^p | H_c(Sh_{K/{\overline{\mathbb Q}}},{\mathscr{F}}_K) \\
=&\sum_{\gamma_0} \frac{\tau(I_0)}{\mathrm{vol}\cdot |\pi_0(G_{\gamma_0})({\mathbb Q})|} \sum_{\substack{(\alpha^p,\alpha_p)\in \\ \mathfrak{D}(I_0,G;{\mathbb A}_f)_1}} \frac{i(\gamma_0;\gamma,\delta)}{|\mathfrak{D}(\gamma_0;\alpha^p,\alpha_p)|} \cdot \mathrm{O}_{\gamma}(f^p)\cdot \mathrm{TO}_{\delta}(\phi_p) \cdot \mathrm{tr}\xi(\gamma_0) \\
=&\sum_{\gamma_0} \frac{\tau(I_0)}{\mathrm{vol}\cdot |\pi_0(G_{\gamma_0})({\mathbb Q})|} \sum_{\substack{(\alpha^p,\alpha_p)\in\\ \mathfrak{D}(I_0,G;{\mathbb A}_f)_1}} |\ker[\ker^1(I_0)\rightarrow \ker^1(G)]| \cdot \mathrm{O}_{\gamma}(f^p)\cdot \mathrm{TO}_{\delta}(\phi_p) \cdot \mathrm{tr}\xi(\gamma_0),\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathrm{vol}:=\mathrm{vol}(A_G({\mathbb R})^{\mathrm{o}}\backslash I_0({\mathbb R}))$ (recall that $\phi_p$ is the characteristic function of the set (\[eq:Adm\_K(mu)\]), cf. Lemma \[lem:fixed-pt\_subset\_of\_Frob-Hecke\_corr\]).
Let us write $\mathrm{O}_{\alpha^p}(f^p)$ for $\mathrm{O}_{\gamma}(f^p)$ when $\gamma=i_{\ast}(\alpha^p)$, and similarly for $\mathrm{TO}_{\alpha_p}(\phi_p)$. Then, using the relation [@Kottwitz86 p.395] $$\tau(I_0) \cdot |\ker[\ker^1(I_0)\rightarrow \ker^1(G)]| =\tau(G) \cdot |\mathfrak{K}(I_0/{\mathbb Q})|,$$ and a standard argument (from Fourier analysis on finite groups $ \mathfrak{K}(I_0/{\mathbb Q})$), we see that the last line equals the first line expression of the next: $$\begin{aligned}
{2} \label{eq:stablization_step2}
& \mathrm{tr}(\Phi^m\times f^p | H_c(Sh_{K/{\overline{\mathbb Q}}},{\mathscr{F}}_K)) && \\
\stackrel{(a)}{=} &\ \tau(G) \sum_{\gamma_0} |\pi_0(G_{\gamma_0})({\mathbb Q})|^{-1}\cdot \frac{\mathrm{tr}\xi(\gamma_0)}{\mathrm{vol}} \ \cdot && \sum_{(\alpha_v)_v} \sum_{\kappa\in \mathfrak{K}(I_0/{\mathbb Q})} \prod_v \langle\alpha_v,\kappa\rangle e(I_{\alpha_v})\cdot \mathrm{O}_{\alpha^p}(f^p)\cdot \mathrm{TO}_{\alpha_p}(\phi_p) \nonumber \\
\stackrel{(b)}{=} &\ \tau(G) \sum_{\gamma_0} |\pi_0(G_{\gamma_0})({\mathbb Q})|^{-1}\cdot \frac{\mathrm{tr}\xi(\gamma_0)}{\mathrm{vol}} \ \cdot && \sum_{\kappa\in \mathfrak{K}(I_0/{\mathbb Q})} \prod_v\sum_{\alpha_v} \langle\alpha_v,\kappa\rangle e(I_{\alpha_v})\cdot \mathrm{O}_{\alpha^p}(f^p)\cdot \mathrm{TO}_{\alpha_p}(\phi_p) \nonumber \\
\stackrel{}{=} &\ \tau(G) \sum_{\gamma_0} |\pi_0(G_{\gamma_0})({\mathbb Q})|^{-1}\cdot \sum_{\kappa\in \mathfrak{K}(I_0/{\mathbb Q})} && \biggl[ \biggl( \frac{\mathrm{tr}\xi(\gamma_0)}{\mathrm{vol}} \langle\alpha_{\infty},\kappa\rangle e(I_{\alpha_{\infty}}) \biggl) \cdot \prod_{v\neq p,\infty} \biggl( \sum_{\alpha_v} \langle\alpha_v,\kappa\rangle e(I_{\alpha_v})\mathrm{O}_{\alpha^p}(f^p) \biggl) \cdot \nonumber \\
& && \qquad \qquad \quad \biggl( \sum_{\alpha_p} \langle\alpha_p,\kappa\rangle e(I_{\alpha_p}) \mathrm{TO}_{\alpha_p}(\phi_p) \biggl) \biggl] \nonumber \\
\stackrel{}{=} &\ \tau(G) \sum_{(\gamma_0, \kappa)} |\pi_0(G_{\gamma_0})({\mathbb Q})|^{-1}\cdot O^{\kappa}_{\gamma_0}(f), && \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where we write $O^{\kappa}_{\gamma_0}(f)$ for the summand that is indexed by $(\gamma_0,\kappa)$ and appears inside the bracket $[ - ]$, i.e. $(\frac{\mathrm{tr}\xi(\gamma_0)}{\mathrm{vol}} \langle\alpha_{\infty},\kappa\rangle e(I_{\alpha_{\infty}})) \cdot \prod_{v\neq p,\infty} ( \sum_{\alpha_v} \langle\alpha_v,\kappa\rangle e(I_{\alpha_v}) \mathrm{O}_{\alpha^p}(f^p) ) \cdot ( \sum_{\alpha_p} \langle\alpha_p,\kappa\rangle e(I_{\alpha_p}) \mathrm{TO}_{\alpha_p}(\phi_p) )$.
In (a) the first sum is over the subset of ${\mathbb R}$-elliptic elements in $E_{\mathrm{st}}(G)$, and in the second summation index $(\alpha_v)_v$, $\alpha_{\infty}$ is fixed to be the element $\alpha_{\infty}(\gamma_0)$ defined by $\gamma_0$ in , while $(\alpha^p,\alpha_p)$ runs through the entire set $\mathfrak{D}(I_0,G;{\mathbb A}_f)$. Also, $e(I_{\alpha_v})$ is the Kottwitz sign of the inner twist $I_{\alpha_v}$ of $I_0$ via $\alpha_v$ (cf. [@Kottwitz86]): by definition of $\alpha_{\infty}(\gamma_0)$, $I_{\alpha_{\infty}}$ is the inner form of $(I_0)_{{\mathbb R}}$ that is compact modulo the center. Here we used the fact that $\prod e(I_{\alpha_v})=1$ when the family $\{I_{\alpha_v}\}_v$ of local groups comes from a global group. The equality (b) comes from rearranging the summations and the product. This is possible since there are only finitely many non-zero terms in the summand for any given summation index $(\gamma_0,\kappa)$, cf. [@Kottwitz86 $\S$7, $\S$8].
Next, we rewrite the last expression of (\[eq:stablization\_step2\]) using the new index set that comprises pairs $((H,\mathcal{H},s,\xi),\gamma_{H})$ of an elliptic endoscopic datum and a $(G,H)$-regular semisimple element of $H({\mathbb Q})$. For any such pair $((H,\mathcal{H},s,\xi),\gamma_{H})$, we write $$\label{eq:(H,gamma_H)->(gamma_0,kappa)}
((H,\mathcal{H},s,\xi),\gamma_{H}) \rightarrow (\gamma_0,\kappa)$$ if $\gamma_{H}$ transfers to an element $\gamma_0$ of $G({\mathbb Q})$ and there exists $z\in Z(\hat{G})$ such that $sz\in \bigcap_v Z(\hat{I}_0)^{\Gamma_v}Z(\hat{G})$ (via $Z(\hat{H})\hookrightarrow Z(\hat{I}_H){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}Z(\hat{I}_0)$) and $\kappa$ is its image in $\mathfrak{K}(I_0/{\mathbb Q})=\left(\bigcap_v Z(\hat{I}_0)^{\Gamma_v}Z(\hat{G})\right)/Z(\hat{G})$: recall that $\gamma_0$ is determined up to stable conjugacy (cf. [@Kottwitz86 6.8]).
Following Labesse (cf. [@Labesse04 $\S$IV.3]), we call two pairs $(\gamma_0,\kappa)\in E_{\mathrm{st}}(G)\times \mathfrak{K}(I_0/{\mathbb Q})$ and $(\gamma_0',\kappa')\in E_{\mathrm{st}}(G)\times \mathfrak{K}(I_0'/{\mathbb Q})$ *equivalent* (or *isomorphic*) if there exists $g\in G({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ such that (a) $g\gamma_0g^{-1}=\gamma_0'$ and $g^{-1}\cdot{}^{\tau}g\in I_0$ for all $\tau\in\Gamma$, and that (b) $\kappa$, $\kappa'$ correspond under the isomorphism $\Int(g)^D:\mathfrak{K}(I_0'/{\mathbb Q}) {\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}\mathfrak{K}(I_0/{\mathbb Q})$ (under the condition (a), $\Int(g)$ induces a quasi-isomorphism $I_{0{\mathbf{ab}}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}I_{0{\mathbf{ab}}}'$ of complexes of ${\mathbb Q}$-groups and we have $\mathfrak{K}(I_0/{\mathbb Q})=H^0({\mathbb A}/{\mathbb Q},I_{0{\mathbf{ab}}}\rightarrow G_{{\mathbf{ab}}})^D$, cf. Remark \[eq:K\_Labesse\_Kottwitz\]). In this case, for any maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-tori $T\subset I_0$, $T'\subset I_0'$, one can even find $g\in G({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ such that $$\label{eq:stable_conj_g}
\Int(g)(T)=T',\quad \Int(g)(\gamma_0)=\gamma_0',\quad \text{and}\quad g^{-1}\cdot{}^{\tau}g\in I_0\text{ for all }\ \tau\in\Gamma$$ (The triples $(T,\gamma_0,\kappa)$, $(T',\gamma_0',\kappa')$ are *admissible triples* which are *equivalent*, in the sense of [@Labesse04 p.519].) Indeed, choose $g_1\in G({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ such that $\Int(g_1)(\gamma_0)=\gamma_0'$, $g_1^{-1}\cdot{}^{\tau}g_1\in I_0$ for all $\tau\in\Gamma$. Then, as $T$ and $\Int(g_1^{-1})(T')$ are maximal tori of $I_0$, there exists $g_0\in I_0({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ with $\Int(g_0)(T)=\Int(g_1^{-1})(T')$; then, $g:=g_1g_0\in G({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ fulfills the conditions. Also, note that if $G_{\gamma_0}=I_0$, $(\gamma_0,\kappa)$ can be equivalent to $(\gamma_0,\kappa')$ only if $\kappa=\kappa'$, because such automorphism $\Int(g)^D$ of $\mathfrak{K}(I_0/{\mathbb Q})$ then must be the identity (thus, one has no use for this notion when $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\mathrm{der}}}$). We also define two pairs $(\underline{H},\gamma_H) \in \mathscr{E}_{\mathrm{ell}}(G)\times H({\mathbb Q})$, $(\underline{H}',\gamma_{H'})\in \mathscr{E}_{\mathrm{ell}}(G)\times H'({\mathbb Q})$ to be *equivalent* (or *isomorphic*) if there exists an isomorphism $\underline{H}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}\underline{H}'$ matching the stable conjugacy classes of $\gamma_{H}$ and $\gamma_{H'}$. The association (\[eq:(H,gamma\_H)->(gamma\_0,kappa)\]) preserves the equivalence relations on both sides.
For $\underline{H}=(H,\mathcal{H},s,\xi)\in \mathscr{E}_{\mathrm{ell}}(G)$ and a semisimple $\gamma_H\in H({\mathbb Q})$, let $\mathrm{Aut}(\underline{H},\gamma_H)$ and $\mathrm{Out}(\underline{H},\gamma_H)$ denote respectively the subgroup of $\mathrm{Aut}(\underline{H})$ of elements sending $\gamma_H$ into a stable conjugate of itself and the quotient of $\mathrm{Aut}(\underline{H},\gamma_H)$ by the subgroup of inner automorphisms. Then, we have an equality: $$\label{eq:Out(H)&Out(H,gamma_H)}
|\mathrm{Out}(\underline{H})| =m(\underline{H},\gamma_H) |\mathrm{Out}(\underline{H},\gamma_H)|,$$ where $m(\underline{H},\gamma_H)$ is the number of the stable conjugacy classes in $H({\mathbb Q})$ in the orbit of $\gamma_H$ under $\mathrm{Aut}(\underline{H})$.
The following lemma is proved in [@Labesse04 $\S$IV.3] in the greater generality of *twisted* endoscopy and also generalizes Lemma 9.7 of [@Kottwitz86] which assumes that $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$. We present Labesse’s proof in our simple setting of standard endoscopy which then benefits from economy of notation and preparatory discussion.
\[lem:Labesse04,IV.3\] (1) For every $(\gamma_0,\kappa)\in E_{\mathrm{st}}(G)\times \mathfrak{K}(I_0/{\mathbb Q})$, there exists a pair $(\underline{H}=(H,\mathcal{H},s,\xi),\gamma_H)$ of an elliptic endoscopic datum and a $(G,H)$-regular, semisimple element such that $(\underline{H},\gamma_{H})\rightarrow (\gamma_0,\kappa)$.
\(2) Suppose that $(\underline{H},\gamma_{H})\rightarrow (\gamma_0,\kappa)$ and $(\underline{H}',\gamma_{H'})\rightarrow (\gamma_0',\kappa')$. If $(\gamma_0,\kappa)$ and $(\gamma_0',\kappa')$ are equivalent, so are $(\underline{H},\gamma_{H})$ and $(\underline{H}',\gamma_{H'})$.
\(3) If $n(\gamma_0,\kappa)$ denotes the number of elements $\kappa'\in\mathfrak{K}(I_0/{\mathbb Q})$ such that $(\gamma_0,\kappa')$ is equivalent to $(\gamma_0,\kappa)$, we have equalities $$\begin{aligned}
|\pi_0(G_{\gamma_0})({\mathbb Q})| &=n(\gamma_0,\kappa) \cdot |\mathrm{Out}(\underline{H},\gamma_H)|\cdot |\pi_0(H_{\gamma_H})({\mathbb Q})| \\
&=n(\gamma_0,\kappa)\cdot |\mathrm{Out}(\underline{H})|\cdot m(\underline{H},\gamma_H)^{-1}\cdot |\pi_0(H_{\gamma_H})({\mathbb Q})|.
\end{aligned}$$
\(1) This is [@Kottwitz86 Lemma 9.7], where $G$ is assumed to be quasi-split, but recall that every maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-torus of $G$ transfers to its quasi-split inner form.
\(2) This is [@Labesse04 Prop. IV.3.4]. This is also proved in [@Kottwitz86 Lemma 9.7] under the assumption $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$, but the same proof can be adapted for the general case in the following way. By definition, there exist an admissible embedding $j:T_H{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}T\subset G$ (of maximal tori) sending $\gamma_H\in T_H({\mathbb Q})$ to $\gamma_0\in T({\mathbb Q})$ and a similar one $j':T_{H'}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}T'\subset G$. Choose $g\in G({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ satisfying the conditions (\[eq:stable\_conj\_g\]). Then, one can show (as in the proof of [@Kottwitz86 Lemma 9.7]) that there exists a ${\overline{\mathbb Q}}$-isomorphism $\alpha_0:H\rightarrow H'$ extending $j'^{-1}\circ\Int(g)\circ j:T_H{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}T_{H'}$ and there exists $h\in H'({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ such that $\alpha:=\Int(h)\circ\alpha_0$ is a ${\mathbb Q}$-isomorphism. Now, if we identify $T$ and $T'$ with $T_H$ and $T_{H'}$ via $j$ and $j'$ respectively, since the composite $\Int(h)\circ \Int(g):T_H{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}T_{H'} {\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}\alpha(T_{H})$ is ${\mathbb Q}$-rational, it follows that $g^{-1}(h^{-1}\cdot {}^{\tau}h){}^{\tau}g\in T_H({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ for every $\tau\in\Gamma$, which implies that $h^{-1}\cdot{}^{\tau}h\in I_{H'}({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ for all $\tau\in\Gamma$: more precisely, $j$ and $j'$ can be extended to ${\overline{\mathbb Q}}$-isomorphisms $J:I_H:=(H_{\gamma_H})^{\mathrm{o}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}I_0$, $J':I_{H'}:=(H'_{\gamma_{H'}})^{\mathrm{o}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}I_0'$ (which are inner twists), and $\alpha_0$ can be constructed extending $J'^{-1}\circ \Int(g)\circ J : I_H{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}I_0{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}I_0'{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}I_{H'}$, cf. [@Kottwitz86 $\S$3.1]. Then, $``g^{-1}(h^{-1}\cdot {}^{\tau}h){}^{\tau}g"=\alpha_0^{-1}(h^{-1}\cdot {}^{\tau}h)\cdot J^{-1}(g^{-1}\cdot {}^{\tau}g)$. Therefore, $\alpha(\gamma_H)=\Int(h)(\gamma_{H'})$ and $\gamma_{H'}$ are stably conjugate.
\(3) This is [@Labesse04 Prop. IV.3.5]. If $\mathrm{Norm}_{G_{\gamma_0}}(T)$ and $\mathrm{Norm}_{H_{\gamma_H}}(T_H)$ denote the normalizer ${\mathbb Q}$-group schemes, it is known [@Brion15 Lemma2.4] that $T=\mathrm{Cent}_{G_{\gamma_0}^{\mathrm{o}}}(T)= (\mathrm{Norm}_{G_{\gamma_0}}(T))^{\mathrm{o}}$ and there exists an exact sequence of ${\mathbb Q}$-group schemes $$1\rightarrow \Omega(T,I_0) \rightarrow \Omega(T,G_{\gamma_0})\rightarrow \pi_0(G_{\gamma_0}) \rightarrow 1,$$ where $\Omega(T,I_0):=\mathrm{Norm}_{I_0}(T)/T$ and $\Omega(T,G_{\gamma_0}):=\mathrm{Norm}_{G_{\gamma_0}}(T)/T$ are the quotient (Weyl) group schemes. Let us identify the Weyl group scheme $\Omega(T_H,H)$ with a subgroup scheme of $\Omega(T,G)$ via $j$. Then, (via the same identification) $\Omega(T_H,I_H)=\Omega(T,I_0)$ as ${\mathbb Q}$-schemes. Indeed, they are isomorphic over ${\overline{\mathbb Q}}$, and in fact there exists an inner twist $J:I_H{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}I_0$ which extends the ${\mathbb Q}$-isomorphism $j:T_H{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}T$. Hence, we may find a cochain in $C^1({\mathbb Q},T_H)$ whose image in $Z^1({\mathbb Q},T_H/Z(I_H))$ gives such inner twist, and it follows that the induced map $\alpha:\Omega(T_H,I_H){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}\Omega(T,I)$ is ${\mathbb Q}$-rational.
Now, the group $\pi_0(G_{\gamma_0})({\mathbb Q})$ acts on $\mathfrak{K}(I_0/{\mathbb Q})$ in a natural manner: if we fix a maximal ${\mathbb Q}$-torus $T\subset G$ containing $\gamma_0$, we have seen above that any $\omega\in \Omega(T,G_{\gamma_0})({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ whose image $\bar{\omega}\in \pi_0(G_{\gamma_0})({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ lies in $\pi_0(G_{\gamma_0})({\mathbb Q})$ acts on $\mathfrak{K}(I_0/{\mathbb Q})$. As $\Omega(T,I_0)({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ acts trivially, this induces an action of $\pi_0(G_{\gamma_0})({\mathbb Q})$ on $\mathfrak{K}(I_0/{\mathbb Q})$. So, we obtain the equality $$\label{eq:pi_0_acts_on_K(I_0)}
|\pi_0(G_{\gamma_0})({\mathbb Q})|=n(\gamma_0,\kappa)\cdot |\pi_0(G_{\gamma_0})({\mathbb Q})_{\kappa}|,$$ where $\pi_0(G_{\gamma_0})({\mathbb Q})_{\kappa}$ is the stabilizer subgroup of $\kappa$.
Next, we construct a group homomorphism $$\mathrm{Aut}(\underline{H},\gamma_H) \rightarrow \pi_0(G_{\gamma_0})({\mathbb Q}),$$ whose kernel and image are $\Omega(T_H,I_H)=\Omega(T,I_0)$ and $\pi_0(G_{\gamma_0})({\mathbb Q})_{\kappa}$, respectively. For any $\alpha\in \mathrm{Aut}(\underline{H},\gamma_H)$, by the same construction of $g$ in (\[eq:stable\_conj\_g\]), we can find $h\in H({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ such that $\alpha_0:=\Int(h)\circ\alpha$ satisfies that $\alpha_0(T_H)=T_H$, $\alpha_0(\gamma_H)=\gamma_H$, and that $a_{\tau}:=h\cdot{}^{\tau}h^{-1}\in I_H=(H_{\gamma_H})^{\mathrm{o}}$ for all $\tau\in\Gamma$; thus $a_{\tau}\in \mathrm{Norm}_{I_H}(T_H)({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$. Then, the restriction of $\alpha_0$ to $T_H$ is given by an element of $\Omega(T,G)({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$, hence determines an element $\omega_{\alpha}\in \Omega(T,G_{\gamma_0})({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$. We claim that the image $\bar{\omega}_{\alpha}$ of $\omega_{\alpha}$ in $\pi_0(G_{\gamma_0})({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ lies in the subgroup $\pi_0(G_{\gamma_0})({\mathbb Q})$. Indeed, let $n\in \mathrm{Norm}_{G_{\gamma_0}}(T)({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ be a representative of $\omega_{\alpha}$. So, $\Int(n)|_{T}\circ j=j\circ (\Int(h)\circ\alpha)|_{T_H}$ which implies that for any $\tau\in\Gamma$, $\Int(b_{\tau} {}^{\tau}n)|_T=\Int(n)|_T$, where $b_{\tau}=J(a_{\tau})\in \mathrm{Nom}_{I_0}(T)({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$, and thus $n^{-1}b_{\tau} {}^{\tau}n\in T$, i.e. $ {}^{\tau}n\equiv n\mod \mathrm{Nom}_{I_0}(T)({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$, proving the claim. One easily verifies that the map $\mathrm{Aut}(\underline{H},\gamma_H) \rightarrow \pi_0(G_{\gamma_0})({\mathbb Q})$ sending $\alpha$ to $\bar{\omega}_{\alpha}$ is a homomorphism having the described kernel and image. Then, since the inner automorphisms in $\mathrm{Aut}(\underline{H},\gamma_H)$ are induced by $w\in \Omega(T_H,H_{\gamma_H})$ (whose image in $\pi_0(H_{\gamma_H})({\overline{\mathbb Q}})$ lies in $\pi_0(H_{\gamma_H})({\mathbb Q})$), we have the relation $$\label{eq:Out(H,gamma_H)&pi_0}
|\pi_0(G_{\gamma_0})({\mathbb Q})_{\kappa}|= |\mathrm{Out}(\underline{H},\gamma_H)|\cdot |\pi_0(H_{\gamma_H})({\mathbb Q})|.$$ The two equations (\[eq:pi\_0\_acts\_on\_K(I\_0)\]), (\[eq:Out(H,gamma\_H)&pi\_0\]) combined give the first equality of (2). The second equality follows from it and (\[eq:Out(H)&Out(H,gamma\_H)\]).
Let $f^{H_1,p}\in C^{\infty}_{c,\lambda_{H_1}}(H_1({\mathbb A}_f^p))$ and $f^{H_1}_p\in C^{\infty}_{c,\lambda_{H_1}}(H_1({{\mathbb Q}_p}))$ be respectively the transfers of our functions $f^p\in C^{\infty}_c(G({\mathbb A}_f^p))$ and $\phi_p\in C^{\infty}_c(G({{\mathbb Q}_p}))$ given by Thm. \[thm:untwisted\_endoscopy\_transfer\] (for all $v\neq p,\infty$) and Thm. \[thm:twisted\_endoscopy\_transfer\], and let $f^{H_1}_{\infty}$ be the function as in Thm. \[thm:pseudo-coeff\]. Put $f^{H_1}:=f^{H_1,p}f^{H_1}_pf^{H_1}_{\infty}\in C^{\infty}_{c,\lambda_{H_1}}(H_1({\mathbb A}))$. Then, we have that
- The global transfer factor $\Delta=\prod \Delta_v$ can be normalized such that $\Delta(\gamma_{H_1},\gamma_0)$ is zero unless $\gamma_{H_1}$ transfers to $\gamma_0$, in which case $\Delta(\gamma_{H_1},\gamma_0)=1$: this is the global hypothesis for transfer factors which is verified in [@LS87 $\S$6.4].
- $\mathrm{SO}_{\gamma_{H_1}}(f^{H_1})=0$ unless $\gamma_{H_1}$ is elliptic in $H_1({\mathbb R})$ and transfers to $G({{\mathbb Q}_v})$ for every place $v$ of ${\mathbb Q}$ (This is due to Thm. \[thm:untwisted\_endoscopy\_transfer\], Thm. \[thm:twisted\_endoscopy\_transfer\], and Thm. \[thm:pseudo-coeff\] and since we assume that an (elliptic) maximal torus of $H_{{\mathbb R}}$ transfers to an elliptic maximal torus of $G_{{\mathbb R}}$). If such two conditions hold, $\gamma_{H_1}$ transfers to $G({\mathbb Q})$ ([@Kottwitz90], second paragraph on p.188).
It follows that for any pair $(\gamma_0,\kappa)\in E_{\mathrm{st}}(G)\times \mathfrak{K}(I_0/{\mathbb Q})$, if $(H_1,\gamma_{H_1})\rightarrow (\gamma_0,\kappa)$, by (i) (i.e. $\Delta(\gamma_{H_1},\gamma_0)=1$), we have $$O^{\kappa}_{\gamma_0}(f)=\mathrm{SO}^{H_1}_{\gamma_{H_1}}(f^{H_1}),$$ and since $O^{\kappa}_{\gamma_0}(f)$ depends only on the equivalence class of the pair $(\gamma_0,\kappa)$), the last expression of (\[eq:stablization\_step2\]) is equal to $$\begin{aligned}
& \sum_{(\gamma_0,\kappa)/\sim} \tau(G) n(\gamma_0,\kappa) |\pi_0(G_{\gamma_0})({\mathbb Q})|^{-1} O^{\kappa}_{\gamma_0}(f) \\
\stackrel{(c)}{=}& \sum_{(\underline{H},\gamma_H)/\sim} \tau(G) |\mathrm{Out}(\underline{H})|^{-1} m(\underline{H},\gamma_H) |\pi_0(H_{\gamma_H})({\mathbb Q})|^{-1} \mathrm{SO}^{H_1}_{\gamma_{H_1}}(f) \\
=& \sum_{\underline{H}\in\mathscr{E}_{\mathrm{ell}}(G)} \iota(G,\underline{H})\tau(H) \sum_{\gamma_{H}\in E_{\mathrm{st}}(H)} |\pi_0(H_{\gamma_H})({\mathbb Q})|^{-1} \mathrm{SO}^{H_1}_{\gamma_{H_1}}(f^{H_1}) =\sum_{\underline{H}\in\mathscr{E}_{\mathrm{ell}}(G)} \iota(G,\underline{H}) {\mathrm{ST}}_{{\mathrm{ell}}}^{H_1}(f^{H_1}).\end{aligned}$$ Here, in the first line, the summation index runs through a set of representatives of the *equivalence classes* of pairs $(\gamma_0,\kappa)$ of an ${\mathbb R}$-elliptic element in $E_{\mathrm{st}}(G)$ and an element of the associated group $\mathfrak{K}(-/{\mathbb Q})$. In the second line, the summation index runs through a set of representatives of the *equivalence classes* of pairs $(\underline{H}=(H,\mathcal{H},s,\xi),\gamma_H)\in\mathscr{E}_{\mathrm{ell}}(G)\times E_{\mathrm{st}}(H)$ and for each $\gamma_{H}\in E_{\mathrm{st}}(H)$ we choose an (elliptic) element $\gamma_{H_1}\in H_1({\mathbb Q})$ mapping to $\gamma_H$. The equality (c) follows from (ii) and Lemma \[lem:Labesse04,IV.3\], together with the facts that for any $\alpha\in \mathrm{{\mathrm{Aut}}}(\underline{H})$ and $\gamma_H':=\alpha(\gamma_H)$, one has $|\pi_0(H_{\gamma_H'})({\mathbb Q})|=|\pi_0(H_{\gamma_H})({\mathbb Q})|$ and that $\gamma_0$ is elliptic in $G({\mathbb R})$ if and only if $\gamma_H$ is elliptic in $H({\mathbb R})$ and some (elliptic) maximal torus of $H_{{\mathbb R}}$ transfers to an elliptic maximal torus of $G_{{\mathbb R}}$.
This completes the proof.
Existence of elliptic tori inside special maximal parahoric group schemes {#sec:elliptic_tori_in_special_parahorics}
=========================================================================
\[prop:existence\_of\_elliptic\_tori\_in\_special\_parahorics\] Let $k$ be a local field with residue characteristic not equal to $2$ and ${\mathfrak{k}}$ the completion of the maximal unramified extension $k^{{\mathrm{ur}}}$ in an algebraic closure $\overline{k}$ of $k$ with respective rings of integers ${\mathcal{O}}_k$ and ${\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathfrak{k}}}$. Let $G$ be a connected reductive group over $k$ of classical Lie type. Assume that $G$ is quasi-split and that $G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$ is a product $\prod_i {\mathrm{Res}}_{F_i/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}G_i$ of simple groups each of which is the restriction of scalars ${\mathrm{Res}}_{F_i/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}G_i$ of an absolutely simple group $G_i$ over a finite extension $F_i$ of $k$ such that $G_i$ splits over a tamely ramified extension of $F_i$.
Then, for any special parahoric subgroup $K$ of $G(k)$, there exists a maximal elliptic $k$-torus $T$ of $G$ such that $T_{k^{{\mathrm{ur}}}}$ contains (equiv. is the centralizer of) a maximal ($k^{{\mathrm{ur}}}$-)split $k^{{\mathrm{ur}}}$-torus $S_1$ of $G_{k^{{\mathrm{ur}}}}$ and that the unique parahoric subgroup of $T({\mathfrak{k}})$ is contained in $\tilde{K}$, the parahoric subgroup of $G({\mathfrak{k}})$ corresponding to $K$.
\[rem:properties\_of\_certain\_elliptic\_tori\_in\_special\_parahorics\] (1) The unique parahoric subgroup of $T({\mathfrak{k}})$ (resp. of $T(k)$) is $T({\mathfrak{k}})_1:=\ker(w_{T_L})$ (resp. $T(k)_1:=\ker(w_{T_L})\cap T(k)$).
\(2) With $S_1$ and $T$ as in the statement, the second property of $T$ can be translated into a statement about the Bruhat-Tits building: any special point ${\mathbf{v}}\in {\mathcal{B}}(G,k)$ giving $K$ (i.e. $K=\mathrm{Stab}_{G(k)}({\mathbf{v}})\cap\ker(w_{G_{{\mathfrak{k}}}})$) lies in the apartment ${\mathcal{A}}(S_1,{\mathfrak{k}})$ attached to $S_1$. Indeed, $S_1({\mathfrak{k}})_1\subset \tilde{K}$ if and only if ${\mathbf{v}}\in{\mathcal{A}}(S_1,{\mathfrak{k}})$. This is because ${\mathcal{A}}(S_1,{\mathfrak{k}})$ is the full fixed point set of the pararhoric subgroup $S_1({\mathfrak{k}})_1$, which in turn is due to [@Tits79 3.6.1] since every relative root $a$ of the root datum $(G_{{\mathfrak{k}}},(S_1)_{{\mathfrak{k}}})$, being a non-trivial character (of a split torus), satisfies that $a(S_1({\mathfrak{k}})_1)\nsubseteq 1+\pi_F$ (i.e. $\bar{a}(\overline{S_1({\mathfrak{k}})_1})\neq 1$), as the residue field of ${\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathfrak{k}}}$ is infinite. But, $S_1({\mathfrak{k}})_1\subset\tilde{K}$ if and only if $T({\mathfrak{k}})_1\subset\tilde{K}$, since $T({\mathfrak{k}})=Z_{G_{{\mathfrak{k}}}}(S_1)({\mathfrak{k}})$ acts on ${\mathcal{A}}(S_1,{\mathfrak{k}})$ via $w_{T_{{\mathfrak{k}}}}\otimes{\mathbb R}:T({\mathfrak{k}})\rightarrow X_{\ast}(T)_{{\mathrm{Gal}}(\overline{{\mathfrak{k}}}/{\mathfrak{k}})}\otimes{\mathbb R}=X_{\ast}(S_1)_{{\mathbb R}}$ [@Tits79 1.2.(1)], so if $S_1({\mathfrak{k}})_1\subset\tilde{K}$, $T({\mathfrak{k}})_1$ fixes ${\mathbf{v}}(\in {\mathcal{A}}(S_1,{\mathfrak{k}}))$.
We reduce a general case to the case of absolutely almost-simple groups. First, under the isomorphism $${\mathcal{B}}(G,k)\simeq {\mathcal{B}}(G^{{\mathrm{der}}},k)\times X_{\ast}(A(G))_{{\mathbb R}},$$ where $A(G)$ is the maximal split $F$-torus in the center $Z(G)$, a special point in ${\mathcal{A}}(G,k)$ corresponds to $(v,x)$ for a special vertex $v$ in ${\mathcal{B}}(G^{{\mathrm{der}}})$ and a point $x\in X_{\ast}(A(G))_{{\mathbb R}}$. This implies that we may assume that $G$ is semisimple, and by the same reasoning further that $G$ is simply-connected. Then as $G(=G^{{\mathrm{der}}})$ is a product of almost-simple groups of the same kind (by which we mean quasi-split, tamely ramified, classical groups), we may also assume that $G$ is almost-simple. Hence, $G={\mathrm{Res}}_{F/k}(H)$ for an absolutely-(almost)simple, quasi-split, classical, tamely ramified, semi-simple group $H$ over a finite extension $F$ of $k$. The building ${\mathcal{B}}(G,k)$ (resp. ${\mathcal{B}}(G,{\mathfrak{k}})$) is canonically isomorphic to ${\mathcal{B}}(H,F)$ (resp. $\prod_{\sigma\in{\mathrm{Hom}}_k(F_0,{\mathfrak{k}})}{\mathcal{B}}(H,F\otimes_{F_0,\sigma}{\mathfrak{k}}))$, where $F_0$ is the maximal absolutely unramified subextension of $F$); this is true for any finite separable extension $F$ of $k$ [@Tits79 2.1]. This shows that the claim for $G$ follows from the claim for $H$. Let $L$ and ${\mathcal{O}}_L$ be the completion of the maximal unramified extension $F^{{\mathrm{ur}}}$ in an algebraic closure $\overline{F}$ of $F$ and its ring of integers.
From this point, we prove the proposition case by case. We use the complete list of isomorphism classes of quasi-split, tamely ramified, classical groups over local fields as provided in [@Gross12], where Gross gives a complete list of isomorphism classes of (not necessarily quasi-split or classical) tamely ramified groups over local fields and it is fairly easy to determine the quasi-split, classical ones from that list. There are totally ten such isomorphism classes, among which the first seven are unramified ones (including four split ones).
- $(m\geq1)$: $H=\mathrm{SL}_m$ (split group).
- $(m\geq2)$: Let $E$ be the unramified quadratic extension of $F$ and let $W$ be a non-degenerate Hermitian space of odd rank $n=2m+1$ over $E$ (its Witt-index must be $m$). Then $H={\mathrm{SU}}(W)$ (non-split unramified group).
- $(m\geq2)$: Let $E$ be the unramified quadratic extension of $F$ and let $W$ be a non-degenerate Hermitian space of even rank $n=2m$ over $E$ which contains an isotropic subspace of dimension $m$. Then $H={\mathrm{SU}}(W)$ (non-split unramified group).
- $(m\geq3)$: Let $W$ be a non-degenerate orthogonal space of odd dimension $2m+1$ over $F$ which contains an isotropic subspace of dimension $n$. Then $H={\mathrm{Spin}}(W)$ (split group).
- $(m\geq2)$: Let $W$ be a non-degenerate symplectic space of dimension $2m$ over $F$. Then $H={\mathrm{Sp}}(W)$ (split group).
- $(m\geq4)$: Let $W$ be a non-degenerate orthogonal space of dimension $2m$ over $F$ which contains a (maximal) isotropic subspace of dimension $m$. Then, the center of the Clifford algebra is the split étale quadratic extension $E=F\oplus F$ of $F$, and $H={\mathrm{Spin}}(W)$ is a split group.
- $(m\geq4)$: Let $W$ be a non-degenerate orthogonal space of even dimension $2m$ over $F$ where the center of the Clifford algebra is the unramified quadratic extension $E$ of $F$. Then $H={\mathrm{Spin}}(W)$ (non-split unramified group).
- $(m\geq3)$: Let $E$ be a tamely ramified quadratic extension of $F$ and let $W$ be a non-degenerate Hermitian space of even rank $n=2m$ over $E$ which contains an isotropic subspace of dimension $m$. Then $H = SU(W)$ (ramified group)
- $(m\geq2)$: Let $E$ be a tamely ramified quadratic extension of $F$ and let $W$ be a non-degenerate Hermitian space of odd rank $n=2m+1$ over $E$. Then $H = SU(W)$ (ramified group).
- $(m\geq2)$: Let $W$ be a non-degenerate orthogonal space of even dimension $2m$ over $F$ where the center of the Clifford algebra is a tamely ramified quadratic extension $E$ of $F$. Then $H={\mathrm{Spin}}(W)$ (ramified group).
Here, each heading is the name for the corresponding isomorphism class that is used in [@Tits79], tables 4.2 and 4.3.
Now, when the group is unramified and given special vertex is hyperspecial, the claim is known [@Lee16], Appendix 1.0.4). For convenience, we split these cases into three kinds. The first kind consists of the split groups, thus, all special vertices are automatically hyperspecial: these are $A_m$, $B_m$, $C_m$, $D_m$. The second case is when there are two special vertices and both of them are hyperspecial: they consist of ${}^2A'_{2m-1}$, ${}^2D_m$. The remaining ones constitute the last case, i.e. there is some non-hyperspecial, special vertex. So, we only need to take care of the last case: $${}^2A'_{2m},\quad B\operatorname{-}C_m,\quad C\operatorname{-}BC_m,\ \text{ and }\ C\operatorname{-}B_m.$$ Note that except for the last one, all these are (special) unitary groups.
\(1) First, we treat the special unitary groups of *even* absolute rank (i.e. $H_{\overline{F}}\simeq {\mathrm{SU}}(2m+1)$ for an algebraic closure $\overline{F}$ of $F$). We will reduce the proof in this case to the special unitary groups of *odd* absolute rank. For a moment, we let $E$ be an arbitrary quadratic extension of $F$ with respective rings of integers ${\mathcal{O}}_E$, ${\mathcal{O}}_F$ (we assume that the residue characteristic of ${\mathcal{O}}_F$ is not $2$). We choose a uniformizer $\pi$ of ${\mathcal{O}}_E$ such that $\pi+\overline{\pi}=0$ for the non-trivial automorphism $\overline{\cdot}$ of $E/F$. Let $(W,\phi:W\times W\rightarrow E)$ be a non-degenerate Hermitian space of dimension $n=2m+1\ (m\geq1)$. As is well-known, $\psi$ has maximal Witt-index $m$, so there exists a Witt basis $\{e_{-m},\cdots,e_{m}\}$, i.e. such that $$\phi(e_i,e_j)=\delta_{i,-j},\quad\text{for }-m\leq i,j\leq m.$$ For $i=0,\cdots,m$, we define an ${\mathcal{O}}_E$-lattice in $W$: $$\Lambda_i:=\mathrm{span}_{{\mathcal{O}}_E}\{\pi^{-1}e_{-m},\cdots,\pi^{-1}e_{-i-1},e_{-i},\cdots,e_m\}.$$ (here, $\Lambda_{m}=\mathrm{span}_{{\mathcal{O}}_E}\{e_{-m},\cdots,\cdots,e_m\}$.)
Set $H={\mathrm{SU}}(W,\phi)$ (algebraic group over $F$). Its (minimal) splitting field is $E$. For a non-empty subset $I$ of $\{0,\cdots,m\}$, we consider the subgroup of $H(F)$ $$P_I:=\{g\in{\mathrm{SU}}(W,\phi)\ |\ g\Lambda_i\subset\Lambda_i,\ \forall i\in I\}.$$ For each $i=0,\cdots,m$, $P_{\{ i\}}$ (stabilizer of a single lattice $\Lambda_i$) is also the stabilizer of a point $v_i$ of the apartment ${\mathcal{A}}$ of a maximal $F$-split torus $S$ of $H$, which in turn can be matched with the $(i+1)$-th vertex of the local Dynkin diagram [@Tits79 1.15, 3.11].
From this correspondence and the information found in *loc. cit.* (1.15 (9), 4.3 in the unramified case, and 1.15 (10), 4.2 in the ramified case), we deduce the following facts.
*Every $P_I$ is a parahoric subgroup of ${\mathrm{SU}}(W,\phi)$ and any parahoric subgroup of ${\mathrm{SU}}(W,\phi)$ is conjugate to $P_I$ for a unique subset $I$. If $E$ is unramified (i.e. of type ${}^2A'_{2m}$), there are two special vertices, one hyperspecial and one non-hyperspecial. The group $P_{\{0\}}$ (resp. $P_{\{m\}}$) is the non-hyperspecial, special (resp. the hyperspecial) parahoric subgroup. If $E$ is ramified (i.e. of type $C\operatorname{-}BC_m$), there are two special vertices, both non-hyperspecial, which correspond to $I=\{0\}$ and $I=\{m\}$. The corresponding parahoric subgroup $\tilde{P}_{\{i\}}$ of $H(L)$ is $$\tilde{P}_{\{i\}}=\{g\in{\mathrm{SU}}(W,\phi)(L)\ |\ g\Lambda_i\otimes_{{\mathcal{O}}_F}{\mathcal{O}}_L\subset\Lambda_i\otimes_{{\mathcal{O}}_F}{\mathcal{O}}_L\}.$$* The statement on $\tilde{P}_{\{i\}}$ follows from the fact that the stabilizer ${\mathcal{O}}_L$-group scheme ${\mathcal{G}}_i$ of the vertex $v_i$ (defined by Bruhat-Tits [@Tits79 3.4.1]) equals the ${\mathcal{O}}_L$-structure on $H_L$ induced by the lattice [@Tits79 3.11], and the characterization of parahoric groups given by Haines-Rapoport [@PappasRapoport08] (${\mathrm{SU}}(W,\phi)$ being a simply-connnected semi-simple group, the Kottwitz homomorphism $w_{{\mathrm{SU}}(W,\phi)_L}$ is trivial).
\(a) The case $\mathbf{{}^2A'_{2m}}$: Suppose that $E$ is unramified. Then, we only need to consider the non-hyperspecial, special parahoric subgroup $P_{\{0\}}$. The Hermitian space $(W,\phi)$ splits as the direct sum of two Hermitian subspaces, that is, totally isotropic subspace and anisotriopic subspace: $$(W,\psi)=(W_{\mathbf{iso}},\phi_{\mathbf{iso}})\oplus (W_{\mathbf{an}},\phi_{\mathbf{an}}),$$ where $$W_{\mathbf{iso}}:=\langle e_l\ |\ l\neq 0\rangle,\quad W_{\mathbf{an}}:=E\cdot e_{0},$$ and $\phi_{\mathbf{iso}}=\phi|_{W_{\mathbf{iso}}}$ and $\phi_{\mathbf{an}}=\phi|_{W_{\mathbf{an}}}$. There is the corresponding lattice decomposition $$\Lambda_{\{0\}}=\Lambda_{\{0\}}'\oplus \Lambda_{\{0\}}'',$$ where $\Lambda_{\{0\}}':=\mathrm{span}_{{\mathcal{O}}_E}\{\pi^{-1}e_{-m},\cdots,\pi^{-1}e_{-1},e_{1},\cdots,e_{m}\}$ and $\Lambda_{\{0\}}'':={\mathcal{O}}_E\cdot e_{0}$. Using this decomposition, we reduce the construction of the torus looked for into construction of similar tori for the groups ${\mathrm{SU}}(W_{\bullet},\psi_{\bullet})$ ($\bullet=\mathbf{iso}$, $\mathbf{an}$). Let us write for short ${\mathrm{SU}}_{\bullet}$ and ${\mathrm{U}}_{\bullet}$ for ${\mathrm{SU}}(W_{\bullet},\psi_{\bullet})$ and ${\mathrm{U}}(W_{\bullet},\psi_{\bullet})$ respectively ($\bullet=\mathbf{iso}$, $\mathbf{an}$). Suppose that $T_{\mathbf{iso}}$ is an $F$-torus of ${\mathrm{SU}}_{\mathbf{iso}}$ with the property in question and let $Z_{\mathbf{iso}}$ be the (connected) center of ${\mathrm{U}}_{\mathbf{iso}}$ (so that the subgroup $T_{\mathbf{iso}}\cdot Z_{\mathbf{iso}}$ generated by the two groups is a maximal torus of $U_{\mathbf{iso}}$, among others). This center is isomorphic to the anisotpropic $F$-torus $\underline{E}^{\times}$, whose set of $R$-points, for an $F$-algebra $R$, is $$\underline{E}^{\times}_c(R):=\ker({\mathrm{N}}_{E/F}:(E\otimes R)^{\times}\rightarrow (F\otimes R)^{\times}).$$ This is also identified in a natural way with the group ${\mathrm{U}}_{\mathbf{an}}$. We claim that $$T:=S((T_{\mathbf{iso}} \cdot Z_{\mathbf{iso}}) \times {\mathrm{U}}_{\mathbf{an}})=(T_{\mathbf{iso}}\times\{1\})\cdot \underline{E}^{\times}_c,$$ where $S(-)$ means the intersection of the group inside the parenthesis (subgroup of ${\mathrm{U}}(W,\phi)$) with ${\mathrm{SU}}(W,\phi)$ and $\underline{E}^{\times}_c$ is identified with $S(Z_{\mathbf{iso}} \times {\mathrm{U}}_{\mathbf{an}})$ via $x\mapsto (x,x^{-2m})$, is a maximal torus of $H={\mathrm{SU}}(W,\psi)$ with the same required properties. First, clearly this is anisotropic, and $T_{E}$ is a split maximal torus of $H_E$. Next, we verify that $T(L)_1$ maps into the parahoric subgroup $\tilde{P}_{\{0\}}$ of $H(L)$. By the description of $\tilde{P}_{\{0\}}$ above, we have to show that $T(L)_1$ leaves stable $\Lambda_{\{0\}}\otimes_{{\mathcal{O}}_F}{\mathcal{O}}_L$. But, $T(L)_1=T_{\mathbf{iso}}(L)_1\cdot \underline{E}^{\times}_c(L)_1$, and $\underline{E}^{\times}_c(L)_1$ acts on $\Lambda_{\{0\}}'\otimes{\mathcal{O}}_L\oplus\Lambda_{\{0\}}''\otimes{\mathcal{O}}_L$ through the map $x\mapsto (x,x^{-2m})$ above. So, clearly it suffices to checks that $\underline{E}^{\times}_c(L)_1$ leaves stable each rank-$1$ lattice ${\mathcal{O}}_L\otimes_{{\mathcal{O}}_F}({\mathcal{O}}_E\cdot e_i)$. But in the case $E$ is unramified over $F$, we have the equality $\underline{E}^{\times}_c(L)_1=\{(x,x^{-1})\in {\mathcal{O}}_L^{\times}\times {\mathcal{O}}_L^{\times}\}$ under the isomorphism $(E\otimes L)^{\times}=L^{\times}\times L^{\times}$, thus leaves stable ${\mathcal{O}}_L\otimes_{{\mathcal{O}}_F}({\mathcal{O}}_E\cdot e_i)=({\mathcal{O}}_L\oplus {\mathcal{O}}_L)\cdot e_i$. Next, the fact that $T_{\mathbf{iso}}(L)_1$ leaves stable $\Lambda_{\{0\}}'\otimes{\mathcal{O}}_L$ will be one of the defining properties of the torus $T_{\mathbf{iso}}$. Indeed, ${\mathrm{SU}}(W_{\mathbf{iso}},\psi_{\mathbf{iso}})$ is a group of type ${}^2A_{2m-1}'$ in the above list, and the stabilizer $P_{\{0\}}'$ of the lattice $\Lambda_{\{0\}}'$ is a hyperspecial subgroup of ${\mathrm{SU}}(W_{\mathbf{iso}},\psi_{\mathbf{iso}})$ (cf. [@Tits79 4.3]). So, we already know that there exists an elliptic maximal $F$-torus $T_{\mathbf{iso}}$ of ${\mathrm{SU}}_{\mathbf{iso}}$ such that $T_{\mathbf{iso}}(L)_1$ is contained in the parahoric subgroup $\tilde{P}_{\{0\}}'$ of ${\mathrm{SU}}_{\mathbf{iso}}(L)$ corresponding to $P_{\{0\}}'$ which is the stabilizer in ${\mathrm{SU}}_{\mathbf{iso}}(L)$ of the lattice $\Lambda_{\{0\}}'\otimes{\mathcal{O}}_L$. This finishes the proof in the case $E$ is unramified over $F$.
\(b) The case $\mathbf{C\operatorname{-}BC_m}$: When $E$ is ramified, there are two cases: $I=\{0\}$ and $I=\{m\}$. Then, the same strategy just used (i.e. for unramified unitary groups of odd absolute rank) works again, reducing proof to the ramified unitary groups of odd absolute rank $2m-1$ (the type $\mathbf{B\operatorname{-}C_m}$), which will be discussed next. We just note that in this case with the same notations as above, the (minimal) splitting fields of $H$, ${\mathrm{SU}}_{\mathbf{iso}}$, $Z_{\mathbf{iso}}$, and ${\mathrm{U}}_{\mathbf{an}}$ are all $E$, and that $(\underline{E}^{\times}_c)_L$ is anisotropic, so $\underline{E}^{\times}_c(L)$ is its own parahoric subgroup and, being a subgroup of $({\mathcal{O}}_E\otimes_{{\mathcal{O}}_F}{\mathcal{O}}_L)^{\times}$, leaves stable ${\mathcal{O}}_L\otimes_{{\mathcal{O}}_F}({\mathcal{O}}_E\cdot e_i)$.
\(2) Let $E$, $W$, and $n$ be as in the previous description (1)-(b), except that the parity of $n$ is even (i fact, it can be arbitrary for a moment). Let ${\mathcal{O}}_E$ and ${\mathcal{O}}_F$ be the integer rings of $E$ and $F$, respectively. We fix uniformizers $\pi_F$, $\pi=\pi_E$ of ${\mathcal{O}}_F$ and ${\mathcal{O}}_E$ such that $\pi^2=\pi_F$ (so again $\pi+\overline{\pi}=0$). Let $\phi:W\times W\rightarrow E$ be a non-degenerate Hermitian form and put $H={\mathrm{SU}}(W,\phi)$. Again we assume (forced by the quasi-split condition, in the even dimensional case) that $\psi$ has maximal Witt-index, namely when one writes $n=2m$ (or $n=2m+1$), it is $m$. As $E$ is ramified over $F$, the rank of $H$ is the same as that of $H_L$.
Following [@PappasRapoport08], $\S$4, we use a different indexing in the coming discussion. Choose a Witt basis $\{e_{1},\cdots,e_{n}\}$ such that $\phi(e_i,e_j)=\delta_{i,n+1-j}$ for $1\leq i,j\leq n$.
Suppose that $n=2m$. For $i\in\{1,\cdots,m-2\}\cup\{m\}$, we define an ${\mathcal{O}}_E$-lattice $\Lambda_i$: $$\Lambda_i:=\mathrm{span}_{{\mathcal{O}}_E}\{\pi^{-1}e_{1},\cdots,\pi^{-1}e_{i},e_{i+1},\cdots,e_n\},$$ In the place of $i=m-1$, we introduce a new lattice $\Lambda_{m'}$ defined by: $$\Lambda_{m'}:=\mathrm{span}_{{\mathcal{O}}_E}\{\pi^{-1}e_{1},\cdots,\pi^{-1}e_{m-1},e_{m},\pi^{-1}e_{m+1},e_{m+2},\cdots,e_{n}\}.$$ Here, $m'$ is regarded as a symbol like other numbers.
Set $H:={\mathrm{SU}}(W,\phi)$. For a non-empty subset $I$ of $\{1,\cdots,m-2,m',m\}$, the associated stabilizer subgroup $P_I$ has the same definition as in the previous case.
When $n=2m$, the group ${\mathrm{SU}}(W,\phi)$ has the local Dynkin diagram $B\operatorname{-}C_m$ for $m\geq3$, and $C\operatorname{-}B_2$ for $m=2$ (for $m=1$, ${\mathrm{SU}}(W,\psi)\simeq\mathrm{SL}_2$). Then, we have a similar statement [@PappasRapoport08], $\S$4), namely that
*the subgroup $P_I$ is a parahoric subgroup of ${\mathrm{SU}}(W,\phi)$ and any parahoric subgroup of ${\mathrm{SU}}(W,\phi)$ is conjugate to $P_I$ for a unique subset $I$, and the special maximal parahoric subgroups are $P_{\{m\}}$, $P_{\{m'\}}$. The same description is true for the parahoric subgroup $\tilde{P}_I$ of ${\mathrm{SU}}(W,\phi)(L)$ associated with $P_I$.*
\(c) The case $\mathbf{B\operatorname{-}C_m}$: We have $n=2m$. First, let us consider the case $I=\{m\}$. The Hermitian space $W$ is the direct sum of $m$ hyperbolic subspaces $$\mathbb{H}_i:=E\langle e_i,e_{n+1-i}\rangle\subset W\ (i=1,\cdots,m).$$ Then, we claim that when we identify ${\mathrm{SU}}(\mathbb{H}_i)$ with ${\mathrm{SU}}(\mathbb{H}_i)\times\mathrm{1}_{\oplus_{j\neq i}\mathbb{H}_j}\subset{\mathrm{SU}}(W,\phi)$, $${\mathrm{SU}}(\mathbb{H}_i)(F)\cap P_{\{m\}}=\{g\in {\mathrm{SU}}(\mathbb{H}_i)(F)\ |\ g(\mathbb{H}_i\cap \Lambda_{\{m\}})=\mathbb{H}_i\cap \Lambda_{\{m\}}\}$$ is a special maximal parahoric subgroup of ${\mathrm{SU}}(\mathbb{H}_i)(F)\simeq\mathrm{SL}_2(F)$ (recall that there are two $\mathrm{SL}_2(F)$-conjugacy classes of special parahoric subgroups of $\mathrm{SL}_2(F)$, which are however conjugate under $\mathrm{GL}_2(F)$). This can be proved, e.g. using an explicit isomorphism between ${\mathrm{SU}}(\mathbb{H}_i)\simeq\mathrm{SL}_{2,F}$, one such being $$g=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
a& b\\ c& d
\end{array}\right) \mapsto \left(\begin{array}{cc}
a& \pi^{-1}b\\ \pi c& d
\end{array}\right)$$ (check that when $g(e_i)=ae_i+ce_{n+1-i}, g(e_{n+1-i})=be_i+de_{n+1-i}$, $\phi(gv,gw)=\phi(v,w)$ implies that $a,d\in F^{\times}$, $b+\overline{b}=c+\overline{c}=0$). But, there is another (rather indirect) way of seeing this. Let $S_i$ be a maximal ($F$-)split $F$-subtorus of ${\mathrm{SU}}(\mathbb{H}_i)$ (so that $S:=\prod_i S_I$ is a maximal ($F$-)split $F$-torus of ${\mathrm{SU}}(W,\phi)$, and also of ${\mathrm{U}}(W,\phi)$); $S_i$ is contained in a unique maximal torus $T_i(=Z_{{\mathrm{U}}(\mathbb{H}_i)}(S_i))\simeq E^{\times}$ of ${\mathrm{U}}(\mathbb{H}_i)$. The subgroup $$M_i:={\mathrm{U}}(\mathbb{H}_i)\times\prod_{j\neq i}T_j$$ of ${\mathrm{U}}(W,\phi)$, being the centralizer of $\{1\}\times\prod_{j\neq i}S_j$, is an $F$-Levi subgroup of ${\mathrm{U}}(W,\phi)$. For a subgroup $M$ of ${\mathrm{U}}(W,\phi)$, let $\mathrm{S}M$ denote the intersection $M\cap {\mathrm{SU}}(W,\phi)$. Then, as $\{1\}\times\prod_{j\neq i}S_j\subset{\mathrm{SU}}(W)$, $\mathrm{S}M_i$ is an $F$-Levi subgroup of ${\mathrm{SU}}(W)$. Hence, by Lemma \[lem:specaial\_parahoric\_in\_Levi\], (3), $\mathrm{S}M_i(F)\cap P_{\{m\}}$ is a special maximal parahoric subgroup of $M_i(F)$. But, obviously one has that (as $P_{\{m\}}\subset{\mathrm{SU}}(W)(F)$) $$\mathrm{S}M_i(F)\cap P_{\{m\}}=({\mathrm{U}}(\mathbb{H}_i)(F)\times\prod_{j\neq i}T_j(F))\cap P_{\{m\}}
=({\mathrm{U}}(\mathbb{H}_i)(F)\cap P_{\{m\}})\times \prod_{j\neq i}(T_j(F)\cap P_{\{m\}}).$$ So, each ${\mathrm{SU}}(\mathbb{H}_i)(F)\cap P_{\{m\}}={\mathrm{U}}(\mathbb{H}_i)(F)\cap P_{\{m\}}$ is a special maximal parahoric subgroup of ${\mathrm{SU}}(\mathbb{H}_i)(F)\simeq\mathrm{SL}_2(F)$.
But, the two special vertices in the local Dynkin diagram of $\mathrm{SL}_{2,F}$ are hyperspecial, hence we know that there exists an anisotropic maximal torus $S_i'$ of ${\mathrm{SU}}(\mathbb{H}_i)$, splitting over $F^{{\mathrm{ur}}}$, such that the unique parahoric subgroup $S_1'(L)_1$ of $S_i'(L)$ is contained in ${\mathrm{SU}}(\mathbb{H}_i)(L)\cap \tilde{P}_{\{m\}}$, i.e. leaves stable the ${\mathcal{O}}_E\otimes_{{\mathcal{O}}_F}{\mathcal{O}}_L$-lattice $(\mathbb{H}_i\cap \Lambda_{\{m\}})\otimes_{{\mathcal{O}}_F}{\mathcal{O}}_L=\mathrm{span}_{{\mathcal{O}}_E\otimes_{{\mathcal{O}}_F}{\mathcal{O}}_L}\{\pi^{-i}e_{i},e_{n+1-i}\}$ of $\mathbb{H}_i\otimes L$. Therefore, for the center $Z_i\simeq \underline{E}^{\times}_c$ of ${\mathrm{U}}(\mathbb{H}_i)$, $$T_i':=S_i'\cdot Z_i$$ is an anisotropic maximal torus of ${\mathrm{U}}(\mathbb{H}_i)$, whose $L$-rank equals $1$ and whose group of $L$-points also leaves stable the ${\mathcal{O}}_E\otimes_{{\mathcal{O}}_F}{\mathcal{O}}_L$-lattice $(\mathbb{H}_i\cap \Lambda_{\{m\}})_{{\mathcal{O}}_L}$, as $Z_i$ remains anisotropic over $L$ and $Z_i(L)=({\mathcal{O}}_E\otimes_{{\mathcal{O}}_F}{\mathcal{O}}_L)_1$. Finally, the torus $T:=(\prod_iT_i')\cap{\mathrm{SU}}(W,\phi)$ is an anisotropic maximal torus of ${\mathrm{SU}}(W,\phi)$ with the same required property (its $L$-rank is $m$, equal to the $L$-rank of $H_L$).
The case $I=\{m'\}$ can be treated in a completely analogous way, once we switch the basis vectors $e_{m}$ and $e_{m+1}$; although such permutation does not lie in ${\mathrm{SU}}(W,\psi)$, obviously it is allowed when applying the previous argument.
\(d) We are left with the case $\mathbf{C\operatorname{-}B_{m+1}\ (m\geq1)}$. This is also similar to the above cases. Let $E$ be a (ramified) quadratic extension of $F$ and $W=F^{\oplus m}\oplus E\oplus F^{\oplus m}$, viewed as a vector space over $F$. We consider the quadratic form on $W$ expressed in terms of a basis $\{e_{-m},\cdots,e_{m}\}\cup\{e_0\}$ by $$q(\sum_{1\leq|i|\leq m} x_i e_i+x_0e_0)=\sum_{i=1}^{m}x_{-i} x_i+{\mathrm{N}}_{E/F}x_0,\quad (x_i\in F,x_0\in E).$$ For $i=0,\cdots,m$, we define a lattice $\Lambda_i$ as before: $$\Lambda_i:=\mathrm{span}_{{\mathcal{O}}_F}\{\pi^{-1}e_{-m},\cdots,\pi^{-1}e_{-i-1},e_{-i},\cdots,\check{e}_0,\cdots,e_m\}\oplus{\mathcal{O}}_Ee_0,$$ where $\check{e}_0$ means as usual that it is omitted from the list (so, $\Lambda_{0}=\pi^{-1}\mathrm{span}_{{\mathcal{O}}_F}\{e_{-m},\cdots,e_{-1}\}\oplus{\mathcal{O}}_Ee_0\oplus\mathrm{span}_{{\mathcal{O}}_F}\{e_{1},\cdots,e_{m}\}$).
It is obvious that the claim at hand holds for the special orthogonal group $\mathrm{SO}(W,q)$ if and only if it does so for the universal covering of $\mathrm{SO}(W,q)$, i.e. the spin group $\mathrm{Spin}(W,q)$. We will show that for any special maximal parahoric subgroup $K$ of $\mathrm{SO}(W,q)$, there exists an anisotropic maximal $F$-torus $T$ such that $T_L$ contains a maximal ($L$-)split $L$-torus of $\mathrm{SO}(W,q)$ and $T(L)_1$ is contained in $\tilde{K}$, the special parahoric subgroup of $\mathrm{SO}(W,q)(L)$ corresponding to $K$. Note that the $L$-rank of $H$ is $m$ as $E$ is ramified over $F$.
For a non-empty subset $I$ of $\{0,\cdots,m\}$, let $P_I$ denote the stabilizer subgroup: $$P_I:=\{g\in \mathrm{SO}(W,q)(F)\ |\ g\Lambda_i\subset\Lambda_i,\ \forall i\in I\}.$$ We know (deduced from [@Tits79], 1.16, 4.2, cf. 3.12) that
*the subgroup $P_I$ is a parahoric subgroup of ${\mathrm{SU}}(W,\phi)$ and that any parahoric subgroup of ${\mathrm{SU}}(W,\phi)$ is conjugate to $P_I$ for a unique subset $I$, and that the special maximal parahoric subgroups are $P_{\{0\}}$ and $P_{\{m\}}$. The corresponding parahoric subgroup $\tilde{P}_{\{i\}}$ of $H(L)$ is $$\tilde{P}_{\{i\}}=\{g\in{\mathrm{SO}}(W,\phi)(L)\ |\ g\Lambda_i\otimes_{{\mathcal{O}}_F}{\mathcal{O}}_L\subset\Lambda_i\otimes_{{\mathcal{O}}_F}{\mathcal{O}}_L\}.$$*
The idea used above for the ramified special unitary group of odd relative rank (i.e. of type $\mathbf{B\operatorname{-}C_{m}}$) works here, too. Namely, the quadratic space $W$ decomposes into the direct sum of maximally isotropic subspaces $W_{\mathbf{iso}}=F\langle e_i\ |\ 1\leq|i|\leq m\rangle$ and the anisotropic subspace $(E\cdot e_0,{\mathrm{N}}_{E/F})$. Then, ${\mathrm{SO}}(W_{\mathbf{iso}})$ is a split group, so for each $j=0,m$, the parahoric subgroup $P_{\{j\}}\cap {\mathrm{SO}}(W_{\mathbf{iso}})(F)$ is a a hyperspecial subgroup. Hence, there exists an anisotropic maximal torus $T'_j$ of ${\mathrm{SO}}(W_{\mathbf{iso}})$ of $L$-rank $m$, such that $T'_j(L)_1$ is contained in ${\mathrm{SO}}(W_{\mathbf{iso}})(L)\cap \tilde{P}_{\{j\}}$; the latter means that $T'_j(L)_1$ leaves stable the ${\mathcal{O}}_L$-lattice $$(W_{\mathbf{iso}}\cap \Lambda_{j})\otimes{\mathcal{O}}_L$$ of $W_{\mathbf{iso}}\otimes L$. Now, it is easy to see that the anisotropic torus $T_j:=T'_j$ is a maximal torus of ${\mathrm{SO}}(W,q)$ (which also has the $L$-rank $m$) with the same properties for $\Lambda_{j}$.
This completes the proof of the proposition.
Complexes of tori attached to connected reductive groups. {#sec:abelianization_complex}
=========================================================
Here we collect some general facts on certain complexes of tori attached to a connected reductive group and its Levi subgroups.
For a connected reductive group $H$ over a field $k$, we let $\rho_H:H^{{\mathrm{sc}}}\rightarrow H$ denote the canonical homomorphism ($H^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$ being the simply connected covering of $H^{{\mathrm{der}}}$) and choosing a maximal $k$-torus $T$ of $H$, define a two-term complex of $k$-tori by $$H_{{\mathbf{ab}}}:=\rho_H^{-1}(T)\rightarrow T,$$ where $\rho_H^{-1}(T)$ and $T$ are located in degree $-1$ and $0$ respectively, i.e. $H_{{\mathbf{ab}}}$ is the mapping cone of the morphism $\rho_H^{-1}(T)\rightarrow T$ in the abelian cateogry $\mathcal{CG}_k$ of commutative algebraic $k$-group schemes.[^40] This complex of tori is also quasi-isomorphic to the crossed module $H^{{\mathrm{sc}}}\rightarrow H$ (again with $H$ being placed at degree $0$), and the corresponding object in the (bounded) derived category $\mathbb{D}^b(\mathcal{CG}_k)$ depends only on $H$.
Let $G$ be a connected reductive group over a field $k$ and $I$ be a $k$-subgroup of $G$ which is a $\bar{k}$-Levi subgroup. For $\tilde{I}=\rho_G^{-1}(I)$ (a connected reductive group), there exists a map $\tilde{i}:I^{{\mathrm{sc}}}\rightarrow \tilde{I}$: $$\xymatrix{ I^{{\mathrm{sc}}} \ar[r]^{\tilde{i}} \ar[rd]_{\rho_I} & \tilde{I} \ar@{^(->}[r] \ar[d]^{\rho_G} & G^{{\mathrm{sc}}} \ar[d]^{\rho_G} \\ & I \ar[r]^{i} & G. }$$ We choose a maximal $k$-torus $T$ of $I$ and set $T_1:=\rho_G^{-1}(T)$, $T_2:=\rho_I^{-1}(T)$; we have a commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{ T_2 \ar[r]^{\tilde{i}} \ar[rd]_{\rho_I} & T_1 \ar[d]^{\rho_G} \\ & T }$$ The verification of the following facts are easy and thus are left to readers.
- The complex $T_2\rightarrow T_1$ is quasi-isomorphic to the abelianization complex $\tilde{I}_{{\mathbf{ab}}}:\rho_{\tilde{I}}^{-1}(T_1)\rightarrow T_1$ attached to $\tilde{I}$, where $T_1$ is located at degree $0$, and thus $i:I\hookrightarrow G$ gives rise, in a canonical manner, to a distinguished triangle (in $\mathbb{D}^b(\mathcal{CG}_k)$): $$\label{eq:DT_of_CX_of_tori}
\tilde{I}_{{\mathbf{ab}}} \rightarrow I_{{\mathbf{ab}}} \rightarrow G_{{\mathbf{ab}}} \rightarrow \tilde{I}_{{\mathbf{ab}}}[1].$$
- For a two-term complex $T_{\bullet}=T_{-1}\rightarrow T_0$ of $k$-tori, let $\hat{T}_{\bullet}$ denote the complex of ${\mathbb C}$-tori with $\Gamma$-action: $$\hat{T}_{\bullet}:=(\hat{T}_0\rightarrow \hat{T}_{-1}),$$ where $\hat{T}_0$ and $\hat{T}_{-1}$ are located in degree $-1$ and $0$ respectively. Then, for any connected reductive group $H$ and a maximal $k$-torus $T$ of it, there exists an exact sequence of diagonalizable ${\mathbb C}$-groups with $\Gamma$-action $$1\rightarrow Z(\hat{H}) \rightarrow \hat{T} \rightarrow \hat{\tilde{T}} \rightarrow 1,$$ with $\tilde{T}:=\rho_H^{-1}(T)$ and $\Gamma={\mathrm{Gal}}(\bar{k}/k)$, i.e. $$\label{eq:center_of_complex_dual}
Z(\hat{H})[1]=\hat{H}_{{\mathbf{ab}}}.$$
- The distinguished triangle (\[eq:DT\_of\_CX\_of\_tori\]) gives rise, by taking complex dual, to a distinguished triangle in the derived category $\mathbb{D}^b(\operatorname{\Gamma-\mathcal{DG}_{{\mathbb C}}})$ of diagonalizable ${\mathbb C}$-groups with $\Gamma$-action: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:DT_of_dualCX_of_tori}
\hat{G}_{{\mathbf{ab}}} \rightarrow \hat{I}_{{\mathbf{ab}}} \rightarrow \hat{\tilde{I}}_{{\mathbf{ab}}} \rightarrow \hat{G}_{{\mathbf{ab}}}[1]. \end{aligned}$$
[99]{}
A. Borel, J. Tits. Groupes réductifs. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math. No. 27 1965 55-150.
M. Brion. On extensions of algebraic groups with finite quotient. Pacific J. Math. 279 (2015), no. 1-2, 135-153.
L. Breen. Tannakian categories. Motives (Seattle, WA, 1991), 337-376, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., 55, Part 1, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1994.
M. Borovoi. Abelian Galois cohomology of reductive groups. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 132 (1998), no. 626, viii+50 pp.
F. Bruhat, J. Tits. Groupes réductifs sur un corps local. I. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math. No. 41 (1972), 5-251.
F. Bruhat, J. Tits. Groupes réductifs sur un corps local. II. Schémas en groupes. Existence d’une donnée radicielle valuée. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math. No. 60 (1984), 197-376.
C.-L. Chai, B. Conrad, F. Oort. Complex multiplication and lifting problems. Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, 195. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2014. x+387 pp.
L. Clozel. The fundamental lemma for stable base change. Duke Math. J. 61 (1990), no. 1, 255-302.
P. Deligne. Variétés de Shimura: interprétation modulaire, et techniques de construction de modèles canoniques. Automorphic forms, representations and $L$-functions (Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, Ore., 1977), Part 2, 247-289, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., XXXIII, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I., 1979.
P. Deligne, J.S. Milne, A. Ogus, K-y. Shih. Hodge cycles, motives, and Shimura varieties. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 900. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1982.
C. Demarche. Suites de Poitou-Tate pour les complexes de tores à deux termes. Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN 2011, no. 1, 135-174.
K. Fujiwara. Rigid geometry, Lefschetz-Verdier trace formula and Deligne’s conjecture. Invent. Math. 127 (1997), no. 3, 489-533.
J. Giraud. Cohomologie non abélienne. Die Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, Band 179. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1971.
M. Greenberg. Schemata over local rings, II, Ann. Math. 78 (1963), 256-266.
B. Gross. Parahorics.
T. Haines, M. Rapoport. On parahoric subgroups, Advances in Math. 219 (1), (2008), 188-198. appendix to: G. Pappas, M. Rapoport, Twisted loop groups and their affine flag varieties, Advances in Math. 219 (1), (2008), 118-198.
T. Haines, S. Rostami. The Satake isomorphism for special maximal parahoric Hecke algebras. Represent. Theory 14 (2010), 264-284.
T. Haines. The stable Bernstein center and test functions for Shimura varieties. Automorphic Forms and Galois Representations, Durham, 2011, London Mathematical Society Lecture Notes Series: 415, vol. 2, London Mathematical Society, 2014, pp. 118-186.
X. He. Kottwitz-Rapoport conjecture on unions of affine Deligne-Lusztig varieties. .
X. He, M. Rapoport. Stratifications in the reduction of Shimura varieties. .
M. Kisin. Integral models for Shimura varieties of abelian type. J. Amer. Math. Soc. 23 (2010), no. 4, 967-1012.
M. Kisin. Mod $p$-points on Shimura varieties of abelian type. J. Amer. Math. Soc. electronically published on January 11, 2017.
M. Kisin, G. Pappas. Integral models of Shimura varieties with parahoric level structure. .
R. Kottwitz. Rational conjugacy classes in reductive groups. Duke Math. J. 49 (1982), no. 4, 785-806.
R. Kottwitz. Sign changes in harmonic analysis on reductive groups. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 278 (1983), no. 1, 289-297.
R. Kottwitz. Stable Trace Formula: Cuspidal Tempered Terms, Duke Math. J. 51 (1984), 611-650.
R. Kottwitz. Shimura Varieties and Twisted Orbital Integrals, Math. Ann. 269 (1984), 287-300.
R. Kottwitz. Isocrystals with additional structure. Compositio Math. 56 (1985), no. 2, 201-220.
R. Kottwitz, Stable Trace Formula: Elliptic Singular Terms, Math. Ann. 275 (1986), 365-399.
R. Kottwitz. Tamagawa numbers. Ann. of Math. (2) 127, 1988, 629-646.
R. Kottwitz. Shimura varieties and $\lambda$-adic representations. Automorphic forms, Shimura varieties, and L-functions, Vol. I (Ann Arbor, MI, 1988), 161-209, Perspect. Math., 10, Academic Press, Boston, MA, 1990.
R. Kottwitz. Points on some Shimura varieties over finite fields. J. Amer. Math. Soc. 5 (1992), no. 2, 373-444.
R. Kottwitz. Isocrystals with additional structure. II. Compositio Math. 109 (1997), no. 3, 255-339.
R. Kottwitz. Comparison of two versions of twisted transfer factors appendix to: S. Morel. On the cohomology of certain noncompact Shimura varieties. Annals of Mathematics Studies, 173. Princeton Univ. Press, 2010. xii+217 pp.
R. Kottwitz, M. Rapoport. Minuscule alcoves for $\mathrm{GL}_n$ and $\mathrm{GSp}_{2n}$. Manuscripta Math. 102 (2000), no. 4, 403-428.
R. Kottwitz, D. Shelstad. Foundations of twisted endoscopy. Astérisque No. 255 (1999), vi+190 pp.
R. Kottwitz, D. Shelstad. On splitting invariants and sign conventions in endoscopic transfer.
Y. Koya. A generalization of class formation by using hypercohomology. Invent. Math. 101 (1990), no. 3, 705-715.
J.-P. Labesse. Nombres de Tamagawa des groupes réductifs quasi-connexes. Manuscripta Math. 104 (2001), no. 4, 407-430.
J.-P. Labesse. Cohomologie, stabilisation et changement de base. Astérisque No. 257 (1999), vi+161 pp.
J.-P. Labesse. Stable twisted trace formula: elliptic terms. J. Inst. Math. Jussieu 3 (2004), no. 4, 473-530.
R.P. Langlands, Some contemporary problems with origins in the Jugendtraum, in: Mathematical developments arising from Hilbert’s problems, AMS (1976), 401-418.
R. P. Langlands, On the zeta functions of some simple Shimura varieties. Canad. J. Math. 31 (1979), no. 6, 1121-1216.
R. P. Langlands, Les débuts d’une formule des traces stable, Publ. Math. de l’Univ. Paris VII 13, Paris 1983.
R. P. Langlands, M. Rapoport. Shimuravarietäten und Gerben. J. Reine Angew. Math. 378 (1987), 113-220.
R. P. Langlands, D. Shelstad. On the definition of transfer factors. Math. Ann. 278 (1987), no. 1-4, 219-271.
R. P. Langlands, D. Shelstad. Descent for transfer factors. The Grothendieck Festschrift, Vol. II, 485-563, Progr. Math., 87, Birkhäuser Boston, Boston, MA, 1990.
D. U. Lee A proof of a conjecture of Y. Morita. Bull. Lond. Math. Soc. 44 (2012), no. 5, 861-870.
D. U. Lee Non-emptiness of Newton strata of Shimura varieties of Hodge type. , a published version to appear in *Algebra Number Theory*.
J. S. Milne. The points on a Shimura variety modulo a prime of good reduction. The zeta functions of Picard modular surfaces, Univ. MontrŽal, Montreal, QC, 1992.
J. S. Milne. Shimura varieties and motives. Motives (Seattle, WA, 1991), 447–523, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., 55, Part 2, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1994.
J. S. Milne. Gerbes and abelian motives. manuscript available on [<http://www.jmilne.org/math/articles/index.html#1990b>]{}
J. S. Milne. Class field theory. course notes, version 4.02, 2013, available on [<http://www.jmilne.org/math/CourseNotes/CFT.pdf>]{}
S. Morel. On the cohomology of certain noncompact Shimura varieties. With an appendix by Robert Kottwitz. Annals of Mathematics Studies, 173. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2010. xii+217 pp.
B. C. Ngô. Le lemme fondamental pour les algèbres de Lie. Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. No. 111 (2010), 1-169.
J. Neukirch, A. Schmidt, K. Wingberg. Cohomology of number fields. Second edition. Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften, 323. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2008.
G. Pappas, M. Rapoport. Twisted loop groups and their affine flag varieties. With an appendix by T. Haines and Rapoport. Adv. Math. 219 (2008), no. 1, 118-198.
G. Pappas, M. Rapoport. Local models in the ramified case. III. Unitary groups. J. Inst. Math. Jussieu 8 (2009), no. 3, 507-564.
V. Platonov, A. Rapinchuk. Algebraic groups and number theory. Pure and Applied Mathematics, 139, Academic Press, Inc., Boston, MA, 1994.
M. Rapoport, M. Richartz. On the classification and specialization of $F$-isocrystals with additional structure. Compositio Math. 103 (1996), no. 2, 153-181.
M. Rapoport. A guide to the reduction modulo p of Shimura varieties. Automorphic forms. I. Astérisque No. 298 (2005), 271-318.
H. Reimann. The semi-simple zeta function of quaternionic Shimura varieties. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 1657. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1997. viii+143.
J.-J. Sansuc. Groupe de Brauer et arithmétique des groupes algébriques linéaires sur un corps de nombres. J. Reine Angew. Math. 327 (1981), 12-80.
I. Satake. Symplectic representations of algebraic groups satisfying a certain analyticity condition. Acta Math. 117 1967 215-279.
I. Satake. Algebraic structures of symmetric domains. Iwanami Shoten, Tokyo; Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1980. xvi+321 pp.
P. Scholze. The Langlands-Kottwitz method and deformation spaces of $p$-divisible groups. J. Amer. Math. Soc. 26 (2013), 227-259.
P. Scholze, S. W. Shin. On the cohomology of compact unitary group Shimura varieties at ramified split places. J. Amer. Math. Soc. 26 (2013), no. 1, 261-294.
J.-P. Serre. Galois cohomology. Translated from the French by Patrick Ion and revised by the author. Corrected reprint of the 1997 English edition. Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2002.
D. Shelstad, Characters and inner forms of a quasisplit group over ${\mathbb R}$, Comp. Math. 39 (1979), 11-45.
D. Shelstad. L-indistinguishability for real groups. Math. Ann. 259 (1982), no. 3, 385-430.
D. Shelstad. Tempered endoscopy for real groups. I. Geometric transfer with canonical factors. Representation theory of real reductive Lie groups, 215-246, Contemp. Math., 472, Amer. Math. Soc., 2008.
D. Shelstad. Tempered endoscopy for real groups. II. Spectral transfer factors. Automorphic forms and the Langlands program, 236-276, Adv. Lect. Math. (ALM), 9, Int. Press, Somerville, MA, 2010.
J. R. Stembridge. Tight quotients and double quotients in the Bruhat order. Electron. J. Combin. 11 (2004/06), no. 2.
J. Tate. Number theoretic background. Automorphic forms, representations and L-functions (Corvallis, 1977), Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., XXXIII, Part 2, pp. 3-26, Amer. Math. Soc. 1979.
J. Tits. Reductive groups over local fields. Automorphic forms, representations and L-functions (Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, Ore., 1977), Part 1, pp. 29-69, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., XXXIII, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I., 1979.
Y. Varshavsky. Lefschetz-Verdier trace formula and a generalization of a theorem of Fujiwara. Geom. Funct. Anal. 17 (2007), no. 1, 271-319.
A. Vasiu. Integral canonical models of Shimura varieties of preabelian type. Asian J. Math. 3 (1999), no. 2, 401-518.
E. Viehmann. On the geometry of the Newton stratification. .
J.-L. Waldspurger. Le lemme fondamental implique le transfert. Compositio Math. 105 (1997), no. 2, 153-236.
J.-L. Waldspurger. Endoscopie et changement de caractéristique. J. Inst. Math. Jussieu 5 (2006), no. 3, 423-525.
J.-L. Waldspurger. L’endoscopie tordue n’est pas si tordue. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 194 (2008), no. 908, x+261 pp.
R. Zhou. Mod $p$ isogeny classes on Shimura varieties with parahoric level structure. available on [<http://www.math.harvard.edu/~rzhou/LR17.pdf>]{}
*Email:* [email protected]
[^1]: In this work, for Hodge-type $(G,X)$, we always assume that $G$ is the smallest algebraic ${\mathbb Q}$-group such that every $h\in X$ factors through $G_{{\mathbb R}}$; then this assumption holds.
[^2]: In [@Milne92], Milne uses this criterion which was at that time unjustified, for the same purpose of completing this deduction arguments, cf. see Remark \[rem:comments\_on\_Milne92\].
[^3]: In fact, this is an issue that has already been known for some time (namely, the kind of ambiguity as appearing in the Kisin’s description becomes a problem when deriving a point-counting formula from it along the line of [@Langlands76], [@Kottwitz84b]), and removing such ambiguity was one of the very motivations for Langlands and Rapoport introducing their conjecture [@LR87 p.116,line+15].
[^4]: to distinguish this from two other similar conditions: first, from the original Serre condition which is applied to a ${\mathbb Q}$-torus $T$ endowed with a cocharacter $\mu\in X_{\ast}(T)$ (cf. Lemma \[lem:defn\_of\_psi\_T,mu\]), and secondly from the condition that $Z(G)$ has the same ranks over ${\mathbb Q}$ and ${\mathbb R}$ (equiv. the anisotropic kernel of $Z(G)$ remains anisotropic over ${\mathbb R}$); if $(G,X)$ is of Hodge type and $G$ is the Mumford-Tate group, it satisfies all these conditions.
[^5]: But for general parahoric ${\mathbf{K}}_p$, without having control on the level, one can still attach a Kottwitz triple to any point that is the reduction of a CM point (thus in this case the triple is well-defined only up to powers).
[^6]: In this case that the residue field is ${\bar{\mathbb{F}}_{p}}$, we will write ${\mathfrak{k}}$ for $L$ more often.
[^7]: We interchangeably write $\nu_G(b)$ or $\nu_b$.
[^8]: With $(G,S)$, Tits [@Tits79] define an affine root system $\Phi_{\mathrm{af}}$ in the affine space $A$ under $V:=X_{\ast}(S)_{{\mathbb R}}$, and a homomorphism $\nu:\tilde{W}\rightarrow \mathrm{Aff}(A)$, where $\mathrm{Aff}(A)$ is the group of affine transformations of $A$. When $G$ is semi-simple, the affine Weyl group of the reduced root system in question equals the Weyl group of $\Phi_{\mathrm{af}}$, i.e. the group generated by the reflections about the hyperplanes that are zero sets of affine functions in $\Phi_{\mathrm{af}}$. When we choose a special vertex ${\mathbf{v}}$ (so, identify the affine space $A$ with $V$, and $W_0$ with the stabilizer subgroup of ${\mathbf{v}}$), there exists a reduced root system ${}^{{\mathbf{v}}}\Sigma$ in question having roots in $V$, and $W_a\cong \nu(W_a)$ is isomorphic to the affine Weyl group $Q^{\vee}({}^{{\mathbf{v}}}\Sigma)\rtimes W({}^{{\mathbf{v}}}\Sigma)$.
[^9]: Suppose that the $K$-structure is given by an isomorphism $\alpha:G_0\otimes_{K}k'{\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}G$ for an algebraic $K$-group $G_0$. Then, it gives rise to a descent isomorphism $\alpha\circ\sigma^{\ast}(\alpha^{-1}):\sigma^{\ast}(G){\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}}G$ and a Galois action $\sigma(g)=\alpha\circ \sigma(\alpha^{-1}(g))$ on $G(k')=G_0(k')$. Since the descent isomorphism was $\theta(\sigma)$, we have $\sigma(g)=\alpha\circ \sigma^{\ast}(\alpha^{-1})(\sigma_{k'}(g))=\theta(\sigma)\circ\sigma_{k'}(g)$.
[^10]: in the sense of Giruad, or in the sense of the theory of Tannakian categories, namely, a stack in groupoids over an étale site which is locally nonempty and locally connected, cf. [@Milne92 Appendix], [@DMOS82 Ch.II], [@Breen94 2.2].
[^11]: The category of such affine gerbs endowed with a distinguished neutralizing object is equivalent to the category of affine ${\mathrm{Spec}}(K)/{\mathrm{Spec}}(k)$-groupoid schemes, acting transitively on ${\mathrm{Spec}}(K)$, [@Milne92], Appendex, Prop. A.15). For this reason, Milne insists to call Galois gerbs in our sense groupoids [@Milne92], [@Milne03]. But any two neutralizing local objects become isomorphic over ${\overline{k}}$, thus a gerb ${\mathfrak{G}}$ (as a stack) is uniquely determined by its associated groupoid $({\mathfrak{G}},x\in \mathrm{Ob}({\mathfrak{G}}({\overline{k}})))$, up to conjugation by an element of $\mathrm{Aut}(x)={\mathfrak{G}}^{\Delta}({\overline{k}})$. Hopefully, this justifies our decision to stick to the original terminology of Langlands-Rapoport.
[^12]: i.e. $e_{h,1}=e_{1,h}=1$ for all $h\in H$.
[^13]: Note that our notations for these gerbs differ from those of [@Kisin17]: our ${\mathfrak{G}}^K_{p,K}$ (resp. ${\mathfrak{G}}^K_p$) is his ${\mathfrak{G}}^K_p$ (resp. $\tilde{{\mathfrak{G}}}^K_p$).
[^14]: At the moment, we do not require that one can choose the sections $\tau\mapsto s_{\tau}^K$ in a compatible way for extensions $K\subset K'\subset{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_p}$, which will be however the case (cf. the proof of Theorem \[thm:pseudo-motivic\_Galois\_gerb\]).
[^15]: The notion of w-stable $\sigma$-conjugacy is introduced here by the author, to bring attention to the subtle point in the notion of $\sigma$-stable conjugacy, parallel to the difference in (ordinary) stable conjugacy discussed in Remark \[rem:Kottwitz\_triples\], (4), rather than for some explicit use. The author does not know whether the first implication is an equivalence in general.
[^16]: The sign here is opposite to the sign used by Kottwitz in [@Kottwitz90], [@Kottwitz92].
[^17]: By definition [@Borovoi98 3.1.1], $\mathbb{H}^0({{\mathbb Q}_l},I_0\backslash G)$ equals the hypercohomology set $\mathbb{H}^0({\mathbb Q},I_0\rightarrow G)$ of the complex of ${\mathbb Q}$-groups $I_0\rightarrow G$ ($I_0$ being located in degree -1, as always).
[^18]: So, Definition 5.8 of [@Milne92] is not correct, thus some proofs based on it in that work, especially the proof of Cor. 7.10, are incomplete; the first complete proof of (a substantial generalization of) that corollary is given in this work.
[^19]: This is our translation of the German word *eingeschachtelt* used by Langlands-Rapoport [@LR87 p.190, line19].
[^20]: This is our translation of the German word *günstig gelegen* used by Langlands-Rapoport [@LR87 p.190, line8].
[^21]: The original arguments in [@LR87] use the quasi-motivic Galois gerb ${\mathfrak{Q}}$ (instead of the pseudo-motivic Galois gerb ${\mathfrak{P}}$) whose definition is however wrong (cf. [@Reimann97 Appendix B]). Fortunately, the whole arguments remain valid with ${\mathfrak{Q}}$ replaced by ${\mathfrak{P}}$, as long as the (admissible) morphisms in question factor through ${\mathfrak{P}}$.
[^22]: In turn, this is the group that was denoted by $G^{\ast (S)}_{(a)}$ (or $G^{\ast}_{(a)}$) in *loc. cit.* 3.8. Namely, when we choose a maximal $\overline{F}$-torus $T$ of $G_{\overline{F}}$ containing $S$, it is the group generated by ${}_{\overline{F}}U_b$ (the “absolute” root group in $G_{\overline{F}}$ defined with respect to $(G_{\overline{F}},T)$) for the absolute roots in $R^{\ast}(G_{\overline{F}},T)$ whose restriction to $S$ belong to $(a)$, the set of relative roots in $R^{\ast}(G,S)$ that are positive integer multiples of $a$.
[^23]: This result of Borovoi generalizes Lemma 5.13 of [@LR87] (attributed to Deligne) which concerns the case when $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$. As remarked there [@LR87 p.180, line5], this is also the only part in the proof of Satz 5.3 of *loc. cit.* that uses the assumption that $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$. Hence, thanks to that result of Borovoi and the generalized definition of admissible morphisms (in terms of strict monoidal category ${\mathfrak{G}}_{G/\tilde{G}}$), in Prop 4.1.5 here, thus Thm. 4.1.3 as well, that assumption ($G^{{\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$) is unnecessary. \[ftn:sc-assumption1\]
[^24]: Here, we use the redundant notation $\tilde{G}=G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$.
[^25]: If one wants, by using [@Kisin17 Lem. 3.7.7], one can also reduce the general case to the case where $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$ (cf. proof of Thm. 3.7.8 of *loc. cit.*). However, we already established all the facts/lemmas required for our proof to work without that assumption.
[^26]: In the original argument (i.e. proof of Lemma 5.23 of [@LR87]), the authors simply appeal to a well-known theorem of Steinberg (or its extension by Kottwitz [@Kottwitz82 Thm.4.4]), since they work under the assumption that $I^{{\mathrm{der}}}=I^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$. However, as we have just seen, this is unnecessary, and this allows us to remove that assumption in this lemma, because, as we now see, all other parts of the proof (especially, Prop. 4.1.5) do not require that assumption. \[ftn:sc-assumption2\]
[^27]: In this proof, the assumption that $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is tamely ramified is needed to invoke Lemma \[lem:LR-Lemma5.12\] and Prop. \[prop:existence\_of\_elliptic\_tori\_in\_special\_parahorics\] (the latter via Lemma \[lem:LR-Lemma5.2\]). Note that the latter proposition further requires $G_{{{\mathbb Q}_p}}$ to be of classical Lie type.
[^28]: For this, we do not need to assume that $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$.
[^29]: Hence, in the hyperspecial cases where one may assume $u_0=1$, for sufficiently large $t$ such that $\nu':=-\frac{nt}{[K:{{\mathbb Q}_p}]}\nu_p'\in X_{\ast}(T')$ and $k_t\in {\tilde{\mathbf{K}}}_p$, the decomposition $$(\epsilon')^t= p^{\nu'}\cdot k_t^{-1}$$ is a Cartan decomposition, as was asserted in [@LR87 p.193, line 9]. Note that here the fact that ${\mathrm{N}}_{K/{{\mathbb Q}_p}}\mu_h$ maps into the center of $G_{\epsilon}$ is needed (to know that for some $a\in{\mathbb N}$ $k_0^a$ lies in a bounded subgroup of $H({\mathfrak{k}})$).
[^30]: For finite $\mathcal{G}$, the Tate hypercohomology $\widehat{\mathbb{H}}^i(\mathcal{G},-)$ factors through the stable module category $\mathcal{T}(\mathcal{G})$ of the group algebra ${\mathbb Z}[\mathcal{\mathcal{G}}]$, and as such equals the cohomological functor $A^{\bullet}\mapsto {\mathrm{Hom}}_{\mathcal{T}(\mathcal{G})}({\mathbb Z},A^{\bullet}[i])$ on that triangulated category.
[^31]: Recall that by our convention, in $H_{{\mathbf{ab}}}=\tilde{T}\rightarrow T$ and $X^{\ast}(H_{{\mathbf{ab}}})=X^{\ast}(T)\rightarrow X^{\ast}(\tilde{T})$, $T$ and $X^{\ast}(\tilde{T})$ are both placed in degree $0$.
[^32]: In fact, our statement is weaker than this lemma, where Langlands and Rapoport claim (*loc. cit.* p.197, line +6) that the pair $(\phi=a\phi_1,\epsilon)$ is admissible if and only if $[a]\in \Sha^{\infty}_G({\mathbb Q},I_1)$ (i.e. they do not require our additional condition). Unfortunately we could not verify their claim. But, our weaker claim as given is sufficient for our purpose.
[^33]: A better notation (for consistency) for such ${\mathbb Q}$-subgroup of $G$ will be $I_0$, but here we used $I$ to simplify notation.
[^34]: It is, however, not clear to the author whether the original version of the lemma stated in terms only of $Z(\hat{\tilde{I}})$ and $Z(\hat{I})$ continues to hold beyond the case $G^{{\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$.
[^35]: Kottwitz’s method in *loc. cit.* for general $g$ uses the notion of *virtual abelian variety over a finite field*. This terminology does not appear in our work, although one can say that the notion is working behind the scenes.
[^36]: In fact, using the argument of Lemma \[lem:uniqueness\_of\_inner-class\_with\_same\_K-triples\] one can show that the two ${\mathbb Q}$-groups $I_{x,\epsilon}^{\mathrm{o}}$, $I_{x',\epsilon'}^{\mathrm{o}}$ are isomorphic as inner-twists of $I_0$. But it is not clear whether such an isomorphism is conjugate over ${\overline{\mathbb{Q}}_v}$ to $\rho_v$ as here which is induced by an isomorphism of vectors spaces endowed with Frobenius action and tensors.
[^37]: To apply this discussion (and [@LR87 Lemma 5.6] as well), one does not need the hypothesis (as was made in the beginning of the same section $\S$9) that the inner twisting in question is an inner twisting of a *quasi-split* group.
[^38]: Here, for the normalization for Langlands correspondence of tori, we use the Langlands’s original convention which is opposite to that adopted in [@KottwitzShelstad99 p.116]. See [@KottwitzShelstad12 $\S$4.2] for discussion on this issue. \[ftn:LLC\_sign\]
[^39]: Our transfer factor $\Delta_{\infty}$ is denoted by $\Delta'$ in [@KottwitzShelstad12 $\S$5.1]. We see that this is indeed given by the definition (1.0.4) of *loc. cit.*, because, for standard endoscopy, one has $\Delta_{I}^{\mathrm{new}}=\Delta_{I}$, and also the normalization of Kottwitz and Shelstad for the Langlands correspondence for tori (chosen in the appendix of *loc. cit.*) differs from ours by sign so that the two $\Delta_{III_1}$’s also differ by the same measure.
[^40]: Do not confuse this with the torus $H^{{\mathrm{ab}}}:=H/H^{{\mathrm{der}}}$; of course, they become quasi-isomorphic when $H^{{\mathrm{der}}}=H^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$. If stated otherwise, every two-term complex will be concentrated in degree $-1$ and $0$.
|
---
abstract: 'We present high resolution interferometric observations of the cool atomic and cold molecular ISM of the TDG candidate Arp 245N, an object resembling a dwarf galaxy in the northern tidal tail of the interacting system NGC2992/3. We observed the HI line with the NRAO VLA and the CO(1$\to$0) transition with the OVRO millimeter interferometer at $5''''-6''''$ angular resolution (750pc linear resolution). These datacubes offer the required spatial and velocity resolution to determine whether the mass concentration near the tip of the tail is a genuine feature, and hence a good TDG candidate, or an artefact caused by a fortuitous alignment of our line of sight with the direction of the tail. A preliminary analysis seems to confirm that Arp245N is a self–gravitating entity.'
author:
- Elias Brinks
- 'Pierre–Alain Duc'
- Fabian Walter
title: VLA HI and OVRO CO Interferometry of a Tidal Dwarf Galaxy
---
\#1[[*\#1*]{}]{} \#1[[*\#1*]{}]{} =
\#1 1.25in .125in .25in
Introduction
============
Tidal Dwarf Galaxies (TDGs) are objects resembling actively star forming dwarf galaxies and are assembled from the debris (tidal tails and bridges) launched into the IGM by violent galaxy interactions in which at least one member is a gas–rich galaxy. They are composed of stars and gas from the outskirts of one or both of the parent galaxies involved in the interaction. The recent surge of interest in TDGs started with papers by Mirabel, Lutz, & Maza (1991) on the Superantennae and Mirabel, Dottori, & Lutz (1992) on the Antennae (see also the review by Duc & Mirabel 1999). Several groups of authors have since embarked on the exciting topic of TDGs as witnessed by these proceedings (see e.g., the contributions by Duc et al. and by Braine et al. this volume).
Currently outstanding questions are: (i) Are TDGs really recycled objects made of collisional debris or pre-existing galaxies involved in a three–body interaction? (ii) Are TDG genuine density enhancements in the tidal tails or are they merely due to projection effects along the line of sight? (iii) Do TDGs form self gravitating entities or are they simple transient condensations? (iv) Are TDGs Dark Matter (DM) dominated, like galaxies in general, and dwarf galaxies in particular, or are they nearly devoid of DM, as theory predicts? (v) Finally do TDGs leave the potential well of their progenitors and hence constitute a sizeable fraction of the known dwarf galaxy population or do they eventually fall back and merge, leaving no trace?
All these questions have actually been raised for the particular TDG candidate identified in the northern tidal tail of Arp245, an interacting system composed of two spiral galaxies, NGC 2992 and NGC 2993. Although Arp245N was observed at many wavelengths and is one of the best studied TDG candidates, its nature as a tidal object or as a real entity have been challenged. Smith & Struck (2001) argued that TDG Arp245N could actually be a preexisting edge-on disk galaxy that is interacting with the other two galaxies. Hibbard et al. (this volume) point out that this system is viewed from an unfavorable perspective, making the projection effects particularly severe.
The combination of high–resolution kinematical and morphological data is critical to tackle all these issues. We have therefore carried out HI and CO interferometric observations of the system.
The Interacting System Arp245 (= NGC2992/3)
===========================================
NGC2992/3 is a relatively nearby system, at an adopted distance of 31 Mpc (V$_{\mathrm sys} = 2311$kms$^{-1}$). Its prominent northern tidal tail hosts a tidal dwarf galaxy candidate which because of its proximity can be studied in detail (Fig. 1). The system was observed by us in HI with the NRAO[^1] Very Large Array (VLA) at an intermediate angular resolution of $19''
\times 14''$ (Duc et al. 2000).
Toward NGC2992, the HI shows a peak at the location of the tidal dwarf candidate located at the tip of the tidal tail emanating from NGC2992. HI is seen in absorption against the radio continuum from the nucleus. NGC2992 is classified as a Seyfert 1.9 galaxy and in the light of H$\alpha$ a biconical structure can be seen which extends out into the halo. Toward NGC2993, the HI map has a ringlike structure which in its western extension has no optical counterpart. Within NGC2993 and Arp245N, HII regions are concentrated within HI clumps and trace star–forming regions. Numerical simulations of the NGC 2992/3 collision indicate that we see the system $\sim 100$Myr after closest approach (Duc et al. 2000).
As reported by Braine et al. (2000, 2001), Arp245 was detected with the IRAM 30–m dish in both the CO(1$\to$0) and the CO(2$\to$1) transitions. The observations also revealed that the CO emission is extended along the TDG. The H$_2$ mass, assuming the standard (Galactic) CO to H$_2$ conversion factor of N$_{\mathrm {H_2}/I_{CO}} = 2
\times 10^{20}$cm$^{-2}$/Kkms$^{-1}$ is $\sim 1.5 \times
10^8$M$_\odot$ .
An oxygen abundance of 12+log(O/H)=8.6 was measured in the HII regions of the TDG candidate. This high metallicity excludes the hypothesis that the TDG is in fact a preexisting dwarf galaxy. It is also unlikely that a more massive galaxy was directly involved in the interaction. Indeed, the morphology of the system matches very well that of the numerical model in which only two galaxies are interacting.
Observations
============
HI Observations
---------------
The field containing the interacting pair NGC2992/3 was observed with the VLA in its B–configuration on 24 April and 7/8 May 2001 for a total of almost 10 hours. Data calibration and reduction followed standard procedures using the Classic AIPS data reduction package. The final data products have a resolution of $6''$ (at 5kms$^{-1}$ velocity resolution) and reach an rms noise of 0.5 mJybeam$^{-1}$ per channel.
CO Observations
---------------
We observed the tidal dwarf near NGC2992 in the CO(1$\to$0) transition using the Owen’s Valley Radio Observatory’s mm array (OVRO) in the E, C and L configurations for a total of 9 tracks from October 2001 through May 2002. The equatorial E configuration was needed to improve the beam shape for this $\delta = -14^{\circ}$ source. About 40 hours were spent on source. Data were recorded using a correlator setup resulting in velocity resolutions of 5kms$^{-1}$ (after online Hanning smoothing) with a total bandwidth of 320 kms$^{-1}$. A datacube was produced using the [miriad]{} software package which was [clean]{}ed to a level of about twice the rms noise (noise: 16mJybeam$^{-1}$ in a 5kms$^{-1}$ wide channel). The final beam size is $7.2'' \times 4.0''$.
Results
=======
Figure 1 shows an integrated HI map of the B–array VLA data only. It should be noted that an interferometer acts as a spatial filter and that the B–array is sensitive to structures with typical sizes of between $5''$ and $120''$. As a result, applying a [clean]{} algorithm can leave some low level striping which will disappear once the new data are incorporated with the intermediate resolution maps.
The right panel in Figure 1 shows as contours overlaid on the HI map, the CO and H$\alpha$ emission. CO is clearly detected in the OVRO observations and is found to be resolved. The total integrated flux is $\sim$3Jykms$^{-1}$ ($\sim10$Kkms$^{-1}$), corresponding to a total molecular gas mass, assuming a standard conversion factor of N$_{\mathrm {H_2}/I_{CO}} = 2 \times
10^{20}$cm$^{-2}$/Kkms$^{-1}$, of M$_{\mathrm
{H_2}}\sim3.5\times10^7$M$_{\odot}$. This is about 25% of the single dish flux which implies that most of the molecular gas is distributed smoothly across the region.
Discussion and Summary
======================
Arp245N is a typical TDG candidate in the sense that it is a major HI concentration associated with recent star formation which resides near the tip of the tidal tail. Because the latter is seen close to edge–on, the question thus arises whether the apparent concentration is a genuine feature (Hibbard & Mihos, this volume). Bournaud et al. (2003, 2004; see also the contributions by Amram et al., this volume) have run extensive numerical models and shown the characteristic shape in position–velocity space of a [*bona fide*]{} TDG and that of a spurious feature. They show that the kinematical signature of projection effects is a change in the sign of the velocity gradient along the tail before reaching its apparent tip. For curved tails that are extended enough in 3D space, a loop-like feature may even be seen in a position–velocity (pV) diagram along the tails.
Figure 2 shows such a pV diagram along the tidal tail connecting the TDG candidate and NGC2992 using the intermediate and high resolution VLA HI data. The signal was actually integrated over a band with a width similar to that of the tail. The loop expected for projection effects is clearly seen on the figure. The part of the tail that is seen curving back towards NGC 2992 (as seen projected on the sky) is actually consistent with our earlier numerical simulations of the system (Duc et al., 2000; see the face–on view in their Fig. 10).
The HI morphology of the tidal tail, as seen at high resolution in Fig. 1, may also give some clues as to the geometry of the system. Its U–like shape could be interpreted as being due to bending of the tidal tail near its apparent tip. The tail is actually not seen perfectly edge–on (as indicated, in the optical, by the large width of the stellar tail). Thanks to the higher spatial resolution provided by the VLA in its B–configuration, we can hence ’resolve’ the projection effects – which was impossible with the early C–array data. On this map, the HI column density seems to peak in the part of the tail which points back to NGC 2992. This is where OVRO detected the bulk of the molecular gas and where the brightest HII regions in the tail are found. The velocities of all these phases match. The spatial and velocity coincidence between the CO, H$\alpha$ and HI emission peaks at this location in the tail is a strong indication that a genuine condensation is present there and that this is likely the progenitor of a Tidal Dwarf galaxy.
At the same position, a pV diagram perpendicular to the tidal tail shows a small scale velocity gradient similar to that expected for a rotating body (see Fig. 3). The peak–to–peak velocity range is 100kms$^{-1}$. A word of caution is warranted here, though. As Duc et al. (2000) mentioned, the simulated pV diagram along the same direction in the numerical model shows a similar gradient. Further simulations are required to disentangle the embedded TDG from the rest of the tail. We should then be able to determine its dynamical mass and, comparing it with the luminous mass (corresponding to the HI condensation in the B–array), probe its dark matter content. Not taking into account the line of sight crowding, and considering all the matter present at the apparent tip of the tail, one derives a dynamical mass similar to the luminous one and equal to $\sim 2 \times 10^9$M$_\odot$. For the above-mentioned reasons, these are most likely overestimates.
In summary, a first analysis of new high resolution HI and CO datacubes tends to support the existence of a bound entity within the northern tail of Arp245. However, they also show the kinematical signature expected when part of the tail is bending away along the line of sight, and eventually back to NGC 2992. Because of these projection effects, the size and mass of the embedded TDG candidate derived from low resolution data are probably overestimates.
Bournaud, F., Duc, P.–A., & Masset, F. 2003, , 411, L469
Bournaud, F., Duc, P.–A., Amram, P, & Combes, F. 2004, submitted to
Braine, J., Duc, P.–A., Lisenfeld, U., Charmandaris, V., Vallejo, O., Leon, S., Brinks, E. 2001, , 378, 51
Braine, J., Lisenfeld, U., Duc, P.–A., Leon, S. 2000, Nature, 403, 867
Duc, P.–A., Brinks, E., Springel, V., Pichardo, B., Weilbacher, P., & Mirabel, I. F. 2000, , 120, 1238
Duc, P.–A. & Mirabel, I. F. 1999, in IAU Symp. 186, Galaxy Interactions at Low and High Redshift, ed. J. E. Barnes & D. B. Sanders (Dordrecht: Kluwer), p. 61
Mirabel, I.F., Dottori, H., & Lutz, D. 1992, , 256, L19
Mirabel, I.F., Lutz, D., & Maza, J. 1991, , 243, 367
Smith, B.J., & Struck, C. 2001, , 121, 710
[^1]: The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is a facility of the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc.
|
---
abstract: 'We study a mean field model of a complex network, focusing on edge and triangle densities. Our first result is the derivation of a variational characterization of the entropy density, compatible with the infinite node limit. We then determine the optimizing graphs for small triangle density and a range of edge density, though we can only prove they are local, not global, maxima of the entropy density. With this assumption we then prove that the resulting entropy density must lose its analyticity in various regimes. In particular this implies the existence of a phase transition between distinct heterogeneous multipartite phases at low triangle density, and a phase transition between these phases and the disordered phase at high triangle density.'
address:
- |
Charles Radin\
Department of Mathematics\
The University of Texas at Austin\
Austin, TX 78712
- |
Lorenzo Sadun\
Department of Mathematics\
The University of Texas at Austin\
Austin, TX 78712
author:
- Charles Radin and Lorenzo Sadun
title: Phase transitions in a complex network
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
Exponential random graph models are a well known class of complex networks; see [@Ne] and references therein. Using the language of statistical mechanics they are mean field models, in the grand canonical ensemble, with a variety of possible many-body interactions appropriate to the model’s use. Phase transitions, which require an infinite node limit, have been proven for them [@CD; @RY] using the recently developed ‘graphon’ formalism [@Lov] in place of the infinite volume limit formalism [@R1; @R2] used in statistical mechanics. Exponential random graph models are mean field models and therefore the analogues of the various statistical mechanics ensembles (microcanonical, grand canonical, pressure, $\ldots$) which are equivalent in the infinite volume limit for particle systems with short range interactions [@R1], need not be equivalent in these mean field models; see for instance [@TET]. (Equivalence of ensembles is discussed further in the Conclusion.) In this work we use the microcanonical ensemble of one of the best known exponential random graph models, one originally formulated by Strauss [@St], and give evidence of phase transitions which are not as accessible in the grand canonical ensemble. The transitions previously analyzed for a wide class of exponential random graphs are similar to liquid/gas transitions in that they are transitions between graphs of similar character, of the same (fluid-like) phase [@RY], while the transitions we focus on in the microcanonical ensemble are analogous to solid/solid transitions, transitions between graphs of different phases. (See [@AR] for a more primitive grand canonical analysis of these phases.)
We need some network notation. Consider the set $\hat G^n$ of simple graphs $G$ with set $V(G)$ of (labelled) vertices, edge set $E(G)$ and triangle set $T(G)$, where the cardinality $|V(G)|=n$. (‘Simple’ means the edges are undirected and there are no multiple edges or loops.) Think of an unordered pair of vertices as a point in an abstract space, an edge as a particle that may occupy that point, and a triangle as a many-body interaction energy associated with its edges, so the microcanonical partition function, $\displaystyle
Z^{n,\delta}_{e,t}$, is the number of simple graphs such that: $$e(G)\equiv \frac{|E(G)|}{{n \choose 2}}
\in (e-\delta,e+\delta) \quad \hbox{ and } \quad
t(G)\equiv \frac{|T(G)|}{{n\choose 3}} \in (t-\delta,t+\delta).$$ Graphs in $\displaystyle \cup_{n\ge 1}\hat G^n$ are known to have edge and triangle densities, $(e,t)$, dense in the region $R$ in the $e,t$-plane bounded by three curves, $c_1: (e,e^{3/2}), \ \ 0\le e\le
1$, the line $l_1: \ (e,0), \ \ 0\le e\le 1/2$ and a certain scalloped curve $(e,h(e)),\ \ 1/2\le e\le 1$, lying above the curve $(e,e(2e-1), \ \ 1/2\le e\le 1$, and meeting it when $e=e_k=k/(k+1),\ \ k\ge 1$; see [@PR] and references therein, and Figure 1. .3truein
![The microcanonical phase space $R$, outlined in solid lines[]{data-label="phasefig"}](phase_space1h.eps){width="3in"}
We are interested in the relative density of graphs in $R$, more precisely in the entropy, the exponential rate of growth of the number of graphs as $n$ grows, as follows. First consider $$s^{n,\delta}_{e,t}=\frac{\ln(Z^{n,\delta}_{e,t})}{n^2}, \hbox{ and
then }
s_{e,t}=\lim_{\delta\to 0^+}\lim_{n\to \infty}s^{n,\delta}_{e,t}.$$ (The existence of the double limit will be proven.) We will measure the growth rate by the entropy density $s_{e,t},$ and the main question of interest for us is the existence of phase transitions ([*i.e.*]{} lack of analyticity of $s_{e,t}$) near the lower boundary of $R$ in Figure 1. The lower boundary consists of the scalloped curve together with the ‘first scallop’, the line from $(0,0)$ to $(1/2,0)$.
We now need to review some notation and results concerning graphons, as recently developed in [@LS1; @LS2; @BCLSV; @BCL; @LS3]. See also the recent book [@Lov].
Graphons
========
Consider the set ${{\mathcal W}}$ of all symmetric, measurable functions $$g:(x,y)\in [0,1]^2\to g(x,y)\in [0,1].$$ Think of each axis as a continuous set of vertices of a graph. For a graph $G\in \hat G^n$ one associates $$\label{checkerboard} g^G(x,y) = \begin{cases} 1 &\hbox{if }(\lceil nx \rceil , \lceil ny \rceil
)\hbox{ is an edge of }G\cr 0 & \hbox{otherwise,} \end{cases}$$ where $\lceil y \rceil$ denotes the smallest integer greater than or equal to $y$. For $g\in {{\mathcal W}}$ and simple graph $H$ we define $$t(H,g)\equiv \int_{[0,1]^\ell} \prod_{(i,j)\in E(H)}g(x_i,x_j)\,dx_1\cdots
dx_\ell,$$ where $\ell = |V(H)|$, and note that for a graph $G$, $t(H,g^G)$ is the density of graph homomorphisms $H\to G$: $$\frac{|\hbox {hom}(H,G)|}{|V(G)|^{|V(H)|}}.$$ We define an equivalence relation on ${{\mathcal W}}$ as follows: $f\sim g$ if and only if $t(H,f)=t(H,g)$ for every simple graph $H$. Elements of ${{\mathcal W}}$ are called “graphons”, elements of the quotient space $\tilde {{\mathcal W}}$ are called “reduced graphons”, and the class containing $g\in {{\mathcal W}}$ is denoted $\tilde g$. Equivalent functions in ${{\mathcal W}}$ differ by a change of variables in the following sense. Let $\Sigma$ be the space of measure preserving maps $\sigma: [0,1]\to [0,1]$, and for $f$ in ${{\mathcal W}}$ and $\sigma\in
\Sigma$, let $f_\sigma(x,y)\equiv f(\sigma(x),\sigma(y))$. Then $f\sim
g$ if and only if there exist $\sigma, \sigma'$ in $\Sigma$ such that $f_\sigma =g_{\sigma'}$ almost everywhere; see Cor. 2.2 in [@BCL]. The space ${{\mathcal W}}$ is compact with respect to the ‘cut metric’ defined as follows. First, on ${{{\mathcal W}}}$ define: $${d}_{{\hbox{\hskip 1pt\vrule width3pt height2pt depth1pt \hskip1pt}}}(f,g)\equiv \sup_{S,T\subseteq [0,1]}\Big| \int_{S\times
T}[f(x,y)-g(x,y)]\, dxdy\Big|.$$ Then on $\tilde {{\mathcal W}}$ define the cut metric by:
$${\tilde d}_{{\hbox{\hskip 1pt\vrule width3pt height2pt depth1pt \hskip1pt}}}(\tilde f,\tilde g)\equiv \inf_{\sigma,\sigma'\in \Sigma}
{d}_{{\hbox{\hskip 1pt\vrule width3pt height2pt depth1pt \hskip1pt}}}(f_{\sigma},g_{\sigma'}).$$
We will use the fact, which follows easily from Lemma 4.1 in [@LS1], that the cut metric is equivalent to the metric $$\delta_{_{\hbox{hom}}}(\tilde f,\tilde g)\equiv \sum_{j\ge 1}
\frac{1}{2^j}|t(H_j,f)-t(H_j,g)|,$$ where $\{H_j\}$ is a countable set of simple graphs, one from each graph-equivalence class. Also note that if each vertex of a finite graph is split into the same number of ‘twins’, each connected to the same vertices, the result stays in the same equivalence class, so for a convergent sequence $\tilde g^{G_j}$ one may assume $|V(G_j)|\to \infty$.
The value of this graphon formalism here is that one can use large deviations on graphs with independent edges, proven in [@CV], to give an optimization formula for $s_{e,t}$, which allows us to analyze $s_{e,t}$ near the graphons of minimal triangle density, the lower boundary of $R$ in Figure 1. We next use the large deviations rate function for graphs with independent edges to give a variational characterization for the entropy density. (There is a variational characterization in [@CD] of the free energy density in the grand canonical ensemble.)
A variational characterization of the entropy density
=====================================================
\[thm1\] For any possible pair $(e,t)$, $s_{e,t} = - \min I(g)$, where the minimum is over all graphons $g$ with $e(g)=e$ and $t(g)=t$, where $$e(g)=\int_0^1 \!\!\! \int_0^1 g(x,y) \, dx \, dy, \qquad t(g) =
\int_0^1\!\!\!\int_0^1\!\!\!\int_0^1 g(x,y) g(y,z) g(z,x) \, dx \, dy \, dz,$$
and the rate function is $$I(g) = \int_0^1\!\!\!\int_0^1 I_0(g(x,y)) \,dx\, dy, \hbox{
\rm where } I_0(u)= \frac{1}{2} \left [u \ln(u) +
(1-u)\ln(1-u)\right ].$$
We first prove that $s_{e,t}$ is well-defined. A priori all we know is that $\liminf\ln
(Z_{e,t}^{n,\delta})/n^2$ and $\limsup\ln (Z_{e,t}^{n,\delta})/n^2$ exist as ${n\to\infty}$. However, we will show that they both approach $-\min I(g)$ as $\delta \to 0^+$.
We need to define a few sets. Let $U_\delta$ be the set of graphons $g$ with $e(g)$ and $t(g)$ strictly within $\delta$ of $e$ and $t$, i.e. the preimage of an open square of side $2\delta$ in $(e,t)$-space, and let $F_\delta$ be the preimage of the closed square. Let $\tilde U_\delta$ and $\tilde F_\delta$ be the corresponding sets in $\tilde {{\mathcal W}}$. Let $|U_\delta^n|$ and $|F_\delta^n|$ denote the number of graphs with $n$ vertices whose checkerboard graphons (\[checkerboard\]) lie in $U_\delta$ or $F_\delta$. The large deviation principle, Theorem 2.3 of [@CV], implies that: $$\limsup_{n \to \infty} \frac{\ln|F_\delta^n|}{n^2} \le -\inf_{\tilde g\in \tilde F_\delta} I(\tilde g),$$ which also equals $-\inf_{g \in F_\delta} I(g)$, and that $$\liminf_{n \to \infty} \frac{\ln|U_\delta^n|}{n^2} \ge -\inf_{\tilde g \in \tilde U_\delta} I(\tilde g),$$ which also equals $-\inf_{g \in U_\delta} I(g)$. This yields a chain of inequalities $$-\inf_{U_\delta} I(g) \le \liminf \frac{\ln|U^n_\delta|}{n^2} \le \limsup \frac{\ln|U^n_\delta|}{n^2} \le
\limsup \frac{\ln|F_\delta^n|}{n^2} \le - \inf_{F_\delta} I(g) \le -
\inf_{U_{\delta+\delta^2}} I(g)$$ As $\delta \to 0^+$, the limits of $-\inf_{U_\delta} I(g)$ and $-\inf_{U_{\delta+\delta^2}} I(g)$ are the same, and everything in between is trapped.
So far we have proven that $$s_{e,t} = -\lim_{\delta \to 0^+}
\inf_{U_\delta} I(g).$$ Next we must show that the right hand side is equal to $- \min_{F_0} I(g)$. By definition, we can find a sequence of reduced graphons $\tilde g_\delta \in \tilde U_\delta$ such that $\lim_{\delta \to 0} I(\tilde g_\delta) = \lim \inf_{U_\delta}
I(g)$. Since $\tilde W$ is compact, these reduced graphons converge to a reduced graphon $\tilde g_0$, represented by a graphon $g_0 \in
F_0$. Since $I$ is lower-semicontinuous [@CV], $I(g_0) \le \lim
I(g_\delta)$, so $\min_{F_0} I(g) \le \lim \inf_{U_\delta} I(g)$. (We write $\min$ rather than $\inf$ since $\tilde F_0$ is compact.) However, $\min_{F_0} I(g)$ is at least as big as $\inf_{U_\delta}
I(g)$, since $F_0 \subset U_\delta$. Thus $\min_{F_0} I(g) =
\lim_{\delta \to 0} \inf_{U_\delta} I(g)$.
Minimizing the rate function on the boundary
============================================
>From now on we will work exclusively with graphons rather than with graphs. From Theorem \[thm1\], all questions boil down to “minimize the rate function over such-and-such region”. The first region we study is the lower boundary of $(e,t)$-space, beginning with the first (flat) scallop:
\[flat\] If $e \le 1/2$ and $t=0$, then $\min_{F_0}
I(g) = I_0(2e)/2$, and this minimum is achieved at the graphon $$\label{2fold} g_0(x,y) = \begin{cases}2e &\hbox{if }x<\frac{1}{2} < y \hbox{ or } y<\frac{1}{2}<x; \cr 0 & \hbox{otherwise.}\end{cases}$$ Furthermore, any other minimizer is equivalent to $g_0$, corresponding to the same reduced graphon.
Since $t(g)$ is identically zero, the measure of the set $\{(x,y) \in [0,1]^2 | g(x,y) =0\}$ is at least 1/2. Otherwise, the graphon $\bar g(x,y) = \begin{cases}1 & \hbox{if } g(x,y)>0; \cr
0& \hbox{otherwise,}\end{cases}$ would have no triangles and would have edge density greater than 1/2, which is impossible. So we restrict attention to graphons that are zero on a set of measure at least 1/2 and have edge density $e$. From the convexity of $I_0$, we know that the graphon minimizing $I$ must be zero on a set of measure 1/2 and must be constant on the rest. Thus $g_0$ is a minimizer, and $\min_{F_0}I(g) = I(g_0) =
I_0(2e)/2$.
Now suppose that $g$ is another minimizer. Since $g$ is zero on a set of measure 1/2 and is $2e$ on a set of measure 1/2, $\bar g$ is 1 on a set of measure 1/2, and so describes a graphon with edge density 1/2 and no triangles. This means that $\bar g$ describes a complete bipartite graph with the two parts having the same measure. That is, $\bar g$ is equivalent to the graphon that equals 1 if $x<\frac{1}{2}<y$ or $y< \frac{1}{2} < x$ and is zero everywhere else. But then $g=2e\bar g$ is equivalent to $g_0$.
The situation on the curved scallops is slightly more complicated. Pick an integer $\ell>1$. (The case $\ell=1$ just gives us our first scallop.) If $e
\in \left[1-\frac{1}{\ell}, 1-\frac{1}{\ell+1}\right ]$, then any graph $G$ with edge density $e$ and the minimum number of triangles has to take the following form (see [@PR] for the history). Let $$c = \frac{\ell + \sqrt{\ell(\ell-e(\ell+1))}}{\ell(\ell+1)}.$$ There is a partition of $\{1,\ldots,n\}$ into $\ell$ pieces, the first $\ell-1$ of size $\lfloor cn\rfloor$ and the last of size between $\lfloor cn\rfloor$ and $2\lfloor cn\rfloor$, such that $G$ is the complete $\ell$-partite graph on these pieces, plus a number of additional edges within the last piece. ($\lfloor y\rfloor$ denotes the largest integer greater than or equal to $y$.) These additional edges can take any form, as long as there are no triangles within the last piece.
This means that, after possibly renumbering the vertices, the graphon for such a graph can be written as an uneven $\ell \times \ell$ checkerboard obtained from cutting the unit interval into pieces $V_k=[(k-1)c,kc]$ for $k<\ell$ and $V_\ell=[(\ell-1)c, 1]$, with the checkerboard being 1 outside the main diagonal, 0 on the main diagonal except the upper right corner, and corresponding to a zero-triangle graph in the upper right corner.
Limits of such graphons in the metric must take the form $$g(x,y) = \begin{cases} 1 & x< kc < y \hbox{ or } y<kc < x \hbox{ for an integer }k<\ell; \cr
0 & (k-1) c < x,y < kc \hbox{ for some integer }k<\ell; \cr
\hbox{unspecified} & x,y > (\ell-1)c, \end{cases}$$ with $$\iiint \limits_{[(\ell-1)c,1]^3} g(x,y) g(y,z) g(z,x) \, dx\, dy \, dz = 0,$$ and with $\iint\limits_{[0,1]^2} g(x,y) \, dx \, dy = e$. Minimizing $I(g)$ on such graphons is easy, since all but the upper right corner of the graphon is fixed. Applying Theorem \[flat\] to that corner, we get
\[scallop\] If $e>1/2$ and $t$ is the smallest value possible, then the minimum of $I(g)$ on $F_0$ is achieved by the graphon $$g_0(x,y) = \begin{cases} 1 & x< kc < y \hbox{ or } y<kc < x \hbox{ for an integer }k<\ell; \cr
p & (\ell-1)c < x < [1+(\ell-1)c]/2 < y \hbox{ or } (\ell-1)c < y < [1+
(\ell-1)c]/2 < x; \cr 0 & \hbox{otherwise,} \end{cases}$$ where $$p= \frac{4c(1-\ell c)}{(1-(\ell-1)c)^2}$$ is a number chosen to make $\int\!\!\int_{[0,1]^2} g(x,y) \; dx\;dy =
e$. Furthermore, any other minimizer is equivalent to $g_0$. The minimum value of $I(g)$ is $$I(g_0) = \frac{(1-(\ell-1)c)^2}{2}I_0(p).$$
Minimizing near the first scallop
=================================
Now that we know the minimizer [*at*]{} the (lower) boundary, we perturb it to get a minimizer [*near*]{} the boundary.
\[near\] Pick $e<1/2$ and $\epsilon$ sufficiently small. Then the graphon $$g(x,y) = \begin{cases} 2e-\epsilon & x<\frac{1}{2} < y \hbox{ or } y<\frac{1}{2} < x \cr \epsilon &\hbox{otherwise,} \end{cases}$$ minimizes the rate function to second order in perturbation theory among graphons with $e(g)=e$ and $t(g)=e^3-(e-\epsilon)^3$. For pointwise small variations $\delta g$ of $g$, the second variation in $I(g)$ is bounded from below by $\frac{1}{2}\iint \limits_{[0,1]^2}(\delta g(x,y))^2 \, dx \, dy$.
We first consider the first variation in $I(g)$ for general graphons and derive the Euler-Lagrange equations. It is easy to check that our specific $g$ satisfies these equations. We then consider the second variation in $I(g)$. Note that the function $I_0$ satisfies $$I_0'(u) = \frac{1}{2} [\ln(u) - \ln(1-u)], \qquad I_0''(u) = \frac{1}{2}
\left [ \frac{1}{u} + \frac{1}{1-u}\right ]\ge 2.$$
To find the Euler-Lagrange equations with the constraints that $(e(g), t(g))$ are equal to fixed values $(e_0,t_0)$, we use Lagrange multipliers and vary the function $I(g) + \lambda_1 (e(g)-e_0) + \lambda_2 (t(g)-t_0)$. To first order, the variation with respect to $g$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\delta I(g) &=& \int_0^1\!\!\! \int_0^1 I_0'(g(x,y)) \delta g(x,y) \, dx \, dy
+ \lambda_1 \int_0^1\!\!\!\int_0^1 \delta g(x,y) \, dx \, dy \\
&& + 3 \lambda_2\int_0^1\!\!\!\int_0^1
h(x,y) \delta g(x,y) \, dx \, dy,\end{aligned}$$ where we have introduced the auxiliary function $$h(x,y) = \int_0^1 \! g(x,z) g(y,z) \, dz.$$ Setting $ \delta I(g)$ equal to zero, we get $$\label{ELeq} I_0'(g(x,y)) = - \lambda_1 - 3\lambda_2 h(x,y).$$ Our particular $g(x,y)$ satisfies this equation with $$\label{lambda2} 3 \lambda_2 = \frac{I_0'(2e-\epsilon)-I_0'(\epsilon)}{2(e-\epsilon)^2}.$$
Next we expand $\delta t$ and $\delta I$ to second order in $\delta g$, ignoring $O((\delta g)^3)$ terms. Since $$\delta t = 3\iint h(x,y) \delta g(x,y) dx \, dy + 3 \iiint
g(x,y) \delta g(x,z) \delta g(y,z) dx \, dy \, dz + O((\delta g)^3),$$ and since we are holding $e(g)$ and $t(g)$ fixed, $$\begin{aligned}
\delta I =&&
\iint I_0'(g(x,y)) \delta g(x,y) dx \, dy \cr &&+ \frac{1}{2}\iint
I_0''(g(x,y)) (\delta g(x,y))^2 dx\, dy \cr
=&& \iint (-\lambda_1 -3\lambda_2 h(x,y)) \delta g(x,y) dx \, dy \cr && +
\frac{1}{2}\iint
I_0''(g(x,y)) (\delta g(x,y))^2 dx \, dy \cr
=&& -\lambda_1 \delta e - \lambda_2 \delta t + 3 \lambda_2 \iiint
g(x,y) \delta g(x,z) \delta g(y,z) \,dx\, dy\, dz \cr && + \frac{1}{2}\iint
I_0''(g(x,y)) (\delta g(x,y))^2 \, dx\, dy \cr
=&& 3 \lambda_2
\iiint g(x,y) \delta g(x,z) \delta g(y,z) dx \,dy \,dz \cr &&+ \frac{1}{4}
\iint I_0''(g(x,y)) \delta g(x,y)^2 dx \,dy + \frac{1}{4}
\iint I_0''(g(x,y)) \delta g(x,y)^2 dx \,dy.\end{aligned}$$ We have split the $\iint I'' \delta g^2$ term into two pieces, as we will be applying different estimates to each piece.
Since $h(x,y)$ and $I''(g)$ are piecewise constant, all of our integrals break down into integrals over different quadrants. Let $R_1$ and $R_2$ be the following subsets of $[0,1]^2$: $$R_1 = \{x,y < 1/2\} \cup \{x,y > 1/2\}, \qquad
R_2 = \{x<1/2<y\} \cup \{y < 1/2 < x\}.$$ For each $z$, we define the functions $f_1(z) = \int_0^{1/2} \delta g(x,z) dx$ and $f_2(z) = \int_{1/2}^1 \delta g(x,z) dx$. The second variation in $I$ is then $$\begin{aligned}
&& \frac{1}{4} \iint \limits_{[0,1]^2} I_0''(g) \delta g(x,y)^2 dx\,dy
+ \frac{I_0''(\epsilon)}{4}\iint \limits_{R_1} \delta g(x,y)^2
dx \, dy + \frac{I_0''(2e-\epsilon)}{4} \iint \limits_{R_2} \delta g(x,y)^2 dx \, dy \cr
&+& 3 \lambda_2 \int_0^1 dz \left [
\epsilon \iint \limits_{R_1} \delta g(x,z) \delta g(y,z) dx \, dy
+ (2e-\epsilon) \iint \limits_{R_2} \delta g(x,z)
\delta g(y,z) dx \, dy \right ] \cr
&=& \frac{1}{4} \iint \limits_{[0,1]^2} I_0''(g(x,y)) \delta g(x,y)^2 dx \, dy
+ \frac{I_0''(\epsilon)}{4}\iint \limits_{R_1} \delta g(x,z)^2
dx \, dz + \frac{I_0''(2e-\epsilon)}{4} \iint\limits_{R_2} \delta g(x,z)^2 dx \, dz \cr
&& \qquad \qquad + 3 \lambda_2 \int_0^1 \epsilon \left [f_1(z)^2
+ f_2(z)^2)\right ] + 2(2e-\epsilon ) f_1(z) f_2(z)\, dz \end{aligned}$$
Note that by Cauchy-Schwarz, $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^{1/2} (\delta g(x,z))^2 dx & \ge & 2 \left ( \int_0^{1/2}
\delta g(x,z) dx\right)^2 = 2 f_1(z)^2 \\
\int_{1/2}^1 (\delta g(x,z))^2 dx & \ge & 2 \left ( \int_{1/2}^1
\delta g(x,z) dx\right)^2 = 2 f_2(z)^2. \end{aligned}$$ Since $I_0''(\epsilon)$ and $I_0''(2e-\epsilon)$ are positive, $\delta I$ is bounded from below by $$\begin{aligned}
&& \frac{1}{4} \iint \limits_{[0,1]^2} I_0''(g(x,y)) \delta g(x,y)^2 dx \, dy
+\frac{ I''(\epsilon)}{2}\left [\int_0^{1/2} f_1(z)^2 dz
+ \int_{1/2}^1 f_2(z)^2 dz \right ] \cr
&+& \frac{I_0''(2e-\epsilon)}{2} \left [ \int_0^{1/2}f_2(z)^2 dz +
\int_{1/2}^1 f_1(z)^2 dz \right ] \cr
&+& 3\lambda_2 \int_0^1 dz \left [\epsilon(f_1(z)^2 + f_2(z)^2)
+ 2(2e-\epsilon)f_1(z)f_2(z) \right ] \end{aligned}$$
Collecting terms and applying equation (\[lambda2\]), this bound becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{4} \iint \limits_{[0,1]^2} I_0''(g(x,y)) \delta g(x,y)^2 dx \, dy &+& \int_0^{1/2} \!\!dz [c_1 f_1(z)^2 + c_2 f_2(z)^2 + 2 c_3 f_1(z)f_2(z)] \cr
&+& \int_{1/2}^1 \!\!dz [c_1 f_2(z)^2 + c_2 f_1(z)^2 + 2 c_3 f_1(z)f_2(z)], \end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
c_1 &=& \frac{I_0''(\epsilon)}{2} + \frac{\epsilon (I_0'(2e-\epsilon)-I_0'(\epsilon))}
{2(e-\epsilon)^2} \\
c_2 &=& \frac{I_0''(2e-\epsilon)}{2} + \frac{\epsilon (I_0'(2e-\epsilon)-I_0'(\epsilon))}
{2(e-\epsilon)^2} \\
c_3 &=& \frac{(2e-\epsilon)(I_0'(2e-\epsilon)-I_0'(\epsilon))}{2(e-\epsilon)^2}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that all coefficients are positive, and that $c_2>1$. As $\epsilon \to 0$, $c_1$ goes to $+\infty$ as $1/\epsilon$, while $c_3$ only diverges as $-\ln(\epsilon)$. Since $c_1 c_2 > c_3^2$ for small $\epsilon$, the integrand for each $z$ is positive semi-definite, so the integral over $z$ is non-negative, and we obtain $$\delta I \ge \frac{1}{4} \iint I_0''(g) \delta g^2 \ge \frac{1}{2}
\iint \delta g(x,y)^2,$$ where we used the fact that $I_0''(u) \ge 2$ for all $u$.
Any global minimizer must be $O(\epsilon)$ close to $g_0$, and hence $O(\epsilon)$ close to our specified perturbative minimizer. This means that the only way for them to differ is through a complicated bifurcation of minimizers at $g_0$, despite the uniform bounds on $\delta I$ as we approach the boundary. The difference between these hypothetical minimizers and $g_0$ would not be pointwise small, but would merely be small in an $L^1$ sense.
For instance, consider graphons of the form $$g(x,y) = \begin{cases} p & x<c<y \hbox{ or } y<c<x; \cr \alpha & x,y < c; \cr \beta & x,y > c, \end{cases}$$ where $c$ is a parameter that we will vary and $p$, $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are constants that depend on $c$. For each $c$ sufficiently close to $1/2$, it is possible to find a graphon of this form such that $\iiint g(x,y) g(y,z) g(x,z) dx \, dy \, dz = t$ and $\iint g(x,y) dx\, dy =e$, and such that the Euler-Lagrange equations (\[ELeq\]) are satisifed. Call this graphon $g_c(x,y)$. A lengthly calculation shows that $$\left . \frac{\partial^2 I(g_c)}{\partial c^2} \right |_{c=1/2} \ge 16e^2$$ for small $t$, indicating that (nearly) bipartite graphs with pieces of unequal size have a higher rate function than $g$. This provides strong evidence that our perturbative solution is in fact a global minimizer for sufficiently small $t$.
\[cor1\] Assuming our perturbative solution is the global optimizer, there is a phase transition near the boundary point $(1/2,0)$ between the first and second scallop.
Our perturbative solution yields a formula for the entropy:
$$\label{entropy} s_{e,t} = -\frac{1}{2} [I_0(\epsilon)
+ I_0(2e-\epsilon)].$$
This formula for the entropy cannot be extended analytically beyond $e=(1+\epsilon)/2$, as $\partial^2 s/\partial
e^2$ diverges as $e \to (1+\epsilon)/2$. However, $e=(1+
\epsilon)/2$ corresponds to $t= (\epsilon^3 + 3\epsilon)/4$, or, using the more basic variable $e$,
$$t= [(2e-1)^3+3(2e-1)]/4,$$
which is in the interior of $(e,t)$ space. (Since the graphon $g(x,y)$ is nowhere zero, it differs in form from the graphons describing graphs with minimal $t$.) Thus $s_{e,t}$ must fail to be analytic in some neighborhood of the first scallop.
Of course there must also be a phase transition, presumably from this bipartite phase to a homogeneous phase, if one fixes $e$ and raises $t$, which we see as follows.
\[cor2\] Assuming our perturbative solution is the global optimizer, there is a phase transition as one raises $t$, for any fixed $0< e < 1/2$.
Recall from Corollary \[cor1\] the connection between $t$ and $\epsilon$:
$$t= \epsilon^3 - (e-\epsilon)^3.$$
Note that $t$ is an increasing function of $\epsilon$ and reaches the value $2e^3$ when $\epsilon = 2e$. From equation (\[entropy\]) for the entropy we see that it cannot be extended analytically to $t >
2e^3$, yet for $e< 1/2$ we have $2e^3< e^2< e^{3/2}$ so $(e,t)$ is in the interior of the phase space (Figure 1).
Conclusion
==========
Our goal was to analyze possible phase transitions between multipartite phases of complex networks, analogous to solid/solid transitions in materials. To this end we adapted the Strauss model [@St], defined in the grand canonical ensemble, to a microcanonical ensemble. It is appropriate at this point to review the ‘equivalence of ensembles’ in statistical physics.
In thermodynamics the concavity of the entropy $S(E,N,V)$, as a function of internal energy $E$, particle number (or mass) $N$ and volume $V$, and the interpretation of equilibrium states as states maximizing the entropy, are both fundamental; see for instance [@Ca; @Ma]. Lagrange multipliers can be used to convert this optimization criterion of the entropy to an equivalent optimization criterion of the free energy, where the free energy is the Legendre transform of the entropy [@Do; @Ca; @Ma]. It is important that the Legendre transform between the entropy and free energy be invertible so the two optimization schemes are equivalent, and this follows from the concavity of the entropy. (See Section 26 of [@Ro] for the mathematics of the Legendre tranform between convex functions.)
Statistical mechanics supplies a model for thermodynamic states, as probability distributions on mechanical multiparticle states. From a given short range particle interaction one can then (in principle) compute the internal energy $E$ and entropy $S$, and prove the above two features of the entropy: its concavity and its optimization role for equilibrium states. To do this one uses the basic Boltzmann/Gibbs ansatz: that the entropy $S(E,N,V)$ is proportional to $$-\sum_j\rho_j\ln(\rho_j)$$ where $\rho_j$ is the probability of multiparticle state $j$, and the equilibrium state is that probability distribution $\{\rho_j\}$ on the set $\Xi(E,N,V)$, of multiparticle states of energy $E$ and particle number $N$ in volume $V$, which maximizes the entropy [@R1; @R2; @Ge; @Wi; @Ma]. (Note that in taking an infinite volume limit, which we must do to obtain equivalence of ensembles, one can divide the entropy’s variables by volume, and consider the entropy density as a function of particle and energy density).
The equivalence of ensembles in statistical mechanics is basically a strenghening of the equivalence in thermodynamics between entropy $s_{e,t}$ and free energy $\psi_{\beta_1,\beta_2}$, corresponding to Lagrange multipliers $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$, which follows from the concavity of the entropy. With the modeling of the thermodynamic states this now implies a bijection $(e,t)\longleftrightarrow
(\beta_1,\beta_2)$ such that $s_{e,t}$ and $\psi_{\beta_1,\beta_2}$ have the same optimizing states, at least off some manageable sets of parameter pairs corresponding to ‘phase coexistence’ where the bijection can degenerate to a many-to-one map [@Ge].
In exponential random graph models, which are mean field rather than short range, the entropy need not be concave [@TET] and indeed this fails in an obvious way for the specific model we are analyzing, the Strauss model, since even the domain $R$ of the entropy is not convex (see Figure 1). Therefore in the infinite node limit of the model the free energy density $\psi_{\beta_1,\beta_2}$, need not be equivalent to the entropy density $s_{e,t}$; $\psi_{\beta_1,\beta_2}$ can be obtained from $s_{e,t}$ by Legendre transform, but it may not be possible to recover $s_{e,t}$ from $\psi_{\beta_1,\beta_2}$. Inequivalence can result from the existence of graphons maximizing $s_{e,t}$ for some $(e,t)$ which are not maximizers of $\psi_{\beta_1,\beta_2}$ for any $(\beta_1,\beta_2)$. Specific instances of such loss of information in $\psi_{\beta_1,\beta_2}$ are shown in a future paper [@RS], but one consequence can already be seen in the transitions, studied previously [@PN; @CD; @RY] in the grand canonical ensemble, between independent-edge graphs across a phase transition curve in the phase space; see Figure 2 for the Strauss model. Such ‘free particle’ graphs, with only edge density $e$ as a variable, optimize $\psi_{\beta_1,\beta_2}$ for $(\beta_1,\beta_2)$ throughout the upper half of the grand canonical phase space, so $e$ is a function of $(\beta_1,\beta_2)$ off the transition curve there; see [@RY] for details. These graphs all lie on the curve $t=e^3$ in Figure 1, not a 2-dimensional region in that microcanonical phase space, making it difficult to use singularities of the free energy $\psi_{\beta_1,\beta_2}$ to imply singularities of the entropy $s_{e,t}$. For this reason we have focused here on phase transitions in the lower region of the microcanonical phase space, Figure 1.
.4truein ![The curve of all singularities of $\psi_{\beta_1,\beta_2}$ for $\beta_2>-1/2$[]{data-label="trans"}](transition.eps "fig:"){width="3in"}
We have shown that our (, bipartite) graphons $g$ of Theorem \[near\] maximize the entropy density at least to second order in perturbation theory, among graphons with a limited range of edge and triangle densities. Assuming the $g$ are actually global maximizers we then proved the entropy density would have to lose analyticity as the edge density of the graphon approaches the tripartite regime. We also show that the entropy density must suffer a phase transition as the triangle density is raised sufficiently high, presumably from the structured bipartite phase to a homogeneous phase of higher triangle density.
We expect that a more complicated analysis could produce appropriate graphons $g^{(k)},\ k\ge 1$, near each of the higher edge density (multipartite) graphons of minimial triangle density, with a transition near each scallop intersection. Intuitively this suggests a mechanism whereby as edge density is increased, near the minimum triangle density graphon, the system progressively transitions through finer and finer structure; for high edge density most graphs would consist of many interacting ‘parts’.
Our results on phase transitions require that the graphons of Theorem \[near\] be in fact global, not just local, maximizers of the entropy density. In a future paper [@RS] we use a symmetry to prove that these graphons are indeed the unique global maximizers at least for triangle density in the range $0\le t\le 1/8$ and edge density $e=1/2$, and we can then see a transition on this curve. However we still cannot prove the graphons are the global optimizers of entropy density for $(e,t)$ in any two-dimensional region, as is needed to fully justify the notion of a structured phase. (See [@AR] for a variant of this approach.)
In conclusion we emphasize that our key tool was Theorem \[thm1\], an optimization formula for the asymptotic entropy density, and made essential use of the graph limit formalism. The graphon formalism is a powerful tool for dealing with the infinite size limit in mean field models, and we have used it to make some progress on understanding the structure of asymptotically large graphs near the extreme of low triangle density.
[**Acknowledgements:**]{} We gratefully acknowledge useful discussions with Francesco Maggi and Peter Winkler.
[BCLSV]{}
D. Aristoff and C. Radin, Emergent structures in large networks, J. Appl. Probab. (to appear), arXiv:1110.1912
, Moments of two-variable functions and the uniqueness of graph limits, Geom. Funct. Anal. 19 (2010) 1597-1619.
, Convergent graph sequences I: subgraph frequencies, metric properties, and testing, [ Adv. Math.]{} [ 219]{} (2008) 1801-1851.
H.B. Callen, [Thermodynamics]{}, John Wiley, New York, 1960.
S. Chatterjee, and P. Diaconis, Estimating and understanding exponential random graph models, arXiv: 1102.2650v3.
S. Chatterjee and S.R.S. Varadhan, The large deviation principle for the Erdős-Rényi random graph, Eur. J. Comb. 32 (2011) 1000-1017
T.C. Dorlas, Statistical Mechanics: Fundamentals and Model Solutions, Institute of Physics Publishing, London, 1999.
H-O. Georgii, The equivalence of ensembles for classical systems of particles, J. Stat. Phys. 80 (1995) 1341-1378.
L. Lovász, Large networks and graph limits, American Mathematical Society, Providence, 2012.
, Limits of dense graph sequences, [ J. Combin. Theory Ser. B]{} [ 96]{} (2006) 933-957.
, Szemerédi’s lemma for the analyst, [ GAFA]{} [ 17]{} (2007) 252-270.
, Finitely forcible graphons, [ J. Combin. Theory Ser. B]{} [101]{} (2011) 269-301.
S.-K. Ma, [Statistical Mechanics]{}, World Scientific, Singapore, 1985.
M.E.J. Newman, Networks: an Introduction, Oxford University Press, 2010.
J. Park and M.E.J. Newman, Solution for the properties of a clustered network, Phys. Rev. E 72 (2005) 026136.
O. Pikhurko and A. Razborov, Asymptotic structure of graphs with the minimum number of triangles, arXiv:1203.4393
D. Ruelle, [*Statistical Mechanics; Rigorous Results*]{}, Benjamin, New York, 1969.
D. Ruelle, [*Thermodynamic Formalism*]{}, Addison-Wesley, New York, 1978.
R.T. Rockafellar, Convex Analysis, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1970.
C. Radin and L. Sadun, Singularities in the entropy of asymptotically large simple graphs, arXiv:1302:3531
C. Radin and M. Yin, Phase transitions in exponential random graphs, Ann. Appl. Probab. (to appear), arXiv:1108.0649.
D. Strauss, On a general class of models for interaction, SIAM Rev. 28 (1986) 513-527.
H. Touchette, R.S. Ellis and B. Turkington, Physica A 340 (2004) 138-146.
A.S. Wightman, Convexity and the notion of equilibrium state in thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, in R. Israel, [Convexity in the Theory of Lattice Gases]{}, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1979, pp. ix-lxxv.
[^1]: This work was partially supported by NSF grants DMS-1208941 and DMS-1101326
|
---
abstract: 'Facial landmark detection has been studied over decades. Numerous neural network (NN)-based approaches have been proposed for detecting landmarks, especially the convolutional neural network (CNN)-based approaches. In general, CNN-based approaches can be divided into regression and heatmap approaches. However, no research systematically studies the characteristics of different approaches. In this paper, we investigate both CNN-based approaches, generalize their advantages and disadvantages, and introduce a variation of the heatmap approach, a pixel-wise classification (PWC) model. To the best of our knowledge, using the PWC model to detect facial landmarks have not been comprehensively studied. We further design a hybrid loss function and a discrimination network for strengthening the landmarks’ interrelationship implied in the PWC model to improve the detection accuracy without modifying the original model architecture. Six common facial landmark datasets, AFW, Helen, LFPW, 300-W, IBUG, and COFW are adopted to train or evaluate our model. A comprehensive evaluation is conducted and the result shows that the proposed model outperforms other models in all tested datasets.'
author:
- 'Chih-Fan Hsu$^{12}$, Chia-Ching Lin$^{12}$, Ting-Yang Hung$^3$, Chin-Laung Lei$^2$, and Kuan-Ta Chen$^1$'
bibliography:
- 'refs.bib'
title: 'A Detailed Look At CNN-based Approaches In Facial Landmark Detection'
---
|
---
abstract: 'We establish the analogue of the Friedlander-Mazur conjecture for Teh’s reduced Lawson homology groups of real varieties, which says that the reduced Lawson homology of a real quasi-projective variety $X$ vanishes in homological degrees larger than the dimension of $X$ in all weights. As an application we obtain a vanishing of homotopy groups of the mod-2 topological groups of averaged cycles and a characterization in a range of indices of the motivic cohomology of a real variety as homotopy groups of the complex of averaged equidimensional cycles. We also establish an equivariant Poincare duality between equivariant Friedlander-Walker real morphic cohomology and dos Santos’ real Lawson homology. We use this together with an equivariant extension of the mod-2 Beilinson-Lichtenbaum conjecture to compute some real Lawson homology groups in terms of Bredon cohomology.'
author:
- Jeremiah Heller
- Mircea Voineagu
bibliography:
- 'remreal.bib'
title: Vanishing Theorems for Real Algebraic Cycles
---
Introduction
============
Let $X$ be a quasi-projective real variety. The Galois group $G = Gal(\C/\R)$ acts on $\mcal{Z}_{q}(X_{\C})$, the topological group of $q$-cycles on the complexification. Cycles on the real variety $X$ correspond to cycles on $X_{\C}$ which are fixed by conjugation. Inside the topological group of $\mcal{Z}_{q}(X_{\C})^{G}$ of cycles fixed by conjugation is the topological group $\mcal{Z}_{q}(X_{\C})^{av}$ of averaged cycles which are the cycles of the form $\alpha + \overline{\alpha}$. The space of reduced cycles on $X$ is the quotient topological group $$\mcal{R}_{q}(X) = \frac{\mcal{Z}_{q}(X_{\C})^{G}}{\mcal{Z}_{q}(X_{\C})^{av}}.$$ Homotopy groups of some of the above abelian topological groups are related to classical topological invariants. For example for $X$ a projective real variety we obtain the singular homology groups $\pi_{*}\mcal{R}_{0}(X)= H _*(X(\mathbb{R}),\mathbb{Z}/2)$ [@Teh:real] and $\pi_*\mcal{Z}_{0}(X_{\C})^{av}= H _*(X_{\C}(\mathbb{C})/G,\mathbb{Z})$ [@LLM:real], as well as Bredon homology $\pi_{*}\mcal{Z}_{0}(X) = H_{*,0}(X_{\C}(\C);\underline{\Z})$ [@LF:Gequiv]. Other homotopy groups are related to classical algebraic geometry invariants. For example $\pi _0(Z _r(X _\mathbb{C})^G)$ computes the group of algebraic cycles of dimension r on $X$ modulo real algebraic equivalence [@FW:real] and consequently with $\mathbb{Z}/n$ coefficients equals the Chow group $CH _r(X)\tensor\mathbb{Z}/n$ (see Proposition \[fcoeffagr\]). However most of these homotopy groups remain a mysterious combination of topological and algebraic information of the real variety $X$.
These homotopy groups are hard to compute and examples are few. Nonetheless an examination of existing computations shows that these homotopy groups are all zero in large degrees. For example, in ([@Lam:t]) Lam proves that $$\mcal{R}_{q}(\mathbb{P}^n _\mathbb{R})\simeq \prod _{i=0}^{n-q}K(\mathbb{Z}/2,i) .$$ In particular $\pi _k(\mcal{R}_{q}(\mathbb{P}^n _\mathbb{R}))=0$ for $k>n-q$. Similar vanishing results are seen in the computations of [@LLM:quat] for a real variety $X$ with the property that its complexification is the quaternionic projective space (see Example \[exR\]).
In [@Teh:HT] Teh proves a conditional Harnack-Thom type theorem for the homotopy groups of reduced algebraic cycles on $X$ which holds under the assumption that these homotopy groups are all finitely generated and they are zero in high degrees. In the case of divisors he shows that $$\pi _k\mcal{R} _{d-1}(X)=0$$ when $k\geq 3$ for any smooth projective real variety $X$ of dimension $d$.
The main theorem of this paper provides this vanishing in general and should be viewed as a massive generalization of both the classical vanishing of singular homology groups of a manifold in degree larger than the manifold and of the vanishing results discussed above.
\[mth\] Let $X$ be a quasi-projective real variety. Then $$\pi_{k}\mcal{R}_{q}(X) = 0$$ for $k\geq \dim X -q +1$.
In the case of divisors our result improves the previously known vanishing range. The case of real projective space described above shows that the theorem’s vanishing range is optimal.
The homotopy groups of reduced algebraic cycles $R _q(X)$ define a homology theory for real quasi-projective varieties $X$ introduced in [@Teh:real] which is defined by $RL _qH _n(X)=\pi _{n-q}(\mcal{R}_{q}(X))$ for $n\geq q$ and called reduced Lawson homology. In this notation our vanishing result reads $RL _qH _n(X)=0$ for any $n>\dim(X)$. Thus our vanishing result shows that the Friedlander-Mazur conjecture holds for the reduced Lawson homology of real varieties.
The homotopy groups of $\mcal{R}_{q}(X)$ fit into a long exact sequence $$\cdots \to \pi_{k+1}\mcal{R}_{q}(X) \to \pi_{k}\mcal{Z}_{q}(X_{\C})^{av} \to L_{q}H\R_{q-k,q}(X) \to \pi_{k}\mcal{R}_{q}(X) \to \cdots$$ where $L_{q}H\R_{q-k,q}(X) = \pi_{k}\mcal{Z}_{q}(X_{\C})^{G}$ is the real Lawson homology introduced by dos Santos in [@DS:real]. As a consequence of Suslin rigidity the homotopy groups of $\mcal{R}_{q}(X)$ are also related to motivic cohomology of $X$ $$\cdots \to \pi_{k}z_{equi}(\A^{q}_{\C},0)(X_{\C}\times \Delta^{\bullet}_{\C})^{av} \to H_{\mcal{M}}^{2q-k}(X; \Z(q)) \to \pi_{k}\mcal{R}_{q}(X) \to \cdots .$$
Thus an immediate corollary of the vanishing theorem is an identification of the homotopy groups of the space of averaged cycles and of the complex of averaged equidimensional cycles.
Let $X$ be a smooth quasi-projective real variety. Then for any $k\geq \dim X -q+1$ $$L_{q}H\R_{q-k,q}(X) = \pi_{k}\mcal{Z}_{q}(X_{\C})^{av}$$ and $$H_{\mcal{M}}^{2q-k}(X;\Z(q)) = \pi_{k}z_{equi}(\A^{q}_{\C},0)(X_{\C}\times \Delta^{\bullet}_{\C})^{av}.$$
Theorem \[mth\] also implies that the mod-2 homotopy groups of the topological group of average cycles satisfy an optimal vanishing (see also Example \[avopt\]).
Let $X$ be a smooth projective real variety of dimension $d$. Then $$\pi_{n}\frac{\mcal{Z}_{p}(X_{\C})^{av}}{2\mcal{Z}_{p}(X_{\C})^{av}} = 0$$ for $n\geq 2d-2p+1$.
An essential ingredient in the proof of our vanishing theorem is the Milnor conjecture proved by Voevodsky in [@Voev:miln]. The Milnor conjecture relates motivic cohomology and etale cohomology while real morphic cohomology naturally compares with Bredon cohomology. We need to know that these cycle maps are suitably related which is done in Theorem \[cyccomp\],
\[dg\] Let $X$ be a smooth quasi-projective real variety. The diagram commutes $$\xymatrix{
L^{q}H\R^{q-k,q}(X;\Z/2) \ar[d]_-{\Phi} && \ar[ll]_{\iso}\H^{2q-k,q}_{\mcal{M}}(X;\Z/2) \ar[d]^-{cyc} \\
H^{q-k,q}(X_{\C}(\C);\underline{\Z/2}) \ar[r] & H_{G}^{2q-k}(X_{\C}(\C);\Z/2)\ar[r] & H^{2q-k}_{et}(X;\mu_{2}^{\otimes q}),
}$$ where $H^{p-q,q}(X_{\C}(\C);\underline{\Z/2})$ denotes Bredon cohomology and $H_{G}^{p}(X_{\C}(\C);\Z/2)$ denotes Borel cohomology.
This suggests that there are possible advantages in replacing the map on Chow groups of real cycles into Borel cohomology with the map into Bredon cohomology since in many respects Bredon cohomology behaves better than Borel cohomology. An application of this idea will be given in a forthcoming paper.
Together with the mod-2 Beilinson-Lichtenbaum conjecture for real and complex varieties (which is a consequence of the Milnor conjecture by [@SV:BK]) we conclude an equivariant Beilinson-Lichtenbaum type theorem for an equivariant extension of Friedlander-Walker’s real morphic cohomology groups (see Definition \[emco\]).
Let $X$ be a smooth quasi-projective real variety and $k>0$. The cycle map $$\Phi:L^{q}H\R^{r,s}(X; \Z/2^{k}) \to H^{r,s}(X_{\C}(\C); \underline{\Z/2^{k}})$$ is an isomorphism if $r\leq 0$ (and $s\leq q$) and an injection if $r=1$ (and $s\leq q$).
Using Friedlander-Voevodsky duality for bivariant cycle theory we show in Corollary \[PD\] that the equivariant morphic cohomology and real Lawson homology groups are isomorphic through a Poincare duality. As a consequence the equivariant Beilinson-Lichtenbaum says that in a range we may compute the mod-2 real Lawson homology groups in terms of mod-2 Bredon cohomology. This allows a computation for curves with integral coefficients.
Let $X$ be a smooth real curve. Then $$L^{q}H\R^{r,s}(X; \Z) \to H^{r,s}(X_{\C}(\C); \underline{\Z})$$ is an isomorphism for any $q\geq 0$, $r\leq q$, and $s\leq q$.
The space of reduced cocycles on $X$, related via Poincare duality with the space of reduced cycles, is defined as $$\mcal{R}^{q}(X)=\frac{\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\C})^{G}}{\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\C})^{av}}$$ where $\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\C})$ is the space of algebraic cocycles on $X_{\C}$ and $\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\C})^{G}$ agrees with the space of real cocycles introduced by Friedlander-Walker in [@FW:real] (see Proposition \[nqp\]). There is a natural comparison map $$\label{cmap}
\mcal{R}^{q}(X) \to \map{X(\R)}{\mcal{R}_{0}(\A^{q})}$$ and since $\mcal{R}_{0}(\A^{q})=K(\Z/2,q)$ this provides a natural map $$\label{tcycm}
cyc _{k}: \pi_{k}\mcal{R}^{q}(X) \to H^{q-k}_{sing}(X(\R);\Z/2)$$ which is the cycle map for reduced morphic cohomology groups defined in [@Teh:real]. Via Poincare duality the vanishing theorem is equivalent to the statement that $cyc_{k}$ is an isomorphism for $k>q$.
Via the Milnor conjecture over $\C$ and over $\R$ we can deduce an isomorphism $\pi_{k}\mcal{R}^{q}(X)\to\pi_{k}\mcal{R}^{q}_{top}(X)$ for $k\geq q$. Here $\mcal{R}^{q}_{top}(X)$ is the group of “reduced topological cocycles”. For a precise definition see Section \[subdual\], but essentially this is a version of the quotient group $\map{X_{\C}(\C)}{\mcal{Z}_{0}(\A^{q}_{\C})}^{G}/\map{X_{\C}(\C)}{\mcal{Z}_{0}(\A^{q}_{\C})}^{av}$ which has reasonable homotopical properties (such as fitting into a homotopy fiber sequence involving $\map{X_{\C}(\C)}{\mcal{Z}_{0}(\A^{q}_{\C})}^{G}$ and $\map{X_{\C}(\C)}{\mcal{Z}_{0}(\A^{q}_{\C})}^{av}$).
The final ingredient for our vanishing theorem is now provided by Corollary \[rdual\] which shows that for $X$ projective, $$\widetilde{\Phi}:\pi_{k}\mcal{R}^{q}(X)\rightarrow \pi_{k}\mcal{R}^{q} _{top}(X)$$ agrees with the cycle map $\pi_{k}\mcal{R}^{q}(X) \to H^{q-k}_{sing}(X(\R);\Z/2)$ for $k\geq 2$.
Here is a short outline of the paper. In the second section we review the equivariant homotopy used in the paper. The third section is dedicated to introducing the topological spaces of cycles we study and proving some basic properties that we use and for which we don’t find exact references in the literature. In the fourth section we prove a Poincare Duality between equivariant morphic cohomology and real Lawson homology. In the fifth section we discuss the cycle maps from equivariant morphic cohomology and Bredon cohomology and equivariant applications of the Beilinson-Lichtenbaum conjecture. The sixth section is devoted to the proof of our main vanishing Theorem. One of the main technical ingredients of this proof is left for section seven where we reinterpret the cycle map \[tcycm\] from reduced Lawson homology groups to the singular homology in a manner needed to prove our vanishing theorem. The paper ends with two appendixes where we prove and recollect a few results on topological monoids used in the paper.
The authors would like to thank Eric Friedlander, Christian Haesemeyer and Mark Walker for helpful discussions.
0.5cm *Notation:* By a quasi-projective $k$-variety we mean a reduced and separated quasi-projective scheme of finite type over a field $k$. We write $Sch/k$ for the category of quasi-projective $k$-varieties and $Sm/k$ for the subcategory of smooth quasi-projective $k$-varieties. Except in section 2, $G$ always denotes $Gal(\C/\R)$ and $\sigma\in G$ denotes the nontrivial element.
Equivariant Homotopy and Cohomology
===================================
We recall the basic definitions and theorems we need from equivariant homotopy theory. For more details see [@May:equi]. In this paper we will only work with $G=\Z/2$, but since no simplification results in the basic definitions, we let $G$ denote an arbitrary finite group. The category $\GTop$ of $G$-spaces consists of compactly generated spaces equipped with a left $G$-action and morphisms are continuous $G$-equivariant maps. If $X$ is a $G$-space and $H\subseteq G$ is a subgroup write $X^{H}$ for the subspace of all points fixed by $H$. The category $\GTop_*$ of based $G$-spaces consists of $G$-spaces $X$ together with a $G$-invariant basepoint $x\in X$ and maps are base-point preserving equivariant maps. A space together with a disjoint, invariant base-point will be denoted $X_{+}$.
Equivariant homotopy theory
---------------------------
Let $I$ denote the unit interval with trivial $G$-action. A $G$-homotopy between two equivariant maps $f,g:X \to Y$ is an equivariant map $F:X\times I \to Y$ such that $F|_{X\times\{0\}} = f$ and $F|_{X\times\{1\}} = g$. An equivariant map $f:X\to Y$ is an *equivariant homotopy equivalence* provided there is an equivariant map $g:Y \to X$ such that both $f\circ g $ and $g \circ f$ are $G$-equivalently homotopic to the identity. An equivariant map $f:X\to Y$ is a *$G$-weak equivalence* provided both $f^{H}:X^{H}\to Y^{H}$ is a non-equivariant weak equivalence for all subgroups $H\subseteq G$. Formally inverting the $G$-weak equivalences gives the homotopy category of $G$-spaces. Similarly inverting the based $G$-weak equivalences between based $G$-spaces we obtain the based $G$-homotopy category. Write $[ X,Y]_{G}$ for classes of based maps in the homotopy category of based maps.
A $G$-$CW$ complex $X$ is a topological union $X = \cup X_{n}$ of $G$-spaces such that $X_{0}$ is a disjoint union of orbits $G/H$ and $X_{n}$ is obtained from $X_{n-1}$ by attaching cells of the form $D^{n}\times G/H$ via attaching maps $\sigma:S^{n-1}\times G/H \to X_{n-1}$.
The equivariant Whitehead theorem holds for $G$-$CW$ complexes. That is, if $f:X\to Y$ is a $G$-equivariant weak equivalence between $G-CW$-complexes then $f$ is a $G$-homotopy equivalence.
A map $A\to X$ is said to have the *homotopy extension property* with respect to $Z$ if for any equivariant partial homotopy $H:X\times\{0\}\coprod_{A\times\{0\}}A\times I \to Z$ there is an equivariant map $H'$ making the diagram below commute $$\xymatrix{
X\times\{0\}\coprod_{A\times\{0\}}A\times I \ar[r]^-{H}\ar[d] & Z \\
X\times I \ar@{-->}[ur]^{\exists H'} & .
}$$ An equivariant *cofibration* $A\hookrightarrow X$ is an equivariant map which has the homotopy extension property with respect to all $Z$ in $\GTop$. Inclusions of sub-$G$-$CW$complexes $A\subseteq X$ are equivariant cofibrations.
Let $V$ be a real representation of $G$, write $S^{V}$ for the one-point compactification of $V$. The $V$th homotopy group of a based $G$-space $X$ is $$\pi_{V} X = [S^{V}, X]_{G} .$$ Note that $S^{V}$ always has at least two fixed points, $0$ and $\infty$.
When $G=\Z/2$ and $V = \R^{p,q}$, where $V =\R^{p+q}$ with $G$ acting trivially on the first $p$-components and on the last $q$-components the $G$ action is multiplication by $-1$ we use the notation $$\pi_{p,q}X = \pi_{\R^{p,q}}X .$$
Borel homology and cohomology
-----------------------------
The *Borel-equivariant cohomology* of $X$ with coefficients in an abelian group $A$ is defined to be the ordinary singular cohomology of the homotopy orbit space of $X$: $$H^{p}_{G}(X; A) = H^{p}((X\times EG)/G ; A).$$ Similarly the *Borel-equivariant homology* is defined to be $$H_{p}^{G}(X; A) = H_{p}((X\times EG)/G ; A).$$
When $X$ has free $G$-action then $ (X\times EG)/G \to X/G$ is a homotopy equivalence and therefore when $X$ has free $G$-action $ H^{p}(X/G; A) \iso H^{p}_{G}(X; A)$ and $H_{p}(X/G; A) \iso H_{p}^{G}(X; A)$.
Mackey functors
---------------
Bredon homology and cohomology take Mackey functors as coefficients. There are several equivalent ways to define a Mackey functor [@May:equi]. Classically for $G$ a finite group one defines a Mackey functor as follows . Let $\mcal{F}_{G}$ denote the category of finite $G$-sets as objects and with equivariant set maps as morphisms. A *Mackey functor* $\underline{M}$ consists of a pair of abelian-group valued functors $\underline{M}=(M^*, M_*)$ on $\mcal{F}_{G}$, with $M^*$ contravariant and $M_*$ covariant. The functors $M^*$ and $M_*$ satisfy the following requirements.
1. $M^{*}$,$M_{*}$ take the same value on objects and convert disjoint unions of $G$-sets into products of abelian groups.
2. When $$\xymatrix{
S \ar[r]^{\sigma'}\ar[d]^{\beta'} & T \ar[d]^{\beta} \\
U \ar[r]^{\sigma} & V
}$$ is a pull-back square of finite $G$-sets then $$\xymatrix{
M(S) \ar[r]^{M_{*}(\sigma')} & M(T) \\
M(U) \ar[u]^{M^{*}(\beta')} \ar[r]^{M_{*}(\sigma)} & M(V) \ar[u]^{M^{*}(\beta)}
}$$ is a commutative square of abelian groups.
Given an abelian group $A$, the *constant Mackey functor* $\underline{A}$ is the Mackey functor which on objects $\underline{A}(G/K) = A$ and on a map $f:G/H\to G/K$, $M^*(f) = id$ and $M_*(f)$ is multiplication by the index $[K:H]$.
Bredon homology and cohomology
------------------------------
*Bredon cohomology (homology)* with coefficients in a Mackey functor $\underline{M}$ is a cohomology (homology) theory $H^{*}(-;\underline{M}))$ ($H_{*}(-;\underline{M})$ graded by $RO(G)$. For $V \in RO(G)$ there is an equivariant Eilenberg-Maclane space $K(\underline{M},V)$ which represents the reduced cohomology $\tilde{H}^{V}(X; \underline{M})$ for a based $G$-space, $$\tilde{H}^{V}(X; \underline{M}) = [X , K(\underline{M},V)]_{G} .$$
When $G=\Z/2$ then $RO(G) = \Z\oplus\Z$ with generators $\R^{1,0}$ and $\R^{0,1}$. We use the convention that $H^{p,q}(X;\underline{M}) = H^{\R^{p,q}}(X;\underline{M})$ (and similarly for homology).
If $A$ is an abelian group (with trivial $G$-action) then $H^{p,0}(X;\underline{A}) = H^{p}_{sing}(X/G; A)$. More generally, Borel and Bredon cohomology are related by the natural isomorphism $$H^{p,q}(X\times EG; \underline{A}) \iso H^{p+q}_{G}(X; A(q))$$ where $A(q)$ is $A$ with $\sigma$ acting by $(-1)^{q}$ (see [@DSLF:quat Proposition 1.15]).
Equivariant Dold-Thom theorem
-----------------------------
Let $X$ be a compactly generated Hausdorff space. The free abelian group on the points of $X$ is defined to be $ \mcal{Z}_{0}(X) = [\coprod_{d}SP^{d}(X)]^{+}$, where $SP^{d}(X)$ is the $d$th symmetric product on $X$ and $(-)^{+}$ denotes group completion of the displayed monoid which is topologized via the quotient topology.
The degree homomorphism $\deg:\mcal{Z}_{0}(X) \to \Z$ is defined by $\deg(\sum n_{i}x_i) = \sum n_i$ is a continuous homomorphism. Write $\mcal{Z}_{0}(X)_{0}$ for the kernel of this map. Notice that there is an isomorphism of topological groups $\mcal{Z}_{0}(X) \iso \mcal{Z}_{0}(X_+)_{0}$.
If $X$ is a $G$-space then the action on $X$ induces a $G$-action on $\mcal{Z}_{0}(X)$ and $\mcal{Z}_{0}(X)_{0}$. By [@LF:Gequiv Corollary 2.9] when $X$ is a $G$-$CW$ complex so is $\mcal{Z}_{0}(X)$.
The classical Dold-Thom theorem says that $\pi_{n}\mcal{Z}_{0}(X)_{0} = \tilde{H}_{n}(X;\Z)$ and the equivariant Dold-Thom theorem proved by Lima-Filho [@LF:Gequiv] and dos Santos [@DS:equiDT] says that $$\pi_{V}\mcal{Z}_{0}(X)_{0} = \tilde{H}_{V}(X;\underline{\Z}).$$ In particular $\mcal{Z}_{0}(S^{V})_{0}$ is an Eilenberg-Maclane space $K(\underline{Z}, V)$.
Topological Spaces of Cycles {#topspcyc}
============================
Group completions of monoids
----------------------------
Let $M$ be a compactly generated Hausdorff topological abelian monoid. The *naive group completion* of $M$ is the quotient of $M\times M$ by the monoid action of $M$ where $M$ acts by $(a,b) \mapsto (m+a, m+b)$. Write $M^{+}$ for this abelian group, which is topologized as the quotient of $M\times M$. Recall that $M$ is said to satisfy the *cancellation property* if $a + m = b+m$ implies that $a = b$ for any $a,b,m\in M$. When $M$ satisfies cancellation then the naive group completion can be described as $M^{+}= M\times M/\sim$, where $(a,b) \sim (c,d)$ if $a+d = b +c$.
Naive group completion does not generally behave well topologically. For example it may happen that $M^{+}$ is not a Hausdorff topological group nor is it clear how homotopy invariants of $M$ and $M^{+}$ are related. Friedlander-Gabber [@FG:cyc] and Lima-Filho [@Li:completion] have studied conditions under which the naive group completion of a topological monoid is a Hausdorff group and $M\to M^{+}$ is a homotopy group completion. All of the topological monoids with which we work are tractable monoids in the sense of Friedlander-Gabber (see Appendix \[tract\]) and in particular the naive group completion of these groups are homotopy group completions.
Our main objects of interest are the group completions of submonoids of the Chow monoids of effective algebraic cycles on algebraic varieties. Let $k$ be a field of characteristic 0 and $j:Y\subseteq \P^n_k$ be a projective $k$-variety. The Chow variety $\mcal{C}_{q}(Y,j) = \coprod_{d\geq 0}\mcal{C}_{q,d}(Y,j) $ of effective $q$-dimensional cycles on $Y$ is an (infinite, disjoint) union of projective $k$-varieties. See [@F:ac] for details.
Cycle-spaces over $\C$
----------------------
Let $Z$ be a complex variety. Denote the set of complex points equipped with the analytic topology by $Z(\C)^{an}$. Since there will be little chance for confusion we will often simply write this space as $Z(\C)$ with the topology understood. If $j:Y\subseteq \P^n_{\C}$ is a projective variety then $\mcal{C}_q(Y,j)(\C)$ is a topological monoid and we will generally omit $j$ from the notation since the homeomorphism type of this space is independent of $j$. The monoid $\mcal{C}_q(Y)(\C)^{an}$ is tractable and therefore the naive group completion is a homotopy group completion. Write $$\mcal{Z}_q(Y) = (\mcal{C}_q(Y)(\C))^{+}$$ for the naive group group completion of this monoid. Define the filtration $\{0\} \subseteq\cdots \subseteq \mcal{Z}_{q,\leq d}(Y) \subseteq \mcal{Z}_{q,\leq d+1}(Y) \subseteq \cdots \subseteq \mcal{Z}_{q}(Y)$ by $$\mcal{Z}_{q,\leq d}(Y) = \left( \coprod_{d_1+d_2 \leq d} \mcal{C}_{q,d_1}(Y)(\C)\times \mcal{C}_{q,d_2}(Y)(\C) \right )/ \sim \subseteq \mcal{Z}_{q}(Y).$$ By [@Li:completion] each $\mcal{Z}_{q,\leq d}(Y)$ is a closed, compact Hausdorff space and $\mcal{Z}_{q}(Y)$ has the weak topology with respect to this filtration.
When $U$ is quasi-projective with projectivization $U\subseteq \overline{U}$ then define $\mcal{Z}_{q}(U) = \mcal{Z}_{q}(\overline{U})/\mcal{Z}_{q}(U_{\infty})$ where $U_{\infty} = \overline{U}\backslash U$. The images of $\mcal{Z}_{q,\leq k}(\overline{U})$ in the quotient $\mcal{Z}_{q}(U)$ give a filtration by compact subspaces (and $\mcal{Z}_{q}(U)$ has the weak topology with respect to this filtration). This definition is independent of choice of projectivization [@LF:qproj], [@FG:cyc].
Cycle-spaces over $\R$
----------------------
Suppose that $Z$ is a real variety. Write the set of $\R$-points equipped with the analytic topology as $Z(\R)^{an}$ or simply $Z(\R)$ with the topology understood.
Let $Y$ be a projective real variety. Consider the topological monoid $\mcal{C}_q(Y)(\R)$. As explained in the proof of [@FW:real Proposition 8.2] (see Proposition \[gtract\]), the topological monoid $\mcal{C}_q(Y)(\R)$ is tractable and therefore its naive group completion is a homotopy group completion. Write $$\mcal{Z}_{q}(Y) = (\mcal{C}_{q}(Y)(\R))^{+}$$ for the naive group completion.
Suppose that $U$ is a quasi-projective real variety with projectivization $U\subseteq \overline{U}$. Define the topological group of $q$-cycles on the quasi-projective real variety $U$ to be $$\mcal{Z}_{r}(U) = \mcal{Z}_{r}(\overline{U})/\mcal{Z}_{r}(\overline{U}\backslash U).$$
If $X$ is a real variety and $\pi: X_{\C} \to X$ is its complexification then $G$ acts on $X_{\C}(\C)$ and induces a homeomorphism $$X(\R) \xrightarrow{\iso} X_{\C}(\C)^G.$$
In particular if $X$ is a projective real variety then by [@F:ac Proposition 1.1] $\mcal{C}_q(X_{\C}) = \mcal{C}_{r}(X)_{\C}$ and so we have the isomorphism of topological monoids $$\mcal{C}_{r}(X)(\R) \xrightarrow{\iso} \mcal{C}_{r}(X_{\C})(\C)^{G} .$$
Let $U$ be a quasiprojective real variety. Then $$\mcal{Z}_{r}(U) \xrightarrow{\iso} \mcal{Z}_{r}(U_{\C})^{G}$$ is an isomorphism of topological abelian groups. In particular the group $\mcal{Z}_{r}(U)$ is independent of projectivization $U\subseteq \overline{U}$.
For $U$ projective this follows immediately from Proposition \[appcycagr\]. The quasi-projective case now follows by a comparison of short exact sequences of topological abelian groups $$\xymatrix{
0 \ar[r] & \mcal{Z}_{r}(\overline{U}\backslash U) \ar[r]\ar[d] & \mcal{Z}_{r}(\overline{U}) \ar[r]\ar[d] & \mcal{Z}_{r}(U) \ar[r]\ar[d] & 0 \\
0 \ar[r] & \mcal{Z}_{r}(\overline{U}_{\C}\backslash U_{\C})^{G} \ar[r] & \mcal{Z}_{r}(\overline{U}_{\C})^{G} \ar[r] & \mcal{Z}_{r}(U_{\C})^{G} \ar[r] & 0,
}$$ where the exactness of the bottom row is a consequence of the Lemma \[ccom\].
\[addqp\] Let $U$ be a quasi-projective real variety. Since $+:\mcal{Z}_{k}(U_{\C})\times\mcal{Z}_{k}(U_{\C}) \to \mcal{Z}_{k}(U_{\C})$ is closed we see by taking $G$-fixed points that $+:\mcal{Z}_{k}(U) \times \mcal{Z}_{k}(U) \to \mcal{Z}_{k}(U)$ is a closed map for any real variety $U$.
\[ccom\] Let $Y\subseteq X$ be a closed subvariety of a real projective variety. Then $$\mcal{Z}_{r}(X_{\C})^{G} / \mcal{Z}_{r}(Y_{\C})^{G} \xrightarrow{\iso} (\mcal{Z}_{r}(X_{\C})/\mcal{Z}_{r}(Y_{\C}))^{G}$$ and $$\mcal{Z}_{r}(X_{\C})^{av} / \mcal{Z}_{r}(Y_{\C})^{av} \xrightarrow{\iso} (\mcal{Z}_{r}(X_{\C})/\mcal{Z}_{r}(Y_{\C}))^{av}$$ are isomorphisms of topological groups.
Consider the quotient maps $\pi: \mcal{Z}_{r}(X_{\C}) \to \mcal{Z}_{r}(X_{\C})/\mcal{Z}_{r}(Y_{\C})$ and $q:\mcal{Z}_{r}(X_{\C})^{G}\to \mcal{Z}_{r}(X_{\C})^{G}/\mcal{Z}_{r}(Y_{\C})^{G}$. Consider the filtration $\{(\pi\mcal{Z}_{r}(X_{\C})_{\leq d}\})^{G}$ of $(\mcal{Z}_{r}(X_{\C})/\mcal{Z}_{r}(Y_{\C}))^{G}$ and the filtration $\{q(\mcal{Z}_{r}(X_{\C})^{G}_{\leq d})\}$ of $\mcal{Z}_{r}(X_{\C})^{G} / \mcal{Z}_{r}(Y_{\C})^{G}$. These spaces have the weak topology given by these filtrations so it is enough to see that $$q (\mcal{Z}_{r}(X_{\C})_{\leq d}^{G})\xrightarrow{} (\pi\mcal{Z}_{r}(X_{\C})_{\leq d})^{G}$$ is a homeomorphism for all $d$.
First we show that $\mcal{Z}_{r}(X_{\C})_{\leq d}^{G}\to (\pi\mcal{Z}_{r}(X_{\C})_{\leq d})^{G}$ is surjective. If $[\eta]\in (\pi\mcal{Z}_{r}(X_{\C})_{\leq d})^{G}$, we can choose a representative $\eta= \sum n_{V} V\in \mcal{Z}_{r}(X_{\C})_{\leq d}$ such that each $V\nsubseteq Y_{\C}$. Since $\eta -\overline{\eta} \in \mcal{Z}_{r}(Y_{\C})$ (and each $\overline{V} \nsubseteq Y_{\C}$) we see that $\eta = \overline{\eta}$ and therefore the map $$\mcal{Z}_{r}(X_{\C})_{\leq d}^{G} \xrightarrow{} (\pi\mcal{Z}_{r}(X_{\C})_{\leq d})^{G}$$ is surjective. The map $$q\mcal{Z}_{r}(X_{\C})_{\leq d}^{G}\xrightarrow{} (\pi\mcal{Z}_{r}(X_{\C})_{\leq d})^{G}$$ is easily seen to be injective and since $\mcal{Z}_{r}(X_{\C})_{\leq d}^{G}$ is compact this map is closed so is a homeomorphism.
The second statement about the topological group of averaged cycles is proved in a similar fashion.
Spaces of algebraic cocycles
----------------------------
In this section we recall the construction of topological monoids of algebraic cocycles [@FL:algco; @F:algco]. Let $X$, $Y$ be quasi-projective real varieties over $k=\C$ or $\R$. Write $\Mor{k}{X}{Y}$ for the set of continuous algebraic maps between $X$ and $Y$. When $X$ is semi-normal then $\Mor{k}{X}{Y} = \Hom{}{X}{Y}$. Friedlander-Walker construct “analytic” topologies on $\Mor{k}{X}{Y}$ in [@FW:funcspc] for $k=\C$ and in [@FW:real] for $k=\R$. The set of continuous algebraic maps with this topology will be written $\Mor{k}{X}{Y}^{an}$. By [@FW:real Lemma 1.2] $\Mor{\R}{X}{Y}^{an} = (\Mor{\C}{X_{\C}}{Y_{\C}}^{an})^{G}.$
When $X$,$Y$ are projective real varieties and $W$,$Z$ are projective complex varieties then this topology coincides with the subspace topology induced by the inclusions $$\Mor{\C}{W}{Z} \subseteq \map{W(\C)}{Z(\C)}$$ and $$\Mor{\R}{X}{Y} \subseteq \map{X_{\C}(\C)}{Y_{\C}(\C)}^{G},$$ where $\map{-}{-}$ denotes the space of continuous maps is with compact-open topology. When the domain is only quasi-projective then the analytic topology on the algebraic mapping spaces is no longer the compact-open topology but rather the topology of convergence with bounded degree (see [@FL:dual Appendix A]).
Let $W$ be a quasi-projective complex variety and $Z$ be a projective complex variety. Write $d= \dim W$. Let $\mcal{C}_{r}(Z)(W)$ denote the monoid of effective cycles on $W\times Z$ equidimensional or relative dimension $r$ on $W$. This is made into a topological monoid via the subspace topology induced by the inclusion $$\mcal{C}_{r}(Z)(W) \subseteq \mcal{C}_{d+r}(W \times Z) \eqdef \frac{\mcal{C}_{d+r}(\overline{W}\times Z)}{\mcal{C}_{d+r}(W_{\infty}\times Z)}$$ where $W\subseteq \overline{W}$ a projective closure with closed complement $W_{\infty} = \overline{W}\backslash W$. This topology may also be described as follows. Let $$\mcal{E}_{r}(Z)(W) \subseteq \mcal{C}_{r+d}(\overline{W}\times Z)$$ denote the constructable submonoid consisting of effective cycles whose restriction to $W\times Z$ is equidimensional of relative dimension $r$ over $W$. By [@F:algco Proposition 1.8] the topology on $\mcal{C}_{r}(Z)(W)$ (given by the subspace topology above) coincides with the quotient topology given by $$\mcal{C}_{r}(Z)(W) = \frac{\mcal{E}_{r}(Z)(W)}{\mcal{C}_{r+d}(W_{\infty}\times Z)}.$$
Define the topological group of equidimensional cycles of relative dimension r over $W$ as $\mcal{Z}_{r}(Z)(W) = [\mcal{C}_{r}(Z)(W)]^{+}$ (where as usual the naive group completion is given the quotient topology). Since $\mcal{C}_{r}(Z)(W)$ is a tractable monoid the naive group completion is a homotopy group completion.
In [@F:ac] it is shown that a morphism of varieties $f:W\to \mcal{C}_{r}(Z)$ has an associated graph in $\mcal{Z}_{f} \in \mcal{C}_{r}(Z)(W)$. By [@FL:dual Proposition A.1] this defines an isomorphism of topological monoids $ \Gamma: \Mor{\C}{W}{\mcal{C}_r(Z)} \to \mcal{C}_{r}(Z)(W)$ for any normal, quasi-projective complex variety $W$ by [@FL:dual Proposition A.1]. Therefore the graph map $\Gamma$ also induces an isomorphism of topological abelian groups $$\Gamma: \Mor{\C}{W}{\mcal{C}_0(Z)}^{+} \to \mcal{Z}_{0}(W)(Z),$$ for any normal, quasi-projective variety $W$ and any projective variety $Z$. The composite of $\Gamma$ and the continuous inclusion $\mcal{Z}_{0}(W)(Z)\subseteq \mcal{Z}_{\dim W}(W\times Z)$ defines the duality map $$\mcal{D}: \Mor{\C}{W}{\mcal{C}_0(Z)}^{+} \xrightarrow{\Gamma} \mcal{Z}_{0}(W)(Z) \subseteq \mcal{Z}_{d}(W\times Z).$$ While this is a continuous injective homomorphism it is not a topological embedding (see [@FL:dual]).
(c.f. [@Teh:real Proposition 2.9])
1. If $W$ is a normal quasi-projective complex variety and $Z _1\subset Z _2$ is a closed subvariety of a complex projective variety then $$\Mor{\C}{W}{\mcal{C}_{0}(Z_{1})}^{+}\subseteq \Mor{\C}{W}{\mcal{C}_{0}(Z_{2})}^{+}$$ is a closed subspace.
2. If $U$ is a normal quasi-projective real variety and $Y\subseteq Z$ is a closed subvariety of a projective real variety then $$\Mor{\R}{U}{\mcal{C}_{0}(Y)}^{+}\subseteq \Mor{\R}{U}{\mcal{C}_{0}(Z)}^{+}$$ is a closed subspace.
For the first statement it is equivalent to show that $\mcal{Z}_{r}(Z_{1})(W) \subseteq \mcal{Z}_{r}(Z_{2})(W)$ is closed. Using Lemma \[qmcl\] we see that $\mcal{C} _{r+d}(W\times Z _1)\subset \mcal{C} _{r+d}(W\times Z _2)$ is closed and since $\mcal{C}_{r}(Z_1)(W) = \mcal{C} _{r+d}(W\times Z _1)\cap \mcal{C}_{r}(Z_{2})(W)$ we conclude that $\mcal{C}_{r}(Z_1)(W)\subset\mcal{C}_{r}(Z_{2})(W)$ is a closed subspace. Write $\pi:\mcal{C}_{r}(Z_{2})(W)^{\times 2} \to \mcal{Z}_{r}(Z_{2})(W)$ for the quotient. Then $\pi^{-1}\mcal{Z}_{r}(Z_{1})(W) =\mcal{C}_{r}(Z_{1})(W)^{\times 2} + \Delta(\mcal{C}_{r}(Z_{2})(W)) $ (where $\Delta$ denotes the diagonal) is closed by step (1) in Proposition \[Gcocomm\]. Therefore $\mcal{Z}_{r}(Z_{1})(W) \subseteq \mcal{Z}_{r}(Z_{2})(W)$ is closed.
The second statement follows immediately from the first statement together with Proposition \[appcycagr\] and [@FW:real Lemma 1.2].
1. Let $W$ be a quasi-projective complex variety. The space of algebraic $q$-cocyles is defined to be $$\mcal{Z}^{q}(W) = \frac{\Mor{\C}{W}{\mcal{C}_{0}(\P_{\C}^{q})}^{+}}{\Mor{\C}{W}{\mcal{C}_{0}(\P_{\C}^{q-1})}^{+}}$$
2. Let $U$ be a quasi-projective real variety. The space of real algebraic $q$-cocyles is defined to be $$\mcal{Z}^{q}(U) = \frac{\Mor{\R}{U}{\mcal{C}_{0}(\P_{\R}^{q})}^{+}}{\Mor{\R}{U}{\mcal{C}_{0}(\P_{\R}^{q-1})}^{+}}$$
\[Gcocomm\] Let $U$ be a normal quasi-projective real variety then $$\frac{(\Mor{\C}{U_{\C}}{\mcal{C}_0(\P^q_{\C})}^{an,+})^{G}}{(
\Mor{\C}{U_{\C}}{\mcal{C}_0(\P^{q-1}_{\C})}^{an,+})^{G}} \xrightarrow{\iso} \left(\frac{\Mor{\C}{U_{\C}}{\mcal{C}_0(\P^q_{\C})}^{an,+}}{
\Mor{\C}{U_{\C}}{\mcal{C}_0(\P^{q-1}_{\C})}^{an,+}}\right)^{G}$$ and $$\frac{(\Mor{\C}{U_{\C}}{\mcal{C}_0(\P^q_{\C})}^{an,+})^{av}}{(
\Mor{\C}{U_{\C}}{\mcal{C}_0(\P^{q-1}_{\C})}^{an,+})^{av}} \xrightarrow{\iso} \left(\frac{\Mor{\C}{U_{\C}}{\mcal{C}_0(\P^q_{\C})}^{an,+}}{
\Mor{\C}{U_{\C}}{\mcal{C}_0(\P^{q-1}_{\C})}^{an,+}}\right)^{av}$$ are isomorphisms of topological groups.
By Lemma \[lemtop1\] and Proposition \[appcycagr\] it is enough to show that for $Y'\subseteq Y$ a closed subvariety of a projective real variety and $U$ a quasiprojective real variety that $$\frac{\mcal{C}_{r}(Y_{\C})(U_{\C})^{G}}{\mcal{C}_{r}(Y'_{\C})(U_{\C})^{G}}\xrightarrow{} \left(\frac{\mcal{C}_{r}(Y_{\C})(U_{\C})}{\mcal{C}_{r}(Y'_{\C})(U_{\C})}\right)^{G}$$ is an isomorphism of topological monoids.
We proceed in several steps.
1. The map $$+: \mcal{C}_{r}(Y_{\C})(U_{\C})\times\mcal{C}_{r}(Y_{\C})(U_{\C}) \to \mcal{C}_{r}(Y_{\C})(U_{\C})$$ is a proper map. Observe that if $\alpha + \beta$ is equidimensional then both $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are equidimensional and therefore $$\xymatrix{
\mcal{C}_{r}(Y_{\C})(U_{\C})\times\mcal{C}_{r}(Y_{\C})(U_{\C}) \ar[r]^-{+}\ar[d] & \mcal{C}_{r}(Y_{\C})(U_{\C}) \ar[d]\\
\mcal{C}_{r+k}(U_{\C}\times Y_{\C})\times \mcal{C}_{r+k}(U_{\C}\times Y_{\C}) \ar[r]^-{+} & \mcal{C}_{r+k}(U_{\C}\times Y_{\C})
}$$ is a pull-back square. Since addition is a proper map on effective cycles we see that it is a proper map for effective cocycles as well.
2. The map $$\frac{\mcal{C}_{r}(Y_{\C})(U_{\C})^{G}}{\mcal{C}_{r}(Y'_{\C})(U_{\C})^{G}}\xrightarrow{} \left(\frac{\mcal{C}_{r}(Y_{\C})(U_{\C})}{\mcal{C}_{r}(Y'_{\C})(U_{\C})}\right)^{G}$$ is easily seen to be a continuous bijection by an argument similar to the one used in Lemma \[ccom\].
3. Finally since $\mcal{C}_{r}(Y_{\C})(U_{\C}) \to \mcal{C}_{r}(Y_{\C})(U_{\C})/\mcal{C}_{r}(Y'_{\C})(U_{\C})$ is a closed map by Lemma \[qmcl\] we conclude that the continuous bijection $$\frac{\mcal{C}_{r}(Y_{\C})(U_{\C})^{G}}{\mcal{C}_{r}(Y'_{\C})(U_{\C})^{G}}\xrightarrow{} \left(\frac{\mcal{C}_{r}(Y_{\C})(U_{\C})}{\mcal{C}_{r}(Y'_{\C})(U_{\C})}\right)^{G}$$ is a closed map and therefore a topological isomorphism.
The second statement for average cocycles is proved in a similar fashion, using Proposition \[avl\] and that $C _r(Y _{\C})(U _{\C})^{av}\subseteq C _r(Y_{\C})(U _{\C})$ is closed.
As with the topological group of cycles on a real variety $X$ we may view the topological group of real cocycles as the topological group of cycles on the complexification which are fixed by the Galois action.
\[nqp\] Let $X$ be a normal quasi-projective real variety. Then $$\mcal{Z}^{q}(X) = \mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\C})^{G}.$$
This follows from Proposition \[appcycagr\] together with the previous proposition since $\Mor{\R}{X}{\mcal{C}_0(\P^q_{\R})} = \Mor{\C}{X_{\C}}{\mcal{C}_0(\P^q_{\C})}^{G}$.
The space $\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\C})$ has the equivariant homotopy type of a $G$-$CW$-complex (see Corollary \[ehtype\]).
When $W=X_{\C}$ is the complexification of a quasi-projective real variety and $Z = Y_{\C}$ is the complexification of a projective real variety the graph map is an equivariant morphism. In particular the duality map $$\mcal{D}:\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\C})\to \mcal{Z}_{d}(X_{\C}\times \A^{q}_{\C})$$ is an equivariant continuous map.
1. Let $X$ be a projective real variety. Define the topological group of *averaged cocycles* to be $$\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\C})^{av} = \{f + \sigma \cdot f | f\in \mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\C})\}\subseteq \mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\C}).$$
2. Let $X$ be a normal projective real variety. Define the topological group of *reduced cocycles* to be the quotient topological group $$\mcal{R}^{q}(X) = \frac{\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\C})^{G}}{\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\C})^{av}} .$$ Lemma \[avl\] shows that $\mcal{R}^{q}(X)$ is a Hausdorff topological group.
In [@Teh:real] Teh defines $$\mcal{R}_{0}(Y)(X)=\frac{\Mor{\C}{X_{\C}}{\mcal{C}_{0}(Y_{\C})}^{+,G}}{ \Mor{\C}{X_{\C}}{\mcal{C}_{0}(Y_{\C})}^{+,av}}$$ and defines the reduced cocycles are defined as $$\mcal{R}^{q}(X) = \frac{\mcal{R}_{0}(\P^{q})(X)}{\mcal{R}_{0}(\P^{q-1})(X)}$$ for any real normal projective variety X and real projective variety Y.
By Proposition \[Gcocomm\] this definition and the one above give isomorphic topological groups.
\[avl\](c.f. [@Teh:real Proposition 2.4]) Let $X$ be a real projective variety. The subset of averaged cocycles $\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\C})^{av} \subseteq \mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\C})$ is a closed subgroup.
Write $\overline{f}$ for $\sigma\cdot f$ and $\overline{V}$ for $\sigma\cdot V$. Suppose that $\{[f_n]+\overline{[f_{n}]}\}$ is a sequence in $\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\C})^{av}$ which converges in $\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\C})$. Write $[\gamma] = \lim_{n\to \infty} [f_{n}] + \overline{[f_{n}]}$ for its limit. We need to conclude that $[\gamma]$ is an averaged cocycle.
The set $\{[f_n] + [\overline{f_n}]\} \cup \{[\gamma]\}\subseteq \mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\C})$ is compact. Applying the duality map to this set yields the compact subset $$\{\Gamma([f_n]) + \Gamma([\overline{f_n}])\} \cup \{\Gamma([\gamma])\} \subseteq
\mcal{Z}_{d}( X_{\C}\times \A^{q}_{\C}).$$ Since this is a compact subset it lies in $\mcal{Z}_{d,\leq k}(X_{\C}\times
\A^{q}_{\C})$ for some $k$.
The sequence $\{[g_{n}]\}\subseteq \mcal{Z}_{d,\leq k}(X_{\C}\times
\A^{q}_{\C})$ has a convergent subsequence. Write $\{[g_{n_{i}}] \}$ for this convergent subsequence and write $\lim_{n_{i}\to \infty} [g_{n_{i}}]= [g] \in \mcal{Z}_{d,\leq k}(X_{\C}\times \A^{q}_{\C})$ for its limit. Note that $[g]$ satisfies $[g] +\overline{[g]} = \Gamma(\gamma)$. Since $\Gamma$ is injective and its image consists precisely of equidimensional cycles, we are done if we can find an equidimensional cycle $[g']$ such that $[g'] + \overline{[g']} = [g] + \overline{[g]}$.
Choose a representative $\gamma\in \Mor{\C}{X_{\C}}{\mcal{C}_0(\P^q_{\C})}^{+}$ of $[\gamma]$. Choose a representative $g= \sum n_V V\in \mcal{Z}_{d}(X_{\C}\times\P^{q}_{\C})$ of $[g]$ such that if $n_V \neq 0$ then $V\nsubseteq\P^{q-1}\times X$. Since $[g] + \overline{[g]} = \Gamma([\gamma]) \in
\mcal{Z}_{d}(X_{\C}\times \A_{\C}^{q})$ we see that $g + \overline{g} = \sum (n_V +
n_{\overline{V}} )V = \Gamma(\gamma) + h$ where $h\in \mcal{Z}_{d}(X_{\C}\times \P_{\C}^{q-1})$. Write $h
= \Sigma m_{W} W$. Since $V\nsubseteq \P^{q-1}$ whenever $n_{V}\neq 0$ we see that if $m_{W} \neq 0$ then a term of $-m_{W}W$ must appear in $\Gamma(\gamma)$. In particular $h$ is equidimensional. Consequently $g + \overline{g}$ is equidimensional.
If $n_{V} + n_{\overline{V}} \neq 0$ then $V$ is equidimensional. Define $$g' = \sum_{n_{V} + n_{\overline{V}}\neq 0} n_{V} V.$$ Since $g'$ is an equidimensional cycle there is an $f\in (\Mor{\C}{X_{\C}}{\mcal{C}_0(\P^q_{\C})}^{+})^{G}$ such that $\Gamma(f) = g'$. Since $\Gamma([f] + \overline{[f]}) = [g'] + \overline{[g']} = [g] + \overline{[g]} = \Gamma([c])$ and $\Gamma$ is injective, we conclude that $[c] = [f] + \overline{[f]}$.
A continuous algebraic map $f:W\to V$ between two complex varieties induces a continuous map $f:W(\C)\to V(\C)$. Friedlander-Lawson [@FL:algco Proposition 4.1] show that this defines a continuous map $$\label{morphcomp}
\Phi:\mcal{Z}^{r}(W) \to \map{W(\C)}{\mcal{Z}_{0}(\A^{r}_{\C})},$$ where the mapping space between two topological spaces is given with the compact-open topology. If $Y$ is a real variety this provides a continuous equivariant comparison map $$\Phi:\mcal{Z}^{r}(Y_{\C}) \to \map{Y_{\C}(\C)}{\mcal{Z}_{0}(\A^{r}_{\C})}$$ of topological abelian groups.
(Real Morphic Cohomology) Friedlander-Walker [@FW:real] define real morphic cohomology of a quasi-projective real variety by $$L^qH\R^{n}(X)=\pi_{2q-n}\mcal{Z}^{q}(X)$$ for $2q-n\geq 0$.
We will be using an equivariant extension of their theory for normal quasi-projective real varieties defined below.
(Equivariant Morphic Cohomology) \[emco\] Let $X$ be a normal quasi-projective variety. Then the equivariant morphic cohomology is (in equivariant homotopy indexing notation) $$L^{q}H\R^{k,r}(X)=\pi_{q-k,q-r}\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\C}),$$ for $q-k, q-r \geq 0$.
By Proposition \[nqp\] we see that $$L^qH\R^{n}(X)=\pi_{2q-n}\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\C})^{G}$$ so Friedlander-Walker’s real morphic cohomology groups are a part of the equivariant morphic cohomology, $L^{q}H\R^{q-r,q}(X)=\pi_{r,0}\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\C})=L^{q}H\R^{2q-r}(X)$.
In [@DS:real] dos Santos defines real Lawson homology.
(Real Lawson Homology) For any quasi-projective real variety $X$, the real Lawson homology is defined by $$L_qH\R_{n,m}(X) = \pi_{n-q,m-q}\mcal{Z}_q(X_{\C}),$$ for $n-q,m-q\geq 0$.
Let $X$ be a quasi-projective real variety. The following definitions are taken from [@LLM:real].
1. Define the *space of averaged cycles* $\mcal{Z}_q(X)^{av}$ to be $$\mcal{Z}_q(X_{\C})^{av} =\im(N) \subseteq \mcal{Z}_q(X_{\C})^{G},$$ so $\mcal{Z}_q(X_{\C})^{av} \subseteq \mcal{Z}_q(X_{\C})^{G}$ is the subgroup generated by cycles of the form $Z + \overline{Z}$ and given the subspace topology. By Remark \[addqp\] this is a closed subgroup. Here $N: \mcal{Z}_q(X_{\C}) \to \mcal{Z}_q(X_{\C})$ is defined by $N(Z)=Z+\overline{Z}$.
2. Define the *space of reduced cycles* $\mcal{R}_q(X)$ to be the quotient group $$\mcal{R}_q(X) = \frac{\mcal{Z}_q(X_{\C})^{G}}{\mcal{Z}_q(X_{\C})^{av}}.$$
These spaces all have the homotopy type of a $CW$-complex (see Corollary \[ehtype\]).
Teh [@Teh:real] defines the *reduced real Lawson homology* of $X$ to be $$RL_qH_{n}(X) = \pi_{n-q}\mcal{R}_q(X),$$ for $n\geq q$. According to Lemma \[ccom\] this definition coincides with the definition given in [@Teh:real] in the case of a quasi-projective variety.
Let $X$ be a projective real variety.
1. [@LLM:real Lemma 8.4] The space of averaged zero-cycles computes the singular homology of the quotient of analytic space of complex points $$\pi_k \mcal{Z}_{0}(X_{\C})^{av} = H_k(X(\C)/G;\Z) .$$
2. By the equivariant Dold-Thom theorem [@DS:equiDT] the space of fixed zero-cycles computes (a portion of) Bredon cohomology $$\pi_k\mcal{Z}_{0}(X_{\C})^{G} = H_{k,0}(X(\C);\underline{\Z}) .$$
3. [@Teh:real Proposition 2.7] The space of reduced real cycles computes the singular homology with $\Z/2$ coefficients of the analytic space of real points $$\pi_{k}\mcal{R}_{0}(X) = H_{k}(X(\R);\Z/2).$$
Poincare Duality {#realdual}
================
In this section we use the duality for bivariant cycle homology in [@FV:biv] to establish a duality between Lawson homology of a real variety and real morphic cohomology. This together with the duality between Lawson homology and morphic cohomology [@FL:dual] gives an equivariant duality between the algebraic cocycle spaces and algebraic cycle spaces for the complexification of a real variety.
The material and methods used here closely parallel [@FW:ratisos Section 3] where Friedlander-Walker reformulate Lawson homology and morphic cohomology for complex varieties.
Recognition Principle
---------------------
Let $F(-)$ be a presheaf sets (respectively simplicial sets, or abelian groups) on $Sch/\R$. If $T$ is a topological space then define $F(T)$ by the filtered colimit $$F(T) = \colim_{T\to V(\R)} F(V).$$
In particular we obtain a simplicial set (respectively a bisimplicial set, or simplicial abelian group) by $$d\mapsto F(\Delta^{d}_{top}).$$
We record an analogue of the recognition principle [@FW:ratisos Theorem 2.3] which is needed to move the duality for bivariant cycle homology to a duality for real Lawson homology and morphic cohomology. Friedlander-Walker’s proof in the complex case uses the $uad$-topology which is essentially due to Deligne.
1. A continuous map of topological spaces $f: S\to T$ is said to satisfy *cohomological descent* if for any sheaf $A$ of abelian groups on $T$ the natural map $$H^*(T, A) \to H^{*}(N_T(S), f^*A)$$ is an isomorphism. Here $N_T(S)\to T$ is the Cech nerve of $f$, i.e. $N_T(S)$ is the simplicial space which in degree $n$ is the $n+1$-fold fiber product of $S$ over $T$. A map $f:S\to T$ is said to be of *universal cohomological descent* provided the pullback $S\times_{T}T'\to T'$ along any continuous map $T'\to T$ is again of cohomological descent.
2. The $uad$-topology on $Sch_{\R}$ is the Grothendieck topology associated to the pretopology generated by collections $\{U_i\to X\}$ such that $\coprod U_i(\R)^{an}\to X(\R)^{an}$ is a surjective map of universal cohomological descent.
<!-- -->
1. A proper and surjective map of real varieties $X\to Y$ which induces a surjective map of real points is a $uad$-cover. Indeed, in this case $X(\R)^{an}\to Y(\R)^{an}$ is a proper surjective map of topological spaces, and therefore is a map of universal cohomological descent (see [@Deligne:hodgeIII 5.3.5]).
2. Any Nisnevich cover is a $uad$-cover. Any $cdh$-cover is a $uad$-cover. In particular every real variety $X$ is locally smooth in the $uad$ topology because resolution of singularities implies there is a $cdh$-cover $X' \to X$, with $X'$ smooth.
3. Unlike the complex case not every etale-cover is a $uad$-cover (e.g. $\spec \C \to \spec \R$ is an etale cover but not a $uad$-cover).
Here is the recognition principle.
\[recog\] Suppose that $F\to G$ is a natural transformation of presheaves of abelian groups on $Sch_{\R}$. If $F_{uad} \xrightarrow{} G_{uad}$ is an isomorphism of $uad$-sheaves, then $$F(\Delta^{\bullet}_{top}) \to G(\Delta^{\bullet}_{top})$$ is a homotopy equivalence of simplicial abelian groups.
Friedlander-Walker’s proof given in [@FW:ratisos] works by changing the space $X(\C)^{an}$ associated with a complex variety with the space $Y(\R)^{an}$ associated to a real variety together with the fact that $Y(\R)^{an}$ may be triangulated.
\[saqiso\]
Suppose that $f:F \to G$ is a map of presheaves of simplicial abelian groups such that $F(V) \to G(V)$ is a homotopy equivalence for any smooth $V$. Then the map of simplicial abelian groups $\diag F(\Delta^{\bullet}_{top}) \to \diag G(\Delta^{\bullet}_{top})$ is a homotopy equivalence.
Poincare Duality {#poincare-duality}
----------------
Let $X$ be a variety over a field $k$ of characteristic zero. Recall the presheaf $z_{equi}(X,r)(-)$ of equidimensional $r$-cycles. This is the unique $qfh$-sheaf on $Sch/k$ such that for a normal variety $U$ the group $z_{equi}(X,r)(U)$ is the free abelian group on closed, irreducible subvarieties $V\subseteq U\times_{k} X$ which are equidimensional of relative dimension $r$ over some irreducible component of $U$.
If $X$ and $Y$ are real varieties then $G=Gal(\C/\R)$ acts on the group $z_{equi}(X_{\C}, r)(U_{\C})$ by $\sigma\cdot [V\subseteq U_{\C}\times_{\C} X_{\C}] = [\sigma V \subseteq U_{\C}\times_{\C} X_{\C}]$.
Let $X$ and $U$ be real varieties. Then $$z_{equi}(X, r)(U)\xrightarrow{\pi^{*}}(z_{equi}(X_{\C}, r)(U_{\C}))^{G}$$ is a natural isomorphism where $\pi:(U\times_{\R} X)_{\C} \to U\times_{\R} X$.
It suffices to check this for $U$ normal, since normalization is a $qfh$-cover. By [@SV:rel Lemma 2.3.2] $\pi^*:Cycl(U\times X) \to Cycl((U\times X)_{\C})^{G}$ is an isomorphism, where $Cycl(W)$ denotes the group of cycles on $W$. We are done if we see that $f:V\to U$ is equidimensional if and only if $\tilde{f}:V_{\C}\to U_{\C}$ is equidimensional. By [@EGAIVpt3 Proposition 13.3.8] if $f$ is equidimensional then so is $\tilde{f}$. Suppose that $\tilde{f}:V_{\C}\to U_{\C}$ is equidimensional. Since $U_{\C}$ is normal, $\tilde{f}:V_{\C}\to U_{\C}$ is an open mapping and for all $v'\in V$ the local rings $\mcal{O}_{V_{\C},v'}$ are equidimensional by [@EGAIVpt3 Corollaire 14.4.6]. By [@EGAIVpt2 Corollaire 2.6.4, Proposition 7.1.3] the map $f:V\to U$ is open and $\mcal{O}_{V,v}$ is equidimensional for all $v\in V$ since $U_{\C}\to U$ is faithfully flat and therefore $f$ is equidimensional.
In the proof of [@FW:real Proposition 2.4] it is shown that for any presheaf $F(-)$ of sets on $Sch/\C$ and any topological space $T$ the natural map $$\colim_{T\to V(\R)} F(V_{\C}) \xrightarrow{\iso} \colim_{T\to U(\C)} F(U)$$ is an isomorphism. In the first indexing set $V$ ranges over real varieties and in the second $U$ ranges over complex varieties.
In particular $ z_{equi}(X_{\C}, r)(Y_{\C}\times_{\C} T)$ may be computed via the filtered colimit $$z_{equi}(X_{\C}, r)(Y_{\C}\times_{\C} T) = \colim_{T\to V(\R)}z_{equi}(X_{\C}, r)(Y_{\C}\times_{\C} V_{\C}),$$ which equips $z_{equi}(X_{\C},r)(Y_{\C}\times_{\C}T)$ with an action of $G$. Filtered colimits commute with fixed points and so $$z_{equi}(X,r)(Y\times_{\R} T) \to (z_{equi}(X_{\C}, r)(Y_{\C}\times_{\C} T))^{G} = \colim_{T\to V(\R)}(z_{equi}(X_{\C}, r)(Y_{\C}\times_{\C} V_{\C}))^{G}$$ is an isomorphism.
For X projective we have the natural isomorphism of presheaves (in fact of $qfh$-sheaves) of abelian groups on $Sch_{\R}$ (see [@SV:rel Lemma 4.4.14] $$z_{equi}(X,r)(-) \iso \Mor{\R}{-}{\mcal{C}_r(X)}^{+}.$$
The following is the real analogue of [@FW:ratisos Proposition 3.1].
\[sing\] Let $T$ be a compactly generated Hausdorff topological space and $X$ a quasi-projective real variety. There is a natural map of abelian groups $$z_{equi}(X,r)(T) \to \Hom{cts}{T}{\mcal{Z}_{r}(X)}$$ given by sending $(f:T\to U(\R),\alpha\in z_{equi}(X,r)(U))$ to the function $t\mapsto \alpha|_{f(t)}$.
This map is contravariant for continuous maps of compactly-generated Hausdorff spaces $T'\to
T$, covariant for proper maps $X\to X'$ and contravariant for flat maps $X'\to X$ (with a shift in dimension).
When $X$ is a projective real variety the induced map of simplicial abelian groups $$z_{equi}(X,r)(\Delta^{\bullet}_{top}) \to \sing_{\bullet}\mcal{Z}_r(X)$$ is the natural homotopy equivalence $$\left[ \sing_{\bullet}(\mcal{C}_{r}(X)^{an})\right]^{+} \xrightarrow{\wkeq} \sing_{\bullet}\mcal{Z}_{r}(X) .$$
More generally, for a quasi-projective real variety $X$ with projectivization $X\subset \overline{X}$ this map fits into a comparison of homotopy fiber sequences $$\label{tdgrm}
\xymatrix{
z_{equi}(\overline{X}\sm X, r)(\Delta^{\bullet}_{top}) \ar[d]\ar[r] & z_{equi}(\overline{X},r)(\Delta_{top}^{\bullet}) \ar[r]\ar[d] & z_{equi}(X, r)(\Delta^{\bullet}_{top}) \ar[d] \\
\sing_{\bullet}\mcal{Z}_{r}(\overline{X}\sm X) \ar[r] & \sing_{\bullet}\mcal{Z}_{r}(\overline{X}) \ar[r] & \sing_{\bullet}\mcal{Z}_r(X).
}$$ Therefore the map $$z_{equi}(X,r)(\Delta_{top}^{\bullet}) \to \sing_{\bullet}\mcal{Z}_r(X)$$ is a natural weak equivalence for any quasi-projective real variety $X$.
The map $$z_{equi}(X_{\C},r)( T)=\colim_{T\to W(\C)} z_{equi}(X_{\C}, r)(W) \to \Hom{cts}{T}{\mcal{Z}_{r}(X_{\C})}$$ given sending $(f:T\to W(\C), \alpha\in z_{equi}(X_{\C}, r)(W))$ to the function $t\mapsto \alpha_{|{f(t)}}$ is shown to be well-defined in [@FW:ratisos Proposition 3.1] and to satisfy the stated naturality properties. Observe that if $W=V_{\C}$ is the complexification of a real variety then $\overline{\alpha_{|{f(t)}}} =\overline{\alpha}_{|{\overline{f(t)}}}$. Therefore composing with the natural isomorphism $$\colim_{T\to V(\R)}z_{equi}(X_{\C},r)(V_{\C}) \xrightarrow{\iso} \colim_{T\to W(\C)}z_{equi}(X_{\C},r)(W)$$ gives a well-defined equivariant map $$z_{equi}(X_{\C},r)(T) \to \Hom{cts}{T}{\mcal{Z}_{r}(X_{\C})}$$ which by taking fixed points induces the map $$z_{equi}(X,r)(T)= z_{equi}(X_{\C},r)(T)^{G} \to \Hom{cts}{T}{\mcal{Z}_{r}(X_{\C})}^{G} = \Hom{cts}{T}{\mcal{Z}_{r}(X)},$$ which is the map of the proposition and satisfies the stated naturality properties.
When $X$ is a projective real variety and $T$ is a compact Hausdorff space, the map $z_{equi}^{eff}(X_{\C},r)(T) \to \Hom{cts}{T}{\mcal{C}_r(X_{\C})}$ is an isomorphism by [@FW:sstfct Corollary 4.3]. Since this is an equivariant map, taking fixed points yields the isomorphism of monoids $$z_{equi}^{eff}(X,r)(T) \xrightarrow{\iso} \Hom{cts}{T}{\mcal{C}_r(X)}.$$
Therefore the map $$z_{equi}(X, r)({\Delta^{\bullet}_{top}})\xrightarrow{\iso} [\Hom{cts}{\Delta^{\bullet}_{top}}{\mcal{C}_{r}(X)^{an}}]^{+} \to \sing_{\bullet}\mcal{Z}_{r}(X)$$ is a homotopy equivalence by Quillen’s theorem [@FM:filt App Q] on homotopy group completions of simplicial abelian monoids.
Finally the diagram (\[tdgrm\]) commutes by the naturality properties of the map $z_{equi}(X,r)(T) \to \Hom{cts}{T}{\mcal{Z}_{r}(X)}$ . By [@FV:biv 5.12,8.1], Proposition \[htpyinv\] (homotopy invariance), and Theorem \[recog\] (recognition principle) the upper row of the diagram (\[tdgrm\]) is a homotopy fiber sequence. Comparing the upper and lower homotopy fiber sequence yields the final statement of the proposition.
\[singmor\] For a quasi-projective real variety $U$, projective real variety $Y$, and compact Hausdorff space $T$, there is a natural map of abelian groups $$z_{equi}(Y,0)(U\times_{\R} T) \to \Hom{cts}{T}{\Mor{\R}{U}{\mcal{C}_{0}(Y)}^{+}}$$ given by sending $(f,\alpha)$ to the function $t\mapsto \alpha_{|{f(t)}}$.
The map $$z_{equi}(Y_{\C},0)(U_{\C}\times_{\C} T) \to \Hom{cts}{T}{\Mor{\C}{U_{\C}}{\mcal{C}_{0}(Y_{\C})}^{+}}$$ from [@FW:ratisos Proposition 3.3] is equivariant and therefore taking fixed points induces the natural map of abelian groups $$z_{equi}(Y,0)(U\times_{\R} T) \to \Hom{cts}{T}{\Mor{\R}{U}{\mcal{C}_{0}(Y)}^{+}}.$$
Let $Y$ be a projective real variety and $U$ a normal quasi-projective real variety of dimension $d$ with projectivization $U\subseteq X$ and closed complement $X_{\infty}=X\setminus U$. Write $\mcal{E}_{r}(Y)(U)\subseteq \mcal{C}_{r+d}(Y\times_{\R} X)$ for the submonoid consisting of those cycles of dimension $r+d$ on $Y\times X$ whose restriction to $U$ is equidimensional of relative dimension $r$ over $U$. This is a constructable embedding. This can be seen by arguing as in [@F:algco] for the complex case. The subspace topology on this monoid agrees with the quotient topology $\mcal{C}_{r}(Y)(U) = \mcal{E}_{r}(Y)(U)/\mcal{C}_{r+d}(Y\times X_{\infty})$ by the same reasoning as in [@F:algco Proposition 1.8]. The topological group of equidimensional cycles is the naive groups completion $\mcal{Z}_{r}(Y)(U) = \mcal{C}_{r}(Y)(U)^{+}$. Since these are tractable monoids, they are related to equidimensional cocycles via the homotopy fiber sequence $$\mcal{Z}_{r+d}(Y\times X_{\infty}) \to (\mcal{E}_{r}(Y)(U))^{+} \to \mcal{Z}_{r}(Y)(U).$$ Define the presheaf $e(U,Y,r)(-)$ to be the pull-back of presheaves $$\xymatrix{
e(U,Y,r)(-) \ar@{^{(}->}[r]\ar[d] & z_{equi}^{eff}(Y\times X, r+d)(-) \ar[d]\\
z_{equi}^{eff}(Y, r)(U\times - ) \ar@{^{(}->}[r] & z^{eff}_{equi}(Y\times U, r+d)(-) .
}$$ We have for each quasi-projective real variety $V$ the short exact sequence of abelian groups $$0\to z_{equi}(Y\times X_{\infty}, r+d)(V) \to (e(U,Y,r)(V))^{+} \to z_{equi}(Y,r)(U\times V) \to 0.$$
\[eiso\] Let $Y$ be a projective real variety, $U$ a normal quasi-projective real variety, and $T$ a compact Hausdorff space. Then $$e(U,Y,r)(T)\xrightarrow{\iso} \uphom{T}{\mcal{E}_{r}(Y)(U)}$$ is an isomorphism.
Observe that if $V$ is a quasi-projective real variety then the isomorphism $\Mor{\R}{V}{\mcal{C}_{r+d}(Y\times X)} \iso z_{equi}^{eff}(Y\times X,r+d)(V)$ restricts to give the isomorphism $\Mor{\R}{V}{\mcal{E}(Y)(U)}\iso e(U,Y,r)(V)$. Here if $E\subseteq W$ is a constructable subset then $\Mor{}{V}{E}\subseteq \Mor{}{V}{W}$ is the subset consisting of those continuous algebraic maps whose image is contained in $E$.
The isomorphism $e(U,Y,r)(T)\xrightarrow{\iso} \uphom{T}{\mcal{E}_{r}(Y)(U)}$ now follows as in [@FW:funcspc Corollary 4.3].
\[smheq\] Let $U$ be a normal quasi-projective real variety and $Y$ a projective real variety. The map of simplicial abelian groups from Proposition \[singmor\] $$z_{equi}(Y,0)(U\times \Delta^{\bullet}_{top}) \to \sing_{\bullet}(\Mor{\R}{U}{\mcal{C}_{0}(Y)}^{+})$$ is a homotopy equivalence.
By proposition \[eiso\] we have $e(U,Y,r)(\Delta^{\bullet}_{top}) \iso \sing_{\bullet}\mcal{E}_{r}(Y)(U)$. Now by taking group completions, tractability of the monoid $\mcal{E}_{r}(Y)(U)$ and Quillen’s theorem [@FM:filt App Q] we conclude that $$e(U,Y,r)(\Delta^{\bullet}_{top})^{+} \xrightarrow{\wkeq} \sing_{\bullet}(\mcal{E}_{r}(Y)(U)^{+})$$ is a homotopy equivalence.
We conclude the proposition by comparing homotopy fiber sequences of simplicial abelian groups $$\xymatrix{
z_{equi}(Y\times X_{\infty}, r+d)(\Delta^{\bullet}_{top}) \ar[r]\ar[d] & (e(U,Y,r)(\Delta^{\bullet}_{top}))^{+} \ar[r]\ar[d] & z_{equi}(Y,r)(U\times \Delta^{\bullet}_{top}) \ar[d] \\
\sing_{\bullet}\mcal{Z}_{r+d}(Y\times X_{\infty}) \ar[r] & \sing_{\bullet}(\mcal{E}_{r}(Y)(U)^{+}) \ar[r] & \sing_{\bullet}\mcal{Z}^{r}(Y)(U) .
}$$ The left arrow is a homotopy equivalence by Proposition \[sing\], we have just seen that the middle map is a homotopy equivalence, the right horizontal maps induce a surjection on $\pi_{0}$ and so we conclude that $z_{equi}(Y,r)(U\times\Delta^{\bullet}_{top}) \to \sing_{\bullet}\mcal{Z}^{r}(Y)(U)$ is a homotopy equivalence.
\[htpyinv\] The presheaves $z_{equi}(X,r)(\Delta^{\bullet}_{top}\times -)$ are homotopy invariant in the sense that the map of complexes $$z_{equi}(X,r)(\Delta^{\bullet}_{top}) \to z_{equi}(X,r)(\Delta^{\bullet}_{top}\times_{\R} \Delta_{\R}^1)$$ is a quasi-isomorphism.
The same argument as in [@FW:compK Lemma 1.2].
The duality theorem for bivariant cycle theory [@FV:biv Theorem 7.4] says that for real varieties $X$, $U$ with $U$ smooth of dimension $d$, the natural inclusion $$\label{FVdual}
\mcal{D}:z_{equi}(X, r)(U\times_{\R} - ) \hookrightarrow z_{equi}(X\times_{\R} U, r+d)(-)$$ induces a quasi-isomorphism of complexes $$\mcal{D}:z_{equi}(X,r)(U\times_{\R} \Delta^{\bullet}_{\R}) \xrightarrow{\simeq}
z_{equi}(X\times_{\R} U, r+d)(\Delta^{\bullet}_{\R}).$$
\[fvsstdual\] For a smooth real variety $U$ and a quasi-projective real variety $X$ the map $$z_{equi}(X,r)(U\times_{\R}\Delta^{\bullet}_{top}) \xrightarrow{\mcal{D}} z_{equi}(X\times_{\R} U, r+d)(\Delta^{\bullet}_{top})$$ is a quasi-isomorphism.
Consider the commutative diagram $$\begin{CD}
z_{equi}(X,r)(U\times_{\R}\Delta^{\bullet}_{top}) @>{\mcal{D}}>> z_{equi}(X\times_{\R} U, r+d)(\Delta^{\bullet}_{top}) \\
@V{\pi^*}VV @VV{\pi^{*}}V \\
z_{equi}(X,r)(U\times_{\R} \Delta^{\bullet}_{\R}\times_{\R}\Delta^{\bullet}_{top}) @>{\mcal{D}}>> z_{equi}(X\times_{\R} U, r+d)(\Delta^{\bullet}_{\R}\times_{\R}\Delta^{\bullet}_{top}) .
\end{CD}$$ The vertical arrows are quasi-isomorphisms by homotopy invariance. The bottom right arrow is a quasi-isomorphism by Corollary \[saqiso\] since $$z_{equi}(X,r)(U\times_{\R} \Delta^{\bullet}_{\R}\times W) \to z_{equi}(X\times_{\R} U, r+d)(\Delta^{\bullet}_{\R}\times_{\R} W).$$ is a quasi-isomorphism for all smooth real varieties $W$ by [@FV:biv Theorem 7.4] and therefore the top horizontal map is a quasi-isomorphism as well.
\[Dcomp\] Let $Y$ be a projective real variety and $U$ a smooth real variety. The following diagram commutes $$\begin{CD}
z_{equi}(Y,0)(U\times_{\R} \Delta^{\bullet}_{top}) @>{\mcal{D}}>> z_{equi}(U\times_{\R} Y,d)(\Delta^{\bullet}_{top}) \\
@VVV @VVV \\
\sing_{\bullet}\Mor{\R}{U}{\mcal{C}_{0}(Y)}^{+} @>{\mcal{D}}>> \sing_{\bullet}\mcal{Z}_{d}(U\times_{\R} Y)
\end{CD}$$ where the vertical maps are the ones from Proposition \[singmor\] and Proposition \[sing\].
By [@FW:ratisos Proposition 3.3] the diagram of equivariant maps of simplicial sets $$\begin{CD}
z_{equi}(Y_{\C},0)(U_{\C}\times_{\C} \Delta^{\bullet}_{top}) @>>{\mcal{D}}> z_{equi}(U_{\C}\times_{\C} Y_{\C},d)(\Delta^{\bullet}_{top}) \\
@VVV @VVV \\
\sing_{\bullet}\Mor{\C}{U_{\C}}{\mcal{C}_{0}(Y_{\C})}^{+} @>>{\mcal{D}}> \sing_{\bullet}\mcal{Z}_{d}(U_{\C}\times_{\C} Y_{\C})
\end{CD}$$ commutes. Taking fixed points yields the result.
Write $$z_{equi}(\P^{q/q-1}_{\R},0)(U) = coker ( z_{equi}(\P^{q-1}_{\R},0)(U)\to z_{equi}(\P^{q}_{\R},0)(U) )$$ for the cokernel of the map of presheaves induced by $\P^{q-1}_{\R}\subseteq \P^{q}_{\R}$.
\[qisoseq\] Let $U$ be a smooth real variety of dimension $d$. The sequence of natural maps of complexes below consist of quasi-isomorphisms. $$\begin{gathered}
\label{morsst}
z_{equi}(\A^q_{\R}, 0)(U\times_{\R}\Delta^{\bullet}_{top}) \leftarrow z_{equi}(\P^{q/q-1}_{\R},0)(U\times_{\R}\Delta^{\bullet}_{top}) \to \\
\to \frac{\sing_{\bullet}(\Mor{\R}{U}{\mcal{C}_0(\P^{q}_{\R}})^{+}}{\sing_{\bullet}(\Mor{\R}{U}{\mcal{C}_0(\P^{q-1}_{\R}})^{+}}
\to \sing_{\bullet}\mcal{Z}^{q}(U).\end{gathered}$$
That the first map of diagram (\[morsst\]) is a quasi-isomorphism follows from consideration of the comparison diagram $$\xymatrix@-1pc{
z(\P^{n-1}, r)(U\times\Delta^{\bullet}_{top}) \ar[d]^{\mcal{D}}\ar[r] & z(\P^{n},r)(U\times\Delta_{top}^{\bullet}) \ar[r]\ar[d]^{\mcal{D}} & z(\A^{n}, r)(U\times\Delta^{\bullet}_{top}) \ar[d]^{\mcal{D}} \\
z(\P^{n-1}\times U, r+d)(\Delta^{\bullet}_{top}) \ar[d]\ar[r] & z(\P^{n}\times U,r+d)(\Delta_{top}^{\bullet}) \ar[r]\ar[d] & z(\A^{n}\times U , r+d)(\Delta^{\bullet}_{top}) \ar[d] \\
\sing_{\bullet}\mcal{Z}_{r+d}(\P^{n-1}\times U) \ar[r] & \sing_{\bullet}\mcal{Z}_{r+d}(\P^{n}\times U) \ar[r] & \sing_{\bullet}\mcal{Z}_{r+d}(\A^{n}\times U).
}$$ The vertical arrows are all quasi-isomorphisms by Proposition \[fvsstdual\] and by Proposition \[sing\]. Because $\mcal{C}_{k}(V)$ is a tractable monoid, the bottom row is homotopy equivalent to a short exact sequence of simplicial abelian groups and therefore the top rows are as well. It follows immediately that the first arrow of diagram \[morsst\] is a quasi-isomorphism. The second arrow of diagram (\[morsst\]) is a quasi-isomorphism by Proposition \[smheq\] and the last arrow of the diagram is a quasi-isomorphism because $\Mor{\R}{U}{\mcal{C}_{0}(\P_{\R}^{n})}$ is a tractable monoid.
If $k<0$ then define $\mcal{Z}_{k}(X)$ to be $\mcal{Z}_{0}(X\times \A^{-k})$.
We can now conclude the duality for real morphic cohomology and real Lawson homology.
Let $U$ be a smooth real variety of dimension $d$. Then $$\mcal{Z}^{q}(U_{\C})^{G} \xrightarrow{\mcal{D}} \mcal{Z}_{d}(\A^{q}_{\C}\times_{\C}
U_{\C})^{G} \xleftarrow{\simeq} \mcal{Z}_{d-q}(U_{\C})^{G}$$ is a natural homotopy equivalence.
In particular it induces the natural isomorphism $$L^{q}H\R^{n}(U)\xrightarrow{\iso} L_{d-q}H\R_{d-n,d}(U).$$
This follows from Proposition \[fvsstdual\], Lemma \[Dcomp\], Proposition \[sing\], Proposition \[qisoseq\], and homotopy invariance [@DS:real Proposition 4.15]. Indeed these show that the following diagram is commutative and the left hand maps are homotopy equivalences, $$\xymatrix@-1pc{
z_{equi}(\A_{\R}^{q},0)(U\times\Delta^{\bullet}_{top}) \ar[d]^{\mcal{D}} & z_{equi}(\P_{\R}^{q/q-1},0)(U\times\Delta^{\bullet}_{top}) \ar[l]\ar[d]^{\mcal{D}}\ar[r] & \\
z_{equi}(\A^{q}_{\R}\times U, d)(\Delta^{\bullet}_{top}) & z_{equi}(\P^{q/q-1}_{\R}\times U, d)(\Delta^{\bullet}_{top}) \ar[l]\ar[r] & \\
\ar[r] & \frac{\sing_{\bullet}(\Mor{\R}{U}{\mcal{C}_0(\P^{q}_{\R}})^{+}}{\sing_{\bullet}(\Mor{\R}{U}{\mcal{C}_0(\P^{q-1}_{\R}})^{+}} \ar[r]\ar[d]^{\mcal{D}} & \sing_{\bullet}\mcal{Z}^{q}(U) \ar[d]^{\mcal{D}} \\
\ar[r] & \frac{\sing_{\bullet}\mcal{Z}_{d}(\P^{q}_{\R}\times U)}{\sing_{\bullet}\mcal{Z}_{d}(\P^{q-1}_{\R}\times U)} \ar[r] & \sing_{\bullet}\mcal{Z}_{d}(\A^{q}\times U) .
}$$ Therefore the right hand map is also a homotopy equivalence
Combining Friedlander-Lawson’s duality between Lawson homology and morphic cohomology over $\C$ and the duality over $\R$ immediately gives an equivariant duality theorem.
\[PD\] Let $U$ be a smooth real variety of dimension $d$. The sequence of maps $$\mcal{Z}^{q}(U_{\C}) \to \mcal{Z}_{d}(U_{\C}\times_{\C} \A^{q}_{\C}) \leftarrow \mcal{Z}_{d-q}(X_{\C})$$ consists of $G$-equivariant homotopy equivalences. In particular $$L^{q}H\R^{n,m}(U)\xrightarrow{\iso} L_{d-q}H\R_{d-n,d-m}(U).$$ for all smooth quasi-projective real varieties $U$.
\[fpa\] A smooth $G$-manifold $M$ equipped such that the action of $G$ on its tangent bundle makes it into a real $n$-bundle satisfies an equivariant Poincare duality, $$\mcal{P}: H^{p,q}(M;\underline{\Z}) \xrightarrow{\iso} H_{n-p,n-q}(M;\underline{\Z}).$$ In a forthcoming paper we prove that the duality $\mcal{D}$ is compatible under the cycle maps with the duality $\mcal{P}$.
Compatibility of Cycle Maps
===========================
Generalized cycle maps
----------------------
Let $X$ be a smooth real variety. The generalized cycle map relates motivic cohomology and etale cohomology, $$cyc:\H^{2q-k,q}_{\mcal{M}}(X;\Z/2) \to H^{2q-k}_{et}(X;\mu_{2}^{\otimes q}).$$ By [@Cox:real] the etale cohomology of a real variety is equal to the Borel equivariant cohomology of its space of complex points, $$H^{2q-k}_{et}(X;\mu_{2}^{\otimes q}) \iso H^{2q-k}_{\Z/2}(X_{\C}(\C);\Z/2).$$
On the other hand morphic cohomology and motivic cohomology agree with finite coefficients (see Proposition \[fcoeffagr\]).
Combining the generalized cycle map in morphic cohomology and the comparison map between Bredon and Borel equivariant cohomology $$L^{q}H\R^{q-k,q}(X;\Z/2) \to H^{q-k,q}(X_\R(\C);\underline{\Z/2}) \to H^{2q-k}_{\Z/2}(X(\C);\Z/2)$$ together with the isomorphism $ \H^{2q-k,q}_{\mcal{M}}(X;\Z/2) \xrightarrow{\iso} L^{q}H\R^{q-k,q}(X;\Z/2)$ gives another map
$$\H^{2q-k,q}_{\mcal{M}}(X;\Z/2)\iso L^{q}H\R^{q-k,q}(X;\Z/2)\to H^{2q-k}_{\Z/2}(X_{\C}(\C);\Z/2)\iso H^{2q-k}_{et}(X;\mu_{2}^{\otimes q}).$$
In this section we verify that these two potentially different cycle maps are equal and we explore a few consequences. In particular this allows compatibility of cycle maps allows us to conclude that $L^{q}H\R^{q-p,q}(X;\Z/2^{k}) \to H^{q-p,q}(X_{\R}(\C);\underline{\Z/2^{k}})$ is an isomorphism for $p\geq q$ and for any smooth $X$.
Before continuing, we show that motivic cohomology and morphic cohomology for real varieties agree with finite coefficients. This is a well-known to the experts, but because of the lack of a good reference we prove it below.
\[fcoeffagr\] Let $X$ be a smooth real variety. Then for any $n>0$ $$\H^{2q-k,q}_{\mcal{M}}(X;\Z/n) \xrightarrow{\iso} L^{q}H\R^{q-k,q}(X;\Z/n).$$
We show that the natural map of simplicial abelian groups $$z_{equi}(\A^{q},0)(X\times\Delta^{\bullet}_{\R})\otimes\Z/n \to z_{equi}(\A^{q},0)(X\times\Delta^{\bullet}_{\R}\times\Delta^{\bullet}_{top})\otimes\Z/n$$ is a quasi-isomorphism which implies the result by Proposition \[smheq\] and Proposition \[htpyinv\]. Write $F(U)$ for the presheaf $$U\mapsto \pi_{k}(z_{equi}(\A^{q},0)(X\times\Delta^{\bullet}_{\R}\times U)\otimes\Z/n)$$ on $Sch/\R$ and $F_{0}(U)$ for the constant presheaf $$U\mapsto \pi_{k}(z_{equi}(\A^{q},0)(X\times\Delta^{\bullet}_{\R})\otimes\Z/n).$$
Restricted to $Sm/\R$ these are homotopy invariant presheaves with transfers. Recall [@FW:real Lemma 3.8] that if $F(-)$ is a homotopy invariant presheaf with transfers, $Y$ is smooth, and $y\in Y(\R)$ then $F(\spec\mcal{O}_{Y,y}^{h}) \to F(\R)$ is an isomorphism, where $\mcal{O}_{Y,y}^{h}$ is the Henselization of the local ring $\mcal{O}_{Y,y}$.
Let $H(-)$ denote either the kernel or the cokernel of the natural transformation $F_{0}(-)\to F(-)$. Let $Y$ be a quasi-projective real variety and $\gamma\in H(Y)$. Let $\tilde{Y}\to Y$ be a $cdh$-cover with $\tilde{Y}$ smooth (in particular it is a $uad$-cover). Since $H(\spec\mcal{O}_{\tilde{Y},y}^{h}) = 0$ for any $y\in \tilde{Y}(\R)$ there are finitely many etale maps $\tilde{Y}_{k}\to \tilde{Y}$ such that $\gamma|_{\tilde{Y}_{k}} = 0$ and $\coprod \tilde{Y}_{k} \to \tilde{Y}$ is a $uad$-cover.
Therefore $H_{uad} = 0$ and $(F_{0})_{uad} \to F_{uad}$ is an isomorphism. By Theorem \[recog\] we conclude that $$\pi_{k}(z_{equi}(\A_{\R}^{q},0)(X\times\Delta^{\bullet}_{\R})\otimes\Z/n) \to \pi_{k}(z_{equi}(\A^{q}_{\R},0)(X\times \Delta^{\bullet}_{\R}\times \Delta^{\bullet}_{top})\otimes\Z/n)$$ is an isomorphism.
An application of the Bousfield-Friedlander spectral sequence finishes the proof.
Friedlander-Walker introduce in [@FW:real] the equivalence relation of *real algebraic equivalence*. Briefly two cycles $\alpha$, $\beta$ on a real variety $X$ are real algebraically equivalent provided there is a smooth real curve $C$, two real points $c_{0}$, $c_{1}$ in the same analytic connected component of $C(\R)$, and a cycle $\gamma$ on $X\times C$ such that $\alpha=\gamma|_{c_{0}}$ and $\beta = \gamma|_{c_{1}}$. Since $L^{q}H\R^{q,q}(X)$ is the group of codimension $q$ cycles on $X$ modulo real algebraic equivalence we obtain the following corollary.
Let $X$ be a smooth real variety and $0\leq r\leq dim(X)$. Rational equivalence and real algebraic equivalence yield the same equivalence relation on the group of $r-$cycles on $X$ with finite coefficients.
Recall that $z_{equi}(\P^{q/q-1},0)(U) = z_{equi}(\P^{q},0)(U)/z_{equi}(\P^{q-1},0)(U)$. Write $$\begin{aligned}
\Z/2(q)(X) & = (z_{equi}(\P_{\R}^{q/q-1},0)(X\times_{\R}\Delta^{\bullet}_{\R})\otimes\Z/2)[-2q] \\
\Z/2(q)^{sst}(X) & = \sing_{\bullet} (\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\C})^{G})[-2q] \\
\Z/2(q)^{top}(X) & = \Hom{cts}{X_{\C}(\C)\times\Delta^{\bullet}_{top}}{\mcal{Z}/2_{0}(\A^{q}_{\C})}^{G}[-2q] \\
\Z/2(q)^{Bor}(X) & = \Hom{cts}{X_{\C}(\C)\times EG\times\Delta^{\bullet}_{top}}{\mcal{Z}/2_{0}(\A^{q}_{\C})}^{G}[-2q]\end{aligned}$$ where we identify a simplicial abelian group with its associated bounded above cochain complex. These form presheaves of cochain complexes on $Sm/\R$. These chain complexes compute respectively motivic cohomology, real morphic cohomology, Bredon cohomology, and Borel cohomology. Note that $\Z/2(q)$, $\Z/2(q)^{top}$ and $\Z/2(q)^{Bor}$ are in fact complexes of etale sheaves on $(Sm/\R)$.
There are natural maps between these complexes, $$\Z/2(q)(X)\xrightarrow{\rho} \Z/2(q)^{sst}(X)\xrightarrow{\Phi} \Z/2(q)^{top}(X) \xrightarrow{\psi} \Z/2(q)^{Bor}(X)$$ obtained as follows. From Proposition \[singmor\] and the projection $\Delta^{\bullet}_{\R} \to \spec \R$ we obtain $$z_{equi}(\P^{q/q-1},0)(X\times_{\R}\Delta^{\bullet}_{\R}) \to \sing\mcal{Z}^{q}(X\times_{\R}\Delta^{\bullet}_{\R}) = \sing\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\C}\times_{\C}\Delta^{\bullet}_{\C})^{G}$$ which induces $\Z/2(q)(X) \to \Z/2(q)^{sst}(X)$. The second map $\Phi$ is the map (\[morphcomp\]) and the third map $\psi$ is induced by the projection $X_{\C}(\C)\times EG \to X_{\C}(\C)$.
Nisnevich hypercohomology and descent
-------------------------------------
These cohomology theories may be computed as Nisnevich hypercohomology groups. This allows us to view these cycle maps as maps in a derived category where we can use a computation of [@SV:BK].
Say that a cartesian square $$\label{Nisdist}
\xymatrix{
V \ar[r]\ar[d] & Y\ar[d]^{f} \\
U\ar@^{{(}->}[r]^{i} & X
}$$ is a *distinguished Nisnevich square* provided the map $Y\xrightarrow{f} X$ is etale, $i:U\subseteq X$ is an open embedding, and $f: (Y\backslash V) \to (X\backslash U)$ is an isomorphism. The Nisnevich topology is the Grothendieck topology on $Sm/k$ generated by covers of the form $U \coprod Y \to X$ where $U\subseteq X$ and $f:Y\to X$ form part of a distinguished square as above.
Given a presheaf of chain complexes $F$ and a closed $i:A\subseteq B$ and open complement $j:U \subseteq B$ define $$F(B)_{A} = \cone(F(B) \xrightarrow{j^{*}} F(U))[-1],$$ which fits into the exact triangle $$F(B)_{A} \to F(B) \xrightarrow{j^{*}} F(U).$$
Say that a presheaf $F(-)$ of chain complexes satisfies *Nisnevich descent* provided that for a distinguished square as in (\[Nisdist\]) the square $$\xymatrix{
F(X) \ar[r]\ar[d] & F(Y)\ar[d] \\
F(U)\ar[r] & F(V)
}$$ is homotopy cartesian. Recall this means that this square induces the Mayer-Vietoris exact triangle (in the derived category of abelian groups): $$F(X) \to F(Y)\oplus F(U) \to F(V) .$$ Equivalently, it means that $ F(Y)_{Z'}\to F(X)_{Z} $ is an isomorphism in the derived category of abelian groups where $Z=X\backslash U$ and $Z'=Y\backslash V$.
When a presheaf of chain complexes $F(-)$ (with $F(\emptyset)=0$) satisfies Nisnevich descent then the Nisnevich hypercohomology of a smooth $X$ with coefficients in $F$ is computed as $$H^{p}(F(X)) = H^{p}(F _{Nis}(X))=\H^{p}_{Nis}(X; F_{Nis})$$ (see for example [@BO Theorem 7.5.1] for presheaves of chain complexes, [@Nis] for descent in the case of presheaves of spectra, [@BG] for descent in the Zariski topology).
Note that $$\begin{aligned}
\H^{2q-p}_{Nis}(X;(\Z/2(q)^{sst})_{Nis}) &
% = \pi_{p}\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X)^{G}
= L^qH^{q-p,q}(X;\Z/2), \\
\H^{2q-p}_{Nis}(X;\Z/2(q)^{top}) &
% = \pi_{p}\mcal{Z}/2_{top}^{q}(X)^{G}
= H^{q-p,q}(X _\R(\C);\underline{\Z/2}), \\
\H^{2q-p}_{Nis}(X;\Z/2(q)^{Bor}) &
% = \pi_{p}\mcal{Z}/2_{Bor}^{q}(X)
= H^{2q-p}_{\Z/2}(X(\C);\Z/2).\end{aligned}$$ In the first case this follows because the motivic complex $\Z/2(q)$ satisfies Nisnevich descent and $\Z/2(q)(X) \to \Z/2(q)^{sst}(X)$ is a quasi-isomorphism of chain complexes for all smooth $X$.
Given $i:A\subseteq B$ a closed subvariety with open complement $j:U\subseteq B$ and write $C(j)$ for the mapping cone of $j:U(\C) \subseteq B(\C)$. Then by a comparison of exact triangles we see that $$\Z/2(q)^{top}(B)_{A} \wkeq \phom{C(j)\wedge\Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{\mcal{Z}/2_{0}(\A^{q}_{\C})}^{G}[-2q]$$ and $$\Z/2(q)^{Bor}(B)_{A} \wkeq \phom{C(j)\wedge EG_+\wedge\Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{\mcal{Z}/2_{0}(\A^{q}_{\C})}^{G}[-2q] .$$
Let $F(-)$ denote either $\Z/2(q)^{top}(-)$ or $\Z/2(q)^{Bor}(-)$ and let $$\xymatrix{
V \ar[r]^{j'}\ar[d] & Y \ar[d]\\
U \ar[r]^{j} & X
}$$ be a distinguished Nisnevich square in $Sm/\R$ then $$\xymatrix{
V(\C)\ar[r]^{j'}\ar[d] & Y(\C)\ar[d] \\
U(\C) \ar[r]^{j} & X(\C)
}$$ is an equivariant homotopy pushout diagram of $G$-spaces (see for example [@DI:hyp] ). Therefore $C(j') \xrightarrow{\wkeq} C(j)$ is an equivariant homotopy equivalence. Consequently $F(X)_{Z}\to F(Y)_{Z'}$ is an isomorphism in the derived category of abelian groups and therefore $$\xymatrix{
F(X) \ar[r]\ar[d] & F(U) \ar[d]\\
F(Y) \ar[r] & F(V)
}$$ is homotopy cartesian. This means that both $\Z/2(q)^{top}(-)$ and $\Z/2(q)^{Bor}(-)$ satisfy Nisnevich descent.
Compatibility of cycle maps
---------------------------
We are now ready to show that two cycle maps discussed in the beginning of this section are the same map.
\[Borel\] Suppose that $V$ is a quasi-projective complex variety considered as a real variety. Then $\pi_{k}\Z/2(q)^{Bor}(V) = H_{sing}^{2q-k}(V(\C);\Z/2)$.
If $V$ is a complex variety then $(V\times_{\R}\C)(\C) = V(\C)\amalg V(\C)$ and $G$ acts by interchanging the factors. In particular $G$ acts freely on $V_{\C}(\C)$ and $(V_{\C}(\C)\times EG)/G \to V_{\C}(\C)/G = V(\C)$ is a vector-bundle which immediately implies that $\pi_{k}\Z/2(q)^{Bor}(V) = H^{2q-k} _{sing}(V(\C);\Z/2)$.
Write $\pi_{0}:(Sm/\R)_{et} \to (Sm/\R)_{Nis}$ for the canonical map of sites.
\[etpb\] The complex of etale sheaves $\pi_{0}^*\Z/2(q)^{Bor}$ on $(Sm/\R)_{et}$ is canonically quasi-isomorphic to $\mu_{2}^{\otimes q}$.
Write $\mcal{H}^{i}$ for the etale sheafification of the $i$th cohomology presheaf of $\Z/2(q)^{Bor}$. First we show that $\mcal{H}^{i} = 0$ for $i\neq 0$. It is enough to show that for each real variety $X$ and $\gamma \in H^{i}( [X_{\C}(\C)\times EG]/G ; \Z/2)$ that we can find an etale covering $(U_j\to X)$ such that $\gamma|_{U_j} = 0$ for each $j$. The map $Y=X_{\C}\to X$ is an etale cover for any real variety $X$. Write $\gamma' = \gamma|_{Y}$. By the previous Lemma $H^{i}( Y _\C(\C)\times EG]/G ; \Z/2) = H^{i}_{sing}( Y(\C) ; \Z/2)$. Since $Y$ has an etale cover $U_j\to Y$ such that $\gamma'|_{U_j} = 0$ for each $j$ (see e.g. [@Milne:etale Lemma III.3.15] ) we conclude that $\mcal{H}^{i} = 0$ for $i\neq 0$.
When $X_{\C}$ is connected then $H^{0}( [X_{\C}(\C)\times EG]/G ; \Z/2) = \Z/2$. More generally if $X = \amalg X_{i}$ is the disjoint union of $c$ connected real varieties then $H^{0}( [X_{\C}(\C)\times EG]/G ; \Z/2) =\Z/2^{\times c}$. This shows $\mcal{H}^{0} = \Z/2 = \mu_{2}^{q}$.
Finally since $\mcal{H}^{i} = 0 $ for $i\neq 0 $ we have canonical isomorphisms $$\Z/2 = \Hom{et}{\mcal{H}^{0}}{\mu_{2}^{\otimes q}} = \Hom{D^{-}((Sm/\R)_{et})}{\pi^*\Z/2(q)^{Bor}}{ \mu_{2}^{\otimes q}}$$
Recall [@SV:BK Section 6] that there is an injective etale resolution $0\to\mu_2^{\otimes q} \to J^{\bullet}$ such that $\pi_{0*}J^{\bullet}$ is a complex of Nisnevich sheaves with transfers with homotopy invariant cohomology sheaves. Proposition \[etpb\] gives a canonical map $\pi_{0}^{*}\Z/2(q)^{Bor}\to J^{\bullet}$ and by adjointness we obtain a map $$\Z/2(q)^{Bor} \to \mathbb{R}(\pi_{0})_{*}\mu_{2}^{\otimes q}=(\pi_{0})_*J^{\bullet} .$$
Consider the following sequence of maps of complexes of Nisnevich sheaves $$\label{maps}
\Z/2(q) \to (\Z/2(q)^{sst})_{Nis} \xrightarrow{\Phi} \Z/2(q)^{top} \to \Z/2(q)^{Bor} \to \mathbb{R}(\pi_{0})_{*}\mu_{2}^{\otimes q}.$$
The complex of Nisnevich sheaves with transfers $B_{2}(q)$ is defined in [@SV:BK Section 6] to be the truncation $$B_{2}(q) = \tau_{\leq q}(\pi_{0})_*J^{\bullet} = \tau_{\leq q}(\mathbb{R}\pi_{0*}\mu_{2}^{\otimes q}),$$ in particular $\H^{p}_{Nis}(X; B_{2}(q)) = H^{p}_{et}(X;\mu_2^{\otimes q})$ for $p\leq q$ and all smooth $X$. Since the cohomology sheaves of $\Z/2(q)$ (and therefore of $\Z/2(q)^{sst}$ as well) vanish in degrees $i> q$ and so the sequence of maps (\[maps\]) factors through the truncations, $$\label{tmaps}
\Z/2(q) \to (\Z/2(q)^{sst})_{Nis} \to \tau_{\leq q} \Z/2(q)^{top} \to \tau_{\leq q} \Z/2(q)^{Bor} \to B_{2}(q).$$
\[notriv\] It is important to note that the composites \[maps\] and \[tmaps\] are non-trivial. This can be seen, for example, by evaluating on $\spec\C$. The map $\Z/2(q)(X) \to (\Z/2(q)^{sst})_{Nis}(X)$ is a quasi-isomorphism for any smooth real variety $X$ by Proposition \[fcoeffagr\]. The comparison map $(\Z/2(q)^{sst})_{Nis}(\C) \to
\Z/2(q)^{top}(\C)$ is an equality. By Proposition \[binj\] below, for any $X$, the map $\Z/2(q)^{top}(X) \to
\Z/2(q)^{Bor}(X)$ induces an isomorphism on cohomology in degrees $p \leq q$. Finally since $\Z/2(q)^{Bor} \to \mathbb{R}\pi_{0*}\mu_{2}^{\otimes q}$ is obtained as the adjoint of a quasi-isomorphism and $\spec\C$ is an etale point (of $(Sm/\R)_{et}$) the map $\Z/2(q)^{Bor}(\C) \to \mathbb{R}\pi_{0*}\mu_{2}^{\otimes q}(\C)$ cannot be zero.
Write $D^-(Nis)$ (respectively $D^-(NSwT/\R)$) for the derived category of bound above complexes of Nisnevich sheaves (respectively Nisnevich sheaves with transfers). Write $DM^-(\R)\subseteq D^-(NSwT/\R)$ for the full subcategory consisting of complexes with homotopy invariant Nisnevich cohomology sheaves.
\[cyccomp\] Let $X$ be a smooth real variety. The diagram commutes $$\label{tricom}
\xymatrix{
L^{q}H\R^{q-k,q}(X;\Z/2) \ar[d]_-{\Phi} && \ar[ll]_{\iso}\H^{2q-k,q}_{\mcal{M}}(X;\Z/2) \ar[d]^-{cyc} \\
H^{q-k,q}(X_{\C}(\C);\underline{\Z/2}) \ar[r] & H_{G}^{2q-k}(X_{\C}(\C);\Z/2)\ar[r] & H^{2q-k}_{et}(X;\mu_{2}^{\otimes q}),
}$$
By [@SV:BK Corollary 6.11.1] and the vanishing of the cohomology sheaves of $\Z/2(q)$ above degree $q$, $$\Z/2= \Hom{DM^{-}(\R)}{\Z/2(q)}{B_{2}(q)}=\Hom{DM^{-}(\R)}{\Z/2(q)}{\pi_{0*}J^{\bullet}}.$$
Also by [@SV:BK Lemma 6.5] the inclusion of bi-complexes $$\Hom{Nis}{\Z/2(q)}{\pi_{0*}J^{\bullet}} \subseteq \Hom{NSWT}{\Z/2(q)}{\pi_{0*}J^{\bullet}}$$ is an equality. Therefore $$\Z/2 =\Hom{DM^{-}(\R)}{\Z/2(q)}{\pi_{0*}J^{\bullet}}=\Hom{D^{-}(Nis)}{\Z/2(q)}{\pi_{0*}J^{\bullet}}.$$ Finally, the map $\Z/2(q)\to \pi_{0*}J^{\bullet}$ obtained from (\[maps\]) is not trivial by Remark \[notriv\] and so we conclude that it must be the cycle map.
Applications and computations
-----------------------------
As a result of the compatibility of cycle maps we can conclude some Beilinson-Lichtenbaum type theorems for morphic cohomology which we need to prove the vanishing theorem. We also use these to make a few computations of equivariant morphic cohomology.
\[MCR\] Let $X$ be a smooth real variety. The map $$\Phi:L^{q}H\R^{q-k,q}(X;\Z/2^n) \to H^{q-k,q}(X _\C(\C);\underline{\Z/2^n})$$ is an isomorphism for $q\leq k$ and a monomorphism for $q=k+1.$
Consider the commutative diagram (\[tricom\]). By [@SV:BK] the Milnor conjecture, proved by Voevodsky [@Voev:miln], implies that $cyc$ is an isomorphism for $k\geq q$ and an injection for $k=q-1$. This immediately implies the statement for injectivity. If $k\geq q$ then since $cyc$ is an isomorphism we conclude that $H_{G}^{2q-k}(X_{\C}(\C);\Z/2) \to H^{2q-k}_{et}(X;\mu_{2}^{\otimes q})$ is a surjective map between finitely dimensional $\Z/2$-vector spaces. By [@Cox:real] these are isomorphic $\Z/2$-vector spaces and therefore the map is an isomorphism. Since $H^{q-k,q}(X_{\C}(\C);\underline{\Z}) \to H^{2q-k}_{G}(X_{\C}(X);\Z/2)$ is also an isomorphism for $k\geq q$ by Proposition \[binj\] we conclude that $\Phi$ is also an isomorphism for $k\geq q$. This yields the result for $\Z/2$-coefficients.
We have the following diagram of distinguished triangles in $D^-(Nis):$ $$\xymatrix{
\Z/2(q)^{sst} _{Nis} \ar[r]\ar[d] & \Z/4(q)^{sst} _{Nis} \ar[r]\ar[d] & \Z/2(q)^{sst} _{Nis} \ar[r]\ar[d] & \Z/2(q)^{sst} _{Nis}[1]\ar[d] \\
\tau_{\leq q}\Z/2(q)^{top} \ar[r] & \tau_{\leq q}\Z/4(q)^{top} \ar[r] & \tau_{\leq q}\Z/2(q)^{top}\ar[r] &\tau_{\leq q}\Z/2(q)^{top}[1] ,
}$$ To see that the bottom row is a triangle in $D^-(Nis)$ it is enough to check that the map on cohomology sheaves $\mcal{H}^{q}(\tau_{\leq q}\Z/4(q)^{top}) \to \mcal{H}^{q}(\tau_{\leq q}\Z/2(q)^{top})$ is a surjection. This follows from the surjectivity of the composition $$\mcal{H}^q(\Z(q))\to\mcal{H}^q(\tau_{\leq q}\Z/4(q)^{top})\to\mcal{H}^q(\tau_{\leq q}\Z/2(q)^{top}).$$ which is a consequence of the local vanishing of $\Z(q)$ and the quasi-isomorphisms $\Z/2(q)\to B_{2}(q)$ and $\tau_{\leq q}\Z/2(q)^{top}\to B_{2}(q)$. Now the conclusion follows from the long exact sequence in hypercohomology associated to the diagram. Using induction on $n$ we conclude that $\Phi:(\Z/2^{n}(q)^{sst})_{Nis}\to \tau_{\leq q}\Z/2^{n}(q)^{top}$ is a quasi-isomorphism.
\[MCC\] Let $X$ be a smooth complex variety. For any $n>0$ the map $$\Phi: L^{q}H^{2q-k}(X;\Z/2^n)\to H^{2q-k} _{sing}(X(\C);\Z/2^n)$$ is an isomorphism for any $q\leq k$ and a monomorphism for $q=k+1$.
Follows immediately from Corollary \[MCR\] by viewing $X$ as real variety.
\[eBL\] Let $X$ be a smooth real variety and $k>0$. The cycle map $$\Phi:L^{q}H\R^{r,s}(X; \Z/2^{k}) \to H^{r,s}(X_{\C}(\C); \underline{\Z/2^{k}})$$ is an isomorphism if $r\leq 0$ (and $s\leq q$) and an injection if $r=1$ (and $s\leq q$).
Write $F _q = \hofib(\mcal{Z}^{q}/2^{k}(X_{\C}) \to \map{X_{\C}(\C)}{\mcal{Z}/2^{k}_{0}(\A^{q}_{\C})})$ for the homotopy fiber of the cycle map. The homotopy fiber construction is equivariant and yields an equivariant homotopy fiber sequence $$F _q\to\mcal{Z}^{q}/2^{k}(X_{\C}) \to \map{X_{\C}(\C)}{\mcal{Z}/2^{k}_{0}(\A^{q}_{\C})}.$$ By Corollary \[MCC\] and Corollary \[MCR\] both $\pi_{k}(F _q) = 0$ and $\pi_{k}(F^{G} _q) =0$ for $k\geq q-1$. Therefore $\Omega^{q-1}F _q$ is equivariantly weakly contractible for $q\geq 1$ and if $q=0$ then $F _0$ is equivariantly contractible. The result follows now from the long exact sequence of homotopy groups applied to the equivariant homotopy fiber sequence $$\Omega^{q-1}F _q\to\Omega^{q-1}\mcal{Z}^{q}/2^{k}(X_{\C}) \to \Omega^{q-1}\map{X_{\C}(\C)}{\mcal{Z}/2^{k}_{0}(\A^{q}_{\C})}.$$
\[cds\] Let $X$ be a smooth real curve. Then $$L^{q}H\R^{r,s}(X; \Z) \to H^{r,s}(X_{\C}(\C); \underline{\Z})$$ is an isomorphism for any $q\geq 0$, $r\leq q$, and $s\leq q$.
By Poincare duality for real Lawson homology and equivariant morphic cohomology and Remark \[fpa\], $L^{q}H^{r,s}(X;\Z) \xrightarrow{\iso} H^{r,s}(X_{\C}(\C);\underline{\Z})$ for $q\geq 1$. By Corollary \[eBL\], $L^{0}H\R^{r,s}(X;\Z/2^{k}) \to H^{r,s}(X;\underline{\Z/2^{k}})$ is an isomorphism for $r,s\leq 0$. When $A$ is an abelian group and $2$ is invertible in $A$ then a transfer argument shows that $$L^{0}H\R^{r,s}(X;A)\stackrel{\iso}{\to} H^{r,s}(X;\underline{A}).$$ This isomorphism and the one with mod-$2^k$ coefficients give the result of the corollary.
Let $X$ be a smooth real surface. Then for any $k>0$ $$L^{q}H\R^{r,s}(X;\Z/2^{k}) \to H^{r,s}(X_{\C}(\C);\underline{\Z/2^{k}})$$ is an isomorphism for $q=0$ and $r,s\leq 0$ and it is an injection for $r=1$ and $s\leq 1$. Moreover $L^{1}H\R^{1,s}(X;\Z/2^{k}) = 0$ for $s\leq -2$.
Recall that $\pi_{0}\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\C})^{G}$ is the group of codimension $q$ cycles on $X$ modulo real algebraic equivalence.
Let $X$ be a smooth real variety of dimension $d$. Then for any $k>0$ $$L^{1}H\R^{r,s}(X;\Z/2^{k}) \to H^{r,s}(X; \underline{\Z/2^{k}})$$ is an isomorphism for any $r\leq 0$ and $s\leq 1$ and it is an injection for $r=1$ and $s\leq 1$. Moreover $$\begin{aligned}
L^{1}H\R^{1,1}(X;\Z/2^{k}) & = CH^{1}(X)\otimes\Z/2^{k}\subseteq H^{1,1}(X_{\C}(\C);\underline{\Z/2^{k}}) \\
L^{1}H\R^{1,s}(X;\Z/2^{k}) & = 0 \;\;\;\;\; \textrm{for} \;\; s\leq -2\end{aligned}$$
All statements follow immediately from Corollary \[eBL\] except the last one. The first part of the last statement follows from Proposition \[fcoeffagr\]. For rest of the last statement, by Corollary \[eBL\] together with Proposition \[binj\] we have $$L^{1}H\R^{1,s}(X;\Z/2^{k}) \hookrightarrow H^{1,s}(X_{\C}(\C); \underline{\Z/2^{k}}) \hookrightarrow H^{1+s}_{G}(X_{\C}(\C);A) = 0$$ for $1+ s <0$.
We finish this section with the computation used in Corollary \[MCR\] that Bredon and Borel cohomology agree in the range relevant to the Beilinson-Lichtenbaum conjecture.
\[binj\] Let $W$ be a $G$-$CW$ complex, $M$ a $G$-module, and $\underline{M}$ the associated constant Mackey functor. The map $$H^{m,q}(W;\underline{M}) \to H^{m,q}(W\times EG;\underline{M})$$ is an isomorphism for $m\leq 0$ and it is an injection for $m = 1$.
In particular for $q\leq p$ the map $$H^{q-p,q}(W;\underline{\Z/2}) \to H^{2q-p}_{\Z/2}(W,\Z/2)$$ is an isomorphism and an injection for $p=q-1$.
Define $\tilde{E}G = \colim_{n} S^{0,n}$. This space fits into a homotopy cofiber sequence $$EG_{+}\to S^{0} \to \tilde{E}G$$ and $\tilde{E}G/G \wkeq S^{1,0}\wedge BG$.
First we consider the case that $G$ acts trivially on $W$. From the previous homotopy cofiber sequence we obtain the homotopy cofiber sequence $$\label{EGcof}
W_+\wedge EG_+ \to W_+ \to W_+\wedge \tilde{E}G.$$ Since $G$ acts trivially on $W$ we have that $(W_+\wedge \tilde{E}G)/G = W_+ \wedge \tilde{E}G/G\wkeq W_+ \wedge S^{1,0}\wedge BG$ and therefore $\tilde{H}^{k,0}(W_+\wedge \tilde{E}G;\underline{M}) =
\tilde{H}_{sing}^{k-1}(W_+\wedge BG;M) = 0$ if $k\leq 1$. Notice that $S^{0,1}\wedge \tilde{E}G = S^{0,1}\wedge \colim_{n}S^{0,n} = \colim_{n} S^{0,n+1}\iso \tilde{E}G$. Since $\tilde{E}G \iso S^{0,1}\wedge \tilde{E}G$ is an equivariant equivalence this induces an isomorphism $$\tilde{H}^{k,s}(W_+\wedge
\tilde{E}G;\underline{M}) \iso \tilde{H}^{k,0}(W_+\wedge
\tilde{E}G;\underline{M})$$ for all $s$ and therefore $\tilde{H}^{k,s}(W_+\wedge
\tilde{E}G, \underline{M})= 0$ for $k\leq 1$ for all $s$. Now from the long exact sequence associated to the cofiber sequence (\[EGcof\]) it follows that for all $q$ the map $H^{m,q}(W;\underline{M}) \to
H^{m,q}(W\times EG;\underline{M})$ is an isomorphism for $m\leq 0$ and an injection for $m=1$.
Consider now a general $G$-$CW$ complex $W$ and consider the quotient $W/W^G$. Since $G$ acts freely on the based space $W/W^{G}$ we have the isomorphism $$\tilde{H}^{s,t}(X/X^{G};\underline{M})\xrightarrow{\iso} \tilde{H}^{s,t}(X/X^{G}\wedge EG_{+};M).$$ Applying the five lemma to the comparison of long exact sequences obtained from the cofiber sequences $W_{+}^{G}\to W_{+} \to W/W^{G}$ and $(W^{G}\times EG)_{+} \to (W\times EG)_{+} \to W/W^{G}\wedge EG_{+}$ yields the result.
Vanishing Theorem
=================
Let $X$ be a real variety. Continue to write $G = \Z/2$ and $\sigma\in G$ for the nontrivial element. Recall that the reduced real cycle group is defined to be the quotient topological group $$\mcal{R}_{q}(X) = \frac{\mcal{Z}_{q}(X_{\C})^{G}}{\mcal{Z}_{q}(X_{\C})^{av}}.$$ This is the free $\Z/2$-module generated by closed subvarieties $Z\subseteq X$ such that both $Z$ and $Z_{\C}$ are irreducible. In particular, if $X$ is a complex variety viewed as a variety over $\R$ then $\mcal{R}_{q}(X) = 0$.
Reduced real Lawson homology of $X$ is defined by the homotopy groups of this space, $$RL_{q}H_{n}(X) = \pi_{n-q}\mcal{R}_{q}(X).$$
In this section we prove our main theorem which we state now.
Let $X$ be a quasi-projective real variety. Then $$\pi_k\mcal{R}_n(X) = RL_{n}H_{k+n}(X) = 0$$ for $k\geq \dim X -n +1$.
To avoid difficulties with point-set topology below we work simplicially. Note that if $X$ is a $G$-space then $\sing_{\bullet}X$ is a $G$-simplicial set and $\sing_{\bullet}(X^{G}) = (\sing_{\bullet} X)^{G}$. If $A_{\bullet}$ is a $G$-simplicial set then $|A^G_{\bullet}| = |A_{\bullet}|^{G}$ (see for example [@dug:kr Lemma A.5]).
1. Let $W$ be a $G$-space. Write $$\widetilde{\mcal{Z}}^q_{top}(W) = \uphom{W\times \Delta^{\bullet}_{top}}{\mcal{Z}_0(\A^{q}_{\C})},$$ and $$\widetilde{\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2_{top}(W) = \uphom{W\times\Delta^{\bullet}_{top}}{\mcal{Z}/2_0(\A^{q}_{\C})}.$$ These are simplicial abelian groups and $G$ acts on them by the standard formula $(\sigma f)(x) = \sigma f(\sigma x)$.
2. Let $X$ be a normal quasi-projective real variety. Write $$\widetilde{\mcal{Z}}^q(X_{\C}) = \sing_{\bullet}\mcal{Z}^q(X_{\C})$$ and $$\widetilde{\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2(X_{\C}) = \sing_{\bullet}\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\C}).$$
We have $$\pi_k\widetilde{\mcal{Z}}^{q}_{top}(X _\C(\C))^G \iso H^{q-k,q}(X_{\C}(\C),\underline{\Z})$$ and $$\pi_k\widetilde{\mcal{Z}}^{q}(X _\C)^G \iso L^qH\R^{2q-k}(X;\Z)$$ and similarly for the mod-$2$ groups. In particular if $X$ is a complex variety viewed as a real variety then $X_{\C}(\C) = X(\C)\coprod X(\C)$ (with $G$-action switching the factors) and so $$\pi_k\widetilde{\mcal{Z}}^{q}_{top}(X _\C(\C))^G \iso H^{2q-k}_{sing}(X(\C),\underline{\Z}) \;\;\;\;\textrm{and}\;\;\;\;\ \pi_k\widetilde{\mcal{Z}}^q(X _\C)^G \iso L^qH^{2q-k}(X;\Z)
% \pi_k\widetilde{\mcal{Z}^{q}/2}_{top}(X _\C(\C))^G \iso H^{2q-k}_{sing}(X(\C),\underline{\Z/2}).$$ and similarly for the mod-$2$ groups.
The comparison maps (\[morphcomp\]) of simplicial abelian groups $$\Phi:\widetilde{\mcal{Z}}^q(X_{\C}) \to \widetilde{\mcal{Z}}^{q}_{top}(X _\C(\C))
\hskip 0.5cm \text{and} \hskip 0.5cm
\Phi:\widetilde{\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2(X_{\C}) \to \widetilde{\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2_{top}(X _\C(\C))$$ are $G$-equivariant for any quasi-projective real variety $X$.
If $M_{\bullet}$ is a simplicial $G$-module write $N=1+\sigma:M_{\bullet}\to M_{\bullet}$ and define $M_{\bullet}^{av}$ to be $$M_{\bullet}^{av} = Im(N) =Im(1+\sigma: M_{\bullet} \to M_{\bullet}).$$
Let $W$ be a $G$-space. Define the group of *reduced topological cocycles* (of codimension $q$) to be the quotient simplicial abelian group $$\widetilde{\mcal{R}}^{q}_{top}(W) = \frac{\uphom{W\times\Delta^{\bullet}_{top}}{\mcal{Z}/2_{0}(\A_{\C}^{q})}^G}
{\uphom{W\times\Delta^{\bullet}_{top}}{\mcal{Z}/2_{0}(\A_{\C}^{q})}^{av}} = \frac{\widetilde{\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2_{top}(W)^{G}}{\widetilde{\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2_{top}(W)^{av}}.$$
To relate the space of reduced algebraic cocycles with the reduced topological cocycles we introduce the following auxiliary simplicial set for $X$ a quasi-projective normal real variety: $$\widetilde{\mcal{R}}^{q}(X) = \frac{\widetilde{\mcal{Z}^{q}}/2(X_{\C})^{G}}{\widetilde{\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2(X_{\C})^{av}}.$$
Let $X$ be a normal quasi-projective real variety. The following diagrams commute and the horizontal rows are short exact sequences of simplicial abelian groups (and therefore in particular the horizontal rows are homotopy fiber sequences of simplicial sets) $$\label{fib1}
\xymatrix{
\widetilde{\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2(X_{\C})^{G} \ar[r]\ar[d]^{\Phi^{G}} & \widetilde{\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2(X_{\C}) \ar[r]^{N}\ar[d]^{\Phi} & \widetilde{\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2(X_{\C})^{av} \ar[d]^{\Phi^{av}} \\
\widetilde{\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2_{top}(X_{\C}(\C))^{G} \ar[r] & \widetilde{\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2_{top}(X_{\C}(\C)) \ar[r]^{N} & \widetilde{\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2_{top}(X_{\C}(\C))^{av} ,
}$$ and $$\label{fib2}
\xymatrix{
\widetilde{\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2(X_{\C})^{av} \ar[r]\ar[d]^{\Phi^{av}} & \widetilde{\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2(X_{\C})^{G} \ar[r]\ar[d]^{\Phi^{G}} & \widetilde{\mcal{R}}^{q}(X) \ar[d]^{\overline{\Phi}} \\
\widetilde{\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2_{top}(X_{\C}(\C))^{av} \ar[r] & \widetilde{\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2_{top}(X_{\C}(\C))^{G} \ar[r] & \widetilde{\mcal{R}}^{q}_{top}(X _{\C}(\C)) .
}$$
These diagrams commute because $\Phi$ is a $G$-homomorphism.
Whenever $M$ is a $G$-module whose underlying abelian group is $2$-torsion then the sequence of abelian groups $ 0\to M^{G} \to M \xrightarrow{N} M^{av} \to 0$ is exact.
In particular the underlying sequences of simplicial abelian $G$-modules in the first diagram form short exact sequences of simplicial abelian groups. In the second diagram the horizontal rows form short exact sequences by definition of $\widetilde{R}^{q}(-)$ and $\widetilde{R}^{q}_{top}(-)$.
By definition we have $$(\sing_{\bullet} \mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\C}))^{av}=\im(\sing_{\bullet}\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\C})
\xrightarrow{N} \sing _{\bullet}\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\C})) .$$
There is a natural map $i: (\sing_{\bullet}\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\C}))^{av} \to \sing_{\bullet}(\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\C})^{av})$ which is simply $$i(f+\overline{f})=f+\overline{f}$$ for a continuous map $f:\Delta^d _{top}\to \mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\C})$. The map $ i:(\sing_{\bullet}\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\C}))^{av} \to \sing_{\bullet}(\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\C})^{av})$ induces a map
$$\label{rvcomp}
\overline{i}: \widetilde{\mcal{R}}^{q}(X) \to \sing_{\bullet}\mcal{R}^{q}(X).$$
\[sra\] Let $X$ be a normal real projective variety. The map (\[rvcomp\]) of simplicial abelian groups $$\widetilde{\mcal{R}}^{q}(X) \to \sing_{\bullet}\mcal{R}^{q}(X)$$ is a homotopy equivalence.
By Proposition \[qimav\] the maps $\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\C})/\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\C})^{G}\xrightarrow{} \mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\C})^{av}$ and $\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\C})^{av}/2\mcal{Z}^{q}(X)^{G} \xrightarrow{} \mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\C})^{av}$ are isomorphisms of topological groups. Therefore both $$0\to\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\C})^{G} \to \mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\C}) \to \mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\C})^{av} \to 0$$ and $$0\to\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\C})^{av} \to \mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\C})^{G} \to \mcal{R}^q(X)\to 0$$ are short exact sequences of topological abelian groups. These groups all have the homotopy type of a $CW$-complex and therefore these sequences are homotopy fiber sequences [@Teh:real]. Applying $\sing_{\bullet}$ to these homotopy fiber sequence and comparing with the homotopy fiber sequences of the top rows of \[fib1\] and \[fib2\] gives commutative diagrams of homotopy fiber sequences of simplicial sets: $$\label{fibra1}
\xymatrix{
\widetilde{\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2(X_{\C})^{G} \ar[r]\ar[d]^{\simeq} & \widetilde{\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2(X_{\C}) \ar[r]\ar[d]^{\simeq} & \widetilde{\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2(X_{\C})^{av} \ar[d]^{i} \\
\sing_{\bullet}{\mcal{Z}/2}^q(X_{\C})^{G} \ar[r] & \sing _{\bullet}{\mcal{Z}/2}^q(X_{\C}) \ar[r] & \sing_{\bullet}{\mcal{Z}/2}^q(X_{\C})^{av} ,
}$$ and $$\label{fibra2}
\xymatrix{
\widetilde{\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2(X_{\C})^{av} \ar[r]\ar[d]^{i} & \widetilde{\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2(X_{\C})^{G} \ar[r]\ar[d]^{\simeq} & \widetilde{\mcal{R}}^q(X) \ar[d]^{\overline{i}} \\
\sing_{\bullet}{\mcal{Z}/2}(X_{\C})^{av} \ar[r] & \sing_{\bullet}{\mcal{Z}/2}^q(X_{\C})^{G} \ar[r] & \sing_{\bullet}{\mcal{R}}^q(X ) .
}$$ From the first diagram we see that $i:\widetilde{\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2(X_{\C})^{av}\xrightarrow{\wkeq}\sing_{\bullet}(\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\C})^{av})$ is a weak equivalence of simplicial sets and consequently from the second diagram we conclude that $$\widetilde{\mcal{R}}^{q}(X)\xrightarrow{\wkeq} \sing_{\bullet}\mcal{R}^{q}(X)$$ is a weak equivalences of simplicial abelian groups and therefore is a homotopy equivalence of simplicial sets.
We now prove our main theorem.
\[main\] Let $X$ be a quasi-projective real variety of dimension $d$. Then $$RL_{n}H_{n+k}(X) = \pi_k\mcal{R}_n(X) = 0$$ for $k\geq d -n +1$.
We first consider the case when $X$ is a smooth projective real variety.
In case $n=d=dim(X)$ we have that $$\mcal{R} _d(X)=\frac{\mcal{Z} _d(X_\C)^G}{\mcal{Z} _d(X_\C)^{av}}=\mathbb{Z}/2^{\times c},$$ where $c$ denotes the number of irreducible components of $X$ which are not defined over $\C$.
Therefore $\pi _0(\mcal{R} _d(X))=\mathbb{Z}/2^{\times c}$ and $\pi _i(\mcal{R} _d(X))=0$ for $i>0$.
Consider the comparison of homotopy fiber sequences (\[fib1\]) for $q>0$. $$\xymatrix{
\widetilde{\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2(X_{\C})^{G} \ar[r]\ar[d]^{\Phi^{G}} & \widetilde{\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2(X_{\C}) \ar[r]^{N}\ar[d]^{\Phi} & \widetilde{\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2(X_{\C})^{av} \ar[d]^{\Phi^{av}} \\
\widetilde{\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2_{top}(X_{\C}(\C))^{G} \ar[r] & \widetilde{\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2_{top}(X_{\C}(\C)) \ar[r]^{N} & \widetilde{\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2_{top}^q(X_{\C}(\C))^{av} ,
}$$ By the Milnor conjecture (see Corollary \[MCC\]) the comparison map $\Phi$ induces an isomorphism on $\pi_k$ for $k\geq q$ and induces an injection for $k =q-1$. By Corollary \[MCR\] the map $\Phi^{G}$ induces an isomorphism on $\pi_k$ for $k\geq q$ and induces an injection for $k =q-1$. We now conclude by the $5$-lemma that $\Phi^{av}$ induces an isomorphism on $\pi_k$ for $k\geq q+1$. When $k=q$ we have the comparison diagram: $$\xymatrix{
\pi_q\widetilde{\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2^{G} \ar[r]\ar[d]^{\iso} & \pi_q\widetilde{\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2 \ar[r]\ar[d]^{\iso} & \pi_q\widetilde{\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2^{av} \ar[r]\ar[d]^{\Phi^{av}} & \pi_{q-1}\widetilde{\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2^{G} \ar@^{(->}[d] \\
\pi_q\widetilde{\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2_{top}^{G} \ar[r] & \pi_q\widetilde{\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2_{top} \ar[r] & \pi_q\widetilde{\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2_{top}^{av} \ar[r] & \pi_{q-1}\widetilde{\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2_{top}^{G}
}$$ and so $\Phi^{av}$ induces an injection for $k=q$.
Considering now the comparison diagram (\[fib2\]) and using the five-lemma we have that $\overline{\Phi}$ induces an isomorphism on $\pi_{k}$ for $k\geq q+2$ and an injection for $k =q+1$.
By Corollary \[rdual\], $\pi_k\widetilde{\mcal{R}}^{q}_{top}(X_{\C}(\C)) = H^{q -k}(X(\R), \Z/2)$ for $k\geq 2$. In particular $\pi_k\widetilde{\mcal{R}}^{q}(X) = 0$ for $k\geq q+1$, when $q\geq 1$. By the homotopy equivalences $\widetilde{\mcal{R}}^{q}(X)\wkeq \sing_{\bullet}\mcal{R}^{q}(X)$ (see Lemma \[sra\]) and the duality [@Teh:real Theorem 5.14] between reduced cycle and reduced cocycle spaces $\mcal{R}^{q}(X) \xrightarrow{\wkeq} \mcal{R}_{d-q}(X)$ the vanishing $\pi_k\widetilde{\mcal{R}}^{q}(X) = 0$ for $k\geq q+1$ is equivalent to the vanishing $\pi_k\mcal{R}_{n}(X) = 0$ for $k\geq \dim X -n+1$.
Now let $X$ be a smooth quasi-projective variety and let $X\subseteq \overline{X}$ be a projective closure with closed complement $Z= \overline{X}\backslash X$. The result follows from the projective case and the long exact sequence in homotopy groups induced by the homotopy fiber sequence $$\mcal{R}_{n}(Z) \to \mcal{R}_{n}(\overline{X}) \to \mcal{R}_{n}(X).$$
Finally let $X$ be an arbitrary quasi-projective variety. There is an increasing filtration of closed subvarieties $$\varnothing = X_{-1} \subseteq X_{0} \subseteq X_{1} \subseteq \cdots \subseteq X_{d} = X$$ such that $X_{i+1}\backslash X_{i}$ is smooth and $\dim X_{i} = i$. We proceed by induction, the case $i=0$ is done. Consider the long exact sequence which arises from the homotopy fiber sequence $$\mcal{R}_{n}(X_{i}) \to \mcal{R}_{n}(X_{i+1}) \to \mcal{R}_{n}(X_{i+1}\backslash X_{i}).$$ Since the result holds for $X_{i}$ by induction and for $X_{i+1}\backslash X_{i}$ because it is smooth we obtain the result for $X_{i+1}$.
If $X$ is a projective smooth real variety of dimension $d$ it is proved in [@Teh:real Theorem 6.7] that $\pi _k (\mcal{R}_{d-1}(X))= 0$ for any $k\geq 3$. Theorem \[main\] in case $n=d-1$ improves this vanishing bound.
\[exR\] If $n=0$ and if $X$ has no real points then $\mcal{R}_{0}(X)=0$ and so $$RL_{0}H_{*}(X) = \pi_{*}\mcal{R}_{0}(X)= H_*^{sing}(X(\R),\Z/2)=0.$$
Let $\P(\H)$ denote the space of complex lines in the quaternions $\H =
\C \oplus j\C$ where $j^2 = -1$. Multiplication by $j$ defines an involution on $\P(\H)$ and write $Q$ for the corresponding 1-dimensional real curve. We know that $Q$ is the smooth real curve $X^2+Y^2+Z^2=0$ in $\mathbb{P}^2 _\mathbb{R}$. This is the Severi-Brauer variety corresponding to the non-trivial element of $Br(\R) = \Z/2$ and has no real points. This means $\mcal{R}_{0}(Q) = 0 $ and $\mcal{R}_{1}(Q) = \Z/2$. Thus in this case, $$0 = RL_{0}H_{0}(Q) = RL_{0}H_{1}(Q) = H_0(Q(\R),\Z/2)$$ and $$\Z/2 = RL_1H_1(Q).$$
Let $X=SP^{2d+1}(Q)$ be the smooth projective real variety given by an odd symmetric power of $Q$. Because $X _\mathbb{C}=\mathbb{P} _\mathbb{C}(\mathbb{H}^{d+1})$, we have $\mcal{R}^{2q}(X)=\mathbb{Z}/2 $ and $\mcal{R}^{2q+1}(X)=0$ for any $2q\leq 2d+1$ (see [@LLM:quat Theorem 2.3]). This implies that the only nonzero reduced Lawson homology groups of $X$ are $RL _{2r+1}H _{2r+1}(X)=\mathbb{Z}/2$ for any $r\leq d$. Notice that in this case $dim(X)=2d+1$.
These computations show that the vanishing in the above theorem is best possible, even in the case of a real variety with no real points.
According to [@Lam:t], $RL _rH_n(\P^d _\R)=\Z/2$ for any $0\leq r\leq n\leq d$ and $RL_rH_n(\P^d _\R)=0$ for any $n>d$.
We also obtain the following vanishing result.
\[av2\] Let $X$ be a smooth projective real variety of dimension $d$. Then $$\pi_{n}\frac{\mcal{Z}_{p}(X_{\C})^{av}}{2\mcal{Z}_{p}(X_{\C})^{av}} = 0$$ for $n\geq 2d-2p+1$.
By the Corollaries \[MCC\], \[MCR\], \[qimav\] and \[PD\] we conclude that $$\pi_n\frac{\mcal{Z}_{p}(X_{\C})^{av}}{2\mcal{Z}_{p}(X_{\C})^{G}} = 0$$ for $n\geq 2d- 2p+1$ from the long exact sequence in homotopy groups induced by the short exact sequence [@Teh:HT Proposition 4.3] $$\label{ses1}
0 \to \frac{\mcal{Z}_{p}(X_{\C})^{G}}{2\mcal{Z}_{p}(X_{\C})^{G}} \to \frac{\mcal{Z}_{p}(X_{\C})}{2\mcal{Z}_{p}(X_{\C})} \to \frac{\mcal{Z}_{p}(X_{\C})^{av}}{2\mcal{Z}_{p}(X_{\C})^{G}} \to 0 .$$
Consider the short exact sequences of topological abelian groups $$0 \to \frac{2\mcal{Z}_{p}(X_{\C})^{G}}{2\mcal{Z}_{p}(X_{\C})^{av}} \to
\frac{\mcal{Z}_{p}(X_{\C})^{av}}{2\mcal{Z}_{p}(X_{\C})^{av}} \to
\frac{\mcal{Z}_{p}(X_{\C})^{av}}{2\mcal{Z}_{p}(X_{\C})^{G}} \to 0 .$$
Multiplication by $2$ induces a homeomorphism $$\mcal{R}_{p}(X) = \frac{\mcal{Z}_{p}(X_{\C})^{G}}{\mcal{Z}_{p}(X_{\C})^{av}} \iso \frac{2\mcal{Z}_{p}(X_{\C})^{G}}{2\mcal{Z}_{p}(X_{\C})^{av}}$$ and plugging the vanishing for homotopy groups of $\mcal{R}_{p}(X)$ into the above exact sequence yields the result.
Using the same arguments as in Theorem \[main\] shows that the vanishing in Corollary \[av2\] holds for any quasi-projective real variety.
\[avopt\] Let $X=\mathbb{P}^{d} _{\R}$. Then $$\pi_{n}\left(\frac{\mcal{Z}_{p}(\P^{d}_{\C})^{av}}{2\mcal{Z}_{p}(\P^{d}_{\C})^{av}}\right) = 0$$ for any $n\geq 2d-2p+1$. If $p=d$, then $$\pi_{2d-2p}\left(\frac{\mcal{Z}_{d}(\P^{d}_{\C})^{av}}{2\mcal{Z}_{d}(\P^{d}_{\C})^{av}}\right) = \Z/2$$ If $p=0$ then, for any real projective variety $X$, $$\pi _* \left(\frac{\mcal{Z}_{p}(X_{\C})^{av}}{2\mcal{Z}_{p}(X_{\C})^{av}}\right)=H _*(X(\C)/G,\Z/2).$$ These computations show that the vanishing bound of Corollary \[av2\] is the best possible. For these computations see [@LLM:quat].
The following corollary shows that in a range the morphic cohomology of a real variety $X$ can be computed by the homotopy groups of average cycles on $X$.
\[m=av\] Let $X$ be a real quasi-projective variety. Then $$\pi _q(\mcal{Z} _p(X _\mathbb{C})^G)\simeq \pi _q(\mcal{Z} _p(X _\mathbb{C})^{av})$$ for any $q\geq dim(X)-p+1$.
This follows from Theorem \[main\] together with the long exact sequence of homotopy groups associated to the homotopy fiber sequence $$0\rightarrow \mcal{Z} _{p}(X _\mathbb{C})^{av}\rightarrow \mcal{Z} _{p}(X _\mathbb{C})^G\rightarrow \mcal{R} _p(X)\rightarrow 0.$$
1. In case of divisors $p=dim(X)-1$, Corollary \[m=av\] and [@Teh:HT Proposition 6.2] show that $$\pi _q(\mcal{Z} _p(X _\mathbb{C})^{av})=0$$ for any $q\geq 2$.
2. In the case of zero-cycles $p=0$, we get $$H _{k,0}(X(\mathbb{C}),\underline{ \mathbb{Z}})\simeq H _k(X(\mathbb{C})/G,\mathbb{Z})$$ for any $k\geq dim(X)+1$.
We conclude this section by observing that the vanishing theorem also shows that motivic cohomology of a real variety can be computed in a range via the complex of averaged equidimensional cycles on the complexification.
Let $X$ and $Y$ be a quasi-projective real varieties. The group of reduced equidimensional cycles is defined to be the quotient group $$r_{equi}(Y, r)(X) = \frac{z_{equi}(Y_{\C}, r)(X_{\C})^{G}}{z_{equi}(Y_{\C}, r)(X_{\C})^{av}}.$$
It is essentially a consequence of Suslin rigidity that the complex of reduced equidimensional cycles computes the reduced Lawson homology.
Let $X$ be a quasi-projective real variety.
1. The diagram $$r_{equi}(\A^{q},q)(X\times\Delta_{top}^{\bullet}) \xleftarrow{\wkeq} r_{equi}(\P^{q/q-1},q)(X\times\Delta^{\bullet}_{top}) \xrightarrow{\wkeq} \sing_{\bullet}\mcal{R}^{q}(X)$$ consists of homotopy equivalences of simplicial sets.
2. The map $$r_{equi}(\P^{q/q-1}, 0)(X\times\Delta^{\bullet}) \xrightarrow{\wkeq} r_{equi}(\P^{q/q-1}, 0)(X\times\Delta^{\bullet}\times\Delta^{\bullet}_{top})$$ is a homotopy equivalence of simplicial sets.
The proof is similar to other proofs in this paper so we only provide a sketch. First observe that the simplicial abelian group of reduced equidimensional cycles may be computed as $$r_{equi}(Y, r)(X) = \frac{(z_{equi}(Y_{\C}, r)(X_{\C})\otimes\Z/2)^{G}}{(z_{equi}(Y_{\C}, r)(X_{\C})\otimes\Z/2)^{av}}.$$ Using Proposition \[smheq\] and the appropriate analogues of the homotopy fiber sequences (\[fib1\]) and (\[fib2\]) we see that $$r_{equi}(\P^{q},0)(X\times\Delta^{\bullet}_{top})\to
\frac{(\sing_{\bullet}\Mor{\C}{X_{\C}}{\mcal{C}_{0}(\P^{q}_{\C})}^{+}/2)^{G}}{(\sing_{\bullet}\Mor{\C}{X_{\C}}{\mcal{C}_{0}(\P^{q}_{\C})}^{+}/2)^{av}}$$ is a homotopy equivalence. The first part follows now in a similar fashion as Proposition \[qisoseq\]. The second part follows from the fact that both over $\C$ and over $\R$ with finite coefficients motivic cohomology agrees with morphic cohomology.
Let $X$ be a quasi-projective real variety. Then $$H_{\mcal{M}}^{p}(X;\Z(q)) = \pi_{2q-p}z_{equi}(\A^{q}_{\C}, 0)(X_{\C}\times_{\C}\Delta^{\bullet}_{\C})^{av}$$ for $q-1 \geq p$
Reduced Topological Cocycles {#subdual}
============================
For typographical simplicity throughout this section we write $\mcal{Z} = \mcal{Z}/2_{0}(S^{q,q})_{0}$. This section is devoted to the computation that $\pi_{k}\widetilde{\mcal{R}}^{q}_{top}(W)= H^{q-k}_{sing}(W^{G};\Z/2)$, for $k\geq 2$, where $\widetilde{\mcal{R}}^{q}_{top}(W)$ is the quotient simplicial abelian group $$\displaystyle{\widetilde{\mcal{R}}^{q}_{top}(W)= \frac{\phom{W\wedge\Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{\mcal{Z}}^{G}}{\phom{W\wedge\Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{\mcal{Z}}^{av}}}$$ and $W$ is a based finite $G$-$CW$ complex.
The idea is to reduce to the case of trivial action. Before doing this we sketch what happens when $G$ acts trivially on $W$. By [@LLM:real Proposition 8.3] the short exact sequence $$0\to \mcal{Z}/2_0(S^{q,q})_{0}^{av} \to \mcal{Z}/2_0(S^{q,q})_{0}^{G} \to \mcal{R}_{0}(S^{q,q})_{0}\to 0$$ is a fibration sequence (in fact principle fibration sequence) of topological spaces. Applying $\phom{W\wedge\Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{-}$ to this sequence yields a homotopy fiber sequence of simplicial sets. Now we compare the homotopy fiber sequences of simplicial abelian groups $$\xymatrix@-1pc{
\Hom{}{W\wedge\Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{\mcal{Z}}^{av} \ar[r]\ar[d]&
\Hom{}{W\wedge\Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{\mcal{Z}}^{G} \ar[r]\ar[d]^{\iso}&
\widetilde{\mcal{R}}^q_{top}(W)\ar[d] \\
\Hom{}{W\wedge\Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{\mcal{Z}^{av}} \ar[r]&
\Hom{}{W\wedge\Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{\mcal{Z}^{G}} \ar[r]&
% \Hom{*}{|\sing_{\bullet}W|\wedge\Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{\mcal{R}_{0}(S^{n})_{0}}
% \mcal{H}^{q}(W)
% \Hom{}{W\wedge\Delta^{\bullet}_{top}}{\mcal{Z}/2_{0}(S^{q})}
\mcal{H}^{q}(W),
}$$ where $\mcal{H}^{q}(W) = \phom{W\wedge\Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{\mcal{R}_{0}(S^{q,q})_{0}}$. We will see that when $W$ has trivial $G$-action then the left vertical arrow induces an isomorphism on $\pi_{k}$ for $k\geq 1$ (see Corollary \[zeroav\]). Therefore $\pi_{i}\widetilde{\mcal{R}}^q_{top}(W) =\pi_{i}\mcal{H}^{q}(W) = H^{q-i}_{sing}(W;\Z/2)$ for $i\geq 2$ when $W$ has trivial $G$-action.
For a based $G$-$CW$ complex $W$ and a topological $G$-module $Z$, write $$\phom{W}{Z}_{0}^{G}$$
for the set of based equivariant maps which are equivariantly homotopic to the $0$-map (via a based homotopy).
\[conncomp\] Let $W$ be a based $G$-$CW$ complex and let $Z$ be a topological $G$-module. The simplicial set $$d\mapsto\phom{W\wedge \Delta^{d}_{top,+}}{Z}_{0}^{G}
% \subseteq (d\mapsto \phom{W\wedge \Delta^{d}_{top}}{\mcal{Z}}^{G})$$ is the path-connected component of the vertex $0\in \phom{W\wedge \Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{Z}^{G}$.
A vertex $g \in \phom{W\wedge\Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{Z}^{G}$ is in the same path component as the $0$-map if and only if there is a $1$-simplex $F\in \phom{W\wedge\Delta^{1}_{top,+}}{Z}^{G}$ such that $F(0) = 0$ and $F(1) = g$. This happens exactly when $g\in \phom{W}{Z}_{0}^{G}$.
A $d$-simplex, $f:W\wedge \Delta^{d}_{top,+} \to Z$ is in the path-component of $0$ if and only if its restriction to a vertex is in the path component of $0$. Since $\Delta^{d}_{top,+}$ is equivariantly contractible and the restriction $f|_{W\wedge\{v\}_+}$ to a vertex is equivariantly homotopic to the constant map $0$ we conclude that $f$ itself is equivariantly homotopic to $0$.
Let $W$ be a based $G$-$CW$ complex.
1. Define $\phom{W\wedge \Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{\mcal{Z}}_{0}^{av}$ to be the path-connected component of the vertex $0$ in the simplicial set $\phom{W\wedge\Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{\mcal{Z}}^{av}$.
2. Define $$\widetilde{\mcal{R}}^{q}_{top}(W)_{0} =\frac{\phom{W\wedge \Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{\mcal{Z}}_{0}^{G}}{\phom{W\wedge \Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{\mcal{Z}}_{0}^{av}},$$ here the quotient is in the category of simplicial abelian groups.
Restricting to $W^{G}$ gives rise to the comparison map $$\widetilde{\mcal{R}}^{q}_{top}(W)_{0} \to \widetilde{\mcal{R}}^{q}_{top}(W) \to \phom{W^{G}\wedge\Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{\mcal{Z}/2_{0}(S^{q})}.$$
Note that $\pi_{i}\widetilde{\mcal{R}}^{q}_{top}(W)_{0} \to \pi_{i}\widetilde{\mcal{R}}^{q}_{top}(W)$ is an isomorphism for $i\geq 2$ and an injection for $i=0,1$. To compute $\pi_{i}\widetilde{\mcal{R}}^{q}_{top}(W)$ we will show that $\widetilde{\mcal{R}}^{q}_{top}(W)_{0}\to\widetilde{\mcal{R}}^{q}_{top}(W^{G})_{0}$ is an isomorphism. The surjectivity is easy but the injectivity takes some work.
Let $i:A\hookrightarrow W$ be an equivariant cofibration between based $G$-$CW$-complexes and let $Z$ be a topological $G$-module. Then $$i^*:\phom{W}{Z}^{G}_{0}\to \phom{A}{Z}^{G}_{0}$$ is surjective.
Suppose that $f:A\to Z$ is a based equivariant map which is based equivariantly homotopic to the $0$-map. Let $H:A\wedge I_+\to Z$ be an equivariant homotopy such that $H(-,0) = 0$ and $H(-,1) = f$.
By the homotopy extension property of cofibrations, an equivariant map $H'$ making the diagram below commute exists $$\xymatrix{
W\wedge\{0\}_+\coprod_{A\wedge\{0\}_+} A\wedge I_+ \ar[r]^-{0\amalg H}\ar@{^{(}->}[d] & Z\\
W\wedge I_+ \ar@{-->}[ur]_-{H'} & .
}$$ The restriction of $f'=H'(-,1)$ to $A$ is equal to $f$ and $H'$ is an equivariant homotopy between $f'$ and the $0$-map.
\[rsurj\] Let $i:A\hookrightarrow W$ be an equivariant cofibration between based $G$-$CW$-complexes. The induced map $$i^*:\rtop{q}(W)_{0} \to \rtop{q}(A)_{0}$$ is a surjection.
Consider the square $$\xymatrix{
\phom{W\wedge\Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{\mcal{Z}}_{0}^{G} \ar@{->>}[r]\ar@{->>}[d] & \phom{A\wedge\Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{\mcal{Z}}_{0}^{G} \ar@{->>}[d]\\
\rtop{q}(W)_{0} \ar[r] & \rtop{q}(A)_{0}.
}$$ By the previous proposition, the top horizontal arrow is surjective. The vertical arrows are surjective by definition and therefore the bottom horizontal arrow is also surjective.
For a based $CW$-complex $W$ and a topological abelian group $Z$ we will write $\phom{W}{Z}_{0}$ for the set of based continuous maps which are based homotopic to the $0$-map. Note that the simplicial set $$d\mapsto \phom{W\wedge\Delta^{d}_{top,+}}{Z}_{0}$$ is the path-connected component of the vertex $0\in\phom{W\wedge\Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{\mcal{Z}}$ (for example consider $W$ and $Z$ with trivial $G$-action and apply Lemma \[conncomp\]). If $Z$ and $W$ have a $G$-action write $\left(\phom{W}{Z}_{0}\right)^{av}$ for the image of $N=1+\sigma$. This set consists of maps $h:W\to Z$ which can be written as $h = f+\overline{f}$ where $f$ is a continuous map which is nonequivariantly homotopic to $0$.
We now justify the use of similar notation for two potentially different simplicial sets. Previously we wrote $\phom{W\wedge\Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{\mcal{Z}}^{av}_{0}$ for the path-component of the vertex $0\in \phom{W\wedge\Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{\mcal{Z}}^{av}$. We now verify that this path-component can be described explicitly as the image under $N=1+\sigma$ of the path-component of $0\in\phom{W\wedge\Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{Z}$. In otherwords $\phom{W\wedge\Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{\mcal{Z}}_{0}^{av}= (\phom{W\wedge\Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{\mcal{Z}}_{0})^{av}$. This explicit description will be fundamental to our proof of Proposition \[kernsurj\] below.
Let $W$ be a based $G$-$CW$-complex. The simplicial set $$d\mapsto(\phom{W\wedge\Delta^{d}_{top,+}}{\mcal{Z}}_{0})^{av}$$ is the path-connected component of $0 \in \phom{W\wedge\Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{\mcal{Z}}^{av}$
First we identify $(\phom{W}{\mcal{Z}}_{0})^{av}$ as the set of vertices of the path-connected component of $0\in \phom{W}{\mcal{Z}}^{av}$. Any $f+\overline{f}\in (\phom{W}{\mcal{Z}}_{0})^{av}$ is in the path component of $0$. Suppose the vertex $h+\overline{h}\in \phom{W}{\mcal{Z}}^{av}$ is in the same path component as $0$. This means there is a map of simplicial sets $$F:I \to \phom{W\wedge\Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{\mcal{Z}}^{av}$$ such that $F(0) = 0$ and $F(1) = h + \overline{h}$. Consider the diagram of simplicial sets, $$\xymatrix{
\{0\}\ar[r]^-{0} \ar@{^{(}->}[d]^-{\wkeq} & \phom{W\wedge\Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{\mcal{Z}} \ar@{->>}[d]^{N} \\
I \ar[r]^-{F}\ar@{-->}[ur]^-{F'} & \phom{W\wedge\Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{\mcal{Z}}^{av} .
}$$ A surjection between simplicial abelian groups is a fibration and therefore an $F'$ exists to make the above square commute.
The map $F'(1):W\to \mcal{Z}$ is in $\phom{W}{\mcal{Z}}_{0}$ and satisfies $$F'(1) + \overline{F'(1)}= N(F'(1)) = F(1) = h + \overline{h}.$$ We conclude that $(\phom{W}{\mcal{Z}}_{0})^{av}$ is the set of vertices of the path-connected component of the $0 \in \phom{W}{\mcal{Z}}^{av}$.
Now to conclude that the simplicial set $d\mapsto(\phom{W\wedge\Delta^{d}_{top,+}}{\mcal{Z}}_{0})^{av}$ is the path-connected component of $0$ we need to see that if the restriction $g|_{W\wedge\{v\}_+}$ of $g\in \phom{W\wedge\Delta^{n}_{top,+}}{Z}^{av}$ to a vertex $v\in \Delta^{n}_{top}$ lies in $(\phom{W}{Z}_{0})^{av}$ then $g\in (\phom{W\wedge\Delta^{n}_{top,+}}{Z}_{0})^{av}$. That is, if $g\in \phom{W\wedge\Delta^{n}_{top,+}}{Z}^{av}$ and that there is a map $f:W\to \mcal{Z}$ which is homotopic to $0$ such that the restriction of $g$ to some vertex $v\in \Delta^{n}_{top}$ satisfies $g|_{W\wedge \{v\}_{+}} = f+\overline{f}$ then we need to see that $g$ can be written $g = f'+\overline{f'}$ for some $f':W\wedge \Delta^{n}_{top,+} \to\mcal{Z}$ which is homotopic to $0$. For this we consider the lift $f{'}$ of $g$, $$\xymatrix{
\{v\} \ar@{^{(}->}[d]^-{\wkeq}\ar[r]^-{f} & \phom{W\wedge\Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{\mcal{Z}} \ar@{->>}[d]^{N} \\
\Delta^{n} \ar[r]^-{g}\ar@{-->}[ur]^-{f'}& \phom{W\wedge\Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{\mcal{Z}}^{av}.
}$$ The map $f{'}:W\wedge \Delta^{n}_{top,+}\to \mcal{Z}$ satisfies $f{'}+\overline{f{'}}=N(f{'})=g$, the restriction of $f{'}$ to $v \in \Delta^{n}_{top}$ is homotopic to the $0$-map and, since $\Delta^{n}_{top}$ is contractible, $f{'}$ is homotopic to the $0$-map as well.
Therefore we conclude that $$d\mapsto (\phom{W\wedge\Delta^{d}_{top,+}}{\mcal{Z}}_{0})^{av}$$ is the path-component of $0$ in $\phom{W\wedge\Delta^{d}_{top,+}}{\mcal{Z}}^{av}$.
\[kernsurj\] Let $i:A\hookrightarrow W$ be an equivariant cofibration. Then $$\rtop{q}(W/A)_{0}\twoheadrightarrow \ker[\rtop{q}(W)_{0} \xrightarrow{i^*} \rtop{q}(A)_{0}].$$
Suppose that $[f]\in \ker(\rtop{q}(W)_{0} \xrightarrow{i^*} \rtop{q}(A)_{0})$ is a $d$-simplex. Then $[f]$ is represented by an equivariant map $f:W\wedge \Delta^{d}_{top,+} \to \mcal{Z}$ which is equivariantly homotopic to $0$. Since $i^*[f]=0$ this means that $i^{*}f \in \phom{A\wedge\Delta^{d}_{top,+}}{\mcal{Z}}_{0}^{av}$. Thus there is a continuous map $h:A\wedge \Delta^{d}_{top,+} \to \mcal{Z}$, (nonequivariantly homotopic to $0$), such that $i^*f=f|_{A\wedge\Delta^{d}_{top,+}} = h + \overline{h}$. Since $h$ is (nonequivariantly) homotopic to the $0$-map, $h: A\wedge \Delta^{d}_{top,+}\to \mcal{Z}$ extends to a continuous map $h':W\wedge \Delta^{d}_{top,+}\to \mcal{Z}$ which is (nonequivariantly) homotopic to the $0$-map.
Explicitely, let $H:A\wedge\Delta^{d}_{top,+}\wedge I_+\to \mcal{Z}$ be a homotopy such that $H(-,0) = 0$ and $H(-,1) = h$. By the homotopy extension property for cofibrations, the dotted arrow exists in the diagram $$\xymatrix{
A\wedge\Delta^{d}_{top+}\wedge I_+ \coprod_{A\wedge\Delta^{d}_{top,+}\wedge\{0\}_+} W\wedge \Delta^{d}_{top,+}\wedge \{0\}_+ \ar@{^{(}->}[d]\ar[r]^-{H\amalg 0} & \mcal{Z} \\
W\wedge \Delta^{d}_{top,+}\wedge I_+ \ar@{-->}[ur]^{H'} . &
}$$ Now $H'(-,1)=h'$ is the desired extension of $h$, $H'$ is a homotopy between $h'$ and the $0$-map and $F \eqdef f-(h'+\overline{h'})$ represents the same class as $[f]$. Since $F|_{A\wedge \Delta^{d}_{top,+}} = 0$ the map $F$ defines the map $F':W/A\wedge \Delta^{d}_{top,+} \to \mcal{Z}$ such that $$F =p^{*}F' : W \xrightarrow{p} W/A\wedge\Delta^{d}_{top,+} \to \mcal{Z}.$$
Therefore $$\rtop{q}(W/A)_{0} \twoheadrightarrow \ker(i^{*}:\rtop{q}(W)_{0} \to \rtop{q}(A)_{0}),$$ because $p^{*}[F'] =[p^*F']=[F] = [f]$.
(c.f. [@LLM:real Lemma 8.8]) Suppose that $A_{\bullet}$ is a simplicial $G$-module. Then $$|A_{\bullet}^{av}| = |A_{\bullet}|^{av}$$
Let $f_{\bullet}:B_{\bullet} \to C_{\bullet}$ be a map between simplicial sets, then $|\im f_{\bullet}| = \im |f_{\bullet}|$. The lemma follows since $(-)^{av}$ is defined to be the image of the map $N=1+\sigma$.
\[avfib\] Suppose that $Y=|Y_{\bullet}|$ is the realization of a based $G$-simplicial set. Then $\mcal{Z}_{0}(Y)_{0} \to \mcal{Z}_{0}(Y)^{av}_{0}$ and $\mcal{Z}/2_{0}(Y)_{0} \to \mcal{Z}/2_{0}(Y)_{0}^{av}$ are Serre fibrations.
If $Y$ is a based set and $A$ is an abelian group then define $A\otimes Y = \oplus_{y\in Y\backslash \{*\}} A$. If $Y_{\bullet}$ is a based $G$-simplicial set then $A\otimes Y_{\bullet}$ is a $G$-simplicial set. In case $A= \Z$ or $A=\Z/2$ we have $\mcal{Z}(|Y_{\bullet}|)_{0} =|\Z\otimes Y_{\bullet}|$ and $\mcal{Z}/2_{0}(|Y_{\bullet}|)_{0} =|\Z/2\otimes Y_{\bullet}|$ (see [@DS:equiDT; @MC:class]). The map $\Z\otimes Y_{\bullet} \to (\Z\otimes Y_{\bullet})^{av}$ is a surjection between simplicial abelian groups and so is a fibration of simplicial sets and similarly for $\Z/2\otimes Y_{\bullet} \to (\Z/2\otimes Y_{\bullet})^{av}$.
The realization of a Kan fibration is a Serre fibration and therefore both $\mcal{Z}_{0}(Y)_{0} =|\Z\otimes Y_{\bullet}| \xrightarrow{N} |(\Z\otimes Y_{\bullet})^{av}|=\mcal{Z}_{0}(Y)_{0}^{av}$ and $\mcal{Z}/2_{0}(Y)_{0} =|\Z/2\otimes Y_{\bullet}| \xrightarrow{N} |(\Z/2\otimes Y_{\bullet})^{av}|=\mcal{Z}/2_{0}(Y)_{0}^{av}$ are Serre fibrations of topological spaces.
Below we apply this proposition to the cases $Y= S^{q,q}$ and $Y=S^{q,q}\wedge \Z/2_{+}$ so we make explicit that these are realizations of $G$-simplicial sets. We consider $\Z/2$ as a simplicial set in the usual way. The simplicial set $S^{1,0}$ is the ordinary $S^{1}$ with trivial action. The simplicial set $S^{0,1}$ is the simplicial whose nondegenerate simplices are two vertices $\{0\}$ and $\{\infty\}$ and two $1$-simplices. The $G$-action fixes the vertices and switches the $1$-simplices. The realization of this simplicial set is the usual $S^{0,1}$. Now $S^{p,q}$ is the $G$-simplicial set $S^{p,q} = (S^{1,0})^{\wedge p}\wedge(S^{0,1})^{\wedge q}$ and its realization is the usual $S^{p,q}$.
\[zeroav\] Let $W$ be a based $G$-space with trivial action. Suppose that $Z$ is a topological $G$-module such that $Z\xrightarrow{N} Z^{av}$ is a Serre fibration. Then $$\phom{W\wedge\Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{Z}^{av}_{0} = \phom{W\wedge\Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{Z^{av}}_{0} .$$
Since $W$ and $\Delta^{d}_{top}$ have trivial actions, $$\phom{W\wedge\Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{\mcal{Z}/2_0(Y)_{0}}^{av}_{0} \subseteq \phom{W\wedge\Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{\mcal{Z}/2_0(Y)_{0}^{av}}_{0} ,$$ and we wish to see that it is onto.
Suppose that $f:W\wedge \Delta^{d}_{top,+} \to Z^{av}$ is a map which is homotopic to $0$. Let $H$ be a homotopy between $0$ and $f$ and let $H'$ be a lift of $H$, $$\xymatrix{
W\wedge\Delta^{d}_{top,+}\wedge \{0\}_{+}\ar[r]^-{0}\ar@{^{(}->}[d]^-{\wkeq} & Z\ar@{->>}[d]^-{N} \\
W\wedge\Delta^{d}_{top,+}\wedge I_{+} \ar[r]^-{H}\ar@{-->}[ur]^-{H'} & Z^{av} ,
}$$ which exists because the right-hand vertical map is a fibration. Finally the map $f'(-) = H'(-,1)$ satisfies $f' + \overline{f}' = f$ and $H'$ is a homotopy between $0$ and $f'$.
Suppose that $W$ has trivial $G$-action. Then for all $n\geq 0$ and all $q\geq 0$, $$\widetilde{\mcal{R}}^q_{top}(W\wedge\Z/2_+)_{0} = \{0\} .$$
First recall [@DS:equiDT Lemma 2.4] that given a finite $G$-set $Z$ then there is a $G$-homeomorphism $$\Hom{*}{Z_+}{\mcal{Z}_{0}(Y)_{0}} \xrightarrow{\iso}\mcal{Z}_{0}(Y\wedge Z_+)_{0}$$ defined by $f\mapsto \sum_{z\in Z} f(z) \wedge z$. This yields $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{\mcal{R}}^q_{top}(W\wedge \Z/2_+)_{0} = & \frac{\phom{W\wedge\Z/2_+\wedge\Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{\mcal{Z}/2_{0}(S^{q,q})_{0}}_{0}^G}
{\phom{W\wedge\Z/2_+\wedge\Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{\mcal{Z}/2_0(S^{q,q})_{0}}_{0}^{av}} = \\ = & \frac{\phom{W\wedge\Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{\mcal{Z}/2_{0}(S^{q,q}\wedge\Z/2_+)_{0}}_{0}^{G}}
{\phom{W\wedge\Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{\mcal{Z}/2_0(S^{q,q}\wedge\Z/2_+)_{0}}_{0}^{av}} = \\ = &
\frac{\phom{W\wedge\Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{\mcal{Z}/2_{0}(S^{q,q}\wedge\Z/2_+)_{0}^{G}}_{0}}
{\phom{W\wedge\Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{\mcal{Z}/2_0(S^{q,q}\wedge\Z/2_+)_{0}^{av}}_{0}},
% = & \frac{\shom{sSet*}{S^n}{\sing_{\bullet}\mcal{Z}/2_{0}(S^{q,q})_{0}^{G}}}
% {\shom{sSet*}{S^n}{\sing_{\bullet}\mcal{Z}/2_0(S^{q,q})_{0}^{av}}}.\end{aligned}$$ where the last equality follows from Lemma \[zeroav\] and Proposition \[avfib\] because $W$ has trivial $G$-action. But since the action of $G$ on $S^{q,q}\wedge \Z/2_+$ is free we have the isomorphism $$\mcal{Z}/2_{0}(S^{q,q}\wedge \Z/2_+)_{0}^{av} \xrightarrow{\iso} \mcal{Z}/2_{0}(S^{q,q}\wedge\Z/2_+)_{0}^{G}$$ and therefore $$\widetilde{\mcal{R}}^q_{top}(W\wedge \Z/2_+)_{0} = \frac{\phom{S^n\wedge\Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{\mcal{Z}/2_{0}(S^{q,q}\wedge\Z/2_+)_{0}^{G}}_{0}}
{\phom{W\wedge\Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{\mcal{Z}/2_0(S^{q,q}\wedge\Z/2_+)_{0}^{av}}_{0}} = \{0\}.$$
Recall that the action of $G$ on a based set $(Y,*)$ is said to be free if $Y^{G} = *$.
\[freezero\] Suppose that $W$ is a based finite $G$-$CW$ complex with free $G$-action. Then $$\rtop{q}(W)_{0} = \{0\}.$$
First we observe that $\rtop{q}(W_{n+1})_{0} \to \rtop{q}(W_{n})_{0}$ is an isomorphism for any $n$. Indeed since $W$ is a free $G$-$CW$ complex $W_{n}/W_{n-1}$ is a wedge of spheres of the form $S^{n}\wedge \Z/2_+$. By the previous proposition $\rtop{q}(W_{n+1}/W_{n})_{0} = \rtop{q}(\vee S^{n+1}\wedge\Z/2_+)_{0} = \{0\}$.
By Proposition \[kernsurj\], $\rtop{q}(W_{n+1}/W_{n})_{0} \twoheadrightarrow \ker(\rtop{q}(W_{n+1})_{0} \to \rtop{q}(W_{n})_{0})$ is surjective and therefore $\widetilde{\mcal{R}}^{q}_{top}(W_{n+1})_{0} \subseteq\widetilde{\mcal{R}}^{q}_{top}(W_{n})_{0}$. By Corollary \[rsurj\] this map is onto as well and therefore $\widetilde{\mcal{R}}^{q}_{top}(W_{n+1})_{0} = \widetilde{\mcal{R}}^{q}_{top}(W_{n})_{0}$. Since $W = W_{N}$ for large $N$ we conclude that $\rtop{q}(W)_{0} = \rtop{q}(W_{0})_{0}=\{0\}$.
\[rfix\] Suppose that $W$ is a finite $G$-$CW$-complex. Then $$\rtop{q}(W)_{0} \xrightarrow{\iso} \rtop{q}(W^{G})_{0}$$ is an isomorphism of simplicial abelian groups.
Consider the cofibration sequence $W^{G} \hookrightarrow W \to W/W^{G}$. The space $W/W^{G}$ has a free $G$-action and so Proposition \[kernsurj\] and Corollary \[freezero\] imply that $$\{0\}= \rtop{q}(W/W^{G})_{0} \twoheadrightarrow \ker[\rtop{q}(W)_{0} \to \rtop{q}(W^{G})_{0}]$$ is surjective. Therefore $\rtop{q}(W)_{0} \subseteq \rtop{q}(W^{G})_{0}$. Since it is also a surjection by Corollary \[rsurj\] it is an isomorphism.
For a based $G$-$CW$ complex $W$ define $$\mcal{H}^{q}(W) = \phom{W^{G}\wedge\Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{\mcal{R}_{0}(S^{q,q})_{0}}.$$ The homotopy groups of $\mcal{H}^{q}(W)$ compute singular cohomology of the fixed point space, $\pi_{k}\mcal{H}^{q}(W) = H^{q-k}_{sing}(W^{G}, \Z/2)$.
Let $W$ be a finite $G$-$CW$-complex. Then $$\pi_{i}\rtop{q}(W)_{0} \to \pi_{i}\mcal{H}^{q}(W)= H^{q-i}_{sing}(W^{G};\Z/2)$$ is an isomorphism for $i\geq 2$ and an injection for $i=0,1$.
Since $\mcal{H}^{q}(W) = \mcal{H}^{q}(W^{G})$ and $\rtop{q}(W)_{0} = \rtop{q}(W^{G})_{0}$ by Corollary \[rfix\] we immediately reduce to the case that $W=W^{G}$. Since $G$ acts trivially on $W$, Lemma \[zeroav\] and Proposition \[avfib\] give $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{\mcal{R}}^q_{top}(W)_{0} = & \frac{\phom{W\wedge\Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{\mcal{Z}/2_{0}(S^{q,q})_{0}}_{0}^G}
{\phom{W\wedge\Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{\mcal{Z}/2_0(S^{q,q})_{0}}_{0}^{av}} = \\ = & \frac{\phom{W\wedge\Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{\mcal{Z}/2_{0}(S^{q,q})_{0}^{G}}_{0}}
{\phom{W\wedge \Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{\mcal{Z}/2_0(S^{q,q})_{0}^{av}}_{0}}.
% = & \frac{\shom{sSet*}{S^n}{\sing_{\bullet}\mcal{Z}/2_{0}(S^{q,q})_{0}^{G}}}
% {\shom{sSet*}{S^n}{\sing_{\bullet}\mcal{Z}/2_0(S^{q,q})_{0}^{av}}}.\end{aligned}$$
By [@LLM:real Proposition 8.3] the short exact sequence $$0\to \mcal{Z}/2_0(S^{q,q})_{0}^{av} \to \mcal{Z}/2_0(S^{q,q})_{0}^{G} \to \mcal{R}_{0}(S^{q,q})_{0}\to 0$$ is a principle fibration sequence.
Finally comparing homotopy fiber sequences of simplicial abelian groups $$\xymatrix@-1pc{
\Hom{}{W\wedge\Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{\mcal{Z}^{av}}_{0} \ar[r]\ar[d]&
\Hom{}{W\wedge\Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{\mcal{Z}^{G}}_{0} \ar[r]\ar[d]&
\widetilde{\mcal{R}}^q_{top}(W)_{0}\ar[d] \\
\Hom{}{W\wedge\Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{\mcal{Z}^{av}} \ar[r]&
\Hom{}{W\wedge\Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{\mcal{Z}^{G}} \ar[r]&
% \Hom{*}{|\sing_{\bullet}W|\wedge\Delta^{\bullet}_{top,+}}{\mcal{R}_{0}(S^{n})_{0}}
\mcal{H}^{q}(W)
}$$ yields the result.
\[rdual\] Let $W$ be a finite $G$-$CW$-complex. Then $$\pi_i\rtop{q}(W) \to \pi_{i}\mcal{H}^{q}(W)=H^{q-i}_{sing}(W^{G};\Z/2)$$ is an isomorphism for $i\geq 2$.
The map $\pi_{i}\rtop{q}(W)_{0}\to \pi_{i}\rtop{q}(W)$ is an isomorphism for $i\geq 2$ and an injection for $i = 0,1$
Topological Monoids
===================
In this appendix we collect a few simple results on topological monoids. By *topological monoid* we will mean a compactly generated Hausdorff topological abelian monoid (and similarly for the phrase topological group). An abelian monoid $M$ is said to have the cancellation property if for any $n,m,p\in M$ $n+p=m+p$ implies $m=n$.
\[qmcl\] Suppose that $M$ is a topological monoid with the cancellation property. If $+: M\times M \to M$ is closed and $N\subseteq M$ is a closed submonoid then the quotient map $\pi: M\to M/N$ is closed.
Suppose that $V\subseteq M$ is closed. Then since $\pi:M\to M/N$ is a quotient map to see that $\pi V$ is closed it is enough to see that $\pi^{-1}\pi V \subseteq M$ is closed. But $\pi^{-1}\pi V = (V+N) \cap (M +N)$ which is closed.
\[lemtop1\] Let $M$ be a topological monoid with the cancellation property and let $N\subseteq M$ be a submonoid. Suppose that $M/N$ is a topological monoid, $M^{+}$ is a topological group and $N^{+}$ is closed. Then the isomorphism of groups $$\left(\frac{M}{N}\right)^{+} \to \frac{M^{+}}{N^{+}}$$ is an isomorphism of topological groups.
The map $M \to M^{+} \to M^{+}/N^{+}$ sends $N$ to $0$ and so we obtain the monoid homomorphism $M/N \to M^{+}/N^{+}$ which is continuous. This induces the continuous group homomorphism $\phi:(M/N)^{+} \to M^{+}/N^{+}$.
On the other hand the topological monoid quotient map $M \to M/N$ induces the continuous group homomorphism $M^{+} \to (M/N)^{+}$. Since $N^{+}$ is mapped to $0$ it induces the continuous group homomorphism $\psi:M^{+}/N^{+} \to (M/N)^{+}$.
The continuous maps $\psi$ and $\phi$ are easily seen to be inverse to each other.
Recall that if $A$ is a topological monoid with $G$-action we write $A^{av}\subseteq A$ for the image of $N=1+\sigma$, so $A^{av}\subseteq A$ is the topological submonoid consisting of elements of the form $a+\sigma a$.
\[appcycagr\] Suppose that $M$ is a Hausdorff topological abelian monoid with the cancellation property and that $M^{+}$ is a Hausdorff group. Suppose that $G$ acts on $M$. Then the isomorphism of groups $$(M^{G})^{+} \xrightarrow{\iso} (M^{+})^{G}$$ is an isomorphism of topological groups. If $(M^{+})^{av}\subseteq M^{+}$ is closed then $$(M^{av})^{+} \xrightarrow{\iso} (M^{+})^{av}$$ is an isomorphism of topological groups.
We just have to show that the “identity” map $$(M^{+})^{G} \to (M^{G})^{+}$$ is continuous.
The group completion $M^+$ is topologized as the quotient $$M \times M \xrightarrow{q} M^{+}.$$ where $q(a,b) = a-b$. The map $q:q^{-1}(M^{+})^{G} \to (M^{+})^{G}$ is again a quotient map since $(M^{+})^{G}$ is closed.
Consider the map $M\times M \xrightarrow{id\times \sigma\pi_{2}} M\times M\times M \xrightarrow{\Delta \times id} M^{\times 4} \xrightarrow{+} M\times M$ which sends $(a,b) \mapsto ( a, b, \sigma b, \sigma b) \mapsto (a+\sigma b, b + \sigma b)$. This is a continuous map. Its restriction to $q^{-1}(M^{+})^{G}$ is a continuous map $q^{-1}(M^{+})^{G} \to M^{G}\times M^{G}$ which induces the identity map on quotients $$( M^{+})^{G} \to (M^{G})^{+},$$ and therefore this is a continuous map.
The second statement for averaged cycles is proved in a similar fashion.
\[mgrp2\] Let $M$ be a topological monoid with the cancellation property. Suppose that $M^{+}$ is a topological group and $2M^{+}$ is closed in $M^{+}$. Then $$\frac{M}{2M} \to \frac{M^{+}}{2M^{+}}$$ is an isomorphism of topological abelian groups.
For $m\in M$ write $[m]$ for its image in $M/2M$. This quotient monoid is a group since $[m]+[m] = 0$.
For $(m,n)\in M^{+}$ write $[m,n]$ for its image in $M^{+}/2M^{+}$. The map $M/2M \to M^{+}/2M^{+}$ which sends $[m]$ to $[m,0]$ is continuous because $M\to M/2M$ is a quotient. It is an injection because if $[m,0] = [0,0]$ then there is $(2n, 2n')$ such that $m + 2n' = 2n$ which says that $[m] = 0$. It is surjective since $[m,n] = [m+n,n+n] = [m+n,0]$. The inverse $M^{+}/2M^{+} \to M/2M$ is continuous since it is the map $[m,n] \mapsto [m+n, 0]=[m+n, n+n]$.
\[qimav\] Let $X$ be a normal quasi-projective real variety.
1. The continuous homomorphism $N:\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\C})\to \mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\C})^{av}$ induces an isomorphism of topological groups $$\frac{\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\C})}{\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\C})^{G}} \to \mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\C})^{av} .$$
2. The continuous homomorphism $\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\C})^{av} \to \mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\C})^{av}$ induces an isomorphism of topological groups $$\frac{\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\C})^{av}}{2\mcal{Z}^{q}(X)^{G}} \to \mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\C})^{av}.$$
Addition is a closed map for the monoid $\mcal{C}_{0}(\P_{\C}^{q})(X_{\C})$ (see the proof of Proposition \[Gcocomm\]) and therefore we conclude by Lemma \[qmcl\] that addition is also closed for both the effective cocycles $\mcal{C}^{q}(X_{\C}) =
\mcal{C}_{0}(\P_{\C}^{q})(X_{\C})/\mcal{C}_{0}(\P_{\C}^{q-1})(X_{\C})$ and closed for $\mcal{C}^{q}/2(X_{\C})$ .
By Lemma \[mgrp2\] the map $\mcal{C}^{q}/2(X_{\C}) \xrightarrow{\iso} \mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\C})$ is an isomorphism of topological groups and therefore addition is closed for $\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\C})$. In particular $N=1+\sigma:\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\C}) \to \mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\C})$ is closed. Since $\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\C})$ is $2$-torsion $\ker(N) = \mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\C})^{G}$. It now follows that $$\frac{\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\C})}{\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\C})^{G}} \xrightarrow{N} \mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\C})^{av}$$ is an isomorphism of topological groups. For the second statement we need to conclude that the continuous bijection $\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\C})^{av}/2\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\C})^{G} \to \mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\C})^{av}$ has a continuous inverse. Write $g$ for the inverse. Then $$\xymatrix{
\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\C}) \ar[r]\ar[d] & \mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\C})^{av} \ar[d] \\
\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X)^{av} \ar[r]^{g} & \displaystyle{\frac{\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\C})^{av}}{2\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\C})^{G}}}
}$$ is commutative and each map except possibly $g$ is continuous. By the first part of the proposition the composition $\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\C}) \to \mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\C})\xrightarrow{N} \mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\C})^{av}$ is a quotient map and therefore $g$ is continuous. We conclude that the map is an isomorphism of topological groups.
Tractable Monoid Actions {#tract}
========================
We recall Friedlander-Gabber’s notion of tractability for a topological monoid.
[@FG:cyc]
1. If $M$ is a Hausdorff topological monoid which acts on a topological space $T$, the action is said to be $\textit{tractable}$ if $T$ is the topological union of inclusions $$\varnothing = T_{-1} \subseteq T_0 \subseteq T_1 \subseteq \cdots$$ such that for each $n\geq 0$ the inclusion $T_{n-1}\subseteq T_{n}$ fits into a push-out of $M$-equivariant maps (with $R_{0}$ empty) $$\label{potr}
\begin{CD}
R_n\times M @>>> S_n\times M \\
@VVV @VVV \\
T_{n-1} @>>> T_n,
\end{CD}$$ where the upper horizontal map is induced by a cofibration $R_n\hookrightarrow S_n$ of Hausdorff spaces.
The monoid $M$ is said to be *tractable* if the diagonal action of $M$ on $M\times M$ is tractable.
2. If in addition $M$, $T$ are $G$-spaces say that the action of $M$ on $T$ is *equivariantly tractable* if the action map is $G$-equivariant, the $R_{n}\hookrightarrow S_{n}$ are equivariant cofibrations between $G$-spaces, and the pushout squares (\[potr\]) are $G$-equivariant.
Fixed points of an equivariant cofibration is a cofibration and fixed points preserve pushouts along a closed inclusion. Therefore if $T$ is an equivariantly tractable $M$-space then it is in particular a tractable $M$-space and $T^{G}$ is a tractable $M^{G}$-space.
The most important feature of tractability is that the naive group completion $M\to M^{+}$ of a tractable monoid is a homotopy group completion [@FG:cyc].
It is useful to know that all of our topological groups have reasonable equivariant homotopy types. Below we observe that this is the case by using essentially the same reasoning as in [@FW:funcspc Proposition 2.5]. The essential topological property used here is that Hironaka’s triangulation theorem implies that the complexification of a real variety may be *equivariantly* triangulated (see for example [@KW:real Theorem 1.3]).
\[trcw\] Suppose that $T$ is a tractable $M$-space. If $R_{n}$, $S_{n}$ have the homotopy type of a $CW$-complex then so does $T/M$ Suppose that $T$ is an equivariantly tractable $M$-space. If $R_{n}$, and $S_{n}$ have the equivariant homotopy type of a $G$-$CW$ complex then $T/M$ has the equivariant homotopy type of a $G$-$CW$ complex.
We prove the second statement, the first follows in the same manner by discarding equivariant considerations. Modding out by the $M$-action in (\[potr\]) we obtain equivariant pushout-squares $$\begin{CD}
R_n @>>> S_n \\
@VVV @VVV \\
T_{n-1}/M @>>> T_n/M.
\end{CD}$$ By induction and homotopy invariance of pushouts along $G$-cofibrations we see that $T_{n}/M$ has the homotopy type of a $G$-$CW$ complex and that $T_{n-1}/M\to T_{n}/M$ is a $G$-cofibration. By [@Waner:miln Theorem 4.9] we conclude that $\colim_{n} T_{n}/M$ has the homotopy type of a $G$-$CW$ complex. We are done since $T/M=\colim_{n} T_{n}/M$ by the proof of [@F:algco Lemma 1.3].
\[concof\] Let $\mcal{E}\subseteq X$ be a constructable subset of a real projective variety.
1. The space $\mcal{E}_{\C}$ has the homotopy type of a $G$-$CW$ complex.
2. Suppose that $\mcal{F}\hookrightarrow \mcal{E}$ is a closed constructable embedding. Then $\mcal{F}_{\C}\hookrightarrow \mcal{E}_{\C}$ is an equivariant cofibration.
Let $\overline{\mcal{E}_{\C}}$, $\overline{\mcal{F}_{\C}}$ be closures (in $X_{\C}$) of $\mcal{E}_{\C}$ and $\mcal{F}_{\C}$. There is an equivariant triangulation of $\overline{E}_{\C}$ so that $\overline{\mcal{F}}_{\C}$ and $\overline{\mcal{E}}_{\C}\backslash \mcal{E}_{\C}$ are subcomplexes [@KW:real Theorem 1.3]. Then $\mcal{E}_{\C}$ and $\mcal{F}_{\C}$ are unions of open simplices. The deformation retract of $\mcal{E}_{\C}$ onto a subsimplicial complex given in the proof of [@FW:funcspc Proposition 2.5] is an equivariant retract onto a $G$-simplicial complex (and similarly for $\mcal{F}_{\C}$) which gives the first statement. The construction of a deformation retract onto $\mcal{F}_{\C}$ of an open neighborhood $U$ of $\mcal{F}_{\C}$ in $\mcal{E}_{\C}$ given in [@FL:dual Lemma C1] works equivariantly which shows that $\mcal{F}_{\C}\hookrightarrow \mcal{E}_{\C}$ is a cofibration.
As shown in [@FG:cyc Proposition 1.3] the Chow monoids associated to complex varieties are tractable and in [@FL:dual Proposition C.3] these results are extended to certain constructable submonoids of Chow monoids. Their proofs work equivariantly to give the equivariant analogue of their result. A submonoid $N\subseteq M$ is said to be *full* if whenever $m+m'\in N$ then both $m$, $m'\in N$. The condition below on $\mcal{E} \subseteq \mcal{C}_{k}(X)$ in the proposition is satisfied if $\mcal{E}$ is Zariski closed or if it is a full submonoid.
\[gtract\] Let $X$ be a projective real variety and $\mcal{E} \subseteq \mcal{C}_{k}(X)$ by a constructable submonoid such that $+:\mcal{E}\times\mcal{E} \to \mcal{E}$ is a Zariski closed mapping. Then
1. $\mcal{E}_{\C}$ is an equivariantly tractable monoid.
2. $\mcal{E}_{\C}^{+}$ has the homotopy type of a $G$-$CW$ complex.
3. If $\mcal{F}\subseteq \mcal{E}$ is a closed constructable embedding then $\mcal{E}_{\C}$ is tractable as an $\mcal{F}_{\C}$-space and $\mcal{E}_{\C}/\mcal{F}_{\C}$ is an equivariantly tractable monoid.
4. Suppose that $\mcal{F}\hookrightarrow \mcal{E}$ is a closed constructable embedding. Then $\mcal{F}^{+}\subseteq \mcal{E}^{+}$ is closed and the sequence $$0\to \mcal{F}_{\C}^{+}\to\mcal{E}_{\C}^{+}\to \left(\mcal{E}_{\C}/\mcal{F}_{\C}\right)^{+}\to 0$$ is an equivariant short exact sequence of groups of spaces of the homotopy type of a $G$-$CW$ complex.
In [@FL:dual Proposition C.3] the monoid $\mcal{E}_{\C}$ is shown to be tractable as follows. Write $\mcal{E}(d)= \mcal{E}_{\C}\cap\mcal{C}_{k,d}(X_{\C})$ and let $\nu:\mathbb{N}^{2}\to\mathbb{N}$ be a bijection such that if $a\leq c$, $b\leq d$ then $\nu(a,b) \leq \nu(c,d)$. Define $$S_{n} = \mcal{E}(a_{n})\times \mcal{E}(b_{n}), \;\;\textrm{where}\;\; \nu(a_{n},b_{n}) = n$$ $$R_{n} = \im\left(\bigcup_{c\geq 0}\mcal{E}(a_{n}-c)\times \mcal{E}(b_{n}-c)\times \mcal{E}(c) \to \mcal{E}(a_{n})\times \mcal{E}(b_{n})\right) \subseteq S_{n}$$ and $$T_{n} = \im\left((\bigcup_{\nu(a,b)\leq n} \mcal{E}(a)\times \mcal{E}(b))\times \mcal{E}_{\C} \to\mcal{E}_{\C}\times\mcal{E}_{\C}\right).$$ The spaces $R_{n}$, $S_{n}$, and $T_{n}$ are $G$-spaces, fit into the appropriate pushout squares, and $R_{n}\hookrightarrow S_{n}$ is a closed constructable embedding since addition is closed on $\mcal{E}_{\C}$ therefore by Proposition \[concof\] the $R_{n}\hookrightarrow S_{n}$ are equivariant cofibrations. This shows that $\mcal{E}$ is equivariantly tractable. The third item follows from similar consideration of [@FL:dual Proposition C.3]. The second item follows by applying Proposition \[trcw\].
For the last part write $R'_{n}$, $S'_n$, and $T'_{n}$ for the spaces above giving the tractability of $\mcal{F}_{\C}$. Then $R'_{n}\subseteq R_{n}$ and $S_{n}'\subseteq S_{n}$ are cofibrations. Considering the comparison of pushouts $$T'_{n}/\mcal{F}_{\C}= T'_{n-1}/\mcal{F}_{\C}\bigcup_{R'_{n}}S'_{n} \to T_{n}/\mcal{E}_{\C}= T_{n-1}/\mcal{E}_{\C}\bigcup_{R_{n}}S_{n}$$ we see by induction that $T'_{n}/\mcal{F}_{\C} \hookrightarrow T_{n}/\mcal{E}_{\C}$ is a cofibration and in particular is closed. Therefore $\mcal{F}_{\C}^{+}=\colim_{n}T'_{n}/\mcal{F}_{\C} \subseteq \colim_{n}T_{n}/\mcal{E}_{\C}= \mcal{E}_{\C}^{+}$ is a closed subspace [@FP:cell Proposition A.5.5]. Finally $\mcal{E}_{\C}/\mcal{F}_{\C})^{+}= \mcal{E}_{\C}^{+}/\mcal{F}_{\C}^{+}$ by Lemma \[lemtop1\] which gives the displayed exact sequence.
Spaces of algebraic cycles and algebraic cocycles on complex varieties are shown to have $CW$-structures or homotopy type of $CW$-spaces in [@LF:qproj; @FW:funcspc] and in [@Teh:real] for real varieties.
\[ehtype\] Let $U$ be a quasi-projective real variety. Then the spaces $\mcal{Z}_{k}(U_{\C})$, $\mcal{Z}/\ell_{k}(U_{\C})$, $\mcal{Z}^{q}(U_{\C})$, $\mcal{Z}^{q}/\ell(U_{\C})$ all have the homotopy type of a $G$-$CW$ complex. The spaces $\mcal{Z}_{k}(U_{\C})^{av}$, $\mcal{Z}/\ell_{k}(U_{\C})^{av}$, $\mcal{R}_{k}(U)$, $\mcal{Z}^{q}(U_{\C})^{av}$, $\mcal{Z}^{q}/\ell(U_{\C})^{av}$, and $\mcal{R}^{q}(U_{\C})$ all have the homotopy type of a $CW$-complex.
That $\mcal{Z}_{k}(U_{\C})$ has the homotopy type of a $G$-$CW$ complex follows immediately from the previous proposition. Let $U\subset \overline{U}$ be a projectivization. Write $\mcal{F}_{0}(\P_{\C}^{q-1})(U_{\C}) = \mcal{E}_{0}(\P_{\C}^{q-1})(U_{\C}) + \mcal{C}_{d}(\P^{q}_{\C}\times \overline{U}_{\C})$. This is a closed constructable submonoid $\mcal{F}_{0}(\P_{\C}^{q-1})(U_{\C}) \subseteq \mcal{E}_{0}(\P_{\C}^{q})(U_{\C})$ and $(\mcal{E}_{0}(\P^{q}_{\C})(U_{\C})/\mcal{F}_{0}(\P^{q-1}_{\C})(U_{\C}))^{+}\iso \mcal{Z}^{q}(U_{\C})$ has the equivariant homotopy type of a $G$-$CW$ complex. Since $(\ell\mcal{C}_{k}(U_{\C}))^{+}\subseteq \mcal{C}_{k}(U_{\C})^{+}$ is closed we easily see that $(\ell\mcal{C}_{k}(U_{\C}))^{+} = \ell(\mcal{C}_{k}(U_{\C}))^{+}\subseteq \mcal{C}_{k}(U_{\C})^{+}$. Therefore $\mcal{Z}/\ell_{k}(U_{\C}) \iso (\mcal{C}_{k}(U_{\C})/\ell\mcal{C}_{k}(U_{\C}))^{+}$ has the equivariant homotopy type of a $G$-$CW$ complex. Similarly one sees that $\mcal{Z}^{q}/\ell(U_{\C}) \iso (\mcal{E}_{0}(\P_{\C}^{q})(U_{\C})/\mcal{F}_{0}(\P^{q-1}_{\C})(U_{\C})+\ell\mcal{E}_{0}(\P_{\C}^{q})(U_{\C}))^{+}$ has the equivariant homotopy type of a $G$-$CW$ complex.
The monoid inclusions $\ell\mcal{C}_{k}(U_{\C})\cap \mcal{C}_{k}(U_{\C})^{av}\subseteq \mcal{C}_{k}(U_{\C})^{av}\subseteq \mcal{C}_{k}(U_{\C})^{G}\subseteq \mcal{C}_{k}(U_{\C})$ are all closed and so $\mcal{Z}_{k}(U_{\C})^{av}$, $\mcal{R}_{k}(U) \iso (\mcal{C}_{k}(U_{\C})^{G}/\mcal{C}_{k}(U_{\C})^{av})^{+}$, and $\mcal{Z}/\ell_{k}(U_{\C})^{av}\iso(\mcal{C}_{k}(U_{\C})^{av}/\ell\mcal{C}_{k}(U_{\C})\cap\mcal{C}_{k}(U_{\C})^{av})^{+}$ all have the homotopy type of a $CW$-complex.
Similarly $\mcal{Z}^{q}(U_{\C})^{av} \iso (\mcal{E}_{0}(\P^{q}_{\C})(U_{\C})^{av}/\mcal{F}_{0}(\P^{q-1}_{\C})(U_{\C})\cap \mcal{E}_{0}(\P^{q}_{\C})(U_{\C}))^{+}$, $\mcal{Z}^{q}/\ell(U_{\C})^{av} \iso (\mcal{E}_{0}(\P^{q}_{\C})(U_{\C})^{av}/(\mcal{F}_{0}(\P^{q-1}_{\C})(U_{\C})+\ell\mcal{E}_{0}(\P^{q}_{\C})(U_{\C}))\cap \mcal{E}_{0}(\P^{q}_{\C})(U_{\C})^{av})^{+}$, and $\mcal{R}^{q}(U_{\C}) \iso (\mcal{E}_{0}(\P^{q}_{\C})(U_{\C})^{G}/\mcal{F}_{0}(\P^{q-1}_{\C})(U_{\C})^{G}+\mcal{E}_{0}(\P^{q}_{\C})(U_{\C})^{av})^{+}$ all have the homotopy type of a $CW$ complex.
|
---
abstract: |
18 pt
Generically the probabilities of observational results depend upon both the quantum state and the rules for extracting the probabilities from it. It is often argued that inflation may make our observations independent of the quantum state. In a framework in which one considers the state and the rules as logically separate, it is shown how it is possible that the probabilities are indeed independent of the state, but the rules for achieving this seem somewhat implausible.
author:
- |
Don N. Page [^1]\
Theoretical Physics Institute\
Department of Physics, University of Alberta\
Room 238 CEB, 11322 – 89 Avenue\
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2G7
date: '(2009 July 30)'
title: '[**Do Our Observations Depend upon the Quantum State of the Universe?**]{} [^2]'
---
13.9 pt
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
A goal of science is to produce complete theories $T_i$ that each predict normalized probabilities $P_j(i)$ of observations $O_j$, $$P_j(i) \equiv P(O_j|T_i)\ \mathrm{with}\ \sum_j P_j(i) = 1.
\label{prob}$$
Assuming that a complete physical theory of the universe is quantum, I would argue [@BA] that it should contain at least the following elements:\
(1) Kinematic variables (wavefunction arguments)\
(2) Dynamical laws (‘Theory of Everything’ or TOE)\
(3) Boundary conditions (specific quantum state)\
(4) Specification of what has probabilities\
(5) Probability rules (analogue of Born’s rule)\
(6) Specification of what the probabilities mean\
Here I shall call elements (1)-(3) the quantum state (or the “state”), since they give the quantum state of the universe that obeys the dynamical laws and is written in terms of the kinematic variables, and I shall call elements (4)-(6) the probability rules (or the “rules”), since they specify what it is that has probabilities (here taken to be the results of observations, $O_j$, or “observations” for short), the rules for extracting these observational probabilities from the quantum state, and the meaning of the probabilities. What I shall write below is largely independent of the meaning of the probabilities, though personally I view them in a rather Everettian way as objective measures for the set of observations with positive probabilities.
Usually it is implicitly believed that the observational probabilities depend strongly upon the quantum state. (Sometimes the Everett interpretation [@Everett] is taken to mean that all of physical reality is determined purely by the quantum state, without the need for any additional rules to extract probabilities, but this extreme view seems untenable [@Kent] and will not be adopted here. Instead, I shall discuss the opposite view, that the probabilities are independent of the quantum state.) However, some advocates of inflation[@NS; @AS; @GSVW; @ELM; @SPV; @Vil06; @VV; @Vil07; @Linde06; @Win06; @Vanchurin; @Linde08b; @LWb; @Win08a; @SGSV; @GV09; @LVW; @Albrecht] often claim that our observations do not depend upon the quantum state at all, but rather that inflation acts as an attractor to give the same statistical distribution of observations from any state.
In this note, I shall use the framework of state plus rules to discuss this possibility that observational probabilities might be independent of the quantum state. I shall show that this indeed is logically possible, but apparently only if the probability rules are rather [*ad hoc*]{}. If indeed the rules are this [*ad hoc*]{}, so that the probabilities of our observations do not depend upon a quantum state at all, it would seem to leave it mysterious why many of our observations can be simply interpreted as if our universe really were quantum.
States and rules
================
Let me first discuss the logical independence of the quantum state and the probability rules. I shall assume that even if one fixes the kinematic variables and the dynamical laws, there remains freedom in what the quantum state is (e.g., many different solutions to the same Schrödinger equation with the same arguments and the same Hamiltonian, or many different solutions to the constraint equations of quantum gravity). The set of all quantum states obeying whatever kinematic and dynamical constraints one might impose I shall call the state space; it might or might not be a Hilbert space. The states themselves might be pure states, density matrices, or C\*-algebra states, but I shall assume that they are at least C\*-algebra states, so that each state gives the expectation value of the kinematically allowed quantum operators. For simplicity, I shall often assume that the quantum state is a pure state in a finite-dimensional Hilbert space, though most of the discussion should be generalizable to any C\*-algebra states.
In traditional quantum theory, observational results are eigenvalues of a certain self-adjoint operator called an observable, which in the finite-dimensional case at least can be written as a sum of orthonormal projection operators (formed from the eigenstates of the observable, or from the eigenspaces of eigenstates for degenerate eigenvalues) multiplied by coefficients that are the eigenvalues of the observable. Then the observational probability of each eigenvalue is given by Born’s rule [@Born] as the expectation value of the corresponding projection operator in the quantum state of the system. In this case, the logical freedom of the probability rules is the freedom to choose the observable whose eigenvalues represent the observational results.
In the case of a pure state in a finite-dimensional Hilbert space, the state by itself does not determine the observational probabilities, since the probabilities also depend upon the orthonormal projection operators corresponding to the observable. Furthermore, any other pure state in the same Hilbert space would give the same probabilities for another observable obtained simply by transforming the original observable by the same unitary transformation used to transform the state from the original one to the final one. (This unitary transformation is not uniquely defined, since only its action on the original quantum state is specified, so there is a large set of different transformed observables that all give the same probabilities as well.) Then the probability of an eigenvalue of the new observable in the new state would be the same as that of the eigenstate of the originaly observable in the original state. Thus states by themselves do not determine probabilities, and all pure states give the same probabilities when they are paired with corresponding observables. It is only the relation between the state and the observable that determines unique probabilities by Born’s rule.
In cosmology with a universe large enough that there may be copies of an observer, no matter how precisely it is described locally, Born’s rule does not work [@cmwvw; @insuff; @brd; @BA] and must be replaced by another set of rules for extracting observational probabilities from the quantum state. Generically then the ambiguity in the rules is even greater than in traditional quantum theory in which one needed to specify just one quantum operator, a single observable, in addition to the state.
Here for simplicity I shall focus on cases in which the set of rules are that observational probabilities are obtained by normalizing a set of unnormalized measures that are each given by the expectation value of a positive operator in the quantum state, $$P_j(i) = \frac{p_j(i)}{\sum_{k}p_k}\ \mathrm{with}\
p_j(i) = \langle \mathbf{q}_j \rangle_i,
\label{normalized-probabilities}$$ where $\mathbf{q}_j$ is the positive operator corresponding to the observational result $O_j$ (or observation $j$, for short), and where $\langle\ldots\rangle_i$ denotes the quantum expectation value, of whatever operator replaces the $\ldots$ inside the angular brackets, in the quantum state $i$ given by the theory $T_i$. Then, instead of the single observable required to give the probability rule in traditional quantum theory by Born’s rule, one needs a whole set of positive operators $\mathbf{q}_j$, one for each observation $j$.
Quantum theories of this form may be axiomatized by the following two axioms:
[**State**]{}: [*There is a quantum state that gives expectation values of operators.*]{}
[**Rules**]{}: [*Each possible observation has a corresponding positive operator whose expectation value in the quantum state is the measure for that observation.*]{}
When we want to do a Bayesian analysis and compare different theories $T_i$ for which we have assigned prior probabilities $P(T_i)$, we would like to normalize the measures for observations by dividing by the total measure and then interpret the normalized measures as the likelihoods or the probabilities of the observation given the theory, $P(O_j|T_i)$. Then if we had a complete set of theories for which we assigned nonzero prior probabilities, so $\sum_i P(T_i) = 1$, then the posterior probability of theory $T_i$, given the observation $O_j$, would be given by Bayes’ formula as $$P(T_i|O_j) = \frac{P(T_i)P(O_j|T_i)}{\sum_l P(T_l)P(O_j|T_l)}.
\label{post}$$
Under the assumption that observations are conscious perceptions, the operators $\mathbf{q}_j$ whose expectation values would then give the measures of the corresponding conscious perceptions were called [*awareness operators*]{} in my previous work [@SQM; @pim; @MS; @Page-in-Carr], but in [@cmwvw; @insuff; @brd; @BA] and here I am not restricting to the assumption that observations must be conscious perceptions (though I have not given up my personal belief that the most fundamental observations are indeed conscious perceptions). The only restriction on observations I am making here is that each of them should be a complete observation in the sense that no observation is a proper subset of another observation. Here, let us call the $\mathbf{q}_j$ [*observation operators*]{}, since it is their expectation values that give the ratios of observational probabilities.
Rules giving state-independent probabilities
============================================
Now let us consider whether we can have probability rules giving observational probabilities independent of the quantum state, as is often claimed or wished to be the case for inflationary universes. It is clear that if $\langle \mathbf{q}_j \rangle_i$ is to be independent of the quantum state, the observation operator $\mathbf{q}_j$ must be proportional to the identity operator, $\mathbf{q}_j =
p_j(i)\mathbf{I}$, with each nonnegative $p_j(i)$ that can be chosen arbitrarily and independently of the quantum state. Then indeed the observational probabilities are independent of the quantum state. Therefore, there is no logical difficulty in defining probability rules such that the probabilities of observations are independent of the quantum state, as is often claimed or wished to be for inflation.
On the other hand, it seems quite [*ad hoc*]{} to have the observation operators all be proportional to the identity, so that the observational probabilities are independent of the quantum state. If that were the case, what would be the point of having a quantum state at all in the theory? One could just say that the theory consisted of directly giving the observational probabilities $P_j(i)$ (perhaps from unnormalized probabilities $p_j(i)$ if they are instrinsically simpler). If our observations are indeed independent of the quantum state, why have our observations been taken to support quantum theory? That is, why has it been so successful to unify and simplify the description of our observations by assuming that they arose from quantum aspects of the universe, if they come from the expectation values of operators that all commute?
Therefore, although I have shown here that it is logically possible for our observations (meaning their probabilities) to have arisen from probability rules that make them independent of the quantum state, the way to do this seems highly [*ad hoc*]{} and implausible. Surely a much simpler explanation of our observations will use both a non-random quantum state and a non-random set of rules for extracting the probabilities of observations from that quantum state.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
I am grateful for the hospitality of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, where I had long discussions on this subject with Andreas Albrecht and shorter ones on related issues with Jaume Garriga, Thomas Hertog, Matthew Kleban, Daniel Phillips, Herman Verlinde, Alex Vilenkin, and others, though the idea for this paper arose only from later reflection and was not tested in face-to-face discussions with any of those scientists. This research was supported in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
[99]{}
D. N. Page, “Born Again,” arxiv:0907.4152 \[hep-th\].
H. Everett, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**29**]{}, 454 (1957).
B. S. DeWitt and N. Graham (eds.), [*The Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics*]{} (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1973).
A. Kent, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**5**]{}, 1745-1762 (1990) \[arXiv:gr-qc/9703089\].
Y. Nambu and M. Sasaki, Phys. Lett. B [**205**]{}, 441-446 (1988).
A. Albrecht and L. Sorbo, Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{}, 063528 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-th/0405270\].
J. Garriga, D. Schwartz-Perlov, A. Vilenkin, and S. Winitzki, JCAP [**0601**]{}, 017 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-th/0509184\].
R. Easther, E. A. Lim, and M. R. Martin, JCAP [**0603**]{}, 016 (2006) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0511233\].
D. Schwartz-Perlov and A. Vilenkin, JCAP [**0606**]{}, 10 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-th/0601162\].
A. Vilenkin, “ Probabilities in the Landscape,” arXiv:hep-th/0602264.
V. Vanchurin and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D [**74**]{}, 043520 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-th/0605015\].
A. Vilenkin, J. Phys. A [**40**]{}, 6777-6785 (2007) \[arXiv:hep-th/0609193\].
A. Linde, J. Cosmolog. Astropart. Phys. [**0701**]{}, 022 (2007) \[arXiv:hep-th/0611043\].
S. Winitzki, Lect. Notes Phys. [**738**]{}, 157-191 (2008) \[arXiv:gr-qc/0612164\].
V. Vanchurin, Phys. Rev. D [**75**]{}, 023524 (2007) \[arXiv:hep-th/0612215\].
A. Linde, JCAP [**0706**]{}, 017 (2007) \[arXiv:0705.1160 \[hep-th\]\].
M. Li and Y. Wang, JCAP [**0708**]{}, 007 (2007) \[arXiv:0706.1691 \[hep-th\]\].
S. Winitzki, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 043501 (2008) \[arXiv:0803.1300 \[gr-qc\]\].
A. De Simone, A. H. Guth, M. P. Salem, and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 063520 (2008) \[arXiv:0805.2173 \[hep-th\]\].
J. Garriga and A. Vilenkin, JCAP [**0901**]{}, 021 (2009) \[arXiv:0809.4257 \[hep-th\]\].
A. Linde, V. Vanchurin, and S. Winitzki, JCAP [**0901**]{}, 031 (2009) \[arXiv:0812.0005 \[hep-th\]\].
A. Albrecht, “De Sitter Equilibrium as a Fundamental Framework for Cosmology,” arXiv:0906.1047 \[gr-qc\].
M. Born, Z. Phys. [**37**]{}, 863-867 (1926).
D. N. Page, J. Cosmolog. Astropart. Phys. [**0810**]{}, 025 (2008), arXiv:0808.0351.
D. N. Page, Phys. Lett. B [**678**]{}, 41-44 (2009), arXiv:0808.0722.
D. N. Page, J. Cosmolog. Astropart. Phys. [**0708**]{}, 008 (2009), arXiv:0903.4888.
D. N. Page, “Sensible Quantum Mechanics: Are Only Perceptions Probabilistic?” arXiv:quant-ph/9506010.
D. N. Page, Int. J. Mod. Phys. [**D5**]{}, 583 (1996) \[arXiv:gr-qc/9507024\].
D. N. Page, in [*Consciousness: New Philosophical Perspectives*]{}, edited by Q. Smith and A. Jokic (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2003), pp. 468-506 \[arXiv:quant-ph/0108039\].
D. N. Page, in [*Universe or Multiverse?*]{}, edited by B. J. Carr (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007), pp.401-419 \[arXiv:hep-th/0610101\].
[^1]: Internet address: [email protected]
[^2]: Alberta-Thy-13-09, arXiv:0907.4751
|
---
author:
- 'A. Del Popolo,'
- 'M. Le Delliou'
title: 'A unified solution to the small scale problems of the $\Lambda$CDM model II: introducing parent-satellite interaction'
---
Introduction
============
The $\Lambda$CDM (cosmological constant and Cold Dark Matter) model of cosmology, while describing the observations of the Universe, its large scale structure and evolution very successfully (Spergel et al. 2003, Komatsu et al. 2011; Del Popolo 2007, 2013, 2014a), retains some problems in the description of structures at small scales (e.g., Moore 1994; Moore et al. 1999; Ostriker & Steinhardt 2003; Boylan-Kolchin, Bullock, and Kaplinghat 2011, 2012; Oh et al. 2011)[^1]. These problems can be enumerated as a) the discrepancy between cuspy density profiles obtained in N-body simulations (Navarro, Frenk & White 1996, 1997 (NFW); Navarro 2010)[^2] and the flat profiles of dwarf and Low Surface Brightness galaxies (Burkert 1995; de Blok, Bosma, & McGaugh 2003; Del Popolo 2009 (DP09); Cardone et al. 2011a, 2011b; Cardone & Del Popolo 2012; Del Popolo 2012a,b (DP12a, DP12b); Oh et al. 2010, 2011; Kuzio de Naray & Kaufmann 2011), coined as the cusp/core problem (hereafter CCP) (Moore 1994; Flores & Primak 1994;Ogiya & Mori, 2011,2014; Ogiya et al. 2014), or of Galaxy Clusters (Del Popolo 2014b; Del Popolo & Gambera 2000); b) the discrepancy between the large discs of observed spirals and the small discs obtained in Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH) simulations, referred to as the angular momentum catastrophe (AMC, van den Bosch, Burkert,& Swaters, 2001); c) the discrepancy between the number of predicted and observed subhaloes when running N-body simulations (Klypin et al. 1999; Moore et al. 1999)[^3], dubbed the “missing satellite problem (MSP).
Klypin et al. (1999), and Moore et al. (1999) noticed, in numerical simulations of galactic and cluster haloes, an excess of predicted subhaloes compared with observation. They had found $\simeq500$ satellites with circular velocities larger than Ursa-Minor and Draco, while the MW dwarf Spheroidals (dSphs) are well known to be far fewer (the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds, and 9 bright dSphs (Boylan-Kolchin, Bullock, and Kaplinghat 2012)). The problem was later confirmed in subsequent cosmological simulations (Aquarius, Via Lactea II (VL2), and GHALO simulations – Springel et al. 2008; Stadel et al. 2009; Diemand et al. 2007). Although insufficiently for a complete solution, it was alleviated with the discovery of the ultra-faint MW satellites (Willman et al. 2005; Belokurov 2006; Zucker 2006; Sakamoto & Hasegawa 2006; Irwin et al. 2007).
The MSP was recently enriched with an extra problem, spawned from the analysis of the Aquarius and the Via Lactea simulations. Simulated haloes produced $\simeq10$ subhaloes (Boylan-Kolchin, Bullock, and Kaplinghat 2011, 2012) that were too massive and dense to be the host of the MW brightest satellites: while those $\Lambda$CDM simulations predicted in excess of 10 subhaloes with $V_{max}>25$ km/s, the dSphs of the MW all have $12<V_{max}<25$ km/s. This discrepancy in the kinematics between simulations and the MW brightest dSphs (Boylan-Kolchin, Bullock, and Kaplinghat 2011, 2012), which is an extra problem of the MSP, has been dubbed the Too-Big-To-fail (TBTF) problem[^4] (Ogiya & Burkert 2014).
Similarly to the solutions to other small scale problems, the resolution of the MSP can be classified as either cosmological or astrophysical solutions. Cosmological solutions modify either the power spectrum at small scales (e.g. Zentner & Bullock 2003), the constituent DM particles (Colin, Avila-Reese & Valenzuela 2000; Sommer-Larsen & Dolgov 2001; Hu, Barkana & Gruzinov 2000; Goodman 2000; Peebles 2000; Kaplinghat, Knox, & Turner, M. S. 2000) or the gravity theories, like $f(R)$ (Buchdahl 1970; Starobinsky 1980), $f(T)$ (see Ferraro 2012), and MOND (Milgrom 1983a,b).
Several different kinds of astrophysical solutions have been proposed. In one picture, the present-day dwarf galaxies could have been more massive in the past, and they were transformed and reduced to their present masses by strong tidal stripping (e.g., Kravtsov, Gnedin & Klypin 2004). Another very popular picture is based on suppression of star formation due to supernova feedback (SF), photoionization (Okamoto et al. 2008; Brooks et al. 2013 (B13)), and reionization. In particular, reionization can prevent the acquisition of gas by DM haloes of small mass, then “quenching” star formation after $z\simeq10$ (Bullock, Kravtsov, & Weinberg 2000; Ricotti & Gnedin 2005; Moore et al. 2006). This would suppress dwarfs (dSphs) formation or could make them invisible. Another solution combines the change of central density profiles of satellites from cuspy to cored (Zolotov et al. 2012 (Z12); B13), which makes the satellites more subject to tidal stripping and even subject to being destroyed (Strigari et al. 2007; Peñarrubia et al. 2010 (P10)). Tidal stripping is enhanced if the host halo has a disc. Disc shocking due to the satellites passing through the disc produce strong tidal effects on the satellites, even stronger if the satellite has a cored inner profile. The astrophysical solutions based on the role of baryons in structure formation, are more easy to constrain than cosmological solutions, and moreover do not request one to reject the $\Lambda$CDM paradigm.
While it is not complicated to separately solve the MSP problem, and the TBTF problem with the recipes discussed above, a simultaneous solution of both problems in models of galaxy formation based on DM-only simulations of the $\Lambda$CDM model (Boylan-Kolchin, Bullock & Kaplinghat 2012)[^5], is much more complicated.
Previous attempts to find a simultaneous solution to the abundance problem of satellites (MSP), and to the TBTF problem were made by the above mentioned Z12, and B13. Z12 found a correction to the velocity in the central kpc of galaxies, $\Delta v_{{\rm c,1kpc}}$, that mimicked the flattening of the cusp due to SF and tidal stripping.
This correction, together with its subsequent destruction effects from the tidal field of the baryonic disc, and the identification of subhaloes that remain dark because of their inefficiency in forming stars due to UV heating, were then applied by B13 to the subhaloes of the VL2 simulation (Diemand et al. 2008). As a result, the number of massive subhaloes in the VL2 were brought in line with the number of satellites of MW and M31.
This work extends a previous paper (Del Popolo [*et al.*]{} 2014), enriched with the part of the model described in appendix \[Dynamics of the satellites\], and will chiefly focus on the latter problem (MSP). However, the model also carries the solution for the former two (CCP and AMC), from the part of the model developed in Del Popolo [*et al.*]{} (2014). In clear, it uses a semi-analytical model to account for the dynamical evolution of satellites. The model, originated in DP09 (and DP12a, b), is an improved spherical infall model already discussed by many authors (Gunn & Gott 1972; Fillmore & Goldreich 1984; Bertschinger 1985; Hoffman & Shaham 1985; Ryden & Gunn 1987; Henriksen & Widrow 1995, 1997, 1999; Henriksen & Le Delliou 2002; Le Delliou & Henriksen 2003; Le Delliou 2008; Ascasibar, Yepes & Gottlöber 2004; Williams, Babul & Dalcanton 2004; Le Delliou, Henriksen & MacMillan 2010, 2011a, 2011b)[^6].
In the present paper, we follow the path opened by Z12 and B13, but we consider another mechanism than SF that is also better able to flatten the density profiles of satellites. Namely, we use a mechanism based on the exchange of energy and angular momentum from baryons clumps to DM through dynamical friction (DF) (El-Zant et al. 2001, 2004; Ma & Boylan-Kolchin 2004; Nipoti et al. 2004; Romano-Diaz et al. 2008, 2009; DP09; Cole et al. 2011; Inoue & Saitoh 2011). We use DP09 to calculate the flattening of isolated satellites through the mechanism based on DF. In order to study the effect of tidal stripping and heating on the satellites, we use a combination of the procedures from Taylor & Babul (2001) (TB01) with that from P10. Our model differs from the TB01 and P10 models because we use a semi-analytical model based on DF (combination coined hereafter TBP model). In addition to the difference in the cuspy to cored profile mechanism, already present in B13, our TBP based model is properly taking into account the tidal heating mechanism. Such tidal heating is not captured in the SPH simulations from which Z12 derive their correction (as stressed in Sect. 4 of B13), since, as they point out, this would require a very high resolution to be captured (Choi et al. 2009). Moreover, we properly take into account disk shocking while this is neglected in Z12[^7]: we account for the effects of satellites passing through the host galaxy disc.
Finally, the $\Delta v_{c}$-$v_{{\rm infall}}$ correction that we find shows a clearer trend (see the discussion in the following section). This is due to the absence, in our case, of numerical effects present, and described, in Z12[^8] are not present.
In summary, although in our model the profile flattening is calculated as in Del Popolo [*et al.*]{} (2014), here the procedure from the model of Taylor & Babul (2001) is included to follow the dynamics of satellites and their interactions with the main halo, and to take into account the mass loss during substructure evolution due to tides and tidal heating (see also Del Popolo & Gambera 1997). Moreover, inasmuch as inspired by Z12 and B13 in substructure treatment, we escaped the limitations of their SPH and SPH-based treatment with semi-analytic methods, obtaining a better $v_{c}-v_{infall}$ relation and accessing the effects of tidal heating and disc shocking. Our model employs a novel combination of parent-satellite interaction through dynamical friction, UV heating and tidal stripping to obtain satellite numbers and angular spin parameter distributions in agreement with observations.
The paper is organised as follows. In Sect. 2, we describe how the MSP and TBTF problem can be solved simultaneously when baryonic physics is properly taken into account, extending a model that has been shown to solve also the CCP and AMC. Appendix \[Dynamics of the satellites\] gives the detail of the modified model, compared with Del Popolo [*et al.*]{} (2014). Sect. 3 describes the results, including a discussion. Sect. 4 is devoted to conclusions.
Solving the remaining small scale problems of $\Lambda$CDM
==========================================================
As we use a model that solves the other problems, we will concentrate here on the problems regarding the number and mass of satellites. Several solutions have been proposed to the MSP and TBTF problems (Strigari et al. 2007; Simon & Geha 2007; Madau et al. 2008; Zolotov et al. 2012; Brooks & Zolotov 2012; Purcell & Zentner 2012; Vera-Ciro et al. 2012; Di Cintio et al. (2012); Wang et al. 2012). B13 proposed an interesting baryonic solution to those two problems: instead of running SPH simulations of different galaxies, they tried to introduce baryonic effects in large N-body dissipationless simulations, like the VL2, showing that the result obtained is in agreement with observations of MW and M31 satellites.
In the following, we will partly follow their steps to obtain the corrected circular velocities and distribution of VL2 satellites. The differences between our model and Z12 or B13 have been reported in the introduction.
In summary the method is based on the following ideas and is divided into two main phases:
1. In the first phase, the satellite is considered isolated, without interactions with the host halo, and the flattening of the density profile produced by baryonic physics is calculated (in particular, the lowering of the central mass of subhaloes) in the same fashion as in, e.g., Del Popolo [*et al.*]{} (2014) (see also Hiotelis & Del Popolo 2006, 2013, to have a semi-analytical description of halos growth.). In this paper we deliberately chose not to take account of SF and to concentrate on the model of baryonic clumps exchanging energy and angular momentum with DM through DF, since it has clearly been shown (Del Popolo, 2014c, Fig. 4) that in the mass (circular velocity) range of the dwarfs studied in the present paper, the former is less efficient in transforming cusps into cores than the latter. Del Popolo & Hiotelis (2014) compared also the result of the current model, adding SF, to the SPH simulations of Inoue & Saitoh (2012): the full model agrees with the results of Inoue & Saitoh (2012). There, the addition of SF does not alter the outcome significantly. This phase is originally described in DP09.
2. Then comes the second phase, when the satellite, no longer considered isolated, is now subject to the tidal field of the host halo, and finally accreted to it. The total central mass is further reduced by tidal stripping and heating. This can be expressed in terms of changes in the circular velocity, $v_{c}$, also proportional to the density. More precisely, we calculate the difference in circular velocity, at 1 kpc, between the DM-only (hereafter DMO) satellites and those containing also baryons (hereafter DMB satellites), $\Delta v_{{\rm c,1kpc}}=v_{{\rm c,DMO}}-v_{{\rm c,DMB}}$, and starting with the same DM content in our semi-analytical model.
Then, the effects of baryon physics, that are not taken into account in N-body simulations and responsible of the flattening of the profile, are introduced in the VL2 simulation by correcting the central circular velocity of the satellites, calculating their mass loss and ascribing them stellar masses and luminosities.
In other words, we obtain an analytical correction, along a similar idea to Z12 but with a semi-analytical model, using tidal stripping and tidal heating (recall the latter to be absent in Z12) that mimics the effect of flattening of the cusp. To this we add other corrections (e.g., tidal destruction and UV heating effects on subhaloes) discussed in DP09 and apply them to the satellites of the VL2 simulation, following the same principles as B13.
We stress again that in our model: a) contrary to Z12 and B13, the density profile flattening is due to DF and not to SF; b) tidal heating and disc shocking are taken into account differently from Z12 and B13; c) our model does not suffer from the numerical effect producing “artificially rich satellites in the Z12 simulations.
Since the second phase contains the new method we propose to solve the problems involving the number and mass of satellites, we give its description in what follows.
Mass loss caused by tidal stripping and tidal heating
-----------------------------------------------------
The second phase considers the effects of the interaction between the main halo and the satellite.
We follow a combination of TB01 with P10 models’ procedures that properly take into account tidal stripping and heating after infall to extract accurate $v_{max}$ values. TB01 compared their model with high resolution simulations, while P10 checked theirs, in their Appendix A, through high resolution N-body simulations.
The TB01 model follows the merger history, growth of the interacting satellites and tracks the substructure evolution, taking into account the mass loss due to tidal stripping, tidal heating, as well as enhancement of stripping due to the disc, in the host halo. The P10 model is fundamentally based on TB01, however not including tidal heating. Our model assumes the same DM host halo NFW (Navarro, Frenk & White 1996) density profile as P10. It also neglects, as P10 and contrary to TB01, the effect of its baryonic bulge. The latter assumption is justified by the disc’s much larger mass than the bulge’s, and its 10 times larger density gradient than found in the bulge or the halo. Such gradient endows the disk with 100 times more heating efficiency on the satellites than the other components. This semi-analytic model, indicated as TBP model, is described in Appendix \[Dynamics of the satellites\].
At this point we may put together the mass decrease in satellites due to phase 1 (core flattening due to interaction of baryonic clumps with DM), and that due to tidal stripping and heating.
In Fig. \[fig:DMO-DMB\] we plot the difference in circular velocity at 1 kpc, and at $z=0$, between the DMO and DMB satellites of our semi-analytic calculations. This difference, $\Delta v_{{\rm c,1kpc}}=v_{{\rm c,DMO}}-v_{{\rm c,DMB}}$, is due to the cumulative effects of the two phases of the model: a) the flattening from cuspy to cored of density profiles due to dynamical friction interaction between baryon clumps and DM, and b) tidal stripping and heating from the crossing of the satellite through the host galaxy. The dashed line is a fit to the output points of the model, and is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta(v_{1kpc}) & = & {\rm 0.3v_{infall}-0.3km/s}\nonumber \\
& & {\rm 10km/s<v_{infall}<50km/s}\label{eq:mia}\end{aligned}$$
This correction is then applied to VL2 and is close to the results found by Z12 in the form $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta(v_{1kpc}) & = & {\rm 0.2v_{infall}-0.26km/s}\nonumber \\
& & {\rm 20km/s<v_{infall}<50km/s.}\end{aligned}$$
They obtained the above equation by fitting the output of their model, based on SF and tidal stripping, as displayed on their Fig. 8. Our Fig. \[fig:DMO-DMB\] shows a clearer trend $\Delta v_{c}$-$v_{{\rm infall}}$, as it doesn’t suffer from the numerical effect, described in Z12 (see their Sect. 4 of B13), of inefficient stripping in SPH simulations.In addition, Z12 neglects disk shocking, as discussed in the introduction.These effects, properly taken into account in our model, explain the different results we obtain.
Equation \[eq:mia\], generated from our semi-analytical model, gives the difference between the equivalent of DM and enhanced SPH runs, and therefore the corrections to apply to satellites in N-body simulations to take account of the missing piece of baryonic physics.
In the case of $v_{infall}={\rm 30km/s}$, the Z12 correction gives $\Delta(v_{1kpc})=5.74$, while ours gives $\Delta(v_{1kpc})=8.7$. The difference between the two $\Delta(v_{1kpc})$ is due to the different models used to produce the pre-infall flattening of the satellites density profile and the tidal heating of subhaloes (Gnedin et al. 1999; Mayer et al. 2001; D’Onghia et al. 2010b; Kazantzidis et al. 2011).
Indeed, as stated, in Z12 the pre-infall flattening is due to SF, while in our case it is connected to DF. As shown by Cole et al. (2011), DF on infalling clumps is a very efficient mechanism in flattening the DM profile. On one hand, a clump having a mass of 1% of the halo mass can give rise to a core from a cuspy profile, removing twice its mass from the inner part of the halo. On another hand, the SF mechanism becomes less effective when going to lower masses: dwarfs with stellar mass $<10^{5}-10^{7}M_{\odot}$ have fewer stars and thus they contain, as a consequence, less supernovae explosions than dwarfs with stellar mass $>10^{7}M_{\odot}$ (Governato et al. 2012).
Evaluation of luminous satellites
---------------------------------
The previous section exposed how baryonic corrections to dissipationless N-body simulations reduce the number of massive satellites. We are then left with the task to determine whether indeed the baryonic corrections also reduce the number of luminous satellites that are expected in dissipationless N-body simulations, and in particular to the satellites in VL2, and if this number is in agreement with those observed in the MW. In order to check this, other corrections are needed.
Our correction (Eq. \[eq:mia\]), in the same way as the Z12 correction, produces satellites that reach $z=0$ with their central $v_{c}$ reduced by baryonic physics. However, some satellites are destroyed (by e.g. stripping or photo-heating) before $z=0$. In N-body simulations, like the VL2, baryonic effects are not taken into account. In the real universe, or even SPH simulations, enhanced tidal stripping (due to the presence of a disc) may totally destroy some of the satellites seen in those N-body simulations. Our method requires then to determine the destroyed satellites before applying our Z12-inspired correction to VL2: to evaluate the luminous satellite population, we require the two following corrections: a) to account for the destruction by tidal stripping, and b) to account for suppression in star formation.
The first correction we apply to VL2 N-body satellites is the destruction rates by tidal stripping. For that, we need a relation between the mass retained since the infall and the change in the velocity (e.g., $v_{{\rm max}}$) in the same time interval.
We compute that relation applying our semi-analytical model, using the same satellites with which we calculated the relation $\Delta v_{{\rm c,1kpc}}$-$v_{{\rm infall}}$ (see DP09, appendix A, for the first phase). This population of satellites is split into three groups defined below.
We plot the result in Fig. \[fig:Dv-M\]. The filled circles represent the cored DMB satellites, having baryonic fraction $M_{b}/M_{500}>0.01$, while the open circles show the cuspy DMB satellites, with baryonic fraction $M_{b}/M_{500}<0.01$ (see Governato et al. (2012)). The open diamonds represent the DMO satellites.
The plot shows that DMB satellites loose more mass than DMOs. This can be explained by the following reasons: 1) DMB satellites contain gas, contrary to DMOs; 2) DMB satellites have flatter profiles than DMOs and thus suffer more tidal stripping (e.g., P10). The same goes between the baryon-richer DMB (filled circles) and baryon-poorer DMB (open circles). The maximum loss happen for DMB satellites in the vicinity of the host galaxy disc.
In Fig. \[fig:Dv-M\], we also plot the analytic fits from Eq. 8 of P10 (see also their Fig. 6), describing the change in $v_{{\rm max}}$ as a function of mass lost due to tidal stripping $$\frac{v_{{\rm max}}(z=0)}{v_{{\rm infall}}}=\frac{2^{\zeta}x^{\eta}}{(1+x)^{\zeta}}
\label{eq:pe}$$ where $x\equiv mass(z=0)/mass(z=infall)$.
The dashed line represents the above equation for central density profile logarithmic slopes $\gamma=1.5$, that corresponds to $\zeta=0.40$ and $\eta=0.24$, the solid line stands for the case $\gamma=1$, for which $\zeta=0.40$ and $\eta=0.30$, and the dotted line covers the case $\gamma=0$, with $\zeta=0.40$ and $\eta=0.37$, respectively.
The $\gamma=1$ curve in Fig. \[fig:Dv-M\] gives a good fit to the change in $v_{{\rm max}}$ for the DMO satellites, and corresponds to cuspy density profiles. Conversely, the $\gamma=0$ curve, that stands for cored profiles, presents a good approximation for the DMB satellites, particularly for those having large baryonic content (i.e., many stars).
Armed with the fit of Eq. (\[eq:pe\]), we propose to determine the VL2 satellites that are tidally disrupted by fixing a destruction criterion (e.g., mass lost). For satellites from N-body simulations, such as the VL2, inner slopes are expected at $\gamma\simeq1$, as found in B13. Consequently, we fix for them $\zeta=0.40$ and $\eta=0.30$ in Eq. (\[eq:pe\]). The fit (\[eq:pe\]) enables to calculate the mass loss from VL2 satellites’ velocities at infall and z=0 together with the infall mass. The velocity of VL2 satellites in the simulation at infall time, $v_{\rm c,VL2,infall}$, is modified with Phase 1 correction, $\Delta v_{{\rm c,infall}}$, to account for baryon flattening, yielding $v_{{\rm max,infall}}=v_{\rm c,VL2,infall}+\Delta v_{{\rm c,infall}}$. Using the correction from Eq. \[eq:mia\], the velocity of VL2 satellites in the simulation at present $v_{\rm c,VL2,z0}$ is modified into $v_{{\rm max,z0}}=v_{\rm c,VL2,z0}+\Delta v_{{\rm c}}$. The infall mass is directly obtained from the simulation $M_{\rm vir,infall}=M_{\rm sat,VL2}$.
As for the destruction criteria, we fix it similarly to B13, as follows. Tides affect much more cored, for which $\gamma=0$, than cuspy satellites (with $\gamma=1$). Governato et al. (2012) found that satellites having a stellar mass $>10^{7}M_{\odot}$, corresponding to $v_{{\rm infall}}>30$ km/s, are cored, the opposite denoting a cusp. Here we assume, as B13 for our cuspy host with a disk and based on Fig. 2 in P10, that cored satellites, having $v_{{\rm infall}}>30$ km/s, are disrupted if they loose $>90\%$ of their mass after infall and pass at a distance $<20$ kpc from the host galaxy centre. In the cases $v_{{\rm infall}}<30$ km/s (cuspy satellite), or cored satellites with pericenters $>20$ kpc, the halo is fully stripped off only if it loose 97% of its mass (Wetzel & White 2010).
Summarising, all the VL2 satellites loosing more than 97% mass ($x=0.03$), or loosing more than 90% mass, combined with $v_{{\rm infall}}>30$ km/s and a pericentric passages $<20 kpc$, are considered to be destroyed.
The second correction is the suppression of star formation by photo-heating, obtained from the Okamoto et al. (2008) results. In their paper, a uniform ionising background is assumed, for which He II reionization happens at $z=3.5$, while it occurs at $z=9$ for H and He I. They found the value of the typical halo mass retaining 50% of $f_{b}$: $M_{t}(z)$. This mass can be converted into a typical velocity, $v_{t}(z)$[^9]. Thus, if a VL2 subhalo has a larger peak velocity, $v_{{\rm peak}}>v_{t}$[^10], it is considered to contain enough baryons to make it luminous.
The last step consists in assigning a luminosity to the surviving satellites. We first need to allocate stellar masses to VL2 satellites via a relation between their $v_{\rm infall}$ and the stellar mass $M_\ast$.
To do so, we recycled the pairs of satellites considered in the determination of $\Delta v_{\rm c, 1kpc}$. DM-only subhaloes are usually associated with their DMB satellites at formation or accretion time (Bullock et al. 2000; Kravtsov et al. 2004; Strigari et al. 2007; Bovill & Ricotti 2011; Simha et al. 2012). Our semi analytical model simply creates a series of DMO, and a series of corresponding DMB haloes.
Fig. \[fig:vmax-M\] plots $v_{\rm infall}$ in terms of the stellar mass, $M_\ast$. The $v_{\rm infall}$-$M_\ast$ relation is obtained by fitting the data, yielding the relation[^11]
$$\frac{M_{\ast}}{M_{\odot}}=0.1 (\frac{v_{\rm infall}}{\rm kms^{-1}})^{5.5}.$$
Finally, we need to relate $M_\ast$ and the V-band magnitude, $M_{\rm V}$. We apply the relation from B13, extracted from Z12 simulations, $$\log_{10}(\frac{M_{\ast}}{M_{\odot}})=2.37-0.38 M_{\rm V}.$$
Results and discussion
======================
The result of the corrections discussed above are plotted in Fig. \[fig:correction\]. The top panel represents the raw results from VL2 at $z=0$. The bottom panel presents the results of applying the corrections discussed (heating, destruction, and velocity corrections) on the same satellites. The objects considered “observable” in the VL2 simulation are ascribed red filled symbols. Filled black circles are satellites that have lost $\ge$90% of their mass since infall, but do not satisfy the destruction criteria previously described: stripped of their stars, they actually appear much fainter than the “observable” ones (see P10, B13). Dark objects are marked by empty circles: simple empty circles have a mass smaller than the minimum to retain baryon and form stars, while objects crossed in addition with an “x”, represent subhaloes that do not survive to the baryonic effects (e.g., baryonic disc, etc).
Note that the Z12 correction was not applied to satellites with $v_{max}>{\rm 50km/s}$ (for example, satellites with $M_{V}<-16$, the 5 most massive satellites at infall of VL2). In fact, those subhalos are Magellanic-like and gas-rich at accretion, possibly including an additional effect of adiabatic contraction that is not accounted for in the correction. The model also assumes small subhalo mass compared to the host. Therefore Magellanic-types are considered of a different dynamical nature and excluded from the model, as in, e.g. Simon & Geha (2007).
We obtain 3 satellites with $v_{1kpc}>20$ km/s, in agreement with B13. However, our central velocities are smaller: the correction to the circular velocity, $\Delta(v_{1kpc})$, is larger in our model compared to Z12 and B13. In addition, in our case, some satellites are “overcorrected”: their corrected velocities are negative.
Similarly to B13, overcorrected haloes are part of a population that lost a great part of their mass after infall. At $z=0$, their circular velocity at 1 kpc, $v_{1kpc}$, is very low so the correction $\Delta(v_{1kpc})$ brings them to negative values. After infall, that population suffers mass loss larger than 99.9% and exhibit tidal radii $<1$ kpc. It can therefore be considered as a population of destroyed subhaloes.
It is interesting to note from Fig. \[fig:correction\] that the model obtains not only a reduction of the number of satellites, solving the MSP, but also a reduction of their central velocity, clearing up the TBTF problem.
In analogy with B13, UV heating and tidal destruction are necessary to reconcile the total number of luminous satellites with observations, while the Z12-type correction is necessary to reconcile the masses of the subhaloes with observations.
If the baryonic effects were not taken into account, a population would exist of satellites significantly more massive than those of the MW.
Finally, the effect of UV heating is required, in addition to tidal destruction, to get the correct number of luminous satellites.
In our model, the solution to the aforementioned problems is connected to the complex interaction between DM and baryons mediated by DF. Our study is similar to those of El-Zant et al. (2001, 2004), Romano-Diaz et al. (2008), Cole et al. (2011), in the sense that DF plays an important role. However, while previous studies considered one effect at a time (e.g., random angular momentum, angular momentum generated by tidal torques, adiabatic contraction, cooling, star formation), we consider the joint effect of all of them.
Indeed, here the dynamics of the satellites (i.e., the TBP model in Appendix \[Dynamics of the satellites\]) proceeds from two competing mechanisms: dynamical friction, inducing a decay of the satellites orbits, and tidal stripping and heating, reducing the bound mass of the satellite. This reduction causes a decrease in the frictional force, which produces in turn a slowing down of the orbital collapse. Massive and dense satellite are more subject to DF and sink fast towards the centre of the potential. Low-density satellites are more subject to stripping and fall slowly towards the centre. Mass loss and tidal heating depend primarily on the satellite density profile, as confirmed by P10.
Accounting for tidal heating and disc shocking speeds up the disruption of satellite, and yields a further reduction of the mass retained by them compared with B13.
In Fig. \[fig:Fn\], we compare the cumulative number of MW satellites in terms of the circular velocity of the halo with theoretical results. The upper solid line with diamonds represents the Via Lactea subhaloes (Diemand et al. 2007). The filled squares display the set of the sum of the classical MW dwarfs and the ultra-faint-dwarfs (Simon & Geha 2007). The dashed line shows the result of our model in terms of the abundance of subhaloes in the VL2 simulations after the baryonic corrections discussed. This figure is built superimposing our results, the dotted line, to those of Simon & Geha (2007) (their Fig. 14) in the $V_c$ range 10 km/s-40 km/s. This is dictated by a) the fact that Eq. \[eq:mia\] is valid in the range $10< V_{\rm infall}< 50$ km/s, so we considered satellites with $V_{\rm infall} >10$ km/s; b) there are no halos at $z=0$ that have circular velocities over 40 km/s. This plot demonstrates clearly how applying the baryonic correction to the VL2 subhaloes reduces the number of the satellites to reach the levels observed in the MW, thereby solving the MSP.
To solve the problem in a single galaxy is not enough to conclude that the problem is solved in galaxies different from ours. In fact, several authors have discussed the MSP in relation to the host galaxy mass. Di Cintio et al. (2012), Vera-Ciro et al. (2012), Wang et al. (2012), showed that if the MW true virial mass is smaller than $10^{12}M_{\odot}$, namely $\simeq8\times10^{11}M_{\odot}$, the satellites excess may disappear. Since our model is not so computationally “heavy as SPH simulations, it opens the door to study the MSP in different galaxies.
Summarising, the model shows how taking account of baryon physics allows to solve the small scale problems of the $\Lambda$CDM model.
Conclusions
===========
In the present paper, we looked for a common solution to the small scale problems of the $\Lambda$CDM using two semi-analytic models: a) the model presented in DP09 (see also DP12a, b) dealing with isolated satellites, and b) the model based on TB01, and P10 (TBP model) that involves satellite-host dynamics.
The study was divided into two phases: in the first, satellites were considered isolated and we studied, by means of the DP09 model, how the haloes profile are changed by adiabatic contraction, dynamical friction and the exchange of angular momentum, ordered and random, between baryons and DM. This applies both to isolated satellites and parent haloes alike, and solves the CCP (Del Popolo [*et al.*]{} 2014).
The model had already shown in DP09, DP12a,b, that the angular momentum generated through tidal torques and random velocities (random angular momentum) in the system, can be transferred in part to the DM from baryons through DF (Del Popolo [*et al.*]{} 2014). This produces a flattening of the cusp in agreement with previous studies based on DF (El-Zant et al. 2001, 2004; Romano-Diaz et al. 2008; Cole et al. 2011) and SF (Navarro et al. 1996a; Gelato & Sommer-Larsen 1999; Read & Gilmore 2005; Mashchenko et al. 2006, 2008).
In the second phase, satellites were allowed to interact with the host halo, and tidal stripping and heating were calculated through the TBP model.
We obtained a correction to the central velocity of the satellites from the cusp to core transformation before the satellites are accreted, and tidal stripping and heating produced from interaction with the main halo. This correction is close to that of Z12.
We then found the relation between the retained mass of satellites and the changes in $v_{{\rm max}}$ from $z_{{\rm infall}}$ to $z=0$, and found a connection between mass loss and velocity change, in agreement with Eq. 8 of P10. This allowed us to determine the number of fully disrupted satellites because of tidal stripping and heating.
This correction, together with the effect of UV heating, and some criteria to fix which satellites are destroyed by tides, were applied to the VL2 satellites. As a result, the number of satellites is reduced and in agreement with the number observed in the MW. Similarly, the central velocity of satellites is reduced by the aforementioned corrections, suppressing the angular momentum catastrophe.
The present paper shows that baryonic physics is of fundamental importance to solve the small scale problems of the $\Lambda$CDM model: the MSP, the TBTF problem, the CCP (DP09), and the AMC (DP09). The possibility to solve those problems in the $\Lambda$CDM paradigm without the need to change the power spectrum or the constituent particles of DM is another proof of the robustness of the $\Lambda$CDM paradigm, and should, in addition, spur further studies in the direction followed in the present paper.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
A.D.P. would like to thank the International Institute of Physics in Natal for the facilities and hospitality, Adi Zolotov, Alyson Brooks, and Charles Downing from Exeter University for a critical reading of the paper. The work of M.Le D. has been supported by FAPESP (2011/24089-5) and PNPD/CAPES20132029. M.Le D. also wishes to acknowledge IFT/UNESP.
Arena S. E., Bertin G., 2007, A&A, 463, 921 Ascasibar Y., Yepes G., Gottlöber S., 2004, MNRAS, 352, 1109 Astashenok, A. V., and Del Popolo, A., 2012, Class. Quantum Grav. 29, 085014 (doi:10.1088/0264-9381/29/8/085014) V. Belokurov, V., ApJ 2006,, 647, L111-L114 Bertschinger E., 1985, ApJS, 58, 39 Bovill, M. S., & Ricotti, M. 2011, ApJ, 741, 17 Boylan-Kolchin, M., Bullock, J. S., Kaplinghat, M, 2011, MNRAS 415L, 40 Boylan-Kolchin, Michael; Bullock, James S.; Kaplinghat, Manoj, 2012, MNRAS 422, 1203 Brooks A. M., & Zolotov, A., 2012, arXiv: 1207.2468 Brooks, Alyson M.; Kuhlen, Michael; Zolotov, Adi; Hooper, Dan, 2013, ApJ 765, 22 (B13) Buchdahl, H. A., 1970, MNRAS, 150, 1-8. Bullock, J. S., Kravtsov, A. V., & Weinberg, D. H. 2000, ApJ, 539, 517 Burkert, A. 1995, ApJ, 447, L25 Cardone, V. F., Leubner, M.P., Del Popolo, A., 2011a MNRAS 414, 2265 Cardone, V. F., Del Popolo, A., Tortora, C., Napolitano, N.R. 2011b, MNRAS 416, 1822 Cardone, V. F., Del Popolo, A., 2012, MNRAS 427, 3176 Chandrasekhar, S., 1943, ApJ 97, 255 Choi, J.-H., Weinberg, M. D., & Katz, N. 2009, MNRAS, 400, 1247 Colin, P., Avila-Reese, V., & Valenzuela, O. 2000, ApJ, 542, 622 Cole, D. R., Dehnen,W., & Wilkinson, M. I. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 1118 Colpi, M., Mayer, L., & Governato, F. 1999, ApJ, 525, 720 D’Onghia, E., Vogelsberger, M., Faucher-Giguere, C.-A., & Hernquist, L. 2010b, ApJ, 725, 353 de Blok, W. J. G., Bosma, A., & McGaugh, S. 2003, MNRAS, 340, 657 Del Popolo, A., Gambera, M., 1996, A&A 308, 373 Del Popolo, A., Gambera, M., 1997 A&A 321, 691 Del Popolo, A., Gambera, M., 2000, A&A 357, 809 Del Popolo, A., 2007, Astron. Rep., 51, 169 Del Popolo, A., 2009, ApJ 698, 2093 (DP09) Del Popolo, A., 2010, MNRAS 408, 1808 Del Popolo, A., 2011, JCAP 07, 014 Del Popolo, A. & Kroupa, P., 2009A&A 502, 733 Del Popolo, A., 2012a, MNRAS 424, 38 (DP12a) Del Popolo, A., 2012b, MNRAS 419, 971 (DP12b) Del Popolo, A., 2013, AIP Conference Proceedings 1548 , pp. 2-63 Del Popolo, A., Cardone, V. F., & Belvedere, G., 2013a, MNRAS 429, 1080 Del Popolo, A., Pace, F., Maydaniuk, S. P., Lima, J. A. S., Jesus, J. F., 2013b, Phys. Rev D, vol. 87, Issue 4, id. 043527 Del Popolo, A., Pace, F., Lima, J. A. S., 2013a, MNRAS 430, 628 Del Popolo, A., Pace, F., Lima, J. A. S., 2013b, IJMPD 22, 1350038 Del Popolo, A., 2014a, IJMPD 23, 1430005 Del Popolo, A. [*et al.*]{}, JCAP 04 (2014) 021 Del Popolo, A., JCAP 07 (2014b) 019 Del Popolo, A., Baltic Astronomy, 23 (2014c) 55 Del Popolo, A., Hiotelis, N., JCAP 01 (2014) 047 Di Cintio, A., Knebe, A., Libeskind, N. I., Brook, C., Yepes, G., Gottloeber, S., & Hoffman, Y. 2012, ArXiv e-prints Di Cintio, A., Knebe, A., Libeskind, N. I., Brook, C., Yepes, G., Gottlöber, S., Hoffman, Y., 2013, MNRAS 431, 1220-1229 Diemand, J., et al. 2008, Nature 454, 735 Diemand, J., Kuhlen, M., and Madau, P., 2007, ApJ 667, 859-877 El-Zant A. A., Hoffman Y., Primack J., Combes F., Shlosman I., 2004, ApJ, 607, L75 El-Zant, A., Shlosman, I., & Hoffman, Y. 2001, ApJ, 560, 636 Ferraro, R., 2012, AIP Conf. Proc. 1471, 103-110, arXiv:1204.6273v2 Fillmore J. A., Goldreich P., 1984, ApJ, 281, 1 Flores R. A., Primack J. R., 1994, ApJ, 427, L1 Gelato, S., & Sommer-Larsen, J. 1999, MNRAS, 303, 321 Gnedin, O. Y., Hernquist, L., & Ostriker, J. P. 1999, ApJ, 514, 109 Gnedin, O. Y., & Ostriker, J. P. 1997, ApJ, 474, 223 Gnedin, O. Y., & Ostriker, J. P., 1999, ApJ, 513, 626 Goodman, J. 2000, New Astron., 5, 103 Governato, F., Zolotov, A., Pontzen, A., Christensen, C., Oh, S. H., Brooks, A. M., Quinn, T., Shen, S., Wadsley, J., 2012, MNRAS 422, 1231 Gunn J. E., Gott J. R., 1972, ApJ, 176, 1 Henriksen, R. N., Widrow, Lawrence M., 1995, MNRAS 276, 679 Henriksen, R. N., Widrow, Lawrence M., 1997, Phys. Rev. Lett., 78, 3426 Henriksen, R. N., Widrow, Lawrence M., 1999, MNRAS 302, 321 Henriksen, R. N., Le Delliou M., 2002, MNRAS 331, 423 Hiotelis, N., Del Popolo, A., 2006, Astrophys. Space Sci. 301, 67 Hiotelis, N., Del Popolo, A., 2013, MNRAS 436, 163 Hoffman Y., Shaham J., 1985, ApJ, 297, 16 Hu,W., Barkana, R., & Gruzinov, A. 2000, Phys. Rev. Lett., 85, 1158 Inoue, Shigeki; Saitoh, Takayuki R., 2012, MNRAS 422, 1902 Inoue, Shigeki; Saitoh, Takayuki R., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 418, 2527-2531 (2011) Irwin, M. J., et al. 2007, ApJ, 656, L13 Kaplinghat, M., Knox, L., & Turner, M. S. 2000, Phys. Rev. Lett., 85, 3335 Kazantzidis, S., Lokas, E. L., Callegari, S., Mayer, L., & Moustakas, L. A., 2011, ApJ, 726, 98 King, Ivan, 1962, AJ, 67, 274 and 565 Klypin A., Kravtsov A. V., Valenzuela O., Prada, F., 1999, ApJ 522, 82 Klypin A., Zhao H.-S., Somerville R. S., 2002, ApJ, 573, 597 Komatsu, E., Smith, K. M., Dunkley, J., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 18 Kravtsov, A. V., Gnedin, O. Y., & Klypin, A. A. 2004, ApJ, 609, 482 Kundić , T., & Ostriker, J. P. 1995, ApJ, 438, 702 Kuzio de Naray, R., Kaufmann, T., 2011, MNRAS.414.3617 Le Delliou M., Henriksen R. N., 2003, A&A, 408, 27 Le Delliou M., 2008, A&A, 490, L43-L48 Le Delliou M., Henriksen R. N., MacMillan, J. D., 2010, A&A, 522, A28 Le Delliou M., Henriksen R. N., MacMillan, J. D., 2011a, A&A, 526, A13 Le Delliou M., Henriksen R. N., MacMillan, J. D., 2011b, MNRAS 413, 1633-1642 Ma, C-P., Boylan-Kolchin, M., 2004, PhysRevLett 93, 021301 Madau, Piero; Diemand, Jürg; Kuhlen, Michael, 2008, ApJ 679, 1260 - Mashchenko, S., Couchman, H. M. P., & Wadsley, J. 2006, Nature, 442, 539 Mashchenko, S., Wadsley, J., & Couchman, H. M. P. 2008, Science, 319, 174 Mayer, L., Governato, F., Colpi, M., et al. 2001, ApJ, 559, 754 Milgrom, M., 1983a, ApJ 270, 365-370 Milgrom, M. 1983b, ApJ 270, 371-389 Moore B., 1994, Nat, 370, 629 Moore, B., Quinn, T., Governato, F., Stadel, J., & Lake, G. 1999, MNRAS, 310, 1147 Moore, B., Diemand, J., Madau, P., Zemp, M., & Stadel, J. 2006, MNRAS, 368, 563 Navarro J. F. et al., 2010, MNRAS, 402, 21 Navarro J. F., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., 1996, ApJ, 462, 563 Navarro, J. F., Eke, V. R., & Frenk, C. S. 1996a, MNRAS, 283, L72 Navarro J. F., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., 1997, ApJ, 490, 493 Nipoti, C., Treu, T., Ciotti, L., Stavelli, M., 2004, MNRAS 355, 1119 Ogiya & Mori, 2011, ApJ, 736, L2 Ogiya & Mori, 2014, ApJ, 793, 46O Ogiya, Mori, Ishiyama, & Burkert, 2014, MNRAS, 440, L71 Ogiya & Burkert, 2014, arXiv 1408.6444 Oh, S-H, C. Brook, F. Governato, E. Brinks, L. Mayer,W. J. G. de Blok ,A. Brooks, F.Walter, 2010, AJ, 142, 24 Oh, S-H, de Blok, W. J. G., Brinks, E., Fabian, W., Kennicutt, R. C., Jr., 2011 AJ 141, 193 Okamoto, T., Gao, L., & Theuns, T. 2008, MNRAS, 390, 920 Ostriker J. P., Steinhardt P., 2003, Science, 300, 1909 Peebles, P. J. E. 2000, ApJ, 534, L127 Peñarrubia, J., Just, A., Kroupa, P., 2004, MNRAS, 349, 747 Peñarrubia, J., et al., 2010, MNRAS 406, 1290 (P10) Purcell, C. W., Zentner, A. R., 2012, JCAP 12, 007 Quinn, P. J., & Goodman, J. 1986, ApJ, 309, 472 Read, J. I., & Gilmore, G. 2005, MNRAS, 356, 107 Ricotti, M., & Gnedin, N. Y. 2005, ApJ, 629, 259 Romano-Diaz, E., Shlosman, I., Heller, C., & Hoffman, Y. 2009, ApJ, 702, 1250 Romano-Diaz, E., Shlosman, I., Hoffman, Y., & Heller, C. 2008, ApJ, 685, L105 Ryden B. S., Gunn J. E., 1987, ApJ, 318, 15 Sakamoto, T., & Hasegawa, T. 2006, ApJ, 653, L29 Simha, V., Weinberg, D. H., Davé, R., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 3458 Simon, J. D.; Geha, M., 2007, AAS 211, 2602 Sommer-Larsen, J., & Dolgov, A. 2001, ApJ, 551, 608 Spedicato, E., Bodon E., Del Popolo A., Mahdavi-Amiri N. 2003, 4OR, Vol. 1, Issue 1, 51 Spergel, D. N., et al. 2007 ApJS 170 377 doi:10.1086/513700 Spergel, D. N., Verde, L., Peiris, H. V., et al. 2003, ApJS, 148, 175 Springel, V., Wang, J., Vogelsberger, M., Ludlow, A., Jenkins, A., Helmi, A., Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., White, S. D. M., 2008, MNRAS 391, 1685 Stadel J., Potter D., Moore B., Diemand J., Madau P., Zemp M., Kuhlen M., Quilis V., 2009, MNRAS, 398, 21 Starobinsky, A. A. (1980). Physics Letters B 91: 99-102 Stoehr, F., White, S. D. M., Tormen, G., & Springel, V. 2002, MNRAS, 335, L84 Strigari, L. E., Bullock, J. S., Kaplinghat, M., Diemand, J., Kuhlen, M., Madau, P., 2007, ApJ 669, 676 Taylor, J. E., Babul, A., 2001, ApJ 559:716-735 van den Bosch F. C., Burkert A., Swaters R. A., 2001, MNRAS, 326, 1205 (VBS) van den Bosch, F. C., Lewis, G. F., Lake, G., & Stadel, J. 1999, ApJ, 515, 50 Velazquez, Hector; White, Simon D. M., 1999, MNRAS, 304, 254 Vera-Ciro, C. A., Helmi, A. Starkenburg, E., Breddels, M. A., 2013, MNRAS 428, 1696 Wang, J., Frenk, C. S., Navarro, J. F., Gao, L., Sawala, T., 2012, MNRAS 424, 2715 Weinberg, S., Rev. Mod. Phys., 1989, 61, 1 Wetzel, A. R., & White, M. 2010, MNRAS, 403, 1072 Williams, L. L. R., Babul, A., & Dalcanton, J. J. 2004, ApJ, 604, 18 Willman, B., et al. 2005a, ApJ, 626, L85 Zentner, A. R., & Bullock, J. S. 2003, ApJ, 598, 49 Zolotov, A., Brooks, A. M., Willman, B., Governato, F., Pontzen, A., Christensen, C., Dekel, A., Quinn, T., Shen, S., Wadsley, J., 2012, ApJ 761, 71 (Z12) Zucker, D. B., et al. 2006a, ApJ, 643, L103
Dynamics of the satellites. {#Dynamics of the satellites}
===========================
In the following, we discuss a semi-analytic model that follows the substructure evolution within DM haloes. It takes into account the effects of DF, tidal loss and tidal heating. The model is basically the TB01 model with small changes coming from a similar model by P10.
Each satellite is represented by a spherically symmetric subhalo, whose structure is time dependent. At a time $t$, the satellite’s state is specified by the form of the density distribution, from a chosen initial condition[^12], by the mass bound to it, and by the heating experienced in time. For the determination of the satellite’s orbit, we ignore its spatial extent and we solve its equation of motion in the potential of the host halo.
At each time step, the equations solved are:
$${\ddot {\bf r}}={\bf f}_h +{\bf f}_d + {\bf f}_{\rm df};
\label{eq:eqmot}$$
In Eq. (\[eq:eqmot\]), the term ${\bf f}_h=-GM(<r)/r^2$ is the force due to the host halo, where $$M(<r)=4\pi\int_0^r \rho(r')r'^2dr';
\label{eq:mass}$$ and the density $\rho(r)$ is given by a NFW[^13] profile with parameters $R_{\rm vir}=258$ kpc, $r_s=21.5$ kpc, $M_{\rm vir}= 10^{12} M_{\odot}$, and $\Delta_v=101$ (Klypin et al. 2002; Peñarrubia et al. 2010). The term ${\bf f}_{\rm d}$ is the force produced by the baryonic disc. While in Peñarrubia et al. (2010) it is approximated by means of a Miyamoto-Nagai (1975) model, in Klypin et al. (2002) a double-exponential disc is used. We select the exponential disc applied in TB01, defined by the density $$\rho_{\rm d}(r)= \frac{M_{\rm d}}{4 \pi R^2_{\rm d} z_0} exp(-\frac{R}{R_{\rm d}})
sech^2(\frac{z}{z_0})$$ with $M_{\rm d}= 5.6 \times 10^{10} M_{\odot}$, $r_{\rm d}=3.5$ kpc, and $z_0=700$ kpc. In this study, we neglect the bulge (similarly to P10), since the disc has a much larger mass than the bulge, and presents a steep vertical density gradient. That gradient is 10 times larger than for the bulge or the halo, resulting in satellite heating at disc crossing 100 times larger than from the other components.
Dynamical friction
------------------
The term ${\bf f}_{\rm df}$ is the dynamical friction force on the satellites due to the DM particles moving around the host. Dynamical friction is approximated through Chandrasekhar’s formula (Chandrasekhar 1943) which is sufficiently accurate if one can consider the so called “Coulomb logarithm" as a free parameter, fixed through simulations (e.g., van den Bosch et al. 1999).
Chandrasekhar’s formula, in our case is given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf f}_{\rm df}={\bf f}_{\rm df, disc}+ {\bf f}_{\rm df, halo}= -4\pi G^2 M^2_{sat} \sum_{i=h,d}\rho_i(r) F(<v_{\rm rel,i})\ln \Lambda_i \frac{{\bf
v}_{\rm rel,i}}{v_{\rm rel,i}^3}.
\label{eq:df}\end{aligned}$$ having divided the potential into the halo and disc components. $M_{sat}$ is the satellite mass, ${\bf r}$ its position, and $\ln \Lambda_h$ and $\ln \Lambda_d$ are the Coulomb logarithms of the halo and disc components, respectively. If ${\bf v}_{sat}$ indicates the velocity vector of the satellite, then ${\bf v}_{\rm rel,h}={\bf v}_{sat}$ is the satellite’s relative velocity with respect to the halo, while ${\bf v}_{\rm rel,d}={\bf v}_{sat}-{\bf v}_{d,\phi}$ the relative velocity with respect to the disc, while the term $v^2_{d,\phi}=R|f_d(Z=0)|$ is the circular velocity of the disc measured on the plane of the galaxy. The velocity distribution, $F(v)$, is assumed to be isotropic and Maxwellian, for simplicity $$F(<v_{\rm rel,i})={\rm erf}(X_i)-\frac{2X_i}{\sqrt\pi}\exp[-X_i^2];
\label{eq:fv}$$ where the term $X_i=|v_{\rm rel,i}|/\sqrt{2}\sigma_i$ is the one-dimensional velocity dispersion[^14].
Chandrasekhar’s formula was calculated for a massive point particle, but several authors showed that it can be applied to calculate the drag force on an extended satellite by adjusting appropriately the Coulomb logarithms (e.g., Colpi, Mayer & Governato 1999). Their choice is not trivial. Usually $\Lambda$ is defined as $\Lambda=b_{max}/b_{min}$, where $b_{max}$ is set to the typical scale of the system, and $b_{min} \equiv G(M_{\rm sat}+m)/V^2$, $m$ being the mass of the background particles and $V$ the typical velocity of the encounter, is the minimum impact parameter. A different definition is used for an extended satellite (Quinn & Goodman 1986).
The uncertainty in $\Lambda_d$ and $\Lambda_h$ directly reflects on that of the orbital decay rates, since the latters depend on the values of the Coulomb logarithms. A way to reduce such discrepancy is to treat $\ln \Lambda_h$ and $\ln \Lambda_d$ as free parameters. The self-consistent value of the Coulomb logarithm best fitting N-body orbits is $\ln\Lambda_h=2.1$ (Peñarrubia, Just & Kroupa 2004; Arena & Bertin 2007), while TB01 and P10 adopt $\ln\Lambda_d=0.5$. One should also make a correction to the expression for the disc friction, since the model assumed a constant satellite wake, and this approximation could reveal incorrect if the background density changes over small scales (e.g., when the satellite is in the disc plane). This can be corrected by smoothing the disc density (see Sec. 2.2.1 of TB01).
Mass loss
---------
A finite size satellite moving through the host galaxy is expected to loose mass because of tidal stripping. The mass decrease of the satellite affects its dynamic, since the dynamical friction force expression contains $M^2_{\rm sat}$. It is clear that we need to estimate the mass loss in order to correctly describe the satellite motion. The loss of mass is due to the action of tidal forces. We distinguish two model behaviours: if the system is “slowly varying", we consider the material outside a limiting radius, dubbed “tidal radius", to be stripped, while if the system is “rapidly varying", the satellite material will be heated.
In the first case, one estimates the tidal radius as the distance, measured from the centre of the satellite, where the tidal force balances the satellite’s self-gravity. In the case of satellites on circular orbits, the tidal radius is given by $$R_t\approx \bigg ( \frac{G M_{sat}}{\omega^2 -\rm d^2 \Phi_h/\rm d r^2}
\bigg)^{1/3};
\label{eq:rt}$$ (King 1962), where, as before, $M_{sat}$ is the mass of the satellite $\omega$ is its angular velocity, and $\Phi_h$ is the host halo potential. Eq. (\[eq:rt\]) is valid if $ M_{sat}<< M_h$, $R_t<< R_{system}$, and the satellite is corotating at $\omega$. Eq. (\[eq:rt\]) describes a steady state loss of mass, while the mass changes on a general orbit should depend on the orbital period. One then assumes that mass beyond the tidal radius is lost in an orbital period.
The calculation of ${\rm d}^2\Phi_h /{\rm d}r^2$ is performed averaging over the asphericity of the potential originated by the disc component, as follows $${{{\rm d}^2\Phi_h} \over {{\rm d}r^2}}
= {{\rm d}\over{{\rm d}r}}\left({{-GM(<r)}\over{r^2}}\right)\,.$$
In real systems, satellites are not spherical and do not move inside spherically symmetric potentials. In such cases, Eq. (\[eq:rt\]) can be used to define an instantaneous tidal radius.
The stripping condition can be written in terms of the densities as, $$\label{overd}
\overline{\rho}_{\rm sat} (< R_{\rm t}) = \xi \overline{\rho}_{\rm gal}(<r)\,.$$
The previous equation localises the tidal limit at the radius beyond which the satellite mean density, $\overline{\rho}_{\rm sat}$, is larger by a factor $\xi$ than the average galaxy density inside that radius $r$, where $$\xi \equiv {{\overline{\rho}_{\rm sat}
(< R_{\rm t})}\over{\overline{\rho}_{\rm gal}(< r)}}= \left({{r^3} \over {G M(<
r)}}\right) \left(\omega^2 - {{{\rm d}^2\Phi_h} \over {{\rm d}r^2}}\right)$$
being $\omega$ the instantaneous angular velocity of the satellite and $\omega_c$ is the angular velocity of a circular orbit of radius $r$.
From the previous discussion, we can define an algorithm to calculate stripping.\
1) We divide the orbital path of the satellite in discrete sections, and calculate the tidal radius through Eq. (\[overd\]).\
2) A fraction $\Delta t / t_{orb}$[^15], of the material outside the virial radius will be removed.\
3) Whereas in TB01, the satellite was considered disrupted when the tidal radius was smaller than the profile core radius, in our case, we define some other disruption criteria in Sect. 2.3.
Tidal Heating
-------------
As previously discussed, in the case of a rapidly varying gravitational potential, shocks are produced which result in changes in the satellite structure and give rise to an acceleration of the mass loss (e.g., Gnedin & Ostriker 1997, 1999; Gnedin, Hernquist & Ostriker 1999). A simple first order correction for tidal heating can be obtained as follows. Rapid shocks are identified by comparing the orbital period of the satellite, $t_{\rm orb,sat}$[^16], with the disc shock timescale, $t_{\rm shock,d}=Z/V_{Z,{\rm sat}}$. If $t_{\rm shock,d} < t_{\rm orb,sat}$ the satellite is heated. We then calculate the change in energy, and the subsequent mass loss in the satellite. The energy change is obtained adopting the impulse approximation (Gnedin, Hernquist, & Ostriker 1999), which yields the velocity change produced by the tidal field in the encounter, relative to the centre of the satellite.
This velocity change produced in an encounter of duration $t$, for an element of unit mass located at ${\mathbf x}$ with respect to the centre of the satellite, writes
$$\begin{aligned}
\Delta {\mathbf V} = \int^t_0 {\mathbf A}_{\rm tid}(t')dt',\end{aligned}$$
where the term ${\mathbf A}_{\rm tid}$ is the tidal acceleration.
The first order change in energy is given by $$\Delta E_1 (t)= W_{\rm tid}(t) = {1 \over 2}\Delta V^2$$
We divide the shock in $n$ time steps of length $\Delta t$ and suppose that the satellite is sufficiently small so that the tidal acceleration can be expressed in terms of the gradient of the gravitational acceleration produced by the external potential, ${\bf g}$. We then average the change of energy on a sphere of radius $r$, in a time step, as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dW2}
\lefteqn{\Delta W_{\rm tid}(t_n \rightarrow t_{n+1})}\nonumber\\
&=&{1 \over 6}\,r^2\,\Delta t^2\,\Biggr[\,2\,{g}_{a,b}(t_n)\sum^{n-1}_{i = 0}
{g}_{a,b}(t_i)\nonumber\\
& &\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ +\ \ \ g_{a,b}(t_n)g_{a,b}(t_n) \Biggr]\end{aligned}$$ where $g_{a,b} = \partial g_a/\partial x_b$ is evaluated at ${\mathbf x} = 0$[^17].
The impulse approximation, upon which the calculation of Eq. (\[dW2\]) is based, breaks down in the central part of the satellite where the dynamical time-scales can be comparable to, or even shorter than, the duration of the shock. When this happens the shock effects are significantly reduced.
This is taken into account through a first-order adiabatic correction (Gnedin & Ostriker 1999) $$\label{adc}
\Delta E_1 = A_1(x)\Delta E_{1,{\rm imp}}\ ,$$ where $x=t_{\rm shock}/t_{\rm orb,sat}$ is the adiabatic parameter, and $A_1(x) = (1 +
x^2)^{-\beta}$, with $\beta=5/2$ (Gnedin & Ostriker 1999).
Another correction required is connected to the satellite internal dispersion velocity, which is altered by heating (Kundić & Ostriker 1995). We start by computing the energy changes at first-order and further take into account the higher order effects through the heating coefficient, $\epsilon_{\rm h}$, as $$\Delta E = \epsilon_{\rm h} \Delta E_1=\epsilon_{\rm h} A_1(x) \Delta
E_{1, imp}=\epsilon_{\rm h} A_1(x) \delta W_{tid}.$$ Gnedin & Ostriker (1997) estimated $\epsilon_{\rm h} \simeq 7/3$.
In this paper, we follow TB01 in adopting the value $\epsilon_{\rm h}=3$.
Practical determination of the effect of heating on the satellite leads us to assume for each mass element that its potential energy is proportional to its total energy. We note that shell crossing is not taken into account by the mass distribution changes.
Consequently, we write that a mass element will have a total energy $E(r)$ proportional to $-1/r$, and a radius change $\Delta r \propto \Delta E(r)\ r^2$.
Inside radius $r$ the mean density will change as $$\label{dp}
\Delta \overline{\rho}_r =\ \Delta \left({{3 M(<r)}\over{4 \pi r^3}}\right)\
\propto - {\Delta r\over r^4} \propto
- {\Delta E(r) \over r^2}\ .$$
The previous equation shows how the bound mass density in the satellite can decrease because of heating, with the results of an acceleration of the mass loss. The decrease in density can correspond to, either an increase of the velocity dispersion in, or an expansion of, the satellite. In any case, it gives rise to the same change in the bound mass.
We can calculate the density change due to tidal heating, at a radius $r$ as a function of time. Applying then the equation for tidal stripping, (Eq. \[overd\]), to the heated density we can estimate the quantity of mass lost.
In the calculation, we smoothed the disc mass in the vertical direction, as already mentioned, over twice the disc scale height. We assume the velocity dispersion of the disc to read as $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{\rm h} &=& (V^2_{\rm c,h})^{1/2}/\sqrt{2} ,\hspace{0.7cm}\nonumber\\
{\rm and}\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\phantom{\sigma_{\rm d}}}\nonumber\\
\sigma_{\rm d} &=& V_{\rm c,d}/\sqrt 2 = \sigma_{\rm o}\exp(-R/R_{\rm o})\hspace{0.7cm}
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $V_{\rm c,h}$, is the circular velocity of the halo, and $V_{\rm c,d}$ that of the disc. $\sigma_{\rm o}$ is set to $143$ km/s and $R_{\rm o}$ to $7$kpc (namely $2\,R_{\rm d}$), in agreement with Velazquez & White (1999).
The model depends on three parameters: $\ln \Lambda_{\rm h}$ (strongest dependence), $\epsilon_{\rm h}$ (weaker than the previous), and $\ln
\Lambda_{\rm d}$ (weak dependence). To evaluate the sensitivity of the results to parameter variations, 20% changes in the second parameter ($\epsilon_{\rm h}$) were issued: even with such modulations, only slight changes to the results were produced. \[lastpage\]
[^1]: Other remaining problems for the $\Lambda$CDM model involve understanding dark energy: the cosmological constant fine tuning problem (Weinberg 1989; Astashenok, & Del Popolo 2012), and the “cosmic coincidence problem”.
[^2]: Note that the NFW profile, initially considered a universal one, has been shown not to be so (e.g., Del Popolo 2010, 2011)
[^3]: That difference is larger than an order of magnitude in the Milky Way (MW)!
[^4]: “Too big to fail”, in the sense that the extra simulation satellites are too big, compared with MW satellites, to remain invisible.
[^5]: Note that, in the case of the TBTF problem, the excess of massive subhaloes in MW could disappear if satellites density profiles are modelled through Einasto’s profiles, or if the MW’s virial mass is $\simeq8\times10^{11}M_{\odot}$ instead of $\simeq10^{12}M_{\odot}$ (Vera-Ciro et al. 2013; Di Cintio et al. 2013).
[^6]: Changes to the spherical collapse introduced by dark energy where studied in Del Popolo [*et al.*]{} 2013a; Del Popolo, Pace, & Lima 2013a, b.; Del Popolo et al. 2013b.
[^7]: B13 is based on Z12 results. In Z12, some haloes experienced disc shocking and were strongly disrupted. For this, they were considered outliers, and not used in the calculation in the Z12 correction.
[^8]: The fact that gas-rich satellites in Z12 are too rich is probably due to inefficient stripping in their SPH simulations.
[^9]: In the conversion, we used an overdensity $200\rho_{{\rm crit}}$, and a WMAP3 cosmology (Spergel et al. 2007).
[^10]: $v_{{\rm peak}}$ (see Del Popolo & Gambera 1996 for a definition of the peak mass) represents the largest value of $v_{\rm max}$ over the entire history of the subhalo.
[^11]: Note that tidal stripping and heating from $z_{\rm infall}$ to $z=0$ produces a reduction in the halo masses, introducing scatter in the $v_{\rm infall}$-$M_\ast$ relation at infall.
[^12]: The initial density profile of the satellites is given by Appendix A.
[^13]: We recall that the NFW profile is given by $\rho(r)=
\frac{\rho_s}{r/r_s(1+r/r_s)^2}=\frac{\rho_c \delta_v}{r/r_s(1+r/r_s)^2}$, where $\delta_v=\frac{\Delta_v}{3} \frac{c^3}{\log(1+c)-c/(1+c)}$ and $\rho_c$ is the critical density. The scale radius $r_s$, and $\rho_s$ depend on the formation epoch and are correlated with the virial radius of the halo, $R_{\rm vir}$, through the concentration parameter $c=R_{\rm vir}/r_s$.
[^14]: The velocity dispersion is defined as $\sigma_i(r)\equiv 1/\rho_i(r)\int_\infty^r \rho_i(r')[f_h(r')+f_d(r')]dr'$.
[^15]: $\Delta t$ is the timestep, while $t_{orb} = 2 \pi / \omega$ is the orbital period, which is assumed to be the typical time-scale for the mass loss of the satellite.
[^16]: $t_{\rm orb,sat}=2 \pi r_{\rm h} / V_c (r_{\rm h})$ is the satellite orbital period at its half-mass radius, $r_h$.
[^17]: These equations and several others were solved using the ABS method (Spedicato et al. 2003)
|
---
abstract: 'Based on the experience gained during the four and a half years of the mission, the [*Fermi*]{}-LAT collaboration has undertaken a comprehensive revision of the event-level analysis going under the name of [[[`P`ass 8]{}]{}]{}. Although it is not yet finalized, we can test the improvements in the new event reconstruction with the special case of the prompt phase of bright Gamma-Ray Bursts (GRBs), where the signal to noise ratio is large enough that loose selection cuts are sufficient to identify gamma-rays associated with the source. Using the new event reconstruction, we have re-analyzed ten GRBs previously detected by the LAT for which an x-ray/optical follow-up was possible and found four new gamma rays with energies greater than 10 GeV in addition to the seven previously known. Among these four is a 27.4 GeV gamma-ray from GRB 080916C, which has a redshift of 4.35, thus making it the gamma ray with the highest intrinsic energy ($\sim$147 GeV) detected from a GRB. We present here the salient aspects of the new event reconstruction and discuss the scientific implications of these new high-energy gamma rays, such as constraining extragalactic background light models, Lorentz invariance violation (LIV) tests, the prompt emission mechanism and the bulk Lorentz factor of the emitting region.'
author:
- 'W. B. Atwood, L. Baldini, J. Bregeon, P. Bruel, A. Chekhtman, J. Cohen-Tanugi, A. Drlica-Wagner, J. Granot, F. Longo, N. Omodei, M. Pesce-Rollins, S. Razzaque, L. S. Rochester, C. Sgrò, M. Tinivella, T. L. Usher, S. Zimmer'
bibliography:
- 'pesc0504.bib'
title: 'New Fermi-LAT event reconstruction reveals more high-energy gamma rays from Gamma-ray bursts'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The Large Area Telescope (LAT) on-board the [*Fermi*]{} Gamma-Ray Space Telescope is a pair-conversion telescope designed to detect gamma rays above $\sim$20 MeV. The instrument is comprised of three subsystems acting in synergy to identify and characterize gamma-ray interactions: a silicon tracker-converter (TKR), a hodoscopic electromagnetic calorimeter (CAL) and a segmented anti-coincidence detector (ACD). By design, the TKR subsystem divides into two distinct sections: *front* and *back*—the latter featuring six times thicker conversion foils. Since these two sections are notably different from the standpoint of the angular resolution and the contamination from misclassified cosmic rays, in the following we shall analyze separately front- and back- converting candidate gamma rays. We refer the reader to @LATPaper for further details on the LAT.
Defining the event classes used for high-level scientific analysis is a complex process involving many different steps: the event reconstruction, the adjudication of the event energy and direction and the final event classification. In the following we shall refer to this process as the *event-level analysis*. The pre-launch event-level analysis was solely based on Monte Carlo simulations of the instrument performance and its particle environment—though it is worth emphasizing that a significant effort was put into validating such simulations [see, e.g.: @baldini:190]. The event selection has been periodically updated to reflect the constantly improving knowledge of the detector and the environment in which it operates. [[[`P`ass 7]{}]{}]{} [@P7Paper], released in August 2011, represents the latest major iteration of this incremental process.
In parallel with the development of [[[`P`ass 7]{}]{}]{}, the LAT collaboration has undertaken a coherent long-term effort to develop [[[`P`ass 8]{}]{}]{}, aimed at an extensive revision of the entire event-level analysis [@p8proceedings]. Recovering the effective area lost due to residual signals from out-of-time cosmic-ray events (*ghosts* hereafter), was the original and main motivation for this effort. As we shall see in the following, the scope of this development has substantially expanded along the way.
The full event-level analysis for [[[`P`ass 8]{}]{}]{} is currently under development. Therefore we cannot yet characterize its improvements in terms of instrument response functions. We can, however, test the improvements in the new event reconstruction by systematically searching for events not previously recognized as gamma rays during the prompt phases of bright Gamma-Ray Bursts (GRBs) for which the signal to noise is large enough that loose selection cuts on quantities measured to classify events are sufficient to identify gamma rays associated with the source.
In Section \[sec:recon\] we briefly review some aspects of the LAT event reconstruction, with emphasis on the modifications being introduced in [[[`P`ass 8]{}]{}]{}. In Sections \[sec:selection\] and \[sec:results\] we discuss the analysis underlying the search for new high-energy gamma rays and the results of this search. Finally, in Section \[sec:discussion\] we discuss the implications of these newly-found high-energy gamma rays.
[lcc]{} GRB 080916C & 4.35 & $48{\fdg}8$\
GRB 090323 & 3.57 & $57{\fdg}2$\
GRB 090328 & 0.74 & $64{\fdg}6$\
GRB 090510 & 0.90 & $13{\fdg}6$\
GRB 090902B & 1.82 & $50{\fdg}8$\
GRB 090926 & 2.11 & $48{\fdg}1$\
GRB 091003 & 0.90 & $12{\fdg}3$\
GRB 091208B & 1.06 & $55{\fdg}6$\
GRB 100414A & 1.37 & $69{\fdg}0$\
GRB 110731A & 2.83 & $3{\fdg}4$\
\[tab:grbs\]
Event reconstruction {#sec:recon}
====================
A detailed description of the LAT event reconstruction is beyond the scope of this paper. In the following we shall only give a brief description of the development being implemented in the context of [[[`P`ass 8]{}]{}]{} that is relevant for the analysis presented here. We refer the reader to @p8proceedings for more details.
Tracker reconstruction {#subsec:tkr_recon}
----------------------
High-energy gamma-ray interactions in the CAL tend to generate *backsplash* in the lower portion of the TKR, i.e, randomly hit strips due to secondary particles that have no relation to the trajectory of the original gamma ray. For back-converting events, and especially at large incidence angle, it is not uncommon for this backsplash to represent the vast majority of the TKR hits.
The [[[`P`ass 6]{}]{}]{}/[[[`P`ass 7]{}]{}]{} TKR reconstruction is based on a track-by-track *combinatoric* pattern recognition—seeded by the CAL information when available. As such, it is subject to confusion in backsplash-dominated events, particularly if the initial position and direction estimates from the CAL are not accurate. These features combine to produce two main effects: (i) the loss of events where the TKR reconstruction fails to find any tracks, and (ii) the migration of events from the core of the point-spread function (PSF) to the tails because of poorly reconstructed tracks.
In [[[`P`ass 8]{}]{}]{} we introduced a *global* approach, largely decoupled from the CAL reconstruction, which looks at the gamma-ray conversion as a pre-shower process and attempts to model this process by linking hits together into one or more tree-like structures. The individual tracks are then extracted from these structures and fitted. This new pattern recognition proved to be significantly more efficient at finding tracks and more robust in terms of pointing accuracy. Tests with Monte Carlo simulations and flight data show that the new TKR pattern recognition has the potential to provide a 15–20% increase of the high-energy acceptance, with even larger improvement in the off-axis effective area, especially for photons converting in the lower part of the TKR.
Calorimeter reconstruction {#subsec:cal_recon}
--------------------------
The [[[`P`ass 6]{}]{}]{}/[[[`P`ass 7]{}]{}]{} CAL reconstruction treats the energy deposit in the CAL as a monolithic entity, grouping all the crystals with greater than 4 MeV energy deposited together. Residual ghost signals in the CAL away from the gamma-ray shower can result in such a large lever arm in the moments analysis used to derive the shower direction that they can introduce substantial errors in the measurement of the centroid and direction of the shower itself. Since the matching in event position and direction between the TKR and the CAL constitutes an important input to the background rejection, this is actually one of the main mechanisms for the ghost-induced loss of effective area at high energy.
In [[[`P`ass 8]{}]{}]{} we introduced a clustering stage, based on a Minimum Spanning Tree algorithm, which proved to be effective in separating the genuine gamma-ray signal from the ghost one. In addition, the 3D shower profile fit, which is our primary energy reconstruction method at high energy, was substantially improved. While the objective of this part of the work was to extend the energy reach of the LAT above 1 TeV the new method proved to provide an approximately 10% improvement in the energy resolution over the entire energy and inclination angle range.
ACD reconstruction {#subsec:acd_recon}
------------------
The basic purpose of the ACD reconstruction is to match tracks in the TKR and hits in the ACD to find reasons to classify an event as a charged particle. The most significant improvement in the ACD reconstruction we introduced in [[[`P`ass 8]{}]{}]{} was to propagate the full covariance matrices associated to the TKR tracks to the ACD surfaces—i.e., effectively we now measure the distances between tracks and ACD hits in terms of measurement uncertainties rather than absolute lengths.
[lccccccccc]{}\
\
243215785–2033380 & 16.545 & back & 13.2 & 12.4 & 0.09 & 0.11 & 1.000 & Diffuse\
243215785–2075096$^\star$ & 40.509 & back & - & 27.4 & - & 0.07 & 1.000 & -\
\
263605997–3472705 & 0.828 & front & 31.3 & 29.9 & 0.09 & 0.08 & 0.999 & Transient\
\
273579835–4719473 & 11.671 & front & 11.2 & 11.9 & 0.21 & 0.07 & 0.999 & Transient\
273579835–4724519$^\star$ & 14.166 & back & 14.2 & 14.2 & 2.61 & 0.11 & 0.980 & -\
273579835–4748164$^\star$ & 26.168 & back & - & 18.1 & - & 0.11 & 0.999 & -\
273579835–4778868 & 42.374 & front & 8.9 & 12.7 & 0.03 & 0.04 & 0.999 & Diffuse\
273579835–4784978 & 45.608 & front & 12.5 & 15.4 & 0.07 & 0.10 & 0.995 & Diffuse\
273579835–4852498 & 81.746 & back & 33.4 & 39.9 & 0.78 & 1.77 & 0.998 & Transient\
\
275631595–173595 & 24.835 & front & 19.6 & 19.5 & 0.05 & 0.09 & 0.999 & Diffuse\
\
292903615–2268542$^\star$ & 33.365 & front & 29.8 & 29.7 & 7.64 & 0.16 & 0.999 & -\
\[tab:events\_table\]
Data selection {#sec:selection}
==============
Among the bursts in the First LAT GRB catalog [@GRBCatalog], we concentrate on the ten GRBs for which an x-ray/optical follow-up (and therefore a measurement of the redshift) was obtained (see Table \[tab:grbs\] for a listing of the GRBs used). The typical localization error for these bursts is negligible compared with the event-by-event direction accuracy of the LAT and, for all practical purposes, we can consider the localizations measured in the optical or X-ray afterglows as the true source positions when defining the region of interest (ROI). We further refine our sample by considering only energies greater than 10 GeV, where the width of the core of the LAT PSF is close to its asymptotic high-energy limit. It is important to stress here that analysis described in @GRBCatalog was done using the [[[`P`ass 6]{}]{}]{} version of the gamma-ray data (and the associated `P6_V3_TRANSIENT` IRFs), rather than the reprocessed [[[`P`ass 7]{}]{}]{} data made available in August 2011. However, the event reconstruction between [[[`P`ass 6]{}]{}]{} and [[[`P`ass 7]{}]{}]{} remained essentially unchanged and therefore this is largely irrelevant for the purpose of this paper.
For each GRB we reprocessed all the available data within 90 s from the trigger time using the [[[`P`ass 8]{}]{}]{} event reconstruction available at the time of writing. We select gamma-ray candidates by requiring that the reconstruction find at least one track and that this track extrapolates to more than 4 radiation lengths of active material in the CAL (this helps avoiding poorly reconstructed events). In addition, we use the ACD to remove *likely* charged-particle events by requiring that the track-tile association most likely to veto the event is incompatible with being generated by a minimum ionizing particle. Note that the event selection used here does not include any requirement on the quality of the direction/energy reconstruction.
The choice of the ROI is dictated by the need to minimize the amount of solid angle over which we integrate the background of residual (mis-classified) cosmic rays while at the same time retaining a reasonable efficiency for well-reconstructed gamma rays. For each GRB we used a circular ROI around the nominal source position with a radius of $0\fdg6$ for front-converting and $1\fdg2$ for back-converting events. It is worth noting that, while these are comparable with the PSF 95% contaiment radii for the cleanest [[[`P`ass 6]{}]{}]{}/[[[`P`ass 7]{}]{}]{} event classes, based on Monte Carlo simulations we estimate that the actual containment level for the back-converting events passing our loose selection cuts is only about 80%, so that the ROI cut has a significant impact on the event topology of our sample (i.e., it plays a role in selecting well-reconstructed events).
The expected rate of background events passing these basic selection criteria can be estimated from the flight data by sideband subtraction[@P7Paper] using an annulus around the source position and rescaling the number of counts to the solid angle subtended by the original ROI. As the level of charged-particle background varies across the [*Fermi*]{} orbit, the results are slightly different for each individual GRB, but on average we expect $\sim 0.1$ cosmic-ray events passing our basic selection cuts within each of the 90 s time windows.
Results {#sec:results}
=======
The First LAT GRB catalog includes seven candidate gamma rays with energies greater than 10 GeV associated with the ten GRBs considered here; in the reprocessed version of the data we find four additional (previously misreconstructed) events passing our selection criteria. In Table \[tab:events\_table\] we summarize the basic properties of the four new gamma rays together with the seven previously known ones. All of the seven aforementioned gamma-ray candidates pass our loose selection cuts (and their topologies are highly gamma-ray-like). However one of them (a $\sim33$ GeV event from GRB 090902B) is reconstructed as being marginally outside our ROI. While this is not entirely surprising (the quality of the direction reconstruction for this particular event is fairly poor both in the [[[`P`ass 6]{}]{}]{} and in the [[[`P`ass 8]{}]{}]{} versions of the event-level analysis), assessing the actual probability for this event to be associated with the GRB in the context of any of the actual [[[`P`ass 8]{}]{}]{} event classes will only be possible once the definitions of the classes are frozen and the corresponding response functions defined.
It is interesting to note how the mechanisms through which these events are recovered tie to the problematic aspects of the LAT event reconstruction outlined in Section \[sec:recon\]: two of them had no tracks in [[[`P`ass 6]{}]{}]{}, one was significantly mis-tracked (to more than $7^\circ$ off the source) and the last one was compromised by a ghost cluster in the CAL. We would like to stress here that the [[[`P`ass 8]{}]{}]{} event reconstruction is in its final phase; therefore we are confident that the basic topological properties of these four new photons will not vary significantly and that no additional photons will be found in the same 90 s interval explored in this work.
Table \[tab:events\_table\] shows how the preliminary [[[`P`ass 8]{}]{}]{} event selection described in @p8proceedings assigns a fairly high value for the measure of gamma-ray probability $p_{\rm all}$ to all the eleven gamma-ray candidates considered here. While this is an uncalibrated quantity with no *direct* physical meaning (and it might very well change in future iterations of the [[[`P`ass 8]{}]{}]{}event-level analysis) we find that the fraction of background events with such a high value of $p_{\rm all}$ is of the order of $10^{-3}$. This is effectively a multiplicative factor for the $\sim 0.1$ Hz rate of background events quoted in Section \[sec:selection\].
Finally, we note that most of the events in the table have angular distances to the nominal source position much smaller than the radius of our ROI. Under the reasonable assumption that the background is approximately isotropic in our $\sim 1^{\circ}$ circle, we would expect background events to be preferentially near the edge of the ROI (just because it subtends a larger solid angle).
We estimated the increase in effective area over the [[[`P`ass 6]{}]{}]{} `TRANSIENT` class expected for our selection[^1] by means of a gamma-ray Monte Carlo simulation similar to those that we routinely use for generating effective area tables. Between 10 and 30 GeV this improvement is of the order of $\sim 10\%$ at $50^\circ$ off-axis angle and reaches $\sim 50\%$ at $70^\circ$. Note that the choice of off-axis angles corresponds to those of the GRBs from which we recovered the four new gamma rays. Though the small statistics in our GRB event sample does not allow a validation of the increase in effective area, these factors are consistent with our findings. We also stress that the factors refer to the particular selection used in this analysis and do not represent the actual performance of any of the still-forthcoming [[[`P`ass 8]{}]{}]{} event classes.
Spectral analysis
-----------------
[lcccc]{} N$_{obs}$: Number of [[[`P`ass 6]{}]{}]{} events & & &\
with energy $>$ new [[[`P`ass 8]{}]{}]{} event & 0 & & 0\
Best fit value of the gamma ray index & 2.1 $\pm$ 0.09 & & 2.1 $\pm$ 0.4\
Expected number of events (N$_{exp}$) & 0.5 & 3.3 & 2.5 & 0.1\
Probability of observing N$_{obs}$ events & 0.60 & 0.13 & 0.21 & 0.88\
Probability of observing $>$N$_{obs}$ events & 0.40 & 0.63$^{\ast}$ & 0.71 & 0.12\
\[tab:events\]
As stated in Section \[sec:intro\], a final [[[`P`ass 8]{}]{}]{} event-level analysis is not yet available and therefore we cannot perform a spectral analysis. We can however estimate the probability to detect these high-energy gamma rays, given the spectral properties inferred from [[[`P`ass 6]{}]{}]{} analysis. Using `gtobssim`, we simulated 90 s observations of a very bright source located at the position of each of the three GRBs with new candidate gamma rays, using the best fitted values (from @GRBCatalog) for the index of the power-law spectrum. We normalized the output of the simulation to the observed number of [[[`P`ass 6]{}]{}]{} `TRANSIENT` counts above 100 MeV in a ROI of 5$^{\circ}$ in order to estimate the expected number of events, $N_{exp}$, above the energy of the new [[[`P`ass 8]{}]{}]{} gamma ray. Finally, we use the Poisson distribution to compute the probability of observing exactly $N_{obs}$ events when the number of expected events is $N_{exp}$. In addition, we calculate the probabilities of observing at least one additional gamma ray – or two additional gamma rays for GRB090902B – with an energy equal to or greater than those recovered with [[[`P`ass 8]{}]{}]{}. Results are reported in Table \[tab:events\].
We have studied the potential impacts that a spectral evolution during the considered time interval (90 s) may have on the resulting probabilities, P(N$_{exp}$,N$_{obs}$) by repeating the Monte Carlo simulation with a varying index for the spectral distribution of gamma rays. We find that the associated variation in the probability in the worst case[^2] is of the order of 10%–15%. The calculated probabilities suggest that the additional gamma rays are statistically consistent with the shape and intensity of the spectra derived using [[[`P`ass 6]{}]{}]{} data.
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
Our most interesting finding is the $27.4\;$GeV gamma ray from GRB080916C that was detected $40.5\;$s after the burst onset. At a redshift of $z
\approx 4.35$ the measured energy corresponds to an energy of $\approx
147\;$GeV in the GRB cosmological rest frame. This is the highest intrinsic energy measured so far for a gamma ray from a GRB.
{width="0.5\linewidth"} {width="0.5\linewidth"}
The high energy of the new gamma ray from GRB 080916C is very constraining for a possible origin from synchrotron radiation. A reasonable assumption for the acceleration time of the radiating electron, that it is at least the time it takes to complete one Larmor gyration[^3], would imply a minimum bulk Lorentz factor of the emitting region larger than $5000$. Similarly, the $29.7\;$GeV gamma ray from GRB 100414A at $z = 1.37$ would require $\Gamma\gtrsim 2300$ for a synchrotron origin. For GRB 090902B [@GRB090902B] at $z =1.822$ the two new gamma rays are less constraining than the $33.4\;$GeV gamma ray detected $82\;$s after the burst onset with [[[`P`ass 6]{}]{}]{}, after the end of the prompt emission, which implies $\Gamma\gtrsim 3200$ (making a synchrotron origin unlikely for the $33.4\;$GeV gamma ray due to its later arrival time).
Given the arrival time of $40.5\;$s after the burst onset of the $27.4\;$GeV gamma ray from GRB080916C, during interval d defined in [@GRB080916C], the lower limit on $\Gamma$ due to intrinsic opacity to pair production is increased by only $15\%$ compared to the limit from the $13\;$GeV gamma ray observed in the same time interval, of $\Gamma_{\rm min}\approx 600$ for a simple one-zone model, or $\sim 3$ times lower than this for a more realistic self-consistent time-dependent model [@2008ApJ...677...92G; @Hascoet:2011gp].
Due to its later arrival time, the constraints that the new gamma ray from GRB080916C provides on linear ($n=1$) Lorentz invariance violation (LIV) are slightly weaker (by 15%) than the previously highest energy gamma ray from the same GRB (of energy $\approx 13.2\;$GeV detected at $t = 16.5\;$s after the GRB trigger time, which implied[^4] $\xi_1 = M_{\rm
QG,1}/M_{\rm Planck} > 0.11$). For a quadratic leading LIV term ($n=2$) it does slightly better with $M_{\rm QG,2} > 1.13\times 10^{10}\;{\rm
GeV}/c^2$, which is only $\approx 2.6$ times below the best limit from GRB 090510 [@2009Natur.462..331A]. The limits from the other new gamma rays are not as constraining.
A very interesting implication arises for the extragalactic background light (EBL), from the fact that a 27.4 GeV gamma ray has reached us from a fairly high redshift of $z \approx 4.35$, and was not attenuated (through pair production, $\gamma\gamma \to e^+e^-$) by the EBL. In particular, it is useful to compare the constraints that it provides to those from previously-detected gamma rays from GRBs [@GRBCatalog] and AGN [@2010ApJ...723.1082A], as illustrated in Figure \[fig:ebl\]. It is the most constraining gamma ray so far from a GRB (see Figs. 3 and 5 in @2010ApJ...723.1082A; notice in particular that Fig. 5 also applies to the newly-found $27.4\;$GeV from GRB080916C). Moreover, it is in fact comparable to or even slightly more constraining than the [*Fermi*]{}-LAT gamma rays from AGN (for most EBL models[^5] especially for $\tau = 3$ as shown in Figure \[fig:ebl\]).
In conclusion, the improvements in event reconstruction implemented in [[[`P`ass 8]{}]{}]{} promise to yield scientific gains, as illustrated in this work.
The *Fermi* LAT Collaboration acknowledges generous ongoing support from a number of agencies and institutes that have supported both the development and the operation of the LAT as well as scientific data analysis. These include the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Department of Energy in the United States, the Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique and the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique / Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules in France, the Agenzia Spaziale Italiana and the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare in Italy, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK) and Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) in Japan, and the K. A. Wallenberg Foundation, the Swedish Research Council and the Swedish National Space Board in Sweden.
Additional support for science analysis during the operations phase is gratefully acknowledged from the Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica in Italy and the Centre National d’Études Spatiales in France.
[^1]: We included the effect of the ROI in our estimate by requiring, in addition to the preliminary Pass 8 event selection that we applied, that the angle between the true and reconstructed gamma-ray direction is smaller than the radius of the ROI itself.
[^2]: GRB080916C [@GRB080916C] is the GRB in our sample that shows the largest spectral variation, with a gamma ray index varying from 2.3 to 2.1 with an error of 0.09.
[^3]: This assumption implies a maximum electron Lorentz factor of $\gamma_{\rm max} =\sqrt{3e/\sigma_T B'}$ where $B'$ is the comoving (measured in the rest frame of the emitting plasma) magnetic field. The corresponding comoving typical synchrotron gamma ray energy averaged over an isotropic pitch-angle distribution is $E'_{\rm
syn,max} = 3heB'\gamma_{\rm max}^2/(16 m_ec) = (27/64)m_ec^2/\alpha$, where $\alpha = e^2/\hbar c\approx 1/137$ is the fine structure constant. The corresponding observed energy is $E_{\rm syn,max} =
E'_{\rm syn,max}\Gamma/(1+z)\approx 29.5(1+z)^{-1}(\Gamma/1000)\;$GeV. Therefore, a synchrotron origin for this gamma ray would imply $E_{\rm
obs} \lesssim E_{\rm syn,max}$ or $\Gamma \gtrsim 2030 [(1+z)/3] (E_{\rm
obs}/20\,{\rm GeV})$. The peak of the electron synchrotron spectral emissivity is $0.29$ times the value for $E_{\rm syn,max}$ used above, and using it would increase the limit correspondingly (by a factor of 1/0.29) to $\Gamma
\gtrsim 7000[(1+z)/3](E_{\rm obs}/20\,{\rm GeV})$. Allowing the acceleration time to be as small as the time it takes to deflect the electron by one radian (which is quite extreme) lowers the limit by a factor of $2\pi$, to $\Gamma \gtrsim 323[(1+z)/3](E_{\rm obs}/20\,{\rm
GeV})$. Combining such a short acceleration time with the factor of $0.29$ mentioned above leads to $\Gamma \gtrsim 1110[(1+z)/3](E_{\rm
obs}/20\,{\rm GeV})$. Recently, @2012MNRAS.tmpL.529K have proposed a way to lower this limit by assuming two zones with significantly different magnetic field strength, where in the lower-field region electrons can be accelerated to high Lorentz factors, and then radiate energetic synchrotron gamma rays after crossing to the high-field region. This could in principle accommodate the production of $\gtrsim 100\;$GeV gamma rays with significantly lower bulk Lorentz factors.
[^4]: The limits we quote conservatively use the lowest values within the 1-$\sigma$ confidence intervals for the gamma ray energy (and the GRB redshift when relevant).
[^5]: A description of the different models is beyond the scope of this work; we refer the reader to the original works on the various EBL models
|
---
abstract: 'We investigate theoretically the behavior of proteins as well as other large macromolecules which are incorporated into amphiphilic monolayers at the air-water interface. We assume the monolayer to be in the coexistence region of the “main” transition, where domains of the liquid condensed phase coexist with the liquid expanded background. Using a simple mean-field free energy accounting for the interactions between proteins and amphiphilic molecules, we obtain the spatial protein distribution with the following characteristics. When the proteins preferentially interact with either the liquid condensed or liquid expanded domains, they will be dissolved in the respective phase. When the proteins are energetically rather indifferent to the density of the amphiphiles, they will be localized at the line boundary between the (two-dimensional) liquid expanded and condensed phases. In between these two limiting cases, a delocalization transition of the proteins takes place. This transition is accessible by changing the temperature or the amount of incorporated protein. These findings are in agreement with recent fluorescence microscopy experiments. Our results also apply to lipid multicomponent membranes showing coexistence of distinct fluid phases.'
address:
- |
School of Physics and Astronomy, Raymond and Beverly Sackler Faculty of Exact Sciences,\
Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv 69978, Tel Aviv, Israel
- ' Service de Physique Theorique, CE-Saclay, 91191 Gif sur Yvette, Cedex, France'
author:
- 'Roland R. Netz[@address] and David Andelman'
- 'H. Orland[@address2]'
title: Protein adsorption on lipid monolayers at their coexistence region
---
Introduction
============
Monolayers of amphiphilic molecules spread on liquid surfaces have traditionally been studied as models for biological membranes[@Gaines; @Bloom]. Such insoluble and monomolecular films made of suitable phospholipids or fatty acids are stable over a wide range of surface pressures and temperatures due to the strong reduction of the water surface tension and are called [*Langmuir monolayers*]{}[@Mohwald]. In typical experiments, the amphiphiles are solubilized in a volatile solvent and placed on the air-water interface. As the solvent evaporates, the amphiphiles spontaneously spread and form a monolayer. When the insoluble film is then compressed (while keeping the temperature fixed), the lateral pressure can be measured as a function of the area per amphiphilic molecule in analogy to bulk isotherms.
Using film balance techniques[@Gaines; @Bloom; @Mohwald; @Albrecht1; @Albrecht2], the following general picture emerged. When the extremely expanded film is compressed, it produces the liquid expanded phase (LE), which, at low enough temperatures, transforms upon further compression into the liquid condensed phase (LC). At much lower surface concentrations and at low enough temperatures, the monolayer undergoes a first-order transition into a gaseous phase. At very high lateral pressures, solidification occurs, as indicated by a discontinuity in the pressure-area isotherms. Subsequently, these systems were also studied using X-ray[@Mohwald2; @Dutta; @Rondelez; @Schlossmann] and neutron[@neutron] scattering techniques, indicating the existence of a large number of different condensed phases. In this paper we will be concerned only with the LE/LC transition. Therefore, we do not introduce appropriate order parameters needed to distinguish the different condensed phases[@Bibo].
The nature of the LE/LC transition has been the subject of much discussion[@Pallas]. It is analogous to the “main” transition in lipid bilayers[@Mohwald], where domains of the LE and the LC phase have been shown to coexist over a wide range of lipid surface concentrations (or area per molecule). In this coexistence region, the condensed domains show a large variety of different shapes[@McConnell] and grow as the area per molecule is decreased, whereas the number of domains depends on the initial conditions and typically stays fixed. The isotherms in the coexistence region, however, were found to be non-horizontal, which led to the postulation of a limited cooperativity of this transition[@Albrecht1]. For the case of single-chain fatty acids, it was later shown that the isotherms approach zero slope as the material used is progressively purified[@Pallas].
On the theoretical side, the LE/LC transition has been modeled based on various microscopic pictures of the interaction between surfactant (or lipid) molecules including translational as well as internal degrees of freedom[@Marcelja; @Bell; @Georgallas; @Chen; @Kramer].
The biological function of membranes depends mostly on the incorporation of proteins and other macromolecules into the lipid layers. Functionality and efficiency of these inclusions depend crucially on microscopic details of the embedding in the lipid matrix, which can occur in different ways. Monolayers at the air-water interface are suitable for the study of the interaction between lipids and proteins, since they are rather well-defined and allow the control of independent thermodynamic parameters which are otherwise fixed in a bilayer membrane, like the area per molecule. Also, the observational techniques are well developed. Direct visualization of the phase behavior of monolayers can be obtained using fluorescence microscopy techniques. Here, a fluorescent dye probe is incorporated into the monolayer the lateral distribution of which can be obtained from the analysis of fluorescence micrographs. Contrast in the images is obtained as a result of different dye solubility, fluorescence quantum yield, or molecular density of coexisting phases[@Fluor]. A complementary and recently developed technique is Brewster-angle microscopy, which allows imaging of a monolayer without the addition of fluorescent probes[@Henon].
After injection of a water-soluble protein into the aqueous subphase, the surface tension typically decreases, indicating that the protein is at least partially incorporated into the monolayer[@Mohwald; @Wiedmann; @Schwinn; @Vogel]. This is due to the protein affinity to the water/air interface. The specific type of this attraction is not well understood and probably is due in part to structural changes (denaturation) of the protein in the monolayer or at the water surface, associated with the unfolding of hydrophobic groups.
One of the striking experimental observations[@Schwinn; @Haas] was that some proteins adsorb preferentially along the [*boundary line*]{} between the LE and LC domains when the monolayer is in the LE/LC coexistence region. These observations were made for fluorescently labeled small proteins, such as [*concanavalin*]{} A[@Haas] or [*streptavidin*]{}[@Schwinn], interacting with phospholipid monolayers. These experimental findings motivated our present theoretical study.
In the following, we describe a simple model, which (i) assumes the LE/LC transition to be a simple first-order condensation transition, yielding coexisting domains for temperatures below the critical temperature, and (ii) includes the effect of proteins which are adsorbed into the monolayer. Assuming that the proteins are completely incorporated into the monolayer, this simplistic model leads to an entropic force which tends to localize the protein at the boundary between LE and LC domains. Depending on the energetic preference of the protein for the LE or LC phase, the protein will be either dissolved in the LE or in the LC domain, or, if there is no pronounced preference, will be localized at the boundary.
Phase separation in amphiphilic layers is also observed for freely suspended multicomponent bilayers[@Bloom]. Here, the coexisting phases are distinguished by their compositions. The most important examples include mixtures of phospholipids with cholesterol[@Thewalt] and mixtures of different phospholipids[@Wu], and in both cases the coexisting phases are in a fluid state. These phenomena are of great biological interest since biological membranes are always multicomponent mixtures and lateral organization into domains is supposed to play an important functional role. We note that our results apply directly to these situations as well, although we will limit our terminology to the situation of coexisting dense and dilute phases for one-component systems at the air-water interface. For the case of freely suspended membranes, our findings imply a simple mechanism for the localization of integral membrane proteins along the one-dimensional boundary between coexisting domains. The resulting enrichment of proteins might be a prerequisite for proper biological function in certain cases.
In the following sections we formulate the model (Sect. II), inspect the minima of the free energy (Sect. III), solve the corresponding Euler-Lagrange equations in the coexistence region (Sect. IV), and calculate profiles both for the lipid and the (coupled) protein densities (Sect. V). From the profiles we generate a general phase diagram featuring localized, semi-localized and delocalized protein phases. We also calculate the total amount of adsorbed protein, the protein excess $\Gamma$ (Sect. VI), and the line tension $\tau$ of the LE-LC line interface (Sect. VII). It turns out that the line tension is strongly reduced by the adsorption of proteins. A finite solubility of the proteins in the subphase is taken into account in Sect. VIII. Finally, the connection to experimentally measurable quantities, such as the surface pressure $\Pi$, is made in Sect. IX.
The mixed lipid and protein free energy
=======================================
Consider the air-water interface with proteins, lipid molecules, and artificial “vacancies”, with area fractions $\phi_P$, $\phi_L$, and $\phi_V$, respectively, satisfying $\phi_P+\phi_L+\phi_V=1$. The vacancies are introduced in order to allow for independent variations of the protein and lipid concentrations, hence making coexistence of dilute and condensed regions of the monolayer possible. Inscribing the system on a lattice, with a lattice constant corresponding to the size of a lipid molecule, the free energy of mixing per lattice site within a mean field theory can be written for the three-component mixture as a sum of the enthalpy and entropy of mixing, ${\cal F} = {\cal U} -T{\cal S}$. The enthalpy of mixing includes all pair-wise interactions between the three species: $${\cal U}/T=
E_{LL} \phi_L^2 +E_{VV} \phi_V^2 +E_{PP} \phi_P^2
+E_{LV} \phi_L \phi_V +E_{PL} \phi_P \phi_L+E_{PV} \phi_P \phi_V$$ and the $E_{ij}$ are the dimensionless interaction parameters for all possible pairs. The entropy of mixing is related to the total number $\Omega$ of distinct microscopic configurations $${\cal S}=\frac{\log \Omega}{N}$$ where $N$ is the total number of lattice sites and the Boltzmann constant is set to unity ($k_B=1$). In the random-mixing approximation, $$\Omega=
\frac{(N/\alpha)!}{(N \phi_P /\alpha)! (N(1-\phi_P)/\alpha)!}
\frac{(N[\phi_L+\phi_V])!}{(N \phi_L)!(N \phi_V)!}$$ where the constant $\alpha>1$ denotes the ratio between the compact area occupied by a protein molecule and a lipid molecule at the interface. The above expression is the product of the number of all protein configurations and the number of all lipid/vacancy configurations in the remaining area not taken up by the proteins. Using Stirling’s Formula in the thermodynamic limit, defined by $N \rightarrow \infty$, the expression for ${\cal S}$ can be simplified $${\cal S}=-\phi_L \log(\phi_L) -\phi_V \log(\phi_V) -\phi_P \log(\phi_P)/\alpha
-(1/\alpha -1)(1-\phi_P) \log (1-\phi_P)$$ It is convenient to define the thermodynamic potential $${\cal G}/T=
{\cal F}/T- \mu_P \phi_P -\mu_L(\phi_L-\phi_V)$$ where the chemical potentials $\mu_P$ and $\mu_L$ are coupled to the protein concentration $\phi_P$ and the difference between the lipid and vacancy concentrations, $\phi_L-\phi_V$, respectively.
In (1)-(5), long-range interactions between the proteins, such as electrostatic forces, are not taken into account. In addition, the free energy of mixing assumes a confinement of the protein and lipid to the two-dimensional plane of the air-water interface. In fact, the variation of the protein concentration perpendicular to the monolayer in the subphase can be taken into account approximately and leads to a renormalization of the parameters of the two-dimensional model, as shown in Sect. VIII.
The lipid order parameter $\eta$, corresponding to the density of lipid molecules, can be written as $$\eta \equiv \phi_L - \phi_V$$ Using that $\phi_P + \phi_L +\phi_V=1$, and defining the protein concentration as $\phi \equiv \phi_P$, the free energy ${\cal F}$ and the potential ${\cal G}$ can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal F}/T &=&
-(J+1/2) \eta^2 +L \phi^2
+ \lambda \eta \phi+ \\ \nonumber
&& (1+\eta-\phi)\log[(1+\eta-\phi)/2]/2+
(1-\eta-\phi)\log[(1-\eta-\phi)/2]/2+\\ \nonumber
&& \phi \log[\phi]/\alpha +(1/\alpha-1) (1-\phi) \log[1-\phi]\end{aligned}$$ and $${\cal G}/T= {\cal F}/T- \mu_{\eta} \eta-(\mu +\log 2 ) \phi$$ where constant terms have been omitted and linear terms in $\eta$ and $\phi$ have been dropped out from ${\cal F}$ for convenience. They merely contribute a constant shift to $\mu$ and $\mu_{\eta}$ in ${\cal G}$. The reduced interaction parameters: $J$, $L$, $\mu$ and $\lambda$ are related to the original $E_{ij}$ and $\mu_P$ in the following way $$-J \equiv
\frac{1}{4}(E_{LL} + E_{VV} - E_{LV})+\frac{1}{2}$$ $$L\equiv \frac{1}{4}(E_{LL} + E_{VV} + E_{LV})+
E_{PP}-\frac{1}{2}(E_{PL} + E_{PV})$$ $$\lambda \equiv
-\frac{1}{2}(E_{LL} - E_{VV}- E_{PL} + E_{PV})$$ $$\mu \equiv \mu_P+
\frac{1}{2}(E_{LL} + E_{VV}+ E_{LV}- E_{PL}
- E_{PV})-\log 2$$ The constant $\log 2$ appears in the definition of $\mu$ in order to render the simplified expression (13) in a simpler form.
The above expression for ${\cal G}$ is studied in Sect. III for different values of the various parameters and the corresponding bulk phase-diagrams are obtained. For the study of protein profiles, one can further simplify this expression. First, for small values of the order parameters, i.e., relatively close to the critical point of demixing of the lipid and for small protein concentrations, it is legitimate to expand the free energy of mixing up to order ${\cal O}(\eta^4)$ and ${\cal O}(\phi^2)$. In addition, since typical proteins occupy a much larger area then lipids, the area ratio is in the range of $\alpha \sim 50 - 100$, and the protein entropy terms (of order $1/\alpha$) can be neglected in (7). The validity of the latter ($\alpha \rightarrow \infty$) approximation will be reexamined in Sect. III[@note1]. With these simplifications, the approximated free energy density can be written as $${\cal F}^0/{T}=
-J \eta^2 +\frac{1}{12} \eta^4 +L \phi^2
+ \lambda \eta \phi +\frac{1}{2} \eta^2 \phi$$ where the simplified thermodynamic potential using (8) is given by ${\cal G}^0/{T}={\cal F}^0/{T}- \mu \phi -\mu_{\eta} \eta$. The free energy density (13) needs some further discussion. Coexistence between dense ($\eta >0$) and dilute regions ($\eta<0$) requires that $J>0$ and a positive fourth-order term $\eta^4$ is needed to stabilize the free energy. The protein itself is assumed not to be close to any phase transition. Hence $L>0$ and no higher order terms in $\phi$ are needed. We include in the expansion only the two lowest coupling terms between the protein and lipid concentrations. The first is the bilinear coupling $\eta\phi$ and has an enthalpic origin. It reflects the overall preference of the protein to more condensed ($\lambda<0$) or more dilute ($\lambda>0$) regions of the lipid monolayer. The second coupling is the symmetric $\eta^2\phi$ term, which is invariant under $\eta \rightarrow -\eta$ transformation and provides the driving force for the localization of proteins at the LE-LC interface. In our mean-field model, taking into account only pair interactions, this coupling has a purely entropic origin. More generally, it can also include interaction terms of higher-order in a virial expansion. Finally, the higher-order coupling terms $\eta^2 \phi^2$ and $\eta^4 \phi$ are not considered here since we try to investigate the most simple and yet non-trivial type of coupling. A similar free energy coupling has been introduced in the context of polymer adsorption at liquid-liquid interfaces, where in analogy the polymer adsorbs preferentially at the interface from the bulk solution[@Pincus].
For the case where the proteins in the monolayer are in equilibrium with a solution of proteins in the aqueous subphase, the protein chemical potential $\mu$ corresponds to the free energy of adsorbing proteins from the subphase into the monolayer and depends on the concentration of proteins in the subphase; this is discussed in Sect. VIII. Since we consider an insoluble (Langmuir) monolayer, similar considerations do not apply to the chemical potential $\mu_{\eta}$ of the lipid order parameter $\eta$. In fact, $\mu_{\eta}$ will be uniquely determined by the requirement of coexistence between dense and dilute lipid regions. For proteins which are [*insoluble*]{} in the subphase, the chemical potential $\mu$ acts as a Lagrange multiplier fixing the total amount of protein in the monolayer, which is a conserved quantity in this situation.
In the LE/LC two-phase region, obtained for $J>0$, one finds experimentally[@Mohwald] domains of typically circular shape of LC phase immersed in a background of LE phase. Since the domains are rather large ($\sim 10-100 \mu m$), we neglect the shape of the line boundary between the LC and LE regions and assume variation of the lipid concentration only along one spatial direction (the $x$ direction) and translational invariance along the perpendicular direction. The free energy $\gamma$ per unit length of this line boundary (related to the line tension $\tau$ of the interface as calculated in Sect. VII) is given by $$\gamma = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {\cal I} \d x$$ where the free energy density ${\cal I}$ includes contributions associated with spatial variations of the concentrations. Defining the “stiffness coefficients” $g_\phi$ and $g_\eta$ for the protein and lipid concentration profiles, respectively, the free energy density ${\cal I}$ is given by $${\cal I}= {\cal G}/{T} +\frac{1}{2} g_{\phi}
\left( \frac{\d \phi}{\d x} \right)^2 +\frac{1}{2} g_{\eta}
\left( \frac{\d \eta}{\d x} \right)^2$$ In the next section we study the bulk phase diagram based on the thermodynamic potential (8). In the subsequent sections we use the simplified expression (13) and determine the concentration profiles $\phi(x)$ and $\eta(x)$ by applying a variational principle to the free energy functional $\gamma$.
The phase diagram
=================
The phase diagram as a function of the chemical potentials $\mu_{\eta}$ and $\mu$ can be obtained from the thermodynamic potential (8) by minimizing ${\cal G}$ with respect to the order parameters $\eta$ and $\phi$ in the two-phase coexistence region[@note2]. The coexisting solutions, denoted by $(\eta_1,\phi_1)$ and $(\eta_2, \phi_2)$, are determined from the equations $$\mu_{\eta}=
\left. \frac{\partial {\cal F}}{\partial \eta} \right|_{\eta_1,\phi_1}=
\left. \frac{\partial {\cal F}}{\partial \eta} \right|_{\eta_2,\phi_2}=
\frac{{\cal F}(\eta_1,\phi_1)-{\cal F}(\eta_2,\phi_2)}{\eta_1-\eta_2}$$ $$\mu+\log 2=
\left. \frac{\partial {\cal F}}{\partial \phi} \right|_{\eta_1,\phi_1}=
\left. \frac{\partial {\cal F}}{\partial \phi} \right|_{\eta_2,\phi_2}$$ which correspond to a common-tangent construction. These equations can be easily solved numerically. In order to estimate the role of the protein-lipid area ratio, $\alpha$, and to compare the results with the calculations presented in the next section based on the simplified expression (13), where $\alpha \rightarrow \infty$, we restrict the numerical analysis to the values $J=1/10$ and $L=10$. The small value of $J$ means that one is close to the critical point of the lipid phase separation, and the expansion in powers of $\eta$, leading to (13), is appropriate. The large value of $L$ means that the protein concentration is rather small everywhere and can be treated as a small perturbation. We will need this assumption for the analytic solution of the Euler-Lagrange equations in Sect. IV. The parameter $\alpha$ will be scanned in a rather wide range. With this choice of $L$ and $J$, it is clear that the simplified free energy expression (13) is asymptotically obtained for $\alpha \rightarrow \infty$.
The protein concentrations in the coexisting dense and dilute lipid regions scan a whole range of different values, depending on the values of the remaining parameters $\mu$ and $\lambda$, but are strictly bounded below by $\sim \exp(-\alpha)$. In contrast, the simplified free energy expression (13) has solutions with non-zero and strictly zero protein concentrations, because of the $\alpha \rightarrow \infty$ limit. It therefore allows for straightforward classification of the bulk protein ordering into a phase with finite protein concentration and a phase with no proteins at all. We need a similar criterion for the case of the full free energy expression (7) with $\alpha$ finite, allowing us to distinguish in a categorical manner the presence of proteins from the absence of proteins, even in the inevitable presence of an exponentially small (in $\alpha$) protein concentration. We adopt the simple criterion which consists of calculating the Laplacian of the protein concentration in the parameter space $(\mu,
\lambda)$, $$\frac{\partial^2 \phi_i}{\partial \mu^2}+
\frac{\partial^2 \phi_i}{\partial \lambda^2}$$ in the two coexisting phases $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$. This scalar quantity shows a pronounced line of maxima in the parameter space, separating two phases with small and large concentrations of proteins. The position of this ridge is determined numerically and defined as the boundary between the two phases rich and devoid of proteins, respectively, for each solution $\phi_i$. The result of this operation leads to three distinct phase regions and is shown in Fig. 1 for the values $\alpha=10$, $50$, and $200$. Anticipating the definitions (28) and (30), we present the results in terms of the rescaled variables $a \equiv \mu/(3J)$ and $c \equiv \lambda /\sqrt{3J/2}$. The results obtained for $\alpha=\infty$ are denoted by solid lines. In the region denoted “no proteins” both protein concentrations $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$ are very small (exponentially in $-\alpha$); in the region “semi-localized” only one concentration is small while the other is finite (distinguished by the criterion described above), and in the region “delocalized” both phases have finite protein concentrations.
In the next section we will calculate the protein profile explicitly and, in addition, obtain a “localized” phase. This phase cannot be distinguished from the “no protein” phase by just looking at the bulk free energy. In fact, in this phase there is a finite protein concentration only at a finite distance from the boundary between the LE and LC regions. As one can see from Fig. 1, the phase boundary for $\alpha=50$ (long dashes) is already fairly close to the asymptotic boundary ($\alpha \rightarrow
\infty$, solid line), so that neglecting the protein entropy is already a good approximation for moderately large macromolecules.
Euler-Lagrange equations
========================
In this section we calculate the protein concentration profile based on the free energy expression (15). Minimization of the line free energy $\gamma$ (14) leads to the Euler-Lagrange equations (denoting $\d \phi/\d x$ by $\phi^\prime$, etc.) $$\frac{\partial {\cal I}}{\partial \eta} - \frac{\d}{\d x}
\frac{\partial {\cal I}}{\partial \eta^\prime}=0$$ $$\frac{\partial {\cal I}}{\partial \phi} - \frac{\d}{\d x}
\frac{\partial {\cal I}}{\partial \phi^\prime}=0$$ Using the full free energy of mixing (7), one obtains two coupled second-order and non-linear differential equations of the form $$-\mu_{\eta}-(2J+1) \eta+\lambda \phi +
\frac{1}{2} \log \left( \frac{1+\eta-\phi}{1-\eta-\phi} \right) =
g_{\eta}\frac{\d^2 \eta}{\d x^2}$$ $$-\mu -\log 2 + 2L\phi +\lambda \eta +\frac{1}{2}
\log \left( \frac{4(1-\phi)^2}{(1+\eta-\phi)(1-\eta-\phi)} \right)+
\frac{1}{\alpha} \log \left( \frac{\phi}{1-\phi} \right) =
g_{\phi}\frac{\d^2 \phi}{\d x^2}$$ For the actual calculation of concentration profiles, we will use the simplified free energy expression (13), leading to the more compact expressions $$-\mu_{\eta}-2J\eta+\frac{1}{3}\eta^3 +\lambda \phi +\eta \phi=
g_{\eta}\frac{\d^2 \eta}{\d x^2}$$ $$-\mu + 2L\phi +\lambda \eta +\frac{1}{2}\eta^2 =
g_{\phi}\frac{\d^2 \phi}{\d x^2}$$ These are the same equations that were considered by Halperin and Pincus in the context of polymer adsorption at liquid-liquid interfaces[@Pincus].
Instead of solving (21)-(22) numerically, we recall that for large values of $L$ we can treat the protein area fraction as a small parameter. As a zeroth-order approximation, we neglect the terms depending on $\phi$ in (21) and obtain as a solution the lipid order parameter profile $\eta_0(x)$ in the absence of proteins. This profile is then inserted into (22), yielding the protein profile $\phi(x)$. The validity of this approach, namely solving the equation (21) while neglecting the coupling between $\eta$ and $\phi$ and inserting the solution into equation (22), is critically examined in Appendix B. There, it is found that this approximation indeed corresponds to the first term in an expansion, in which the protein concentration functions as the expansion parameter and which therefore is valid for small protein concentrations.
To proceed, setting $\phi=0$ in (21) leads to $$\eta_0(x)=\eta_{\infty} \tanh (x/\xi_{\eta})$$ with the definitions $$\eta_{\infty} \equiv \sqrt{6J}$$ $$\xi_{\eta} \equiv \sqrt{g_{\eta}/J}$$ This is the solution of the usual 4th order Ginzburg-Landau free energy expansion and is strictly valid here only for the pure lipid. The lipid order parameter varies between $+\eta_\infty$ for $x\rightarrow \infty$ and $-\eta_\infty$ for $x\rightarrow -\infty$, and its width is characterized by the correlation length $\xi_\eta$. The chemical potential $\mu_{\eta}$ is zero in the approximation employed above. The origin is chosen as the symmetric point between the liquid condensed phase ($x>0$) and the liquid expanded phase ($x<0$). Defining a rescaled length $u\equiv x/\xi_{\eta}$ and a rescaled protein density $\Phi(x) \equiv 4L \phi(x)/(\eta_{\infty})^2$, the second differential equation (22) is reduced to $$\Phi(u)-h(u)=b^2 \frac{\d^2 \Phi(u)}{\d u^2}$$ with the inhomogeneous term $h(u)$ given by $$h(u) \equiv a- \tanh^2(u) -c \tanh(u)$$ The remaining rescaled parameters are $$a \equiv \frac{2 \mu}{(\eta_{\infty})^2}
=\frac{\mu}{3J}$$ $$b^2 \equiv \frac{J g_{\phi}}{2L g_{\eta}}=
\frac{\xi_\phi^2}{ \xi_\eta^2}$$ $$c \equiv \frac{2 \lambda }{\eta_{\infty}}=
\frac{\lambda}{\sqrt{3J/2}}$$ The parameter $a \sim \mu$ is the rescaled chemical potential, $b$ is the relative stiffness of the lipid concentration profile compared to the protein concentration profile, and $c \sim \lambda$ measures the preference of the proteins for the dense ($c<0$) or dilute ($c>0$) lipid domains. The correlation length of the protein distribution is defined by $ \xi_\phi \equiv \sqrt{g_{\phi}/2L}$.
The general solution of the second order differential equation (26) can be written as $$\Phi(u)=A \sinh(u/b) +B \cosh(u/b)+a -\Phi_1(u)/b -c \Phi_2(u)/b$$ where the functions $\Phi_1(u)$ and $\Phi_2(u)$ are given in Appendix A. The constants $A$ and $B$ have to be determined in accord with the boundary conditions.
Protein distribution
====================
Solution for the case $b=0$
---------------------------
It is instructive to treat first the limiting case where the stiffness of the protein distribution vanishes, i.e., $g_{\phi}=0$ and $\xi_{\phi}=0$. Then, one has $b=0$ and the solution of (26) is trivially given by $\Phi(u)=h(u)$. This leads to the protein distribution $$\Phi^0(u) = \left\{ \begin{array}{lll}
h(u) & \mbox{for } & h(u) \geq 0 \\
0 & \mbox{for } & h(u) < 0 \\
\end{array} \right.$$ where the restriction to a finite range in $u$ follows since $\Phi^0(u)$ has to be positive. In fact, for $b=0$, only for $h(u) \geq 0$ the protein distribution is correctly described by the differential equation (26); inspection of the free energy density ${\cal I}$ in the limit $\alpha \rightarrow \infty$ shows that the value of $\Phi(u)$ which minimizes ${\cal I}$ for $h(u)<0$ is given by $\Phi(u)=0$. This failure of the variational methods used in deriving (26) is due to the fact that one requires $\Phi(u)$ to be positive in the limit of very large proteins, $\alpha \rightarrow \infty$.
Hereafter, we choose $c\geq 0$ with no loss of generality, since the problem defined by (26) and (27) is symmetric under a simultaneous inversion of $c$ and $u$ ($c\rightarrow -c$ and $u \rightarrow -u$). Using the asymptotic behavior of $h(u)$, $$h(u) =\left\{ \begin{array}{lll}
a-1+c & \mbox{for } & u \rightarrow - \infty\\
a-1-c& \mbox{for } & u \rightarrow +\infty\\
\end{array} \right.$$ the following classification emerges: (i) For $a\leq 1-c$, the protein distribution vanishes both for positive and negative values of $u$ at a sufficiently large but finite distance from the interface (which is located at $u=0$); one actually obtains a nonvanishing, [*localized*]{} distribution of proteins provided that $h(u)>0$ for some range of $u$, but this cannot be seen from the bulk behavior; (ii) for $1-c<a \leq 1+c$, the distribution is [*semi-localized*]{} and vanishes only for sufficiently large positive values of $u$ and stays finite as $u \rightarrow - \infty$, and (iii) for $a>1+c$ the distribution is [*delocalized*]{} and stays finite in both limits $u \rightarrow \pm \infty$. These three regimes are in accord with the phase diagram obtained in Sect. III and Fig. 1 for finite $\alpha$ and in the $\alpha \rightarrow \infty$ limit.
An additional observation can be made for $c \leq 2$, where $h(u)$ has one maximum located at $$u_{max}=-\tanh^{-1}(c/2)$$ with a height $$h(u_{max})=a+c^2/4$$ (in the limit $c \rightarrow 2$ one obtains $u_{max} \simeq \log(2-c)/2$). Consequently, for $c \leq 2$, the line defined by $a=-c^2/4$ marks the border between a fourth regime where the protein distribution vanishes identically (for $ a \leq -c^2/4$) and the regime where this distribution is non-zero (for a finite distance from the boundary between dense and dilute lipid regions). Fig. 2 summarizes these borderlines in a phase diagram, which is in fact valid also for $b \neq 0$, as will be discussed in the next subsection. The localized regime is shaded in gray and ends at a special point $S$, at which the maximum of the protein distribution is at infinity; as pointed out before, there is an overall symmetry around the $a-$axis ($c=0$).
The effective correlation length $\xi_{eff}$ for the proteins in the localized regime can be estimated from the curvature of $\Phi^0(u)$ at the maximum $u_{max}$, $$\xi_{eff}^{-2} \equiv -h''(u_{max})=2(1-c^2/4)^2$$ This length diverges as one approaches the special point $S$, where the distribution becomes indefinitely broad.
Solution for $b >0\;\;\;\;
-\;\;\;\;$ general considerations
---------------------------------
On physical grounds, the solution for non-zero $b$, i.e., for a finite stiffness of the protein distribution, has to coincide with the solution found for $b=0$ in the preceding section very far from the interface located at $u=0$. This leads to the general boundary condition $$\Phi(u)=\Phi^0(u) \;\;\; \mbox{for} \;\;\;
u \rightarrow \pm \infty$$ where $\Phi^0(u)$ is given by (32) and the general solution $\Phi(u)$ is defined to be the concentration profile which minimizes the free energy functional (14). In the following, we discuss the properties of the general solution $\Phi(u)$ separately for the four regions distinguished in Fig. 2.
i\) In the delocalized case, the boundary conditions (37) occurring at infinity together with the differential equation (26) valid for the entire ($-\infty, \infty)$ range in $u$ are sufficient to determine the distribution $\Phi(u)$.
For the other cases, the boundary conditions (37) have to be supplemented by additional conditions at finite values of $u$; the distribution $\Phi(u)$ is described by (26) only in a finite interval of $u$.
ii\) In the case where $h(u)<0$ for all $u$, it follows from the requirement $\Phi(u) \geq 0$ that $\Phi(u)-h(u) >0$ and thus all possible solutions of (26) have strictly positive curvature as can be seen by looking at (26). The boundary conditions (37), which imply that $\Phi(u)=0$ as $u\rightarrow \pm \infty$, can not be satisfied for any non-vanishing solution of (26). Consequently, the protein distribution which minimizes the free energy is given identically by $\Phi(u)=0$. This vanishing solution was also found for $b=0$.
iii\) When $h(u)$ is positive in some finite interval of $u$ but negative for $u \rightarrow \pm \infty$, all solutions of (26) which are positive definite everywhere have positive curvature for $u \rightarrow \pm \infty$ and are not compatible with the boundary conditions as given by (37). This merely reflects the fact that (26) describes the distribution $\Phi(u)$ only in the finite interval $u_1 \leq u \leq u_2$, in which $\Phi(u)>0$. The same was found to be true for $b=0$ in the last section. From (37) in combination with (32), $\Phi(u)$ has to vanish for $u \rightarrow \pm \infty$, and can be positive for finite $u$. As follows from minimizing the free energy functional $\gamma$ (14), the solution $\Phi(u)$ has to be smooth everywhere and thus fulfills $\Phi(u)=\Phi'(u)=0$ at the two boundaries $u=u_1$ and $u=u_2$.
Now the following statements can be made: a) There have to be intervals of $u$ where $\Phi(u)$ has negative curvature in order to fulfill the boundary conditions $\Phi(u)=0$ at $u=u_1$ and $u=u_2$; b) close to the boundaries $u=u_1$ and $u=u_2$, the curvature has to be positive in order to fulfill $\Phi'(u)=0$ at $u=u_1$ and $u=u_2$; c) consequently, the solution $\Phi(u)$ crosses $h(u)$ at two values of $u$ inside the region bounded by $u=u_1$ and $u=u_2$, at which the curvature of $\Phi(u)$ vanishes; this can be seen from (26). It follows that the boundaries $u_1$ and $u_2$ do not coincide, which means that the protein distribution $\Phi(u)$ does not vanish identically. We conclude that whenever the distribution $\Phi^0(u)$ does not vanish for $b=0$, it is non-vanishing for any $b \neq 0$. Note that it is actually possible to construct a solution $\Phi(u)$ in accord with the boundary conditions at $u_1$ and $u_2$ since the general solution (31) has two adjustable parameters $A$ and $B$.
iv\) For the semi-localized case, the boundary condition (37) applies to the solution of (26) for $u \rightarrow - \infty$ only. The protein distribution is non-zero in the $u$ interval $(-\infty, u_2)$ and the boundary value $u_2$ satisfies $\Phi(u_2)=\Phi'(u_2)=0$.
Putting together these arguments for the different regimes, it follows that the phase diagram in Fig. 2 is valid for general $b>0$.
Boundary conditions
-------------------
In the following, we specify the boundary conditions for general $b$ for the three different cases showing non-vanishing protein distributions:
In the delocalized regime, the boundary conditions obtained from (37), (33), and (32) are $$\Phi(\pm \infty)=h(\pm \infty)= a-1 \mp c$$ These boundary conditions determine the coefficients $A$ and $B$ of the general solution (31).
In the semi-localized regime, one has the conditions $$\Phi(- \infty)=h(- \infty)= a-1 + c$$ and $$\Phi(u_2)=\Phi'(u_2)=0$$ which determine the position of the boundary value, $u_2$, and the coefficients $A$ and $B$.
In the localized regime, one has $$\Phi(u_1)=\Phi'(u_1)=0$$ $$\Phi(u_2)=\Phi'(u_2)=0$$ Here, the boundary conditions determine $u_1$, $u_2$, $A$, and $B$. In what follows, we always assume that $u_1 \leq u_2$, with no restrictions on the generality.
In the following, we present explicit protein profiles $\Phi(u)$ for the limiting cases $b=0$ and $b=1$. The latter value corresponds to the case where the correlation lengths of the lipid and protein concentration profiles are equal, $\xi_{\eta}=\xi_{\phi}$. Also, for $b=1$, the general solution of the protein profile as given in Appendix A can be written in a simpler analytical form.
[*Delocalized case:*]{} for $b=1$, the coefficients are determined to be $B=\pi/2-2$ and $A=c(1-\pi/2)$; the protein distribution, given by (31), then reads $$\Phi(u)=a-2 +2 \tan^{-1}[\tanh(u/2)](c \cosh u -\sinh u)
+\pi(\cosh u- c \sinh u)/2$$ Using the equalities $$\tan^{-1}[\tanh(u/2)]= \tan^{-1}[\e^u]-\pi/4=
\pi/4-\tan^{-1}[\e^{-u}]$$ the protein distribution can be rewritten as $$\Phi(u)=a-2 +\pi \e^u (1-c)/2 +2 \tan^{-1}[\e^u](c \cosh u -\sinh u)$$ or $$\Phi(u)=a-2 +\pi \e^{-u} (1+c)/2 -2 \tan^{-1}[\e^{-u}](c \cosh u -\sinh u)$$ in accord with the limiting values $\Phi(u)=a-1 \pm c$ for $u \rightarrow \mp \infty$.
[*Semi-localized case:*]{} For $b=1$, the boundary condition at $u=-\infty$ leads to the relation $A=2+B+c-\pi(1+c)/2$. The protein distribution can be written as $$\Phi(u)=a-2 +\e^u (B+2-c \pi/2) +2 \tan^{-1}[\e^u](c \cosh u -\sinh u)$$ which indeed satisfies the boundary condition as given by (39). The coefficient $B$ and $u_2$ are in turn determined by the second boundary condition (40).
[*Localized case:*]{} for general $b$, the boundary conditions (41) and (42) can be cast in a more explicit form. Defining $$\cosh(u/b) \Phi(u) /b - \sinh(u/b) \Phi'(u) =B/b +\rho(u)$$ with $$\rho(u) \equiv
\cosh(u/b)(a/b-\Phi_1(u)-c \; \Phi_2(u))+
b \sinh(u/b)(\Phi'_1(u)+c \; \Phi'_2(u))$$ and $$\sinh(u/b) \Phi(u) /b - \cosh(u/b) \Phi'(u) =-A/b +\kappa(u)$$ with $$\kappa(u) \equiv
\sinh(u/b)(a/b-\Phi_1(u)-c \; \Phi_2(u))+
b \cosh(u/b)(\Phi'_1(u)+c \; \Phi'_2(u))$$ leads to the equations $$-B/b=\rho(u_1)=\rho(u_2)$$ $$A/b=\kappa(u_1)=\kappa(u_2)$$ Equations (48)-(51) have to be solved simultaneously in order to determine $u_1$, $u_2$, $A$, and $B$. For the case $b=1$, the functions $\rho(u)$ and $\kappa(u)$ take the simpler form $$\rho(u)=
(a-2)\cosh u +2 +\tanh u \sinh u +2c \tan^{-1}[\tanh(u/2)] -c \sinh u$$ $$\kappa(u)=
(a-1)\sinh u +2 \tan^{-1}[\tanh(u/2)] +c (1-\cosh u)$$
In the remainder of this section, we present protein profiles calculated from the above equations for several values of the three parameters $a$, $b$, and $c$. Figure 3 shows protein distributions for four different values of $a$ and for the two simple cases $b=0$ (solid lines) and $b=1$ (broken lines). We set $c=0$, so the protein profiles are symmetric about the LE/LC boundary located at $u=0$, where the lipid concentration profile as given by (23) has an inflection point. For vanishing stiffness of the protein distribution ($b \rightarrow 0$), the profiles have discontinuous slopes for $a<1$ at the points where the protein concentration vanishes; the main effect of a non-vanishing stiffness parameter $b$ is to eliminate these discontinuities, thereby flattening the entire concentration profile, as is clearly seen in Fig. 3.
Figure 4 shows asymmetric protein distributions for four different values of $c$ on the transition line between the localized and the semi-localized regimes, defined by $a=1-c$. Again, solid lines denote results for $b=0$ and broken lines denote results for $b=1$. As for the symmetric distributions shown in Fig. 3, a non-zero stiffness parameter $b$ removes the discontinuity of $\Phi'(u)$ at the boundary $u_2$ and flattens the concentration profile. As $c$ approaches the value $2$, the maximum of the distribution moves progressively away from the LE/LC boundary located at $u=0$. Also, the overall protein concentration rapidly decreases. In the limit $c \rightarrow2$, the position of the maximum actually diverges logarithmically, as follows from (34).
Figure 5 gives the localized protein distribution $\Phi(u)$ for $c=0$ and $a=0.5$ for six different values of $b$, where $u_2$ and $B$ have to be determined numerically from (42) applied to the general solution (31). Interestingly enough, the boundary values $u_2=-u_1$ do not diverge as $b \rightarrow \infty$ but approach finite values $u_{1,2}= \mp 1.915$. As the stiffness of the protein distribution increases, the concentration is flattened and the area under the curves decreases, but the profile does not spread out indefinitely and stays localized.
The protein excess
===================
The protein excess is the total amount of adsorbed proteins. In the localized regime, this quantity is defined as $$\Gamma \equiv
\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \Phi(u) du=
\int_{u_1}^{u_2} \Phi(u) du$$ In the delocalized and the semi-localized regimes, the quantity $\Gamma$ as defined above diverges since the protein distribution approaches a constant non-vanishing value as $u \rightarrow - \infty$ (for the delocalized case the same is also true as $u \rightarrow\infty$). One can still extract a meaningful quantity defined by the excess amount of protein adsorbed by subtracting the protein concentration at $u= \pm \infty$, where $\Phi(\pm \infty)=a-1 \mp c$. For $-2<c<2$ the protein distribution has one maximum, and we define the protein excess as $$\Gamma \equiv
\int_{-\infty}^{u_{max}} ( \Phi(u)-\Phi(-\infty)) du +
\int_{u_{max}}^{\infty} ( \Phi(u)-\Phi(\infty)) du$$ where $u_{max}$ is the value of $u$ for which $\Phi(u)$ reaches its maximum.
Protein excess for $b=0$
------------------------
The protein excess $\Gamma$ can be calculated for $b=0$ in closed form for all parameter values. With $\Phi^0(u)=h(u)=a-\tanh^2(u) -c \tanh(u)$, the excess can be written as $$\Gamma \equiv
\int_{u_1}^{u_2} (a-\tanh^2(u) -c \tanh(u))du$$ where the integration boundaries are given by $$u_{1,2}=
\tanh^{-1}
\left[-\frac{c}{2} \mp \sqrt{\frac{c^2}{4} +a} \; \right]$$ For the symmetric case, $c=0$, the boundaries $u_1$ and $u_2$ have the values $$u_{1,2}=
\mp \tanh^{-1} \sqrt{a}$$ and on the transition line between the localized and the semi-localized regimes, given by $a=1-c$, one obtains $u_1=-\infty$ and $$u_2=\tanh^{-1}(1-c)$$ For general $a$ and $c$, the integral (58) yields $$\Gamma=
\sqrt{c^2+4a}+(a-1+c)\tanh^{-1}\left[
\frac{\sqrt{c^2+4a}}{1+a} \right]
-c \tanh^{-1}\left[
\frac{\sqrt{c^2+4a}(2+c)}{2+2a+2c+c^2} \right]$$ In the symmetric case, $c=0$, this expression reduces to $$\Gamma=
(a-1)\tanh^{-1}\left[
\frac{\sqrt{4a}}{1+a} \right]
+\sqrt{4a}$$ and on the localized to semi-localized transition line, $a=1-c$, it reduces to $$\Gamma=
2-c-c\tanh^{-1}\left[
\frac{4-c^2}{4+c^2}\right]=2-c-c\log(2/c)$$ Lines of constant $\Gamma$ for $b=0$ calculated from (62) are shown as broken lines in Fig. 2. Those lines can be helpful in interpreting experimental findings when only the integrated protein amount is known and not the entire profile.
Protein excess for $b=1$
------------------------
For the symmetric case ($c=0$) the excess is given by the closed-form expression $$\Gamma=
2(a-1)u_2 + 2 \tanh u_2$$ with the boundary value $u_2$ determined by $$\tan^{-1}[\tanh(u_2/2)]=\frac{1-a}{2}\sinh u_2$$ as follows from (53) and (55) and noting that $A=0$.
For the localized to semi-localized transition line, $a=1-c$, the excess is given by $$\Gamma=
1-c \log(2) +\tanh u_2 -u_2 c -c \log(\cosh u_2)$$ with the boundary value $u_2$ determined by $$2c+1=\tanh u_2+(1+c)(\cosh u_2-\sinh u_2)(\pi/2+
2 \tan^{-1}(\tanh[u_2/2])$$ as follows from applying (42) to (47).
The protein excess $\Gamma$ for the symmetric case $c=0$ is shown in Fig. 6(a) as a function of $a$, where the solid line denotes results for $b=0$ and the broken line for $b=1$. These results correspond to the concentration profiles plotted in Fig. 3 and are given by (63) and (65). The protein excess for $b=1$ is smaller than for $b=0$, which is also visible in Fig. 3. The overall flattening of the distributions for non-zero $b$ causes the area under the distribution to decrease. For $a=1$, the protein excess is given by $\Gamma=2$ for both values of $b$. The same value holds for general $b$, as can be demonstrated by numerical solutions of (56). The boundary values $u_2$ given by (60) for $b=0$ and determined by (66) for $b=1$ are plotted in Fig. 7(a).
In Fig. 6(b) we show the protein excess on the localized/ semi-localized transition line, $a=1-c$, as a function of $c$, as given by (64) and (67). As in the symmetric case, the protein excess $\Gamma$ decreases as $b$ becomes non-zero. The boundary values $u_2$, obtained from (61) and (68), for $b=0$ and $b=1$, respectively, are plotted in Fig. 7(b).
LE/LC line tension in the presence of protein
=============================================
First we calculate the line tension of the liquid expanded-condensed interface in the absence of proteins, denoted by $\tau_0$. This energy per unit length follows from the total free energy density $\gamma$ as given by (14) after subtraction of the bulk free energy density infinitely far from the interface and can be defined by $$\frac{\tau_0}{2}= \int_0^{\infty} \d x \left\{
-J \eta^2_0(x) +
\frac{1}{12} \eta^4_0(x)
+\frac{1}{2} g_{\eta}
\left( \frac{\d \eta_0(x)}{\d x} \right)^2
+J \eta_{\infty}^2
-\frac{1}{12} \eta_{\infty}^4
\right\}$$ recalling that $$\eta_0(x)=\eta_{\infty} \tanh (x/\xi_{\eta})$$ and $\eta_{\infty}=\sqrt{6 J}$ and $\xi_{\eta}=\sqrt{g_{\eta} /J}$. In writing (69) we used the symmetry around $x=0$. The integral (69) is elementary and gives the standard result $$\tau_0=
8 J^{3/2} g_{\eta}^{1/2}$$ The total line tension is given by $\tau=\tau_0+\tau_{\phi}$. The line tension contribution $\tau_{\phi}$ due to adsorbed proteins in the localized phase region can be written as $$\tau_{\phi}= \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \d x \left\{
L \phi^2(x)
- \mu \phi(x) +\lambda \eta_0(x) \phi(x)
+\frac{1}{2} \eta^2_0(x) \phi(x)
+\frac{1}{2} g_{\phi}
\left( \frac{\d \phi(x)}{\d x} \right)^2
\right\}$$ For simplicity, we will restrict ourselves to the limit $g_{\phi}=0$, because the integration in (72) can then be done in a closed form. The line tension contribution $\tau_{\phi}$ can be expressed in reduced variables as $$\tau_{\phi}= \frac{\xi_{\eta} \eta_{\infty}^4}{8L}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \d u \left\{
\frac{1}{2} \Phi^2(u)
-a \Phi(u) +c \; \tanh u \; \Phi(u)
+ \tanh^2 u \; \Phi(u) \right\}$$ Using the solution found for $b=0$ (or, equivalently, $\xi_{\phi}=0$), $\Phi(u)=a - \tanh^2 u -c \tanh u$, the integral can be solved for general $a$ and $c$. Here, we only present the solution for the symmetric case, $c=0$, which is given by $$\tau_{\phi}= \frac{9 J^{3/2} g_{\eta}^{1/2}}{2 L}
\left\{ \sqrt{a} (1 - 5a/3) - (1-a)^2 \tanh^{-1}( \sqrt{a})
\right\}$$ The limiting values are $\tau_{\phi}=0$ for $a=0$, since in this case no proteins are adsorbed, and $\tau_{\phi}=-3 J^{3/2} g_{\eta}^{1/2} /L$ for $a=1$, to be compared with $\tau_0=8 J^{3/2} g_{\eta}^{1/2}$. This is the smallest value possible, for larger values of $a$ the line tension contribution $\tau_{\phi}$ remains constant. The adsorption of proteins thus leads to a reduction of the total line tension $\tau=\tau_0+ \tau_{\phi}$. In principle, the total line tension $\tau$ can take negative values for sufficiently large $a$ if $L<3/8$, which amounts to an instability of the LE-LC interface, possibly signaling a depression of the lipid phase transition. Of course, in this limit the approximations used in deriving (26) break down, since we assumed $L$ to be large and the proteins being only a small perturbation on the pure lipid phase transition.
Protein profile in the subphase
===============================
Up to now the coupled protein-lipid system was considered as a pure two-dimensional system on the water/air interface which is positioned at $z=0$. It is possible to evaluate the influence of a finite solubility of the proteins in the subphase on the protein distribution in the monolayer, and, in addition, to give a more precise meaning to the protein parameters $\mu$ and $L$ used in (13). The vertical protein concentration profile in the subphase can be calculated as a function of the distance $z$ from the monolayer, For the calculation of this profile, which is denoted by $\phi_\perp (z)$, we neglect any variation in the horizontal direction. Assuming that the water is a good solvent for the protein (and, therefore, that the aqueous protein solution is far from its demixing curve), we can write the free energy per unit area on the surface as $$\gamma_\perp=
\int_0^{\infty} \d z \left\{
\frac{1}{2} g^b_{\phi}
\left(\frac{\d \phi_\perp(z)}{\d z}\right)^2
+L_b \phi_\perp^2(z) -\mu_b \phi_\perp(z) \right\}
+L_s \phi^2 - \mu_s \phi$$ where $\phi=\phi_\perp(0)$ is the protein concentration at the surface (or, equivalently, in the monolayer). This expression is very similar to free energy functionals studied in the context of wetting and other surface phenomena[@Brezin]. In analogy to the parameters used in (13) and (15), $g^b_{\phi}$, $L_b$, and $\mu_b$ are the protein parameters in the “bulk” subphase, and $L_s$ and $\mu_s$ are the bare protein parameters at the “surface” (or in the monolayer). The chemical potential $\mu_s$ measures the free energy difference between a protein molecule in the subphase and in the monolayer, and it contains contributions due to van der Waals interactions of the protein with its surrounding media as well as hydrophobic contributions coming from structural changes of the protein at the surface. It is believed that proteins unfold their hydrophobic parts when they are inside a monolayer or even at the free air-water interface. The energy gained by such conformational transformations can be extremely high.
The Euler-Lagrange equation for the bulk density profile takes the form $$2 L_b \phi_\perp(z) -\mu_b=
g^b_{\phi} \frac{\d^2 \phi_\perp(z)}{\d z^2}$$ The bulk protein concentration infinitely far from the monolayer is given from (76) by $$\phi_b \equiv \phi_\perp (\infty) =\frac{\mu_b}{2 L_b}$$ When the protein adsorbing on the surface is in contact with a large bulk reservoir of proteins, the bulk concentration $\phi_b$ can be regarded as a fixed parameter and the chemical potential $\mu_b$ acts as a Lagrange multiplier satisfying the relation $\mu_b
=2 L_b \phi_b$.
The solution of (76) compatible with the requirement $\phi_\perp(\infty)
=\phi_b$ is given by $$\phi_\perp(z)=
(\phi -\phi_b) \e^{-z/\xi^b_{\phi}} +\phi_b$$ where the correlation of the protein distribution in the subphase is $\xi^b_{\phi}=\sqrt{g^b_{\phi}/2 L_b}$ and $\phi \equiv \phi_\perp(0)$ is the surface value. The surface free energy, which is the total free energy due to the presence of the monolayer at $z=0$, can be expressed as $$\Delta \gamma_\perp=
\gamma_\perp -\int_0^{\infty} \d z \left\{
L_b \phi_b^2 -\mu_b \phi_b \right\}$$ For the density profile given by (78), it takes the form $$\Delta \gamma_\perp=
(\phi - \phi_b)^2
\sqrt{L_b g^b_{\phi}/2}
+L_s \phi^2
-\mu_s \phi$$ Minimizing this expression with respect to the surface protein concentration $\phi$ leads to the value $$\phi=
\frac{\mu_s + \phi_b \sqrt{2 L_b g^b_{\phi}}}
{2L_s+\sqrt{2 L_b g^b_{\phi}}}$$ Effectively, the presence of a finite concentration of proteins in the subphase can be modeled by using the modified parameters $$\mu=\mu_s + \phi_b \sqrt{2 L_b g^b_{\phi}}$$ $$L=L_s+\sqrt{L_b g^b_{\phi}/2}$$ for the two-dimensional description of the protein distribution in the monolayer, given in (13). With these effective parameters, the $\phi$-dependent part of the surface free energy can be rewritten (up to a constant) as $
\Delta \gamma_\perp=
L \phi^2 - \mu \phi
$. For very large values of the protein adsorption free energy $\mu_s$, as observed for proteins which change their structure considerably as they approach the air-water interface, and a rather small reservoir of proteins in the subphase, most of the proteins will be incorporated in the monolayer leading to a depletion in the subphase, i.e., $\phi_b \approx 0$. In this case the total amount of protein in the monolayer is a conserved quantity and $\mu$ then acts as a Lagrange multiplier. In the case of a large reservoir of proteins in the subphase, conservation of protein particles is taken care of primarily by adjusting the bulk concentration $\phi_b$. In both cases, the parameter $\mu$, which appears in (13), can be tuned by changing the total amount of protein added to the system.
Effect of protein on surface pressure
=====================================
We discuss now how the parameters used in our calculation can be related to experimentally measurable quantities, such as the lateral pressure $\Pi$. This will be done for the simplified cases where there are either only proteins or only lipids at the water surface. First, we calculate the lateral pressure in the limit of small coverage with proteins or lipids, leading to a modified ideal gas law; the correction to the limiting ideal gas behavior gives information about the interactions.
In the case where no lipid is present at the water surface, one sets $\eta= \phi-1$ in (7) and the free energy per lattice site is $${\cal F}(\phi)/T= K \phi^2 +\{ \phi \log(\phi)
+(1-\phi) \log(1-\phi)\}/ \alpha$$ where $\alpha$ is the area ratio of the protein and the underlying lipid/vacancy lattice. $K \equiv L+\lambda-J-1/2$ is an effective interaction parameter. For the case where only lipids are present one has to make the replacements $K \rightarrow -4(J+1/2)$, $\phi \rightarrow \phi_L$ and $\alpha \rightarrow 1$. The thermodynamic potential for a system covering $N$ lattice sites is defined by $$N {\cal G}= N {\cal F} -\mu T N \phi +\Pi N a^2$$ with $a$ being the lattice constant of the underlying lattice of vacancies or lipids. Minimizing the potential with respect to the number of occupied lattice sites $N$ and the protein density $\phi$ leads to $$\mu= \left. \frac{\d {\cal F}(\phi)/T}{\d \phi} \right|_{\phi=\phi_{eq}}$$ $$-{\cal F}(\phi_{eq})+ \mu T \phi_{eq}=
\Pi a^2= \phi^2 \left. \frac{\d {\cal F}(\phi) /\phi}
{\d \phi} \right|_{\phi=\phi_{eq}}
= T K \phi_{eq}^2 -T \log(1-\phi_{eq})/\alpha$$ Expanding the logarithm, one finds the behavior valid for small surface pressures $$\Pi A = T +A^{-1} a^2 \alpha T (1/2 +K \alpha )
\simeq T +\Pi a^2 \alpha (1/2 +K \alpha )$$ where $A=a^2 \alpha /\phi_{eq}$ is the surface area available per protein (or lipid if one makes the replacement $\alpha=1$). The first term in (88) corresponds to the ideal gas behavior, the second term is an enthalpic and entropic correction from which the effective interaction term $K$ can be deduced, if the area of a protein, $a^2 \alpha$, and the protein-lipid area ratio $\alpha$ are known.
In order to estimate the critical interaction strengths, it is useful to define a new order parameter $\theta\equiv 2 \phi-1$ for which the free energy expression (84) can be expanded around $\theta=0$ and then reads (to fourth order in $\theta$ and neglecting terms linear in $\theta$) $${\cal F}/T=(\frac{K}{4}+\frac{1}{2 \alpha}) \theta^2 +
\frac{\theta^4}{ 12 \alpha}$$ from which the critical point of demixing is deduced to be $K^*=-2/\alpha$. Note that for the case of lipids one recovers the $\phi$-independent part of (13). From (89) one sees that for interaction parameters $K>K^*/4$ the sign of the correction in (88) is positive, vanishes for $K=K^*/4$ and actually becomes negative as the interaction approaches the critical value. Measurements of $\Pi A$ as a function of $\Pi$ for the hydrophobic polypeptide [*cyclosporin*]{} A in the relevant temperature range indeed showed positive slopes[@Wiedmann], indicative of an interaction parameter $K$ far above the critical value. The sign of the parameter $\lambda$ indicates the preference for the protein to enter dense ($\lambda<0$) or dilute lipid regions ($\lambda>0$); experiments indicate that this parameter is close to zero, so that $L$ is larger than zero. Neglecting higher-order terms in $\phi$ in the free energy expression (13) thus seems justified, assuming that [*cyclosporin*]{} A is a typical protein.
Next we show how the effective parameter $K$ can be related to properties of adsorbed layer of proteins or lipids close to their critical points. From (89), the thermodynamic potential is given by $$N {\cal G}=NT (\frac{K}{4}+\frac{1}{2 \alpha})
\theta^2 +\frac{N T}{12 \alpha } \theta^4
- NT \mu \theta + N \Pi a^2$$ Above the critical point of demixing, defined by the critical interaction strength $ K^*=-2/\alpha$, one can neglect the fourth-order term and obtains upon variation with respect to $N$ and $\theta$ a relation between $K$ and the equilibrium pressure $\Pi_{eq}$ and equilibrium coverage $\theta_{eq}$ given by $$\frac{K}{4}+\frac{1}{2 \alpha}
= \frac{a^2}{\theta_{eq}^2}
\left( \frac{\Pi_{eq}}{T} -\frac{\Pi^*}{T^*} \right)$$ where $\Pi^*$ and $T^*$ are the pressure and the temperature at the critical point, thus material constants of the protein (or the lipid).
Below the critical point of demixing and in the coexistence region one has to keep the fourth order term and obtains the analogous relation $$\left(\frac{K}{4}+\frac{1}{2 \alpha} \right)^2=
\frac{a^2}{3 \alpha}
\left( \frac{\Pi_{coex}}{T} -\frac{\Pi^*}{T^*} \right)$$ where $\Pi_{coex}$ denotes the pressure at coexistence at a given temperature $T$.
For fitting experimental data to the above expression it is important to note that the interaction parameters $J$, $L$, and $\lambda$ as defined by (9-11) depend on the temperature.
Discussion
==========
We studied a simple model which explains possible aggregation of proteins or other large macromolecules at the boundary between coexisting liquid condensed and liquid expanded domains of lipids. Such a preferential adsorption of proteins has been observed experimentally[@Schwinn]. Based on the general phase diagram, shown in Fig. 2, obtained in the limit of proteins with large areas compared with lipids ($\alpha
\rightarrow \infty$), we predict a transition from protein distributions localized at the LE/LC boundary to semi-localized and delocalized distributions, for which the protein concentrations remain finite in the coexisting lipid phases. Such a transition can be observed by either changing the total amount of adsorbed proteins (corresponding to a change in $a$), or by changing the temperature (influencing the parameter $c$). We also calculated various experimentally accessible quantities, such as the protein excess $\Gamma$ and the line tension $\tau$. The line tension is predicted to decrease upon adsorption of proteins.
The mechanism leading to the preferential adsorption of proteins at the one-dimensional boundary line between LE and LC phases is due to a competition of the different contributions to the entropy of mixing of the three components: proteins, lipids, and vacancies. We recall that vacancies are artificially introduced just to allow the Langmuir monolayer to be compressible. Our model assumes that the protein actually penetrates into the monolayer. A partial intrusion is also possible and can be described by the model, if the proteins take up at least some area at the air-water interface. Other mechanisms based on long-ranged interactions such as electrostatic forces are also important and could lead to similar results.
The affinity of the proteins to the LE/LC boundary can also originate from other enthalpic reasons: If the protein itself has amphiphilic properties with respect to the density of the surrounding medium, i.e., if one moiety of the protein favors a denser environment while the other moiety favors a more dilute environment, it would be driven into the interface between the LE and LC phases. However, such an amphiphilic property of the proteins seems to be unlikely, and, if present, too weak to produce the effects observed in experiments.
Finally, we mention that similar effects should be observable for freely suspended multicomponent membranes which show phase separation into coexisting domains with different lipid compositions[@Bloom; @Thewalt; @Wu]. Here, integral membrane proteins should be either dissolved in one of the domains, depending on the enthalpic preference, or, if this preference is very weak, enriched and localized at the one-dimensional boundary line between the domains.
We would like to thank A. Goudot, H. Möhwald, E. Sackmann, M. Schick, and T. Schwinn for helpful discussions. DA acknowledges partial support from the German Israel Foundation (GIF) under grant No. I-0197 and the US-Israel Binational Science Foundation (BSF) under grant No. 94-00291. RN acknowledges support from the Minerva Foundation, receipt of a NATO stipend administered by the DAAD, and partial support by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DMR-9220733.
Solution of differential equation
=================================
Here we derive the solution of the differential equation $$\Phi(u)-h(u)=b^2 \frac{d^2 \Phi(u)}{du^2}$$ with the inhomogeneous term $h(u)$ given by $$h(u) \equiv a- \tanh^2 u -c \tanh u$$ Denoting by $\Phi_A$ and $\Phi_B$ two independent solutions of the homogeneous differential equation $\Phi(u)=b^2 \Phi''(u)$, the particular solution of the inhomogeneous differential equation is formally given by $$\Phi_P(u)=
-\frac{1}{b^2} \int_0^u dw \,\,h(w)
\frac{\Phi_A(w) \Phi_B(u)-\Phi_A(u) \Phi_B(w)}
{\Phi_A(w) \Phi'_B(w)-\Phi'_A(w) \Phi_B(w)}$$ Choosing $\Phi_A(u)=A \sinh(u/b)$, $\Phi_B(u)=B \cosh(u/b)$, and defining the particular solution as $$\Phi_P(u)=a-\frac{1}{b} \Phi_1(u) -\frac{c}{b} \Phi_2(u)$$ the integrals to be solved are $$\Phi_1(u) \equiv
\int_0^u dw \tanh^2(w) \sinh\left(\frac{w-u}{b}\right)$$ $$\Phi_2(u) \equiv
\int_0^u dw \tanh(w) \;\; \sinh\left(\frac{w-u}{b}\right)$$
The integration is straightforward and yields $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_1(u) &=&
b-b\cosh(u/b) + \sinh(u/b) \nonumber \\ &&
+\frac{1}{4b}\e^{-u/b}
\left(\Psi\left[\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{4b}\right]-
\Psi\left[\frac{1}{4b}\right] \right) +
\frac{1}{4b}\e^{u/b}
\left(\Psi\left[\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{4b}\right]-
\Psi\left[-\frac{1}{4b}\right] \right) \nonumber \\
&& + 2b F\left[2;-\frac{1}{2b};1-\frac{1}{2b};-\e^{2u}\right]+
2b F\left[2;\frac{1}{2b};1+\frac{1}{2b};-\e^{2u}\right]
\nonumber \\ && -
2b F\left[1;-\frac{1}{2b};1-\frac{1}{2b};-\e^{2u}\right]-
2b F\left[1;\frac{1}{2b};1+\frac{1}{2b};-\e^{2u}\right]\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_2(u) &=&
b-b\cosh(u/b) \nonumber \\ && +
\frac{1}{4}\e^{-u/b}
\left(\Psi\left[\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{4b}\right]-
\Psi\left[\frac{1}{4b}\right] \right) -
\frac{1}{4}\e^{u/b}
\left(\Psi\left[\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{4b}\right]-
\Psi\left[-\frac{1}{4b}\right] \right) \nonumber \\ &&
-b F\left[1;-\frac{1}{2b};1-\frac{1}{2b};-\e^{2u}\right]-
b F\left[1;\frac{1}{2b};1+\frac{1}{2b};-\e^{2u}\right]\end{aligned}$$ where $\Psi[z]$ denotes the [*digamma function*]{} and $F[\alpha;\beta;\gamma;z]$ denotes the [*hypergeometric function*]{}[@Abramowitz]. These special functions are defined by $$\Psi[z]= \frac{\d [\log ( \Gamma[z])]}
{\d z}$$ with the gamma function defined as usual as $$\Gamma[z]=
\int_0^{\infty} t^{z-1} \e^{-t} \d z$$ and $$F[\alpha;\beta;\gamma;z]=
\frac{ \Gamma[\gamma]}{\Gamma[\beta] \Gamma[\gamma-\beta]}
\int_0^1 t^{\beta-1} (1-t)^{\gamma-\beta -1}
(1- tz)^{-\alpha} \d t$$ For the special case $b=1$, the above expressions simplify and can be expressed as $$\Phi_1(u) = 2-2\cosh(u) + 2 \tan^{-1}[\tanh(u/2)] \sinh(u)$$ $$\Phi_2(u) = \sinh(u)-2 \tan^{-1}[\tanh(u/2)] \cosh(u)$$
The general solution of the differential equation is given by $$\Phi(u)=A \sinh(u/b) +B \cosh(u/b)+a -\Phi_1(u)/b -c \;
\Phi_2(u)/b$$ where the constants $A$ and $B$ are determined from the boundary conditions (see text).
Low protein concentration expansion
===================================
Here we discuss the validity of the approximations leading from the Euler-Lagrange equations (21) and (22) to the differential equation (26). Namely, the use of the solution $\eta_0(x)$ in (22) which was obtained by neglecting the two terms $\lambda \phi$ and $\eta \phi$ in (21). The solution $\eta_0(x)$ of the simplified differential equation obtained by setting $\phi=0$ in (21) can be regarded as a zeroth-order approximation to the full solution in an expansion in powers of $\phi(x)$. The validity of this approximation can be estimated by reconsidering the differential equation (21) and substituting for $\phi$ the solution $\phi(x)$ which was found initially by neglecting the coupling terms between $\eta$ and $\phi$ in (21).
Consider first the second coupling $\eta \phi$ between $\phi$ and $\eta$ in (21). This term is unimportant as long as $\phi \ll J$. This is a reasonable assumption given that the protein concentration is small and one is not too close to the critical point of the liquid-expanded liquid-condensed lipid transition. This term will not be considered any further.
In order to estimate the effect of the other term which was neglected, $\lambda \phi$, we define $$\eta(x) \equiv \eta_0(x) + \delta \eta(x)$$ with $ \eta_0(x)$ given by (23) and $ \eta(x)$ denoting the exact solution of (21). Since $\eta_0(x)$ solves equation (21) without the terms proportional to $\phi$, the differential equation for $\delta \eta (x)$ neglecting terms of ${\cal O}(\delta \eta^2, \delta \eta \phi)$ is given by $$\delta \eta(x) (-2J +\eta^2_0(x))+\phi(x)(\lambda+\eta_0(x))=
g_{\eta} \delta \eta''(x)$$ From the differential equation (21), one sees that the correction we are estimating here is important only for $$\lambda \phi \gg |-2J \eta_0 +\eta^3_0/3| \simeq
|-2J \eta_0|$$ The last step follows since $\eta_0(x)$ has to be much smaller than unity for the inequality to hold. This can only be true in the close vicinity to the interface between dense and dilute lipid regions, i.e., for $x \approx 0$. Consequently, the correction $\delta \eta (x)$ is only important around $x=0$. Then, the terms proportional to $\eta_0(x)$ can be neglected and the differential equation (B2) simplifies to $$-2J \delta \eta(x) +\lambda \phi(x) = g_{\eta} \delta \eta''(x)$$ Replacing $\phi(x)$ by its value at the origin, $\phi(0)$, the solution of (B4) is formally written as $$\delta \eta(x) =
\frac{\lambda \phi(0)}{2J} + C \sin(\sqrt{2} x/\xi_{\eta})
+ D \cos(\sqrt{2} x/\xi_{\eta})$$ In order for the correction $\delta \eta(x)$ to vanish outside the region of interest centered around $x \approx 0$, both coefficients $C$ and $D$ have to be of the order as the constant $\lambda \phi(0)/2 J$. The magnitude of the correction is thus given by $$\delta \eta \simeq \frac{\lambda \phi(0)}{J} \sim
\frac{ c \phi(0)}{\eta_{\infty}}$$ Note that $c$ is a parameter of order unity (or smaller) in the localized protein region (see Fig. 2). Thus, the correction $\delta \eta$ enters in the calculation of the protein distribution $\phi(x)$ as a higher order contribution in terms of the ratio $\phi(0)/\eta_{\infty}$, which is a small parameter. Neglecting this correction is a controlled approximation corresponding to keeping only the first order in a general expansion in terms of $\phi(0)/\eta_{\infty}$, the ratio of the protein concentration and the lipid concentration difference.
Present address: Department of Physics Box 351560, University of Washington, Seattle WA 98195-1560, U.S.A.
Also at: Groupe de Physique Statistique, Université de Cergy-Pontoise, 95806 Cergy-Pontoise, Cedex, France
G.L. Gaines, Jr., [*Insoluble Monolayers at Liquid-Gas Interfaces*]{}, Interscience, New York (1966).
M. Bloom, E. Evans, and O.G. Mouritsen, Quart. Rev. Biophys. [**24**]{}, 293 (1991).
For recent reviews, see H. Möhwald, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. [**41**]{}, 441 (1990); H.M. McConnell, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. [**42**]{}, 171 (1991); C.M. Knobler, Adv. Chem. Phys. [**77**]{}, 397 (1990); D. Andelman, F. Brochard, C. Knobler, and F. Rondelez, in [*Micelles, Membranes, Microemulsions, and Monolayers*]{}, W.M. Gelbart, A. Ben-Shaul, and D. Roux, eds., Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1994).
O. Albrecht, H. Gruler, and E. Sackmann, J. Phys. France [**39**]{}, 301 (1978).
O. Albrecht, H. Gruler, and E. Sackmann, J. Colloid Interface Sci. [**79**]{}, 319 (1981).
H. Möhwald, Thin Solid Films [**159**]{}, 1 (1988); K. Kjaer, J. Als-Nielsen, C.A. Helm, P. Tippmann-Krayer, and H. Möhwald, J. Chem. Phys. [**93**]{}, 3200 (1989); H. Möhwald, R.M. Kenn, D. Degenhardt, K. Kjaer, and J. Als-Nielsen, Physica A [**168**]{}, 127 (1991); R.M. Kenn, C. Böhm, A.M. Bibo, I.R. Peterson, H. Möhwald, J. Als-Nielsen, and K. Kjaer, J. Chem. Phys. [**95**]{}, 2092 (1991).
S.W. Barton, B.N. Thomas, E.B. Flom, S.A. Rice, B. Lin, J.B. Penn, J.B. Ketterson, and P. Dutta, J. Chem. Phys. [**89**]{}, 5898 (1988); B. Lin, J.B. Penn, J.B. Ketterson, P. Dutta, B.N. Thomas, J. Buontempo, and S.A. Rice, J. Chem. Phys. [**90**]{}, 2393 (1989); B. Lin, M.C. Shih, T.M. Bohanon, G.E. Ice, P. Dutta, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**65**]{}, 191 (1990).
S. Barton, A. Goudot, O. Bouloussa, F. Rondelez, B. Lin, F. Novak, A. Acero, and S.A. Rice, J. Chem. Phys. [**96**]{}, 1343 (1992).
M.L. Schlossmann, D.K. Schwartz, P.S. Pershan, E.H. Kawamoto, G.J. Kellog, and S. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**66**]{}, 1599 (1991).
M.J. Grundy, R.M. Richardson, S.J. Roser, J. Penfold, and R.C. Ward, Thin Solid Films [**159**]{}, 43 (1988).
A.M. Bibo, C.M. Knobler, and I.R. Peterson, J. Chem. Phys. [**95**]{}, 5591 (1991).
N.R. Pallas and B.A. Pethica, Langmuir [**1**]{}, 509 (1985); J.C. Earnshaw and P.J. Winch, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**2**]{}, 8499 (1990).
H.M. McConnell, D. Keller, and H. Gaub, J. Phys. Chem. [**90**]{}, 1717 (1986); D.J. Keller, J.P. Korb, and H.M. McConnell, [*ibid.*]{} [**91**]{}, 6417 (1987); H.M. McConnell and V.T. Moy, [*ibid.*]{} [**92**]{}, 4520 (1988); A. Miller and H. Möhwald, J. Chem. Phys. [**86**]{}, 4258 (1987); C.M. Knobler, Science [**249**]{}, 870 (1990).
S. Marčelja, Biochim. Biophys. Acta [**367**]{}, 165 (1974).
Earlier theories are reviewed in G.M. Bell, L.L. Combs, and L.J. Dunne, Chem. Rev. [**81**]{}, 15 (1981).
A. Georgallas and D.A. Pink, J. Colloid Interface Sci. [**89**]{}, 107 (1982); C.M. Roland, M.J. Zuckermann, and A. Georgallas, J. Chem. Phys. [**86**]{}, 5812 (1987).
Z.-Y. Chen, J. Talbot, W.M. Gelbart, and A. Ben-Shaul, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**61**]{}, 1376 (1988).
D. Kramer, A. Ben-Shaul, Z.-Y. Chen, and W.M. Gelbart, J. Chem. Phys. [**96**]{}, 2236 (1992).
V. von Tscharner and H.M. McConnell, Biophys. J. [**36**]{}, 409 (1981); M. Lösche, E. Sackmann, and H. Möhwald, Ber. Bunsenges. Phys. Chem. [**87**]{}, 848 (1983); R. Peters and K. Beck, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA [**80**]{}, 7183 (1983); R.M. Weiss and H.M. McConnell, Nature [**310**]{}, 5972 (1984); M. Lösche and H. Möhwald, Rev. Sci. Instrum. [**55**]{}, 1968 (1984).
S. Hénon and J. Meunier, Rev. Sci. Istrum. [**62**]{}, 936 (1991); D. Hönig and D. Möbius, J. Phys. Chem. [**91**]{}, 4590 (1991).
T.S. Wiedmann and K.R. Jordan, Langmuir [**7**]{}, 318 (1991).
T. Schwinn, Diploma Thesis, Technical University of Munich, 1992 (unpublished).
V. Vogel, in [*Proteins at Interfaces*]{}, T.A. Horbett and J.L. Brash, eds. (ACS Books, in press).
H. Haas, Diploma Thesis, University of Mainz, 1988 (unpublished).
J.L. Thewalt and M. Bloom, Biophys. J. [**63**]{}, 1176 (1992).
S.H.-W. Wu and H.M. McConnell, Biochemistry [**14**]{}, 847 (1975).
It turns out that taking the limit $\alpha \rightarrow \infty$ corresponds to neglecting the entropy contribution from the proteins while maintaining $\phi \geq 0$, i.e., keeping a positive protein concentration.
A. Halperin and P. Pincus, Macromolecules [**19**]{}, 79 (1986).
Two-phase coexistence is observed on a whole line in the chemical-potential plane $(\mu_\eta, \mu)$; three-phase coexistence, which occurs for small or negative values of $L$ and large values of $\phi$, is not considered here.
E. Brézin, B.I. Halperin, and S. Leibler, J. Phys. (France) [**44**]{}, 775 (1983).
, Chapter 15, M. Abramowitz and I.A. Stegun, eds. (Dover, New York, 1972).
|
---
abstract: |
A common situation occurring when dealing with multimedia traffic is having large data frames fragmented into smaller IP packets, and having these packets sent independently through the network. For real-time multimedia traffic, dropping even few packets of a frame may render the entire frame useless. Such traffic is usually modeled as having [*inter-packet dependencies*]{}. We study the problem of scheduling traffic with such dependencies, where each packet has a deadline by which it should arrive at its destination. Such deadlines are common for real-time multimedia applications, and are derived from stringent delay constraints posed by the application. The figure of merit in such environments is maximizing the system’s [*goodput*]{}, namely, the number of frames successfully delivered.
We study online algorithms for the problem of maximizing goodput of delay-bounded traffic with inter-packet dependencies, and use competitive analysis to evaluate their performance. We present competitive algorithms for the problem, as well as matching lower bounds that are tight up to a constant factor. We further present the results of a simulation study which further validates our algorithmic approach and shows that insights arising from our analysis are indeed manifested in practice.
author:
-
bibliography:
- 'MS.bib'
title: Bounded Delay Scheduling with Packet Dependencies
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
A recent report studying the growth of real-time entertainment traffic in the Internet predicts that by 2018 approximately 66% of Internet traffic in North America will consist of real-time entertainment traffic, and most predominantly, video streaming [@sandvine13global]. Such traffic, especially as video definition increases, is characterized by having large application-level data frames being fragmented into smaller IP packets which are sent independently throughout the network. For stored-video one can rely on mechanisms built into various layers of the protocol stack (e.g., TCP) that ensure reliable data transfer. However, for real-time multimedia applications such as live IPTV and video conferencing, these mechanisms are not applicable due to the strict delay restrictions posed by the application (such traffic is therefore usually transmitted over UDP). These restrictions essentially imply that retransmission of lost packets is in most cases pointless, since retransmitted packets would arrive too late to be successfully decoded and used at the receiving end. Furthermore, the inability to decode an original dataframe once too many of its constituent packets have been dropped, essentially means that the resources used by the network to deliver those packets that did arrive successfully, have been wasted in vain. Since network elements make their decisions on a packet-level basis, and are unaware of such dependencies occurring between packets corresponding to the same frame, such utilization inefficiencies can be quite common, as also demonstrated in experimental studies [@boyce98packet].
Some of the most common methods employed to deal with the hazardous effect of packet loss in such scenarios focus on trading bandwidth for packet loss; The sender encodes the data frames while adding significant redundancy to the outgoing packet stream, an approach commonly known as forward error correction (FEC). This allows the user to circumvent the effect of packet loss, at the cost of increasing the rate at which traffic is transmitted. This makes it possible (in some cases) to decode the data frame even if some of its constituent packets are dropped. However, increasing the bandwidth may be prohibitively costly in various scenarios, such as wireless access networks, network transcoders, and CDN headends. In such environments it is not recommended, nor even possible in many cases, to employ such solutions.
In this work we study mechanisms and algorithms that are to be implemented within the network, targeted at optimizing the usage of network resources (namely, buffer space and link bandwidth), when dealing with such delay-sensitive traffic. Previous models presenting solutions for packet dependencies focused on managing a bounded-buffer FIFO queue, and mainly addressed the questions of handling buffer overflows (see more details in Section \[sec:previous-work\]). We consider a significantly different model where each arriving packet has a [*deadline*]{} (which may or may not be induced by a deadline imposed on the data frame to which it corresponds). We assume no bound on the available buffer space, but are required to maximize the system’s [*goodput*]{}, namely, the number of frames for which all of their packets are delivered by their deadline.[^1] This model better captures the nature of real-time video streaming, where a data frame must be successfully decoded in [*real-time*]{}, based on some permissible deadline by which packets should arrive, that still renders the stream usable. We consider traffic as being [*burst-bounded*]{}, i.e., there is an upper bound on the number of packets arriving in a time-slot. This assumption does not restrict the applicability of our algorithms, since it is common for traffic (and especially traffic with stringent Quality-of-Service requirements) to be regulated by some token-bucket envelope [@kurose11computer].
We present several algorithms for the problem and use competitive analysis to show how close they are from an optimal solution. This approach makes our results globally applicable, and independent of the specific process generating the traffic. We further provide some lower bounds on the performance of any deterministic algorithm for the problem. Finally, we perform an extensive simulation study which further validates our results.
System Model {#sec:model}
------------
We consider a time-slotted system where traffic consists of a sequence of unit-size [*packets*]{}, $p_1,p_2,\ldots$, such that packets are logically partitioned into [*frames*]{}. Each frame $f$ corresponds to $k$ of the packets, $p^f_1,\ldots,p^f_k \in {\left\{p_1,p_2,\ldots\right\}}$, where we refer to packet $p^f_{\ell}$ as the [*$\ell$-packet*]{} of frame $f$. For every packet $p$ we denote its arrival time by $a(p)$, and we assume that the arrival of packets corresponding to frame $f$ satisfies $a(p^f_{\ell})\leq a(p^f_{\ell+1})$ for all $\ell=1,\ldots,k-1$. We make no assumption on the relation between arrival times of packets corresponding to different frames. Each packet $p$ is also characterized by a [*deadline*]{}, denoted $e(p)$, by which it should be scheduled for delivery, or else the packet [*expires*]{}. We assume $e(p) \geq a(p)$ for every packet $p$, and define the [*slack*]{} of packet $p$ to be $r(p)=e(p)-a(p)$. For every time $t$ and packet $p$ for which $t \in [a(p),e(p)]$, if $p$ has not yet been delivered by $t$, we say $p$ is [*pending at $t$*]{}. we further define its [*residual slack at $t$*]{} to be $r_t(p)=e(p)-t$.[^2]
We refer to an arrival sequence as being [*$d$-uniform*]{} if for every packet $p$ in the sequence we have $r(p)=d$. We assume that $k \leq d$, which implies that any arriving frame can potentially be successfully delivered (e.g., if all other frames are ignored). We further let $b$ denote the [*maximum burst size*]{}, i.e., for every time $t$, the number of packets arriving at $t$ is at most $b$.
The packets arrive at a queue residing at the tail of a link with unit capacity. The queue is assumed to be empty before the first packet arrival. In each time-slot $t$ we have three substeps:
[*the arrival substep*]{}, where the new packets whose arrival time is $t$ arrive and are stored in the queue,
[*the scheduling/delivery substep*]{}, where at most one packet from the queue is scheduled for delivery, and
[*the cleanup substep*]{}, where every packet $p$ currently in the queue which can not be scheduled by its deadline is discarded from the queue, either because $r_t(p)=0$, or because it belongs to a frame which has multiple pending packets at time $t$ and it is not feasible to schedule at least one of them by its deadline. Such packets are also said to expire at time $t$.
For every frame $f$ and every time $t$, if $f$ is not yet successful, but all of its packets that have arrived by $t$ are either pending or have been delivered, then $f$ is said to be [*alive at $t$*]{}. Otherwise it is said to have [*expired*]{}. A frame is said to be [*successful*]{} if each of its packets is delivered (by its deadline).
The [*Bounded-Delay Goodput problem*]{} ([[BDG]{}]{}) is defined as the problem of maximizing the number of successful frames. When traffic is $d$-uniform, we refer to the problem as the [*$d$-uniform [[BDG]{}]{} problem*]{} ([[$d$-uBDG]{}]{}).
The main focus of our work is designing online algorithms for solving the [[BDG]{}]{} problem. An algorithm is said to be [*online*]{} if at any point in time $t$ the algorithm knows only of arrivals that have occurred up to $t$, and has no information about future arrivals. We employ competitive analysis [@SleatorT-85; @Borodin-ElYaniv] to bound the performance of the algorithms. We say an online algorithm [ALG]{} is $c$-competitive (for $c \geq 1$) if for every finite arrival sequence it produces a solution who’s goodput is at least a $1/c$ fraction from the optimal goodput possible. $c$ is then said to be an upper bound on the [*competitive ratio*]{} of [ALG]{}. As is customary in studies of competitive algorithms, we will sometimes assume the algorithms works against an [*adversary*]{}, which generates the input as well as an optimal solution for this input. This view is especially useful when showing lower bounds. For completeness, we also address the [*offline*]{} problem where the entire arrival sequence is given in advance. In such offline settings the goal is to study the [*approximation ratio*]{} guaranteed by an algorithm, where an offline algorithm is an said to be an [$\alpha$-approximation algorithm]{} if for every finite arrival sequence the goodput of the solution it produces is always at least a fraction $1/\alpha$ of the optimal goodput possible.
Our Contribution {#sec:our-contribution}
----------------
In this paper we provide the initial study of scheduling delay-bounded traffic in the presence of packet dependencies. We initially provide some initial observations on the offline version of the problem, and then turn to conduct a thorough study of the problem with $d$-uniform traffic, i.e., where all packets have uniform delay $d$, burst sizes are bounded by $b$, and each frame consists of $k$ packets.
In the offline settings, we show that hardness results derived for the bounded-size FIFO queue model are applicable to our problem as well, which implies that it is NP-hard to approximate the problem to within a factor of $o(k/\ln k)$, and that a $(k+1)$-approximation exists.
In the Online settings we provide a lower bound of $\Omega(b^{k-1})$ on the competitive ratio of any deterministic online algorithm for the problem, as well as several other refined lower bounds for specific values of the system’s parameters. We also design online deterministic algorithms with competitive ratio that asymptotically matches our lower bounds. This means that our algorithms are optimal up to a (small) constant factor.
We complement our analytical study with a simulation study which studied both our proposed algorithms, as well as additional heuristics for the problem, and also explores various algorithmic considerations in implementing our solutions. Our simulation results show that our proposed solutions are close to optimal, and also provide strong evidence that the performance exhibited by our algorithms in simulation closely follow the expected performance implied by our analysis.
Due to space constraints, some of the proofs are omitted, and can be found in [@our-tech-report].
Previous Work {#sec:previous-work}
-------------
The effect of packet-level decisions on the the successful delivery of large data-frames has been studied extensively in the past decades. Most of these works considered FIFO queues with bounded buffers and focused on discard decisions made upon overflows [@ramanathan95enforcing], as well as more specific aspects relating to video streams [@awad02goodput; @gurses05simple]. This research thrust was accompanied by theoretical work trying to understand the performance of buffer management algorithms and scheduling paradigms, where the underlying architecture of the systems employed FIFO queues with bounded buffers. The main focus of these works was the design of competitive algorithms in an attempt to optimize some figure of merit, usually derived from Quality-of-Service objectives (see [@goldwasser10survey] for a survey). However, most of the works within this domain assumed the underlying packets are independent of each other, and disregarded any possible structure governing the generation of traffic, and the effect the algorithms’ decisions may have on such frame-induced traffic.
Recently, a new model dealing with packet dependencies was suggested in [@kesselman13competitive]. They assumed arriving packets are partitioned into frames, and considered the problem of maximizing the system’s goodput. The main focus of this work was buffer management of a single FIFO queue equipped with a buffer of size $d$, and the algorithmic questions was how to handle buffer overflows, and they presented both competitive algorithms as well as lower bounds for this problem. In what follows we refer to this problem as the [*$d$-bounded FIFO problem*]{} ([[$d$-bFIFO]{}]{}). Following this work, a series of works studied algorithms for various variants of the problem [@emek12online; @mansour11competitive; @mansour12overflow; @scalosub13buffer]. Our model differs significantly from this body of work since in our model we assume no bounds on the available buffer size (as is more common in queueing theory models), nor do we assume the scheduler conforms with a FIFO discipline. More generally, we focus our attention on the task of deciding which packet to schedule, where each arriving packet has a deadline by which it should be delivered, as opposed to the question of how one should deal with overflows upon packet arrival when buffering resources are scarce.
Another vast body of related work focuses on issues of scheduling, and scheduling in packet networks in particular, in scenarios where packets have deadlines. Earliest-Deadline-First schedulilng was studied in various contexts, including OS process scheduling [@silberschatz12operating], and more generally in the OR community [@pinedo12scheduling]. Our framework is most closely related to [@kesselman04buffer] which considers a packet stream where each packet has a deadline as well as a weight, and the goal is to maximizing the weight of packets delivered by their deadline. They also consider relations between this model and the bounded-buffer FIFO queue model, and present competitive algorithms in both settings. These results are related to our discussion of the offline settings in Section \[sec:offline\]. Additional works provided improved competitive online algorithms for this problem (e.g. [@englert12considering; @jez12online]). However, none of these works considered the settings of packet-dependencies, which is the main focus of our work.
The Offline Settings {#sec:offline}
====================
In order to study the [[$d$-uBDG]{}]{} problem in the offline settings, it is instructive to consider the [[$d$-bFIFO]{}]{} problem studied in [@kesselman13competitive]. We recall that in this problem traffic arrives at a FIFO queue with buffer capacity $d$, and the goal is to maximize the number of frames for which all of their packets are successfully delivered (and not dropped due to buffer overflows).
In what follows we first prove that these two problems are equivalent in the offline settings (proof omitted).
\[lem:fifo-delay-equivalence\] For any arrival sequence $\sigma$, a set of frames $F$ constitutes a feasible solution to the [[$d$-uBDG]{}]{} problem if and only if it is a solution to the [[$d$-bFIFO]{}]{} problem.
Assume a [[$d$-bFIFO]{}]{} algorithm $A$, and a [[$d$-uBDG]{}]{} algorithm $B$, and note the set of packets in the queue of $A$ at time $t$ as - $P_{F}^{A}(t)$, and the set of packets in the buffer of $B$ at time $t$ as - $P_{U}^{B}(t)$. At the time of arrival, every packet that a $A$ can choose to enqueue can be held in the buffer of $B$ (since there are no capacity constraints). Every packet that $A$ enqueues can not stay in the queue more than $d$ time slots, since after $d$ time slots the packet must have been either sent or discarded (pre-empted) - the packet can not be in the queue longer than the slack time $d$. Therefore any algorithm $B$ which never schedules a packet before it is scheduled by $A$ can maintain that $P_{F}^{A}(t)\in P_{U}^{B}(t)$.
As at any time $t$ an $B$ can hold all the packets which $A$ can hold, any schedule which is feasible for $A$ algorithm, is also feasible for $B$ (including the optimal schedule).
For the reverse direction, assume that $B$ creates the schedule $S_{B}$. At any time $t$, of all the packets in the buffer at that time, no more than $d$ packets can be part of the schedule $S_{B}$ - if there were more than $d$ packets than not all of them could have been sent, rendering the schedule infeasible.
Therefore at any time $t$, all the buffered packets of the schedule $S_{B}$ can fit a FIFO queue of size $d$. Since a packet can not stay in a FIFO queue and in the unbounded buffer more than $d$ time slots, there must exist an offline FIFO schedule $S_{A}$, for which all the packets in $S_{B}$ are in $S_{A}$.
Note that in particular, implies that a set of frames $F$ is optimal for [[$d$-uBDG]{}]{} if and only if it is optimal for [[$d$-bFIFO]{}]{}. By using the results of [@kesselman13competitive] for the [[$d$-bFIFO]{}]{} problem we obtain the following corollaries:
\[cor:offline:hardness\] It is NP-hard to approximate the [[BDG]{}]{} problem to within a factor of $o(\frac{k}{\ln k})$ for $k \geq 3$, even for 0-uniform instances.
Since any $o(\frac{k}{\ln k})$ approximation would imply an approximation of the same factor for the 1-[[bFIFO]{}]{} problem, the result follows from [@kesselman13competitive Corollary 2].
\[cor:offline:alg\] There is a deterministic $(k+1)$-approximation algorithm for the [[$d$-uBDG]{}]{} problem.
One can apply the algorithm G-OFF specified in [@kesselman13competitive]. The result follows from [@kesselman13competitive Theorem 3].
The Online Settings {#sec:online}
===================
The offline settings studied in , and the relation between the [[$d$-uBDG]{}]{} problem and the [[$d$-bFIFO]{}]{} problem, give rise to the question of whether one should expect a similar relation to be manifested in the online settings. In this section we answer this question in the negative.
A first fundamental difference is due to the fact that in the [[$d$-uBDG]{}]{} problem the scheduler is not forced to follow a FIFO discipline. This means that the inherent delay of packets stored in the back of the queue which occurs in a FIFO buffer (unless packets are discarded upfront) can be circumvented by the scheduler in the [[$d$-uBDG]{}]{} problem, allowing it to take priorities into account. Another significant difference between the two problems is that while in the [[$d$-bFIFO]{}]{} problem discard decisions in case of buffer overflow must be made [*immediately*]{} upon overflow, in the [[$d$-uBDG]{}]{} problem such decisions can be somewhat delayed. Intuitively, the online algorithm in the [[$d$-uBDG]{}]{} problem has more time to study the arrivals in the near future, before making a scheduling decision, and thus enable it to make somewhat better decisions, albeit myopic. We note that this view is also used in [@jez12online; @englert12considering] in the concepts of provisional schedules and suppressed packets (we give more details of these features in ).
Lower Bounds {#sec:online:lower-bounds}
------------
In this section we provide several lower bounds for various ranges of our systems parameters. The main theorem is the following:
\[thm:low-bound\] Any algorithm for the [[$d$-uBDG]{}]{} problem with burst size $b \geq 2d$ has competitive ratio $\Omega(b^{k-1})$.
Assume an arrival sequence with $b>1$, for traffic with slack $d$ comprised of three stages:
Stage 1 - at times $0, 1, 2, ..., (n-1)$, $b$ ’1’ packets arrive. During this stage, out of $nb$ ’1’ packets any online algorithm can only schedule up to $n+d$ ’1’ packets, and the adversary can schedule at least $n$ (and at most $n+d$) other packets - there are at most $d$ time slots for which the online algorithm can schedule all arriving packets. We choose $n$ so that $n+d$ is a multiple of $b$ in order to simplify the analysis.
Stage 2 - at times $n, n+1, ..., n+(n+d)/b-1$, $b$ ’2’ packets of frames whose ’1’ packets were scheduled by the online algorithm arrive. If we had not chosen $n+d$ to be a multiple of $b$, then there would also have been one more burst of size $n+d-{\lfloor (n+d)/b \rfloor}$.
Stage 3 - Stage 3 - at times $n+(n+d)/b, n+(n+d)/b+1, ..., n+(n+d)/b+n(d-1)-d-1$, one ’2’ packet of frames whose ’1’ packet were not scheduled by the online algorithm arrive (including the adversary’s packets).
This sequence is illustrated in .
For $k>2$ stages 2 and 3 can be repeated with a slight modification to stage 2 - packets of frames which were scheduled by the online algorithm at the previous round arrive first (the burst contains frames whose packets were scheduled by the online algorithm in at least one stage).
By the end of stage 1, both the online and optimal algorithms would have sent $n+d$ ’1’ packets. Stage 2 is designed to hit the goodput of the online algorithm as much as possible - only the online algorithm schedules packets. Stage 3 is intended to maximize the goodput of the optimal algorithm.
The goodput of the optimal schedule for this input is at least $n$ (and at most $n+d$). For k=2, the best possible goodput for an online unbounded buffer algorithm can not be better than $d+\frac{n+d}{b}$ - the algorithm can schedule up to $d$ packets of the last burst of stage 2, and for all earlier bursts of stage 2 no more than one packet each. Since the at the end of the previous stage the number of frames whose ’1’ packets were scheduled by the algorithm is $n+d$, there are $\frac{n+d}{b}$ bursts in total.
If stages 2 and 3 are repeated, than the goodput of the optimal schedule for this input remains at least $n$.
In general, after stages 2 and 3 are performed $j$ times, the goodput ($GP$) of any online algorithm can not exceed $GP_j=d+\frac{GP_{j-1}}{b}$.
By induction: for $j=1$ we have from the definition of stage 1 that $GP_{j-1}=n+d$ and that $GP_j=d+\frac{GP_{j-1}}{b}$. For the induction stage consider $j+1$: during stage 2 there are $\frac{GP_j}{b}$ consecutive bursts (since packets scheduled during the previous round arrive first), and therefore the online algorithm can not schedule more than $\frac{GP_j}{b}+d$ packet, hence $GP_{j+1}=d+\frac{GP_j}{b}$.
The best possible goodput of an online algorithm with $k$ packets in a frame is then: $$\frac{n+d}{b^{k-1}}+\stackrel[i=2]{k}{\sum}\frac{d}{b^{i-2}}$$
Therefore, since we control $n$ and can make it as large as we desire ($nb$ is analogous to the number of streams), the lower bound for the competitive ratio of an online algorithm with a maximum burst size of $b$ is:
$$\frac{|ALG|}{|OPT|}\leq\frac{n+d}{n\cdot b^{k-1}}+\stackrel[i=2]{k}{\sum}\frac{d}{n\cdot b^{i-2}}\xrightarrow[n\rightarrow\infty]{}\frac{1}{b^{k-1}}$$
![Input for lower bound - The input is comprised of three stages. During the first stage the algorithm schedules $n+d$ ’1’ packets and the adversary schedules $n+d$ different ’1’ packets. During the second stage the algorithm’s ’2’ packets designated $X_{j}^{2}$ arrive as densely as possible. During stage 3 the adversary’s ’2’ packets designated $Y_{j}^{2}$ arrive in a pattern that allows the adversary not to drop a single packet[]{data-label="lower-bound-input"}](input5.pdf){width="9cm"}
Our lower bound can be adapted to token-bucket regulated traffic, with maximum burst size $b$ and average rate $r$. Such restrictions on the traffic are quite common in SLAs. Of special interest is the case where the average rate is $r=1$, which essentially means the link is not oversubscribed. Even for such highly regulated traffic, we have the following lower bound:
For token-bucket regulated traffic with parameters $(b,r=1)$, any algorithm for the [[$d$-uBDG]{}]{} problem where $b \geq 2d$ has competitive ratio $\Omega(\left(\frac{b}{d}\right)^{k-1})$.
This proof is very similar to the proof of , and therefore we only give the differences.
The arrival sequence is modified so in stage 1 the interval between consecutive bursts is of length $2d$ (in order to build up for the next burst), and in stage 2 the interval between consecutive bursts is of length $b$. Stage 3 remains unchanged.
The goodput after repeating stages 2 and 3 $j$ times can not exceed $GP_j=d+\frac{d\cdot GP_{j-1}}{b}$, since out of every burst in stage 2 the online algorithm can schedule up to $d$ packets.
The best possible goodput for an online algorithm with $k$ packets in a frame is then: $$\frac{nd^k}{b^{k-1}}+\stackrel[i=2]{k}{\sum}\frac{d^{i-1}}{b^{i-2}}$$
Therefore, the lower bound for the competitive ratio of an online algorithm with a maximum burst size of $b$ is:
$$\frac{|ALG|}{|OPT|}\leq\frac{nd^k}{nd\cdot b^{k-1}}+\stackrel[i=2]{k}{\sum}\frac{d^{i-1}}{nd\cdot b^{i-2}}\xrightarrow[n\rightarrow\infty]{}(\frac{d}{b})^{k-1}$$
The Proactive Greedy Algorithm {#sec:proactive-greedy}
------------------------------
In this section we present a simple greedy algorithm, [[ProactiveGreedy]{}]{} ([[PG]{}]{}), that essentially ignores the deadlines in making scheduling decisions, and proactively drops packets from the queue. Although one wouldn’t expect such an algorithm to perform well in practice, its simplicity allows for a simple analysis which serves as the basis for the design and analysis of the refined greedy algorithm for the [[$d$-uBDG]{}]{} problem presented in subsequent sections.
For every time $t$ and frame $f$ that has pending packets at $t$, let $I_t(f)$ denote the index of the first pending packet of $f$. Recall that by our assumption on the order of packets within a frame, this is the minimal index of a pending packet corresponding to $f$. We consider at every time $t$ all pending frames as ordered in decreasing order $(I_t(f)$. For every packet $f$ we let $w(f)$ denote the number of packets corresponding to $f$ that were delivered by [[ProactiveGreedy]{}]{}, i.e. $w(f)={\left\vert{\left\{p \in f \mid p \text{ is delivered by {{\sc PG}}}\right\}}\right\vert}$. In what follows we slightly abuse notation and refer to a frame as alive as long as none of its packets has expired nor was dropped. Algorithm [[ProactiveGreedy]{}]{} is described in .
drop all pending packets of frames that are not alive \[alg:pg:drop-dead-frames\] $Q_t \gets$ all alive frames with pending packets at $t$ $f \gets \arg\max_{f' \in Q_t} I_t(f')$ \[alg:pg:identify-max-frame\] drop all pending packets of frames in $Q_t \setminus {\left\{f\right\}}$ \[alg:pg:drop\] deliver the first pending packet of $f$ \[alg:pg:schedule\]
The following lemma shows no packet ever expires in [[ProactiveGreedy]{}]{}.
\[lem:no-expiry\] No packet ever expires in [[ProactiveGreedy]{}]{}.
Consider some packet $p \in f$ for some frame $f$, and assume $p$ is not delivered. It follows that there exists some minimal time slot $t$ where $f$ ceases to be alive. Consider time $a(p)$. If $t<a(p)$, then $p$ is dropped upon arrival in line \[alg:pg:drop-dead-frames\]. If $f$ is alive at $a(p)$ then $Q_{a(p)} \neq \emptyset$. Let $f'$ be the frame identified in line \[alg:pg:identify-max-frame\]. if $f \neq f'$, then $p$ is dropped in line \[alg:pg:drop\], at time $a(p)$ and therefore does not expire. Otherwise, we have $f=f'$. Note that at the end of every scheduling substep the queue can only hold packets corresponding to the single frame identified in line \[alg:pg:identify-max-frame\] (if it is not empty). It follows that $p$ is in the queue until time $t$, and since $d \geq k$, if it weren’t dropped it could have been delivered successfully after all the preceding packets of $f$ residing in the queue with it at time $a(p)$, and wouldn’t expire. Since $p$ is not delivered, it follows that $p$ must be dropped at some time $t \leq a(p)+d$ due to some other frame $f'$ identified in line \[alg:pg:drop\].
The following corollary follows directly from .
\[cor:delivered-or-dropped\] Every frame in the arrival sequence is either successfully delivered by [[ProactiveGreedy]{}]{}, or has one of its packets proactively dropped.
Let $F_{\operatorname{PG}}$ be the set of frames successfully delivered by [[PG]{}]{}, and let $O$ denote the set of frames successfully delivered by some optimal solution.
\[lem:mapping-target-exists\] If $f \notin F_{\operatorname{PG}}$, then there exists a time $t=t_f$ such that $f$ is alive at $t$, packet $p_{I_t(f)} \in f$ is dropped in time $t$, and a packet $p' \in f'$ is delivered at time $t$, for some frame $f'$.
The proof follows directly from , and the details in its proof applied to packet $p_{I_t(f)}$ at the maximum time $t$ for which $f$ is alive at the beginning of time slot $t$.
We describe a mapping $\phi$ of frames in the arrival sequence to frames in $F_{\operatorname{PG}}$:
1. if $f \in F_{\operatorname{PG}}$ then $f$ is mapped to itself.
2. if $f \notin F_{\operatorname{PG}}$, then let $p_f$ be the first packet of $f$ dropped by [[PG]{}]{} in line \[alg:pg:drop\], and denote by $t_f$ the time slot where $p_f$ is dropped. Let $p'=p \in f'$ be the packet scheduled in time slot $t_f$ in line \[alg:pg:schedule\]. We map $f$ to $f'$ [*directly*]{}, and re-map any frames that were previously mapped to $f$ onto $f'$ [*indirectly*]{}. We say that these frames are re-mapped to $f'$ [*via packet $p'$*]{}. We also refer to $t_f$ as the [*drop time of $f$*]{} and to the set of frames mapped to $f$ via $p$ (either directly or indirectly) as $M(p)$.
The following lemma shows that frames are remapped onto frames that are (strictly) closer to completion.
\[lem:mapping-weight-monotonicity\] If $f \notin F_{\operatorname{PG}}$ is mapped to $f'$ then $w(f') > w(f)$.
Let $t$ be the drop time of $f$ and let $f'$ be the frame to which $f$ is directly mapped. By the choice of $f'$ in line \[alg:pg:identify-max-frame\] it follows that $I_t(f') \geq I_t(f)$. It follows that $w(f)=I_t(f)-1$, and since a packet of $f'$ is delivered in time $t$ we have $w(f') \geq I_t(f')$. Combining these inequalities we obtain $$w(f') \geq I_t(f') \geq I_t(f) > I_t(f)-1 = w(f),$$ as required.
The following corollary bounds the length of a re-mapping sequence.
\[cor:remapping-length\] A frame can be (re-)mapped at most $k$ times, and all frames are eventually mapped to frames in $F_{\operatorname{PG}}$.
By definition every $f \in F_{\operatorname{PG}}$ is mapped to itself. For every frame $f \notin F_{\operatorname{PG}}$, consider the number of times $\ell_f$ for which $f$ is mapped directly or indirectly to some other frame. Denote by $f_{\ell}$ the $\ell$-th packet to which $f$ is mapped. We prove by induction on $\ell$ that in the $\ell$-th such (re-)mapping, where $f$ is mapped to $f_\ell$, we have $w(f) < w(f)+\ell \leq w(f_{\ell})$. This will imply that after at most $k$ remappings $f$ is mapped to a frame $f'$ for which $w(f')=k$, i.e., $f' \in F_{\operatorname{PG}}$. For the base case where $\ell=1$, this means $f$ is directly mapped to $f_1$. By we have $w(f) < w(f_1)$, and therefore $w(f) + 1 \leq w(f_1)$. For the induction step, consider the $\ell$-th remapping for $\ell>1$. By the definition of the mapping, $f$ was mapped (directly or indirectly) to $f_{\ell-1}$ in the $(\ell-1)$-th remapping, and we are guaranteed to have $w(f)+(\ell-1) \leq w(f_{\ell-1})$. By we have $w(f_{\ell-1}) < w(f_{\ell})$, and therefore $w(f_{\ell-1}) + 1 \leq w(f_{\ell})$. By combining the inequalities we obtain $$w(f)+\ell = w(f) + (\ell-1) + 1 \leq w(f_{\ell-1}) + 1 \leq w(f_{\ell}),$$ thus completing the proof.
The following corollary is an immediate consequence of and .
\[cor:mapping-well-defined\] The mapping $\phi$ is well defined.
\[lem:direct-mapping-load\] For every frame $f$, the number of frames directly mapped to $f$ via packet $p \in f$ is at most $b$.
As there can be at most $b$ packets arriving at $t$, and all carrying over from $t-1$ correspond to a single frame, the number of frames mapped via $p(t)\in f$ is at most $b$.
By it follows that the overall number of frames directly mapped to any single frame $f$ is at most $kb$. Combining this with implies a $(k\cdot b)$-ary depth-$k$ tree structure for the mapping (direct or indirect) onto any single frame $f \in F_{\operatorname{PG}}$, which shows that [[ProactiveGreedy]{}]{} delivers at least a fraction of $\frac{1}{(k\cdot b)^k}$ of the total arriving traffic. This clearly serves as a bound on the competitive ratio. However, a significantly better bound can be obtained by a closer examination of direct mappings.
\[lem:mapping-load\] For every frame $f$, the overall number of frames mapped to $f$ at time $t$ via packets $p_{\ell} \in f$ is at most .
First we observe that if a a frame $f'$ is directly mapped to a frame $f$ at time $t$, then $I_t(f') \leq I_t(f)$. In particular, if the minimal-indexed packet of $f'$ dropped at time $t$ is the $j$-th packet of $f'$, then $j \leq I_t(f)$. Also notice that $(1+b)^{\ell-1}=\sum_{i=0}^{\ell-1}\binom{\ell-1}{i}b^i$. We now turn to prove the claim by induction on $\ell$. For the base case of $\ell=1$, assume $f'$ is mapped to $f$ via $p_{\ell}$ at time $t$. If $f'$ is mapped to $f$ directly, by the above observation we have that the minimal-indexed packet of $f'$ dropped at $t$ is at most $\ell=1$, and therefore it must be the first packet of $f'$. Since all these packets must have arrived at time $t$, it follows that none of these frames have any frames mapped to them. By it follows that the overall number of frames directly mapped to $f$ via $p$ is at most $b$. Note that this implies that for the base case there can be no frames indirectly mapped to $f$. It follows that the overall number of frames mapped to $f$ via $p_{1}$ is at most $|M(p_1)|=b=b\cdot (1+b)^0$, thus completing the base case. For the induction step consider $p_{\ell+1} \in f$ for $\ell+1$, and let $f''$ be a frame mapped to $f$ via $p_{\ell+1}$. Assume $f''$ is mapped to $f$ directly. By the above observation we have that the minimal-indexed packet of $f''$ dropped at $t$ is at most $\ell+1$. Again, the overall number of frames directly mapped to $f$ via $p_{\ell+1}$ is at most $b$. It follows that the maximum index of a packet $p'' \in f''$ for which there were frames mapped to $f''$ via $p''$ is at most $\ell$. Hence for $\ell+1$, the overall number of frames mapped to $f$ at time $t$ via $p_{\ell+1}^{f}$ is at most:
$$\begin{aligned}
|M(&p_{\ell +1})| = b\left(1+\sum_{i=1}^{\ell}|M(p''_{i})|\right) \label{eq:binom:definition}\\
&\leq b\left(\binom{\ell}{0}\cdot b^0+\sum_{i=1}^{\ell}\sum_{j=0}^{i-1}b\cdot \binom{i-1}{j} \cdot b^{j}\right) \label{eq:binom:induction}\\
&= b\left(\binom{\ell}{0}\cdot b^0+b\sum_{i=1}^{\ell}b^{i-1}\sum_{j=0}^{\ell-i}\binom{i-1+j}{i-1}\right) \label{eq:binom:substitution} \\
&=b\left(\binom{\ell}{0}\cdot b^0+b\sum_{i=1}^{\ell}\binom{\ell}{i}b^{i-1}\right) \label{eq:binom:diagonal} \\
&= b\sum_{i=0}^{\ell}\binom{\ell}{i}b^{i}. \notag\end{aligned}$$
Equality follows from the direct mappings via $p_{\ell+1}$ and inequality follows from the induction hypothesis. Equality follows from reversing the order of summation on $j$, and noticing that only the topmost $\ell-(i-1)$ sums over $j$ contribute to the coefficient of $b^{i-1}$. Finally, equality is a simple diagonal binomial identity.
Since $f''$ itself is mapped to $f$ in addition to all the frames which were mapped to $f''$.
Recall $O$ denotes the set of frames in an optimal solution. The following corollary provides a bound on the number of frames in $O \setminus F_{\operatorname{PG}}$ that are mapped by our mapping procedure.
\[cor:mapping-load-of-opt\] For every frame $f$, the overall number of frames in $O \setminus F_{\operatorname{PG}}$ mapped to $f$ at time $t$ via packets $p_{\ell} \in f$ is at most .
Assume a frame $f$ which has a packet $p\in f$ delivered by [[ProactiveGreedy]{}]{} at time $t$. The number of frames in $O \setminus F_{\operatorname{PG}}$ which can be directly mapped to $f$ via $p\in f$ is at most $\min{\left\{d,b\right\}}$, since the optimal solution cannot deliver more than $d$ of the pending packets at any time $t$. If $d\geq b$, then since the maximal number of packets which can arrive at time $t$ is $b$, the result of applies in this case too, and $b=\min{\left\{d,b\right\}}$.
If $d<b$, if frames $f'\in O \setminus F_{\operatorname{PG}}$ were to be mapped to another frame $f''\in O \setminus F_{\operatorname{PG}}$ via $p_{\ell}^{''}$ then at most $d-1$ frames with weight $w(f'_{\ell-1})$ or $d$ frames with weight $w(f'_{\ell-2})$ can be directly mapped via $p_{\ell}^{''}$. Therefore, the highest number of frames $f'\in O \setminus F_{\operatorname{PG}}$ mapped to a single frame $f\in F_{\operatorname{PG}}$ is achieved when frames $f'\in O \setminus F_{\operatorname{PG}}$ can not be mapped to frames $f''\in O \setminus F_{\operatorname{PG}}$ (otherwise the resulting tree like structure contains less mapped frames) - the maximal number of frames $f'\in O \setminus F_{\operatorname{PG}}$ mapped to a single frame $f\in F_{\operatorname{PG}}$ is achieved when [[ProactiveGreedy]{}]{} never schedules a packet of a frame $f'\in O \setminus F_{\operatorname{PG}}$. Hence by counting the maximal number of frames mapped to $f\in F_{\operatorname{PG}}$ via packets with weight $w\geq 1$ according to ($b\left(1+b\right)^{\ell-2}$ mapped frames), and mapping at most $d$ frames $f'\in O \setminus F_{\operatorname{PG}}$ via every scheduled packet with $\ell =1$ (for every frame mapped to $f$ including itself), the result for the maximal number of frames $f'\in O \setminus F_{\operatorname{PG}}$ mapped to a single frame $f\in F_{\operatorname{PG}}$ is $\left(b\left(1+b\right)^{\ell-2}+1\right)d\leq d\left(1+b\right)^{\ell-1}$.
\[thm:pg-competitive-ratio\] Algorithm [[ProactiveGreedy]{}]{} is $O(\min{\left\{d,b\right\}} b^{k-1})$-competitive.
By the overall number of frames in $O \setminus F_{\operatorname{PG}}$ mapped to any $f \in F_{\operatorname{PG}}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\ell=1}^{k} {\left\vertM(p^f_{\ell})\right\vert}
&\leq \min{\left\{d,b\right\}} \sum_{\ell=1}^{k} (1+b)^{\ell-1} \notag \\
&= \min{\left\{d,b\right\}} b^{k-1} (1 + O(\frac{k}{b})) \notag \\
&= O(\min{\left\{d,b\right\}} b^{k-1}), \notag\end{aligned}$$ which completes the proof.
From this analysis of the [[ProactiveGreedy]{}]{} algorithm we learn that choosing a preference based on how close is a frame to completion guarantees not only that a frame will be completed (), but also that the algorithm will be competitive. Also, even though this algorithm is very simple (conceptually), the competitiveness is close to the lower bound we proved for the general case (within a factor of $d$ from the lower bound). This competitive ratio does not depend if the traffic is burst bound ($r=b$ the general case) or token bucket shaped ($r<b$), since an arrival sequence achieving this bound can be created regardless of the value of $r$ (due to step 2 of the algorithm).
The Greedy Algorithm {#sec:greedy}
--------------------
With the proactive greedy algorithm, we saw that choosing a preference based on how close is a frame to completion results in an upper bound which is close to the lower bound for the general case ($r=b$). However, the [[ProactiveGreedy]{}]{} algorithm is not a natural algorithm to suggest since frames are being dropped unnecessarily, resulting both in inefficiency and in implementation complexity.
We suggest a more intuitive algorithm, the [[Greedy]{}]{} algorithm - . The only difference between the two algorithms is that the [[Greedy]{}]{} algorithm does not drop frames unnecessarily - a frame expires only if it is not feasible to schedule one of it’s packets by the packet’s deadline.
drop all pending packets of frames that are not alive \[alg:gd:drop-dead-frames\] $Q_t \gets$ all alive frames with pending packets at $t$ $f \gets \arg\max{\left\{ I_t(f') \mid f' \in Q_t\right\}}$ \[alg:gd:identify-max-frame\] deliver the first pending packet of $f$ \[alg:gd:schedule\]
We say a packet $p_{\ell}^f$ is eligible if at a time $t$ it is in the buffer of [[Greedy]{}]{} and it’s index is $\ell =I_{t}(f)$ - it is the first pending packet of the live frame $f$ at time $t$. The following lemma relates the number of packets of index at least $\ell$ that were dropped by [[Greedy]{}]{}, to the number of packets of index at least $\ell$ that were delivered by $t$.
\[lem:gd-direct-mapping-load\] For any time $t$ during which a previously eligible packet $p_\ell \in f$ is dropped, assume $n_t^{\ell}$ is the total number of packets with index at least $\ell$ which were eligible and dropped by time $t$. It follows that at least $\lceil n_t^{\ell}/b\rceil$ packets with index of at least $\ell$ were delivered by [[Greedy]{}]{}by time $t$.
At most $b+1$ packets can become eligible at the start of any time $t$ - a burst of at most $b$ packets, and one packet $p'''_{i}\in f'''$ which was in buffer at time $t-1$ if packet $p'''_{i-1}\in f'''$ was scheduled at time t-1. When a packet $p_{\ell}\in f$ is eligible, only a packet which belongs to a frame of at least the same weight can be scheduled. We note two possible cases:
1. For the case that $b+1$ packets belonging to frames with weight $w(f')\geq w(f)$ become eligible at time $t$ (including $p_{\ell}$), then one of them will be scheduled since all eligible packets carrying over from time $t-1$ $p''\in f''$ belong to frames with $w(f'')< w(f''')$ - at least one packet out of $b+1$ will be scheduled at time $t$.
2. For the case that up to $b$ packets belonging to frames with weight $w(f')\geq w(f)$ become eligible at time $t$ (including $p_{\ell}$), then one packet $p_{i\geq \ell}$ will be scheduled. The packet scheduled at time $t$ can be one of the up to $b$ packets that became eligible, or it can be a packet that arrived at an earlier time (and is still eligible) - at least one packet out of $b+1$ (in case the scheduled packet was already eligible at $t-1$) packets will be scheduled at time $t$.
Note that if at time $t-1$ there were eligible packets with $w(f')\geq w(f)$, all of them were already accounted for at time of first eligibility - either during a previous case 2, or during a previous case 1.
The combination of the two cases guarantees that at any time $t$, if the number of packets with index of at least $\ell$ which were eligible and subsequently dropped by [[Greedy]{}]{} by time $t$ is $n$, than at least $\lceil\frac{n}{b} \rceil$ packets with an index of at least $\ell$ were scheduled by time $t$.
In order to find the upper bound of the competitive ratio, we use the same approach used to analyze [[ProactiveGreedy]{}]{}. Let $F_{\operatorname{G}}$ be the set of frames successfully delivered by [[Greedy]{}]{} and let $O$ denote the set of frames successfully delivered by some optimal solution. We define mapping $\psi$ of frames in the arrival sequence to packets in $F_{\operatorname{G}}$.
1. if $f \in F_{\operatorname{G}}$ then $f$ is mapped to itself.
2. if $f\in O\setminus F_{\operatorname{G}}$, then let $p_{\ell}^f$ be the first packet of $f$ dropped by [[G]{}]{} in line \[alg:gd:drop-dead-frames\], and denote by $t_f$ the time slot where $p_{\ell}^f$ was dropped. Let $p'_{i\geq\ell}=p(t\leq t_f) \in f'$ be a packet scheduled in time slot $t\leq t_f$ in line \[alg:pg:schedule\]. We map $f$ to $f'$ [*directly*]{}, and re-map any frames that were previously mapped to $f$ onto $f'$ [*indirectly*]{}, if it is the earliest scheduled packet with the lowest index $i\geq\ell$ which has less than $2$ packets already [*directly*]{} mapped to it. We say that these frames are re-mapped to $f'$ [*via packet $p'=p(t\leq t_f)$*]{}. We also refer to the group of all frames mapped to $f$ via $p$ as $M(p)$.
3. if $f \notin F_{\operatorname{G}}\cup O$, then let $p_{\ell}^f$ be the first packet of $f$ dropped by [[G]{}]{} in line \[alg:gd:drop-dead-frames\], and denote by $t_f$ the time slot where $p_{\ell}^f$ was dropped. Let $p'_{i\geq\ell}=p(t\leq t_f) \in f'$ be a packet scheduled in time slot $t\leq t_f$ in line \[alg:pg:schedule\]. We map $f$ to $f'$ [*directly*]{}, and re-map any frames that were previously mapped to $f$ onto $f'$ [*indirectly*]{}, if it is the earliest scheduled packet with the lowest index $i\geq\ell$ which has less than $b$ packets already [*directly*]{} mapped to it. We say that these frames are re-mapped to $f'$ [*via packet $p'=p(t\leq t_f)$*]{}. We also refer to the group of all frames mapped to $f$ via $p$ as $M(p)$.
The following lemma shows that the mapping is well defined, and that at most 2 packets of $O$ are directly mapped to any single frame $f$.
\[lem:direct-mapping-adversary-greedy\] At any time $t$ when there is no eligible packet with index $j\geq\ell$, at least 1 packet with index $i\geq\ell$ have been scheduled by [[Greedy]{}]{} for every 2 packets with indices $j\geq\ell$ which were eligible and subsequently dropped by [[Greedy]{}]{}.
Note that during every time slot that packet $p_{\ell}\in f \in O$ is eligible for [[Greedy]{}]{}, if it is not scheduled it means there exist some packet $p'_{i\geq\ell}\in f'$ which is scheduled instead. Also note that the schedule of the adversary must be feasible.
Consider the first time a packet with index $\ell$ becomes eligible $t_e$: either all the packets with index $i\geq \ell$ which became eligible at $t_e$ (at least one of them with index $i=\ell$) arrived at $t_e$, or one of the packets with an index $i=\ell$ which became eligible was already in the buffer and became eligible because the $\ell -1$ packet of the same stream was scheduled at time slot $t_e-1$.
We define $t_b$ as the first time after $t_e$ where there are no eligible packets with an index $i\geq \ell$ in the buffer, by definition $t_b>t_e$. We say call the interval $[t_e,t_b]$ an $\ell$-ary busy period.
During an $\ell$-ary busy period, at most $t_b-t_e+1$ of the adversary’s packets with index $i\geq \ell$ can become eligible for [[Greedy]{}]{}:
- at time $t_e$ up to $d+1$ of the adversary’s packets with index $i\geq \ell$ can become eligible for [[Greedy]{}]{}due to feasibility of $O$, as at most $d$ such eligible packets can arrive at time $t_e$ and one packet was already in the buffer can become eligible.
- during the interval $[t_e,t_b]$ at most $t_b-t_e$ of the adversary’s packets with index $i\geq \ell$ could arrive and become eligible for [[Greedy]{}]{}, due to the combination of the feasibility of $O$ and of the fact that at time $t_b$ there are no eligible packets with index $i\geq \ell$ in the buffer.
During the $\ell$-ary busy period $[t_e,t_b]$, $t_b-t_e$ packets with index $i\geq \ell$ are scheduled by [[Greedy]{}]{}.
Therefore during the $\ell$-ary busy period $[t_e,t_b]$, [[Greedy]{}]{} schedules $t_b-t_e$ packets with index $i\geq \ell$, and drops at most $t_b-t_e+1$ of the adversary’s packets with index $i\geq \ell$ which became eligible during the interval.
We extend the definition of $t_e$ to be the first time slot a packet with index $\ell$ becomes eligible after some time $t<t_e$ during which there were no eligible packets with index $i\geq \ell$ in the buffer (this definition applies also for $t_e=0$ as at previous times the buffer was empty). Then an $\ell$-ary busy period can be followed by another $\ell$-ary busy period after a it ends (there can be no overlap between the busy periods). Busy periods of different indices can and do overlap one another.
As all packets of index $\ell$ become eligible during an $\ell$-ary busy period the result follows, since during a single busy period $t_b-t_e$ packets with index $i\geq \ell$ are scheduled by [[Greedy]{}]{}, and at most $t_b-t_e+1$ of eligible adversary’s packets with index $i\geq \ell$ are dropped by [[Greedy]{}]{}.
and ensure that mapping $\psi$ is well defined. The definition of $\psi$ together with yields:
\[cor:remapping-length-greedy\] A frame can be (re-)mapped at most $k$ times, and all frames are eventually mapped to frames in $F_{\operatorname{PG}}$.
By the definition of $\psi$, no more than $b$ frames can be directly mapped to a frame $f'$ via packet $p'\in f'$. Furthermore, if $f\notin F_{\operatorname{G}}$ is mapped to $f'$ then $w(f')>w(f)$. It follows that the proof of also holds for [[Greedy]{}]{}(since all requirements are met):
\[cor:gd-mapping-load\] For every frame $f$, the overall number of frames mapped to $f$ at time $t$ via packets $p_{\ell} \in f$ is at most .
Therefore by applying and the fact that according to $\psi$ the number of frames in $O \setminus F_{\operatorname{PG}}$ directly mapped to any $f$ via $p\in f$ is at most $2$, using similar arguments as the ones used in and we obtain the following theorem.
\[thm:gd-competitive-ratio\] Algorithm [[Greedy]{}]{} is $O(b^{k-1})$-competitive.
Applying the arguments from on the results of , yields that the overall number of frames in $O \setminus F_{\operatorname{PG}}$ mapped to $f$ at time $t$ via packets $p_{\ell} \in f$ is at most (since $\min{\left\{2,b\right\}}\leq 2$). Then as in the overall number of frames in $O \setminus F_{\operatorname{PG}}$ mapped to any $f \in F_{\operatorname{PG}}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\ell=1}^{k} {\left\vertM(p^f_{\ell})\right\vert}
&\leq 2 \sum_{\ell=1}^{k} (1+b)^{\ell-1} \notag \\
&= 2 b^{k-1} (1 + O(\frac{k}{b})) \notag \\
&= O( b^{k-1}) \notag\end{aligned}$$
We note that by our lower bounds algorithm [[Greedy]{}]{} optimal up to a constant factor. Furthermore it should be noted that this improved bound, as well as expected performance in practice, comes at a cost of significantly more complex implementation. Specifically, while [[ProactiveGreedy]{}]{} can potentially be implemented using a FIFO buffer, [[Greedy]{}]{} does not deliver packets in FIFO order. In other aspects [[Greedy]{}]{} is not significantly more complex than the [[ProactiveGreedy]{}]{} e.g., by trading garbage collection with killing live frames.
Further Algorithmic Considerations {#sec:algorithm-design}
==================================
Tie-breaking {#sec:algorithm-design:tie-breaking}
------------
The results from the analysis of the two algorithms, show us that an algorithm should prefer frames which are closer to completion (since this characteristic guarantees competitiveness), and that live frames should be kept in the buffer as long as possible (as shown by the difference between the algorithms). But the analysis brings up the question how to best tie-break between frames which are the same distance from completion (the number of sent packets is the same for both frames).
A natural choice for a tie-breaker is the residual slack $r_t(p^f)$ of the smallest-index packet $p^f \in Q_t \cap f$ for each frame $f$ that has the maximal $I_t(f)$ value. The purpose of such a tie breaker is of course to improve performance by keeping as many frames alive as possible. A less obvious choice for a tie-breaker is the number of pending packets corresponding to frame $f$, denoted $n_t(f)$. The intuition underlying this choice is that preferring frames with lower $n_t(f)$ can more rapidly “clear” the effect of $f$ on other frames with pending packets. One should note that neither choice affects the asymptotic competitiveness of [[Greedy]{}]{}, which is tight up to a constant factor. However, this choice is expected to influence the performance of the algorithms in practice. In we further address these design dilemmas.
Scheduling {#sec:algorithm-design:scheduling}
----------
For both of the greedy algorithms presented in Sections \[sec:proactive-greedy\] and \[sec:greedy\], the first packet of the preferred frame was sent, where the difference between the algorithms boiled down to the the way other pending packets were treated. In particular, the residual slack of the packets is essentially ignored by these greedy approaches (although it can be taken into account in tie-breaking, as discussed above).
One common approach to incorporate residual slack into the scheduler is considering [*provisional schedules*]{}, which essentially try pick the packet to be delivered using a local offline algorithm, which takes into account all currently available information. Such an approach can be viewed as aiming to maximize the benefit to be accrued from the present packets, assuming no future arrivals. Such an approach lays at the core of the solutions proposed by [@kesselman04buffer; @jez12online; @englert12considering] which each used an algorithm for computing an optimal offline local solution. In our case, as shown in , computing such an optimal provisional schedule is hard, but, as shown in , there exists a $(k+1)$-approximation algorithm for the problem.
We adapt this algorithm into a procedure for computing a provisional schedule, which would allow a smaller $I$-indexed frame to have one of its packets scheduled, only if non of the frames with a higher $I$-index would become infeasible in the following time slot. Our proposed heuristic, [[Opportunistic]{}]{}, is described in . [[Opportunistic]{}]{} builds a provisional schedule $F_t$ as follows:
1. Sort pending frames[^3] in decreasing lexicographical order of $(I_t(f),d-r_t(f))$. I.e., preference is given to frames with higher $I$-index values. In case of ties, preference is given to frames for which their smallest-index packet has the minimal residual slack.
2. Initialize the provisional schedule $F_t=\emptyset$.
3. For each frame $f$ in this order, test whether for all $s=0,\ldots,d$, the pending packets of $f$ can be added to $F_t$ such that the overall number of packets in the provisional schedule with remaining slack at most $s$, does not exceed $s$. If $f$ can be added, update $F_t=F_t \cup {\left\{f\right\}}$.
gives an illustration of construction of a provisional schedule at some time $t$. The first two frames have room for all their packets in the provisional schedule, and all of their packets can be accommodated for delivery by their deadlines (note that the first frame tested will always be a part of the provisional schedule, since otherwise it would not be alive). The packet of the third frame causes an “overflow” for $s=5$, and therefore its frame cannot be accommodated in the provisional schedule. We note that in this example, the packet picked for delivery would be $P_1^2 \in f_2$, which might not correspond to the highest $I$-index pending frame (e.g., if $I_t(f_2)<I_t(f_1)$).
![Schematics of building a provisional schedule.[]{data-label="fig:prov-sched"}](provschedule.pdf){width="9cm"}
Build the provisional schedule $F_t$ transmit the packet with minimum residual slack in $F_t$
Simulations {#sec:simulations}
===========
In the previous sections we provided an analysis of the greedy online algorithm, and of discussed additional guidelines for effective algorithm design. We also presented algorithm [[Opportunistic]{}]{}. In this section we provide a simulation study in which we test the performance of the algorithms, the effectiveness the guidelines, and the impact the parameters $k$ and $d$ on the performance.
Traffic Generation and Setup
----------------------------
We recall that the problem of managing traffic with packet dependencies captured by our model is most prevalent in real-time video streams. We therefore perform a simulation study that aims to capture many of the characteristics of such streams.
We will generate traffic which will be an interleaving of [*streams*]{}, where each stream is targeted at a different receiver, and all streams require service from a single queue at the tail of a link.
In our simulation study, we focus on traffic with the following characteristics.
- We assume each stream has a random start time where packets are generated. This corresponds to scenarios such as VOD streams, where each receiver may choose which video to view and when to view it, and these choices are independent.
- We assume the average bandwidth demand of all streams is identical, which represents streams with comparable video quality.
- Frames of a single stream are non-overlapping, and are produced by the source in evenly spaced intervals. E.g., if we consider video streams consisting of 30FPS, each interval is $33ms$.
- The source transmits the packets of each frame in a burst, and we assume each frame consists of the same number of packets. Such a scenario occurs, e.g., in MPEG encoding making use of I-frames alone. We assume all packet have the same size, namely, the network’s MTU.
- We assume a random delay variation between the arrival of consecutive packets corresponding to the same stream. Such delay variation is produced, e.g., due to queueing delay in previous nodes along the streams path. Specifically, we assume a uniform delay variation of up to 5 time slots.
- We assume each packet contains the frame number, and the index number of the packet within the frame. Such information can be encoded, e.g., in the RTP header.
For the setup we chose to simulate, the packet sizes are set such that every time slot one packet can be scheduled, and the aggregate bandwidth of all the streams is equal to the service bandwidth. We note that even in such cases, where traffic arrival rate does not exceed the link capacity, no online algorithm can obtain the optimal goodput. We simulate 2 minutes worth of traffic for 50 streams, where for all the streams the frame rate is 30FPS (for a total of 3600 frames per stream). Since we fix the service rate as $1$, in the simulation the interval between consecutive frames arrival in a stream is $\Delta F=k\cdot 50$ time slots, where $k$ is the number of packets per frame. As $k$ grows the “real” duration of a single time slot decreases, as the service rate effectively increases.
Simulated Algorithms
--------------------
We performed the simulation study for four scheduling algorithms, where in all algorithms in case of ties in the priorities, these are broken according to the a random (but fixed) priority on the streams:
- The offline $O(k+1)$-approximation algorithm of [@kesselman13competitive]. By this algorithm has the same performance guarantee in our model as well. This algorithm serves as a benchmark for evaluating the performance of the online algorithms.
- Algorithm [[Greedy]{}]{}, described and analysed in . This algorithm represents our baseline for studying the the performance of online algorithms for the problem.
- Algorithm [[Greedy$_{\text{slack}}$]{}]{}, which implements [[Greedy]{}]{} with ties broken according to minimum residual slack.
- Algorithm [[Opportunistic]{}]{}, presented in . This is the most complex algorithm we evaluate, as in addition to the enhanced tie-breaking, it also attempts to exploit opportunities to schedule lower ranked packets according to the provisional schedule.
Results
-------
The simulation results confirm our hypothesis that implementation of the proposed algorithm design guideline does indeed impact the performance of online algorithms. We depict the performance of each online algorithm by its [*goodput ratio*]{}, measured by the ratio between the goodput of the online algorithm and that of the offline algorithm.
presents the performance of the online algorithms as a function of the slack each packet has, for $k=6$. It can be seen that as the slack increases the tie-breaking rule in [[Greedy$_{\text{slack}}$]{}]{} shows significant improved performance in comparison with the vanilla greedy algorithm. The figure also shows that the [[Opportunistic]{}]{} exhibits a significantly better performance than [[Greedy$_{\text{slack}}$]{}]{} (although this improvement is paid for by significant additional complexity). We note that results for greater values of $12$ exhibit the same trends. Also of note is that the [[Greedy$_{\text{slack}}$]{}]{} and [[Opportunistic]{}]{} manage to trace the performance of the offline algorithm (and actually complete all the frames of all the streams) for traffic with sufficiently large slack.
![Comparison of the goodput of online algorithms[]{data-label="fig:comp-on-alg"}](figure12.pdf){width="9cm"}
In we presents the goodput ratio of [[Opportunistic]{}]{} and [[Greedy$_{\text{slack}}$]{}]{} as a function of $d/k$. The first lesson learnt from this data is that the performance of the opportunistic algorithm is superior to that of the enhanced greedy algorithm, in particular for small $d/k$ values where the difference becomes more pronounced (these results are also hinted by , but are not as pronounced). Furthermore, the performance of both algorithms depends exponentially on the ratio between $d$ and $k$ (shown by the log scale), as even though both graphs present results of many simulations with different inputs having different parameters, the plots show a linear trend up to the point where they match the goodput of offline algorithm. This exponential dependency can be viewed as comparable to that of the analytic lower bound presented in , where $d/k$ takes the role of $1/k$.
Another important result is that the streams are not treated fairly. When there is no random delay variation for the input sequence, the algorithms synchronize with the input so either all frames of a stream are completed, or none of them are completed. Raising the limits of the random delay variation improves the fairness, although some degree of synchronization remains. When there exists a random delay variation higher values of $k$ result in improved fairness. The impact of the delay variation can be seen in , which shows that for [[Greedy$_{\text{slack}}$]{}]{} maximal delay variation of 1 time slot (for an average of 0.5 time slots) results in complete synchronization - a stream either has all of it’s frames completed or it has no frame completed. Raising the maximal delay variation even by a small amount reduces the synchronization significantly.
![Cumulative completed frames per stream for [[Greedy$_{\text{slack}}$]{}]{} as a function of maximal delay variation (jitter) between packets of a stream.[]{data-label="fig:cdf-jit"}](figure52.pdf){width="9cm"}
Conclusions and Future Work {#sec:conclusions-future-work}
===========================
In this paper we address the problem of maximizing the goodput of delay sensitive traffic with inter-packet dependencies. We provide lower bounds on the competitiveness of online algorithms for the general case that the traffic is burst bounded, and present competitive scheduling algorithms for the problem. Through the analysis we show that there exists an algorithmic guideline that ensures competitiveness - preference for frames that are closer to completion. Our proposed solutions ensure the optimal performance possible, up to a small constant factor. Our analysis further provides insights into improving the performance of online algorithms for the problem. These insights are further verified by a simulation study which shows that our improved algorithms which are inspired by our analytic results, are very close to the performance of the currently best known offline algorithm for the problem. More specifically, the performance of our algorithms approach the performance of our benchmark algorithm with an exponential correlation to the increase in delay-slack.
Our work serves as an initial study of scheduling delay-bounded traffic with inter-packet dependencies. Our work raises new questions about the performance of algorithms for this problem:
1. Our simulation results indicate that the ratio $d/k$ bears some influence on the algorithm performance. Shedding light on this effect is an interesting open question.
2. Are there other algorithmic guidelines which can further improve the performance of online algorithms, and specifically how well can randomized algorithms perform?
[^1]: It should be noted that the objective of maximizing goodput (on the frame-level) is in most cases significantly different than the common concept of maximizing [*throughput*]{} (on the packet-level).
[^2]: Note that this is a tad different from the model used in [@kesselman04buffer] since we allow a packet to be scheduled also at time $e(p)=a(p)+r(p)$.
[^3]: A frame is pending if it has pending packets.
|
---
abstract: 'We carry out extensive Monte Carlo simulations of the three-dimensional (3D) uniformly frustrated XY model with uncorrelated randomly perturbed couplings, as a model for the equilibrium behavior of an extreme type-II superconductor with quenched uncorrelated random point vortex pinning, in the presence of a uniform applied magnetic field. We map out the resulting phase diagram as a function of temperature $T$ and pinning strength $p$ for a fixed value of the vortex line density. At low $p$ we find a sharp first order vortex lattice melting phase boundary separating a vortex lattice from a vortex liquid. As $p$ increases, it appears that this first order transition smears out over a finite temperature interval, due to the effects of the random pinning, in agreement with several recent experiments. At large $p$ we find a second order transition from vortex liquid to vortex glass.'
author:
- Peter Olsson
- 'S. Teitel'
title: 'Unified Phase Diagram for the Three-Dimensional XY Model of a Point Disordered Type-II Superconductor'
---
=1
Introduction
============
In strong type-II superconductors, where the magnetic penetration length $\lambda$ is much larger than the bare coherence length $\xi_0$, much of the macroscopic behavior can be modeled in terms of the interacting vortex lines that are introduced into the system by the application of an external magnetic field.[@Tinkham] In the high temperature copper-oxide superconductors such as YBCO and BSCCO, material parameters such as high anisotropy, as well as the high transition temperatures, cause thermal fluctuations to play an important role. Such materials are also believed, even in the purest of single crystal samples, to contain quenched, intrinsic, uncorrelated, random point impurities that can pin vortex lines. The resulting phase diagram as a function of temperature and applied magnetic field is generally believed to result from such a combination of thermal fluctuations and random point pinning.[@Blatter] It was later argued that similar fluctuation effects can be observed even in single crystal samples of more familiar strong type-II low temperature superconductors[@Paltiel; @Ling; @Banerjee; @Marchevsky; @Pasquini] such as Nb and NbSe$_2$, albeit over a much more restricted region of the phase diagram. It has been argued that a universal phase diagram might apply to all strong type-II superconductors.[@Menon]
Considerable experimental effort has been devoted to the determination of this vortex line phase diagram. [@Worthington; @Liang; @Schilling; @Khaykovich; @Nishizaki; @Bouquet; @vanderBeek; @Gaifullin; @Avraham; @Radzyner; @LiWen; @Beidenkopf; @Beidenkopf2; @Petrean; @Andersson; @Strachan; @Strachan2; @Shibata; @Soibel] It is now generally accepted that upon increasing temperature at low magnetic fields, a sharp first order melting transition exists[@Liang; @Schilling; @Khaykovich; @Nishizaki; @Bouquet] from an elastically distorted vortex lattice, known as the “Bragg glass,"[@Giamarchi; @Nattermann; @FisherBG] to a disordered vortex liquid. However many other aspects of the vortex phase diagram remain in dispute. At low temperatures, increasing the magnetic field leads to a first order transition from the Bragg glass to a disordered vortex state.[@vanderBeek; @Gaifullin] It was originally believed that a special critical point separated the low field thermally induced vortex lattice melting from the high field disorder (random pin) induced melting.[@Khaykovich; @Nishizaki; @Bouquet] However later work[@vanderBeek; @Gaifullin; @Avraham; @Radzyner; @LiWen] argued for a single unified first order phase boundary for the vortex lattice, continuing smoothly down to low temperatures. At low temperatures and high magnetic fields, where the vortex lines are spatially disordered, a “vortex glass" phase has been proposed.[@FFH; @Scheidl] It remains in question whether this vortex glass is a truly distinct thermodynamic state with true superconducting phase coherence,[@Petrean; @Andersson] separated from the vortex liquid by a continuous second order phase transition, or whether there is just a crossover to a highly viscous vortex liquid upon decreasing temperature.[@Strachan; @Strachan2] It has also been proposed that within the vortex liquid there is a sharp first order transition line that splits off from the melting line at higher magnetic fields, and terminates at a critical end point. This transition is claimed to separate regions with lesser vs greater spatial vortex correlations, the more correlated region being called the “vortex slush".[@Worthington; @Shibata] Other works have argued that the disordered vortex state at high magnetic fields continues to exist as a thin sliver of “multidomain glass" all along the vortex melting line, even at low magnetic fields.[@Banerjee; @Menon]
Theoretically, the vortex line phase diagram has been studied within effective elastic theories, often using the Lindemann criterion to estimate the location of melting and other transitions.[@Ertas; @Giamarchi2; @Koshelev; @Kierfeld; @Mikitik; @Kierfeld2] Several of these works[@Kierfeld; @Mikitik; @Kierfeld2] reported the possibility of a critical end point to the vortex lattice melting line at high magnetic fields, as well as a vortex slush phase. However later analytical calculations, based on the Ginzburg-Landau model with pinning,[@LiRosen] and on a vortex line model in a weak impurity background with both elastic and plastic excitations,[@Dietel] found only a unified first order melting transition for the Bragg glass, extending to low temperatures with no critical points intervening, and no vortex slush.
The difficulty of performing reliable analytical calculations has thus led to numerous numerical investigations,[@Ryu; @Wilkin; @Otterlo; @Reichhardt; @NonoHu; @OTmelt; @OlssonVG; @Kawamura0; @Kawamura; @Lidmar; @DasguptaValls1; @DasguptaValls2] in which one hopes to map out various aspects of the vortex line phase diagram within a well defined simple model. In this paper we report on one such investigation, using the three-dimensional (3D) uniformly frustrated XY model with uncorrelated quenched disorder in the couplings, as a model for a strong type-II superconductor with random point pinning. A virtue of the XY model is that it describes realistic vortex line interactions with no restrictions on vortex line excitations; both overhangs in the field induced vortex lines, and closed thermally excited vortex loops are included. The details of vortex line cores are handled by the short length cutoff of the numerical grid, and hence issues concerning vortex line cutting are treated with a minimum of ad hoc assumptions. Our model holds in the limit of infinite penetration length, $\lambda\to\infty$, and we comment later on the implications of this approximation.
We build upon our earlier work[@OTmelt; @OlssonVG] to present here the equilibrium phase diagram as a function of temperature $T$ and disorder strength $p$, for a fixed density of vortex lines $f=B\xi_0^2/\phi_0=1/5$ ($\phi_0$ is the flux quantum). Keeping $f$ fixed avoids effects that would be due to varying commensurability of the vortex lines with respect to the underlying numerical grid of the model. However, since increasing $f$ in a continuum system is generally believed to increase the effective pinning strength, [@MenonDasgupta] as more lines get forced into the same pinning volume, varying $p$ at fixed $f$ should provide qualitatively similar information as the more physical situation of varying $f$ at fixed $p$. Through careful, well equilibrated, simulations comparing systems of different size, and averaging over different realizations of the random pinning, we consider the limits of both weak and strong disorder. Our results are summarized in Fig. \[f1\]. By using a denser vortex line system than in our earlier work we are able in particular to explore the strong pinning limit, correcting our earlier preliminary conclusions[@OTmelt] concerning the presence of a vortex glass in this model. We also find, for the first time, a disorder induced smearing of the vortex lattice melting transition $T_{\rm m}(p)$ at intermediate disorder strengths, that we believe is in good agreement with recent experiments.[@Pasquini; @Soibel]
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we define our model and the quantities we use to map out the phase diagram. In Sec. III we present our results for vortex lattice melting in the limit of weak pinning strengths. In Sec. IV we present our results for the vortex glass at strong pinning strengths. In Sec. V we discuss the smearing of the vortex lattice melting transition at intermediate pinning strengths. In Sec. VI we summarize our results and discuss their relation to other recent numerical works.
=8.6truecm
Model {#smodel}
=====
The model we simulate is the uniformly frustrated 3D XY model, given by the Hamiltonian,[@YHLi] $${\cal H}[\theta({\bf r}_i)]=-\sum_{i\mu}J_{i\mu}\cos(\theta({\bf r}_i)-\theta({\bf r}_i+\hat\mu)-A_{i\mu})\enspace,
\label{eH}$$ which serves as a discretized approximation to the Ginzburg-Landau free energy functional in the London approximation of fixed wavefunction amplitude, and captures the kinetic energy of the flowing supercurrents in the system. Here $\theta({\bf r}_i)$ is the thermally fluctuating phase angle of the superconducting wavefunction on site ${\bf r}_i$ of a cubic $L\times L\times L_z $ grid of sites with bonds in directions $\hat\mu=\hat x,\hat y,\hat z$. $J_{i\mu}$ is the superconducting coupling constant on bond $(i\mu)$ of the grid, $A_{i\mu}$ is proportional to the magnetic vector potential integrated across the bond, and the argument of the cosine is thus the gauge invariant phase angle difference across the bond.
The $A_{\rm i\mu}$ are determined such that the circulation of $A_{i\mu}$ around any plaquette $\alpha$ of the grid is fixed and equal to $2\pi f_\alpha$ with $f_\alpha$ equal to the fraction of applied magnetic flux quanta through that plaquette. To model a uniform applied magnetic field in the $\hat z$ direction, we use a uniform value $f_\alpha = f$ for plaquettes oriented with normal in the $\hat z$ direction, and $f_\alpha =0$ otherwise. The presence of the applied magnetic field induces vortex lines into the phase angles $\theta({\bf r}_i)$ such that the average vortex line density in direction $\hat \mu$ is $n_\mu=f\delta_{\mu z}$. Holding the $A_{i\mu}$ fixed corresponds to the approximation of an infinite magnetic penetration length $\lambda$, which one may expect to be reasonable in the limit that $\lambda$ is much larger than the average inter-vortex spacing. Experiments on very pure YBCO samples[@Liang] indicate that many features of behavior, up to surprisingly large magnetic fields, are well described by this large $\lambda\to\infty$ XY model limit. We return to comment on this approximation in section \[svg\].
To model vortex pinning due to quenched point randomness we use couplings[@OTmelt] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eJ}
J_{i\mu}&=&J_\perp(1+p\epsilon_{i\mu}),\quad \mu=x,y\\ \nonumber
J_{iz}&=&J_z \quad {\rm constant},\end{aligned}$$ where the $\epsilon_{i\mu}$ are uncorrelated, uniformly distributed, random variables with $$\langle\epsilon_{i\mu}\rangle=0, \qquad \langle\epsilon_{i\mu}^2\rangle=1\enspace.$$ The disorder strength is thus controlled by the parameter $p$ in Eq. (\[eJ\]). We will vary $p$ from small to large values in order to systematically investigate the differences between weak and strong pinning.
In the following we will use $\langle\dots\rangle$ to denote the equilibrium average for a particular realization of the random pinning $\{\epsilon_{i\mu}\}$. We will use $[\dots ]$ to denote the average over several independent realizations of the $\{\epsilon_{i\mu}\}$.
In this work we use parameters, $$\begin{aligned}
f&=&1/5\enspace,\\
J_z&=&J_\perp/40\enspace.
\label{eparms}\end{aligned}$$ We use $J_z\ll J_\perp$ to enhance vortex line fluctuations along the $\hat z$ direction, thus allowing us to use systems with smaller $L_z$. The relatively dense value of $f$ was similarly chosen so as to have many vortex lines contained within systems of modest size, so as to permit finite size scaling analyses (particularly for the vortex glass) and to average over many independent realizations of the random disorder $\{\epsilon_{i\mu}\}$. While this high density leads to artificial commensurability effects (for example a square rather than a triangular ground state vortex lattice), one may still hope that many features of our system with respect to vortex lattice melting and the vortex glass transition will remain qualitatively similar to results on real physical materials.
To probe the behavior of the system we consider the average energy per site, which is the thermodynamic conjugate variable to the temperature $T$, $$\begin{aligned}
E&\equiv& {1\over L^2L_z}{\partial (\beta {\cal F})\over \partial \beta}\\ \nonumber
&=&-{1\over L^2L_z}\sum_{i,\mu}J_{i\mu}\langle \cos(\theta({\bf r}_i)-\theta({\bf r}_i+\hat\mu)-A_{i\mu})\rangle \enspace,\end{aligned}$$ where $\beta\equiv1/T$ and ${\cal F}$ is the total free energy. We can similarly define a variable $Q$ which is the thermodynamic conjugate to the disorder strength $p$, $$\begin{aligned}
Q&\equiv&{1\over L^2L_z}{\partial {\cal F}\over\partial p}\\ \nonumber
&=&-{1\over L^2L_z}\sum_{i,\mu=x,y}J_\perp\epsilon_{i\mu}\langle\cos(\theta({\bf r}_i)-\theta({\bf r}_i+\hat\mu)-A_{i\mu})\rangle \enspace.\end{aligned}$$ The vorticity in the system is determined by considering the circulation of the gauge invariant phase difference around each plaquette. For a plaquette $\alpha$ at position ${\bf r}_\alpha$ with normal in direction $\mu$, the vorticity $n_\mu({\bf r}_\alpha)$ piercing the plaquette is determined by, $$\sum_\alpha \left[\theta({\bf r}_i)-\theta({\bf r}_i+\hat\mu)-A_{i\mu}\right]_{-\pi}^{+\pi} = 2\pi[n_\mu({\bf r}_\alpha)-f\delta_{\mu z}]\enspace,$$ where the sum goes counterclockwise around the bonds of the plaquette, and the bracket on the left hand side indicates that the gauge invariant phase angle difference is to be computed so as to lie within the interval $(-\pi,\pi]$.
To look for vortex lattice ordering we compute the vortex structure function $S({\bf k}_\perp)$ which measures correlations between vortices within the same $xy$ plane, $$S({\bf k}_\perp)={1\over fL^2L_z}\sum_{{\bf r}_\perp,{\bf r}_\perp^\prime,z}{\rm e}^{i{\bf k}_\perp\cdot({\bf r}_\perp-{\bf r}_\perp^\prime)}\langle n_z({\bf r}_\perp,z)n_z({\bf r}_\perp^\prime,z)\rangle
\label{eSk}$$ where ${\bf r}_\perp\equiv (x,y)$ denotes the coordinates in the $xy$ plane and similarly ${\bf k}_\perp \equiv (k_x,k_y)$. The presence of a vortex lattice will be indicated by the appearance of sharp peaks in $S({\bf k}_\perp)$ at reciprocal lattice vectors ${\bf K}$.
To look for a possible vortex glass phase, in which vortex lines are frozen into a disordered configuration and so $S({\bf k}_\perp)$ displays no signal of the ordering, we consider the helicity modulus.[@OlssonVG] To simulate the Hamiltonian of Eq. (\[eH\]) on a finite size grid, we use fluctuating twist boundary conditions, defined by, $$\theta ({\bf r}_i+L_\mu\hat\mu)-\theta({\bf r}_i)=\Delta_\mu\enspace,$$ where $\Delta_\mu$, the total phase angle twist across the system in direction $\hat \mu$, is taken as a thermally fluctuating degree of freedom. We then compute the histogram $P(\Delta_\mu)$ of values that $\Delta_\mu$ takes during the course of the simulation (averaging over the twists in the transverse directions) and define the free energy variation with twist by, ${\cal F}(\Delta_\mu)\equiv -T\ln P(\Delta_\mu)+{\rm constant}$. The helicity modulus $\Upsilon_\mu$ in direction $\hat \mu$ is then defined in terms of the curvature of ${\cal F}(\Delta_\mu)$ at its minimum $\Delta_{\mu 0}$, $$\Upsilon_\mu\equiv {L_\mu\over L_\nu L_\sigma}\left.{\partial^2{\cal F}\over\partial\Delta_\mu^2}\right|_{\Delta_\mu=\Delta_{\mu 0}}\enspace,
\label{eUps}$$ where $\mu,\nu,\sigma$ are a permutation of $x,y,z$. Note, unlike pure systems, for random systems it is not generally true that $\Delta_{\mu 0}=0$. When ${\cal F}(\Delta_\mu)$ varies with $\Delta_\mu$, and so the system is sensitive to the boundary conditions, we have $\Upsilon_\mu>0$ and the system possesses superconducting phase coherence. When ${\cal F}(\Delta_\mu)$ is flat and independent of $\Delta_\mu$, $\Upsilon_\mu=0$ and superconducting phase coherence is lost. The vanishing of $\Upsilon_\mu$ thus is a signature of the superconducting transition.
At a second order phase transition $T_{\rm c}$, the temperature and system size dependence of $\Upsilon_\mu$ is expected to obey a critical scaling law. Since the applied magnetic field singles out a special direction, there is the possibility that this scaling may be [*anisotropic*]{}. In such a case, the expected scaling law for $\Upsilon_\mu(T,L,L_z)$ is, $${L_\nu L_\sigma\over L_\mu}\Upsilon_\mu (T,L,L_z) = u_\mu(tL^{1/\nu},L_z/L^\zeta)\enspace,$$ where $t\equiv T-T_{\rm c}$, $u$ is the scaling function, $\nu$ is the correlation length critical exponent, and $\zeta$ is the anisotropy critical exponent. Should the scaling turn out to be [*isotropic*]{}, then $\zeta=1$, and for systems with a fixed aspect ratio $L_z=\gamma L$ the scaling law reduces to, $$L\Upsilon_\mu(T,L) = \tilde u_\mu(tL^{1/\nu})\enspace.
\label{eUpsScale}$$ In this case, exactly at the transition temperature $T_{\rm c}$, one has $t=0$ and so $L\Upsilon_\mu$ is independent of system size $L$.
Henceforth, we will measure temperature and energies in units where $J_\perp=1$. Length will be measured in units where the grid spacing is unity.
Vortex Lattice Melting at Weak Pinning {#smelt}
======================================
In this section we consider the first order vortex lattice melting transition at weak pinning strength. Our methods for identifying the melting transition and establishing that it is indeed a first order phase transition are the same as we have used in our earlier work[@OTmelt] on the more dilute $f=1/20$ system.
For a pure system with disorder strength $p=0$ the vortex line lattice, of vortex density $f=1/5$, will order into a ground state containing a square vortex lattice with lattice constant $\sqrt{5}$. There are two possible orientations of this square lattice with respect to the underlying grid, related to each other by a reflection through the $\hat x$ axis, as shown in Fig. \[f2\]a. In Fig. \[f2\]b we show the vortex structure function $S({\bf k}_\perp)$ for each of these two ground state orientations. We find sharp Bragg peaks at reciprocal lattice vectors ${\bf K}$. For the vortex lattice of Fig. \[f2\]a there are only four non-zero reciprocal lattice vectors, related to one another by $\pi/2$ rotations of $k$-space. For the two possible ground state orientations, we label these two disjoint sets of reciprocal lattice vectors by ${\bf K}_1$ and ${\bf K}_2$ as shown in Fig. \[f2\]b.
=8.6truecm
At finite but small disorder strength, $p\le p_c\simeq 0.22$, we continue to find at low temperatures a vortex lattice with the same symmetry as that of Fig. \[f2\]a. The existence of the two possible orientations for this state motivates our definition of the following order parameter for the vortex lattice to liquid melting transition. If we denote by $S({\bf K}_1)$ and $S({\bf K}_2)$ the value of the vortex structure function averaged over the four non-zero reciprocal lattice vectors of each orientation respectively, then the difference, $\Delta S\equiv S({\bf K}_1)-S({\bf K}_2)$, will signal the vortex lattice melting transition: below melting, the system has ordered into one of the two possible vortex lattice orientations, and so $S({\bf K}_1)$ is large and $S({\bf K}_2)$ is small, or vice versa, giving a large value of $|\Delta S|$; above melting, the system is in a liquid state with the same symmetry as the underlying grid, so $S({\bf K}_1)=S({\bf K}_2)$ by reflection symmetry and $\Delta S=0$.
Anticipating a first order vortex lattice melting transition, we slowly cool down a $20\times 20 \times 6$ size system from high temperature using ordinary Metropolis Monte Carlo until we reach a temperature at which we observe the system to switch back and forth between large and small values of $\Delta S$ during the course of the simulation. As an example of this, we show in Fig. \[f3\]a a plot of $\Delta S/S_0$ vs. simulation time ($S_0\equiv S(0)=fL^2$) at a temperature close to the melting transition $T_{\rm m}(p)$ for a moderate value of disorder strength $p=0.12$. In Fig. \[f3\]b we show an intensity plot of $\ln S({\bf k}_\perp)$, averaged over only those configurations in Fig. \[f3\]a which have $\Delta S/S_0 >0.1$. We see sharp Bragg peaks of high intensity at the reciprocal lattice vectors ${\bf K}_1$ indicating that this is the vortex lattice state. In Fig. \[f3\]c we show show an intensity plot of $\ln S({\bf k}_\perp)$, averaged now over only those configurations in Fig. \[f3\]a which have $\Delta S/S_0<0.1$. We see broad diffuse peaks of equal low intensity at both ${\bf K}_1$ and ${\bf K}_2$, indicating that this is the vortex liquid state.
=8.6truecm
In Fig. \[f4\]a we plot the histogram $P(\Delta S)$ of values of $\Delta S$ found in the data of Fig. \[f3\]a. We see two well separated peaks centered at $\Delta S/S_0=0$ and $\Delta S/S_0\simeq 0.55$, representing the vortex liquid and vortex lattice states respectively. We define the melting transition temperature $T_{\rm m}(p)$ to be the temperature at which the area under these two peaks is equal. In this manner, varying $p$ and averaging over $8$ independent realizations of the random disorder, we plot the vortex lattice melting line $T_{\rm m}(p)$ for systems of size $20\times 20\times 6$ as the blue solid curve in Fig. \[f1\]. As $p$ increases, $T_m(p)$ decreases while the slope $|dT_{\rm m}/dp|$ rapidly increases. As $p$ increases towards $p_c\simeq 0.22$, with correspondingly low melting $T_{\rm m}$, a failure to achieve proper equilibration of the system prevents us from continuing to trace out the melting curve to lower temperatures.
Next we demonstrate that, within our model system, melting remains a first order transition along the melting curve for as far as we can map it out. There is no sign of it ending at an “upper critical point" as has been often suggested by experimental works.[@Khaykovich; @Nishizaki] Choosing the minimum in the $P(\Delta S)$ histogram as the dividing point, we assign each configuration as a vortex lattice or vortex liquid according to the value of $\Delta S$ for that configuration. Having divided configurations into distinct lattice and liquid states, we can then construct the histograms of energy, $P(E)$, and of the disorder conjugate variable, $P(Q)$, for each state respectively. In Figs. \[f4\]b,c we show such histograms for disorder strength $p=0.12$, corresponding to the data of Figs. \[f3\] and \[f4\]a. We see for both $E$ and $Q$ well separated histograms for lattice and for liquid states. Using these histograms we then compute the average $E$ and $Q$ separately for the vortex lattice and vortex liquid, and then compute the discontinuities in these quantities at melting, $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta E &\equiv& \langle E\rangle_{\rm liquid} - \langle E\rangle_{\rm lattice}\\ \nonumber
\Delta Q &\equiv& \langle Q\rangle_{\rm lattice} - \langle Q\rangle_{\rm liquid}
\label{DEQ}\end{aligned}$$
=8.6truecm
In Fig. \[f5\]a we plot (open symbols) the resulting $[\Delta E]$ and $[\Delta S]$, averaged over $8$ independent realizations of the random disorder, vs disorder strength $p$, for the system of size $20\times20\times 6$. As $p$ increases we see that $[\Delta E]$ decreases and appears to vanish. A vanishing $[\Delta E]$ implies a vanishing entropy jump and hence a vanishing of the delta-function specific heat singularity usually associated with the first order melting transition. Such a vanishing of the specific heat singularity, observed experimentally on increasing applied magnetic field at fixed disorder strength, has been used as evidence for a weakening of the first order melting transition and its termination at a second order upper critical point.[@Bouquet] However, if the first order phase transition is indeed to vanish at a second order critical point, it is necessary that the discontinuities in [*all*]{} thermodynamic first derivatives of the free energy vanish as the critical point is approached. In Fig. \[f5\]a, however, we see that the discontinuity $[\Delta Q]$ [*increases*]{} as $p$ increases, and does not vanish as it must if the first order line is to end in a critical point. We thus find that our melting transition remains strongly first order for all disorder strengths $p$. The vanishing of $[\Delta E]$ upon increasing $p$ merely reflects the increasing slope of the melting curve $|dT_{\rm m}/dp|$ in accordance with the Clausisus-Clapeyron relation, as can be seen as follows. Since the free energies of lattice and liquid must be equal at $T_{\rm m}$, $$\Delta{\cal F}[T_{\rm m}(p),p]\equiv {\cal F}_{\rm lattice}[T_{\rm m}(p),p]-{\cal F}_{\rm liquid}[T_{\rm m}(p),p]=0\enspace,$$ we have, $${d\Delta{\cal F}\over dp}={\partial \Delta{\cal F}\over\partial p}+{\partial\Delta{\cal F}\over\partial T}{dT_{\rm m}\over dp} =0\enspace.
\label{eCC}$$ Since $${\partial \Delta{\cal F}\over \partial p}= L^2L_z \Delta Q\quad {\rm and}\quad
{\partial \Delta{\cal F}\over \partial T}= L^2L_z {\Delta E\over T_{\rm m}}\enspace,$$ substituting into Eq. (\[eCC\]) then gives the Clausius-Clapeyron relation for our system, $${dT_{\rm m}\over dp} = -{T_{\rm m}\Delta Q\over \Delta E}\enspace.
\label{eCC2}$$ Fitting our data (blue solid circles in Fig. \[f1\]) for $T_{\rm m}(p)$ to a quadratic polynomial in $p^2$ (solid blue line in Fig. \[f1\]), we used the fitted polynomial to determine the slope $dT_{\rm m}/dp$, and in Fig. \[f5\]b we plot $|dT_{\rm m}/dp|$ and the disorder averaged $[T_{\rm m}\Delta Q/\Delta E]$ vs disorder strength $p$. The disorder average is over 8 independent realizations of the quenched randomness. We find excellent agreement with Eq. (\[eCC2\]), thus verifying that our results are indeed very well equilibrated.
Experiment evidence for the [*absence*]{} of an upper critical point, in agreement with our results, has been obtained in BSCCO by Avraham et al.[@Avraham] For an experimental system, in which disorder strength is constant and the applied magnetic field $H$ is varied, the magnetization density $M=(1/V)\partial{\cal F}/\partial H$ becomes the analog of our parameter $Q$. While initial measurements of the jump $\Delta M$ at melting appeared to show $\Delta M$ vanishing as $H$ increased, suggesting an upper critical point, subsequent measurements using a additional small oscillating field to “tickle" the vortex lines to help avoid trapping in metastable local energy minima, showed a finite $\Delta M$ continuing along the melting curve past the presumed upper critical point and down to even lower temperatures. Their conclusion was that the presumed upper critical point in BCSSO was an artifact of poor equilibration, and that a unified first order transition line continued between thermally driven melting at low $H$, and disorder driven melting at larger $H$. Similar conclusions had been drawn earlier by others[@vanderBeek; @Gaifullin] based on measurements of the Josephson plasma frequency.
=8.6truecm
Finally, we consider the finite size dependence of our results to see that the values of $[\Delta E]$ and $[\Delta Q]$ which we have found for the $20\times 20\times 6$ size system do not appear to be decreasing (or perhaps vanishing) as the system size increases. The need to keep the transverse system length $L$ a multiple of 5, so as to remain commensurate with the vortex lattice periodicity, and the difficulty of equilibrating hops between lattice and liquid states as the system size, and hence to the total free energy barrier between theses state, increases, limits greatly the range of system sizes that we can consider. In Table \[tab1\] we show our results for the three system sizes $20\times 20\times 6$, $30\times 30\times 6$ and $20\times 20\times 12$, for the specific disorder strength $p=0.12$. We see that while $T_{\rm m}$ decreases slightly as the system size increases, $[\Delta E]$ remains remain roughly independent of size while $[\Delta Q]$ shows a slight increase. We also compute the spread in melting temperatures $\Delta T_{\rm m}$ that we find as we consider different independent realizations of the quenched random disorder $\{\epsilon_{i\mu}\}$. If the system is self averaging over the quenched disorder, we would expect that $\Delta T_{\rm m}\propto 1/\sqrt{V}$, with $V=L^2L_z$ the system volume. In Table \[tab1\] we therefore also give the value for $\Delta T_{\rm m}\sqrt{V}$ for the three system sizes. Considering the relatively few (i.e. 8) disorder realizations we have considered for the two larger sizes, and hence the corresponding large potential error in our estimate of $\Delta T_{\rm m}$, we find our results consistent with the expectation of self averaging.
$L^2\times L_z$ $[T_{\rm m}]$ $[\Delta E]$ $[\Delta Q]$ $\Delta {T_{\rm m}}\sqrt{V}$ \#
----------------- --------------- -------------- -------------- ------------------------------ ----
$20^2\times 6$ 0.2304 0.028 0.057 0.183 20
$\pm$ 0.0009 $\pm$ 0.0005 $\pm$ 0.002
$30^2\times 6$ 0.227 0.026 0.061 0.190 8
$\pm$ 0.001 $\pm$ 0.002 $\pm$ 0.004
$20^2\times 12$ 0.225 0.0279 0.067 0.184 8
$\pm$ 0.001 $\pm$ 0.0004 $\pm$ 0.001
: Disorder averaged melting temperature $[T_{\rm m}]$ and discontinuities in the energy per site $[\Delta E]$ and disorder conjugate variable $[\Delta Q]$ for disorder strength $p=0.12$, for different system sizes $L^2\times L_z$. The errors represent the estimated statistical error sampling over the number of independent realizations of the random disorder specified in the last column. $\Delta T_{\rm m}$ is the standard deviation of melting temperatures computed over the independent random realizations, and one expects $\Delta T_{\rm m}\propto 1/\sqrt{V}$, with $V=L^2L_z$ the volume of the system. Results for the $20^2\times 12$ system are computed as described in Sec. \[sIW\].
\[tab1\]
Vortex Glass at Strong Pinning {#svg}
==============================
We now consider the strong pinning limit, $p>p_c\simeq 0.22$, and the possible existence of a vortex glass phase. In our earlier work[@OTmelt] on the more dilute $f=1/20$ system, we presented preliminary evidence for the absence of a vortex glass phase within the XY model. However later work by Olsson[@OlssonVG] established that the model does indeed have a second order vortex glass transition at strong disorder strength. Moreover he found that critical scaling is isotropic. Here we follow the analysis of Olsson, looking at the disorder averaged helicity modulus in the $xy$ plane, $[\Upsilon_\perp]$, defined in Eq. (\[eUps\]).
In Fig. \[f6\]a we plot $[L\Upsilon_\perp]$ vs $T$ for three different disorder strengths, $p=0.3, 0.4$ and $0.55$, using for each case three different system sizes from $L=10$ to $25$, $L_z=(3/5)L$, as indicated in the figure. Results are averaged over $200-600$ independent realizations of the random disorder, depending on system size. As discussed following Eq. (\[eUpsScale\]), for each value of $p$, the common intersection of the curves for different $L$ locates the vortex glass transition, $T_{\rm g}(p)$, and thus allows us to map out the vortex glass transition line, plotted as the black squares and black solid line in Fig. \[f1\]. We see that $T_{\rm g}(p)$ increases for increasing $p$.
In Fig. \[f6\]b we replot our data vs the scaled temperature $tL^{1/\nu}$, where the critical exponent $\nu$ has been chosen for each $p$ so as to give the best data collapse to a common scaling curve for the different system sizes $L$, in accordance with the scaling equation of Eq. (\[eUpsScale\]). For the two largest values $p=0.4$ and $0.55$ we find $\nu\sim 1.5$, in agreement with the more precise calculations of Olsson. For the smallest $p=0.3$, we find a smaller $\nu\sim 1.3$. We believe that for this last case, where our data (see Fig. \[f6\]a) is the noisiest and as $T_{\rm g}$ is the smallest we have the least data at $T<T_{\rm g}$, the fact that we are closest to the vortex lattice melting transition may mean that our system sizes are still too small and so we are in a cross-over region rather than the true large $L$ scaling limit.
=8.6truecm
The existence of a vortex glass phase in the bond disordered 3D uniformly frustrated XY model has also been claimed in simulations by Kawamura,[@Kawamura0; @Kawamura] who in addition to measuring a value $\nu=1.1\pm 0.2$ also measures the critical exponent $\eta=-0.5\pm 0.1$. These are also consistent with the values $\nu= 1.3\pm 0.2$ and $\eta= -0.4\pm 0.1$ found by Lidmar[@Lidmar] using an elastic model of interacting vortex lines that includes dislocations. These values for the critical exponents lie in reasonable agreement with the values $\nu_{\rm GG}=1.39\pm0.20$ and $\eta_{\rm GG}=-0.47\pm 0.07$ found for the simpler 3D [*gauge glass*]{} model.[@Katzgraber] The gauge glass has the same Hamiltonian as Eq. (\[eH\]), except that the bond couplings $J_{i\mu}$ are taken as uniform, and the randomness is put in the vector potential, with $A_{i\mu}$ chosen randomly from a uniform distribution on $(-\pi,\pi]$. In the gauge glass, the average magnetic field thus vanishes in all directions and so the model is intrinsically isotropic. This comparison of critical exponents suggests that the vortex glass and the gauge glass may be in the same universality class. If so, Kawamura notes[@Kawamura] that the addition of magnetic field fluctuations associated with a finite magnetic penetration length $\lambda$ (“magnetic screening") in a real superconductor may serve to destabilize the vortex glass transition and replace it with a smooth crossover behavior, as has been numerically observed to happen in the gauge glass[@Bokil] (such an effect was observed in early simulation by Kawamura[@Kawamura0] of the vortex glass with magnetic screening, however the use of free boundary conditions and relatively small system sizes in that work raise questions concerning its validity). If this scenario is correct, it suggests that the vortex glass transition line we find becomes only a crossover phenomenon in a real physical superconductor with finite $\lambda$. This crossover might still be observed in current-voltage characteristics that seem to obey critical scaling, as at a second order glass transition, only to have the scaling break down at sufficiently small currents (which probe increasingly large length scales and thus are sensitive to finite $\lambda$). The failure to conclusively demonstrate critical scaling in experimental data that has been noted by Strachan et al,[@Strachan] may perhaps be due to such an effect. In contrast to this situation with respect to the vortex glass, we note that magnetic field fluctuations should not qualitatively effect the vortex lattice melting transition at low disorder strength, since melting is believed to be mediated by short wavelength shear fluctuations and so should be relatively insensitive to behavior on the long length scale $\lambda$.
Looking at the vortex glass $T_{\rm g}(p)$ and vortex lattice melting $T_{\rm m}(p)$ transition lines in the $T-p$ plane, shown in Fig. \[f1\], it appears that these lines are of distinctly different origin, rather than one being a continuation of the other. However we are unable to directly investigate this issue as we are unable to sufficiently equilibrate our model system at the low temperatures where these two transition lines would appear to meet.
Smeared Melting at Intermediate Pinning {#sIW}
=======================================
We return now to the vortex lattice melting at $p<p_c\simeq 0.22$. Considering a system size $20\times 20\times 12$, twice as thick as the size considered in section \[smelt\], we find that as $p$ increases above $\sim 0.12$ the sharp first order melting transition that we observed in the thinner system now smears out over a finite temperature interval, $T_{\rm m2}\lesssim T\lesssim T_{\rm m1}$. In Fig. \[f7\]a we show a plot of the ordering parameter $\Delta S/S_0$ vs simulation time for a particular realization of the quenched random disorder at disorder strength $p=0.18$ and temperature $T_{\rm m2}<T=0.18 <T_{\rm m1}$. In contrast to what we found in Fig. \[f3\] for the thinner system at weaker disorder, we now see that $\Delta S/S_0$ appears to fluctuate about [*four*]{} different discrete values. In Fig. \[f7\]b we plot the histogram $P(\Delta S)$ vs $\Delta S/S_0$ resulting from the data of Fig. \[f7\]a. We see clearly four distinct peaks which we identify as representing the lattice state ($\Delta S/S_0 \sim 0.45$), the liquid state ($\Delta S/S_0\sim 0$), and what we will denote as the “mixed 1" and “mixed 2" states ($\Delta S/S_0\sim\pm 0.2$). The locations of the minima between these peaks, shown as the dashed lines in Fig. \[f7\]a, we use as a simple criteria for sorting each of the microscopic configurations into one of these four different states. Having so sorted the microscopic states we can then compute the histograms of energy $E$ and disorder conjugate variable $Q$ for each of the four states. These we show in Figs. \[f7\]c and d. We see that there is a discontinuous decrease in $E$, and a discontinuous increase in $Q$, as the system transitions from the liquid, to the mixed state, to the lattice. The distributions of $E$ and $Q$ are comparable for both mixed 1 and mixed 2 states.
=8.6truecm
In Fig. \[f8\] we show log intensity plots of the structure function, $\ln S({\bf k}_\perp)$, averaged separately over the configurations belonging to each of the four states. Figs. \[f8\]a$-$d correspond to the lattice, liquid, mixed 1 and mixed 2 states, respectively. We see that the lattice state, as expected, has sharp Bragg peaks of relatively high intensity about the reciprocal lattice vectors ${\bf K}_1$. The liquid state has only broad diffuse peaks of equal low intensity at both ${\bf K}_1$ and ${\bf K}_2$ (see Fig. \[f2\]b for the definition of ${\bf K}_1$ and ${\bf K}_2$). The mixed 1 and mixed 2 states have sharp peaks of intermediate intensity at ${\bf K}_1$ and ${\bf K}_2$ respectively.
=8.6truecm
To investigate the nature of the mixed states, we plot in Fig. \[f9\]a the profile of $S(k_x,k_y)$ vs $k_x$ for fixed $k_y=4(2\pi/L)$ passing through the wavevectors ${\bf K}_1$ and ${\bf K}_2$. We see that the peak at ${\bf K}_1$ for the mixed 1 state of Fig. \[f8\]c is as sharp as, but smaller in amplitude than, the Bragg peak of the vortex lattice state of Fig. \[f8\]a, while the remainder of this profile (in particular the small diffuse peak at ${\bf K}_2$) resembles that of the liquid state of Fig. \[f8\]b. A similar result holds for the mixed 2 state of Fig. \[f8\]d, expect that the behaviors at ${\bf K}_1$ and ${\bf K}_2$ are now interchanged. In Fig. \[f9\]b we plot the values of $S({\bf K}_1)$ and $S({\bf K}_2)$, computed now for individual $xy$ planes (instead of averaged over all such planes as in Eq. (\[eSk\])), vs the plane height $z$. We see that in the mixed 1,2 states roughly half the system is ordered into a lattice, while half appears disordered. Comparing the plots for mixed 1 and mixed 2, we see that the location of the more strongly ordered planes remains roughly the same, independent of the two possible orientations of the vortex lattice that is ordering in those planes. We therefore conclude that the relative order or disorder of planes arises from the specific distribution of random bond strengths $\{J_{i\mu}\}$ that exists in the particular realization of the quenched randomness, rather than being an effect due to thermal fluctuations or being stuck out of equilibrium.
=8.6truecm
To further understand the nature of the mixed state, in Fig. \[f10\] we show intensity plots of the real space average vorticity $\langle n_z(x,y,z)\rangle$ in the $xy$ plane for several representative layers at heights $z$. We show plots for the lattice, mixed 1, and liquid states, for the same run that produced the results shown in Figs. \[f7\]$-$\[f9\]. A bright white square represents a pinned vortex that stays on that site throughout the course of the simulation run; a dark black square represents a site on which no vortex sits; squares of intermediate shades of gray represent sites that vortices hop into and out of during the course of the simulation. Hence a region of periodic white squares indicates a local region that has ordered into a pinned vortex lattice; a region of gray squares with no apparent structure to the relative shadings indicates a local region that is disordered into a vortex liquid. We see from Fig. \[f10\] that even the state which is globally characterized as the lattice contains localized regions which are disordered; these are presumably regions where the vortex pinning, due to the local bond disorder $\{J_{i\mu}\}$, is stronger than average. In one layer, $z=7$, we see large domains of each of the two different possible vortex lattice orientations (i.e. a domain with ordering wavevector ${\bf K}_2$, as well as a domain with the dominant ordering wavevector ${\bf K}_1$). In the state which is globally characterized as a vortex liquid, we still see individually pinned vortices. In the mixed state we see layers that are mostly lattice ($z=10$), layers that are mostly liquid ($z=4$), and layers that consist of coexisting domains of lattice and liquid ($z=0,7$).
=8.6truecm
The above results suggest that the mixed state is one in which different regions of the system order from liquid to lattice at slightly different temperatures, due to fluctuations in local bond strength disorder. Depending on the particular realization of disorder, this can happen in ways that are more complex than the particular case illustrated in Figs. \[f7\]$-$\[f10\]. In some other realizations we have found the histogram $P(\Delta S)$ does not show such clearly separated peaks as in Fig. \[f7\]b, and there may be suggestions of more than three peaks. In some realizations we find a mixed state in which some layers of the system have a lattice ordering specified by the wavevector ${\bf K}_1$, while other layers of the system are ordered with the opposite lattice orientation specified by the wavevector ${\bf K}_2$. For such a case our ordering parameter $\Delta S=S({\bf K}_1)-S({\bf K}_2)$ can be very small, which by our previous criterion would misidentify such a state as a liquid. To avoid such misidentifications, we adopt instead a more general approach, looking at the two dimensional histogram $P(S({\bf K}_1), S({\bf K}_2))$. In such a histogram, the liquid state is represented by a peak at $S({\bf K}_1)=S({\bf K}_2)=0$, a uniformly ordered lattice state is represented by a peak at either $S({\bf K}_1)$ large [*and*]{} $S({\bf K}_2)$ small, or vice versa, and a mixed state is represented by a peak elsewhere in the $S({\bf K}_1)\times S({\bf K}_2)$ plane. In Fig. \[f11\] we show such a two dimensional histogram for a different particular realization of the randomness at disorder strength $p=0.14$ and temperature $T=0.208$. We see the lattice state with wavevector ${\bf K}_1$ coexisting with the liquid state, coexisting with a mixed state having roughly equal ordering in ${\bf K}_1$ and ${\bf K}_2$. Based on the location of the peaks in this two dimensional $P(S({\bf K}_1), S({\bf K}_2))$ histogram we adopt the following criteria for sorting microscopic configurations into liquid, lattice and mixed states: if $S({\bf K}_1)/S_0 < 0.08$ [*and*]{} $S({\bf K}_2)/S_0<0.08$ we assume the configuration is a liquid; if $S({\bf K}_1)/S_0 > 0.3$ [*and*]{} $S({\bf K}_2)/S_0 < 0.1$ or vice versa, we assume the configuration is a uniform lattice; any other configuration is taken as belonging to the mixed state.
=8.6truecm
As temperature is varied, the locations of the peaks in $P(S({\bf K}_1), S({\bf K}_2))$ vary only slightly, however their weights (total number of configurations in each peak) are found to vary in the following manner. As $T$ decreases, the weight of the liquid state decreases while the weights of the other states increase. As $T$ is decreased further, the liquid state disappears, the weight for the mixed state decreases, while the weight for the lattice state increases. Finally, at low enough $T$, the mixed state disappears and only the lattice state remains. We define $T_{\rm m1}$ as the temperature where the liquid state and mixed state are roughly equal in weight. We define $T_{\rm m2}$ as the temperature where the lattice state and mixed state are roughly equal in weight. Our determinations of $T_{\rm m1}$ and $T_{\rm m2}$ in this manner are made from rough eyeball estimates, as we find that the errors involved in such eyeball estimates are considerably smaller than the the sample to sample variation in these temperatures between different independent realizations of the quenched random disorder. These values of $T_{\rm m1}$ and $T_{\rm m2}$, averaged over $8$ independent realizations of the quenched randomness, determine the phase boundaries shown in Fig. \[f1\]. Choosing a temperature $T_{\rm m2}<T<T_{\rm m1}$ where both liquid and lattice coexist, we also compute the averages of $E$ and $Q$ in the liquid and lattice states separately. We then compute $\Delta E$ and $\Delta Q$ as in Eq. (\[DEQ\]), representing the total change in these quantities as the system orders from liquid to lattice. For a few random realizations, where our simulation temperatures did not include a value where liquid and lattice coexisted, we used standard extrapolation methods to extrapolate the liquid (lattice) histogram from a slightly higher (lower) temperature to a common temperature $T_{\rm m2}<T<T_{\rm m1}$, and then computed $\Delta E$ and $\Delta Q$ from these extrapolated histograms. Our results, averaged over $8$ independent realization of the quenched random disorder, are shown in Fig. \[f5\]a (solid symbols) where we see that they appear to be a consistent continuation of the results found in the smaller size system ($20\times 20\times 6$) at weaker disorder strengths $p$, except that, as noted previously in Table \[tab1\], $[\Delta Q]$ is somewhat larger in the larger system size.
The above results suggest that as the system size and the disorder strength increase, the transition from vortex liquid to lattice remains [*locally*]{} first-order-like, as was found in Section \[smelt\], however different regions of the system may order at slightly different temperatures. Such a conclusion is in perfect agreement with experiment results from magneto-optical imaging of vortex lattice melting in BSCCO,[@Soibel] where it was observed that the spread in local melting temperatures over the area of the sample increased as the average melting temperature decreased (i.e. as the average pinning strength increased). A similar observation of coexisting ordered and disordered vortex regions over a finite temperature interval at the vortex lattice melting transition was reported in more recent experimental studies[@Pasquini] of the peak effect region of NbSe$_2$.
The vortex lattice melting transition thus becomes smeared out over a range of temperatures when viewed on the [*global*]{} scale. Such a scenario was predicted long ago by Imry and Wortis,[@IW] who considered the effect of quenched randomness on a first order phase transition in terms of a competition between the decrease of the free energy due to local ordering of domains of finite size in regions of lower than average quenched disorder, vs the increase of free energy due the surface tension of the resulting domain walls enclosing the ordered domains. We have attempted a quantitative test of the Imry-Wortis scenario as applied to our model. Our efforts are described in Appendix A. While they are suggestive, showing the right trends as disorder strength $p$ increases, our results are not conclusive. Even if the Imry-Wortis scenario applies to our mixed state, two possibilities still exist: ([*i*]{}) it may be that on the global scale in the thermodynamic limit, there remains a sharp first order phase transition with reduced but still discontinuous jumps $\Delta E$ and $\Delta Q$ at a single well defined $T_{\rm m}$, or ([*ii*]{}) it may be that there will be multitude of local transitions spread out smoothly over a range of spatially varying local melting temperatures, thereby converting the transition on the global long length scale to a continuous second order transition. To discriminate between these two possibilities would require looking at much larger systems sizes than we are currently able to equilibrate.
Discussion
==========
To summarize, our results for the vortex phase diagram of the uniformly frustrated 3D XY model with disordered couplings show many qualitative features in good agreement with experiments on strong type-II superconductors. We find a sharp local first order vortex lattice melting transition at low pinning strengths $p$. The melting temperature decreases as $p$ increases, and appears to be steadily decreasing towards zero as a critical pinning strength $p_c$ is approached. We find that this melting transition remains first order, with no evidence for a critical end point or other multicritical points, down to the lowest temperatures to which we can equilibrate. At high pinning strengths $p>p_c$ we find in our model a sharp second order vortex glass transition. This glass transition may evolve into a non-signular crossover phenomenon if magnetic field fluctuations, due to a finite magnetic penetration length $\lambda$, were incorporated into the model. A completely new feature of our simulations is the observation that at intermediate disorder strengths $p\lesssim p_c$ the vortex lattice melting transition is smeared out over a temperature interval of finite width, corresponding to coexisting regions of ordered and disordered vortex states, as has been seen in recent experiments.[@Soibel; @Pasquini]
It is interesting to compare our results to those of Nonomura and Hu[@NonoHu] (NH), who studied a very similar 3D XY model but with much more weakly coupled planes, $J_z/J_\perp=1/400$, a more dilute vortex density $f=1/25$, and with random couplings that model a dilute set of localized strong pins rather than the amorphous random couplings we have used here. In addition to vortex lattice melting and vortex glass transitions, NH reported the existence of a vortex slush phase, lying between the vortex liquid and the vortex glass, and separated from the vortex liquid by a sharp first order transition. In earlier work[@OTcomment] we have repeated simulations of NH’s model, using the exact same parameters as NH. We find that their vortex slush phase shares some similarities with our intermediate region discussed above, in that both are regions in which the vortex lines have only partially ordered. There are however some important differences.
\(i) Our intermediate region lies between the vortex liquid and vortex lattice phases and so may be thought of as a broadening of the melting transition; when we cool at fixed $p$ though the intermediate region, our system (except in rare cases when we fail to equilibrate) always orders into a clear vortex lattice. In NH’s model, the vortex slush lies above the vortex lattice phase (similar to what was reported in some experiments[@Worthington; @Shibata]); cooling through NH’s vortex slush, one enters the vortex glass and not the vortex lattice. (ii) We showed[@OTcomment] that considerable hysteresis existed in the region of NH’s vortex slush phase. In our present simulations there is no hysteresis: at fixed simulation parameters in our intermediate region the system is repeatedly hopping into and out of the vortex lattice, liquid, and mixed states (see Fig. \[f7\]a) and our system is thus fully equilibrated. (iii) We argued[@OTcomment] that in NH’s model, most planes of their vortex slush contained an ordered vortex lattice, however the orientations of the vortex lattice varied with height $z$; we argued that these mismatched vortex lattice orientations would be unfavorable in the thermodynamic limit and that NH’s vortex slush was most likely a finite size effect to be replaced by an ordered vortex lattice as system size increased. In our intermediate region, however, we see coexisting planes of mostly vortex lattice, planes of mostly vortex liquid, as well as planes with large domains of both lattice and liquid. The scaling argument we used against NH’s vortex slush thus does not apply. It is of course possible that upon increasing system size, NH’s vortex slush will similarly develop coexisting ordered and disordered domains within individual planes and so remain as a stable phase.
We conclude therefore that our intermediate region is distinctly different from the vortex slush of NH, and is perhaps more similar to the multidomain glass state that has been proposed by Menon.[@Menon] Unfortuntely, we have not been able to equilibrate our system in the interesting region where the vortex lattice melting transition meets the vortex glass transition.
Another set of interesting simulations has been carried out recently by Dasgupta and Valls[@DasguptaValls1; @DasguptaValls2] using a density functional approach applied to interacting pancake vortices in a 3D layered system. They consider both the case of dense amorphous pins,[@DasguptaValls1] such as we consider here, and the case of dilute well localized pins,[@DasguptaValls2] closer to the model of NH, mapping out the phase diagram as a function of temperature and pinning strength. Their approach, being essentially an equilibrium mean field method in the presence of quenched randomness, is suited to locating first order phase transitions, as in vortex lattice melting or the proposed vortex slush, rather than continuous second order transitions, as one expects for a vortex glass. For the dense amorphous pinning, they find only a single unified vortex lattice melting transition, qualitatively similar in shape to what we find in the present work. Their vortex liquid state shows no significant local ordering on length scales larger than the average vortex spacing and the average vortex density varies smoothly as one goes from the vortex liquid at weak pinning to the vortex liquid at strong pinning. They find no vortex glass, no vortex slush, and no multidomain glass of polycrystaline domains. For the case of dilute well localized pins, they find again a vortex lattice melting transition with a similar shape as before (though quantitatively at a very different location, comparing amorphous to dilute pins with equal second moments of the random pinning potential). Their vortex liquid state, however, now shows a clear polycrystaline structure with noticeable short range translational order extending on lengths larger than the average vortex spacing. However they again find no first order transition within their vortex liquid phase, such as might define a region of vortex slush or multidomain glass as distinct from the vortex liquid. Using a percolation criterion to define a crossover to glassy behavior within the vortex liquid phase, they find a line that is qualitatively similar in location to our vortex glass transition, as shown in Fig. \[f1\].
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was supported by U.S. Department of Energy grant No. DE-FG02-06ER46298, by Swedish Research Council Contract No. 2007-5234, and by the resources of the Swedish High Performance Computing Center North (HPC2N). We thank A. E. Koshelev for helpful discussion.
Appendix A {#appendix-a .unnumbered}
==========
We give a simplified summary of the Imry-Wortis scenario, as applied to our model, as follows. Consider $T_{\rm m}(p)$ the nominal melting temperature of a system with disorder strength $p$. Let $$\Delta f(p,T)\equiv f_{\rm lattice}(p,T)-f_{\rm liquid}(p,T)
\label{eADf}$$ be the difference in free energy density between the vortex lattice and liquid states. Consider now a volume $v$ in which, due to the random distribution of pins, the effective disorder strength $p_{\rm eff}$ is either greater than, or less than, the average $p$, $p_{\rm eff}=p\pm\Delta p$ ($\Delta p>0$). Since $dT_{\rm m}/dp<0$, if $p_{\rm eff}>p$, the domain would lower its bulk free energy by [*disordering*]{} for some range of temperatures $\Delta T$ [*below*]{} $T_{\rm m}(p)$. Similarly, if $p_{\rm eff}<p$, the domain would lower its bulk free energy by [*ordering*]{} for some range of $\Delta T$ [*above*]{} $T_{\rm m}$. This is sketched in Fig. \[f12\] below.
=8.6truecm
For the system siting at $T_{\rm m}(p)$, the [*decrease*]{} in the bulk free energy of such a domain would be, $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta F_{\rm bulk}&=&\pm v\Delta f(p\pm\Delta p, T_{\rm m}(p))\nonumber\\
&\approx& v{\partial \Delta f(p,T_{\rm m}(p))\over\partial p}\Delta p\nonumber\\
&=&v\Delta Q(p,T_{\rm m}(p))\Delta p
\enspace.
\label{eADFb}\end{aligned}$$ where the last line follows from our definition of $\Delta Q$ in Eq. (\[DEQ\]).
On the other hand, the formation such a domain would lead to an [*increase*]{} in surface free energy due to the resulting domain wall, $$\Delta F_{\rm surface}\sim 2\sigma_z \ell_\perp^2 + 4\sigma_\perp\ell_\perp\ell_z\enspace,
\label{eADFs}$$ where we take account of the anisotropy of the system by denoting $\ell_z$ and $\ell_\perp$ as the lengths of the domain parallel and perpendicular to the applied magnetic field, with $\sigma_z$ and $\sigma_\perp$ the surface tension between vortex lattice and liquid for surfaces with normal in these respective directions. The domain will be unstable to flipping only if the total change in free energy is negative, $$\Delta F = -\Delta F_{\rm bulk}+\Delta F_{\rm surface}<0\enspace.
\label{eADFtot}$$ For simplicity, we will assume that the domains which form are such that the surface tension is equally distributed over all surfaces, so that, $$\sigma_z \ell_\perp^2\sim\sigma_\perp \ell_\perp \ell_z,\quad {\rm so}\quad \ell_z\sim {\sigma_z\over\sigma_\perp}\ell_\perp\enspace,$$ and so the volume of the domain is $v\sim \ell_\perp^2\ell_z=(\sigma_z/\sigma_\perp)\ell_\perp^3$. The instability condition Eq. (\[eADFtot\]) then becomes, $$\Delta F(\ell_\perp)=-{\sigma_z\over\sigma_\perp}\ell_\perp^3\Delta Q\Delta p + 6\sigma_z\ell_\perp^2<0\enspace.
\label{eADFtot2}$$ Next, we can write that the typical variation in disorder $\Delta p$ for a domain of size $\ell_\perp^2\ell_z$ can be written as, $$\Delta p = {\Delta T_{\rm m}\over |dT_{\rm m}/dp|}
={\Delta T_{\rm m}\Delta E\over T_{\rm m}\Delta Q}\enspace,
\label{eADp}$$ where $\Delta T_{\rm m}$ is the variation in melting temperatures for domains of size $\ell_\perp^2\ell_z$ sampled from a system with average disorder $p$, and the last equality follows from the Clausius-Clapeyron relation, Eq. (\[eCC2\]). If the system is self averaging, as is suggested by our results in Table \[tab1\], then we expect $$\Delta T_{\rm m}={\alpha\over \sqrt{\ell_\perp^2\ell_z}}={\alpha\over \sqrt{(\sigma_z/\sigma_\perp)}\ell_\perp^{3/2}}
\label{eADTm}$$ where $\alpha$ is some constant. Substituting Eqs. (\[eADTm\]) and (\[eADp\]) into (\[eADFtot2\]) then gives $$\Delta F(\ell_\perp) = -\sqrt{\sigma_z\over\sigma_\perp}{\alpha\Delta E\over T_{\rm m}}\ell_\perp^{3/2}+6\sigma_z\ell_\perp^2<0\enspace.
\label{eADFtot3}$$ We sketch $\Delta F(\ell_\perp)$ in Fig. \[f13\]. Defining $\ell_{\perp 0}$ by $\Delta F(\ell_{\perp 0})=0$, we see that the system can be unstable only to the flipping of domains with transverse length $\ell_\perp<\ell_{\perp 0}$. From Eq. (\[eADFtot3\]) we have, $$\ell_{\perp 0} = {1\over\sigma_z\sigma_\perp}\left[{\alpha\Delta E\over 6 T_{\rm m}}\right]^2\enspace.
\label{eAellperp0}$$
=6.0truecm
However, the above arguments only apply to domains which are well defined as such, i.e. they are at least as big as the correlation length that defines the minimum size of a domain. Hence the instability condition for domain flipping becomes, $$\xi_\perp<\ell_\perp<\ell_{\perp 0}\enspace,
\label{eAinst}$$ and so, in particular, the system is [*stable*]{} against the flipping of local domains if $\xi_\perp>\ell_{\perp 0}$. As the disorder is increased, one in general expects $\ell_{\perp 0}$ to increase. So if at low disorder the system is stable, $\xi_\perp>\ell_{\perp 0}$, as the disorder increases one will eventually reach the condition $\xi_\perp=\ell_{\perp 0}$ and the system will first become unstable to domains on the size of the correlation length $\xi_\perp$. As the disorder increases further, larger domains of size $\ell_\perp$, with $\ell_{\perp 0}>\ell_\perp>\xi_\perp$, will go unstable.
To test the Imry-Wortis scenario for our vortex line system, we therefore wish to compute the length $\ell_{\perp 0}$ of Eq. (\[eAellperp0\]). We have already computed $T_{\rm m}$ and $\Delta E$, as shown in Figs. \[f1\] and \[f5\] respectively. We use our results from the $20\times 20\times 6$ size system, averaging $\Delta E/T_{\rm m}$ over the different realizations of randomness, and computing $\alpha = \Delta T_{\rm m}\sqrt{V}$ from the observed spread in melting temperatures, such as shown in Table \[tab1\] for the specific case of $p=0.12$. It remains, therefore, to compute the surface tensions $\sigma_z$ and $\sigma_\perp$.
To compute the surface tension we use a method based on the approach of Potvin and Rebbi.[@Potvin] We take a given realization of the randomness for which we have previously determined the melting temperature $T_{\rm m}$. We then take an exact copy of this system and join it to the original along the surface whose surface tension we seek to compute. On one side, denoted as “side 1", we use couplings $J_{\perp 1}=J_\perp(1+\delta_1)$ and $J_{z1}=J_z(1+\delta_1)$ while on the other side, denoted as “side 2", we use couplings $J_{\perp 2}=J_\perp(1+\delta_2)$ and $J_{z2}=J_z(1+\delta_2)$. In this way we expect that exactly at $T_{\rm m}$ (as determined in the original system with $\delta_{1,2}=0$) if $\delta_{1,2}>0$, that side will be ordered, while if $\delta_{1,2}<0$, that side will be disordered. Choosing $\delta_1=-\delta$ and $\delta_2=+\delta$ will thus create an interface between ordered and disordered halves of the total system. Consider now a trajectory in the $(\delta_1,\delta_2)$ plane, as shown in Fig. \[f14\].
=6.0truecm
In this figure, point $A$ is a totally disordered system, point $C$ is a totally ordered system, and point $B$ has side 1 ordered and side 2 disordered. The total free energy of the system at point $B$ can be written as $$F_B={1\over 2}F_A + {1\over 2}F_C+2\Sigma
\label{eA1}$$ where $F_A$ and $F_C$ are the total free energies at points $A$ and $C$, and $\Sigma$ is the total surface free energy of one interface between the ordered and disordered halves. The factor $2\Sigma$ appears since our periodic boundary conditions necessarily creates two interfaces equally spaced by half the length of the total system. From this we have, $$4\Sigma=[F_B-F_A]+[F_B-F_C]\enspace.
\label{eA2}$$ The surface tension between coexisting disordered and ordered phases at the same transition temperature $T_{\rm m}$ is then obtained from $\Sigma$, taking in principle the limit of $\delta\to 0$. To evaluate the free energy differences in the above equation we use, $$F_B-F_A=\int_{-\delta}^{+\delta}d\delta_1 {\partial F(\delta_1,\delta_2)\over\partial \delta_1}
=\int_{-\delta}^{+\delta}d\delta_1 {E_1(\delta_1,\delta_2)\over 1+\delta_1}\enspace,
\label{eA3}$$ where $E_1(\delta_1,\delta_2)$ is the total energy of side 1 at the specified couplings. A similar expression can be derived for $F_B-F_C$. Simulating at points along the trajectory $A\to B\to C$ we then integrate the energies $E_1$ and $E_2$ to compute the surface tension, $$\sigma={\Sigma\over A}={1\over 4A}\left[\int_{-\delta}^{+\delta}d\delta_1{E_1(\delta_1,\delta_2)\over 1+\delta_1} - \int_{-\delta}^{+\delta}d\delta_2{E_2(\delta_1,\delta_2)\over 1+\delta_2}\right]\enspace,
\label{eA4}$$ where $A$ is the total area of one interface. We implement this procedure on a $20\times20\times 6$ system doubled in the $z$ direction (to make a $20\times20\times 12$ system) so as to compute $\sigma_z$, and doubled in the $x$ direction (to make a $40\times20\times 6$ system) so as to compute $\sigma_\perp$. We use a value $\delta=0.1$ in order to get reasonable results. Our results are averaged over 8 independent realizations of the random disorder (only 7 for $p=0.18$). We plot our results in Fig. \[f15\].
=8.0truecm
As expected, $\sigma_z$ and $\sigma_\perp$ decrease as the disorder strength $p$ increases. For our parameters of anisotropy and vortex line density we find $\sigma_z\approx \sigma_\perp/3$.
We summarize the pieces of our calculation of $\ell_{\perp 0}$ in Table \[tab2\]. The values for $\sigma_z$ and $\sigma_\perp$ are obtained as described above. Values for $[\Delta E/T_{\rm m}]$ are obtained averaging over careful equilibrations of 20, 8, and 7 different realizations of the random disorder for $p=0.12$, 0.16 and 0.18 respectively, for a $20\times20\times 6$ system. Because the spread in melting temperatures $\Delta T_{\rm m}$ is the quantity that is most sensitive to the fact that we sample only over a rather small number of random realizations, for $p=0.16$ ($0.18$) we have tried to do better than the 8 (7) realizations we have carefully equilibrated by computing $\Delta T_{\rm m}$ from 16 random realizations where we determine $T_{\rm m}$ from shorter runs and more qualitative methods. We then use $\alpha=\Delta T_{\rm m}\sqrt{20^2\times 6}$.
$p$ $\Delta T_{\rm m}$ $[\Delta E/T_{\rm m}]$ $\sigma_z$ $\sigma_\perp$ $\ell_{\perp 0}$
------ -------------------- ------------------------ ------------ ---------------- ------------------
0.12 0.0037 0.124 0.0051 0.0153 0.18
0.16 0.0060 0.074 0.0034 0.0091 0.42
0.18 0.0090 0.076 0.0025 0.0051 2.41
: Values that enter our calculation of $\ell_{\perp 0}$ from Eq. (\[eAellperp0\]).
\[tab2\]
Our results show $\ell_{\perp 0}$ to be an increasing function of disorder strength $p$, as expected. However, for the system to become unstable to the flipping of domains it is necessary that $\ell_{\perp 0}>\xi_\perp$. For our vortex density of $f=1/5$ we estimate that $\xi_\perp$ at $T_{\rm m}$ is at least as large as the average vortex spacing, $a_{\rm v}=1/\sqrt{5}\simeq 2.2$. This seems consistent with the real space images of Fig. \[f10\] were we see ordered regions of at least this size in the liquid, and disordered regions of at least this size in the lattice. Thus we have $\ell_{\perp 0}\gtrsim\xi_\perp$ only for our strongest disorder strength $p=0.18$, where our results are perhaps the least accurate. In contrast, our phase diagram of Fig. \[f1\] shows that the mixed state is already observed for disorder strengths as low as $p=0.14$.
It should be noted that the above analysis is based only on typical “root mean square" behaviors. Correlations between bulk and surface free energies of domains may enhance the effect over what we have estimated above. For example, a domain of lattice may flip to the liquid state in a region where the vortex pinning is locally stronger than on average; but in such a region, Fig. \[f15\] shows that the surface tension is lower than average, thus reducing the energy cost of such a flip from that considered in our arguments above. Domains may also flip in regions of the system where the value of the local disorder strength lies further out in the tails of the disorder strength distribution, rather than near the root mean square value. This might explain why we see our intermediate mixed states more easily when we increase the system size, thus affording a wider sampling of the disorder strength distribution within any given single sample. The results of our Imry-Wortis analysis thus show the right trends for explaining our intermediate mixed states, however in the absence of a clear quantitative agreement, $\ell_{\perp 0}\sim\xi_\perp$, we must regard our results as still inconclusive.
[99]{}
M. Tinkham, [*Introduction to Superconductivity*]{} (R.E. Krieger Co. Malabar, FL, 1980)
For reviews see, G. Blatter, M. V. Feigel’man, V. B. Geshkenbein, A. I. Larkin, and V. M. Vinokur, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**66**]{}, 1125 (1994); E. H. Brandt, Rep. Prog. Phys. [**58**]{}, 1465 (1995) Y. Paltiel, E. Zeldov, Y. Myasoedov, M. L. Rappaport, G. Jung, S. Bhattacharya, M. J. Higgins, Z. L. Xiao, E. Y. Andrei, P. L. Gammel, and D. J. Bishop, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 3712 (2000) X. S. Ling, S. R. Park, B. A. McClain, S. M. Choi, D. C. Dender and J. W. Lynn, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{} 712 (2001); S. R. Park, S. M. Choi, D. C. Dender, J. W. Lynn and X. S. Ling, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 167003 (2003)
S. S. Banerjee, A. K. Grover, M. J. Higgins, G. I. Menon, P. K. Mishra, D. Pal, S. Ramakrishnan, T. V. Chandrasekhar Rao, G. Ravikumar, V. C. Sahni, S. Sarkar and C. V. Tomy, Physica C [**355**]{}, 39 (2001) M. Marchevsky, M. J. Higgins and S. Bhattacharya, Nature (London) [**409**]{}, 591 (2001) and Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 087002 (2002) G. Pasquini, D. P. Daroca, C. Chiliotte, G. S. Lozano and V. Bekeris, Phys. Rev. Letts. [**100**]{}, 247003 (2008) G. I. Menon, Phys. Rev. B [**65**]{}, 104527 (2002) T. K. Worthington, M. P. A. Fisher, D.A. Huse, J. Toner, A. D. Marwick, T. Zabel, C. A. Feild and F. Holtzberg, Phys. Rev. B [**46**]{}, 11854 (1992) R. Liang, D. A. Bonn, and W. N. Hardy, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 835 (1996) A. Schilling, R. A. Fisher, N. E. Phillips, U. Welp, D. Dasgupta, W. K. Kwok and G. W. Crabtree, Nature (London) [**382**]{}, 791 (1996); A. Schilling, R. A. Fisher, N. E. Phillips, U. Welp, W. K. Kwok and G. W. Crabtree, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 4833 (1997)
B. Khaykovich, E. Zeldov, D. Majer, T. W. Li, P. H. Kes, and M. Konczykowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 2555 (1996); B. Khaykovich, M. Konczykowski, E. Zeldov, R. A. Doyle, D. Majer, P. H. Kes, and T. W. Li, Phys. Rev. B [**56**]{}, R517 (1997) T. Nishizaki, T. Naito, S. Okayasu, A. Iwase and N. Kobayashi, Phys. Rev. B [**61**]{}, 3649 (2000) F. Bouquet, C. Marcenat, E. Steep, R. Calemczuk, W. K. Kwok, U. Welp, G. W. Crabtree, R. A. Fisher, N. E. Phillips and A. Schilling, Nature (London) [**411**]{}, 448 (2001)
C. J. van der Beek, S. Colson, M. V. Indenbom and M. Konczykowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 4196 (2000) M. B. Gaifullin, Y. Matsuda, N. Chikumoto, J. Shimoyama, and K. Kishio, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 2945 (2000) N. Avraham, B. Khaykovich, Y. Myasoedov, M. Rappaport, H. Shtrikman, D.E. Feldman, T. Tamegai, P. H. Kes, M. Li, M. Konczykowski, K. van der Beek and E. Zeldov, Nature [**411**]{}, 451 (2001) Y. Radzyner, A. Shaulov, Y. Yeshurun, I. Felner, K. Kishio and J. Shimoyama, Phys. Rev. B [**65**]{}, 100503(R) (2002); Y. Radzyner, A. Shaulov and Y. Yeshurun, Phys. Rev. B [**65**]{}, 100513(R) (2002) S. Li and H.-H. Wen, Phys. Rev. B [**65**]{}, 214515 (2002) H. Beidenkopf, N. Avraham, Y. Myasoedov, H. Shtrikman, E. Zeldov, B. Rosenstein, E. H. Brandt and T. Tamegai, Phys. Rev. Letts. [**95**]{}, 257004 (2005) H. Beidenkopf, T. Verdene, Y. Myasoedov, H. Shtrikman, E. Zeldov, B. Rosenstein, D. Li and T. Tamegai, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 167004 (2007)
A.M. Petrean, L. M. Paulius, W.K. Kwok, J. A. Fendrich and G. W. Crabtree, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 5852 (2000) M. Andersson, A. Rydh and Ö. Rapp, Phys. Rev. B [**63**]{}, 184511 (2001) D. R. Strachan, M. C. Sullivan, P. Fournier, S. P. Pai, T. Venkatesan and C. J. Lobb, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 067007 (2001) D. R. Strachan, M. C. Sullivan and C. J. Lobb, Phys. Rev. B [**73**]{}, 012512 (2006) K. Shibata, T. Nishizaki, T. Sasaki and N. Kobayashi, Phys. Rev. B [**66**]{}, 214518 (2002) A. Soibel, E. Zeldov, M. Rappaport, Y. Myasoedov, T. Tamegai, S. Ooi, M. Konczykowski and V. Geshkenbein, Nature [**406**]{}, 282 (2000); A. Soibel, Y. Myasoedov, M.L. Rappaport, T. Tamegai, S. S. Banerjee and E. Zeldov, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 167001 (2001) T. Giamarchi and P. Le Doussal, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**72**]{}, 1530 (1994); T. Giamarchi and P. Le Doussal, Phys. Rev. B [**52**]{}, 1242 (1995) T. Nattermann, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**64**]{}, 2454 (1990) D. S. Fisher, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 1964 (1997) D. S. Fisher, M. P. A. Fisher and D. A. Huse, Phys. Rev. B [**43**]{}, 130 (1991)
T. Nattermann and S. Scheidl, Adv. Phys. [**49**]{}, 607 (2000) D. Ertaş and D. R. Nelson, Physica C [**272**]{}, 79 (1996) T. Giamarchi and P. Le Doussal, Phys. Rev. B 55, 6577 (1997) A. E. Koshelev and V. M. Vinokur, Phys. Rev. B [**57**]{}, 8026 (1998) J. Kierfeld and V. Vinokur, Phys. Rev. B [**61**]{}, R14928 (2000) G. P. Mikitik and E. H. Brandt, Phys. Rev. B [**68**]{}, 054509 (2003) J. Kierfeld and V. Vinokur, Phys. Rev. B [**69**]{}, 024501 (2004) D. P. Li and B. Rosenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 167004 (2003) J. Dietel and H. Kleinert, Phys. Rev. B [**75**]{}, 144513 (2007) S. Ryu, A. Kapitulnik and S. Doniach, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 2300 (1996)
N. K. Wilkin and H. J. Jensen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 4254 (1997)
A. van Otterlo, R. T. Scalettar and G. T. Zimányi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 1497 (1998)
C. Reichhardt, A. van Otterlo and G. T. Zimányi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 1994 (2000) Y. Nonomura and X. Hu, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 5140 (2001) P. Olsson and S. Teitel, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 137001 (2001) P. Olsson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 077002 (2003); P. Olsson, Phys. Rev. B [**72**]{}, 144525 (2005) H. Kawamura, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**69**]{}, 29 (2000) H. Kawamura, Phys. Rev. B [**68**]{} 220502(R) (2003) J. Lidmar, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 097001 (2003) C. Dasgupta and O. T. Valls, Phys. Rev. B [**74**]{}, 184513 (2006) C. Dasgupta and O. T. Valls, Phys. Rev. B [**76**]{}, 184509 (2007) Y.-H. Li and S. Teitel, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**66**]{}, 3301 (1991); T. Chen and S. Teitel, Phys. Rev. B [**55**]{}, 15197 (1997)
G. I. Menon and C. Dasgupta, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**73**]{}, 1023 (1994) H. G. Katzgraber and A. P. Young, Phys. Rev. B [**66**]{}, 224507 (2002) and references therein. H. S. Bokil and A. P. Young, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{}, 3021 (1995); C. Wengel and A. P. Young, Phys. Rev. B [**54**]{}, R6869 (1996) Y. Imry and M. Wortis, Phys. Rev. B [**19**]{}, 3580 (1979) P. Olsson and S. Teitel, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 219703 (2005) J. Potvin and C. R. Rebbi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**62**]{}, 3062 (1989)
|
---
abstract: 'We investigate univalent functions $f(z)=z+a_2z^2+a_3z^3+\ldots$ in the unit disk ${\mathbb{D}}$ extendible to $k$-q.c.(=quasiconformal) automorphisms of $\C$. In particular, we answer a question on estimation of $|a_3|$ raised by Kühnau and Niske \[Math. Nachr. [**78**]{} (1977) 185–192\]. This is one of the results we obtain studying univalent functions that admit q.c.-extensions via a construction, based on Loewner’s parametric representation method, due to Becker \[J. Reine Angew. Math. [**255**]{} (1972) 23–43\]. Another problem we consider is to find the maximal $k_*\in(0,1]$ such that every univalent function $f$ in ${\mathbb{D}}$ having a $k$-q.c. extension to $\C$ with $k\le k_*$ admits also a Becker q.c.-extension, possibly with a larger upper bound for the dilatation. We prove that $k_*>1/6$. Moreover, we show that in some cases, Becker’s extension turns out to be the optimal one. Namely, given any $k\in(0,1)$, to each finite Blaschke product there corresponds a univalent function $f$ in ${\mathbb{D}}$ that admits a Becker $k$-q.c. extension but no $k''$-q.c. extensions to $\C$ with $k''<k$.'
address:
- 'Institutt for matematikk og fysikk, Universitetet i Stavanger, 4036 Stavanger, '
- 'Department of Applied Science, Yamaguchi University, 2-16-1 Tokiwadai, Ube 755-8611, '
author:
- Pavel Gumenyuk
- 'Ikkei Hotta$^\dag$'
title: 'Univalent functions with quasiconformal extensions: Becker’s class and estimates of the third coefficient.'
---
Introduction
============
Conformal mappings of ${\mathbb{D}}:=\{z:|z|<1\}$ admitting quasiconformal extensions is a classical topic in Geometric Function Theory closely related to Teichmüller Theory, see e.g. [@Lehto_book; @Schober]. Let $k\in(0,1)$. A function $f$ holomorphic in a domain $D\subset{\mathbb{C}}$ is said to be extendible to ${\mathbb{C}}$ (or to ${\overline{\mathbb{C}}}$) if there exists a $k$-quasiconformal automorphism ${F:{\mathbb{C}}\to{\mathbb{C}}}$ (respectively, ${F:{\overline{\mathbb{C}}}\to{\overline{\mathbb{C}}}}$) such that $F|_{\mathbb{D}}=f$. Note that $k$-q.c. extendibility to ${\mathbb{C}}$, which we will be mostly concerned with in this paper, is equivalent to $k$-q.c. extendibility to ${\overline{\mathbb{C}}}$ with the additional condition that $F(\infty)=\infty$.
Denote by ${\mathcal{S}}$ the class of all univalent (i.e. injective holomorphic) functions $${\mathbb{D}}\ni z\mapsto f(z)=z+\sum_{n=2}^{+\infty}a_nz^n.$$ One of the main tools to study this class is the *parametric representation*, which goes back to Loewner [@Loewner], see e.g. [@Pommerenke §6.1], see also [@Kufarev43; @Pommerenke65; @Gut]. Namely, the class ${\mathcal{S}}$ can be represented as an image of the convex cone formed by the so-called *Herglotz functions*, i.e. functions $p:{\mathbb{D}}\times[0,+\infty)\to{\mathbb{C}}$ such that $p(z,\cdot)$ is locally integrable for each $z\in{\mathbb{D}}$ and $p(\cdot,t)$ is holomorphic in ${\mathbb{D}}$ and satisfies $\Re p(\cdot,t)\ge0$ for a.e. $t\ge0$. It is known that for any Herglotz function $p$, the initial value problem for the Loewner–Kufarev ODE $$\label{EQ_LK-ODE0}
\frac{{\mathrm{d}}w}{{\mathrm{d}}t}=-w\,p(w,t),\quad t\ge0,\qquad w(z,0)=z\in{\mathbb{D}},$$ has a unique solution $w=w(z,t)$ and the locally uniform limit $$\label{EQ_f-limit}
f(z):=\lim_{t\to+\infty}\frac{\,\mathrlap{w(z,t)}\hphantom{w'(0,t)}}{\,w'(0,t)},\quad z\in{\mathbb{D}},$$ where $w'$ denotes the derivative w.r.t. $z$, exists and belongs to ${\mathcal{S}}$. On the other hand, see e.g. [@Pommerenke Theorem 6.1 on p.159] or [@Gut], *every* function $f\in{\mathcal{S}}$ can be represented by with a suitable, and in general not unique, *normalized* Herglotz function, i.e. a Herglotz function $p$ with $\Re p(0,t)=1$ for a.e. $t\ge0$.
A natural problem arises: *given a subclass ${\mathrlap{\hskip.125em\widetilde{\hphantom{{\mathcal{S}}}\vphantom{\vbox to1.5ex{\vss}}}}{\mathcal{S}}\vphantom{\vbox to2.3ex{\vss}}}\subset{\mathcal{S}}$, find a class of Herglotz functions that generates ${\mathrlap{\hskip.125em\widetilde{\hphantom{{\mathcal{S}}}\vphantom{\vbox to1.5ex{\vss}}}}{\mathcal{S}}\vphantom{\vbox to2.3ex{\vss}}}$ via .* The answer is known in some cases, e.g. for starlike functions, bounded univalent functions, and for univalent functions with real Taylor coefficients;
A partial answer is also known for the subclass ${\mathcal{S}}_k$, $k\in(0,1)$, formed by all $f\in{\mathcal{S}}$ admitting $k$-q.c. extension to ${\mathbb{C}}$. Namely, in 1972, Becker [@Becker72] found a condition on $p$ in the Loewner–Kufarev equation , see Sect.\[SS\_Becker\], such that the function $f$ given by belongs to ${\mathcal{S}}_k$. The class ${\mathcal{S}}_k^B$ generated by Herglotz functions that satisfy Becker’s condition is a *proper* subset of ${\mathcal{S}}_k$. In this paper we study ${\mathcal{S}}_k^B$ and its relation with ${\mathcal{S}}_k$. In particular, in Sect.\[SS\_a3\] we find the sharp estimate for $|a_3|$ in $S_k^B$, see Theorem \[TH\_a\_3\]. An immediate corollary is the answer to a question of Kühnau and Niske [@KuhnauNiske]: Theorem \[TH\_a\_3\] implies that $\max_{S_k}|a_3|>k$ for any $k\in(0,1)$.
Numerous sharp estimates are known for the class ${\mathcal{S}}$, see e.g. [@Duren], with many of them being motivated by the famous Bieberbach Conjecture concerning estimates for $|a_n|$, which was proved by de Branges [@deBranges] in 1984. Unfortunately, only a few of these results have been extended to classes ${\mathcal{S}}_k$, see e.g. [@Kuhnau69; @Lehto71]. In particular, the sharp estimate for $|a_n|$ in ${\mathcal{S}}_k$ is known only for $n=2$. Remarkably, in most of the cases discussed previously, the extremal functions belong to ${\mathcal{S}}_k^B$. We prove a bit surprising fact that this does not hold for the sharp estimate of $|a_3|$, see Theorem \[TH\_not-extremal\].
Becker’s construction of quasiconformal extensions {#SS_Becker}
==================================================
Throughout the paper we make use of Loewner Theory, the classical version of which can be found in [@Pommerenke Chapter 6]. Following Becker [@Becker76], [@Becker80 §5.1], we replace the usual normalization ${p(0,t)=1}$ by a weaker condition $$\label{EQ_weaker-normalization-for-p}
\int_0^{+\infty}\!\!\Re p(0,t)\,{\mathrm{d}}t=+\infty,$$ which still implies that $\bigcup\limits_{t\ge0}f_t({\mathbb{D}})=\C$. In 1972, he discovered the
\[TH\_Becker\] Let $k\in[0,1)$ and let $(f_t)$ be a radial Loewner chain whose Herglotz function $p$ satisfies $$\label{EQ_Becker-condition}
p({\mathbb{D}},t) \subset U(k):=\left\{ w \in \C \colon \left|\frac{w-1}{w+1}\right| \le k\right\}\quad\text{for a.e.~$t\ge0$}.$$ Then for every $t\ge0$, the function $f_t$ admits a $k$-q.c. extension to ${\overline{\mathbb{C}}}$ that fixes $\infty$. In particular, such an extension for $f_0$ is given by $$\label{EQ_BeckerExt}
F(\rho e^{i\theta}):=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
f_0(\rho e^{i\theta}), & \text{if~$0\le \rho<1$},\\[1ex]
f_{\log \rho}(e^{i\theta}), & \text{if~$\rho\ge1$}.
\end{array}
\right.$$
\[RM\_2018\] According to [@Istvan Theorem 2], a sort of converse statement holds. Namely, if $(f_t)$ is a Loewner chain such that all $f_t$’s extend continuously to $\partial{\mathbb{D}}$ and the map $F$ defined by is $k$-quasiconformal in $\C$, then the Herglotz function $p$ associated with $(f_t)$ satisfies Becker’s condition .
In what follows, for $k\in(0,1)$, we will denote by ${\mathcal{S}}_k^B$ the class of all $f\in{\mathcal{S}}$ admitting Loewner’s representation with the Herglotz function $p$ normalized by $p(0,t)=1$ a.e.$t\ge0$ and satisfying . A bit larger class of all $f\in{\mathcal{S}}$ generated by Herglotz functions subject to Becker’s condition , but not necessarily normalized, will be denoted by ${\mathrlap{\hskip.125em\widetilde{\hphantom{{\mathcal{S}}}\vphantom{\vbox to1.5ex{\vss}}}}{\mathcal{S}}_{k}^B\vphantom{\vbox to2.3ex{\vss}}}$.
According to Theorem \[TH\_Becker\], ${\mathcal{S}}^B_k\subset{\mathrlap{\hskip.125em\widetilde{\hphantom{{\mathcal{S}}}\vphantom{\vbox to1.5ex{\vss}}}}{\mathcal{S}}_{k}^B\vphantom{\vbox to2.3ex{\vss}}}\subset{\mathcal{S}}_k$. It is known that ${\mathrlap{\hskip.125em\widetilde{\hphantom{{\mathcal{S}}}\vphantom{\vbox to1.5ex{\vss}}}}{\mathcal{S}}_{k}^B\vphantom{\vbox to2.3ex{\vss}}}\neq{\mathcal{S}}_k$, see . However, it seems that the study of ${\mathcal{S}}_k^B$ and ${\mathcal{S}}_k$ is still of considerable interest. It is worth to mention that Becker’s condition appears to be sufficient for q.c.-extendibility also in the framework of the general Loewner Theory introduced in [@BracciCD:evolutionI; @BracciCD:evolutionII]; see [@Istvan], [@Ikkei2], and [@HottaGum::QC-chordal]. This discussion will be continued in Sect.\[SS\_relation\].
Estimate of the third coefficient {#SS_a3}
=================================
Below we give a sharp estimate for $|a_3|$ in the class ${\mathcal{S}}_k^B$. As a corollary, we immediately obtain a *negative* answer to the question raised in 1977 by Kühnau and Niske [@KuhnauNiske]: does there exist $k_0>0$ such that for any $k\in(0,k_0]$ and any function $f(z)=z+a_2z+a_3 z^3+\ldots$ belonging to ${\mathcal{S}}_k$, the inequality $|a_3|\le k$ holds?
\[TH\_a\_3\] Let $k\in(0,1)$. Then for every function $f(z)=z + a_2z^2 + a_3z^3+\ldots$ belonging to ${\mathcal{S}}_k^B$, $$|a_3|\le k\big(1+e^{1-1/k}(1+k)\big).$$ This estimate is sharp and the equality holds only for rotations of the function $f_+\in{\mathcal{S}}_k^B$, which is uniquely defined by the Beltrami coefficient of its q.c.-extension to $\C$.
The above theorem does not solve the extremal problem $|a_3|\to\max$ *in the whole class ${\mathcal{S}}_k$*. In fact, the following takes place.
\[TH\_not-extremal\] For any $k\in(0,1)$, $$\label{EQ_upper-est}
\max_{{\mathcal{S}}_k^B}|a_3|<\max_{{\mathcal{S}}_k}|a_3|\le \varrho(k):=\min_{\alpha\in(0,1)}\Bigl[\big(1+2e^{-2\alpha/(1-\alpha)}\big)k+4\alpha k^2\Bigr].$$
\[RM\_Krushkal\] The sharp estimate in Theorem \[TH\_a\_3\] shows that the inequality ${|a_n|\le 2k/(n-1)}$ written in the larger class ${\mathcal{S}}_k$ for $0<k\le 1/(1+n^2)$ and all $n=2,3,\ldots$ by Krushkal [@Krushkal-a_n Corollary on p.350], in fact, fails for $n=3$. Note that the two estimates have tangency of infinite order at $k=0$, while the difference from the r.h.s. of behaves asymptotically as $4k^2$. The three estimates are shown in Figure \[FI\_graph\].
![Estimates for $|a_3|$ mentioned in Remark \[RM\_Krushkal\].[]{data-label="FI_graph"}](graphM.pdf){width="9.5cm"}
2ex
The class ${\mathcal{S}}_k^B$, ${k\in(0,1)}$, admits a Loewner-type parametric representation. Denote by ${\mathcal{H}}_k$ the class of all normalized Herglotz functions $p$ satisfying $p({\mathbb{D}},t)\subset U(k)$ for a.e. $t\ge0$, where $U(k)$ is the closed disk defined in Theorem \[TH\_Becker\]. As it follows from the very definition, ${\mathcal{S}}_k^B$ coincides with the image of the map $${\mathcal{H}}_k\ni p~\mapsto~f:=\lim_{t\to+\infty}e^{t}w(z,t)~\in\,{\mathcal{S}},$$ where for each $z\in{\mathbb{D}}$ the function $[0,+\infty)\ni t\mapsto w(z,t)\in{\mathbb{D}}$ is defined as the unique solution to the initial value problem . Write $p(z,t)=1+p_1(t)z+p_2(t)z^2+\ldots$ for all $z\in{\mathbb{D}}$ and a.e. $t\ge0$ and let $$f(z,t):=e^{t}w(z,t)=z+a_2(t)z^2+a_3(t)z^3+\ldots$$ There is one-to-one correspondence between the class of all normalized Herglotz functions and ${\mathcal{H}}_k$. Indeed, $p\in{\mathcal{H}}_k$ if and only if it can be written as $p(\cdot,t)=L\circ p_0(\cdot,t)$ for a.e. $t\ge0$, where $p_0(z,t)=1+c_1(t)z+c_2(t)z^2+\ldots$ is an arbitrary normalized Herglotz function and $$L(z):=\frac{1+Kz}{K+z},\quad K:=\frac{1+k}{1-k},$$ is a conformal map of ${\mathbb{H}}:=\{z\colon\Re z>0\}$ onto $U(k)$ with $L(1)=1$.
As usual, from we obtain the initial value problem for the coefficients $a_2$ and $a_3$, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{{\mathrm{d}}a_2}{{\mathrm{d}}t}&=-e^{-t} p_1(t)=-ke^{-t} c_1(t), & a_2(0)=0,\label{EQ_phase1}\\[.7ex]
\frac{{\mathrm{d}}a_3}{{\mathrm{d}}t}&=-e^{-2t}p_2(t)-2e^{-t}p_1(t)a_2(t)\notag\\&=-k\Big(e^{-2t}\big(c_2(t)-(1-k)\frac{c_1(t)^2}{2}\,\big)+2e^{-t}c_1(t)a_2(t)\Big), & a_3(0)=0.\label{EQ_phase2}\end{aligned}$$
Since along with any $f\in{\mathcal{S}}_k^B$ the class ${\mathcal{S}}_k^B$ contains all rotations of $f$, i.e. the functions ${z\mapsto e^{i\theta}f(e^{-i\theta}z)}$, ${\theta\in{\mathbb{R}}}$, the problem to determine $\max|a_3|$ in ${\mathcal{S}}_k^B$ is equivalent to finding $~\max\,\Re a_3$. The latter problem can be reformulated as the optimal control problem for the above system and the objective functional $\Re a_3(+\infty)$, with a control function ${t\mapsto \big(c_1(t),c_2(t)\big)\in\C^2}$ regarded as admissible if it is measurable and for a.e. $t\ge0$ satisfies $$\label{EQ_Cara}
|c_1|\le 2,\qquad |2 c_2-c_1^2|\le 4-|c_1|^2.$$ Conditions describe the value region of ${\mathcal{C}}\ni q\mapsto (c_1,c_2)\in\C^2$ over the Carathéodory class ${\mathcal{C}}$ of all holomorphic functions $q(z)=1+c_1 z+c_2 z^2+\ldots$ in ${\mathbb{D}}$ with positive real part; see, e.g., [@Tsuji Chapter IV, §7].
To apply Pontryagin’s Maximum Principle, we define the (holomorphic) Hamiltonian $$H(a_2,a_3,\psi_2,\psi_3,t,c_1,c_2):=-ke^{-t} c_1\psi_2-k\Big(e^{-2t}\big(c_2-(1-k)\frac{c_1^2}{2}\big)+2e^{-t}c_1a_2\Big)\psi_3$$ and write the adjoint system $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{{\mathrm{d}}\psi_2}{{\mathrm{d}}t}&=-\frac{\partial H}{\partial a_2}=2ke^{-t}c_1(t)\psi_3(t),\label{EQ_adj1}\\[1.25ex]
\frac{{\mathrm{d}}\psi_3}{{\mathrm{d}}t}&=-\frac{\partial H}{\partial a_3}=0.\label{EQ_adj2}\end{aligned}$$ The maximum of $\Re a_3(+\infty)$ is to be found among all the trajectories of , satisfying the initial condition at $t=0$, while the right-hand endpoint of the trajectories is variable. Therefore, according to Pontryagin’s Maximum Principle, see [@Pontryagin Chapter I, §7, Theorem $3^*$], if $c_1(t)=c_1^*(t)$, $c_2(t)=c_2^*(t)$ is an optimal control in our problem, then for the corresponding solution to the phase system , supplemented with the adjoint equations , and the transversality conditions $$\label{EQ_trans}
\psi_2(+\infty)=0,\qquad \psi_3(+\infty)=1,$$ it holds that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{EQ_Max-principle}
\max_{(c_1,c_2)} \Re H\big(a_2(t),a_3(t),\psi_2(t),\psi_3(t),t,c_1,c_2\big)\\ = \Re H\big(a_2(t),a_3(t),\psi_2(t),\psi_3(t),t,c^*_1(t),c^*_2(t)\big),\end{gathered}$$ where the maximum is taken over all $(c_1,c_2)\in\C^2$ subject to conditions .
System – can be integrated using integrals to ,: $$\label{EQ_adjoint}
\psi_2(t)=a-2a_2(t),\quad \psi_3(t)=1,$$ where $a:=2a_2(+\infty)$.
To find the maximum of $\Re H$ as a function of $c_1$ and $c_2$, we first fix a $c_1\in\C$ with $|c_1|\le2$ and optimize $\Re H$ in the disk described by the second of the inequalities in . The maximum is achieved for ${c_2=c^*_2:=(\Re c_1)^2+i\,\Re c_1\,\Im c_1-2}$. For this value of $c_2$ and taking into account , we get $$\begin{aligned}
-\frac{e^{2t}}{k}\,\Re H&=e^t\,\Re(ac_1)+\frac{1+k}{2}\,c_1'^{\,2}+\frac{1-k}{2}\,c_2''^{\,2}-2\notag\\ &=\,\frac{1+k}{2}\left(c_1'+\frac{e^ta'}{1+k}\right)^{\!\!2}\, +\,\frac{1-k}{2}\left(c_1''-\frac{e^ta''}{1-k}\right)^{\!\!2}\,+\,C,\label{EQ_quadratic}\end{aligned}$$ where $a=:a'+ia''$, $c_1=:c_1'+ic_1''$, and $C$ is a quantity independent of $c_1$. The absolute minimum of is achieved at $c_1^\star:=e^t\big(-a'/(1+k)+ia''/(1-k)\big)$. Moreover, even if $|c_1^\star|>2$, the minimum point $c_1^*$ of over the disk $|c_1|\le 2$ still satisfies $$\label{EQ_sgn}
{\mathop{\mathrm{sgn}}}\Re c_1^*=-{\mathop{\mathrm{sgn}}}a',\qquad {\mathop{\mathrm{sgn}}}\Im c_1^*={\mathop{\mathrm{sgn}}}a'',$$ where ${\mathop{\mathrm{sgn}}}x:=x/|x|$ for $x\in{\mathbb{R}}\setminus\{0\}$ and ${\mathop{\mathrm{sgn}}}0:=0$. For the optimal trajectory, according to , we have $$\label{EQ_a}
a=-2k\int_0^{+\infty}\!\!e^{-t}c_1^*(t)\,{\mathrm{d}}t,$$ which would contradict whenever $a''\neq0$. Therefore, $a$ is real and $$\label{EQ_c1}
c_1^*(t)=
\begin{cases}
-e^ta/(1+k),& \text{if~}\big|e^ta/(1+k)\big|<2,\\
-2{\mathop{\mathrm{sgn}}}a,& \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$
Consider two cases. First suppose that $a=0$. Then $c_1^*(t)=0$ and $c_2^*(t)=-2$ for all $t\ge0$. Note that for $(c_1,c_2)=(c_1^*,c_2^*)$ in , the first condition is satisfied with the strict inequality sign, while in the second condition equality occurs. Therefore, see, e.g., [@Tsuji Theorem IV.23], $$\begin{aligned}
p_0(z,t)&=\lambda\frac{1+\mu_1 z}{1-\mu_1 z}+(1-\lambda)\frac{1+\mu_2 z}{1-\mu_2 z}\\
&=1\,+\,2(\lambda\mu_1+(1-\lambda)\mu_2)z\,+\,2(\lambda\mu_1^2+(1-\lambda)\mu_2^2)z^2\,+\,\ldots,\quad z\in{\mathbb{D}},\end{aligned}$$ for some constants $\lambda\in(0,1)$ and $\mu_1\neq\mu_2$ on the unit circle (possibly depending on $t$). Comparing the coefficients of $z$ and $z^2$ with $c_1^*$ and $c_2^*$, we conclude that ${\lambda=1/2}$, ${\mu_{1,2}=\pm i}$, and hence $p(z,t)=(1-kz^2)/(1+kz^2)$. The corresponding function $f\in{\mathcal{S}}_k^B$ is $f(z)=f_1(z):=z/(1-kz^2)$, with $a_3|_{f=f_1}=k$.
Now suppose that $a\neq0$. Denote $t_0:=\max\big\{0,\,\log|2(1+k)/a|\big\}$. Then according to , $c_1^*(t)=-e^ta/(1+k)$ whenever ${0\le t<t_0}$, and $c_1^*(t)=-2{\mathop{\mathrm{sgn}}}a$ for all $t\ge t_0$. Substituting $c_1(t):=c_1^*(t)$ into , we get $$a=2k\left(\frac{a t_0}{1+k}+2e^{-t_0}{\mathop{\mathrm{sgn}}}a\right)=\frac{2k(1+t_0)}{1+k}a.$$ It follows that $t_0=(1-k)/(2k)$ and $$\label{EQ_a2}
a_2(+\infty)=a/2=\pm\alpha(k),\quad \text{where~$~\alpha(k):=(1+k)e^{-t_0}$.}$$ Using and , we obtain $$a_3(+\infty)~=~a_2(+\infty)^2-\displaystyle\int\limits_0^{+\infty}\!\! e^{-2t}p^*_2(t)\,{\mathrm{d}}t,$$ where $p_2^*(t)$ is the value of $p_2$ that corresponds to $\big(c_1,c_2\big)=\big(c_1^*(t),c_2^*(t)\big)$. Elementary calculations yield $p_2^*(t)=2k\big(e^{2(t-t_0)}(1+k)-1\big)$ when ${0\le t\le t_0}$, $p_2^*(t)=2k^2$ for all ${t\ge t_0}$, and hence $$a_3(+\infty)=k\big(1+e^{1-1/k}(1+k)\big)>k=a_3|_{f=f_1}.$$
This gives the maximal value of $\Re a_3$ (and hence of $|a_3|$) in ${\mathcal{S}}_k^B$. There are two extremal functions for $\Re a_3$, which we denote by $f_\pm$, corresponding to two possible choices of the sign in . Since $z\mapsto -f(-z)$ has the same coefficient $a_3$ as $f$, it is clear that $f_{-}(z)=-f_+(-z)$, and the set of all extremal functions for $|a_3|$ coincides with the rotations of $f_+$. Therefore, we may assume the sign “$+$” in . Then the same method as in case $a=0$ allows us to write down the corresponding Heglotz function explicitly, $$p(z,t)=\frac{1-k z^2+(1-k)e^{t-t_0}z}{1+kz^2+(1+k)e^{t-t_0}z}~\text{~for $t\in[0,t_0]$}\quad
\text{and}\quad p(z,t)=\frac{1 - kz}{1 + kz}~\text{~for~$t\ge t_0$}.$$
Unfortunately, it does not seem possible to get an explicit formula for the extremal function $f_+$ and the Loewner chain generated by the above Herglotz function. However, one can find the Beltrami coefficient of the Becker extension provided by this Loewner chain, see e.g. [@Istvan Proof of Theorem 2], $$\label{EQ_extremal-Beltrami-coefficient}
\mu(z)=\frac{z^2}{|z|^2}\,\frac{p\big(z/|z|,\log |z|\big)-1}{p\big(z/|z|,\log |z|\big)+1}=
\begin{cases}
-k\dfrac{z^4}{|z|^4}\,\dfrac{\rho(k) + \bar z}{\rho(k) + z},&\text{if $|z|\in\big(1,\,\rho(k)\big)$,}\\[2.75ex]
-k\dfrac{z^3}{|z|^3}, & \text{if $|z|>\rho(k)$,}
\end{cases}$$ where $\rho(k):=e^{t_0}=\exp\big((1/k-1)/2\big)$.
Note that $|a_3|\le|a_3-\alpha a_2^2|+\alpha |a_2|^2$ for any $\alpha\in(0,1)$. The inequality $\max_{{\mathcal{S}}_k}|a_3|\le\varrho(k)$ follows therefore from the Fekete–Szegő Theorem, see e.g. [@Duren p.104], the well-known estimate $|a_2|\le 2$ for the class ${\mathcal{S}}$, and Lehto’s Majorant Principle [@Lehto_Majorant].
To show that the maximum of $|a_3|$ in ${\mathcal{S}}_k$ is strictly greater than in ${\mathcal{S}}_k^B$, fix $k\in(0,1)$ and note that for any non-constant holomorphic functional $\Phi:{\mathcal{S}}\to{\mathbb{C}}$, according to Lehto’s Majorant Principle, the function $q\mapsto\max_{{\mathcal{S}}_q}|\Phi|$ is *strictly* increasing. It follows that the extremal functions in the problem $|\Phi|\to\max_{{\mathcal{S}}_k}$ do not belong to ${\mathcal{S}}_q$ whenever ${q<k}$. Therefore, to complete the prove, it would be sufficient to show that the Becker q.c.-extension of the function $f_+$ from Theorem \[TH\_a\_3\] whose Beltrami coefficient is given by is not extremal, i.e. that $f_+$ admits a $q$-q.c. extension to ${\mathbb{C}}$ with some $q\in(0,k)$.
Suppose on the contrary that the above mentioned Becker extension of $f_+$ is extremal. Then it would satisfy the Hamilton–Krushkal condition [@Hamilton Theorem 1], see also [@Krushkal-extremal; @HarringtonOrtel], which can be formulated as $~\sup_\varphi\big|\Lambda(\varphi)\big|=1$, where $$\Lambda(\varphi):={\frac{1}{k}\iint\limits_\Delta\varphi(z)\,\mu(z)\,{\mathrm{d}}x{\mathrm{d}}y},\quad \Delta:=\{z:1<|z|<+\infty\},$$ $\mu$ is given by , and the supremum is taken over all holomorphic differentials $\varphi(z){\mathrm{d}}z^2$ in $\Delta$ with $\|\varphi\|:=\iint_\Delta|\varphi(z)|{\mathrm{d}}x{\mathrm{d}}y\,\le\,1$. Note that $\varphi(z){\mathrm{d}}z^2$ does not have to be holomorphic at $\infty$, because the q.c.-extensions of $f_+$ that we consider are required to fix $\infty$.
The results of [@HarringtonOrtel §3] can be extended without any trouble from ${\mathbb{D}}$ to $\Delta$. In particular, by [@HarringtonOrtel Proposition 3.2], either $\big|\Lambda(\varphi_*)\big|=1$ for some $\varphi_*$ with $\|\varphi_*\|=1$ or $\big|\Lambda(\varphi_n)\big|\to1$ as $n\to+\infty$ for some sequence $(\varphi_n)$ with $\|\varphi_n\|\le1$ converging locally uniformly in $\Delta$ to zero. On the one hand, the former possibility does not hold in our case, because $\mu(z)$ is not of the form $k\overline{\phi(z)}/|\phi(z)|$, where $\phi$ is holomorphic, see [@HarringtonOrtel p.161]. On the other hand, in terms of the Laurent development $\varphi_n(z)=\sum_{m=3}^{+\infty}c_{n,m}z^{-m}$, we have $$\frac{\Lambda(\varphi_n)}{2\pi}=\frac{1+\log\rho(k)}{\rho(k)}c_{n,3}~+~\frac{\rho(k)^2-2\log\rho(k)-1}{2}~\sum_{m=4}^{+\infty}
\frac{(-1)^m c_{n,m}}{\rho(k)^{m-2}}~\text{~}\longrightarrow~0~\text{~}\text{as~}~n\to+\infty,$$ because for a fixed $r\in\big(1,\rho(k)\big)$ the Cauchy estimates give $|c_{n,m}|\le r^{m}\max_{|z|=r}|\varphi_n(z)|$. We obtained a contradiction, which shows that $f_+$ has a $q$-q.c. extension to $\C$ with ${q\in(0,k)}$, and hence the proof is complete.
Extremal Becker extensions {#SS_examples}
==========================
Recall that a q.c.-extension $F:\C\to\C$ of a function $f\in{\mathcal{S}}$ is called *extremal*, if for any q.c.-extension $G:{\mathbb{C}}\to{\mathbb{C}}$ of $f$ we have ${\mathop{\mathrm{ess\,sup}}}_{|z|>1}|\mu_G(z)|\ge{\mathop{\mathrm{ess\,sup}}}_{|z|>1}|\mu_F(z)|$, where $\mu_G$ and $\mu_F$ stand for the Beltrami coefficients of $G$ and $F$, respectively. If the equality occurs in the above inequality only for $G=F$, then $F$ is said to be the *uniquely extremal* q.c.-extension of $f$ to ${\mathbb{C}}$.
There is a simple sufficient condition for a q.c.-extension $F:\C\to\C$ to be uniquely extremal. A *(regular) Teichmüller mapping* of a domain $D$ is a q.c-mapping $F:D\to{\overline{\mathbb{C}}}$ such that $\mu_F(z)=k\overline{\varphi(z)}/{|\varphi(z)|}$ for a.e. $z\in D$, where $k\in(0,1)$ and ${\varphi(z)\,{\mathrm{d}}z^2}$, ${\varphi\not\equiv0}$, is a holomorphic quadratic differential in $D$. It is known that [@Strebel:1978 Theorem 4] if a q.c.-extension of $f\in{\mathcal{S}}$ to $\C$ is Teichmüller on $\Delta:=\C\setminus\overline{\mathbb{D}}$ with $\varphi$ satisfying $\|\varphi\|:={\iint_\Delta|\varphi(z)|\,{\mathrm{d}}x{\mathrm{d}}y<+\infty}$, then $F$ is uniquely extremal.
If $\varphi$ is holomorphic in $\Delta$ and has a zero of order at least four at $\infty$, then a q.c.-map of $\Delta$ with the Beltrami coefficient $k\overline\varphi/|\varphi|$ is a Teichmüller mapping of the *simply connected* domain ${\overline{\mathbb{C}}}\setminus\overline{\mathbb{D}}$. For this case, certain conditions weaker than $\|\varphi\|<+\infty$ are sufficient for (unique) extremality, see e.g. [@Huang; @YaoF; @YaoP] and references therein.
Using the above mentioned sufficient condition, we construct a quite large family of functions $f\in{\mathcal{S}}_k$ with uniquely extremal extensions obtained via Becker’s construction. The idea comes from the following example. Consider the function ${f_\sigma\in{\mathcal{S}}}$, ${\sigma\in(0,2)}$, obtained by composing ${\mathbb{H}}:=\{z\colon \Re z>0\}\ni \zeta\mapsto\zeta^\sigma$, $1\mapsto 1$, with suitable Moebius transformations. This function admits a unique $|\sigma-1|$-q.c. extension $F_\sigma:\C\to\C$ and belongs to ${\mathrlap{\hskip.125em\widetilde{\hphantom{{\mathcal{S}}}\vphantom{\vbox to1.5ex{\vss}}}}{\mathcal{S}}_{|\sigma-1|}^B\vphantom{\vbox to2.3ex{\vss}}}$, see [@Istvan Example 2]. The Beltrami coefficient of $F_\sigma$ is $\mu(z)={(\sigma-1)\overline{\varphi(z)}/|\varphi(z)|}$, ${\varphi(z):=1/(z^2-1)^2}$, for all $z\in\Delta$, which can be written as $\mu(\rho\zeta)=\zeta^2\,\psi_\rho(\zeta)$ for all $\rho>1$ and $\zeta\in\partial{\mathbb{D}}$, where $\psi_\rho(\zeta):=(\sigma-1)(\zeta^2-1/\rho^2)/(1-\zeta^2/\rho^2)$. The latter means that $F$ is Becker’s q.c.-extension with the Herglotz function $p(z,t):=\big(1-\psi_{e^t}(z)\big)/\big(1+\psi_{e^t}(z)\big)$. Note that, up to the factor $(\sigma-1)$, $\psi_\rho$ is a Blaschke product. It turns out that any finite Blaschke product gives rise to a similar example.
\[PR\_examples\] Let $k\in(0,1)$, $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$, $a_1,\ldots, a_n\in{\mathbb{D}}$, $\alpha\in{\mathbb{R}}$. Then the Herglotz function $$\label{EQ_examples_p}
p(z,t):=\frac{1+k\psi_t(z)}{1-k\psi_t(z)},~\text{~where~}~\psi_t(z):=e^{i\alpha}\, \prod_{j=1}^n\frac{z-e^{-t}a_j}{1-e^{-t}\,\overline a_j z},\quad z\in{\mathbb{D}},~t\ge0,$$ satisfies Becker’s condition and formula defines a uniquely extremal $k$-q.c. extension of the function $f\in{\mathcal{S}}$ generated by $p$. In particular, $f\in{\mathrlap{\hskip.125em\widetilde{\hphantom{{\mathcal{S}}}\vphantom{\vbox to1.5ex{\vss}}}}{\mathcal{S}}_{k}^B\vphantom{\vbox to2.3ex{\vss}}}\setminus{\mathcal{S}}_k^B$ if $a_k\neq0$ for all $k=1,\ldots, n$; otherwise, $f\in{\mathcal{S}}_k^B$.
Condition holds trivially because for all $t\ge0$, $\psi_t$ is a Blaschke product. We can find the Beltrami coefficient of the $k$-q.c. extension $F$ given by , see e.g. [@Istvan §4], $$\mu_F(\rho\zeta)=\frac{p(\zeta,\log\rho)-1}{p(\zeta,\log\rho)+1}\,\zeta^2\,= \,k\frac{\,\overline{\varphi(\rho\zeta)}\,}{|\varphi(\rho\zeta)|},
~\text{~where~} \varphi(z):={e^{-i\alpha}z^{n-2}}\,\prod_{j=1}^n\frac{1}{(z-a_j)^2},~ z\in\Delta,$$ for all $\rho>1$ and $\zeta\in\partial{\mathbb{D}}$. Hence $F|_{\C\setminus\overline{\mathbb{D}}}$ is a Techmüller mapping. Moreover, it is easy to see that $\|\varphi\|<+\infty$. Therefore, $F$ is the uniquely extremal q.c.-extension of $f$ to $\C$.
To complete the proof it remains to notice that the normalization ${p(0,t)=1}$ for a.e. ${t\ge0}$ holds only if at least one of the points $a_k$ coincides with the origin.
Recently, using the generalization of Becker’s construction due to Betker [@Betker], Sugawa [@Sugawa2019] established a sufficient condition for a Beltrami coefficient in ${\mathbb{D}}$ to be i.e. to be the Beltrami coefficient of some q.c.-automorphism of ${\mathbb{D}}$ whose continuous extension to $\overline{\mathbb{D}}$ coincides on $\partial{\mathbb{D}}$ with the identity map. There is a natural one-to-one correspondence between Beltrami coefficients $\nu\in L^{\infty}({\mathbb{D}})$ satisfying Sugawa’s condition and Becker’s q.c.-extensions. In particular, the $k$-q.c. extension of $f$ defined in Proposition \[PR\_examples\] corresponds to $\nu(e^{-t}\zeta)= k\zeta^2\psi_t(\zeta)= k\,\phi(e^{-t}\zeta)/|\phi(e^{-t}\zeta)|$ for all $t>0$ and $\zeta\in\partial{\mathbb{D}}$, where $\phi(z):=e^{i\alpha}z^{n+2}\big/\prod_{j=1}^n(1-\overline a_j z)^2$, $z\in{\mathbb{D}}$. This resembles Teichmüller mappings except that $\phi(z)$ in the numerator does not carry conjugation.
Relation between classes ${\mathcal{S}}_k$ and ${\mathcal{S}}_k^B$ {#SS_relation}
==================================================================
Although ${\mathcal{S}}_k^B$ represents only a part of ${\mathcal{S}}_k$, see e.g. [@Istvan §5], it is plausible to believe that Becker extendible mappings should have yet undiscovered but essential role for the study of conformal mappings admitting quasiconformal extensions.
First of all, functions of the form $f_n(z):=z/(1-ke^{-i\theta}z^n)^{2/n}$, $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$, $\theta\in{\mathbb{R}}$, seem to play an important role in extremal problems for ${\mathcal{S}}_k$, similar to that of the Koebe function $f(z):=z/(1-z)^2$ for the whole class ${\mathcal{S}}$. In fact, $f_1$ and $f_2$ are to known to be extremal in some classical problems, see e.g. [@Kuhnau69; @Lehto71]. It is not difficult to see that $f_n\in{\mathcal{S}}_k^B$ for all $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$. Moreover, according to Proposition \[PR\_examples\], there is an infinite family of functions $f\in {\mathcal{S}}_k$ for which the uniquely extremal quasiconformal extension to ${\mathbb{C}}$ is a Becker extension and hence $f\in{\mathcal{S}}_k^B\,\big\backslash\bigcup_{0<\nu<k}\,{\mathcal{S}}_{\nu}$.
Secondly, there exists $k_*\in(0,1]$ such that for any $k\in(0,k_*)$ we have ${\mathcal{S}}_k\subset{\mathcal{S}}_q^B$ with some $q\in(0,1)$ depending only on $k$. In fact, it is easy to see that $k_*\ge1/6$. Indeed, on the one hand, $|f''(z)/f'(z)|\le 6(1-|z|^2)$ for all $z\in{\mathbb{D}}$ and any $f\in{\mathcal{S}}$, see e.g. [@Goluzin Ch.II,§4, ineq.(6)], with $6$ replaced by $6k$ if $f\in{\mathcal{S}}_k$ thanks to Lehto’s Majorant Principle, see e.g. [@Lawrynowicz §22]. On the other hand, if a holomorphic function $f:{\mathbb{D}}\to{\mathbb{C}}$ satisfies $|f''(z)/f'(z)|\le k(1-|z|^2)$ for all $z\in{\mathbb{D}}$, then $f\in{\mathcal{S}}_k^B$, see [@Becker72 Satz 4.1].
We are able to improve slightly the estimate $k_*\ge 1/6$, see Corollary \[CR\_AW-Becker0\]. In this connection, it is natural to put forward the following problem.
\[PRO\_strong\] Find $k_*$. In particular, is it true that $k_*=1$, i.e. that for any $k\in(0,1)$ there exists $q\in(0,1)$ such that ${\mathcal{S}}_k\subset{\mathcal{S}}_q^B$?
It seems interesting to consider also a bit weaker version of the latter question.
\[PRO\_weak\] Is it true that for any function $f\in{\mathcal{S}}$ admitting a q.c.-extension to ${\mathbb{C}}$, there exists $q\in(0,1)$, possibly depending on $f$, such that $f\in{\mathcal{S}}_q^B$?
Note that it is possible to replace ${\mathcal{S}}_k^B$ with ${\mathrlap{\hskip.125em\widetilde{\hphantom{{\mathcal{S}}}\vphantom{\vbox to1.5ex{\vss}}}}{\mathcal{S}}_{k}^B\vphantom{\vbox to2.3ex{\vss}}}$ in the above problems as the following proposition shows.
For any $k\in(0,1)$, ${\mathrlap{\hskip.125em\widetilde{\hphantom{{\mathcal{S}}}\vphantom{\vbox to1.5ex{\vss}}}}{\mathcal{S}}_{k}^B\vphantom{\vbox to2.3ex{\vss}}}\subset{\mathcal{S}}^B_{\kappa(k)}$, where $\kappa(k):=2k/(1+k^2)$.
If a function $f\in{\mathrlap{\hskip.125em\widetilde{\hphantom{{\mathcal{S}}}\vphantom{\vbox to1.5ex{\vss}}}}{\mathcal{S}}_{k}^B\vphantom{\vbox to2.3ex{\vss}}}$ is generated by a Herglotz function $p$ satisfying , then the identity $$p_0\big(e^{i\Im Q(t)}z,\,\Re Q(t)\big)=L_t(p(z,t)),{~}{\text{~where~}}{~}L_t(z):=\frac{p(z,t)-i\Im p(0,t)}{\Re p(0,t)},$$ and $Q(t):=\int_0^t\!p(0,s){\mathrm{d}}s$, defines a Herglotz function $p_0$ that obeys the normalization $p_0(0,t)=1$ for a.e.$t\ge0$ and, moreover, generates the same function $f$. The latter can be verified using the change of variables $\tau:=Q(t)$, $\omega(\tau):=e^{i\Im Q(t)}w(t)$ that transforms the Loewner–Kufarev ODE to ${\mathrm{d}}\omega/{\mathrm{d}}\tau=-\omega p_0(\omega,\tau)$.
Note that $L^{\!{\mathbb{D}}}_t:=H\circ L_t\circ H^{-1}$, where $H(\zeta):=(\zeta-1)/(\zeta+1)$, is an automorphism of ${\mathbb{D}}$ that sends $z_0(t):=H\big(p_t(0,t)\big)$ to $0$. Taking into account that by , $H\big(p({\mathbb{D}},t)\big)\subset k\overline{\mathbb{D}}$ for a.e.$t\ge0$, we see that $H\big(p_0({\mathbb{D}},t)\big)=L_t^{\!{\mathbb{D}}}\big(H\big(p({\mathbb{D}},t)\big)\big)$ is contained for a.e.$t\ge0$ in $\kappa\overline{\mathbb{D}}$, where $\kappa:=2k/(1+k^2)$. The conclusion of the proposition follows immediately.
One natural way to attack the above Problems \[PRO\_strong\] and \[PRO\_weak\] would be to propose several constructions of Loewner chains $(f_t)$ starting from an arbitrary given function ${f_0=f\in{\mathcal{S}}_k}$, with images $f_t({\mathbb{D}})$ being Jordan domains for all $t\ge0$, and try to find out whether the map $F:{\mathbb{C}}\to{\mathbb{C}}$ defined by is quasiconformal for any of these constructions.
Here we examine two quite natural constructions and show that unfortunately, both fail in general. Fix some locally absolutely continuous function $\omega:[0,+\infty)\to\partial{\mathbb{D}}$ and let ${\rho:[0,+\infty)\to[1,+\infty)}$ be a strictly increasing continuous function with ${\rho(0)=1}$ and ${\lim_{t\to+\infty}\rho(t)=+\infty}$.
1ex [**Construction 1.**]{} Let $\Phi:{\mathbb{C}}\to{\mathbb{C}}$ be a $k$-q.c. map such that $f_0:=\Phi|_{\mathbb{D}}\in{\mathcal{S}}$. For ${t\ge0}$, denote by $f^\Phi_t$, the conformal map of ${\mathbb{D}}$ onto $\Phi\big(\rho(t){\mathbb{D}}\big)$ normalized by ${f^\Phi_t(0)=0}$, ${\omega(t)(f^\Phi_t)'(0)>0}$. For a suitable choice of the function $\rho$, the family $(f^\Phi_t)_{t\ge0}$ is a Loewner chain. Using Courant’s Theorem, see e.g. [@Tsuji Theorem IX.14], it is possible to show that formula defines a homeomorphism $F$ of $\C$. 1ex [**Construction 2.**]{} Let $f\in{\mathcal{S}}_k$. Denote by $g$ the conformal map of ${\mathbb{C}}\setminus\overline{\mathbb{D}}$ onto ${\mathbb{C}}\setminus\overline{f({\mathbb{D}})}$. For ${t\ge0}$, consider the conformal map $f_t^g$ of ${\mathbb{D}}$, ${f^g_t(0)=0}$, ${\omega(t)\big(f^g_t\big)'(0)>0}$, onto the Jordan domain bounded by ${g\big(\{z:|z|=\rho(t)\}\big)}$. For a suitable choice of the function $\rho$, the family $(f^g_t)_{t\ge0}$ is a Loewner chain and the map $F$ that it generates via is a homeomorphism of $\C$. 1ex We will say that the function $\rho$ is *admissible* in Construction 1 or, respectively, in Construction 2, if the family $(f_t^\Phi)$, or respectively, the family $(f^g_t)$ is a Loewner chain. Note that admissibility of $\rho$ does not depend on the choice of $\omega$.
There exists a $(1/\sqrt{2})$-q.c. map $\Phi:{\mathbb{C}}\to{\mathbb{C}}$ with $f:=\Phi|_{\mathbb{D}}\in{\mathcal{S}}$ such that the homemorphisms $F$ defined in Constructions 1 and 2 are not quasiconformal for any admissible ${\rho:[0,+\infty)\to[1,+\infty)}$ and any locally absolutely continuous ${\omega:[0,+\infty)\to\partial{\mathbb{D}}}$.
Consider the function $$\label{EQ_f-example}
f(z):=\frac{2z(iz+\sqrt{1-z^2})^i}{1+\sqrt{1-z^2}}=\frac{2ze^{-\arcsin z}}{1+\sqrt{1-z^2}},\quad z\in{\mathbb{D}},$$ choosing the unique single-valued branch in ${\mathbb{D}}$ that belongs to ${\mathcal{S}}$. It is not difficult to check that $$\label{EQ_p}
p(z):=\frac{f(z)}{zf'(z)}=\sqrt{\frac{1+z}{1-z}}\quad\text{for all $z\in{\mathbb{D}}$}.$$ In particular, $\big|\arg p(z)\big|\le\pi/4$. Therefore, by a result of Betker [@Betker p.110], see also [@Ikkei-LM §5.1], $f$ can be extended to a $(1/\sqrt2)$-q.c. automorphism $\Phi:{\mathbb{C}}\to{\mathbb{C}}$ as follows.
The image $f({\mathbb{D}})$ is a starlike Jordan domain symmetric w.r.t. ${\mathbb{R}}$ and bounded by two segments of logarithmic spirals. Namely, $\partial f({\mathbb{D}})={\{2\exp(-\pi/2+|\theta|+i\theta)\colon\theta\in[-\pi,\pi]\}}$. It follows that for any $z\in{\mathbb{D}}\setminus\{0\}$ the intersection of $\partial f({\mathbb{D}})$ and $\{tf(z):t\ge0\}$ consists of one point $\zeta(z)$, with $r(z):=|\zeta(z)|=2\exp\!\big(|\!{\mathop{\operator@font Arg}\nolimits}f(z)|-\pi/2\big)$, where ${\mathop{\operator@font Arg}\nolimits}w$ stands for the value of $\arg w$ that belongs to $(-\pi, \pi]$.
Betker’s q.c.-extension of $f$, see e.g. [@Ikkei-LM eq.(5.6) with $\lambda:=0$], is given by $$\Phi(z):=\frac{~r(1/\bar z)^2}{\hphantom{m}\vphantom{\int_0^1}\overline{f(1/\bar z)}\hphantom{m}}=\frac{4e^{-\pi}}{f(1/z)}\left(\frac{f(1/\bar z)}{|f(1/\bar z)|}\right)^{\! -2i\,\eta(z)}\!\!=~\frac{4e^{-\pi}}{f(1/z)}\left(\frac{f(1/z)}{f(1/\bar z)}\right)^{\! i\,\eta(z)}$$ for all $z\in\C\setminus{\mathbb{D}}$, where $\eta(z):={\mathop{\mathrm{sgn}}}\Im z$. Simple calculations give $$\frac{\Phi'_z(z)}{\Phi(z)}=\frac{1-i\eta(z)}{z^2}\frac{f'(1/z)}{f(1/z)},\quad \frac{\Phi'_{\bar z}(z)}{\Phi(z)}=\frac{i\eta(z)}{\bar{z}^2}\frac{f'(1/\bar z)}{f(1/\bar z)},\qquad |z|>1,~z\not\in{\mathbb{R}}.$$ Using the above formulas we see that for any $r>1$ the boundary of $D_r:=\Phi(r{\mathbb{D}})$ consists of two real-analytic arcs with common end-points at $\Phi(\pm r)$, where they form angle of magnitude $2{\mathop{\operator@font arctg}\nolimits}(1/2)<\pi/2$. The angle at $\Phi(-r)$ is internal w.r.t. $D_r$. It follows that conformal mappings of ${\mathbb{D}}$ onto $D_r$ do not belong to the Hardy space $H^2({\mathbb{D}})$. Therefore, by the main result of [@Betker_Hardy], there is no Loewner chain with image domains $D_r$ that defines a q.c.-extension via . Therefore, the homeomorphism $F$ in Construction 1 generated by the Loewner chain $(f^\Phi_t)$ is not quasiconformal, whichever $\rho$ and $\theta$ we choose.
Let us now consider Construction 2 with the same function ${f\in{\mathcal{S}}_{1/\sqrt{2}}}$ as above. One remarkable property of $\Omega:=f({\mathbb{D}})$ is that $\{1/z\colon z\in{\overline{\mathbb{C}}}\setminus\overline{\Omega}\}=-\tfrac14\Omega.$ It follows that, up to rotation, $g(z)=-4/f(-1/z)$ for all $z\in{\mathbb{C}}\setminus\overline{\mathbb{D}}$. Suppose that for a suitable choice of the functions $\rho$ and $\omega$, the homeomorphism $F:{\mathbb{C}}\to{\mathbb{C}}$ defined with the help of the Loewner chain $(f^g_t)$ is $k$-quasiconformal for some ${k\in(0,1)}$. Then arguing as in [@Istvan proof of Theorem 2], we see that for all ${t\ge0}$ aside from some null-set $N$, ${\vphantom{f_t}\smash{\stackengine{-.075ex}{f_t}{\boldsymbol{\cdot\hskip.175em}}{O}{r}{F}{\useanchorwidth}{S}}}:=\partial f_t/\partial t$ and $f_t'$ exist a.e. on $\partial{\mathbb{D}}$, do not vanish, and $$\label{EQ_limit-property}
\frac{{\vphantom{f_t}\smash{\stackengine{-.075ex}{f_t}{\boldsymbol{\cdot\hskip.175em}}{O}{r}{F}{\useanchorwidth}{S}}}(e^{i\theta})}{e^{i\theta}f_t'(e^{i\theta})}\,\in\,U(k),$$ where $U(k)$ is defined in Theorem \[TH\_Becker\]. Moreover, by construction, $\partial f_t({\mathbb{D}})$ is $C^{\infty}$ when ${t>0}$. Hence, in fact, $f_t'$ extends smoothly to $\partial{\mathbb{D}}$ for all $t>0$; see e.g. [@Pommerenke:BB Chapter 3].
Taking into account that $\big|g^{-1}\big(f_t(e^{i\theta})\big)\big|=\rho(t)$ for all ${t\ge0}$ and all ${\theta\in[0,2\pi]}$, it follows that $\rho'(t)$ exists for any $t\in(0,+\infty)\setminus N$ and for the normal velocity of $\partial f_t({\mathbb{D}})$ we have $$|f'_t(e^{i\theta})|\,\Re\!\Big(\frac{{\vphantom{f_t}\smash{\stackengine{-.075ex}{f_t}{\boldsymbol{\cdot\hskip.175em}}{O}{r}{F}{\useanchorwidth}{S}}}(e^{i\theta})}{e^{i\theta}f'(e^{i\theta})}\Big)~=~\frac{\Re\big({\vphantom{f_t}\smash{\stackengine{-.075ex}{f_t}{\boldsymbol{\cdot\hskip.175em}}{O}{r}{F}{\useanchorwidth}{S}}}(e^{i\theta})\,\overline{e^{i\theta}f'(e^{i\theta})}\,\big)}{|f'_t(e^{i\theta})|}~=~\rho'(t)\,\big|g'\big(g^{-1}(f_t(e^{i\theta}))\big)\big|.$$ Together with this implies that on the one hand, for any $t\in(0,+\infty)\setminus N$, $$\label{EQ_ravn}
\frac1K\le\left|\frac{\rho'(t)\,g'\big(g^{-1}(f_t(e^{i\theta}))}{f_t'(e^{i\theta})}\right|\le K:=\frac{1+k}{1-k}\quad \text{for all~$\theta\in[0,2\pi]$}.$$
On the other hand, $$\label{EQ_integration}
2\pi\rho(t)~=~\int_{0}^{2\pi}\left|\frac{{\mathrm{d}}g^{-1}(f_t(e^{i\theta}))}{{\mathrm{d}}\theta}\right|\,{\mathrm{d}}\theta~=~\int_{0}^{2\pi}\left|\frac{f_t'(e^{i\theta})}{g'\big(g^{-1}(f_t(e^{i\theta}))}\right|\,{\mathrm{d}}\theta$$
Combining with , we see that $$\frac{\rho(t)}{K^2}\le \left|\frac{f_t'(e^{i\theta})}{g'\big(g^{-1}(f_t(e^{i\theta}))}\right|\le \rho(t) K^2\quad t>0,~t\not\in N.$$ Therefore, the conformal weldings $\gamma_t:=\big(g^{-1}\circ f_t|_{\partial{\mathbb{D}}}\big)\big/\rho(t)$, $t\in(0,+\infty)$, are $K^2$-Lipschitz continuous. Using Carathéodory’s Extension Theorem (see e.g. [@Pommerenke:BB p.18]) and Courant’s Theorem (see e.g. [@Tsuji Theorem IX.14]) we conclude that $\gamma_t\to\gamma_0$ as $t\to0^+$. It follows that $\gamma_0$ has to be also Lipschitz-continuous, but in reality it is not. This contradiction shows that $F$ is not quasiconformal.
A sufficient condition for Becker extendibility
===============================================
Below we prove a sufficient condition for a holomorphic function to be Becker extendible, i.e. to have a q.c.-extension of the form . This simple result is probably known to specialists: somewhat similar ideas appeared e.g. in [@Betker_Phi] and [@Ikkei1 equation(11)]. However, it does not seem to be ever stated in the form as presented below. For the notions of a meromorphic function of several complex variables and that of an analytic set we refer the reader to [@Shabat §15, §8].
\[TH\_PDE\_THM\] Let $f$ be a holomorphic function in $\D$, with $f'(0)-1=f(0)=0$. Suppose that there exists a meromorphic solution $\Phi : \C \times \D \to \C$ to the PDE initial value problem $$\begin{aligned}
&\Phi'_w(z, \,w ) = \varphi(z,w)\, \Phi'_z(z, \,w), & (z,w)\in \C \times \D;\label{EQ_PDE1}\\
&\Phi(z,z) = f(z), & z\in{\mathbb{D}},\label{EQ_PDE2}\end{aligned}$$ with a coefficient $\varphi$ meromorphic in $\C \times \D$ and satisfying the following two conditions:
- $\varphi(0,0)=0$;
- $r\!\left|\varphi(w/r,w)\right| \le k$ for all $w\in\D$ and all $r\in\big(|w|^2,1\big)$.
Suppose also that there exists $\varepsilon\in(0,1)$ and $M>0$ such that $$\label{EQ_Phi-at-infinity}
|\Phi(z,w)|\le M |z|\quad\text{whenever~$|w|\le |z|$ and $|z\,w|\le \varepsilon^2$.}$$ Then $f$ admits a $k$-q.c. Becker extension given by $$F(z) := \Phi(z, 1/\bar{z}), \hspace{15pt} |z|>1.$$ In particular, $f\in{\mathcal{S}}_k^B$.
Since $\Phi(0,0)=f(0)=0$, it is sufficient to check condition only for $z$ large enough.
Before proving Theorem \[TH\_PDE\_THM\], let us consider a few examples.
Let $f$ be a holomorphic function in ${\mathbb{D}}$ with $f'(0)-1=f(0)=0$. Set $\varphi(z,w):=(z-w)f''(w)/f'(w)$. Then $\Phi(z,w):=f(w)+(z-w)f'(w)$ solves problem , and satisfies . Condition (i) in Theorem \[TH\_PDE\_THM\] holds trivially, while (ii) is equivalent to $(1-|w|^2)|wf''(w)/f'(w)|\le k$, which is a classical sufficient condition for q.c.-extendibility.
Similarly, setting $\varphi(z,w):=f'(w)-1$ and $\Phi(z,w):=f(w)+z-w$, we recover another well-known sufficient condition for q.c.-extendibility $\big|f'(w)-1\big|\le k$, $w\in{\mathbb{D}}$, see [@Brown §3].
The following corollary represents another example.
\[CR\_AW-Becker\] Fix $k\in(0,1)$. Let $f(z)=z+a_2 z^2+\ldots$ be holomorphic in ${\mathbb{D}}$. If $$\label{EQ_AW-Becker}
\tfrac{4\sqrt3}{9}(1-|z|^2)|a_2|\,+\,(1-|z|^2)^2\big|a_2^2+\tfrac12S_f(z)\big|~\le~ k\quad\text{for all~$z\in{\mathbb{D}}$},$$ then $f\in{\mathcal{S}}_k^B$, with its Becker extension given by $F(z)=\Phi(z,1/\bar z)$ for all $z\in{\mathbb{C}}\setminus\overline{\mathbb{D}}$, where $$\label{EQ_Phi}
\Phi(z,w):=f(w)+\frac{f'(w)}{\frac{1}{z-w}+a_2-\frac{1}{2}\frac{f''(w)}{f'(w)}}.$$
Let $\varphi(z,w):=2a_2(z-w)+(z-w)^2\big(a_2^2+\tfrac12S_f(w)\big)$, where $S_f$ stands for the Schwarzian derivative of $f$. Then $\Phi$ given by solves problem ,.
Moreover, there exists $K>1$ such that $\big|f'(w)\big|\le K$ and $\left|a_2-\frac12\big({f''(w)}/{f'(w)}\big)\right|\le K|w|$ for all $w\in\frac12{\mathbb{D}}$. Hence, for any $(z,w)\in\C\times{\mathbb{D}}$ with $|w|\le |z|$ and ${|zw|\le\varepsilon^2}:=(4K)^{-1}$, $$\big|\Phi(z,w)\big|\,\le\,\big|f(w)\big|\,+\,\frac{\big|(z-w)f'(w)\big|}{\left|1 - K|w|\cdot|z-w|\vphantom{\int_0^1}\right|} \,\le\, K|w|\,+\,\frac{2\,|z|\,\big|f'(w)\big|}{1 - 2K\varepsilon^2\,} \,\le\, 5 K|z|.$$ This proves . Finally, since $|w|(1-|w|^2)\le 2\sqrt 3/9$ for all $w\in{\mathbb{D}}$, condition ensures that $\varphi$ satisfies (ii), while (i) holds trivially.
Thus, the desired conclusion takes place due to Theorem \[TH\_PDE\_THM\].
A well-known result by Ahlfors and Weill [@AW62], see also [@Ahlfors74], asserts that if a holomorphic function $f:{\mathbb{D}}\to{\mathbb{C}}$ satisfies $\frac12(1-|z|^2)^2|S_f(z)|\le k$, where $k\in(0,1)$, for all $z\in{\mathbb{D}}$, then $f$ is univalent and extends to a $k$-q.c. automorphism $F:{\overline{\mathbb{C}}}\to{\overline{\mathbb{C}}}$, with $F$ given by an explicit formula. This extension can be obtained with the help of Becker’s construction (see, e.g., [@Becker72 §4] and [@Becker80]), but it does not have to fix $\infty$ and hence $F$ is not a Becker extension in general (which was overlooked in [@Istvan §5]). Corollary \[CR\_AW-Becker\] is a sort of modification of the Ahfors–Weill condition that ensures extendibility to a q.c.-automorphism of ${\mathbb{C}}$. In fact, if $a_2=0$ then the q.c.-extension of $f$ given in Corollary \[CR\_AW-Becker\] coincides with the extension constructed by Ahlfors and Weill [@Ahlfors74].
It is known, see e.g. [@Lawrynowicz Example 4 on p.132], that given $k\in(0,1)$, for all $f\in{\mathcal{S}}_k$, $|a_2|\le 2k$ and $|S_f(z)|\le 6k/(1-|z|^2)^2$ for any $z\in{\mathbb{D}}$. Therefore, Corollary \[CR\_AW-Becker\] implies immediately the following statement.
\[CR\_AW-Becker0\] If $0<k<0.188856\ldots$, then ${\mathcal{S}}_k\subset {\mathcal{S}}_q^B$ with $q:=(3+\tfrac{8\sqrt3}{9})k+4k^2$.
It remains to prove the main result of this section.
Let $$f_t(\zeta):=\Phi(\zeta e^t,\zeta e^{-t})\quad \text{and}\quad p(\zeta,t):=\frac{\partial f_t(\zeta)/\partial t}{\zeta f_t'(\zeta)}\quad\text{for all $t\ge0$ and~$\zeta\in{\mathbb{D}}$.}$$ Thanks to condition , these functions are holomorphic in $\zeta\in\varepsilon{\mathbb{D}}$ and real-analytic in $t\ge0$, and moreover, $|f_t(\zeta)|\le M e^t$ for all $\zeta\in\varepsilon{\mathbb{D}}$ and $t\ge0$.
Note also that for any fixed $t\ge0$, the point $(\zeta e^t,\zeta e^{-t})$ can lie in the polar set $\mathcal P$ of $\Phi$ only for $\zeta$ belonging to a discrete subset of ${\mathbb{D}}$. Otherwise, since $\mathcal P$ is an analytic set in $\C\times{\mathbb{D}}$, we would have that $(\zeta e^t,\zeta e^{-t})\in\mathcal P$ for all $\zeta\in{\mathbb{D}}$, which contradicts . Therefore, $p(\cdot,t)$ and $f_t$ are well-defined meromorphic functions in ${\mathbb{D}}$ for each $t\ge0$.
As an elementary calculation shows, for all $\zeta\in{\mathbb{D}}$ and $t>0$, $$\frac{1-p(\zeta,t)}{1+p(\zeta,t)}=e^{-2t}\,\frac{\Phi'_w(\zeta e^t,\zeta e^{-t})}{\Phi'_z(\zeta e^t,\zeta e^{-t})}
=
r\,\varphi(w/r,w),$$ where $r:=e^{-2t}$ and $w:=\zeta e^{-t}$. Trivially, $|w|^2<r<1$. Therefore, condition (ii) implies that $p$ is a Herglotz function satisfying Becker’s condition .
Clearly, $f_t(0)=\Phi(0,0)=f(0)=0$, $t\ge0$. Moreover, taking into account (i), we have $f'_t(0)=e^t\Phi'_z(0,0)+e^{-t}\Phi'_w(0,0)=e^t\Phi'_z(0,0)=e^t f'(0)=e^t$ for all $t\ge0$.
We see that $(f_t)$ satisfies the hypothesis of Pommerenke’s Criterion [@Pommerenke Theorem 6.1 on p.159]. Hence $(f_t)$ is a classical radial Loewner chain. Furthermore, by Theorem \[TH\_Becker\], $f=f_0$ admits a $k$-q.c. extension $F:{\mathbb{C}}\to{\mathbb{C}}$ given by the formula $$F(e^{t+i\theta})=f_t(e^{i\theta})=\Phi(e^{t}e^{i\theta},e^{-t}e^{i\theta})=\Phi(z,1/\bar z)\quad \text{for all $z:=e^{t+i\theta}\in{\mathbb{C}}\setminus\overline{\mathbb{D}}$,}$$ which was to be proved.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
The authors are grateful to Professor Toshiyuki Sugawa for fruitful discussions on the topic of the present paper and, in particular, for drawing their attention to reference [@Sugawa2019].
[99]{} L. V. Ahlfors, Sufficient conditions for quasiconformal extension, in [*Discontinuous groups and Riemann surfaces (Proc. Conf., Univ. Maryland, College Park, Md., 1973)*]{}, 23–29. Ann. of Math. Studies, 79, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ. MR0374415
L. Ahlfors and G. Weill, *A uniqueness theorem for Beltrami equations*, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. [**13**]{} (1962), 975–978. MR0148896
J. Becker, *Löwnersche Differentialgleichung und quasikonform fortsetzbare schlichte Funktionen*, J. Reine Angew. Math. [**255**]{} (1972), 23–43. MR0299780
J. Becker, *Über die [L]{}ösungsstruktur einer [D]{}ifferentialgleichung in der konformen [A]{}bbildung*, J. Reine Angew. Math. **285** (1976), 66–74.
J. Becker, Conformal mappings with quasiconformal extensions, in [*Aspects of contemporary complex analysis (Proc. NATO Adv. Study Inst., Univ. Durham, Durham, 1979)*]{}, 37–77, Academic Press, London. MR0623464
Th. Betker, *Löwner chains and Hardy spaces*, Bull. London Math. Soc. [**23**]{} (1991), No.4, 367–371. MR1125863
Th. Betker, *Univalence criteria and Löwner chains,* Bull. London Math. Soc. [**23**]{} (1991), No.6, 563–567. MR1135187
Th. Betker, *Löwner chains and quasiconformal extensions,* Complex Variables Theory Appl. [**20**]{} (1992), no. 1-4, 107–111. MR1284357
F. Bracci, M. D. Contreras, and S. D[í]{}az-Madrigal, *Evolution families and the [L]{}oewner equation. [II]{}. [C]{}omplex hyperbolic manifolds*, Math. Ann. **344** (2009), no. 4, 947–962.
F. Bracci, M. D. Contreras, and S. Diaz-Madrigal, *Evolution families and the [L]{}oewner equation. [I]{}. [T]{}he unit disc*, J. Reine Angew. Math. **672** (2012), 1–37.
L. de Branges, *A proof of the Bieberbach conjecture,* Acta Math. [**154**]{} (1985), no. 1-2, 137–152. MR0772434
J. E. Brown, *Quasiconformal extensions for some geometric subclasses of univalent functions,* Internat. J. Math. Math. Sci. [**7**]{} (1984), no. 1, 187–195. MR0743837
P. L. Duren, [*Univalent functions*]{}, Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften, 259, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1983. MR0708494
G.M. Goluzin, [*Geometric theory of functions of a complex variable*]{}, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I.,1969. MR0247039 (Translated from G. M. Goluzin, [*Geometrical theory of functions of a complex variable*]{} (Russian), Second edition, Izdat. “Nauka”, Moscow, 1966.)
P. Gumenyuk and I. Hotta, *Chordal Loewner chains with quasiconformal extensions*, Math. Z. [**285**]{} (2017), no. 3-4, 1063–1089. MR3623740
P. Gumenyuk and I. Prause, *Quasiconformal extensions, Loewner chains, and the $\lambda$-lemma,* Anal. Math. Phys. [**8**]{} (2018), no. 4, 621–635. MR3881017
V. Ja. Gutljanskiĭ, *Parametric representation of univalent functions*, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR [**194**]{} (1970), 750–753. MR0271324; English translation in Soviet Math. Dokl. [**11**]{} (1970), 1273–1276.
R. S. Hamilton, *Extremal quasiconformal mappings with prescribed boundary values,* Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**138**]{} (1969), 399–406. MR0245787
A. Harrington and M. Ortel, *Two extremal problems,* Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**221**]{} (1976), no. 1, 159–167. MR0409828
I. Hotta, *Explicit quasiconformal extensions and Löwner chains,* Proc. Japan Acad. Ser. A Math. Sci. [**85**]{} (2009), no. 8, 108–111. MR2561899
I. Hotta, *Loewner chains with quasiconformal extensions: an approximation approach,* J. Anal. Math., to appear (arXiv:1605.07839).
I. Hotta and L.-M. Wang, *Quasiconformal extendability of integral transforms of Noshiro-Warschawski functions,* Rocky Mountain J. Math. [**47**]{} (2017), No.1, 185–204. MR3619760
X. Z. Huang, *On the extremality for Teichmüller mappings,* J. Math. Kyoto Univ. [**35**]{} (1995), no. 1, 115–132. MR1317278
S. L. Krushkal, *Extremal quasiconformal mappings* (Russian), Sib. Mat. Zh. [**10**]{} (1969), no. 3, 573–583. MR0241633; English translation in Sib. Math. J. [**10**]{} (1969), no. 3, 411–418.
S. L. Krushkal, *Exact coefficient estimates for univalent functions with quasiconformal extension*, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Ser. A I Math. [**20**]{} (1995), no. 2, 349–357. MR1346818
Kufarev, P. P. *On one-parameter families of analytic functions* (Russian), Rec. Math. \[Mat. Sbornik\] N.S. [**13(55)**]{} (1943), 87–118. MR0013800
R. Kühnau, *Wertannahmeprobleme bei quasikonformen Abbildungen mit ortsabhängiger Dilatationsbeschränkung*, Math. Nachr. [**40**]{} (1969), 1–11. MR0249610
R. Kühnau and W. Niske, *Abschätzung des dritten Koeffizienten bei den quasikonform fortsetzbaren schlichten Funktionen der Klasse $S$*, Math. Nachr. [**78**]{} (1977), 185–192. MR0470205
J. Ławrynowicz, [*Quasiconformal mappings in the plane*]{}, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 978, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1983. MR0702025
O. Lehto, *Schlicht functions with a quasiconformal extension*, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Ser. A I No. 500 (1971), 10 pp. MR0294624
O. Lehto, *On univalent functions with quasiconformal extensions over the boundary*, J. Analyse Math. [**30**]{} (1976), 349–354. MR0466544
O. Lehto, [*Univalent functions and Teichmüller spaces*]{}, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 109, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1987. MR0867407
K. Löwner, Untersuchungen über schlichte konforme Abbildungen des Einheitskreises. I, Math. Ann. [**89**]{} (1923), no. 1-2, 103–121. MR1512136
C. Pommerenke, *Über die Subordination analytischer Funktionen*, J. Reine Angew. Math. [**218**]{} (1965), 159–173. MR0180669
Ch. Pommerenke, [*Univalent functions. With a chapter on quadratic differentials by Gerd Jensen*]{}, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen, 1975.
Ch. Pommerenke, [*Boundary behaviour of conformal maps*]{}, Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften, 299, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1992. MR1217706
L. S. Pontryagin et al.: [*The mathematical theory of optimal processes*]{} (Russian), fourth edition, “Nauka”, Moscow, 1983. MR0719372; Translation to English: Interscience Publishers John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, 1962. MR0166037
D. V. Prokhorov, Bounded univalent functions, in [*Handbook of complex analysis: geometric function theory, Vol. 1*]{}, 207–228, North-Holland, Amsterdam. MR1966195
B. V. Shabat, [*Introduction to complex analysis. Part II*]{}, translated from the third (1985) Russian edition by J. S. Joel, Translations of Mathematical Monographs, 110, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1992. MR1192135
G. Schober, [*Univalent functions—selected topics*]{}, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 478, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1975. MR0507770
K. Strebel, *On quasiconformal mappings of open Riemann surfaces*, Comment. Math. Helv. [ **53**]{} (1978), No.3, 301–321. MR0505549
T. Sugawa, *A construction of trivial Beltrami coefficients*, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. [**147**]{} (2019), No.2, 629–635. MR3894901
M. Tsuji, [*Potential theory in modern function theory*]{}, Chelsea Publishing Co., New York, 1975. MR0414898
G. Yao, [*Hamilton sequences and extremality for certain Teichmüller mappings,*]{} Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Math. [**29**]{} (2004), no. 1, 185–194. MR2041707
G. Yao, *On criteria for extremality of Teichmüller mappings,* Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. [**132**]{} (2004), no. 9, 2647–2654. MR2054790
|
---
abstract: 'An arbitrary group action on an algebra $R$ results in an ideal $\mfr$ of $R$. This ideal $\mfr$ fits into the classical radical theory, and will be called the radical of the group action. If $R$ is a noetherian algebra with finite GK-dimension and $G$ is a finite group, then the difference between the GK-dimensionsof $R$ and that of $R/\mfr$ is called the pertinency of the group action. We provide some methods to find elements of the radical, which helps to calculate the pertinency of some special group actions. The $\mfr$-adic local cohomology of $R$ is related to the singularities of the invariant subalgebra $R^G$. We establish an equivalence between the quotient category of the invariant $R^G$ and that of the skew group ring $R*G$ through the torsion theory associated to the radical $\mfr$. With the help of the equivalence, we show that the invariant subalgebra $R^G$ will inherit certain Cohen-Macaulay property from $R$.'
address:
- 'He: Department of Mathematics, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou Zhejiang 310036, China'
- 'Y. ZhangDepartment of mathematics and statistics, University of Hasselt, Universitaire Campus, 3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium'
author:
- 'Ji-Wei He and Yinhuo Zhang'
title: Local cohomology associated to the radical of a group action on a noetherian algebra
---
Introduction
============
Let $R$ be a noetherian algebra with finite GK-dimension, and let $G$ be a finite group acting on $R$. In general, it is not easy to study the structure and the representations of a group action. However, one possible way to understand the group action is through the McKay correspondence, which establishes certain correspondence among the representations of the group $G$, of the skew group algebra $R*G$, and of the invariant subalgebra $R^G$ (see [@B] for a good survey of the classical McKay correspondence, or [@Mo; @CKWZ1; @CKWZ2] for noncommutative McKay correspondence). An important step for establishing noncommutative McKay correspondence is the Auslander Theorem in the noncommutative case (cf. [@BHZ; @BHZ2; @GKMW]). To prove certain noncommutative version of the Auslander theorem, Bao-Zhang and the first named author introduced an invariant $\Pty(R,G)$, called the pertinency of the group action. In some sense, the pertinency $\Pty(R,G)$ determines whether the Auslander theorem holds or not (cf. [@BHZ]).
The invariant subalgebra $R^G$ is not regular in general. For instance, if $R$ is Artin-Schelter regular and the homological determinant of $G$ is trivial, then $R^G$ is Artin-Schelter Gorenstein [@JZ]. So, studying the representations of the noncommutative singularities of $R^G$ is necessary. When $R^G$ has isolated singularities, the representations of the singularities are well understood (cf. [@MU1; @MU2; @U]). Iyama-Wemyss developed a wonderful theory on the representations of non-isolated singularities when the algebra under consideration is commutative (cf. [@IW]). The representations of noncommutative non-isolated singularities remain less understood. The main purpose of this paper is to understand the properties of the invariant subalgebra $R^G$ when it has non-isolated singularities.
The main tool we will use in this paper is the [*radical*]{} $\mfr(R,G)$ of the group action. Let $B=R*G$ be the skew group ring, and let $e=\frac{1}{|G|}\sum_{g\in G}g\in \kk G$, the integral of $\kk G$. The radical $\mfr(R,G)$ is in fact the the intersection $R\cap BeB$. The radical can be introduced even if the group $G$ is not finite. We introduce the concept of two [*pertinent sequences* ]{} of elements of $R$ (cf. Section \[sec1\]), through which we define the radical $\mfr(R,G)$ for any group action. The radical $\mfr(R,G)$ is an ideal of $R$. We show in Section \[sec2\] that $\mfr(R,G)$ fits into the the classical radical theory which justifies the name. It is usually difficult to compute $R\cap BeB$ directly, while there are several natural ways to find pertinent sequences which lead to determine elements in the radical.
The pertinency of a group action $\Pty(R,G)$ introduced in [@BHZ] is equal to $\operatorname{GKdim}(R)-\operatorname{GKdim}(R/\mfr(R,G))$ (cf. Section \[sec3\]). The condition $\Pty(R,G)=1$ is related to Shephard-Todd-Chevalley’s Theorem (see Propositions \[prop2-3\] and \[prop2-4\]). As it was shown in [@BHZ] that the condition $\Pty(R,G)\ge2$ is equivalent to the Auslander Theorem when $R$ is GK-Cohen-Macaulay. We recover some known results in Section \[set4\] by using pertinent sequences .
Set $A:=R^G$, $\mfr=\mfr(R,G)$ and $\mfa=A\cap \mfr$. We mainly focus on the local cohomology of $A$-modules associated to the ideal $\mfa$. In Section \[sec5\], we established some isomorphisms of the local cohomology (cf. Theorem \[thm-locdual\]). As one of our main results, we have the following theorem (for the terminology, see Section \[sec7\]).
\[thm0.1\] Let $G$ be a finite group, and let $R$ be a noetherian left $G$-module algebra with finite GK-dimension. Assume that $R$ satisfies Setup \[set\]. If $R$ is $G$-Cohen-Macaulay, then $A$ is $\mfa$-Cohen-Macaulay of dimension $\Pty(R,G)$.
As a corollary, we have the following equivalence of local cohomology, where $R^i\Gamma_\mfa$ is the $i$th local cohomology associated to the ideal $\mfa$.
Let $R$ be a $G$-Cohen-Macaulay algebra. Assume that $R$ satisfies Setup \[set\]. If $R$ has finite global dimension, then we have $$R^i\Gamma_\mfa(M)\cong \operatorname{Tor}_{p-i}^A(M,D)$$ for $M\in\operatorname{Mod}A$ and $i\ge0$, where $p=\Pty(R,G)$ and $D=R^p\Gamma_\mfa(A)$.
We will list some examples in Sections \[sec-quot\], \[sec6\] and \[sec7\] which satisfy Setup \[set\]. In case the algebra $R$ is commutative, then most conditions in Setup \[set\] are automatically satisfied.
Theorem \[thm0.1\] is obtained via an equivalence of quotient categories associated to the ideals $\mfa$ and $\mfr$. Let $\operatorname{Mod}A$ be the category of right $A$-modules, and let $\operatorname{Tor}_\mfa A$ be the full subcategory of $\operatorname{Mod}A$ consisting of $\mfa$-torsion modules. Since $R$ is noetherian and $G$ is finite, $A$ is noetherian as well. Thus $\operatorname{Tor}_\mfa A$ is a Serre subcategory of $\operatorname{Mod}A$. Hence we obtain an abelian category $\QMod_\mfa A:=\frac{\operatorname{Mod}A}{\operatorname{Tor}_\mfa A}$. Similarly, let $\mfb=\mfr\otimes\kk G\subseteq B=R*G$, we have $\QMod_\mfb B:=\frac{\operatorname{Mod}B}{\operatorname{Tor}_\mfb B}$. The following equivalence of quotient categories holds (for the terminology, see Section \[sec-quot\]).
\[Theorem 6.4\] Let $R$ and $G$ be as above. Assume that $\mfa$ and $\mfr$ are cofinal, and $\mfa$ has the right AR-property.
- The functor $\operatorname{Hom}_A(R,-):\operatorname{Mod}A\longrightarrow \operatorname{Mod}B$ induces a functor $$\operatorname{Hom}_\mathcal{A}(\mathcal{R},-):\QMod_\mfa A\longrightarrow \QMod_\mfb B.$$
- The functors $-\otimes_\mathcal{B}\mathcal{R}$ and $\operatorname{Hom}_\mathcal{A}(\mathcal{R},-)$ are quasi-inverse to each other.
If $R$ is a commutative algebra, then the cofinal condition in the above theorem is indeed necessary (cf. Theorem \[thm-commeq\]). The extension groups of objects in $\QMod_\mfb B$ can be obtained through the extension groups of the corresponding objects in $\QMod_\mfr R$ (cf. Proposition \[prop-qext\]), and thus we establish connections among extension groups of objects in $\QMod_\mfa A$, $\QMod_\mfr R$ and $\QMod_\mfb B$ respectively.
Throughout the paper, $\kk$ is a field. All the algebras and modules are assumed to be $\kk$-vector space. Unadorned $\otimes$ means $\otimes_{\kk}$. All the finite groups considered in the paper are nontrivial.
Radicals of group actions {#sec1}
=========================
Let $R$ be a noetherian algebra. Let $G$ be a finite group which acts on $R$ by automorphisms so that $R$ is a left $G$-module algebra. The $G$-action determines an ideal of $R$.
\[def-pelmt\] We say that two sequences $(a_1,\dots,a_n)$ and $(b_1,\dots,b_n)$ of elements of $R$ are [*pertinent under the $G$-action*]{}, if $\sum_{i=1}^na_i(g\cdot b_i)=0$ for all $1\neq g\in G$. We write $(a_1,\dots,a_n)\overset{G}\sim(b_1,\dots,b_n)$ for pertinent sequences.
\[example1\] (i) Let $R=\kk[x,y]$. Let $\sigma$ be the automorphism of $A$ defined by $\sigma(x)=y$ and $\sigma(y)=x$. Let $G=\{1,g\}$. Then the sequences $(x,y)\overset{G}\sim(x,-y)$.
\(ii) Let $R=\kk_{-1}[x,y]$ be the skew symmetric algebra. Let $\sigma$ be the automorphism of $A$ defined by $\sigma(x)=y$ and $\sigma(y)=x$. Let $G=\{1,g\}$. Then the sequences $(x,y)\overset{g}\sim(x,y)$.
For the convenience of the narratives, we conventionally write $(a_1,\dots,a_n)\vee (a'_1,\dots,a'_m)$ for the sequence $(a_1,\dots,a_n,a'_1,\dots,a'_m)$. We have the following basic properties of pertinent sequences.
\[prop-basic\] Assume $(a_1,\dots,a_n)\overset{G}\sim(b_1,\dots,b_n)$. The following hold:
- $(h\cdot a_1,\dots,h\cdot a_n)\overset{G}\sim(h\cdot b_1,\dots,h\cdot b_n)$ for all $h\in G$;
- $(a a_1,\dots,aa_n)\overset{G}\sim(b_1b,\dots, b_nb)$ for all $a,b\in A$;
- if $(a'_1,\dots,a'_m)\overset{G}\sim(b'_1,\dots,b'_m)$, then $(a_1,\dots,a_n)\vee (a'_1,\dots,a'_m)\overset{G}\sim(b_1,\dots ,b_n)\vee (b'_1,\dots,b'_m)$.
Straightforward.
Given a $G$-action $\theta:G\to \operatorname{Aut}(R)$, we define $$\mfr(R,G)=\left\{\sum_{i=1}^na_ib_i|(a_1,\dots,a_n)\overset{G}\sim(b_1,\dots,b_n),n\ge1\right\}.$$ By Proposition \[prop-basic\](ii), $\mfr(R,G)$ is closed under addition, and by Proposition \[prop-basic\](ii) $\mfr(R,G)$ is an ideal of $R$.
\[def-pideal\] We call $\mfr(R,G)$ [*the radical of $R$ under the $G$-action*]{}, or simply, [*the $G$-radical of $R$*]{}, and we call the quotient algebra $\mathfrak{R}(R,G):=R/\mfr(R,G)$ the [*pertinency algebra*]{} of $R$ under the $G$-action.
\(i) We will show in the next section that the ideal $\mfr(R,G)$ fits into the classical radical theory of rings (cf. [@Sz]).
\(ii) The $G$-radical $\mfr(R,G)$ depends mainly on the group action $\theta:G\to \operatorname{Aut}(R)$.
\(i) Let $R=\kk[x,y]$. Let $\sigma$ be the automorphism of $A$ defined by $\sigma(x)=y$ and $\sigma(y)=x$. Let $G=\{1,\sigma\}$. Note that $(x,1)$ and $(1,-y)$ are pertinent sequences. Hence $x-y\in \mfr(R,G)$. We claim that $x^n$ ($n\ge2$) is not in $\mfr(R,G)$. Indeed, if $x^n\in \mfr(R,G)$, then there are pertinent sequences $(a_1,\dots,a_m)$ and $(b_1,\dots,b_m)$ such that $x^n=\sum_{i=1}^ma_ib_i$. Note that $R$ has a basis $\{x^sy^t|s,t\ge0\}$. By a simple comparison of powers of $y$ in the sum $\sum_{i=1}^ma_ib_i$, we may assume that $a_i=\sum_jk_{i_j}x^{s_{i_j}}$ and $b_i=r_ix^{t_i}$, where $k_{i_j},r_i\in\kk$ and $t_1,\dots t_m$ are different numbers. Since $(a_1,\dots,a_m)$ and $(b_1,\dots,b_m)$ are pertinent sequences, we have $0=\sum_{i=1}^ma_i\sigma(b_i)=\sum_{i=1}^m\sum_jk_{i_j}r_ix^{s_{i_j}}y^{t_i}$. Then $\sum_jk_{i_j}r_ix^{s_{i_j}}=0$ for all $i$. Therefore, $\sum_{i=1}^ma_ib_i=\sum_{i=1}^m\sum_jk_{i_j}r_ix^{s_{i_j}}x^{t_i}=0$, a contradiction. Hence $x^n$ is not in $\mfr(R,G)$ for all $n\geq 1$. It follows that $\mathfrak{R}(R,G)\cong \kk[x]$.
\(ii) Let $R=\kk_{-1}[x,y]$. Let $\sigma$ be the automorphism of $R$ defined by $\sigma(x)=y$ and $\sigma(y)=x$. Let $G=\{1,\sigma\}$. As we see in Example \[example1\], the sequences $(x,y)$ and $(x,y)$ are pertinent, $x^2+y^2\in \mfr(R,G)$. Similar to (i), $x-y\in \mfr(R,G)$. If $char\kk\neq 2$, then we see $x^2,y^2,xy\in \mfr(R,G)$. Therefore $\mfr(R,G)=\kk(x-y)\oplus R_2\oplus R_3\oplus\cdots$, and $\mathfrak{R}(R,G)$ is of dimension 2.
In some cases, the $G$-radical may be trivial. For example, if the $G$-action on $R$ is trivial, that is, $g\cdot a=a$ for all $g\in G$ and $a\in R$, then one sees that the $G$-radical is zero. Following the classical radical theory, we introduce the following definition.
Let $R$ be a left $G$-module algebra. If the $G$-radial $\mfr(R,G)=0$, then we say that the $G$-action $R$ is [*$G$-semisimple*]{}.
By the definition of the $G$-radical, one sees the following basic property of $G$-semisimple $G$-module algebras.
\[prop-subalg\] Let $R$ be a left $G$-semisimple $G$-module algebra. If $S$ is a subalgebra of $R$ closed under the $G$-action, then $S$, as a $G$-module algebra, is $G$-semisimple.
Pertinency algebras {#sec2}
===================
Let $G$ be a group, and let $R$ be a $G$-module algebra. We will review some basic properties of the $G$-radical of $R$, which justify the name “radical”.
Let $R$ be a $G$-module algebra with $G$-action $\theta:G\to \operatorname{Aut}(R)$.
- The $G$-radical $\mfr(R,G)$ is a $G$-ideal, i.e., it is closed under the $G$-action.
- The $G$-action $\theta$ induces a $G$-action $\overline{\theta}:G\to \operatorname{Aut}(\mathfrak{R}(R,G))$ so that $\mathfrak{R}(R,G)$ is also a left $G$-module algebra.
- If $G$ is a finite group, then $\mfr(\mathfrak{R}(R,G),G)=0$, i.e., the $G$-module algebra $\mathfrak{R}(R,G)$ is $G$-semisimple.
The statement (i) follows from Proposition \[prop-basic\](i). Then statement (ii) follows from (i).
\(iii) For an element $a\in R$, we write $\overline{a}$ for the image of $a$ in $\mathfrak{R}(R,G)$. Let $(a_1,\dots,a_n)$ and $(b_1,\dots,b_n)$ be sequences of elements in $R$ such that $(\overline{a}_1,\dots,\overline{a}_n)$ and $(\overline{b}_1,\dots,\overline{b}_n)$ are pertinent under the $G$-action in $\mathfrak{R}(R,G)$. Since $G$ is a finite group, we assume $|G|=k$ and we may label the elements of $G$ in $\{1=g_0,g_1,\dots,g_{k-1}\}$. Then we have $\sum_{i=1}^na_i(g_j\cdot b_i)\in \mfr(R,G)$ for all $j=1,\dots,k-1$. Hence, for each $1\leq j\leq k-1$, there are pertinent sequences $(x_{j1},\dots,x_{jm_j})$ and $(y_{j1},\dots,y_{jm_j})$ in $R$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^na_i(g_j\cdot b_i)=\sum_{i=1}^{m_j}x_{ji}y_{ji}$. We claim that the sequences $(a_1,\dots,a_n)\vee(-x_{11},\dots, -x_{1m_1})\vee\cdots\vee(-x_{k-1,1},\dots, -x_{k-1,m_{k-1}})$ and $(b_1,\dots,b_n)\vee(g_1^{-1}\cdot y_{11},\dots,g_1^{-1}\cdot y_{1m_1})\vee\cdots\vee(g_{k-1}^{-1}\cdot y_{k-1,1},\dots,g_{k-1}^{-1}\cdot y_{k-1,m_{k-1}})$ are pertinent. Indeed, for $1\leq j\leq k-1$, we have $$\begin{array}{cl}
&\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^na_i(g_j\cdot b_i)-\sum_{t=1}^{k-1}\sum_{s=1}^{m_t}x_{ts}(g_jg_t^{-1}\cdot y_{ts})\\
=&\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^na_i(g_j\cdot b_i)-\sum_{s=1}^{m_j}x_{js}y_{js}-\sum_{t\neq j}\sum_{s=1}^{m_t}x_{ts}(g_jg_t^{-1}\cdot y_{ts})\\
=&0.
\end{array}$$ Hence we have $\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^na_ib_i-\sum_{t=1}^{k-1}\sum_{s=1}^{m_t}x_{ts}(g_t^{-1}\cdot y_{ts})\in \mfr(R,G)$. Since $(x_{t1},\dots,x_{tm_t})$ and $(y_{t1},\dots,y_{tm_t})$ are pertinent for all $t=1,\dots,k-1$, we have $\displaystyle\sum_{t=1}^{k-1}\sum_{s=1}^{m_t}x_{ts}(g_t^{-1}\cdot y_{ts})=0$. Hence $\sum_{i=1}^na_ib_i\in \mfr(R,G)$, that is, $\sum_{i=1}^n\overline{a}_i\overline{b}_i=0$ in $\mathfrak{R}(R,G)$. It follows that the $G$-module algebra $\mathfrak{R}(R,G)$ is $G$-semisimple.
By the third statement of the proposition above, we see that the pertinency algebra $\mathfrak{R}(R,G)$ is always $G$-semisimple for any finite group action. Indeed, the $G$-radical $\mfr(R,G)$ is the smallest ideal of $R$ closed under $G$-action such that the the quotient algebra is $G$-semisimple.
\[lem-min\] Let $G$ be a finite group acting on $A$ by automorphisms. If $I$ is a $G$-ideal of $R$ such that $R/I$ is $G$-semisimple, then $\mfr(R,G)\subseteq I$.
For an element $a\in R$, we write $\overline{a}$ for the image of $a$ in $R/I$. Let $(a_1,\dots,a_n)$ and $(b_1,\dots,b_n)$ be pertinent sequences in $R$. Then $\sum_{i=1}^na_i(g\cdot b_i)=0$ for all $1\neq g\in G$. Hence $\sum_{i=1}^n\overline{a_i}(\overline{g\cdot b_i})=\sum_{i=1}^n\overline{a_i}(g\cdot \overline{b_i})=0$ in $R/I$. Since $R/I$ is $G$-semisimple, we have $\sum_{i=1}^n\overline{a_i}\overline{b_i}=0$ in $R/I$. Therefore, $\sum_{i=1}^na_i b_i\in I$, and hence $\mfr(R,G)\subseteq I$.
We have the following “universal property” of the algebra morphisms which respect the group actions.
\[prop-univ\] Let $G$ be a finite group, and let $R$ be a left $G$-module algebra. Let $S$ be a left $G$-semisimple $G$-module algebra. For any $G$-module algebra morphism $f:R\to S$, there is a unique $G$-module algebra morphism $g:\mathfrak{R}(R,G)\to S$ such that the following diagram commutes $$\xymatrix{
R \ar[d]_{\pi} \ar[r]^{f} & S, \\
\mathfrak{R}(R,G) \ar[ur]_{g} }$$ where $\pi$ is the natural projection.
Since $S$ is $G$-semisimple and $f$ is also a $G$-module morphism, the subalgebra im$(f)$ of $S$ is also $G$-semisimple by Proposition \[prop-subalg\]. Hence the $G$-radical $\mfr(R,G)$ is contained in $\ker(f)$ by Lemma \[lem-min\]. Thus the assertion follows.
Let $G$ be a finite group, $R$ a left $G$-module algebra, and $B=R*G$ the skew polynomial algebra. Let $\iota: R\to B, a\mapsto a\otimes 1$ be the embedding map, so that $R$ is viewed as a subalgebra of $B$. Similarly, we view $\kk G$ as a subalgebra of $B$. Set $e=\frac{1}{|G|}\sum_{g\in G}g\in \kk G$. Then $e$ is an idempotent in $B$. Let $\mathcal{M}_R$ be the class of right $R$-modules obtained from right $B$-modules which are annihilated by $e$. The next proposition shows that the $G$-radical of $R$ is indeed the $\mathcal{M}_R$-radical in the classical radical theory (cf. [@Sz]).
\[prop-mrad\] With the notions as above, the following holds: $$\mfr(R,G)=\bigcap_{M\in\mathcal{M}_R}Ann_R(M)$$ where $Ann_R(M)$ is the annihilator of $M$ in $R$.
We always view $R$ as a subalgebra of $B$ through the map $\iota$. We see that two sequences $(a_1,\dots,a_n)$ and $(b_1,\dots,b_n)$ are pertinent under the $G$-action if and only if $\sum_{i=1}^na_ieb_i=\sum_{i=1}^na_ib_i\otimes 1$. Note that $BeB=ReR$ (cf. [@CFM Proposition 2.13]). We have $R\cap BeB=\mfr(R,G)$. For a module $M\in \mathcal{M}_R$, we have $Me=0$, and hence $BeB\subseteq Ann_R(M)$. Therefore $\mfr(R,G)\subseteq Ann_R(M)$. Since $\overline{B}\in \mathcal{M}_R$, we have $Ann_R(\overline{B})=R\cap BeB=\mfr(R,G)$. Therefore the proposition follows.
The following lemma is easy to check.
\[lem-pertinred\] Let $G$ be a finite group, and $R$ a left $G$-module algebra.
- If $(a_1,\dots,a_n)\overset{G}\sim(c_1b_1,\dots,c_nb_n)$ where $c_1,\dots,c_n\in R^G$. Then $$(a_1c_1,\dots,a_nc_n)\overset{G}\sim(b_1,\dots,b_n).$$
- Assume $(a_1,\dots,a_n)\overset{G}\sim(b_1,\dots,b_n)$. If $b_i=b_j$ for some $i,j$, then $$(a_1,\dots,a_i+a_j,\dots,\hat{a}_j,\dots,a_n)\overset{G}\sim(b_1,\dots,b_i,\dots,\hat{b}_j,\dots,b_n),$$ where $\hat{a}_j$ (and $\hat{b}_j$) means deleting the element $a_j$ ($b_j$,resp.).
- Assume $(a_1,\dots,a_n)\overset{G}\sim(b_1,\dots,b_n)$. If $a_i=a_j$ for some $i,j$, then $$(a_1,\dots,a_i,\dots,\hat{a}_j,\dots,a_n)\overset{G}\sim(b_1,\dots,b_i+b_j,\dots,\hat{b}_j,\dots,b_n),$$ where $\hat{a}_j$ (and $\hat{b}_j$) means deleting the element $a_j$ ($b_j$,resp.).
We end this section with some sufficient conditions for a $G$-module algebra to be $G$-semisimple.
\[prop-ss\] Let $G$ be a finite group, and let $R$ be a left $G$-module algebra. Set $A=R^G:=\{a\in R|g\cdot a=a,\forall\ g\in G\}$. If $R$ is a free $A$-module with a free basis $y_0=1,y_1,\dots,y_n\in R$ satisfying the conditions:
[(i)]{} $g(y_1,\dots,y_n)=(\xi_1y_1,\dots,\xi_ny_n)$ where $\xi_i$ is a $j_i$-th ($j_i\ge3$) primitive root of unity for all $i=1,\dots,n$,
[(ii)]{} $y_iy_j=0$ for $i,j=1,\dots,n$,\
then $R$ is $G$-semisimple.
By Lemma \[lem-pertinred\], we may assume that pertinent sequences have the form $(a_0,a_1,\dots,a_n)\overset{G}\sim(1,y_1,\dots,y_n)$. By the condition (ii), we may assume $a_1,\dots,a_n\in A$. Assume $a_0=b_0+b_1y_1+\cdots+b_ny_n$ with $b_i\in A$ for $i=0,\dots,n$. By the equality $\sum_{i=0}^na_ig(y_i)=0$ we obtain $b_0=0$ and $b_i=-\xi_ia_i$ for $i=1,\dots,n$. By the equality $\sum_{i=0}^na_ig^2(y_i)=0$, we obtain $b_i=-\xi_i^2a_i$ for $i=1,\dots,n$. Since $\xi_i$ is a $j_i$-th primitive root of unity with $j_i\ge3$ for $i=1,\dots,n$, we have $b_i=a_i=0$ for $i=1,\dots,n$. Hence $\mfr(R,G)=0$.
Group actions with $\Pty(R,G)=1$ {#sec3}
================================
Recall that we have a definition of the pertinency of a group action on an algebra in [@BHZ], where we had to assume that the group is finite. In order to avoid this restriction, we provide an alternative (equivalent) definition in this paper. We will see, in some cases, the definition here is more flexible.
Let $G$ be group, and let $R$ be a noetherian algebra with finite Gelfand-Killilov (GK) dimension. The [*pertinency*]{} of the $G$-action on $R$ is defined to be the number $$\label{pty1}
\Pty(R,G)=\operatorname{GKdim}(R)-\operatorname{GKdim}(\mathfrak{R}(R,G)).$$
Let $R$ be a noetherian $G$-module algebra with finite GK-dimension, and let $B:=R*G$ be the skew group algebra. Assume $G$ is finite. Let $\kk G$ be the group algebra. As before, let $e=\frac{1}{|G|}\sum_{g\in G}g$. Recall from [@BHZ] that the pertinency of the $G$-action is defined to be $$\label{pty2}
\Pty(R,G)=\operatorname{GKdim}(R)-\operatorname{GKdim}(B/(BeB)).$$
\[lem1\] Assume $G$ is a finite group. Let $R$ be a noetherian left $G$-module algebra with finite GK-dimension. Then $\operatorname{GKdim}(B/(BeB))=\operatorname{GKdim}(\mathfrak{R}(R,G))$.
As before, let $\iota:R\to B,a\mapsto a\otimes 1$ be the inclusion map. Let $\pi:B\to B/BeB$ be the projection map. Then $\overline{R}:=\pi\circ\iota(R)$ is a subalgebra of $B/BeB$. Since $B$ is finitely generated as a left $R$-module, we see that $B/BeB$ is a finitely generated $\overline{R}$-module. By [@KL Proposition 5.5]$, \operatorname{GKdim}(\overline{R})=\operatorname{GKdim}(B/BeB)$. As in the proof of Proposition \[prop-mrad\], we see $\mfr(R,G)=R\cap BeB$. Therefore $\overline{R}\cong \mathfrak{R}(R,G)$.
As a consequence of Lemma \[lem1\], we obtain:
With the assumptions in Lemma \[lem1\], the pertinencies defined by (\[pty1\]) and (\[pty2\]) are equivalent.
In order to compute the pertinency of a group action, one has to analyze the radical ideal of the group action. Next we provide several ways to find elements in the radical ideal.
\[lem2\] Let $R$ be an algebra, and $G$ a cyclic group generated by $\sigma$. Assume that there are elements $a_1,\dots,a_n\in R$ such that $\sigma\cdot a_i=\xi a_i$ for $i=1,\dots,n$, where $\xi$ is an $n$-th primitive root of unity. If $\operatorname{char}\kk\nmid n$, then $a_1a_2\cdots a_n\in \mfr(R,G)$.
We show that the following sequences are pertinent under the $G$-action: $(1,a_1,a_1a_2,\dots,a_1a_2\cdots a_{n-1})$ and $(a_1a_2\cdots a_n,a_2\cdots a_n,\dots,a_n)$. Note that $\sigma^j\cdot a_i=\xi^j a_i$. For $j=1,\dots,n-1$, we have $\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}a_1\cdots a_i(\sigma^j\cdot (a_{i+1}\cdots a_n))=(\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\xi^{j(n-i)})a_1a_2\cdots a_n=0$. Hence $a_1a_2\cdots a_n\in \mfr(R,G)$.
Let $R$ be an algebra, and let $a_1,\dots,a_k\in R$. We write $a_1\cdots \hat{a}_i\cdots a_k$ for the product $a_1\cdots a_{i-1}a_{i+1}\cdots a_k$ with $a_i$ missing. Similarly, we have the notion $a_1\cdots \hat{a}_{i_1}\cdots \hat{a}_{i_2}\cdots \hat{a}_{i_s}\cdots a_k$ for $1\leq i_1<\dots<i_s\leq k$. We write $$a_{\widehat{[i_1i_2\cdots i_s]}}:=a_1\cdots \hat{a}_{i_1}\cdots \hat{a}_{i_2}\cdots \hat{a}_{i_s}\cdots a_k,$$ and $$(a_{\widehat{[i_1i_2\cdots i_s]}}:1\leq i_1<\dots<i_s\leq k)$$ for the sequence corresponding to all the possible choices of arrays $[i_1i_2\cdots i_s]$ in the lexicographic order. Similarly, we have $$a_{[i_1i_2\cdots i_s]}:=a_{i_1}\cdots a_{i_s}$$ for the products of elements, and $$(a_{[i_1i_2\cdots i_s]}:1\leq i_1<\dots<i_s\leq k).$$ Let $G$ be a group acting on $R$. For $g_1,\dots,g_k\in G$, we write [$$g_{\widehat{[i_1i_2\cdots i_s]}}(a_{\widehat{[i_1i_2\cdots i_s]}}):=g_1(a_1)\cdots \hat{a}_{i_1}\cdots \hat{a}_{i_2}\cdots \hat{a}_{i_s}\cdots g_k(a_k),$$]{} and $$\left(g_{\widehat{[i_1i_2\cdots i_s]}}(a_{\widehat{[i_1i_2\cdots i_s]}}):1\leq i_1<\dots<i_s\leq k\right)$$ for the corresponding sequences in the lexicographic order.
\[lem2-1\] Let $R$ be an algebra, and $G=\{g_1,\dots,g_{n-1},g_n=1\}$ a finite group acting on $R$. Assume that $a_1,\dots,a_{n-1}\in R$ are central elements of $R$. Then the following two sequences $$\bigcup_{s=0}^{n-1}\left(g_{\widehat{[i_1i_2\cdots i_s]}}(a_{\widehat{[i_1i_2\cdots i_s]}}):1\leq i_1<\cdots< i_s\leq n-1\right)$$ and $$\bigcup_{s=0}^{n-1}((-1)^sa_{[i_1i_2\cdots i_s]}:1\leq i_1<\cdots< i_s\leq n-1)$$ are pertinent, where $a_{[\ ]}=1$ and $a_{\widehat{[\ ]}}=a_1a_2\cdots a_{n-1}$ when $s=0$.
For every $1\neq g\in G$, we have $$\sum_{[i_1i_2\cdots i_s]} g_{\widehat{[i_1i_2\cdots i_s]}}(a_{\widehat{[i_1i_2\cdots i_s]}})g(a_{[i_1i_2\cdots i_s]})= \prod_{i=1}^{n-1}(g_i(a_i)-g(a_i)),$$ where on the left hand side, the sum is over all the possible choices of the arrays $[i_1i_2\cdots i_s]$ for $s=0,\dots,n-1$. Since $g$ must be one of the elements in $\{g_1,\dots, g_{n-1}\}$, the right hand side of the above equation is zero. Hence the result follows from the definition of the pertinent sequences.
Now let $R$ be an algebra, and let $a_1,\dots,a_{n-1}\in R$ such that $a_ia_j=q_{ij}a_ja_i$ for all $i< j$ and some $q_{ij}\neq 0$. Let $G=\{g_1,\dots,g_{n-1},g_n=1\}$. Assume $g_i(a_i)=\xi_i a_i$ for $i=1,\dots,n-1$ with $\xi_i\in\kk$. Write $$q_{[i_1i_2\cdots i_s]}=\prod_{k=1}^s\prod_{\varepsilon} q_{i_kj},$$ where the restriction $\varepsilon$ under the second $\prod$ reads as $\{j>i_k,\hbox{ and }j\neq i_1,\dots, i_s\}$.
\[lem2-2\] With the assumptions as above, we have the following pertinent sequences $$\bigcup_{s=0}^{n-1}g_{\widehat{[i_1i_2\cdots i_s]}}(a_{\widehat{[i_1i_2\cdots i_s]}}:1\leq i_1<\cdots<i_s\leq n-1)$$ and $$\bigcup_{s=0}^{n-1}((-1)^sq_{[i_1i_2\cdots i_s]}a_{[i_1i_2\cdots i_s]}:1\leq i_1<\cdots<i_s\leq n-1),$$ where $a_{[\ ]}=1$ and $a_{\overline{[\ ]}}=a_1a_2\cdots a_{n-1}$ when $s=0$.
For every $1\neq g\in G$, since $g$ acts on $a_1,\dots,a_{n-1}$ diagonally, we have $a_{\widehat{[i_1i_2\cdots i_s]}}g((-1)^sq_{[i_1i_2\cdots i_s]}a_{[i_1i_2\cdots i_s]})=(-1)^s a_1\cdots g(a_{i_1})\cdots g(a_{i_s})\cdots a_{n-1}$. Then the same arguments as in the proof of Lemma \[lem2-1\] hold.
As a consequence, we have the following result, a part of which is indicated in [@BL Lemma 2.2] with different constructions.
\[prop2-1\] With the same hypothesis as in Lemma \[lem2-1\], we have $$\prod_{i=1}^{n-1}(g_i(a_i)-a_i)\in \mfr(R,G).$$
Note that the sum of the products of the corresponding elements in the pertinent sequences $\bigcup_{s=0}^{n-1}g_{\overline{[i_1i_2\cdots i_s]}}(a_{\overline{[i_1i_2\cdots i_s]}})$ and $\bigcup_{s=0}^{n-1}(a_{[i_1i_2\cdots i_s]})$ is exactly equal to $\prod_{i=1}^{n-1}(g_i(a_i)-a_i)$.
There is another way to construct elements in the radical of a group action by means of the determinant.
Let $G=\{1=g_0,g_1,\dots,g_{n-1}\}$ be a finite group acting on an algebra $R$. Taking any elements $a_1,\dots,a_n\in Z(R)$, we define an element $$\label{eq-det}
\delta_G(a_1,\dots,a_n)=\begin{vmatrix}
a_1&a_2&\cdots& a_n\\
g_1(a_1)&g_1(a_2)&\cdots&g_1(a_n)\\
\vdots&\vdots&&\vdots\\
g_{n-1}(a_1)&g_{n-1}(a_2)&\cdots&g_{n-1}(a_n)
\end{vmatrix}.$$
\[prop2-6\] With the notions as above, we have $\delta_G(a_1,\dots,a_n)\in \mfr(R,G)$.
Consider the following two sequences $(a_1,\dots,a_n)$ and $(A_1,\dots,A_n)$, where $A_i$ $(i=1,\dots n)$ is the cofactor of the element $a_i$ in the determinant (\[eq-det\]). For every $1\neq g\in G$, we have $gg_j=1$ for some $1\leq j\leq n-1$. Hence $$g(A_i)=\begin{vmatrix}
gg_1(a_1)&\cdots&gg_1(a_{i-1})&gg_1(a_{i+1})&\cdots&gg_1(a_n)\\
\vdots&&\vdots&\vdots&&\vdots\\
a_1&\cdots&a_{i-1}&a_{i+1}&\cdots& a_n\\
\vdots&&\vdots&\vdots&&\vdots\\
gg_{n-1}(a_1)&\cdots&gg_{n-1}(a_{i-1})&gg_{n-1}(a_{i+1})&\cdots&gg_{n-1}(a_n)
\end{vmatrix}.$$ Then $\sum_{i=1}^n(a_ig(A_i))$ is a determinant in which there are tow equal rows, and hence it is zero. Therefore, $\delta_G(a_1,\dots,a_n)=\sum_{i=1}^na_iA_i\in \mfr(R,G)$.
\[prop2-2\] Let $R$ be a noetherian algebra which is a domain with $1\leq \operatorname{GKdim}(R)<\infty$, and let $G\subseteq \operatorname{Aut}(R)$ be a finite subgroup with $|G|\neq 1$ and $\operatorname{char}\kk\nmid |G|$. If $R$ and $G$ satisfy one of the following conditions, then $\Pty(R,G)\ge1$.
- $R$ is connected graded, the $G$-action preserves the grading of $R$, and the order of $G$ is prime.
- $G$ acts faithfully on the center of $R$.
- $R=\kk_{q_{ij}}[x_1,\dots,x_n]$, $|G|\leq n+1$ and every $g\in G$ acts on $x_1,\dots,x_{n}$ diagonally.
\(i) If $|G|$ is a prime number, then $G$ is a cyclic group. Assume $G=\langle g\rangle$. Since $R$ is noetherian, $\dim R_i<\infty$ for all $i\ge0$. Since the order of $g$ is finite, we may choose a basis $S$ of $R_1$ so that $g$ acts on the basis $S$ diagonally. Thus for any element $a\in S$, $g(a)=\xi a$ for some $p$-th root of unit. Letting all the elements $a_i=a$ in Lemma \[lem2\], we see $a^p\in \mfr(R,G)$. Since $R$ is a domain, $a^p\neq 0$. It follows that $\operatorname{GKdim}(R/\mfr(R,G))\leq \operatorname{GKdim}(R/Ra^pR)\leq \operatorname{GKdim}(R)-1$. Hence $\Pty(R,G)\ge1$.
\(ii) Let $Z(R)$ be the center of $R$. Since $G$ acts on $Z(R)$ faithfully, for any $1\neq g\in G$, there is element $a\in Z(R)$ such that $g(a)\neq a$. Since $R$ is a domain, Proposition \[prop2-1\] asserts that there is a nonzero element $b\in\mfr(R,G)$. The rest of the proof is similar to the case (i).
\(iii) Similar to the above case, the assertion follows from Proposition \[prop2-1\].
The above result shows that in reasonable cases the pertinency of a finite group action is nonzero, which implies the following primeness of the skew group algebra.
\[prop2-3\] Let $R$ be a neotherian locally finite graded algebra which is a domain with $1\leq \operatorname{GKdim}(R)<\infty$. Let $G$ be a nontrivial finite subgroup of $\operatorname{Aut}(R)$ such that the restriction of $G$ to the center of $R$ is faithful. Then the skew group algebra $R*G$ is prime.
By [@BHZ Lemma 3.10], $R*G$ is prime if and only if $\Pty(G,R)\ge1$. Now the result follows from Proposition \[prop2-2\].
The finite group actions of pertinency 1 is of special interest. If $R$ is a polynomial ring, then we have the following version of Shephard-Todd-Chevalley Theorem.
\[prop2-4\] Let $V$ be a finite dimensional vector space, and $R=\kk[V]$ the polynomial algebra. Let $G\subseteq GL(V)$ be a finite subgroup. Then for the invariant subalgebra $R^G$, $\operatorname{gldim}(R^G)<\infty$ if and only if $\Pty(R,G)=1$.
By [@BHZ2 Lemma 7.2], we see that $\operatorname{gldim}(R^G)<\infty$ if and only if $\Pty(R,G)\leq1$. Proposition \[prop2-2\] applies to obtain the desired result.
If $R$ is not commutative, we have the following result.
\[prop2-5\] Let $R$ be a neotherian AS-regular algebra which is a domain and Cohen-Macaulay, and let $G\subseteq\operatorname{Aut}(R)$ be a finite subgroup. Assume that $R$ and $G$ are in one of the cases in Proposition \[prop2-2\]. If $\operatorname{gldim}(R^G)<\infty$, then $\Pty(R,G)=1$.
By [@KKZ Lemmas 1.10 and 1.11], if $R^G$ has finite global dimension, then $R$ is free as a graded right $R^G$-module. Since both $R$ and $R^G$ are connected graded, $R$ can be written as $R\cong R^G\oplus M$ where $M\cong\oplus_{s=1}^n R^G(i_s)$ for some $n$ and $i_s\leq -1$, where $R^G(i_s)$ is a graded $R^G$-module by a shift of degree $i_s$. Hence as a graded algebra $\operatorname{End}_{R^G}(R)$ contains nonzero component of negative degree. So, $\operatorname{End}_{R^G}(R)$ can not be isomorphic to $R*G$ as graded algebras. By [@BHZ Theorem 0.3], $\Pty(R,G)\leq 1$. It follows from Proposition \[prop2-2\] that $\Pty(R,G)=1$.
Group actions with $\Pty(R,G)>1$ {#set4}
================================
Let $G$ be a finite group, and let $R$ be a noetherian left $G$-module algebra. It is possible that the pertinency algebra $\mathfrak{R}(R,G)$ is trivial, that is, $\mfr(R,G)=R$. Indeed, this is the case when $R/R^G$ is a [*Hopf Galois extension*]{} (for the definition, see [@CFM]).
\[prop3-1\] Let $G$ be a finite group and let $R$ be a left $G$-module algebra. Then $\mfr(R,G)=R$ if and only if $R/R^G$ is a Hopf Galois extension.
Let $e=\frac{1}{|G|}\sum_{g\in G} g\in \kk G$. Note that $\mfr(R,G)=R$ if and only if $ReR=R*G$, if and only if $R^G$ and $R$ are Morita equivalent, which is equivalent to the condition that $R/R^G$ is Hopf Galois extension [@CFM Theorem 1.2].
Assume that $R$ has finite GK-dimension. It is clear that if $R/R^G$ is a Hopf Galois extension, then $\Pty(R,G)=\operatorname{GKdim}(R)$. A weak version of a Hopf Galois extension, called a [*Hopf dense Galois extension*]{}, was introduced in [@HVZ]. The next result is a consequence of Lemma \[lem1\] and [@HVZ Proposition 1.3].
Assume that $G$ is a finite group. Let $R$ be a noetherian left $G$-module algebra with finite GK-dimension. Then $R/R^G$ is a Hopf dense Galois extension if and only if $\Pty(R,G)=\operatorname{GKdim}(R)$.
The following result gives an example of Hopf dense Galois extensions.
Let $R=\kk\oplus R_1\oplus R_2\oplus\cdots$ be a neotherian connected graded algebra generated by elements $x_1,\dots,x_m$ of degree one with finite GK-dimension. Let $G$ be the cyclic group generated by the automorphism defined by $\sigma(x_i)=\xi x_i$ for $i=1,\dots,m$, where $\xi$ is an $n$-th primitive root of unity. If $\operatorname{char}\kk\nmid n$, then $\Pty(R,G)=\operatorname{GKdim}(R)$.
For any elements $a_1,\dots,a_n\in R_1$, we see $\sigma(a_i)=\xi a_i$ for $i=1,\dots,n$. By Lemma \[lem2\], we have $a_1a_2\cdots a_n\in \mfr(R,G)$. Note that $R_k=(R_1)^k$ for all $k\ge1$. Then we see $R_n\subseteq \mfr(R,G)$, and hence $R_i\subseteq \mfr(R,G)$ for all $i\ge n$. Therefore the pertinency algebra $\mathfrak{R}(R,G)$ is finite dimensional. Hence $\Pty(R,G)=\operatorname{GKdim}(R)$.
Let $R=\kk_{-1}[x_1,\dots,x_n]$ $(n\ge2)$ be the skew-symmetric algebra. Let $\sigma$ be the automorphism of $R$ defined by $\sigma(x_i)=x_{i+1}$ for $i=1,\dots,n-1$ and $\sigma(x_n)=x_1$. Let $G\leq \operatorname{Aut}(R)$ be the subgroup generated by $\sigma$. The pertinency $\Pty(R,G)$ was computed in [@BHZ]. We give an alternative computation in this paper.
We may choose another set of generators for $R$ so that $\sigma$ acts on the generators diagonally. Let $\xi$ be an $n$-th primitive root of unity. For $j=1,\dots,n$, let $y_j=\sum_{i=1}^n\xi^{ji}x_i$. Then $\{y_1,\dots,y_n\}$ is a set of linear independent generators of $R$, and $\sigma(y_j)=\xi^{-j}y_i$ for $j=1,\dots,n$. For $1\leq k\leq n-1$, we have $$\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}y_j^i\sigma^k(y_j^{n-i})=\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\xi^{-jk(n-i)}y_j^n.$$ If $\gcd(j,n)=1$, then $n\nmid jk$. In this case, $\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\xi^{-jk(n-i)}=0$, and hence $\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}y_j^i\sigma^k(y_j^{n-i})=0$, which in turn implies that the sequences $(1,y_j,\dots,y_j^{n-1})$ and $(y_j^n,y_j^{n-1},\dots,y_j)$ are pertinent under the $G$-action. Hence we have the following result.
\[lem3\] With the notations as above, if $\operatorname{char}\kk\nmid n$ and $\gcd(j,n)=1$, then $y_j^n\in \mfr(R,G)$.
Let $A$ be the subalgebra of $R$ generated by $x_1^2,\dots,x^2_n$. Then $A$ is a subalgebra of the center of $R$. Note that $R$ is finitely generated as an $A$-module. For $j=1,\dots, n$, let $Y_j=\sum_{i=1}^n\xi^{ij}x_i^2$. Then $Y_1,\dots,Y_n$ are linearly independent generators of $R$ (cf. [@BHZ]). Let $A'=A/(A\bigcap \mfr(R,G))$. It is clear that $A'$ is a subalgebra of $\mathfrak{R}(R,G)$ and $\mathfrak{R}(R,G)$ is finitely generated as an $R'$-module since $R$ is finitely generated as an $A$-module. So, $\operatorname{GKdim}(\mathfrak{R}(R,G))=\operatorname{GKdim}(R')$. For $j=1,\dots,n$, we have $y_j^2=\sum_{i=1}^n\xi^{2ij}x_i^2$. For $n+1\leq t\leq 2n$, we set $Y_t=Y_{t-n}$. Then we see $y^2_j=Y_{2j}$ for $j=1,\dots,n$. If $\gcd(j,n)=1$, then $y_j^n\in \mfr(R,G)$ by Lemma \[lem3\], which implies $y_j^{2n}\in \mfr(R,G)$, and hence $Y_{2j}^n\in \mfr(R,G)$. So, we obtain that $Y_{2j}^n=0$ in $R'$ if $\gcd(j,n)=1$. Now let $T$ be the subalgebra of $A'$ generated by elements of the set $\{Y_1,\dots,Y_n\}\setminus\{Y_{2j}|\gcd(j,n)=1\}$. Then $A'$ is finitely generated as a $T$-module. Hence $\operatorname{GKdim}(A')=\operatorname{GKdim}(T)$. Let $t$ be the cardinality of the set $\{Y_{2j}|\gcd(j,n)=1\}$. The commutative subalgebra $T$ is generated by $n-t$ elements. Hence $\operatorname{GKdim}(T)\leq n-t$. Hence $$\Pty(R,G)=n-\operatorname{GKdim}(\mathfrak{R}(R,G))=n-\operatorname{GKdim}(T)\ge t.$$ Note that $$t=\begin{cases} \phi(n), & \hbox{if }4\nmid n;\\
\frac{\phi(n)}{2}, &\hbox{if } 4|n,\end{cases}$$ where $\phi(n):=n \prod_{{\text{all primes $p\mid n$}}}
(1-\frac{1}{p})$ is the Euler’s totient function (cf. [@BHZ]).
Summarizing the above narratives, we have provided a simpler proof for [@BHZ Theorem 5.7(iii)].
[@BHZ] Assume $\operatorname{char}\kk\nmid n$ $(n\ge2)$. Let $R=\kk_{-1}[x_1,\dots,x_n]$, and $G$ the subgroup of $\operatorname{Aut}(A)$ generated by the automorphism $\sigma$ defined by $\sigma(x_i)=x_{i+1}$ for $1\leq i\leq n-1$ and $\sigma(x_n)=x_1$. Then we have $$\Pty(R,G)\ge \begin{cases} \phi(n), &\hbox{if }4\nmid n;\\
\frac{\phi(n)}{2}, & \hbox{if }4\mid n,\end{cases}$$ where $\phi(n):=n \prod_{{\text{all primes $p\mid n$}}}
(1-\frac{1}{p})$ is the Euler’s totient function.
Now we consider the down-up algebra: $R=\kk\langle x,y\rangle/(r_1,r_2)$, where $r_1=x^2y-\alpha xyx-\beta yx^2$ and $r_2=x y^2-\alpha yxy-\beta y^2 x$. The pertinencies of finite group actions on $R$ were computed in [@BHZ2] when $\beta\neq-1$ or $\beta=-1$ but $\alpha=2$. We have the following result.
Let $R$ be a down-up algebra such that $\beta=-1$ and $\alpha\neq 2$. Let $G=\{1,\sigma\}$ where $\sigma$ is the automorphism of $R$ defined by $\sigma(x)=ay$ and $\sigma(y)=a^{-1}x$ with $a\neq 0$. If $\operatorname{char}\kk=0$, then $\Pty(R,G)=3$.
We see that the sequences $(1,-x)$ and $(ay,1)$ are pertinent under the $G$-action. Hence $ay-x\in \mfr(R,G)$. Therefore $x=ay$ in the pertinency algebra $\mathfrak{R}(R,G)$. By definition, $x^2y=\alpha xyx-yx^2$ in $R$, and hence it holds in $\mathfrak{R}(R,G)$. Combining the relations $x=ay$ and $x^2y=\alpha xyx-yx^2$ in $\mathfrak{R}(R,G)$, we see $y^3=0$ in $\mathfrak{R}(R,G)$ since $\alpha\neq 2$. Therefore, $\mathfrak{R}(R,G)$ is finite dimensional. Hence $\Pty(R,G)=3$ as $\operatorname{GKdim}(R)=3$ (cf. [@KMP]).
The pertinency of a permutation group acting on $\kk_{-1}[x_1,\dots, x_n]$ or on a down-up algebra was recently computed by Gaddis, Kirkman, Moore and Won using different methods [@GKMW].
Local cohomology {#sec5}
================
In this section, $A$ is always a noetherian algebra, and $\mfa$ is an ideal of $A$. Denote by $\operatorname{Mod}A$ the category of right $A$-modules, by $\operatorname{Mod}A^\circ$ the category of left $A$-modules, and by $\operatorname{Mod}A^e$ the category of $A$-$A$-bimodules. Let $\Gamma_\mfa=\underrightarrow{\lim}\operatorname{Hom}_A(A/\mfa^n,-):\operatorname{Mod}A\longrightarrow \operatorname{Mod}A$. For $M\in\operatorname{Mod}A$, if $\Gamma_\mfa(M)=M$, then we say that $M$ is an [*$\mfa$-torsion module*]{}. If $\Gamma_\mfa(M)=0$, then we say that $M$ is [*$\mfa$-torsion-free*]{}.
We say that $\mfa$ has the [*right Artin-Rees (AR) property*]{} if one of the following equivalent conditions holds [@MR 4.2.3]
- For every right ideal $\mfb$ of $A$, $\mfb\cap \mfa^n\subseteq \mfb\mfa$ for some $n$.
- For every finitely generated right $A$-module $M$, and every submodule $N\subseteq M$, $N\cap M\mfa^n\subseteq N\mfa$ for some $n$.
- For every finitely generated right $A$-module $M$, and every submodule $N\subseteq M$, and for every integer $s\ge0$, there is an integer $n>0$ such that $N\cap M\mfa^n\subseteq N\mfa^s$.
\[lem-torinj\] Let $A$ be a noetherian algebra, and $\mfa$ an ideal of $A$. Let $I$ be the injective envelope of $N\in\operatorname{Mod}A$.
- If $N$ is $\mfa$-torsion-free, so is $I$.
- Assume further that $\mfa$ has the right AR-property. If $N$ is an $\mfa$-torsion module, so is $I$.
Since $I$ is the injective envelope of $N$, $N$ is an essential submodule of $I$. If $\Gamma_\mfa(I)\neq0$, then $\Gamma_\mfa(I)\cap N\neq 0$. So, if $N$ is $\mfa$-torsion-free, $\Gamma_\mfa(I)$ has to be zero. The statement (i) follows.
\(ii) Take an element $x\in I$. Let $K=N\cap xA$. Then $K$ is an essential submodule of $xA$. Since $A$ is noetherian, $K$ is finitely generated. Since $N$ is an $\mfa$-torsion module, so is $K$. Thus $K\mfa^n=0$ for some $n>0$. By the AR-property, there is an integer $s$ such that $K\cap x\mfa^s\subseteq K\mfa^n=0$. As $K$ is essential in $xA$, it follows that $x\mfa^s=0$. Therefore, $\Gamma_\mfa(I)=I$.
The functor $\Gamma_\mfa$ is left exact. We write the $i$-th right derived functor as $$R^i\Gamma_\mfa=\underrightarrow{\lim}\operatorname{Ext}_A^i(A/\mfa^n,-).$$ Let $M$ be a right $A$-module. Define $$\operatorname{depth}_\mfa(M)=\inf\{i|R^i\Gamma_\mfa(M)\neq0\}\subseteq\mathbb{N}\cup\{\infty\}.$$
\[lem-injres\] Let $M$ be a right $A$-module. Assume $\operatorname{depth}_\mfa(M)=d>0$. Let $0\to M\to I^0\overset{\delta^0}\to I^1\overset{\delta^1}\to\cdots \overset{\delta^n-1}\to I^n\overset{\delta^n}\to\cdots$ be a minimal injective resolution of $M$. Then $I^i$ is $\mfa$-torsion-free for $i<d$.
Since $d>0$, $M$ is $\mfa$-torsion-free. Hence $I^0$ is $\mfa$-torsion-free. Assume $I^i$ $(i<d-1)$ is $\mfa$-torsion-free. If $\Gamma_\mfa(I^{i+1})\neq0$, then $\Gamma_\mfa(I^{i+1})\cap \ker\delta^{i+1}\neq0$. Since $I^i$ is torsion free, $R^{i+1}\Gamma_\mfa(M)=\Gamma_\mfa(I^{i+1})\cap\ker\delta^{i+1}\neq0$, which contradicts with the hypothesis that $\operatorname{depth}_\mfa(M)=d$.
\[lem-sum\] The derived functor $R^i\Gamma_\mfa$ $(i\ge0)$ commutes with direct sums.
Note that $R^i\Gamma_\mfa=\underrightarrow{\lim}\operatorname{Ext}^i_A(A/\mfa^n,-)$. Since $A$ is noetherian, $\operatorname{Ext}^i_A(A/\mfa^n,-)$ commutes with direct sums. The direct limit $\underrightarrow{\lim}$ also commutes with direct sums. Hence $R^i\Gamma_\mfa$ commutes with direct sums.
Let $B$ be another algebra, and let $M$ be a $B$-$A$-bimodule. Then $\Gamma_\mfa(M)$ is a $B$-$A$-bimodule. By taking the injective resolution of the $B$-$A$-bimodule $M$, we see that $R^i\Gamma_\mfa(M)$ is a $B$-$A$-bimodule for every $i\ge0$. In particular, $R^i\Gamma_\mfa(A)$ is an $A$-$A$-bimodule for every $i\ge0$.
\[cor-tens\] Let $B$ be an algebra, and let $P$ be a projective right $B$-module. For every $B$-$A$-bimodule $M$. We have $R^i\Gamma_\mfa(P\otimes_B M)=P\otimes_BR^i\Gamma_\mfa(M)$ for every $i\ge0$.
We write $D(\operatorname{Mod}A)$ for the (unbounded) derived category of right $A$-modules, and $D^b(\operatorname{Mod}A)$ (resp. $D^-(\operatorname{Mod}A)$) for the bounded (resp. bounded above) derived category of right $A$-modules. $M^\cdot$ stands for an object in the derived category of right $A$-modules.
\[thm-locdual\] Let $A$ be a noetherian algebra, and let $\mfa$ be an ideal of $A$. Assume that $\Gamma_\mfa$ has finite cohomological dimension, or $\operatorname{injdim}{}_AA<\infty$ and $\operatorname{injdim}A_A<\infty$. Then we have the following statements.
- For every $M^\cdot\in D^-(\operatorname{Mod}A)$, $$R\Gamma_\mfa(M^\cdot)\cong M^\cdot\otimes_A^L R\Gamma_\mfa(A)$$ in $D^-(\operatorname{Mod}A)$.
- For every $M^\cdot\in D^-(\operatorname{Mod}A)$, $$R\Gamma_\mfa(M^\cdot)^*\cong \operatorname{RHom}_A(M^\cdot,R\Gamma_\mfa(A)^*)$$ in $D^+(\operatorname{Mod}A^\circ)$.
The statement (ii) is similar to [@VdB Theorem 5.1]. We include the proof for the completeness. Assume that $\Gamma_\mfa$ has finite cohomological dimension (the proof is similar for the case that $A$ has finite injective dimension in both sides). Let $0\to I^0\overset{\delta^0}\to \cdots\overset{\delta^{n-1}}\to I^n\overset{\delta^n}\to \cdots$ be an injective resolution of the $A$-$A$-bimodule $A$. Since $\Gamma_\mfa$ has finite cohomological dimension, we see that $\ker \delta^n$ is $\Gamma_\mfa$ acyclic for some $n$. Let $E^i=I^i$ for $0\leq i<n$ and $E^n=\ker\delta^n$. Denote by $E^\cdot$ the complex $0\to E^0\overset{\delta^0}\to \cdots\overset{\delta^{n-2}}\to E^{n-1}\overset{\delta^n}\to E^n\to0$. Then $R\Gamma_\mfa(A)=\Gamma_\mfa(E^\cdot)$. Let $P^\cdot$ be a projective resolution of $M$. We have $$M^\cdot\otimes_A^LR\Gamma_\mfa(A)\cong P^\cdot\otimes_A \Gamma_\mfa(E^\cdot).$$ On the other hand, consider the complex $P^\cdot\otimes_A E^\cdot$. Since $E^\cdot$ is bounded and is quasi-isomorphic to $A$, $P^\cdot\otimes_A E^\cdot$ is quasi-isomorphic to $M^\cdot$. Moreover, each component of the complex $P^\cdot\otimes E^\cdot$ is $\Gamma_\mfa$-acyclic by Corollary \[cor-tens\]. Hence $$R\Gamma_\mfa(M^\cdot)\cong \Gamma_\mfa(P^\cdot\otimes_A E^\cdot)\cong P^\cdot\otimes_A\Gamma_\mfa(E^\cdot).$$ Hence (i) follows. Finally, applying the functor $(\ )^*$ to the isomorphism in (i), we obtain Statement (ii).
Quotient categories {#sec-quot}
===================
Let $A$ be a noetherian algebra, and let $\mfa$ be an ideal of $A$. We write $\operatorname{Tor}_\mfa A$ for the full subcategory of $\operatorname{Mod}A$ consisting of $\mfa$-torsion modules. Then $\operatorname{Tor}_\mfa A$ is a localizing subcategory of $\operatorname{Mod}A$. Define $$\QMod_\mfa A=\frac{\operatorname{Mod}A}{\operatorname{Tor}_\mfa A}.$$ The category $\QMod_\mfa A$ is an abelian category. For any module $M\in \operatorname{Mod}A$, we write $\mathcal{M}$ for the corresponding object in $\QMod_\mfa A$ through the natural projection functor $\pi:\operatorname{Mod}A\to \QMod_\mfa A$. Since $\operatorname{Tor}_\mfa A$ is a localizing subcategory of $\operatorname{Mod}A$, the projection functor $\pi$ has a right adjoint functor $\omega:\QMod_\mfa A\longrightarrow \operatorname{Mod}A$. For $M,N\in\operatorname{Mod}A$, the hom-set in $\QMod_\mfa A$ is defined by $$\operatorname{Hom}_{\QMod_\mfa A}(\mathcal{N},\mathcal{M})=\underrightarrow{\lim}\operatorname{Hom}_A(N',M/\Gamma_\mfa(M))$$ where the limit runs over all the submodules $N'$ of $N$ such that $N/N'$ is $\mfa$-torsion. Assume that $N$ is a finitely generated $A$-module. If $N/N'$ is $\mfa$-torsion, then there is an integer $n$ such that $N\mfa^n\subseteq N'$. Hence, in this case, $$\label{eq1}
\operatorname{Hom}_{\QMod_\mfa A}(\mathcal{N},\mathcal{M})=\underset{n\to\infty}{\lim}\operatorname{Hom}_A(N\mfa^n,M/\Gamma_\mfa(M)).$$ We refer the reader to the book [@P] for the basic properties of the quotient category $\QMod_\mfa A$.
In the rest of this section, $R$ is a noetherian algebra, and $G$ is a finite group acting on $R$ so that $R$ is a left $G$-module algebra. Let $B=R*G$ be the skew group algebra. Let $\mfr=\mfr(G,R)$ be the $G$-radical of $R$. Set $A=R^G$ and $\mfa=\mfr\cap A$. Then $A$ is a noetherian algebra and $\mfa$ is an ideal of $A$. Let $e=\frac{1}{|G|}\sum_{g\in G} g$. Then $A$ is isomorphic to $eBe$ through the isomorphism $A\to eBe, a\mapsto a\otimes e$. Set $\mfb=\mfr\otimes \kk G$. Since the radical $\mfr$ is stable under the $G$-action, $\mfb$ is an ideal of $B$.
The following facts are easy.
\[lem-tortrans\]
- $\mfb^n=\mfr^n\otimes \kk G$.
- If $M$ is a right $B$-module, then $\Gamma_\mfr(M)$ is a right $B$-submodule of $M_B$. Moreover, $\Gamma_\mfb(M)=\Gamma_\mfr(M)$ as right $B$-modules.
Since $A$ is a subalgebra of $R$, $\mfa R$ is a right ideal of $R$. In general, $\mfa R$ is not a two-sided ideal of $R$.
We say that $\mfa$ and $\mfr$ are [*cofinal*]{}, if (i) $\mfa R=R\mfa$, and (ii) the filtrations $R\supseteq \mfa R\supseteq \mfa^2 R\supseteq\cdots\supseteq \mfa^n R\supseteq\cdots$ and $R\supseteq \mfr \supseteq \mfr^2 \supseteq\cdots\supseteq \mfr^n\supseteq\cdots$ defined by the ideals $\mfa R$ and $\mfr$ of $R$, are cofinal, or equivalently, for each $s$, there is an integer $n$ such that $\mfr^n\subseteq \mfa^sR$.
\[lem-cofin\] Let $R$ and $G$ be as above. Assume that $\mfa$ and $\mfr$ are cofinal.
- If $N$ is an $\mfa$-torsion right $A$-module, then $\operatorname{Hom}_A(R,N)$ is a $\mfb$-torsion right $B$-module.
- If in addition, $\mfa$ has the right the right AR-property, then $\operatorname{Ext}_A^i(R,N)$ is a $\mfb$-torsion right $B$-module for all $i\ge0$.
\(i) For every $f\in\operatorname{Hom}_A(R,N)$, by Lemma \[lem-tortrans\], we only need to show that $f\mfr^n=0$ for some $n$. Note that $R_A$ is finitely generated. We assume that $R=r_1A+\dots+r_tA$ for some $r_1,\dots,r_t\in R$. Since $N$ is $\mfa$-torsion, there is an integer $s$ such that $f(r_i)\mfa^s=0$ for all $i=1,\dots,t$. Since $\mfa$ and $\mfr$ are cofinal, there is an integer $n$ such that $\mfr^n\subseteq R\mfa^s$. Now for every $x\in R$, we have $(f\mfr^n)(x)= f(\mfr^n x)\subseteq f(\mfr^n)\subseteq f(R\mfa^s)=f(r_1\mfa^s+\cdots+r_t\mfa^s)=f(r_1)\mfa^s+\cdots+f(r_t)\mfa^s=0$. It follows that $f\mfr^n=0$. Hence $\operatorname{Hom}_A(R,N)$ is a $\mfb$-torsion module.
\(ii) Take a minimal injective resolution $0\to N\to I^0\to I^1\to\cdots$. Since $\mfa$ has the right AR-property, $I^i$ is $\mfa$-torsion for all $i\ge0$ by Lemma \[lem-torinj\]. By (i), $\operatorname{Hom}_A(R,I^i)$ is $\mfb$-torsion. Hence $\operatorname{Ext}^i_A(R,N)$ is $\mfb$-torsion for all $i\ge0$.
Consider the exact functor $-\otimes_B R:\operatorname{Mod}B\longrightarrow \operatorname{Mod}A$. Since $R$ is isomorphic to $Be$ through the isomorphism $R\to Be,r\mapsto r\otimes e$. By Lemma \[lem-tortrans\](i), $M\otimes_B R$ is an $\mfa$-torsion module if $M_B$ is a $\mfb$-torsion module since $\mfa=\mfr\cap A$. Hence $-\otimes_BR$ induces an exact functor: $$-\otimes_\mathcal{B}\mathcal{R}:\QMod_\mfb B\longrightarrow \QMod_\mfa A.$$
\[thm-equiv\] Let $R$ and $G$ be as above. Assume that $\mfa$ and $\mfr$ are cofinal, and $\mfa$ has the right AR-property.
- The functor $\operatorname{Hom}_A(R,-):\operatorname{Mod}A\longrightarrow \operatorname{Mod}B$ induces a functor $$\operatorname{Hom}_\mathcal{A}(\mathcal{R},-):\QMod_\mfa A\longrightarrow \QMod_\mfb B.$$
- The functors $-\otimes_\mathcal{B}\mathcal{R}$ and $\operatorname{Hom}_\mathcal{A}(\mathcal{R},-)$ are quasi-inverse to each other.
\(i) By Lemma \[lem-cofin\], we see that $\operatorname{Hom}_A(R,-)$ sends $\mfa$-torsion modules to $\mfb$-torsion modules. Let $f:M_A\to N_A$ be a morphism in $\operatorname{Mod}A$ such that $\ker f$ and $\operatorname{coker}f$ are $\mfa$-torsion modules. We show next that the kernel and cokernel of the morphism $f_*=\operatorname{Hom}_A(R,f):\operatorname{Hom}_A(R,M)\to \operatorname{Hom}_A(R,N)$ are $\mfb$-torsion. By Lemma \[lem-cofin\], $\ker f_*=\operatorname{Hom}_A(R,\ker f)$ is $\mfb$-torsion. Consider the exact sequences: $$\label{ex1}
0\to\ker f\to M\overset{g}\to K\to0,$$ $$\label{ex2}
0\to K\overset{\iota}\to N\to \operatorname{coker}f\to 0,$$ where $K=\operatorname{im}f$, $\iota$ is the inclusion map and $g$ is the natural morphism induced by $f$. By the exact sequence (\[ex1\]), we have an exact sequence $0\to \operatorname{Hom}_A(R,\ker f)\to \operatorname{Hom}_A(R,M)\overset{g_*}\to \operatorname{Hom}_A(R,K)\to \operatorname{Ext}^1_A(R,\ker f)$. Since $\mfa$ has the right AR-property and $\ker f$ is $\mfa$-torsion, $\operatorname{Ext}^1_A(R,\ker f)$ is $\mfb$-torsion by Lemma \[lem-cofin\]. Hence the quotient module $\operatorname{Hom}_A(R,K)/\operatorname{im}g_*$ is a $\mfb$-torsion $B$-module. By the exact sequence (\[ex2\]), we see that the quotient module $\operatorname{Hom}_A(R,N)/\operatorname{im}\iota_*$ is a $\mfb$-torsion $B$-module since it is a submodule of the $\mfb$-torsion module $\operatorname{Hom}_A(R,\operatorname{coker}f)$. Note that $f_*=\iota_*g_*$. Thus $\operatorname{im}f_*=\iota_*(\operatorname{im}g_*)$. Hence we have a short exact sequence $$0\longrightarrow \operatorname{im}\iota_*/\operatorname{im}f_*\longrightarrow\operatorname{Hom}_A(R,N)/\operatorname{im}f_*\longrightarrow\operatorname{Hom}_A(R,N)/\operatorname{im}\iota_*\longrightarrow 0.$$ Since $\iota_*$ is injective, we have $\operatorname{im}\iota_*/\operatorname{im}f_*\cong \operatorname{Hom}_A(R,K)/\operatorname{im}g_*$. As both the first term and the third term are $\mfb$-torsion, the middle term is $\mfb$-torsion as well, which is isomorphic to $\operatorname{coker}f_*$. Now by the definition of the quotient categories, we see that the functor $\operatorname{Hom}_A(R,-)$ induces a functor between the quotient categories as desired.
\(ii) Note that $R$ is isomorphic to $Be$ through the map $r\mapsto r\otimes e$, and $A$ is isomorphic to $eBe$ via the map $a\mapsto a\otimes e$. in subsequent, we identify the $B$-$A$-bimodule $R$ with $Be$ via the above maps.
For any $N\in \operatorname{Mod}A$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{Hom}_A(R,N)\otimes_BR&\cong& \operatorname{Hom}_{eBe}(Be,N)\otimes_B Be\\
&\cong& \operatorname{Hom}_{eBe}(Be,N)\otimes_B\operatorname{Hom}_B(eB,B)\\
&\cong&\operatorname{Hom}_B(eB,\operatorname{Hom}_{eBe}(Be,N))\\
&\cong&\operatorname{Hom}_{eBe}(eB\otimes_B Be,N)\\
&\cong& N.\end{aligned}$$ Hence we obtain that $\operatorname{Hom}_\mathcal{A}(\mathcal{R},\mathcal{N})\otimes_\mathcal{B}\mathcal{R}$ is naturally isomorphic to $\mathcal{N}$.
For a $B$-module $M$, we have $\operatorname{Hom}_{\mathcal{A}}(\mathcal{R},\mathcal{M}\otimes_\mathcal{B}\mathcal{R})=\pi(\operatorname{Hom}_A(R,M\otimes_BR))$. Similarly we have the following isomorphisms: $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{Hom}_A(R,M\otimes_BR)&\cong&\operatorname{Hom}_{eBe}(Be,M\otimes_B Be)\\
&\cong&\operatorname{Hom}_{eBe}(Be,\operatorname{Hom}_B(eB,M))\\
&\cong& \operatorname{Hom}_B(Be\otimes_{eBe}eB,M).\end{aligned}$$ Consider the exact sequence $$\label{ex3}
0\to L\to Be\otimes_{eBe}eB\overset{m}\to BeB\to0,$$ $$\label{ex4}
0\to BeB\overset{\tau}\to B\to B/BeB\to0,$$ where $m$ is the multiplication of the algebra $B$, $\tau$ is the inclusion map and $L$ is the kernel of $m$.
Since $\mfb\subseteq BeB$, $B/BeB$ is $\mfb$-torsion on both sides. Applying the functors $-\otimes_B Be$ and $eB\otimes_B-$ to the exact sequence (\[ex3\]), we obtain that $Le=0$ and $eL=0$. Hence $L$ is $\mfb$-torsion both as a right $B$-module and as a left $B$-module. Since $B$ is noetherian and $Be$ is finitely generated as an $eBe$-module, both $B/BeB$ and $L$ are finitely generated as right $B$-modules. It follows from the exact sequences (\[ex3\]), (\[ex4\]) and Lemma \[lem-Btor\] below, that the kernels and cokernels of both maps $\operatorname{Hom}_B(\tau,M):M\longrightarrow \operatorname{Hom}_B(BeB,M)$ and $\operatorname{Hom}_B(m,M):\operatorname{Hom}_B(BeB,M)\longrightarrow\operatorname{Hom}_B(Be\otimes_{eBe} eB, M)$ are $\mfb$-torsion. Therefore, we obtain a natural isomorphism in $\QMod_\mfb B$: $$\pi(\operatorname{Hom}_B(Be\otimes_{eBe}eB,M))\cong \mathcal{M}.$$ Hence we have a natural isomorphism $\operatorname{Hom}_{\mathcal{A}}(\mathcal{R},\mathcal{M}\otimes_\mathcal{B}\mathcal{R})\cong \mathcal{M}$.
\[lem-Btor\] Assume that $X$ is a $B$-$B$-bimodule which is finitely generated as a right $B$-module. If $X$ is $\mfb$-torsion as a left $B$-module, then $\operatorname{Ext}^j_B(X,M)$ is a $\mfb$-torsion right $B$-module for all $i\ge0$ and any right $B$-module $M$.
Since $X$ is finitely generated as a right $B$-module, we have $X=x_1B+\cdots+x_tB$ for some $x_1,\dots,x_t\in X$. As $X$ is $\mfb$-torsion as a left $B$-module, there is an integer $n$ such that $\mfb^mx_i=0$ for all $i=1,\dots,t$. For any element $f\in \operatorname{Hom}_B(X,M)$, we have $(f\mfb^n)(x_i)=f(\mfb^n x_i)=0$ for $i=1,\dots,t$. Hence $\operatorname{Hom}_B(X,M)$ is $\mfb$-torsion. Now take an injective resolution $0\to M\to I^0\to I^2\to\cdots$. We see that $\operatorname{Hom}_B(X,I^j)$ is $\mfb$-torsion for all $j\ge0$. Hence $\operatorname{Ext}^j_B(X,M)$ is $\mfb$-torsion for all $j\ge0$.
It is known that any ideal of a noetherian commutative algebra has the AR-property (cf. [@M Theorem 8.5]). The condition that $\mfa$ and $\mfr$ are cofinal in the above theorem is necessary when the algebra $R$ is commutative.
\[thm-commeq\] Assume that $R$ is a noetherian commutative algebra and $G$ is a finite group acting on $R$ by automorphisms. Then the following are equivalent.
- The functor $-\otimes_\mathcal{B}\mathcal{R}:\QMod_\mfb B\longrightarrow \QMod_\mfa A$ is an equivalence of abelian categories.
- The ideal $\mfa$ of $A$ and the ideal $\mfr$ of $R$ are cofinal.
That (ii) implies (i) has been proved in Theorem \[thm-equiv\]. Now assume that (i) holds. Write $\mathcal{F}$ for $-\otimes_\mathcal{B}\mathcal{R}$. For $s\ge0$, let $M=R/\mfa^sR$. Note that $\mfa^sR$ is a right $B$-submodule of $R$. Hence $M$ is a right $B$-module. Then $\mathcal{F}(\mathcal{M})=\pi(M\otimes_B R)=0$ since $(M\otimes_BR)\mfa^s=M\otimes_BR\mfa^s=M\mfa^s\otimes_BR=0$. Therefore $\mathcal{M}=0$, equivalently, $M$ is an $\mfr$-torsion module. Since $M$ is finitely generated, there is an integer $n$ such that $M\mfr^n=0$, that is, $\mfr^n\subseteq \mfa^sR$.
Let $R=\kk[x,y]$ and let $G=\{1,g\}$ where $g$ is the automorphism of $R$ defined by $g(x)=-x$ and $g(y)=-y$. It is easy to see that $(1,x)$ and $(x,1)$ are pertinent, hence $x\in \mfr(R,G)$. Similarly, $y\in \mfr(R,G)$. Therefore $\mfr:=\mfr(R,G)=Rx+Ry$. The invariant subalgebra $A:=R^G$ is the subalgebra of $R$ consisting of elements of even degrees (here, we view $x$ and $y$ of degree 1). Then $\mfa=\mfr\cap A=Ax^2+Ay^2+Axy$. Now it is easy to see that $\mfa$ and $\mfr$ are cofinal.
\[ex5\] Let $R=\kk_{-1}[x,y,z]$, and let $G=\{1,g\}$ where $g$ is the automorphism of $R$ defined by $g(x)=x$, $g(y)=-y$ and $g(z)=-z$. Then the invariant subalgebra $A=\kk[x,y^2,z^2,yz]$. As in the above example, $y,z$ are in the $G$-radical $\mfr=\mfr(R,G)$. Let $\mathfrak{i}=Ry+Rz$. Then $\mathfrak{i}\subseteq\mfr$. Note that $\mathfrak{i}$ is closed under $G$-action, hence $R/\mathfrak{i}$ is a $G$-module algebra. One sees that the induced $G$-action on $\kk[x]\cong R/\mathfrak{i}$ is trivial. Hence by Lemma \[lem-min\], $\mathfrak{i}=\mfr$. Then $\mfa=\mfr\cap A=Ay^2+Az^2+Ayz$. Since $A$ is commutative, $\mfa$ has the (right) AR-property. Moreover, one sees that $\mfa$ and $\mfr$ are cofinal.
Let $R=\kk_{-1}[x,y,z]$, and let $G=\{1,g,g^2\}$ where $g$ is the automorphism of $R$ defined by $g(y)=\omega y$ and $g(z)=\omega^2 z$ in which $\omega$ is a third primitive root of unity. Then it is easy to see that the invariant subaglebra $A$ is generated by $x,y^3,z^3,yz$. We next compute the $G$-radical of $R$. An easy computation shows $(y^2,y,1)\overset{G}\sim(1,y,y^2)$, $(z^2,z,1)\overset{G}\sim(1,z,z^2)$ and $(yz,-z,y)\overset{G}\sim(1,y,z)$. Hence $y^2,z^2,yz\in \mfr$. Let $\mathfrak{i}$ be the ideal of $R$ generated by $y^2,z^2,yz$. Then $\mathfrak{i}\subseteq \mfr$. Consider the quotient algebra $R/\mathfrak{i}$. Note that $R/\mathfrak{i}$ is also a $G$-module algebra and the invariant subalgebra is isomorphic to $\kk[x]$. As a left $\kk[x]$-module, $R/\mathfrak{i}$ is isomorphic to $\kk[x]\oplus \kk[x]y\oplus \kk[x]z$. By Proposition \[prop-ss\], $R/\mathfrak{i}$ is $G$-semisimple. By Lemma \[lem-min\], $\mfr=\mathfrak{i}$. Then $\mfa=\mfr\cap A=A y^3+Az^3+Ayz$. Since $y^3,z^3,yz$ are normal elements in $A$, $\mfa$ has the right AR-property (cf. [@MR Proposition 4.2.6]). Also, it is easy to see that $\mfa$ and $\mfr$ are cofinal.
Relative Cohen-Macaulay algebras {#sec6}
================================
Let $R$ be a noetherian algebra, and let $G$ be a finite group acting on $R$ by automorphims. Let $A=R^G$ be the invariant subalgebra. As before, $\mfr=\mfr(R,G)$ is the $G$-radical of $R$ and $\mfa=\mfr\cap A$. Set $B=R*G$ and $\mfb=\mfr\otimes\kk G$.
\[set\] In this section, we assume that the following conditions hold:
- $\mfa$ has the right AR-property;
- $\mfa$ and $\mfr$ are cofinal.
\[rem1\] If $\mfa=a_1A+\cdots+a_sA$, where $a_1,\dots,a_s$ are normal elements both in $A$ and in $R$, then Setup \[set\](i) is automatically satisfied.
\[lem-ARpro\] Both ideals $\mfr$ and $\mfb$ have the right AR-property.
Let $M$ be a finitely generated right $R$-module, and let $N$ be a $B$-submodule of $M$. Since $R$ is finitely generated as a right $A$-module, both $M$ and $N$ are finitely generated as right $A$-modules. By Setup \[set\](ii), $\mfa R=R\mfa$. Let $I=R\mfa$. Then $I^n=R\mfa^n$ for $n>0$. Hence $MI^n=M\mfa^n$. Since $\mfa$ has the right AR-property, $MI^n\cap N=M\mfa^n\cap N\subseteq N\mfa\subseteq NI$ for some $n>0$. Therefore $I$ has the right AR-property. Since the filtrations $I\supseteq I^2\supseteq\cdots\supseteq I^n\supseteq\cdots$ and $\mfr\supseteq\mfr^2\supseteq\cdots\supseteq\mfr^n\supseteq\cdots$ are cofinal, it follows that $\mfr$ has the right AR-property.
Similarly, we may show that $\mfb$ has the right AR-property by noticing that $K\mfb^n=K\mfr^n$ for every finitely generated right $B$-module $K$.
Let $M$ be a right $A$-module, and let $$\label{eq-res}
0\to M\to I^0\overset{\delta^0}\to I^{1}\overset{\delta^1}\to\cdots\to I^i\overset{\delta^j}\to\cdots$$ be an injective resolution of $M$. Let $T^i=\Gamma_\mfa(I^i)$ for each $i$. By Lemma \[lem-torinj\], we see that $T^i$ is an injective $\mfa$-torsion module. Hence, for each $i\ge0$, we have a decomposition $I^i=T^i\oplus E^i$ where $E^i$ is an $\mfa$-torsion-free injective module. The differential $\delta^i$ has a decomposition $\delta^i=\delta^i_E+\delta^i_T+f^i$ where $\delta_E^i:E^i\longrightarrow E^{i+1}$, $\delta_T^i::T^i\longrightarrow T^{i+1}$ and $f^i: E^i\longrightarrow T^{i+1}$. Since $\delta^{i+1}\delta^i=0$, we have $\delta_E^{i+1}\delta_E^i=0$, $\delta_T^{i+1}\delta_T^i=0$ and $f^{i+1}\delta^i_T+\delta^{i+1}_Ef^i=0$. Let $E^\cdot$ (resp. $T^\cdot$) denote the complex with differential $\delta^\cdot_E$ (resp. $\delta_T^\cdot$). Then $$\label{eq-resdec}
f^\cdot:E^\cdot[-1]\longrightarrow T^\cdot$$ is a morphism of complex, and the injective resolution $I^\cdot=cone(f^\cdot)$.
\[lem-locoh\] With the notions as above, $R^i\Gamma_\mfa(M)=H^i(T^\cdot)$ for all $i\ge0$, where $H^i(-)$ is the $i$-th cohomology of the complex.
Recall from Section \[sec-quot\] that $\pi$ is the projection functor $\operatorname{Mod}A\longrightarrow \QMod_\mfa A$, and its right adjoint functor is $\omega:\QMod_\mfa A\longrightarrow\operatorname{Mod}A$. For $M\in \operatorname{Mod}A$, we write $\mathcal{M}$ for the object $\pi(M)$. From the decomposition of the injective resolution (\[eq-res\]) of $M$ above, we obtain an injective resolution of $\mathcal{M}$ in $\QMod_\mfa A$ (cf. [@P Corollary 5.4]) $$0\to \mathcal{M}\to \mathcal{E}^0\to\mathcal{E}^1\to\cdots\to\mathcal{E}^i\to\cdots$$ where $\mathcal{E}^i=\pi(E^i)$ for all $i\ge0$.
\[lem-secfun\] With the notions as above, $\operatorname{Ext}^i_{\QMod_\mfa A}(\mathcal{A},\mathcal{M})\cong H^i(E^\cdot)$ for all $i\ge0$.
Applying the functor $\operatorname{Hom}_{\QMod_\mfa A}(\mathcal{A},-)$ to the injective resolution $\mathcal{E}^\cdot$, we obtain a complex $\operatorname{Hom}_{\QMod_\mfa A}(\mathcal{A},\mathcal{E}^\cdot)$. Since $E^i$ is $\mfa$-torsion-free and injective for all $i\ge0$, we have a natural isomorphism $\omega(\pi(E^i))\cong E^i$. Hence we have natural isomorphisms $\operatorname{Hom}_{\QMod_\mfa A}(\mathcal{A},\mathcal{E}^i)\cong \operatorname{Hom}_A(A,\omega(\pi(E^i)))\cong E^i$. Therefore we have an isomorphism of complexes $\operatorname{Hom}_{\QMod_\mfa A}(\mathcal{A},\mathcal{E}^\cdot)\cong E^\cdot$.
\[prop-finloc\] If $R$ has finite global dimension, then the torsion functor $\Gamma_\mfa$ has finite cohomological dimension.
Assume that the global dimension of $R$ is $d$. For $N\in\operatorname{Mod}B$, let $0\to N\to Q^0\to \cdots\to Q^d\to0$ be an injective resolution. By Lemma \[lem-ARpro\], $\mfb$ has the right AR-property. Hence the injective envelope of a $\mfb$-torsion $B$-module is still $\mfb$-torsion by Lemma \[lem-torinj\]. By [@P Corollary 5.4], $0\to\pi(N)\to\pi(Q^0)\to\cdots\to\pi(Q^d)\to0$ is an injective resolution in $\QMod_\mfb B$. Hence the global dimension of $\QMod_\mfb B$ is not larger than $d$. Setup \[set\] implies that the conditions in Theorem \[thm-equiv\] are satisfied. Hence the abelian categories $\QMod_\mfa A$ and $\QMod_\mfb B$ are equivalent. Therefore, the global dimension $\QMod_\mfa A$ is not larger than $d$.
For $M\in\operatorname{Mod}A$, let $$0\to M\to I^0\overset{\delta^0}\to I^{1}\overset{\delta^1}\to\cdots\to I^i\overset{\delta^j}\to\cdots$$ be an injective resolution. As we have seen that $I^\cdot=cone(f^\cdot)$ where $f^\cdot:E^\cdot\to T^\cdot$ is the morphism given in (\[eq-resdec\]). Since the global dimension of $\QMod_\mfa A$ is not larger than $d$, we have $\operatorname{Ext}_{\QMod_\mfa A}^i(\pi(A),\pi(M))=0$ for all $i>d$. Then Lemma \[lem-secfun\] implies that $H^i(E^
\cdot)=0$ for $i>d$. From the exact sequence $0\to T^\cdot\to I^\cdot\to E^\cdot\to0$ of complexes, we obtain that $H^i(T^\cdot)=0$ for $i>d+1$. Now $R^i\Gamma_\mfa(M)=H^i(\underset{n\to\infty}\lim\operatorname{Hom}_A(A/\mfa^n, I^\cdot))=H^i(T^\cdot)=0$ for $i>d+1$. Therefore $\Gamma_\mfa$ has finite cohomological dimension.
Note that the global dimension of the invariant subaglebra $A$ is often infinite even if the global dimension of $R$ is finite. For example, it is well known that a nontrivial finite subgroup of the special linear group $SL_n(\kk)$ acting on the polynomial algebra $\kk[x_1,\dots,x_n]$ yields a Gorenstein invariant subalgebra with infinite global dimension. More general, it is known that a finite group acting on an Artin-Schelter regular algebra with trivial homological determinant gives rise to an Artin-Schelter Gorenstein invariant subalgebra (cf. [@JZ]). Hence it is reasonable to consider the Cohen-Macaulay modules over the invariant subalgebra. Similar to the concept introduced in (cf. [@Z; @CH]), we make the following definition.
We say that the invariant subalgebra $A=R^G$ is (right) [*$\mfa$-Cohen-Macaulay of dimension $d$*]{} if $R^i\Gamma_\mfa(A)=0$ for $i\neq d$.
Recall from Example \[ex5\] that the ideals $\mfa$ and $\mfr$ satisfy the conditions in Setup \[set\]. Note that $y^2,z^2,yz$ are normal elements in $R$. The invariant subalgebra $A=\kk[x,y^2,z^2,yz]=\kk[x]\otimes \Lambda$ where $\Lambda=\kk[u,v,w]/(uv-w^2)$. Under this isomorphism, $\mfa\cong \kk[x]\otimes \mathfrak{m}$ where $\mathfrak{m}=\Lambda u+\Lambda v+\Lambda w$. It is well known that $\Lambda$ has injective dimension $2$. Moreover, $R^i\Gamma_\mathfrak{m}(\Lambda)=0$ for $i=0,1$ and $R^2\Gamma_\mathfrak{m}(\Lambda)=E(\kk)$, where $E(\kk)$ is the injective envelope of the trivial module $\kk$. Thus, we have: $$R^i\Gamma_\mfa(A)\cong \underset{n\to\infty}\lim\operatorname{Ext}_{\kk[x]\otimes \Lambda}^i(\kk[x]\otimes \Lambda/\mathfrak{m}^n,\kk[x]\otimes\Lambda)\cong\kk[x]\otimes\underset{n\to\infty}\lim\operatorname{Ext}_{\Lambda}^i(\Lambda/\mathfrak{m}^n,\Lambda).$$ Hence $R^i\Gamma_\mfa(A)=0$ for $i\neq 2$ and $R^2\Gamma_\mfa(A)\cong \kk[x]\otimes E(\kk)$.
\[thm-finproinj\] Assume that $R$ has finite global dimension and $A$ is $\mfa$-Cohen-Macaulay of dimension $d$. Set $D=R^d\Gamma_\mfa(A)$. For $M\in\operatorname{Mod}A$, $$R^i\Gamma_\mfa(M)\cong \operatorname{Tor}_{d-i}^A(M,D)$$ for all $i\ge0$.
By Proposition \[prop-finloc\] and Theorem \[thm-locdual\], we have $R\Gamma_\mfa(M)\cong M\otimes_A^LR\Gamma_\mfa(A)\cong M\otimes_A^L D[-d]$. Taking the cohomology of the complexes, we obtain the desired isomorphisms.
Extension groups in the quotient categories {#sec7}
===========================================
Let $S$ be a noetherian algebra, and let $\mathfrak{s}$ be an ideal of $S$. Assume that $\mathfrak{s}$ has the right AR-property. We have the following computation of extension groups in the quotient category.
\[lem-qext\] If $N$ is a finitely generated right $S$-module and $M$ is a right $S$-module, then $\operatorname{Ext}^i_{\QMod_{\mathfrak{s}} S}(\mathcal{N},\mathcal{M})=\underset{n\to\infty}\lim\operatorname{Ext}^i_S(N\mathfrak{s}^n,M)$ for $i\ge0$.
Let $T$ be an injective $\mathfrak{s}$-torsion $S$-module. We claim $\underset{n\to\infty}\lim\operatorname{Hom}_S(N\mathfrak{s}^n,T)=0$. Indeed, applying the functor $\operatorname{Hom}_S(-,T)$ to the exact sequence $0\to N\mathfrak{s}^n\to N\to N/N\mathfrak{s}^n\to0$, we obtain the exact sequence $0\to \operatorname{Hom}_S(N/N\mathfrak{s}^n,E)\to\operatorname{Hom}_S(N,T)\to \operatorname{Hom}_S(N\mathfrak{s}^n,T)\to0$. Taking the direct limit we have $$0\to \underset{n\to\infty}\lim\operatorname{Hom}_S(N/N\mathfrak{s}^n,E)\to\operatorname{Hom}_S(N,T)\to \underset{n\to\infty}\lim\operatorname{Hom}_S(N\mathfrak{s}^n,T)\to0.$$ Since $N$ is finitely generated, for any $S$-module homomorphism $f:N\to T$, there is an integer $n$ such that $f(N\mathfrak{s}^n)=f(N)\mathfrak{s}^n=0$. Hence $N\mathfrak{s}^n\subseteq \ker f$. Therefore, $f:N\to T$ factors though $N/N\mathfrak{s}^n$. Thus the morphism $\underset{n\to\infty}\lim\operatorname{Hom}_S(N/N\mathfrak{s}^n,T)\to\operatorname{Hom}_S(N,T)$ in the exact sequence above is an epimorphism. So, the claim holds.
We continue to prove the lemma. Take a minimal injective resolution of the right $S$-module $M$ as follows: $$\label{eq-1inj}
0\to M\to I^0\to I^2\to\cdots\to I^k\to\cdots.$$ Since $\mathfrak{s}$ has the right AR-property, the injective module $I^i$ $(i\ge0)$ has a decomposition $I^i=T^i\oplus E^k$ with $T^i$ a $\mathfrak{s}$-torsion submodule and $E^i$ a $\mathfrak{s}$-torsion free submodule. Applying the projection functor $\pi:\operatorname{Mod}S\longrightarrow\QMod_\mathfrak{s} S$ to the projective resolution (\[eq-inj\]), we obtain the following exact sequence $$\label{eq-1injq}
0\to \mathcal{M}\to \mathcal{E}^0\to \mathcal{E}^2\to\cdots\to \mathcal{E}^i\to\cdots.$$ Since $E^i$ is $\mathfrak{s}$-torsion free, $\mathcal{E}^i$ is injective in $\QMod_\mathfrak{s} S$ for all $i\ge0$. Hence the exact sequence (\[eq-1injq\]) provides an injective resolution of $\mathcal{M}$ in $\QMod_\mathfrak{s} S$. Applying the functor $\operatorname{Hom}_{\QMod_\mathfrak{s} S}(\mathcal{N},-)$ to (\[eq-1injq\]), we have the following complex $$\label{eq-1coh2}
0\to\operatorname{Hom}_{\QMod_\mathfrak{s} S}(\mathcal{N},\mathcal{E}^0)\to\cdots\to \operatorname{Hom}_{\QMod_\mathfrak{s} S}(\mathcal{N},\mathcal{E}^i)\to\cdots.$$ By Equation (\[eq1\]), the complex (\[eq-1coh2\]) is isomorphic to the following complex $$\label{eq-1coh4}
0\to\underset{n\to\infty}\lim\operatorname{Hom}_ S(N\mathfrak{s}^n,E^0)\to\cdots\to \underset{n\to\infty}\lim\operatorname{Hom}_S(N\mathfrak{s}^n,E^i)\to\cdots.$$ By the above claim, (\[eq-1coh4\]) is isomorphic to $$\label{eq-1coh5}
0\to\underset{n\to\infty}\lim\operatorname{Hom}_ S(N\mathfrak{s}^n,E^0\oplus T^0)\to\cdots\to \underset{n\to\infty}\lim\operatorname{Hom}_S(N\mathfrak{s}^n,E^i\oplus T^i)\to\cdots,$$ which is equivalent to $$\label{eq-1coh6}
0\to\underset{n\to\infty}\lim\operatorname{Hom}_ S(N\mathfrak{s}^n,I^0)\to\cdots\to \underset{n\to\infty}\lim\operatorname{Hom}_S(N\mathfrak{s}^n,I^i)\to\cdots.$$ By (\[eq-1inj\]), the $i$-th cohomology of the complex (\[eq-1coh6\]) is $\underset{n\to\infty}\lim\operatorname{Ext}_S^i(N\mathfrak{s}^n,M)$.
Throughout the rest of this section, we let $G$ be a finite group, and let $R$ be a noetherian left $G$-module algebra. As before, write $B=R* G$, $A=R^G$, $\mfr=\mfr(R,G)$, $\mfb=\mfr\otimes \kk G$ and $\mfa=A\cap \mfr$. Assume that the radical $\mfr$ has the right AR-property. It follows from the proof of Lemma \[lem-ARpro\] that $\mfb$ has the right AR-property as well.
Let $N$ and $M$ be $B$-modules. Assume that $N$ is finitely generated. Note that we may view $N$ and $M$ as right $R$-modules. Then there is a right $G$-action $\leftharpoonup$ on $\operatorname{Hom}_R(N,M)$ defined by $$\label{eq-gact}
(f\leftharpoonup g)(n)=f(ng^{-1})g, \text{ for all } g\in G, f\in\operatorname{Hom}_R(N,M), n\in N.$$ With this right $G$-action on $\operatorname{Hom}_R(N,M)$, we have $$\operatorname{Hom}_B(N,M)=\operatorname{Hom}_R(N,M)^G,$$ where the right hand side is the $G$-invariant subspace. Consider the Hom-sets in the quotient categories $\QMod_\mfr R$ and $\QMod_\mfb B$. For any $n\ge0$, $N\mfr^n$ is a right $B$-submodule, and hence $\operatorname{Hom}_R(N\mfr^n,M)$ has a right $G$-action. It is easy to see that the direct limit system $\underset{n\rightarrow\infty}\lim\operatorname{Hom}_R(N\mfr^n,M)$ is compatible with the right $G$-actions. By Lemma \[lem-qext\], $\operatorname{Hom}_{\QMod_\mfr R}(\mathcal{N},\mathcal{M})=\underset{n\rightarrow\infty}\lim\operatorname{Hom}_R(N\mfr^n,M)$ has a right $G$-action. Moreover, since $N\mfr^n=N\mfb^n$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{Hom}_{\QMod_\mfb B}(\mathcal{N},\mathcal{M})&=&\underset{n\rightarrow\infty}\lim\operatorname{Hom}_B(N\mfb^n,M)\\
&=&\underset{n\rightarrow\infty}\lim\operatorname{Hom}_R(N\mfr^n,M)^G\\
&=&(\underset{n\rightarrow\infty}\lim\operatorname{Hom}_R(N\mfr^n,M))^G\\
&=&\operatorname{Hom}_{\QMod R}(\mathcal{N},\mathcal{M})^G,\end{aligned}$$ where the last equality holds because $G$ is a finite group. Summarizing the above arguments, we obtain the the following result.
\[lem-gact\] Let $N$ and $M$ be right $B$-modules. Assume that $N$ is finitely generated. Then there is a right $G$-action on $\operatorname{Hom}_{\QMod_\mfr R}(\mathcal{N},\mathcal{M})$ induced from (\[eq-gact\]). Moreover, we have $$\operatorname{Hom}_{\QMod_\mfb B}(\mathcal{N},\mathcal{M})\cong \operatorname{Hom}_{\QMod R}(\mathcal{N},\mathcal{M})^G.$$
If $M'$ is another $B$-module and $f:M\to M'$ is a $B$-module homomorphism, one sees that $f$ is compatible with the right $G$-module structures on $\operatorname{Hom}_R(N,M)$ and $\operatorname{Hom}_R(N,M')$. Moreover, $f$ is compatible with the direct limit systems in the above narratives. Hence $f$ induces a $G$-module homomorphism $$\operatorname{Hom}_{\QMod_\mfr R}(\mathcal{N},\mathcal{M})\longrightarrow \operatorname{Hom}_{\QMod_\mfr R}(\mathcal{N},\mathcal{M}').$$
Next we show that $\operatorname{Ext}^i_{\QMod R}(\mathcal{N},\mathcal{M})$ has a right $G$-action as well, and the above isomorphism may be extended to the extension groups. Take a minimal injective resolution of the right $B$-module $M$ as follows: $$\label{eq-inj}
0\to M\to I^0\to I^2\to\cdots\to I^k\to\cdots.$$ Since $\mfb$ has the right AR-property, as we have seen in the proof of Lemma \[lem-qext\], the injective module $I^i$ $(i\ge0)$ has a decomposition $I^i=T^i\oplus E^k$ with $T^i$ a $\mfb$-torsion submodule and $E^i$ a $\mfb$-torsion free submodule. Then we have an injective resolution of $\mathcal{M}$ in $\QMod_\mfb B$: $$\label{eq-injq}
0\to \mathcal{M}\to \mathcal{E}^0\to \mathcal{E}^2\to\cdots\to \mathcal{E}^i\to\cdots.$$
\[prop-qext\] Let $N$ and $M$ be right $B$-modules. Assume that $N$ is finitely generated. The following statements hold:
- $\operatorname{Ext}^i_{\QMod_\mfr R}(\mathcal{N},\mathcal{M})$ has a right $G$-action for all $i\ge0$.
- $\operatorname{Ext}^i_{\QMod_\mfr R}(\mathcal{N},\mathcal{M})^G\cong \operatorname{Ext}^i_{\QMod_\mfb B}(\mathcal{N},\mathcal{M})$ for all $i\ge0$.
\(i) Note that a $B$-module is injective if and only if it is injective as an $R$-module (cf. [@HVZ2 Proposition 2.6]). Then we may view (\[eq-inj\]) as an injective resolution of the $R$-module $M$ in $\operatorname{Mod}R$. Since a $B$-module is $\mfb$-torsion free if and only if it is $\mfr$-torsion free as an $R$-module, the exact sequence (\[eq-injq\]) is also an injective resolution of $\mathcal{M}$ in $\QMod_\mfr R$. Applying the functor $\operatorname{Hom}_{\QMod_\mfr R}(\mathcal{N},-)$ to the injective resolution (\[eq-injq\]), we obtain a complex of right $G$-modules $$\label{eq-coh}
0\to\operatorname{Hom}_{\QMod_\mfr R}(\mathcal{N},\mathcal{E}^0)\to\cdots\to \operatorname{Hom}_{\QMod_\mfr R}(\mathcal{N},\mathcal{E}^i)\to\cdots.$$ Taking the cohomology of the above complex, we obtain $\operatorname{Ext}^i_{\QMod_\mfr R}(\mathcal{N},\mathcal{M})$ which inherits the right $G$-module structure on $\operatorname{Hom}_{\QMod_\mfr R}(\mathcal{N},\mathcal{E}^i)$. The statement (i) follows.\
(ii) Applying the functor $\operatorname{Hom}_{\QMod_\mfb B}(\mathcal{N},-)$ to (\[eq-injq\]), we obtain the following complex $$\label{eq-coh2}
0\to\operatorname{Hom}_{\QMod_\mfb B}(\mathcal{N},\mathcal{E}^0)\to\cdots\to \operatorname{Hom}_{\QMod_\mfb B}(\mathcal{N},\mathcal{E}^i)\to\cdots.$$ By Lemma \[lem-gact\], the complex (\[eq-coh2\]) is isomorphic to the following complex $$\label{eq-coh3}
0\to\operatorname{Hom}_{\QMod_\mfr R}(\mathcal{N},\mathcal{E}^0)^G\to\cdots\to \operatorname{Hom}_{\QMod_\mfr R}(\mathcal{N},\mathcal{E}^i)^G\to\cdots.$$ Taking the cohomology of the complex (\[eq-coh3\]), we obtain the desired isomorphisms in (ii).
Recall that a noetherian algebra $S$ with finite GK-dimension is called a [*right GKdim-Cohen-Macaulay algebra*]{} if for any finitely generated right $S$-module $K$, $\operatorname{GKdim}(K)+j_S(K)=\operatorname{GKdim}(S)$, where $j_S(M)=\min\{i|\operatorname{Ext}_S^i(M,S)\neq 0\}$.
Now we return to our noetherian algebra $R$ with a $G$-action. Assume that the GK-dimension on right $R$-modules is exact, that is, if $0\to N\to M\to K\to0$ is an exact sequence of finitely generated right $B$-modules, then $\operatorname{GKdim}(M)=\max\{\operatorname{GKdim}(N),\operatorname{GKdim}(K)\}$. For instance, if $R$ is $\mathbb{Z}$-graded or filtered with an ascending locally finite filtration, then the GK-dimension is exact (cf. [@KL]). For any integer $n\ge1$, we have $\operatorname{GKdim}(R/\mfr)=\operatorname{GKdim}(R/\mfr^n)$. If furthermore, $R$ is right GKdim-Cohen-Macaulay, then $j_R(R/\mfr^n)=\operatorname{GKdim}(R)-\operatorname{GKdim}(R/\mfr^n)=\Pty(R,G)$. We next show that $\operatorname{depth}_{\mfr}(R)$ is often equal to the pertinency $\Pty(R,G)$.
\[prop3-2\] Let $G$ be a finite group, and let $R$ be a noetherian $G$-module algebra with finite GK-dimension. Assume that $R$ is GKdim-Cohen-Macaulay and that the GK-dimension is exact on right $R$-modules. Then $\operatorname{depth}_\mfr(R)=\Pty(R,G)$.
Let $p=\Pty(R,G)$. As we know, $j_R(R/\mfr^n)=p$ for $n>0$. Then $\operatorname{Ext}^i_R(R/\mfr^n,R)=0$ for all $i<p$. Hence $R^i\Gamma_\mfr(R)=\underset{n\to\infty}\lim\operatorname{Ext}^i_R(R/\mfr^n,R)=0$ for all $i<\Pty(R,G)$. Let $0\to R\to I^0\overset{\delta^0}\to I^1\overset{\delta^1}\to\cdots\to I^i\overset{\delta^i}\to\cdots$ be a minimal injective resolution of $R$. By Lemma \[lem-injres\], $I^i$ is $\mfr$-torsion free for all $i<p$. Since $j_R(R/\mfr^n)=p$ for all $n>0$, $\Gamma_\mfr(I^p)\neq0$. Then $\Gamma_\mfr(I^p)\cap \ker \delta^p\neq0$ since $I^\cdot$ is a minimal injective resolution. Since $I^i$ is $\mfr$-torsion free for all $i<p$, it follows that $R^p\Gamma_\mfr(R)=\Gamma_\mfr(I^p)\cap\ker\delta^p\neq0$. Hence $\operatorname{depth}_\mfr(R)=p$.
In Proposition \[prop3-2\], we don’t need the assumption that $\mfr$ has the right AR-property.
The above proposition shows that $R^i\Gamma_\mfr(R)=0$ for $i<\Pty(R,G)$. Sometimes the local homology of $R$ will be concentrated in degree $p=\Pty(R,G)$ as shown in the next example.
Let $R=\kk[x,y,z]$ and let $\sigma$ be the automorphism of $R$ defined by $\sigma(x)=x$, $\sigma(y)=-y$ and $\sigma(z)=-z$. Let $G=\langle \sigma\rangle$. Then $\mfr=\mfr(R,G)=Ry+Rz$, and $\Pty(R,G)=2$. Let $\Lambda=\kk[y,z]$, and $\mathfrak{m}=(y,z)$ the maximal ideal generated by $y,z$. For any $n\ge1$, $R/\mfr^n\cong \kk[x]\otimes \Lambda/\mathfrak{m}^n$. Hence $$\begin{aligned}
R^i\Gamma_\mfr(R)&=&\underset{n\to\infty}\lim\operatorname{Ext}^i_R(R/\mfr^n,R)\\
&=&\underset{n\to\infty}\lim\operatorname{Ext}^i_{\kk[x]\otimes \Lambda}(\kk[x]\otimes\Lambda/\mathfrak{m}^n,\kk[x]\otimes\Lambda)\\
&\cong& \kk[x]\otimes\underset{n\to\infty}\lim\operatorname{Ext}^i_{ \Lambda}(\Lambda/\mathfrak{m}^n,\Lambda).\end{aligned}$$ Now $\underset{n\to\infty}\lim\operatorname{Ext}^i_{ \Lambda}(\Lambda/\mathfrak{m}^n,\Lambda)=0$ for $i\neq 2$, and $\underset{n\to\infty}\lim\operatorname{Ext}^2_{ \Lambda}(\Lambda/\mathfrak{m}^n,\Lambda)\cong E(\kk)$, where $E(\kk)$ is the injective envelope of $\kk$ as a $\Lambda$-module.
\[def-gcm\] Let $G$ be a finite group, and let $R$ be a noetherian $G$-module algebra with finite GK-dimension. If $R^i\Gamma_\mfr(R)=0$ for all $i\neq \Pty(R,G)$, then we call $R$ a [*$G$-Cohen-Macaulay*]{} algebra.
We may now prove the main result of this section. Recall that $B=R*G$, $A=R^G$, $\mfr=\mfr(R,G)$, $\mfb=\mfr\otimes \kk G$ and $\mfa=A\cap \mfr$.
\[thm-gcm\] Let $G$ be a finite group, and $R$ a noetherian left $G$-module algebra with finite GK-dimension. Assume that $R$ satisfies Setup \[set\]. If $R$ is $G$-Cohen-Macaulay, then $A$ is $\mfa$-Cohen-Macaulay of dimension $\Pty(R,G)$.
By Theorem \[thm-equiv\], we have an equivalence of abelian categories $$-\otimes_{\mathcal{B}}\mathcal{R}:\QMod_\mfa A\longrightarrow \QMod_\mfb B.$$ Under this equivalence, the object $\mathcal{R}\in \QMod_\mfb B$ corresponds to $\mathcal{A}\in \QMod_\mfa A$, where $\mathcal{R}$ (resp. $\mathcal{A}$) is the corresponding object of the right module $R_B\in \operatorname{Mod}B$ (resp. $A_A\in\operatorname{Mod}A$) in the quotient category. Then we have isomorphisms: $$\label{eq-isoext}
\operatorname{Ext}_{\QMod_\mfa A}^i(\mathcal{A},\mathcal{A})\cong\operatorname{Ext}_{\QMod_\mfb B}^i(\mathcal{R},\mathcal{R})$$ for all $i\ge0$. By Proposition \[prop-qext\], $\operatorname{Ext}_{\QMod_\mfb B}^i(\mathcal{R},\mathcal{R})\cong \operatorname{Ext}_{\QMod_\mfr R}^i(\mathcal{R},\mathcal{R})^G$ for all $i\ge0$. Hence we have $$\label{eq-ext}
\operatorname{Ext}_{\QMod_\mfa A}^i(\mathcal{A},\mathcal{A})\cong\operatorname{Ext}_{\QMod_\mfr R}^i(\mathcal{R},\mathcal{R})^G,$$ for all $i\ge0$. Applying the functor $\operatorname{Hom}_R(-,R)$ to the exact sequence $$0\to \mfr^n\to R\to R/\mfr^n\to0,$$ we obtain the following exact sequence $$0\to \operatorname{Hom}_R(R/\mfr^n,R)\to R\to \operatorname{Hom}_R(\mfr^n,R)\to\operatorname{Ext}^1_R(R/\mfr^n,R)\to0,$$ and isomorphisms $$\operatorname{Ext}^i_R(\mfr^n,R)\cong \operatorname{Ext}^{i+1}_R(R/\mfr^n,R), \text{ for }i\ge1.$$ Taking the direct limits and applying Lemma \[lem-qext\], we obtain the exact sequence $$\label{eq-sext}
0\to \Gamma_\mfr(R)\to R\to \operatorname{Hom}_{\QMod_\mfr R}(\mathcal{R},\mathcal{R})\to R^1\Gamma_\mfr(R)\to0,$$ and isomorphisms $$\label{eq-iso}
\operatorname{Ext}^i_{\QMod_\mfr R}(\mathcal{R},\mathcal{R})\cong R^{i+1}\Gamma_\mfr(R), \text{ for }i\ge1.$$ If $p=\Pty(R,G)\ge2$, then by (\[eq-iso\]), $\operatorname{Ext}^{i-1}_{\QMod_\mfr R}(\mathcal{R},\mathcal{R})=0$ for all $i\neq p$ and $i\ge2$. By (\[eq-ext\]), $\operatorname{Ext}^{i-1}_{\QMod_\mfa A}(\mathcal{A},\mathcal{A})=0$ for all $i\neq p$ and $i\ge2$. Since $\mfa$ has the right AR-property, the exact sequence (\[eq-sext\]) and the isomorphisms (\[eq-iso\]) also hold if we replace $\mfr$ by $\mfa$, and $\mathcal{R}$ by $\mathcal{A}$. Hence $R^i\Gamma_\mfa(A)=0$ for $i\ge2$ and $i\neq p$.
Since $\operatorname{depth}_\mfr(R)\ge2$, it follows that $\Gamma_\mfr(R)=R^1\Gamma_\mfr(R)=0$. We see that the natural morphism $R\to\operatorname{Hom}_{\QMod_\mfr R}(\mathcal{R},\mathcal{R})$ in (\[eq-sext\]) is an isomorphism, which implies that the natural morphism $A\to\operatorname{Hom}_{\QMod_\mfa A}(\mathcal{A},\mathcal{A})$ is an isomorphism since $R=A^G$ and $\operatorname{Hom}_{\QMod_\mfa A}(\mathcal{A},\mathcal{A})\cong \operatorname{Hom}_{\QMod_\mfr R}(\mathcal{R},\mathcal{R})^G$ by (\[eq-ext\]) and Lemma \[lem-gact\]. Replacing $\mfr$ by $\mfa$, and $\mathcal{R}$ by $\mathcal{A}$ in the exact sequence (\[eq-sext\]), we obtain that $R^1\Gamma_\mfa(A)=0$ and $\Gamma_\mfa(A)=0$.
Finally, if $p=\Pty(R,G)=1$, then by (\[eq-iso\]), $\operatorname{Ext}^{i}_{\QMod_\mfr R}(\mathcal{R},\mathcal{R})=0$ for all $i\ge1$. Hence by (\[eq-ext\]), $\operatorname{Ext}^{i}_{\QMod_\mfa A}(\mathcal{A},\mathcal{A})=0$ for all $i\ge1$, which implies that $R^i\Gamma_\mfa(A)=0$ for all $i\ge2$. Since $\Gamma_\mfr(R)=0$, we see that the natural morphism $R\to\operatorname{Hom}_{\QMod_\mfr R}(\mathcal{R},\mathcal{R})$ in (\[eq-sext\]) is a monomorphism. This implies that the natural morphism $A\to\operatorname{Hom}_{\QMod_\mfa A}(\mathcal{A},\mathcal{A})$ is also a monomorphism. Hence $\Gamma_\mfa(A)=0$.
If $p=\Pty(R,G)=0$, similar to the above case, we have $\operatorname{Ext}^{i}_{\QMod_\mfa A}(\mathcal{A},\mathcal{A})=0$ for all $i\ge1$. Since $R^1\Gamma_\mfr(R)=0$, we see that the natural morphism $R\to\operatorname{Hom}_{\QMod_\mfr R}(\mathcal{R},\mathcal{R})$ in (\[eq-sext\]) is an epimorphism, implying that the natural morphism $A\to\operatorname{Hom}_{\QMod_\mfa A}(\mathcal{A},\mathcal{A})$ is also an epimorphism. Hence $R^1\Gamma_\mfa(A)=0$.
\[cor-cm\] Let $R$ be a $G$-Cohen-Macaulay algebra. Assume that $R$ satisfies Setup \[set\]. If $R$ has finite global dimension, then we have $$R^i\Gamma_\mfa(M)\cong \operatorname{Tor}_{p-i}^A(M,D)$$ for $M\in\operatorname{Mod}A$ and $i\ge0$, where $p=\Pty(R,G)$ and $D=R^p\Gamma_\mfa(A)$.
This is a direct consequence of Theorems \[thm-gcm\] and \[thm-finproinj\].
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
---------------
Many thanks to James Zhang for many helpful conversations. J.-W. He was supported by NSFC (No. 11571239, 11401001) and Y. Zhang by an FWO grant.
[99]{} R.-O. Buchweitz, *From platonic solids to preprojective algebras via the McKay correspondence*, Oberwolfach Jahresbericht Annual Report, 18–28, 2012. Y.-H. Bao, J.-W. He and J.J. Zhang, *Pertinency of Hopf actions and quotient categories of Cohen-Macaulay algebras*, to appear at J. Noncomm. Geometry, arXiv:1603.0234. Y.-H. Bao, J.-W. He and J.J. Zhang, *Noncommutative Auslander Theorem*, to appear at Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 2017. K.A. Brown and M. Lorenz, *Grothendieck groups of invariant rings and of group rings*, J. Algebra 166 (1994), 423–454. M. Cohen and D. Fischman, S. Montgomery, *Hopf Galois extensions, Smash products, and Morita equivalence*, J. Algebra 133 (1990), 351–372. O. Celikbas and H. Holm, *Equivalences from tilting theory and commutative algebra from the adjoint functor point of view*, arXiv:1703.06685, 2017. K. Chan, E. Kirkman, C. Walton, and J.J. Zhang, *McKay Correspondence for semisimple Hopf actions on regular graded algebras, I*, arXiv:1607.06977, 2016. K. Chan, E. Kirkman, C. Walton, and J.J. Zhang, *McKay Correspondence for semisimple Hopf actions on regular graded algebras, part II*, arXiv:1610.01220, 2016. J. Gaddis, E. Kirkman, W.F. Moore and R. Won, *Auslander’s Theorem for permutation actions on noncommutative algebras*, arXiv:1705.00068. J.-W. He, F. Van Oystaeyen and Y. Zhang, *Hopf dense Galois extensions with applications*, J. Algebra 476 (2017), 134–160. J.-W. He, F. Van Oystaeyen and Y. Zhang, *Hopf algebra actions on differential graded algebras and applications*, Bull. Belg. Math. Soc. Simon Stevin 18 (2011), 99–111. O. Iyama and M. Wemyss, *Maximal modifications and Auslander-Reiten duality for non-isolated singularities*, Invent. Math. 197 (2014), 521–586. P. J[ø]{}rgensen and J. J. Zhang, *Gourmet’s to guide to Gorensteinness*, Adv. Math. 151 (2000), 313–345. E. Kirkman, J. Kuzmanovich and J.J. Zhang,*Rigidity of graded regular algebras*, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 360 (2008), 6331–6369. G.R. Krause and T.H. Lenagan, *Growth of algebras and Gelfand-Kirillov dimension*, Research Notes in Mathematics, Pitman Adv. Publ. Program, 116 (1985). E. Kirkman, I. Musson and D. Passman, *Noetherian down-up algebras*, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 127 (1999), 3161–3167. H. Matsumura, *Commutative Ring Theory*, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989, Translated from Japanese by M. Reid. J. C. McConnell and J. C. Robson, *Noncommutative Noetherian Rings*, Amer. Math. Soc. Providence, Rhode Island, 1987. I. Mori, *McKay type correspondence for AS-regular algebras*, J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2) 88 (2013), 97–117. I. Mori and K. Ueyama, *Ample group action on Artin-Schelter regular algebras and noncommutative graded isolated singularities*, Tran. Amer. Math. Soc. 368 (2016), 7359–7383. I. Mori and K. Ueyama, *Stable categories of graded Cohen-Macaulay modules over noncommutative quotient singularities*, Adv. Math. 297 (2016), 54–92. N. Popescu, *Abelian Categories with Applications in Rings and Modules*, Academic Press, London, 1973. M. Van den Bergh, *Existence theorems for dualizing complexes over non-commutative graded and filtered rings*, J. Algebra 195 (1997), 662–679. F.A. Szasz, *Radicals of Rings*, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, 1981. K. Ueyama, *Graded maximal Cohen-Macaulay modules over noncommutative Gorenstein isolated singularities*, J. Algebra 383 (2013), 85–103. M. R. Zargar, *On the relative Cohen-Macaulay modules*, J. Algebra Appl. 14 (2015), 1550042, 7 pp.
|
---
abstract: 'In recent years, lots of studies of charmonium decays have been performed at BESIII based on large data samples of $J/\psi$, $\psi(3686)$ and $\psi(3770)$. Recent results in searches for radiative transitions of $\psi(3770)$ and rare phenomena in charmonium decays, and studies of light hadrons structures and properties will be presented.'
author:
- 'X. C. Ai on behalf of the BESIII Collaboration'
bibliography:
- 'proceeding.bib'
nocite: '[@*]'
title: Studies of Charmonium at BESIII
---
INTRODUCTION
============
The BESIII detector at the BEPCII collider has accumulated the world’s largest data samples of $e^+e^-$ collisions in the $\tau$-charm region, including $J/\psi$, $\psi(3686)$, $\psi(3770)$ and the XYZ data. These data samples provide a clean and simple environment to study the production and decay mechanisms of charmonium states including not only $J/\psi$, $\psi(3686)$, $\psi(3770)$, but also $\eta_c$, $\eta_c(2S)$ and $\chi_{cJ}$ which are available by the $\gamma$ transition of $\psi(3686)$ and $\psi(3770)$.
Results in this presentation are based on 2.92 fb$^{-1}$ data sample taken at $\sqrt{s}$ = 3.773 GeV, 1.06 $\times$ $10^8$ $\psi(3686)$ events and 1.31 $\times$ $10^9$ $J/\psi$ events.
SEARCH FOR $\psi(3770)$ RADIATIVE TRANSITIONS
=============================================
The nature of the excited $J^{PC}$ = $1^{--}$ $c\bar{c}$ bound states above the $D\bar{D}$ threshold is of interest but still not well known. The $\psi(3770)$ resonance, as the lightest charmonium state lying above the open charm threshold, is generally assigned to be a dominant $1^3 D_1$ momentum eigenstate with a small $2^3 S_1$ admixture [@bib1]. It has been thought almost entirely to decay to $D\bar{D}$ states [@bib2; @bib3]. Unexpectedly, the BES Collaboration found a large inclusive non-$D\bar{D}$ branching fraction, (14.7 $\pm$ 3.2)%, by utilizing various methods [@bib4; @bib5; @bib6; @bib7]. A later work by the CLEO Collaboration found a contradictory non-$D\bar{D}$ branching fraction,(3.3 $\pm$ 1.4$_{-4.8}^{+6.6}$)% [@bib8]. The BES results suggest substantial non-$D\bar{D}$ decays, although the CLEO result finds otherwise. In the exclusive analyses, various non-$D\bar{D}$ decay modes have been observed, including hadronic transitions $\psi(3770)\rightarrow J/\psi\pi^+\pi^-$ [@bib9; @bib10], $\pi^0\pi^0J/\psi$, $\eta J/\psi$ [@bib10], the $E1$ transitions $\gamma \chi_{cJ}$ (J = 0, 1) [@bib11; @bib12], and the decay to light hadrons $\phi\eta$ [@bib13]. The sum of the observed non-$D\bar{D}$ exclusive components still makes up less than 2% of all decays [@pdg], which motivates the search for other exclusive non-$D\bar{D}$ final states.
Search for $\psi(3770)\rightarrow\gamma\eta_c$ and $\gamma\eta_c(2S)$
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The radiative transitions $\psi(3770)\rightarrow\gamma\eta_c(\eta_c(2S))$ are supposed to be highly suppressed by selection rules, considering the $\psi(3770)$ is predominantly the $1^3D_1$ state. However, due to the non-vanishing photon energy in the decay, higher multipoles beyond the leading one could contribute [@bib15]. Recently, the partial decay widths $\Gamma(\psi(3770)\rightarrow\gamma\eta_c(\eta_c(2S))$ have been calculated in Ref. [@bib15] by considering contributions from the intermediate meson loop (IML) mechanism.
Using the $\psi(3770)$ data sample, the radiative transitions $\psi(3770)\rightarrow\gamma\eta_c(\eta_c(2S))$ through the decay process $\psi(3770)\rightarrow K_S^0 K^{\pm}\pi^{\mp}$ have been searched for [@bibetac]. Figure \[fig:mkskpi\] shows the invariant-mass spectrum of $K_S^0 K^{\pm}\pi^{\mp}$ for selected candidates, together with the estimated backgrounds in the $\eta_c$ mass region (Fig. \[fig:mkskpi\](a)) and in the $\chi_{c1}$ $-$ $\eta_c(2S)$ mass region (Fig. \[fig:mkskpi\](b)). No significant $\eta_c$ and $\eta_c(2S)$ signals are observed. The upper limits on the branching fractions at a 90% C.L. have been set: ${\mathcal B}(\psi(3770)\rightarrow\gamma\eta_c) < 6.8 \times 10^{-4}$ and ${\cal B}(\psi(3770)\rightarrow\gamma\eta_c(2S)) < 2.0 \times 10^{-3}$. The upper limit for $\Gamma(\psi(3770)\rightarrow\gamma\eta_c)$ is within the error range of the theoretical predictions of IML [@bib15] and lattice QCD calculations [@bib16]. However, the upper limit for $\Gamma(\psi(3770)\rightarrow\gamma\eta_c(2S))$ is much larger than the prediction and is limited by statistics and the systematic error.
![Invariant-mass spectrum for $K_S^0 K^{\pm}\pi^{\mp}$ from data with the estimated backgrounds and best-fit results superimposed in the (a) $\eta_c$ and (b) $\chi_{c1}$ and $\eta_c(2S)$ mass regions. Dots with error bars are data. The shaded histograms represent the background contributions and the solid lines show the total fit results.[]{data-label="fig:mkskpi"}](fit1.png "fig:"){width="200pt"} ![Invariant-mass spectrum for $K_S^0 K^{\pm}\pi^{\mp}$ from data with the estimated backgrounds and best-fit results superimposed in the (a) $\eta_c$ and (b) $\chi_{c1}$ and $\eta_c(2S)$ mass regions. Dots with error bars are data. The shaded histograms represent the background contributions and the solid lines show the total fit results.[]{data-label="fig:mkskpi"}](fit2.png "fig:"){width="200pt"}
Measurement of the Branching Fraction for $\psi(3770)\rightarrow\gamma\chi_{cJ}$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within an S-D mixing model [@bib1], Refs. [@bib17; @bib18; @bib19] predict the partial widths for $\psi(3770)$ $E1$ radiative transitions, but with large uncertainties. Up to now, the transition $\psi(3770)\rightarrow\gamma\chi_{c2}$ has not been observed. Precision measurements of partial widths of the $\psi(3770)\rightarrow\gamma\chi_{c1,2}$ processes are critical to test the theoretical predictions, and to better understand the nature of the partial widths of the $\psi(3770)$, as well as to find the origin of the non-$D\bar{D}$ decays of $\psi(3770)$.
Using the $\psi(3770)$ data sample, the $\psi(3770)$ $E1$ transitions $\psi(3770)\rightarrow\gamma\chi_{c1,2}$ have been studied [@bibchicJ] by reconstructing $\chi_{cJ}$ using the decay $\chi_{cJ}\rightarrow\gamma J/\psi$. Figure \[fig:mgjpsi\] shows the invariant-mass distribution of the higher energetic photon and $J/\psi$. Clear peak corresponding to the $\chi_{c1}$ signal is observed while there is no significant signal of $\chi_{c2}$. The branching fraction of $\psi(3770)\rightarrow\gamma\chi_{c1}$ is measured to be ${\cal B}(\psi(3770)\rightarrow\gamma\chi_{c1}) = (2.48\pm0.15\pm0.23)\times 10^{-3}$ , which is the most precise measurement to date. The upper limit on the branching fraction of $\psi(3770)\rightarrow \gamma\chi_{c2}$ at 90% C.L. is ${\cal B}(\psi(3770)\rightarrow\gamma\chi_{c2})<0.64\times10^{-3}$.
![Invariant mass spectrum of higher energetic photon and $J/\psi$ selected from data. The dots with error bars represent the data. The solid (red) line shows the fit. The dashed (blue) line shows the smooth background. The long-dashed (green) line is the sum of the smooth background and the contribution from $e^+e^-\rightarrow(\gamma_{ISR})\psi(3686)$ production.[]{data-label="fig:mgjpsi"}](mgjpsi.png){width="200pt"}
SEARCH FOR RARE PHENOMENA IN CHARMONIUM DECAYS
==============================================
Search for Isospin-violating Transition $\chi_{c0,2}\rightarrow\pi^0\eta_c$
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based upon an effective-field theoretical approach, theoretical calculations give qualitative insights in the isospin-breaking mechanisms in charmonium decays below $D\bar{D}$ threshold [@bib25]. Currently, for such a theory, quantitative predictions of individual branching fractions of isospin-forbidden decays of charmonium require more constraints from experimental data.
Using the $\psi(3686)$ data sample, the hadronic isospin-violating transitions $\chi_{c0,2}\rightarrow\pi^0\eta_c$ have been searched for through $\eta_c\rightarrow K_S^0 K^{\pm}\pi^{\mp}$ decays [@bibpi0etac]. No statistically significant signal is observed and upper limits on the branching fractions for the processes $\chi_{c0,2}\rightarrow\pi^0\eta_c$ have been obtained. The results are ${\cal B}(\chi_{c0}\rightarrow \pi^0\eta_c) < 1.6\times 10^{-3}$ and ${\cal B}(\chi_{c2}\rightarrow \pi^0\eta_c) < 3.2\times 10^{-3}$. These are the first upper limits on ${\cal B}(\chi_{c0,2}\rightarrow \pi^0\eta_c)$ that have been reported so far. These limits might help to constrain non-relativistic field theories and provide insight in the role of charmed-meson loops to the various transitions in charmonium and charmonium-like states.
Search for $C$-parity Violation in $J/\psi\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma\phi$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Standard Model (SM), $C$ invariance is held in strong and electromagnetic (EM) interactions. Until now, no $C$-violating processes have been observed in EM interactions. Any evidence for $C$ violation in the EM sector would immediately indicate physics beyond the SM.
Using the $\psi(3686)$ data sample, the decays of $J/\psi\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$ and $\gamma\phi$ have been searched for via $\psi(3686)\rightarrow J/\psi\pi^+\pi^-$ [@bibgggphi]. No significant signal is observed for $J/\psi\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$ and $J/\psi\rightarrow\gamma\phi$. The upper limits for the branching fractions of $J/\psi\rightarrow \gamma\gamma$ and $J/\psi\rightarrow\gamma\phi$ are set to be ${\cal B}(J/\psi\rightarrow \gamma\gamma) < 2.7 \times 10^{-7}$ and ${\cal B}(J/\psi\rightarrow \gamma\phi) < 1.4 \times 10^{-6}$, respectively. The upper limit on ${\cal B}(J/\psi\rightarrow \gamma\gamma)$ is one of magnitude more stringent than the previous upper limit [@bib26], and ${\cal B}(J/\psi\rightarrow \gamma\phi)$ is the first upper limit for this channel.
Observation of OZI-suppressed Decay $J/\psi \rightarrow \pi^0 \phi$
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A full investigation of $J/\psi$ decaying to a vector meson ($V$) and a pseudoscalar meson ($P$) can provide rich information about SU(3) flavor symmetry and its breaking, probe the quark and gluon content of the pseudoscalar mesons, and determine the electromagnetic amplitudes [@bib27; @bib28; @bib29].
Using the $J/\psi$ data sample, the first evidence for a doubly OZI suppressed electromagnetic $J/\psi$ decay $J/\psi\rightarrow \pi^0\phi \rightarrow K^+K^-\gamma\gamma$ has been reported [@bib30]. A clear structure in the $K^+K^-$ invariant mass spectrum around 1.02 GeV/$c^2$ is observed, which can be attributed to interference of $J/\psi\rightarrow \pi^0\phi$ and $J/\psi\rightarrow K^+K^-\pi^0$ decays. Figure \[fitmkk\] shows the fit to the invariant mass spectrum of $K^+K^-$ with the background events estimated with $\pi^0$ sidebands subtracted. Due to the interference, two possible solutions are found. The corresponding measured values of the branching fraction of $J/\psi \rightarrow \pi^0 \phi$ are ($2.94\pm0.16\pm0.16$) $\times$ $10^{-6}$ and ($1.24\pm0.33\pm0.30$) $\times$ $10^{-7}$, respectively.
![Fit to $M(K^+K^-)$ spectrum after sideband subtraction for Solution I (a) and Solution II (b). The red dotted curve denotes the $\phi$ resonance; the blue dashed curve is the non-$\phi$ contribution; the green dot-dashed curve represents their inter-ference; the blue solid curve is the sum of them.[]{data-label="fitmkk"}](fitmkk.png){width="200pt"}
STUDIES OF LIGHT HADRON STRUCTURES AND PROPERTIES
=================================================
Study of $J/\psi\rightarrow \phi \pi^0 f_0(980)$
------------------------------------------------
The nature of the scalar meson $f_0(980)$ is a long-standing puzzle [@pdg]. In the study of $J/\psi$ radiatively decaying into $\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$ and $\pi^0\pi^0\pi^0$, BESIII observed the decay of $\eta(1405)\rightarrow\pi^0 f_0(980)$ with a large isospin violation and an anomalously narrow width of $f_0(980)$ [@bib1405]. One proposed explanation for these phenomena is the triangle singularity mechanism [@tsm1; @tsm2].
Using the $J/\psi$ data sample, the decays $J/\psi\rightarrow \phi\pi^0\pi^0\pi^0$ with $\phi\rightarrow K^+K^-$ are investigated [@bib14052]. The isospin-violating decay $J/\psi\rightarrow \phi \pi^0 f_0(980)$ is observed for the first time. Figure \[fig:mpipi\_980\] shows the invariant mass spectrum of $\pi^+\pi^-$ (Fig. \[fig:mpipi\_980\](a)) and $\pi^0\pi^0$ (Fig. \[fig:mpipi\_980\](b)). A clear $f_0(980)$ exists for the $\pi^+\pi^-$ mode. The width obtained from the dipion mass spectrum is ($15.3\pm4.7$) MeV/$c^2$, which is consistent with that in the study of $J/\psi\rightarrow \gamma \eta(1405)\rightarrow \gamma \pi^0 f_0(980)$ [@bib1405] and the prediction of a theoretical work [@bibtsm3] based on the triangle singularity mechanism [@tsm1; @tsm2]. In the invariant mass spectra of $f_0(980)\pi^0$, there is evidence of a resonance around 1.28 GeV/$c^2$ for the $f_0(980)\rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-$ mode, which was identified as the axial-vector meson $f_1(1285)$.
![The spectra (a) $M(\pi^+\pi^-)$ and (b) $M(\pi^0\pi^0)$ (three entries per event) with $K^+K^-$ in the $\phi$ signal region (black dots) and in the $\phi$ sideband regions (hatched histogram). The solid curve is the full fit, the long-dashed curve is the $f_0(980)$ signal, the dotted line is the non-$\phi$ background, and the short-dashed line is the total background.[]{data-label="fig:mpipi_980"}](f0_pippim.png "fig:"){width="200pt"} (-35,115)[(a)]{} ![The spectra (a) $M(\pi^+\pi^-)$ and (b) $M(\pi^0\pi^0)$ (three entries per event) with $K^+K^-$ in the $\phi$ signal region (black dots) and in the $\phi$ sideband regions (hatched histogram). The solid curve is the full fit, the long-dashed curve is the $f_0(980)$ signal, the dotted line is the non-$\phi$ background, and the short-dashed line is the total background.[]{data-label="fig:mpipi_980"}](f0_pi0pi0.png "fig:"){width="200pt"} (-35,115)[(b)]{}
Study of $\chi_{cJ}\rightarrow \eta'K^+K^-$
-------------------------------------------
Until now, $K_0^*(1430)$ has been observed in $K_0^*(1430)\rightarrow K\pi$ only, but it is also expected to couple to $\eta'K$ [@etapk1; @etapk2]. $\chi_{c1}\rightarrow\eta'K^+K^-$ is a promising channel to search for $K_0^*(1430)$ and study its properties while decays of $\chi_{c0,2}\rightarrow K_0^*(1430)K$ are forbidden by spin-parity conservation.
Using the $\psi(3686)$ data sample, the decay $\chi_{cJ}\rightarrow \eta'K^+K^-$ with $\eta'\rightarrow \gamma \rho^0$ and $\eta'\rightarrow\eta\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$, $\eta\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$ is studied for the first time [@etapkk]. Abundant structures on the $K^+K^-$ and $\eta K^{\pm}$ invariant mass spectra are observed for $\chi_{c1}$ candidate events, and a partial wave analysis is performed for the decay $\chi_{c1}\rightarrow \eta'K^+K^-$. Figure \[fig:metapk\] shows the comparisons of data and fit projections in terms of the invariant mass spectra of $\eta'K^{\pm}$ for $\chi_{c1}$ candidate events. The partial branching fractions of $\chi_{c1}$ decay processes with intermediate states $f_0(980)$, $f_0(1710)$, $f_2'(1525)$ and $K_0^*(1430)$ are measured for the first time.
{width="200pt"} (-30,155)[(a)]{} {width="200pt"} (-30,155)[(b)]{}
Study of $\chi_{cJ}$ Decaying into $\phi K^*(892)\bar{K}$
---------------------------------------------------------
The nature of the axial-vector candidate, $h_1(1380)$ is still controversial [@13801; @13802]. The direct observation of the $h_1(1380)$ in experiments and the precise measurement of its resonance parameters may shed light on its nature and aid in identifying the ground state axial-vector meson nonet in the quark model.
Using the $\psi(3686)$ data sample, the first measurement of $\chi_{cJ}\rightarrow \phi K_S^0 K^{\pm} \pi^{\mp}$ and $\chi_{cJ}\rightarrow \phi K^+ K^- \pi^0$ has been reported [@k892]. The decays are dominated by the three-body reaction $\chi_{cJ}$ decaying into $\phi K^*(892)\bar{K}$. The branching fractions for this reaction via neutral and charged $K^*(892)$ are measured for the first time. Figure \[fig:1380\] shows the invariant mass spectrum of $K\bar{K}\pi$, a significant excess of events above the phase space expectation is observed near the $K^*(892)\bar{K}$ mass threshold in the decays of $\chi_{c1,2}$ with a significance greater than $10\sigma$. The observed structure has negative $C$ parity, and is expected to be the $h_1(1380)$ state, considering its mass, width and decay through $K^*(892)\bar{K}$. The mass and width of the $h_1(1380)$ are determined to ($1412\pm4\pm8$) MeV/c$^2$ and ($84\pm12\pm40$) MeV, respectively. This is the first evidence of the $h_1(1380)$ in its decay to $K^*(892)\bar{K}$. Evidence is also found for the decays $\chi_{cJ}\rightarrow \phi\phi(1680)$ and $\chi_{cJ}\rightarrow \phi\phi(1850)$,but with significances less than $5\sigma$.
![The sum of $K_S^0 K^{\pm} \pi^{\mp}$ and $K^{\pm} \pi^{\mp}\pi^0$ mass spectra in the $\chi_{c1}$ and $\chi_{c2}$ mass regions. The markers with error bars represent the data; the dash curve the $h_1(1380)$ signal; the dash-dot-dot curve the $\phi(1680)$ signal; and the dash-dot curve the $\phi(1850)$ signal.[]{data-label="fig:1380"}](1380.png){width="200pt"}
SUMMARY
=======
Based on 2.92 fb$^{-1}$ data sample taken at $\sqrt{s}$ = 3.773 GeV, 1.06$\times10^8$ $\psi(3686)$ events and 1.31$\times10^9$ $J/\psi$ events collected with BESIII detector at the BEPCII collider, studies have been performed to search for the radiative transitions of $\psi(3770)$ and rare decays of charmonium, and study light hadron structures and properties. The upper limits on branching fractions are set for radiative transitions of $\psi(3770)$, $\psi(3770)\rightarrow \gamma \eta_c(\eta_c(2S))$ and $\psi(3770)\rightarrow \gamma \chi_{c2}$, the isospin-violating decay $\chi_{c0,2}\rightarrow\pi^0\eta_c$, and $C$-violation decay $J/\psi\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma\phi$. The OZI-suppressed decay $J/\psi\rightarrow \pi^0\phi$ is observed for the first time. The isospin-violating decay $J/\psi\rightarrow \phi\pi^0 f_0(980)$, $f_0(980)\rightarrow\pi^+\pi^-$ is observed with the width of the $f_0(980)$ obtained from the dipion mass spectrum found to be much smaller than the world average value. The decay $\chi_{c1,2}\rightarrow \eta'K^+K^-$ is studied for the first time. Intermediate process $\chi_{c1}\rightarrow \eta'f_0(980)$, $\chi_{c1}\rightarrow\eta'f_0(1710)$, $\chi_{c2}\rightarrow\eta'f_2'(1525)$ and $\chi_{c1}\rightarrow
K_0^*(1430)^{\pm}K^{\mp}$ are observed and their branching fractions are measured. The branching fractions of decay $\chi_{cJ}$ decaying into $\phi K^*(892)\bar{K}$ are measured for the first time and the first evidence of the $h_1(1380)$ in its decay to $K^*(892)\bar{K}$ is obtained. These measurements provide important information to understand the nature of $\psi(3770)$, the isospin-violation mechanism and properties of light hadrons, such as $f_0(980)$, $K_0^*(1430)$ and $h_1(1380)$.
|
---
author:
- |
Wei Xiao$^\dagger$, Hao Helen Zhang$^\ddagger$, and Wenbin Lu$^\dagger$\
\
\
bibliography:
- 'OTR.bib'
title: Robust regression for optimal individualized treatment rules
---
> [*Abstract:*]{} Because different patients may response quite differently to the same drug or treatment, there is increasing interest in discovering individualized treatment rule. In particular, people are eager to find the optimal individualized treatment rules, which if followed by the whole patient population would lead to the “best” outcome. In this paper, we propose new estimators based on robust regression with general loss functions to estimate the optimal individualized treatment rules. The new estimators possess the following nice properties: first, they are robust against skewed, heterogeneous, heavy-tailed errors or outliers; second, they are robust against misspecification of the baseline function; third, under certain situations, the new estimator coupled with pinball loss approximately maximizes the outcome’s conditional quantile instead of conditional mean, which leads to a different optimal individualized treatment rule comparing with traditional Q- and A-learning. Consistency and asymptotic normality of the proposed estimators are established. Their empirical performance is demonstrated via extensive simulation studies and an analysis of an AIDS data.
>
> [*Key words and phrases:*]{} Optimal individualized treatment rules; Personalized medicine; Quantile regression; Robust regression.
Introduction
============
Given the same drug or treatment, different patients may respond quite differently. Factors causing individual variability in drug response are multi-fold and complex. This has raised increasing interests of individualized medicine, where customized medicine or treatment is recommended to each individual according to his/her characteristics, including genetic, physiological, demographic, environmental, and other clinical information. The rule that applied in personalized medicine to match each patient with a target treatment is called individualized treatment rule (ITR), and our goal is to find the “optimal” one, which if followed by the whole patient population would lead to the “best” outcome. For many complex diseases such as cancer and AIDS, the optimal individualized treatment rule or regime is a dynamical treatment process, involving a sequence of treatment decisions made at different time points throughout the disease evolving course.
Q-learning [@watkins1992q; @murphy2005generalization] and A-learning [@murphy2003optimal; @robins2004optimal] are two main approaches for finding optimal dynamic individualized treatment rules based on clinical trials or observational data. Q-learning is based on posing a regression model to estimate the conditional expectation of the outcome at each time point, and then applying a backward recursive procedure to fit the model. A-learning, on the other hand, only requires modeling the contrast function of the treatments at each time point, is therefore more flexible and robust to a model misspecification. See [@schulte2014q] for a complete review and comparison of these two methods under various scenarios, in terms of the parameter estimation accuracy and the estimation of expected outcomes. Q- and A-learning have good performance when model is correctly specified but are sensitive to model misspecification. To overcome this shortcoming, several “direct” methods have been proposed, which maximize value functions directly instead of modeling the conditional mean. See [@ZhaoYingQi2012OWL; @Zhang2013Robust] for example.
All existing methods for optimal individualized treatment rule estimation, including Q-learning and A-learning, belong to mean regression as they estimate the optimal estimator by maximizing expected outcomes. In the case of single decision point, Q-learning is equivalent to the least-squares regression. Least-squares estimates are optimal if the errors are i.i.d. normal random variables. However, skewed, heavy-tailed, heteroscedastic errors or outliers of the response are frequently encountered. In such situations, the efficiency of the least square estimates is impaired. One extreme example is that when the response takes i.i.d. Cauchy errors, neither Q-learning nor A-learning can consistently estimate the optimal ITR. For example, in AIDS Clinical Trials Group Protocol 175 (ACTG175) data [@hammer1996trial], HIV-infected subjects were randomized to four regimes with equal probabilities, and our objective is to find the optimal ITR for each patient based on their age, weight, race, gender and some other baseline measurements. The response CD4 count of the data follows a skewed, heteroscedastic errors, which weakens the efficiency of classical Q- and A-learning. A method to estimate optimal ITR which is robust against skewed, heavy-tailed, heteroscedastic errors or outliers is highly valuable. One possible solution is to construct the optimal decision rule based on the conditional median or quantiles of response given covariates than based on average effects.
In the following, we present a simple example where a quantile-based decision rule is more preferable than a mean-based decision rules. We use higher value of response $Y$ to indicate more favorable outcomes. Figure \[fig:plot1\] plots the conditional density of $Y$ under two treatments, $A$ and $B$, given a binary covariate $X$ which takes the value of male and female. Under the comparison based on conditional means, $A$ and $B$ are exactly equivalent. However, conditional quantiles provide us more insight. For the male group, the conditional distribution of response given treatment $B$ is a log-normal and skewed to the right. Therefore, treatment $B$ is less favorable when either 50% or 25% conditional quantile are considered. For the female group, the conditional distribution of response given treatment $A$ is a standard normal while a Cauchy distribution given treatment $B$. Therefore, if we make a comparison based on $25\%$ conditional quantile, treatment $A$ is more favorable.
![The distribution functions of the response $Y$, in a randomized clinical trial with two treatments, $A$ and $B$, for male (two panels on the left) and female (two panels on the right). The solid lines with triangle symbol, dashed line, and dotted lines are the conditional mean, $50\%$ quantile, and $25\%$ quantile functions of $Y$ given the gender and the treatment, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:plot1"}](plot1.eps){width="6in"}
In this paper, we propose a general framework for optimal individualized treatment rule estimation based on robust regression, including quantile regression and the regression based on Huber’s loss and $\epsilon$-insensitive loss. The proposed methodology has the following desired features. First, the new decision rule obtained by maximizing the conditional quantile, which is suitable for skewed, heavy-tailed errors or outliers. Second, the proposed estimator requires only modeling the contrast function between two treatments, and is therefore robust against misspecification of the baseline function. This property is shared by A-learning. Third, empirical results from our comprehensive numerical study suggest favorable performance of the new robust regression estimator.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we first review the classical Q- and A- learning methods. Then we propose the new procedure and method and discuss its connection with existing methods. In Section 3, we study and prove the asymptotic properties of the proposed method, including consistency and asymptotic normality. In Section 4, a comprehensive numerical study is conducted to assess finite sample performance of the new procedure. In Section 5, we apply the method to ACTG175 data. Concluding remarks are given in Section 6. Throughout the paper, we use upper case letters to denote random variables and lower case letters to denote their values.
New Optimal Treatment Estimation Framework: Robust Regression
=============================================================
Basic Notations and Assumptions
-------------------------------
For simplicity, we consider a single stage randomized clinical trial with two treatments. For each patient, the observed data is $({{\bm X}},A,Y)$, where ${{\bm X}}\in\mathcal{X}={\mathrm{I \! R} \mathit{^{p}}}$ denotes the baseline covariates, $A\in\mathcal{A}=\{0,1\}$ denotes the treatment assigned to the patient, and $Y$ is the real-valued response, which is coded so that higher values indicate more favorable clinical outcomes. An ITR $g$ is a function mapping from $\mathcal{X}$ to $\mathcal{A}$.
We first review the potential outcome framework [@neyman1923applications; @rubin1974estimating; @rubin1986comment]. The potential outcome $Y^*(a)$ is the outcome for an arbitrary individual has s/he received treatment $a$. In actuality, at most one of the potential outcomes can be observed for any individual. The optimal ITR under mean regression, which maximizes the expected outcome, is $g^{\mathrm{opt}}_\mu={\mathrm{argmax}}_{g\in\mathcal{G}}{\mbox{E}}[Y^*\{g({{\bm X}})\}]$. Define the propensity score $\pi({{\bm X}})\triangleq P(A=1|{{\bm X}})$. Following [@rubin1974estimating] and [@rubin1986comment], we can compute the expectation of the potential outcome under the following two key assumptions.
- **Stable Unit Treatment Value Assumption (SUTVA):** a patient’s observed outcome is the same as the potential outcome for the treatment that s/he actually received. Based on [@rubin1986comment], the SUTVA assumption implies that the value of the potential outcome for a subject does not depend on what treatments other subject receive. Specifically, we can write the SUTVA assumption as $$Y_i=Y_i^*(1)A_i+Y_i^*(0)(1-A_i),\;i=1,\ldots,n.$$ This is also referred as consistency assumption.
- **Strong Ignorability Assumption:** the treatment assignment $A$ for an individual is independent of the potential outcomes conditional on the covariates ${{\bm X}}$, i.e., $A\bot \{Y^*(a)\}_{a\in\mathcal{A}}|{{\bm X}}$. For a randomized clinical trial, this assumption is satisfied automatically. For an observational study, as clinicians make decisions based only on all past available information, this assumption essentially assumes no unmeasured confounders.
For consistent estimation of the optimal treatment rule, we also need to assume
- **Positivity Assumption:** $0<\pi({{\bm x}})<1$, $\forall {{\bm x}}\in\mathcal{X}$.
Existing Learning Methods: Q-learning and A-learning
----------------------------------------------------
Define the Q-function $Q({{\bm x}},a)\triangleq{\mbox{E}}(Y|{{\bm x}},a)$. Under assumptions (C1)-(C2), one can show that $g^{\mathrm{opt}}_\mu({{\bm X}})={\mathrm{argmax}}_{a\in\mathcal{A}}Q({{\bm x}},a)={\mathrm{argmax}}_{a\in\mathcal{A}}{\mbox{E}}(Y|{{\bm X}},A=a)$. This suggests that, in order to find $g^{\mathrm{opt}}_\mu$, we only need to estimate the conditional expectation of $Y$ given $({{\bm X}},A)$. This result serves as the foundation of Q- and A-learning framework. We further define the value function $V_\mu(g)={\mbox{E}}_{{{\bm X}}}[Q\{{{\bm X}},g({{\bm X}})\}]$ which is simply the marginal mean outcome under the ITR $g$, and $g^{\mathrm{opt}}_\mu={\mathrm{argmax}}_gV_\mu(g)$.
Define the $\tau$-th conditional quantile of $Y$ given $({{\bm X}},A)$ as $Q_{\tau}({{\bm X}},A)\triangleq\inf\{y: F_{Y|{{\bm X}},A}(y)\geq\tau\}$. Then we define the value function based on the $\tau$-th conditional quantile as $V_{\tau-q}(g)={\mbox{E}}_{{{\bm X}}}[Q_{\tau}\{{{\bm X}},g({{\bm X}})\}]$, which is an analog to the definition of $V_\mu(g)$. The optimal ITR which maximizes the $\tau$-th conditional quantile is then defined as $$g^{\mathrm{opt}}_{\tau}({{\bm x}})=\underset{a\in\mathcal{A}}{\mathrm{argmax}}Q_{\tau}({{\bm x}},a),\;\tau\in[0,1],$$ and $g^{\mathrm{opt}}_\tau={\mathrm{argmax}}_gV_{\tau-q}(g)$.
Consider the general model ${\mbox{E}}(Y|{{\bm X}},A)=h_0({{\bm X}})+AC_0({{\bm X}})$, where $h_0({{\bm X}})$ represents the baseline effect, and $C_0({{\bm X}})$ denotes the contrast effect as $$C_0({{\bm X}})={\mbox{E}}(Y|{{\bm X}},A=1)-{\mbox{E}}(Y|{{\bm X}},A=0).$$ Therefore, $g^{\mathrm{opt}}_\mu({{\bm X}})={\mathrm{1}}\{C_0({{\bm X}})>0$}. In Q-learning, a parametric model is often employed as a working model, $${\mbox{E}}(Y|{{\bm X}},A)=h({{\bm X}}; {{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})+AC({{\bm X}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}),$$ where $h({{\bm X}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})$ and $C({{\bm X}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}})$ are posited parametric models for $h_0({{\bm X}})$ and $C_0({{\bm X}})$ respectively. Commonly a linear model is assumed for simplicity and interpretability, i.e., $h({{\bm X}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})={{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}\tilde{{{\bm X}}}$ and $C({{\bm X}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}})={{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}\tilde{{{\bm X}}}$, where $\tilde{{{\bm X}}}=({{\mathbf 1}},{{\bm X}}{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}){^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}$. Given the observation $\{(Y_i,{{\bm X}}_i,A_i);\;i=1,\ldots,n\}$, the Q-learning procedure estimates the parameters $({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}},{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})$ by minimizing the squared error loss $$L_{1n}({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}},{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left\{Y_i-h({{\bm X}}_i;{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})-A_iC({{\bm X}}_i;{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}})\right\}^2.$$ Denote the optimized point as $(\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}}^Q,\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}}^Q)$. The estimated optimal ITR based on Q-learning is then $\hat{g}^{Q}({{\bm x}})\triangleq{\mathrm{1}}\{C({{\bm x}};\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}}^Q)>0\}$, which is a consistent estimator of $g^{\mathrm{opt}}_\mu({{\bm x}})$ if both $h({{\bm X}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})$ and $C({{\bm X}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}})$ are correctly specified.
A-learning is a semiparametric improvement of Q-learning by modeling only the contrast function $C_0({{\bm X}})$ rather than the full Q-function. This is reasonable based on the observation that the optimal ITR $g^{\mathrm{opt}}_\mu$ only depends on $C_0({{\bm X}})$. By positing $C({{\bm X}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}})$ for the contrast function, in A-learning, one can estimate coefficients ${{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}$ by solving the following estimating equation $$\sum_{i=1}^{n}\lambda({{\bm X}}_i)\left\{A_i-\pi({{\bm X}}_i)\right\}\left\{Y_i-A_iC({{\bm X}}_i;{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}})-h({{\bm X}}_i)\right\}=0,
\label{eq:eeofAlearn}$$ where $\lambda({{\bm X}}_i)$ and $h({{\bm X}}_i)$ are arbitrary functions, and $\lambda({{\bm X}}_i)$ has the same dimension as ${{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}$. Denote the solution to by $\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}}^{A}$. If $\mathrm{var}(Y|X)$ is constant and $C({{\bm X}}_i;{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}})$ is correctly specified, the optimal choices of $\lambda(\cdot)$ and $h(\cdot)$ are $\lambda({{\bm X}}_i;{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}})=\partial/\partial {{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}C({{\bm X}}_i;{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}})$ and $h({{\bm X}}_i)=h_0({{\bm X}}_i)$ [@robins2004optimal]. In practice, one may pose models, say $\pi({{\bm X}}_i;{{\mbox{\boldmath $\phi$}}})$ and $h({{\bm X}}_i;{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})$ for $\pi({{\bm X}}_i)$ and $h({{\bm X}}_i)$ respectively, and take $\lambda({{\bm X}}_i;{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}})=\partial/\partial {{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}C({{\bm X}}_i;{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}})$. Under randomized designs, the propensity score $\pi({{\bm X}}_i)$ is known. Otherwise, a logistic model can be proposed. Under the assumption that $C({{\bm X}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}})$ is correctly specified, the double robustness property of A-learning states that as long as one of $\pi({{\bm X}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\phi$}}})$ and $h({{\bm X}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})$ is correctly specified, $\hat{g}^{A}({{\bm x}})\triangleq{\mathrm{1}}\{C({{\bm x}};\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}}^A)>0\}$ is consistent estimator of $g^{\mathrm{opt}}_\mu({{\bm x}})$.
Recently, [-@lu2011variable] propose a variant of A-learning by a loss-based learning framework. Rewrite $$\begin{aligned}
{\mbox{E}}(Y|{{\bm X}},A) =& h_0({{\bm X}})+AC_0({{\bm X}})\\
=& \varphi_0({{\bm X}})+\{A-\pi({{\bm X}})\}C_0({{\bm X}}),\end{aligned}$$ where $\varphi_0({{\bm X}})=h_0({{\bm X}})+\pi({{\bm X}})C_0({{\bm X}})$. Based on the expression above, [@lu2011variable] propose to estimate $({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}},{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})$ by minimizing the following loss function $$L_{2n}({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}},{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left[Y_i-\varphi({{\bm X}}_i;{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})-\{A_i-\pi({{\bm X}}_i)\}C({{\bm X}}_i;{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}})\right]^2,
\label{eq:A-loss}$$ where $\varphi({{\bm X}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})$, $C({{\bm X}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}})$ are proposed models for $\varphi_0({{\bm X}})$ and $C_0({{\bm X}})$ respectively. Denote the minimizer of as $(\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}}^A_{LS},\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}}^{A}_{LS})$. [@lu2011variable] show that $\hat{g}^{A}_{LS}({{\bm x}})\triangleq{\mathrm{1}}\{C({{\bm x}};\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}}^A_{LS})>0\}$ is a consistent estimator of $g^{\mathrm{opt}}_\mu({{\bm x}})$ when the propensity score $\pi({{\bm X}})$ is known or can be consistently estimated from the data, and $C({{\bm X}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}})$ is correctly specified. We refer to this method as least square A-learning (lsA-learning).
One main advantage of the lsA-learning, compared to the classical A-learning, is its square loss, making the procedure easy to be coupled with penalized regression to achieve variable selection in high dimensional data. Specifically, [@lu2011variable] propose to identify important nonzero coefficients in ${{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}$ by applying an adaptive LASSO penalty to . Under some regularity conditions, both the selection consistency and asymptotic normality of the estimator are established in [@lu2011variable]. The downside of lsA-learning is that one direction of the double robustness property of the classical A-learning is lost, i.e., when $\varphi({{\bm X}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})$ is correctly specified, ${{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}$ may still not be consistent if the propensity score $\pi({{\bm X}})$ is not consistently estimated. Finally, it can be shown that lsA-learning and Q-learning are equivalent when $\pi({{\bm X}})$ is constant and both $\varphi({{\bm X}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})$ and $C({{\bm X}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}})$ take the linear form (with the space of $C({{\bm X}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}})$ included in the space of $\varphi({{\bm X}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})$). Similar properties hold for A-learning and Q-learning [@schulte2014q].
New Proposal: Robust Regression
-------------------------------
Skewed, heavy-tailed, heteroscedastic errors or outliers of the response $Y$ are frequently encountered in clinical trials. It is well known that ordinary least square estimation fails to produce a reliable estimator in such situations. The immediate consequence is the efficiency loss in the estimators produced by Q-, A-, and lsA-learning. This motivates us to adopt robust regression techniques in optimal treatment regime estimation.
We consider the following additive model, $$Y_i=\varphi_0({{\bm X}}_i)+\{A_i-\pi({{\bm X}}_i)\}C({{\bm X}}_i;\beta_0)+\epsilon_i,\; i=1,\ldots,n,
\label{eq:model_nointeraction}$$ where $\varphi_0({{\bm X}})$ is the baseline function, $C({{\bm X}};\beta_0)$ is the contrast function, $\pi({{\bm X}})$ is the propensity score, and $\epsilon$ is the error term which satisfies the conditional independence assumption $\epsilon\perp A|{{\bm X}}$. We point out that the error term defined in can be very general. For example, we could take $\epsilon=\sum_{j=1}^{K}\sigma_j({{\bm X}})e_j$ for any $K\geq 1$ that allows the error distribution to change with ${{\bm X}}$, used to model heterogeneous errors, where $\sigma_j({{\bm X}})$ are arbitrary positive functions and $e_{j}\perp (A,{{\bm X}})$ for all $j=1,\ldots,K$. Throughout the paper, we assume $\{(Y_i,{{\bm X}}_i,A_i,\epsilon_i),i=1,\ldots,n\}$ are i.i.d random samples of the population.
We propose to estimate $({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}, {{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})$ by minimizing $$L_{3n}({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}, {{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}M\left[Y_i-\varphi({{\bm X}}_i;{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})-\{A_i-\pi({{\bm X}}_i)\}C({{\bm X}}_i;{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}})\right],
\label{eq:A-general-loss}$$ where ${{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}\in\Gamma$, ${{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}\in\mathcal{B}$ and $M:{\mathrm{I \! R} \mathit{^{\rightarrow}}} [0,\infty)$ is a convex function with minimum achieved at 0. Denote the minimizer of as $(\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}}^R_{M},\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}}^{R}_{M})$, and the estimated ITR is then $\hat{g}^{R}_M({{\bm x}})\triangleq{\mathrm{1}}\{C({{\bm x}};\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}}^R_M)>0\}$. In the following, we refer the robust regression with loss function $M(x)$ as RR(M)-learning. In this article, we consider the following three types of loss functions, i.e., the pinball loss $$M(x)=\rho_\tau(x)\triangleq
\begin{cases}
(\tau-1)x, &\text{if } x<0\\
\tau x, &\text{if } x\geq0
\end{cases}$$ where $0<\tau<1$, the Huber loss $$M(x)=H_\alpha(x)\triangleq
\begin{cases}
0.5x^2, &\text{if } |x|<\alpha\\
\alpha|x|-0.5\alpha^2, &\text{if } |x|\geq\alpha
\end{cases}$$ for some $\alpha>0$, and the $\epsilon$-insensitive loss $$M(x)=J_\epsilon(x)\triangleq\max(0, |x|-\epsilon)$$ for some $\epsilon>0$. The pinball loss are frequently applied for quantile regression [@koenker2005quantile], and the Huber losses and the $\epsilon$-insensitive are robust against heavy tailed errors or outliers. A dramatic difference of pinball loss, Huber loss and $\epsilon$-insensitive loss, compared with the square loss, is that they penalize large deviances linearly instead of quadratically. This property makes them more robust when dealing with responses with non-normal type of errors.
Asymptotic Properties {#section:asymptotic}
=====================
Consistency of Robust Regression: Pinball Loss
----------------------------------------------
Under the conditional independence assumption $\epsilon\perp A|{{\bm X}}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
Q({{\bm X}},A)=& \varphi_0({{\bm X}})+\{A-\pi({{\bm X}})\}C({{\bm X}};\beta_0)+\mu_\epsilon({{\bm X}});\\
Q_\tau({{\bm X}},A)=& \varphi_0({{\bm X}})+\{A-\pi({{\bm X}})\}C({{\bm X}};\beta_0)+F^{-1}_{\epsilon}({{\bm X}};\tau).\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu_{\epsilon}({{\bm X}})$ and $F^{-1}_{\epsilon}({{\bm X}};\tau)$ denote the mean and the $\tau$-th quantile of $\epsilon$ conditional on ${{\bm X}}$ respectively. Therefore, in this situation, we have $g^{\mathrm{opt}}_\mu=g^{\mathrm{opt}}_{\tau}={\mathrm{1}}\{C({{\bm X}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_0)>0\}$. In other words, the underlying ITR which maximize the population mean and $\tau$-th quantile are equivalent. For a good ITR $\hat{g}={\mathrm{1}}\{C({{\bm X}};\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}})>0\}$, it is reasonable to require $\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}}$ to be a consistent estimator of ${{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_0$. This consistency result is first shown for the robust regression with pinball loss, which is given in Theorem 1. We allocate all the proofs into the Appendix A.
Under regularity conditions (A1)-(A8) in the Appendix A, if the contrast function in is correctly specified and $\pi({{\bm x}})$ is known, then $\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}}^{R}_{\rho(\tau)}\inprob{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_0$ for all $\tau\in(0,1)$, where $\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}}^{R}_{\rho(\tau)}$ is the solution of when $M(x)=\rho_{\tau}(x)$.
**Remarks:**
1. Theorem 1 doesn’t assume the finiteness of $E(Y)$. Therefore it can be applied to the cases when $\epsilon_i$ follows a Cauchy distribution.
2. After fitting the model, the Assumption (A2), $\epsilon\perp A|{{\bm X}}$, can be verified by applying conditional independence test with $\hat{r}(\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}},\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}})$ and $A$ given ${{\bm X}}$, where $\hat{r}(\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}},\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}})$ is the estimated residual and $\hat{r}(\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}},\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}})=Y-\varphi({{\bm X}};\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}})-\{A-\pi({{\bm X}})\}C({{\bm X}};\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}})$. See [@lawrance1976conditional; @su2007consistent; @song2007testing; @huang2010testing; @zhang2012kernel] for more discussion of conditional independence hypothesis tests. In particular, we demonstrate the usefulness of the test by applying the Kernel-based conditional independence test (KCI-test, [@zhang2012kernel]) in Section 5. KCI-test doesn’t assume functional forms among variables and thus suits our need.
When the conditional independence assumption ($\epsilon\perp A|{{\bm X}}$) does not hold, $\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}}^{R}_{\rho(\tau)}$ may no longer be a consistent estimator of ${{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_0$. This is intuitively reasonable as $\epsilon$ contains extra information with respect to $A$. In fact, a general result which can be derived in this case is that, $(\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}}^{R}_{\rho(\tau)},\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}}^{R}_{\rho(\tau)})$ minimizes a weighed mean-square error loss function with specification error [@angrist2006quantile; @lee2013interpretation].
Instead of assuming response $Y$ takes an additive error term $\epsilon$ as in , we assume the conditional quantile function $Q_\tau({{\bm X}},A)=\varphi_0({{\bm X}})+\{A-\pi({{\bm X}})\}C({{\bm X}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_0(\tau))$, where we redundantly represent the baseline function and contrast function as $\varphi_0(\cdot)$ and $C(\cdot)$ respectively. Notice that we use ${{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_0(\tau)$ instead of ${{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_0$ to emphasize that the true ${{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}$ may vary with respect to $\tau$. The proposed model is $\hat{Q}({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}},{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})=\varphi({{\bm X}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})+\{A-\pi({{\bm X}})\}C({{\bm X}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}})$ with $C({{\bm X}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}})$ correctly specified. Define $$\label{eq:population_beta_tau}
\left({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}(\tau),{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}(\tau)\right)=\underset{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}\in\mathcal{B},{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}\in\Gamma}{\mathrm{argmin}}{\mbox{E}}\left[\rho_{\tau}\{Y-\hat{Q}({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}},{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})\}
-\rho_{\tau}\{Y-\hat{Q}({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}',{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}')\}\right]$$ where $({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}',{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}')$ is any fixed point in $\mathcal{B}\times\Gamma$. Define the QR specification error as $\Delta_{\tau}({{\bm X}},A;{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}},{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})\triangleq\hat{Q}({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}},{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})-Q_\tau({{\bm X}},A)$. Define the quantile-specific residual as $\epsilon_{\tau}\triangleq Y-Q_\tau({{\bm X}},A)$ with conditional density function $f_{\epsilon_{\tau}}(\cdot|{{\bm X}},A)$. Then we have the following approximation theorem. The proof of the theorem follows Theorem 1 of [@angrist2006quantile], and is omitted for brevity.
Suppose that (i) the conditional density $f_{Y}(y|{{\bm X}},A)$ exists a.s.; (ii)${\mbox{E}}[Q_{\tau}({{\bm X}},A)]$ and ${\mbox{E}}[\Delta^2_{\tau}({{\bm X}},A;{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}},{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})]$ are finite; (iii) $\left({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}(\tau),{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}(\tau)\right)$ uniquely solves . Then $$\left({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}(\tau),{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}(\tau)\right)=\underset{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}, {{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}}{\mathrm{argmin}}{\mbox{E}}[w_{\tau}({{\bm X}},A;{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}},{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})\Delta^2_{\tau}({{\bm X}},A;{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}},{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})]$$ where $$w_{\tau}({{\bm X}},A;{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}},{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})=\int_{0}^{1}(1-u)f_{\epsilon_{\tau}}(u\Delta_{\tau}({{\bm X}},A;{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}},{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})|{{\bm X}},A)du.$$ \[thm:approximation\_quantile\]
**Remarks:**
1. Theorem 2 shows that $\hat{Q}\left({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}(\tau),{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}(\tau)\right)$ is a weighted least square approximation to $Q_{\tau}({{\bm X}},A)$. In other word, $\varphi({{\bm X}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}(\tau))+\{A-\pi({{\bm X}})\}C({{\bm X}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}(\tau))$ is close to $\varphi_0({{\bm X}})+\{A-\pi({{\bm X}})\}C({{\bm X}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_0(\tau))$. So even though it is not true that ${{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}(\tau)={{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_0(\tau)$ holds exactly, the difference between them is small in general . This coupled with the fact that $\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}}^{R}_{\rho(\tau)}\inprob{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}(\tau)$ (proved in Theorem \[thm:asymptotic\_normality\_pinball\]), leads to the conclusion that approximately ITR $\hat{g}^{R}_{\rho(\tau)}({{\bm x}})$ $(\triangleq{\mathrm{1}}\{C({{\bm x}};\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}}^R_{\rho(\tau)})>0\})$ maximizes the $\tau$-th conditional quantile. This observation is justified numerically in Section 4.2.
2. When there exists ${{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}_0\in\Gamma$ such that $\varphi_0({{\bm X}})\equiv\varphi({{\bm X}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}_0)$, then we have ${{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}(\tau)={{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_0(\tau)$.
Consistency of Robust Regression: Other Losses
----------------------------------------------
Under model and the assumption $\epsilon\perp A|{{\bm X}}$, similar consistency results can be established for Huber loss and the $\epsilon$-insensitive loss, as stated in Theorem \[thm:consistency\_huber\].
\[thm:consistency\_huber\] Under regularity conditions (A1)-(A8), if the contrast function in is correctly specified and $\pi({{\bm x}})$ is known, then we have
(a) $\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}}^{R}_{H(\alpha)}\inprob{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_0$ for all $\alpha>0$, where $\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}}^{R}_{H(\alpha)}$ is the solution of when $M(x)=H_{\alpha}(x)$;
(b) $\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}}^{R}_{J(\epsilon)}\inprob{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_0$ for all $\epsilon>0$, where $\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}}^{R}_{J(\epsilon)}$ is the solution of when $M(x)=J_{\epsilon}(x)$.
Asymptotic Normality: Pinball Loss
----------------------------------
Without loss of generality, in this section we assume both the $\varphi({{\bm X}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})$ and $C({{\bm X}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}})$ take the linear form: $\varphi({{\bm X}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})=\tilde{{{\bm X}}}{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}$ and $C({{\bm X}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}})=\tilde{{{\bm X}}}{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}$, where $\tilde{{{\bm X}}}=(1,{{\bm X}}{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}){^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}$. Denote $\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}}(\tau)=\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}}^{R}_{\rho(\tau)}$ and $\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}}(\tau)=\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}}^{R}_{\rho(\tau)}$. Denote ${{\bm W}}=(\{A-\pi({{\bm X}})\}\tilde{{{\bm X}}}{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}},\tilde{{{\bm X}}}{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}){^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}$, ${{\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}}}(\tau)=({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}(\tau){^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}},{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}(\tau){^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}){^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}$, $\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}}}}(\tau)=(\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}}(\tau){^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}},\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}}(\tau){^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}){^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}$ and $J(\tau)\triangleq{\mbox{E}}\left[f_Y({{\bm W}}{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}{{\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}}}(\tau)|{{\bm X}},A){{\bm W}}{{\bm W}}{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}\right]$. Under the following regularity conditions, which is the same as the assumptions assumed in [@angrist2006quantile] and [@lee2013interpretation], we have the asymptotic normality of $\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}}}}(\tau)$, which is given in Theorem \[thm:asymptotic\_normality\_pinball\].
- $\{(Y_i,{{\bm X}}_i,A_i,\epsilon_i),i=1,\ldots,n\}$ are i.i.d random variables;
- the conditional density $f_Y(y|{{\bm X}}={{\bm x}},A=a))$ exists, and is bounded and uniformly continuous in y, uniformly in ${{\bm x}}$ over the support of ${{\bm X}}$;
- $J(\tau)$ is positive definite for all $\tau\in(0,1)$, where ${{\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}}}(\tau)$ is uniquely defined in ;
- ${\mbox{E}}\|{{\bm X}}\|^{2+\epsilon}$ for some $\epsilon>0$.
\[thm:asymptotic\_normality\_pinball\] If regularity conditions (B1)-(B4) are hold, we have
1. (**Uniform Consistency**) $\sup_{\tau}\|\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}}}}(\tau)-{{\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}}}(\tau)\|=o_p(1)$;
2. (**Asymptotic Normality**) $J(\cdot)\sqrt{n}(\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}}}}(\cdot)-{{\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}}}(\cdot))$ converge in distribution to a zero mean Gaussian process with covariance function $\Sigma(\tau,\tau')$ defined as $$\Sigma(\tau,\tau')={\mbox{E}}\left[\left(\tau-{\mathrm{1}}\{Y<{{\bm W}}{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}{{\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}}}(\tau)\}\right)
\left(\tau'-{\mathrm{1}}\{Y<{{\bm W}}{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}{{\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}}}(\tau)\}\right){{\bm W}}{{\bm W}}{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}\right].$$
The proof is given in [@angrist2006quantile], and the asymptotic covariance matrix of $\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}}}}(\tau)$ can be estimated by either a bootstrap procedure [@hahn1997bayesian] or a nonparametric kernel method [@angrist2006quantile]. We adopt the parametric bootstrap approach to estimate the asymptotic covariance matrix in Section 5. Under model the result of Theorem \[thm:asymptotic\_normality\_pinball\] can be further simplified, which is given in Theorem 5.
Under the condition of Theorem 4, if further we assume $Y=\varphi_0({{\bm X}})+\{A-\pi({{\bm X}})\}\tilde{{{\bm X}}}{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_0+\epsilon$, and $\epsilon\perp A|{{\bm X}}$, then
1. $\sup_{\tau}\|\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}}(\tau)-{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_0\|=o_p(1)$;
2. $\sqrt{n}(\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}}(\tau)-{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_0)\indist N({{\mathbf 0}}, J_{11}^{-1}(\tau)\Sigma_{11}(\tau,\tau)J_{11}^{-1}(\tau))$, where $$\begin{aligned}
J_{11}(\tau)=& {\mbox{E}}\left[f_{\epsilon}\left(\tilde{{{\bm X}}}{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}(\tau)-\varphi_0({{\bm X}})|{{\bm X}}\right)
\pi({{\bm X}})\{1-\pi({{\bm X}})\}\tilde{{{\bm X}}}\tilde{{{\bm X}}}{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}\right],\\
\Sigma_{11}(\tau,\tau)=& {\mbox{E}}\left\{\left[\tau-{\mathrm{1}}\{\epsilon<\tilde{{{\bm X}}}{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}(\tau)-\varphi_0({{\bm X}})\}\right]^2
\pi({{\bm X}})\{1-\pi({{\bm X}})\}\tilde{{{\bm X}}}\tilde{{{\bm X}}}{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}\right\}.
\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, we have $\Sigma_{11}(\tau,\tau)\leq\left(\tau^2+|1-2\tau|\right){\mbox{E}}\left[\pi({{\bm X}})\{1-\pi({{\bm X}})\}\tilde{{{\bm X}}}\tilde{{{\bm X}}}{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}\right]$.
Comparing the asymptotic normality of $\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}}(\tau)$ with $\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}}^A_{LS}$ yields interesting insights. Assuming that ${\mbox{E}}(Y|{{\bm X}},A)=\varphi_0({{\bm X}})+\{A-\pi({{\bm X}})\}\tilde{{{\bm X}}}{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_0$ and $({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_0,{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}^*)={\mathrm{argmin}}_{({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}},{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})}{\mbox{E}}[Y-\varphi({{\bm X}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})-\{A-\pi({{\bm X}})\}\tilde{{{\bm X}}}{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}]^2$, the asymptotic normality property of $\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}}^{A}_{LS}$ can then be established, which is summarized in Theorem \[thm:lsA\]. Its proof has been omitted, and readers are referred to [@lu2011variable].
\[thm:lsA\] Under the regularity condition of A1-A4 of [@lu2011variable], $$\sqrt{n}(\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}}^{A}_{LS}-{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_0)\indist N(0,U_{11}^{-1}\Omega_{11}U_{11}^{-1}),$$ where $U_{11}={\mbox{E}}\left[\pi({{\bm X}})\{1-\pi({{\bm X}})\}\tilde{{{\bm X}}}\tilde{{{\bm X}}}{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}\right]$ and $$\Omega_{11}={\mbox{E}}\left[\left\{\varphi_0({{\bm X}})-\varphi({{\bm X}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}^*)+\epsilon\right\}^2
\pi({{\bm X}})\{1-\pi({{\bm X}})\}\tilde{{{\bm X}}}\tilde{{{\bm X}}}{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}\right]$$
**Remarks:**
1. When the family of functions $\{\varphi({{\bm X}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}),{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}\in\Gamma\}$ cannot well approximate the unknown baseline function $\varphi_0({{\bm X}})$, the $\Omega_{11}$ term in the asymptotic variance of $\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}}^{A}_{LS}$ may explode, which makes $\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}}^{A}_{LS}$ less efficient than $\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}}(\tau)$.
2. When $Y=\tilde{{{\bm X}}}{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}\gamma_0+\{A-\pi({{\bm X}})\}\tilde{{{\bm X}}}{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_0+\epsilon$, $\epsilon\perp(A,{{\bm X}})$, $\pi({{\bm X}})\equiv0.5$ and $\epsilon\sim N(0,\sigma^2)$, the asymptotic variance of $\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}}(\tau=0.5)$ is $2\pi\sigma^2{\mbox{E}}(\tilde{{{\bm X}}}\tilde{{{\bm X}}}{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}})^{-1}$, which is strictly larger than $4\sigma^2{\mbox{E}}(\tilde{{{\bm X}}}\tilde{{{\bm X}}}{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}})^{-1}$ (the asymptotic variance of $\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}}^{A}_{LS}$).
Numerical Results: Simulation Studies {#section:simulation}
=====================================
To demonstrate finite sample performance of the proposed robust regression methods for optimal treatment rule estimation, we conduct two simulation studies: the errors independent with treatments, and the errors interactive with treatments, respectively.
Simulation Study I: error terms independent with treatment
----------------------------------------------------------
We consider the following two models with p=3,
- Model I: $$Y_i=1+(X_{i1}-X_{i2})(X_{i1}+X_{i3})+\{A_i-\pi({{\bm X}}_{i})\}{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_0{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}\tilde{{{\bm X}}}_i+\sigma({{\bm X}}_{i})\epsilon_i,$$ where ${{\bm X}}_{i}=(X_{i1},X_{i2},X_{i3}){^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}$ are multivariate normal with mean 0, variance 1, and $\mathrm{Corr}(X_{ij},X_{ik})=0.5^{|j-k|}$, $\tilde{{{\bm X}}}_i=(1,{{\bm X}}_i{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}){^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}$ and ${{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_0=(0,1,-1,1){^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}$.
- Model II: $$Y_i={{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}_0{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}\tilde{{{\bm X}}}_i+\{A_i-\pi({{\bm X}}_{i})\}{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_0{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}\tilde{{{\bm X}}}_i+\sigma({{\bm X}}_{i})\epsilon_i,$$ where ${{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}_0{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}=(0.5,4,1,-3)$, and ${{\bm X}}_{i}$, $\tilde{{{\bm X}}}_{i}$ and ${{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_0$ are the same as Model I.
We take linear forms for both the baseline and the contrast functions, where $\varphi({{\bm X}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})={{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}\tilde{{{\bm X}}}$ and $C({{\bm X}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}})={{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}\tilde{{{\bm X}}}$. We assume the propensity scores $\pi(\cdot)$ are known, and we study both the constant case $(\pi({{\bm X}}_i)=0.5)$ and the non-constant case $(\pi({{\bm X}}_i)=\mathrm{logit}({{\bm X}}_{i1}-{{\bm X}}_{i2}))$. In addition, We consider two different $\sigma({{\bm X}}_{i})$ functions, i.e., the homogeneous case with $\sigma({{\bm X}}_{i})=1$, and the heterogenous case with $\sigma({{\bm X}}_{i})=0.5+(X_{i1}-X_{i2})^2$. The simulation results under constant and non-constant propensity scores are similar. Thus, for brevity, we only report the constant case and allocate the result of non-constant case to the Appendix B. The results of Model I and II with constant propensity score are given in Table \[table:modelI\_constant\] and \[table:modelII\_constant\] respectively.
[@ll ccc ccc ccc]{}\
& & & &\
(r)[3-5]{} (lr)[6-8]{} (l)[9-11]{} n & method & mse & PCD & $\delta_{0.5}$ & mse & PCD & $\delta_{0.5}$ & mse & PCD & $\delta_{0.5}$\
(r)[3-5]{} (lr)[6-8]{} (l)[9-11]{} 100 & LS & 1.32 (0.040) & 80.7 & 1.06 & 2.36 (0.081) & 75.7 & 1.57 & & 58.4 & 3.75\
& P(0.5) & 1.44 (0.042) & 80.1 & 1.13 & 1.73 (0.051) & 78.0 & 1.31 & 2.69 (0.077) & 75.2 & 1.63\
& P(0.25) & 1.90 (0.057) & 78.3 & 1.34 & 1.63 (0.051) & 79.0 & 1.29 & 5.29 (0.168) & 70.4 & 2.25\
& Huber & 1.15 (0.034) & 81.9 & 0.93 & 1.45 (0.044) & 79.9 & 1.13 & 2.61 (0.072) & 74.9 & 1.66\
200 & LS & 0.68 (0.021) & 85.6 & 0.59 & 1.10 (0.033) & 82.0 & 0.91 & & 58.7 & 3.70\
& P(0.5) & 0.73 (0.021) & 85.3 & 0.62 & 0.78 (0.021) & 84.1 & 0.70 & 1.23 (0.037) & 81.3 & 0.99\
& P(0.25) & 0.92 (0.028) & 84.0 & 0.75 & 0.70 (0.023) & 86.0 & 0.59 & 2.48 (0.079) & 75.7 & 1.64\
& Huber & 0.58 (0.017) & 86.8 & 0.50 & 0.66 (0.018) & 85.5 & 0.58 & 1.24 (0.035) & 80.8 & 1.03\
400 & LS & 0.33 (0.009) & 90.3 & 0.26 & 0.56 (0.016) & 87.1 & 0.46 & & 59.2 & 3.61\
& P(0.5) & 0.35 (0.010) & 90.0 & 0.29 & 0.37 (0.010) & 89.0 & 0.34 & 0.56 (0.016) & 87.1 & 0.48\
& P(0.25) & 0.43 (0.013) & 89.1 & 0.34 & 0.33 (0.010) & 90.7 & 0.25 & 1.16 (0.037) & 82.9 & 0.86\
& Huber & 0.28 (0.008) & 91.1 & 0.22 & 0.31 (0.009) & 90.2 & 0.27 & 0.58 (0.017) & 86.7 & 0.49\
800 & LS & 0.17 (0.005) & 93.2 & 0.13 & 0.26 (0.008) & 90.9 & 0.23 & & 59.4 & 3.59\
& P(0.5) & 0.17 (0.005) & 93.1 & 0.13 & 0.19 (0.005) & 92.1 & 0.17 & 0.29 (0.009) & 90.7 & 0.24\
& P(0.25) & 0.22 (0.007) & 92.4 & 0.16 & 0.18 (0.006) & 93.6 & 0.12 & 0.59 (0.019) & 87.3 & 0.48\
& Huber & 0.14 (0.004) & 93.8 & 0.11 & 0.16 (0.005) & 93.1 & 0.14 & 0.29 (0.008) & 90.5 & 0.25\
\
& & & &\
(r)[3-5]{} (lr)[6-8]{} (l)[9-11]{} n & method & mse & PCD & $\delta_{0.5}$ & mse & PCD & $\delta_{0.5}$ & mse & PCD & $\delta_{0.5}$\
(r)[3-5]{} (lr)[6-8]{} (l)[9-11]{} 100 & LS & 3.24 (0.110) & 74.7 & 1.70 & 8.98 (0.561) & 68.6 & 2.44 & & 56.2 & 4.05\
& P(0.5) & 1.70 (0.060) & 80.5 & 1.08 & 1.80 (0.064) & 80.1 & 1.08 & 3.45 (0.124) & 75.1 & 1.69\
& P(0.25) & 2.50 (0.085) & 77.4 & 1.42 & 2.51 (0.079) & 76.8 & 1.46 & 9.13 (0.341) & 67.2 & 2.66\
& Huber & 1.70 (0.057) & 80.4 & 1.10 & 1.87 (0.063) & 79.2 & 1.16 & 4.27 (0.155) & 72.8 & 1.93\
200 & LS & 1.54 (0.050) & 80.6 & 1.06 & 4.71 (0.244) & 73.4 & 1.85 & & 55.2 & 4.17\
& P(0.5) & 0.78 (0.028) & 86.7 & 0.53 & 0.90 (0.032) & 85.3 & 0.63 & 1.49 (0.052) & 81.9 & 0.95\
& P(0.25) & 1.16 (0.039) & 83.5 & 0.81 & 1.23 (0.039) & 82.0 & 0.91 & 3.95 (0.150) & 73.2 & 1.90\
& Huber & 0.77 (0.025) & 86.4 & 0.55 & 0.94 (0.032) & 84.5 & 0.69 & 1.94 (0.071) & 79.3 & 1.19\
400 & LS & 0.80 (0.026) & 86.0 & 0.58 & 2.69 (0.136) & 77.8 & 1.34 & & 54.7 & 4.26\
& P(0.5) & 0.39 (0.013) & 90.5 & 0.27 & 0.44 (0.017) & 89.6 & 0.32 & 0.71 (0.024) & 86.9 & 0.50\
& P(0.25) & 0.56 (0.019) & 88.8 & 0.37 & 0.66 (0.020) & 86.9 & 0.50 & 1.70 (0.055) & 79.6 & 1.17\
& Huber & 0.38 (0.012) & 90.4 & 0.27 & 0.48 (0.017) & 88.8 & 0.36 & 0.91 (0.029) & 84.9 & 0.65\
800 & LS & 0.41 (0.013) & 89.9 & 0.29 & 1.35 (0.150) & 83.1 & 0.82 & & 56.5 & 4.00\
& P(0.5) & 0.18 (0.006) & 93.6 & 0.12 & 0.20 (0.007) & 92.6 & 0.16 & 0.36 (0.013) & 91.0 & 0.25\
& P(0.25) & 0.28 (0.009) & 92.2 & 0.18 & 0.31 (0.010) & 90.8 & 0.24 & 0.89 (0.031) & 85.8 & 0.60\
& Huber & 0.19 (0.006) & 93.3 & 0.13 & 0.22 (0.007) & 92.1 & 0.18 & 0.47 (0.017) & 89.2 & 0.34\
[@ll ccc ccc ccc]{}\
& & & &\
(r)[3-5]{} (lr)[6-8]{} (l)[9-11]{} n & method & mse & PCD & $\delta_{0.5}$ & mse & PCD & $\delta_{0.5}$ & mse & PCD & $\delta_{0.5}$\
(r)[3-5]{} (lr)[6-8]{} (l)[9-11]{} 100 & LS & 0.24 (0.006) & 91.1 & 0.21 & 1.23 (0.061) & 82.4 & 0.87 & & 58.6 & 3.73\
& P(0.5) & 0.36 (0.010) & 89.0 & 0.32 & 0.39 (0.012) & 88.8 & 0.34 & 0.80 (0.024) & 84.2 & 0.69\
& P(0.25) & 0.45 (0.012) & 87.8 & 0.40 & 0.13 (0.004) & 93.4 & 0.12 & 2.37 (0.083) & 76.0 & 1.49\
& Huber & 0.25 (0.007) & 90.8 & 0.22 & 0.31 (0.010) & 90.3 & 0.26 & 0.99 (0.029) & 82.4 & 0.84\
200 & LS & 0.11 (0.003) & 93.7 & 0.10 & 0.52 (0.018) & 87.3 & 0.45 & & 58.7 & 3.69\
& P(0.5) & 0.17 (0.005) & 92.4 & 0.16 & 0.17 (0.005) & 92.4 & 0.15 & 0.32 (0.009) & 89.5 & 0.30\
& P(0.25) & 0.20 (0.005) & 91.8 & 0.18 & 0.06 (0.002) & 95.6 & 0.05 & 1.03 (0.033) & 82.1 & 0.88\
& Huber & 0.12 (0.003) & 93.6 & 0.11 & 0.13 (0.003) & 93.5 & 0.12 & 0.43 (0.013) & 87.9 & 0.40\
400 & LS & 0.05 (0.001) & 95.7 & 0.05 & 0.26 (0.008) & 90.7 & 0.23 & & 59.4 & 3.60\
& P(0.5) & 0.09 (0.002) & 94.5 & 0.08 & 0.09 (0.002) & 94.5 & 0.08 & 0.15 (0.004) & 92.8 & 0.14\
& P(0.25) & 0.10 (0.002) & 94.2 & 0.09 & 0.03 (0.001) & 96.9 & 0.02 & 0.44 (0.012) & 87.9 & 0.39\
& Huber & 0.06 (0.001) & 95.5 & 0.05 & 0.06 (0.002) & 95.4 & 0.06 & 0.21 (0.006) & 91.6 & 0.19\
800 & LS & 0.03 (0.001) & 96.9 & 0.03 & 0.13 (0.004) & 93.5 & 0.11 & & 59.4 & 3.58\
& P(0.5) & 0.04 (0.001) & 96.1 & 0.04 & 0.04 (0.001) & 96.2 & 0.04 & 0.07 (0.002) & 95.1 & 0.06\
& P(0.25) & 0.05 (0.001) & 95.8 & 0.05 & 0.01 (0.000) & 97.9 & 0.01 & 0.20 (0.005) & 91.5 & 0.19\
& Huber & 0.03 (0.001) & 96.8 & 0.03 & 0.03 (0.001) & 96.8 & 0.03 & 0.10 (0.002) & 94.2 & 0.09\
\
& & & &\
(r)[3-5]{} (lr)[6-8]{} (l)[9-11]{} n & method & mse & PCD & $\delta_{0.5}$ & mse & PCD & $\delta_{0.5}$ & mse & PCD & $\delta_{0.5}$\
(r)[3-5]{} (lr)[6-8]{} (l)[9-11]{} 100 & LS & 1.97 (0.072) & 79.8 & 1.13 & 7.75 (0.514) & 70.4 & 2.22 & & 56.4 & 4.02\
& P(0.5) & 0.84 (0.029) & 86.1 & 0.55 & 1.21 (0.045) & 84.3 & 0.74 & 1.82 (0.071) & 80.5 & 1.07\
& P(0.25) & 1.37 (0.049) & 82.1 & 0.90 & 1.56 (0.051) & 80.5 & 1.04 & 6.20 (0.261) & 69.8 & 2.25\
& Huber & 0.84 (0.031) & 85.9 & 0.57 & 1.33 (0.046) & 82.8 & 0.85 & 2.69 (0.106) & 77.0 & 1.42\
200 & LS & 0.99 (0.035) & 84.7 & 0.66 & 4.16 (0.237) & 75.2 & 1.62 & & 55.1 & 4.19\
& P(0.5) & 0.41 (0.014) & 90.2 & 0.28 & 0.58 (0.024) & 89.4 & 0.37 & 0.79 (0.030) & 86.7 & 0.52\
& P(0.25) & 0.64 (0.021) & 87.4 & 0.45 & 0.74 (0.024) & 86.1 & 0.54 & 2.48 (0.096) & 76.9 & 1.40\
& Huber & 0.39 (0.013) & 90.3 & 0.27 & 0.69 (0.027) & 87.7 & 0.45 & 1.17 (0.044) & 83.4 & 0.78\
400 & LS & 0.51 (0.018) & 89.0 & 0.35 & 2.48 (0.133) & 79.3 & 1.20 & & 54.7 & 4.25\
& P(0.5) & 0.20 (0.007) & 93.2 & 0.14 & 0.29 (0.011) & 92.6 & 0.17 & 0.32 (0.011) & 91.2 & 0.22\
& P(0.25) & 0.30 (0.009) & 91.3 & 0.22 & 0.39 (0.012) & 89.9 & 0.28 & 0.99 (0.030) & 83.0 & 0.78\
& Huber & 0.20 (0.007) & 93.2 & 0.14 & 0.34 (0.012) & 91.4 & 0.22 & 0.53 (0.016) & 88.4 & 0.37\
800 & LS & 0.25 (0.008) & 92.2 & 0.17 & 1.25 (0.159) & 84.2 & 0.73 & & 56.4 & 4.00\
& P(0.5) & 0.10 (0.004) & 95.3 & 0.07 & 0.14 (0.006) & 94.7 & 0.09 & 0.16 (0.006) & 93.9 & 0.11\
& P(0.25) & 0.14 (0.005) & 94.0 & 0.10 & 0.18 (0.006) & 92.9 & 0.14 & 0.49 (0.015) & 88.0 & 0.39\
& Huber & 0.09 (0.004) & 95.3 & 0.06 & 0.17 (0.006) & 93.9 & 0.11 & 0.26 (0.009) & 91.8 & 0.19\
Comparison is made among four methods. They are: lsA-learning, robust regression with $\rho_{0.5}$ (RR($\rho_{0.5}$)), robust regression with $\rho_{0.25}$ (RR($\rho_{0.25}$)), and robust regression with Huber loss (RR(H)). The error terms $\epsilon_i$ are taken as standard i.i.d. normal, log-normal or Cauchy distribution, and independent with both $A$ and ${{\bm X}}$. It is easy to check that the conditional independence assumption $\epsilon\perp A|{{\bm X}}$ is satisfied, and $g^{\mathrm{opt}}_{\mu}=g^{\mathrm{opt}}_{\tau}={\mathrm{1}}\{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_0{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}\tilde{{{\bm X}}}_i>0\}$. We consider four different sample sizes 100, 200, 400 and 800. To evaluate the performance of each method, we compare three groups of criteria: (1) the mean squared error $\|\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}}-{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_{0}\|^2_2$ (mse), which measures the distance between estimated parameters and the true parameter ${{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_0$; (2) the percentage of making correct decisions (PCD), which are calculated based on a validation set with 10000 observations. Specifically, we take the formula $100*\left(1-\sum_{i=1}^{N_T}|{\mathrm{1}}\{\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}}{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}\tilde{{{\bm X}}}_i>0\}-{\mathrm{1}}\{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_0{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}\tilde{{{\bm X}}}_i>0\}|/N_T\right)$ with $N_T=10000$; (3) the differences of $V_\mu(g)$ and $V_{0.5-q}(g)$ between the optimal ITR and the estimated ITR, where $\delta_{\mu}=V_{\mu}(g_{\mu}^{\mathrm{opt}})-V_{\mu}(\hat{g})$ and $\delta_{\tau}=V_{\tau-q}(g_{\mu}^{\mathrm{opt}})-V_{\tau-q}(\hat{g})$, $\forall\tau\in(0,1)$. $V_{\mu}(g)$ and $V_{\tau-q}(g)$ (defined in Section 2.1) are estimated from the validation set as well, and they evaluate the overall performance of an ITR $g$, where the former one focuses on the response’s mean and the latter one focuses on the response’s conditional $\tau$-th quantile. Under our setting, $\delta_{\mu}=\delta_{0.5}$ when they both exists. Thus, only $\delta_{0.5}$ is reported. For each scenario, we take 1000 replications. All numbers in the tables are based on the sample average of all replications. We further report the standard errors of mse to evaluate the variability of the corresponding statistics.
When the propensity score is constant, lsA-learning is equivalent to both Q- and A-learning under our setting. If we compare the performance of the methods under homogeneous and heterogeneous errors, the first thing we find is that lsA-learning works much worse under the heterogeneous errors, while all other methods are generally less affected by the heterogeneity of the errors. When the baseline function is misspecified as in Model I, under the homogeneous normal errors, RR(H) works slightly better than lsA-learning, while $\mathrm{RR}(\rho_{0.25})$ works the worst. However, the difference in general is small. For the homogeneous log-normal errors, again RR(H) works the best, while $\mathrm{RR}(\rho_{0.5})$ and $\mathrm{RR}(\rho_{0.25})$ have similar performance, and lsA-learning works the worst. Under the homogeneous Cauchy errors, $\mathrm{RR}(\rho_{0.5})$ works the best and RR(H) has a close performance. The lsA-learning is no longer consistent, and its mse explodes. The actual numbers are too large and thus leave as blank in Table \[table:modelI\_constant\] and \[table:modelII\_constant\]. Furthermore, with the Cauchy errors, the PCD of lsA-learning are less than 60% under all scenarios, while other methods’ PCD can be as high as 90%. When baseline function is correctly specified as in Model II, under homogeneous normal errors, lsA-learning performs the best. However, in this case RR(H) also has a very close performance, and thus makes no difference from a practical point of view to choose between these two methods. The results of Model II under other cases draw similar conclusion as Model I. To sum up, the overall conclusion is that, under the conditional independence assumption, the proposed robust regression method RR(M) is more efficient than Q-, A- and lsA-learning in the circumstances when observations have skewed, heterogeneous or heavy-tailed errors. On the other hand, when the error terms indeed follows i.i.d. normal distribution, the loss of efficiency of RR(M) is not significant. This is especially true when Huber loss is applied.
Simulation Study II: error terms interactive with treatment
-----------------------------------------------------------
We consider the following model with p=2, $$Y_i=1 + 0.5\sin[\pi(X_{i1}-X_{i2})]+
0.25(1+X_{i1}+2X_{i2})^2+(A_i-\pi({{\bm X}}_{i})){{\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}}}_0{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}\tilde{{{\bm X}}}_i+\sigma({{\bm X}}_{i},A_i)\epsilon_i,$$ where ${{\bm X}}_{i}=(X_{i1},X_{i2}){^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}$, $\tilde{{{\bm X}}}_i=(1,{{\bm X}}_i{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}){^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}$, $\sigma({{\bm X}}_{i},A_i)=1+A_i d_0 X_{i1}^2$, ${{\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}}}_0{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}=(0.5,2,-1)$ and $X_{ik}$ are i.i.d. Uniform\[-1,1\].
Similar as Section 4.1, we take linear forms for both the baseline and the contrast functions, where $\varphi({{\bm X}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})={{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}\tilde{{{\bm X}}}$, $C({{\bm X}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}})={{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}{{\bm W}}$ and ${{\bm W}}=(\tilde{{{\bm X}}},X_{1}^2,X_{2}^2,X_{1}X_{2})$. $d_0=5$, 10 or 15. The error terms $\epsilon_i$ follows i.i.d. N(0,1) or Gamma(1,1)-1 distribution. The propensity scores $\pi(\cdot)$ are known, and we consider both the constant case $\pi({{\bm X}}_i)=0.5$ and the non-constant case $\pi({{\bm X}}_i)=\mathrm{logit}({{\bm X}}_{i1}-{{\bm X}}_{i2})$. We report only the result of the constant case (Table \[table:interacted\_constant\_ps\]), and allocate the non-constant case to Appendix B.
---------------------------------------------------------- ------- ----- ----------------- ----------------- ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- ------------------
(r)[4-6]{} (lr)[7-9]{} (lr)[10-12]{} (lr)[13-15]{} Error $d_0$ n $ \delta_{\mu}$ $ \delta_{0.5}$ $ \delta_{0.25}$ $ \delta_{\mu}$ $ \delta_{0.5}$ $ \delta_{0.25}$ $ \delta_{\mu}$ $ \delta_{0.5}$ $ \delta_{0.25}$ $ \delta_{\mu}$ $ \delta_{0.5}$ $ \delta_{0.25}$
Normal 5 100 0.16 0.16 0.31 0.16 0.16 0.27 0.25 0.25 0.17 0.14 0.14 0.26
200 0.09 0.09 0.24 0.10 0.10 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.19
400 0.05 0.05 0.18 0.07 0.07 0.12 0.15 0.15 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.13
800 0.02 0.02 0.14 0.05 0.05 0.09 0.14 0.14 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.09
10 100 0.28 0.28 0.92 0.22 0.22 0.81 0.39 0.39 0.40 0.21 0.21 0.82
200 0.19 0.19 0.85 0.15 0.15 0.71 0.33 0.33 0.28 0.13 0.13 0.72
400 0.12 0.12 0.79 0.10 0.10 0.60 0.30 0.30 0.23 0.09 0.09 0.63
800 0.06 0.06 0.73 0.07 0.07 0.50 0.27 0.27 0.22 0.06 0.06 0.54
15 100 0.35 0.35 1.55 0.25 0.25 1.40 0.47 0.47 0.62 0.26 0.26 1.43
200 0.27 0.27 1.48 0.18 0.18 1.31 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.18 0.18 1.34
400 0.19 0.19 1.47 0.13 0.13 1.17 0.44 0.44 0.37 0.12 0.12 1.23
800 0.12 0.12 1.39 0.09 0.09 1.03 0.41 0.41 0.35 0.08 0.08 1.07
Gamma 5 100 0.15 0.18 0.31 0.15 0.11 0.16 0.22 0.12 0.09 0.12 0.09 0.15
200 0.09 0.12 0.26 0.10 0.06 0.10 0.18 0.08 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.09
400 0.05 0.07 0.21 0.08 0.03 0.07 0.16 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.02 0.07
800 0.02 0.04 0.17 0.07 0.03 0.06 0.15 0.06 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.07
10 100 0.26 0.33 0.90 0.22 0.16 0.54 0.39 0.13 0.27 0.22 0.14 0.50
200 0.19 0.29 0.88 0.17 0.08 0.44 0.37 0.10 0.22 0.17 0.07 0.41
400 0.12 0.24 0.87 0.13 0.04 0.39 0.35 0.08 0.19 0.14 0.03 0.36
800 0.06 0.17 0.78 0.12 0.03 0.37 0.33 0.07 0.19 0.13 0.02 0.35
15 100 0.36 0.57 1.52 0.30 0.31 0.98 0.53 0.19 0.40 0.32 0.28 0.89
200 0.28 0.53 1.51 0.22 0.19 0.81 0.55 0.16 0.29 0.24 0.16 0.71
400 0.19 0.47 1.50 0.17 0.13 0.73 0.57 0.15 0.26 0.21 0.11 0.63
800 0.11 0.43 1.50 0.15 0.11 0.71 0.58 0.15 0.24 0.18 0.09 0.62
---------------------------------------------------------- ------- ----- ----------------- ----------------- ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- ------------------
: Summary results with constant propensity scores when errors interacted with treatment. Least square stands for lsA-learning. Pinball(0.5) stands for robust regression with pinball loss and parameter $\tau=0.5$. Pinball(0.25) stands for robust regression with pinball loss and parameter $\tau=0.25$. Huber stands for robust regression with Huber loss, where parameter $\alpha$ is tuned automatically with R function rlm.[]{data-label="table:interacted_constant_ps"}
We compare the performance of four methods: lsA-learning, robust regression with $\rho_{0.5}$ ($\mathrm{RR}(\rho_{0.5})$), robust regression with $\rho_{0.25}$ ($\mathrm{RR}(\rho_{0.25})$) and robust regression with Huber loss ($\mathrm{RR}(H)$). We consider four different sample sizes 100, 200, 400 and 800. For each scenario, we again simulate 1000 replications. When error terms are interactive with treatment, the true ${{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_0$ associated with $g_{\mu}^{\mathrm{opt}}$ and $g_{\tau}^{\mathrm{opt}}$ are different. Specifically, under our model, ${{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_0=({{\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}}}_0{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}},0,0,0){^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}$ for $g_{\mu}^{\mathrm{opt}}$, ${{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_0=({{\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}}}_0{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}},d_0 F^{-1}_{\epsilon}(0.5),0,0){^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}$ for $g_{0.5}^{\mathrm{opt}}$ and ${{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_0=({{\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}}}_0{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}},d_0 F^{-1}_{\epsilon}(0.25),0,0){^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}$ for $g_{0.25}^{\mathrm{opt}}$. Thus, the two criteria, mse and PCD used in simulation study I, are no longer meaningful. So we evaluate the performance of methods in this simulation study based on value differences $\delta_{\mu}$, $\delta_{0.5}$ and $\delta_{0.25}$.
Based on Theorem \[thm:lsA\], we can prove that $\hat{g}^{A}_{LS}({{\bm x}})$ is consistent which converges to $g^{\mathrm{opt}}_{\mu}$ as sample size goes to infinity. This is shown in Table \[table:interacted\_constant\_ps\] such that the $\delta_{\mu}$ column for the lsA-learning method converges to 0 as sample size increases. We also know under Normal error terms, $\delta_{0.5}=\delta_{\mu}$. Thus, the $\delta_{0.5}$ column for the lsA-learning method also converges to 0. However, all other columns in Table \[table:interacted\_constant\_ps\] converge to a positive constant instead of 0 as sample size goes to infinity.
Another observation we discover from Table \[table:interacted\_constant\_ps\] is $\mathrm{RR}(H)$ and $\mathrm{RR}(\rho_{0.5})$ perform similarly. One additional observation we have is even though lsA-learning outperform all other methods in $\delta_{\mu}$ when sample size is large. It may be worse than $\mathrm{RR}(\rho_{0.5})$ and $\mathrm{RR}(H)$ when sample size is small. This is due to the fact that lsA-learning is inefficient under the heteroscedastic or skewed errors. The last observation we have is overall lsA-learning, $\mathrm{RR}(\rho_{0.5})$ and $\mathrm{RR}(\rho_{0.25})$ perform best at the columns $\delta_{\mu}$, $\delta_{0.5}$ and $\delta_{0.25}$ accordingly. The reason is given in the Remark under Theorem \[thm:approximation\_quantile\], which shows that $\hat{g}^{R}_{\rho(\tau)}$ $(\triangleq{\mathrm{1}}\{C({{\bm x}};\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}}^R_{\rho(\tau)})>0\})$ in general approximates the unknown optimal ITR $g^{\mathrm{opt}}_{\tau}$ even when the conditional independence assumption $\epsilon\perp A|{{\bm X}}$ does not hold.
Application to AIDS study {#section:aids}
=========================
We illustrate the proposed robust regression method to data from AIDS Clinical Trials Group Protocol 175 (ACTG175), which has been previously studied by various authors [@leon2003semiparametric; @tsiatis2008covariate; @zhang2008improving; @lu2011variable]. In the study, 2139 HIV-infected subjects were randomized to four different treatment groups in equal proportions, and the treatment groups are zidovudine (ZDV) monotherapy, ZDV + didanosine (ddI), ZDV + zalcitabine, and ddI monotherapy. Following [@lu2011variable], we choose CD4 count $(\mathrm{cells/mm}^3)$ at $20\pm5$ weeks post-baseline as the primary continuous outcome $Y$, and include five continuous covariates and seven binary covariates as our covariates. They are: 1. age (years), 2. weight (kg), 3. karnof=Karnofsky score (scale of 0-100), 4. cd40=CD4 count $(\mathrm{cells/mm}^3)$ at baseline, 5. cd80=CD8 count $(\mathrm{cells/mm}^3)$ at baseline, 6. hemophilia=hemophilia (0=no, 1=yes), 7. homosexuality=homosexual activity (0=no, 1=yes), 8. drugs=history of intravenous drug use (0=no, 1=yes), 9. race (0=white, 1=non-white), 10. gender (0=female, 1=male), 11. str2= antiretroviral history (0=naive, 1=experienced), and 12. sympton=symptomatic status (0=asymptomatic, 1=symptomatic). For brevity, we only compare the treatment ZDV + didanosine (ddI) $(A=1)$ and ZDV + zalcitabine $(A=0)$, and restrict our samples to subjects receiving these two treatments. Thus, the propensity scores $\pi({{\bm X}}_i)\equiv 0.5$ in our restricted samples as the patients are assigned into one of two treatments with equal probability.
In our analysis, we assume linear models for both the baseline and the contrast functions. For interpretability, we keep the response $Y$ (the CD4 count) at its original scale, which is also consistent with the way clinicians think about the outcome in practice [@tsiatis2008covariate]. We plot the scatter plot of response Y against age. It shows some skewness and heterogeneity. With some preliminary analysis (fitting full model with lsA-learning and RR(M)), we find that only covariates age, homosexuality and race may possibly interact with the treatment. So in our final model, only these three covariates are included in the contrast function, while at the same time we still keep all twelve covariates in the baseline function. The estimated coefficients associated with their corresponding standard errors and p-values are given in Table \[table:aids\], where standard errors are estimated with 1000 bootstrap samples (parametric bootstrap) and p-values are calculated with normal approximation. Only coefficients included in the contrast function are shown.
---------------------------------------------------------- -------- ------- ----------- -------- ------- ----------- -------- ------- ----------- -------- ------- -----------
(r)[2-4]{} (lr)[5-7]{} (l)[8-10]{} (l)[11-13]{} Variable Est. SE PV Est. SE PV Est. SE PV Est. SE PV
intercept -42.61 32.93 0.196 -33.45 37.32 0.370 -35.77 39.17 0.361 -42.76 31.40 0.173
age 3.13 0.85 **0.000** 2.62 0.97 **0.007** 2.46 1.06 **0.020** 2.80 0.79 **0.000**
homosexuality -40.66 16.73 **0.015** -33.18 17.68 0.061 -35.38 18.28 0.053 -27.33 15.19 0.072
race -25.70 17.69 0.146 -33.56 18.12 0.064 -34.21 18.32 0.062 -25.29 16.08 0.116
---------------------------------------------------------- -------- ------- ----------- -------- ------- ----------- -------- ------- ----------- -------- ------- -----------
: Analysis results for AIDS data. Est. stands for estimate; SE stands for standard error; PV stands for p-value. All p-values which are significant at level 0.1 are highlighted.[]{data-label="table:aids"}
From Tables \[table:aids\], we make the following observations. First, lsA-learning (equivalent to Q- and A-learning with this model setting) and robust regression with pinball loss and Huber loss all have estimates with the exact same signs. Second, the estimated coefficients are distinguishable across different methods. Third, the covairiate homosexuality is significant under lsA-learning, but it is not significant under robust regression with either pinball losses or Huber loss, when the significant level $\alpha$ is set to 0.05.
We could further estimate the values $(V_{\mu}(\hat{g}))$ associated with each method by either the inverse probability weighted estimator (IPWE) [@robin2000marginal] or the augmented inverse probability weighted estimator (AIPWE) [@robins1994estimation], where $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{V}^{\mathrm{IPWE}}_{\mu}(\hat{g})=&\frac{\sum_{i=1}^n{\mathrm{1}}{\{A_i=\hat{g}({{\bm X}}_i)\}}Y_i/p(A_i|{{\bm X}}_i)}
{\sum_{i=1}^n{\mathrm{1}}{\{A_i=\hat{g}({{\bm X}}_i)\}}/p(A_i|{{\bm X}}_i)},\\
\hat{V}^{\mathrm{AIPWE}}_{\mu}(\hat{g})=&\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\hat{{\mbox{E}}}(Y_i|{{\bm X}}_i,\hat{g}({{\bm X}}_i))
+\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\frac{{\mathrm{1}}{\{A_i=\hat{g}({{\bm X}}_i)\}}}{p(A_i|{{\bm X}}_i)}\left[Y_i-\hat{{\mbox{E}}}(Y_i|{{\bm X}}_i,A_i)\right],\end{aligned}$$ $\hat{{\mbox{E}}}(Y_i|{{\bm X}}_i,A_i))=\varphi({{\bm X}}_i;\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}})+\left\{A_i-p(A_i|{{\bm X}}_i)\right\}C({{\bm X}}_i;\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}})$, and $p(A_i|{{\bm X}}_i)\equiv0.5$. Both $\hat{V}^{\mathrm{IPWE}}_{\mu}(\hat{g})$ and $\hat{V}^{\mathrm{AIPWE}}_{\mu}(\hat{g})$ are consistent estimator of value $V_{\mu}(\hat{g})$, and their asymptotic covariance matrix can also be consistently estimated from the data [@zhang2012robust; @mckeague2014estimation]. The estimates of $(V_{\mu}(\hat{g}))$ and their corresponding 95% confidence interval of four methods based on both IPWE and AIPWE are given in Table \[table:aids\_value\].
Estimator method Value SE CI
----------- --------------- -------- ------ ------------------
IPWE Least Square 405.05 6.72 (391.88, 418.22)
Pinball(0.5) 406.77 6.71 (393.63, 419.92)
Pinball(0.25) 406.07 6.73 (392.87, 419.26)
Huber 407.03 6.71 (393.87, 420.18)
AIPWE Least Square 404.39 6.12 (392.40, 416.38)
Pinball(0.5) 405.93 6.13 (393.92, 417.94)
Pinball(0.25) 403.60 6.62 (390.62, 416.58)
Huber 406.00 6.15 (393.95, 418.04)
: Result of estimated values and their corresponding 95% confidence interval for four methods based on IPWE and AIPWE.SE stands for standard error. CI stands for 95% confidence interval.[]{data-label="table:aids_value"}
From Table \[table:aids\_value\], robust regression with $\rho_{0.5}$ and Huber loss perform slightly better than lsA-learning, while robust regression with $\rho_{0.25}$ performs worse than lsA-learning when the values $(V_{\mu}(\hat{g}))$ is estimated based on AIPWE. We conduct KCI-test to check the conditional independence assumption $\epsilon\perp A|{{\bm X}}$. For $\mathrm{RR}(\rho(0.5))$, $\mathrm{RR}(\rho(0.25))$ and RR(H), their p-values associated with KCI-test are 0.060, 0.002 and 0.083 respectively. The conditional independence assumption holds at the significance level of 0.05 for $\mathrm{RR}(\rho(0.5))$ and RR(H), so the estimated ITR can be thought to maximize $V_{\mu}(g)$. On the other hand, this assumption doesn’t hold for $\mathrm{RR}(\rho(0.25))$, and its estimated ITR doesn’t maximize $V_{\mu}(g)$, instead it approximately maximizes $V_{0.25-q}(g)$. This partly explains the relatively bad performance of RR($\rho_{0.25}$) in Table \[table:aids\_value\]. Again, as $\mathrm{RR}(\rho(0.5))$ and RR(H) are more robust against heterogeneous, right skewed errors comparing with the least square method, they slightly outperform lsA-learning in term of $V_{\mu}(g)$.
Discussion
==========
In this article, we propose a new general loss based robust regression framework for estimating the optimal individualized treatment rules. This new method has the desired property to be robust against skewed, heterogeneous, heavy-tailed errors and outliers. And similar as A-learning, it produces consistent estimates of the optimal ITR even when the baseline function is misspecified. However, the consistency of the proposed method does require the key conditional independence assumption $\epsilon\perp A|{{\bm X}}$, which is somewhat stronger than the condition needed for the consistency of Q- and A-learning $({\mbox{E}}(\epsilon|{{\bm X}},A)=0)$. So there are situations when the classical Q- and A-learning are more appropriate to apply. Furthermore, we also point out in the article that when pinball loss $\rho_{\tau}$ is chosen and the assumption $\epsilon\perp A|{{\bm X}}$ doesn’t hold, the estimated ITR approximately maximize the conditional $\tau$-th quantile and thus maximize $V_{\tau-q}(g)$. From a practice point of view, there are situations when maximizing $V_{\tau-q}(g)$ is a much more reasonable approach comparing with maximizing $V_{\mu}(g)$, especially when the conditional distribution of response $Y$ is highly skewed to one side.
In practice, there are cases when multiple treatment groups need to be compared simultaneously. For brevity, we have limited our discussion to two treatment groups. However, the proposed method can be readily extended to multiple cases by just replacing equation with the following more complex form, $$L_{3n}({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}, {{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}M\left[Y_i-\varphi({{\bm X}}_i;{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})-\sum_{k=1}^{K-1}(I(A_i=k)-\pi_k({{\bm X}}_i))C_k({{\bm X}}_i;{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_k)\right],
\label{eq:A-general-loss2}$$ where $\mathcal{A}=\{1,\ldots,K\}$, $K$-th treatment is the baseline treatment, $\pi_k({{\bm X}}_i)=\Pr(A_i=k|{{\bm X}}_i)$ and $C_k({{\bm X}}_i;{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_k)$ denotes the contrast function comparing $k$-th treatment and the baseline treatment. All Theorems can be easily extended to this multiple treatments setting as well.
When the dimension of prognostic variables is high, regularized regression is needed in order to produce parsimonious yet interpretable individualized treatment rules. Essentially this is a variable selection problem in the context of M-estimator, which has been previously studied in [-@wu2009variable; -@li2011nonconcave], etc. This is an interesting topic that needs further investigation. Another interesting direction is to extend the current method to the multi-stage setting, where sequential decisions are made along the time line.
Appendix A: Proof of Asymptotic Properties {#appendix-a-proof-of-asymptotic-properties .unnumbered}
==========================================
We consider the following additive model, $$Y_i=\varphi_0({{\bm X}}_i)+\{A_i-\pi({{\bm X}}_i)\}C({{\bm X}}_i;\beta_0)+\epsilon_i,\; i=1,\ldots,n,$$ where $\varphi_0({{\bm X}})$ is the baseline function, $C({{\bm X}};\beta_0)$ is the contrast function, $\pi({{\bm X}})$ is the propensity score, and $\epsilon$ is the error term. We estimate $({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}, {{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})$ by minimizing $$L_{3n}({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}, {{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}M\left[Y_i-\varphi({{\bm X}}_i;{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})-\{A_i-\pi({{\bm X}}_i)\}C({{\bm X}}_i;{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}})\right],
\label{eq:A-general-loss}$$ where ${{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}\in\Gamma$, ${{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}\in\mathcal{B}$ and $M:{\mathrm{I \! R} \mathit{^{\rightarrow}}} [0,\infty)$ is a convex function with minimum achieved at 0. We consider the following three types of loss functions, i.e., the pinball loss $$M(x)=\rho_\tau(x)\triangleq
\begin{cases}
(\tau-1)x, &\text{if } x<0\\
\tau x, &\text{if } x\geq0
\end{cases}$$ where $0<\tau<1$, the Huber loss $$M(x)=H_\alpha(x)\triangleq
\begin{cases}
0.5x^2, &\text{if } |x|<\alpha\\
\alpha|x|-0.5\alpha^2, &\text{if } |x|\geq\alpha
\end{cases}$$ for some $\alpha>0$, and the $\epsilon$-insensitive loss $$M(x)=J_\epsilon(x)\triangleq\max(0, |x|-\epsilon)$$ for some $\epsilon>0$. Define $\Delta C({{\bm x}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}})=C({{\bm x}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}})-C({{\bm x}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_0)$. Assume ${{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}\in\Gamma$, ${{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}\in\mathcal{B}$ and ${{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}'$ is any arbitrary fix point in $\Gamma$.
**Regularity conditions A:**
- $\{(Y_i,{{\bm X}}_i,A_i,\epsilon_i),i=1,\ldots,n\}$ are i.i.d random variables.
- $\epsilon_i\perp A_i|{{\bm X}}_i$ $\forall i=1,\ldots,n$.
- ${\mbox{E}}|\Delta C({{\bm X}}_i;{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}})|<\infty$ $\forall{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}\in\mathcal{B}$.
- $\Pr\{{{\bm x}}\in\mathcal{X}:\;\Delta C({{\bm x}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}})\neq 0\}>0$ for all ${{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}\neq{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_0$.
- ${\mbox{E}}|\varphi({{\bm X}}_i;{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})|<\infty$ $\forall{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}\in\Gamma$.
- $G_2({{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})$ has unique minimizer ${{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}^*$, where $G_2({{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})$ is the pointwise limit of $L_{3n}({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_0,{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})-L_{3n}({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_0,{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}')$ in probability.
- $L_{3n}({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}},{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})$ is strictly convex with respect to $({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}},{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})$.
- $\epsilon|{{\bm X}}={{\bm x}}$ has nonzero density on $\mathbb{R}$ for almost all ${{\bm x}}\in\mathcal{X}$.
$\left|\rho_\tau(x-y)-\rho_\tau(x)\right|\leq |y|$, for all $\tau\in(0,1)$.
$$\begin{aligned}
\left|\rho_\tau(x-y)-\rho_\tau(x)\right| &= \left|\tau\left\{(x-y)_{+}-x_{+}\right\}+(1-\tau)\left\{(x-y)_{-}-x_{-}\right\}\right|\\
&\leq|(x-y)_{+}-x_{+}|+|(x-y)_{-}-x_{-}|=|y|
\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\rho_\tau(x-y)-\rho_\tau(x)=&-\tau y{\mathrm{1}}\{x\geq 0\}+(1-\tau)y{\mathrm{1}}\{x< 0\}+(y-x){\mathrm{1}}\{x\geq 0\}{\mathrm{1}}\{y>x\}\\
&+(x-y){\mathrm{1}}\{x< 0\}{\mathrm{1}}\{y< x\},
\end{aligned}$$
for all $\tau\in(0,1)$.
Denote $D=\rho_\tau(x-y)-\rho_\tau(x)$.
1. If $x\geq0$, $y\leq0$ $\Rightarrow$ $D=-\tau y$;
2. If $x\geq0$, $y>0$, $|x|\geq|y|$ $\Rightarrow$ $D=-\tau y$;
3. If $x\geq0$, $y>0$, $|x|<|y|$ $\Rightarrow$ $D=-\tau y+(y-x)$;
4. If $x<0$, $y\geq0$ $\Rightarrow$ $D=(1-\tau)y$;
5. If $x<0$, $y<0$, $|x|\geq|y|$ $\Rightarrow$ $D=(1-\tau)y$;
6. If $x<0$, $y<0$, $|x|<|y|$ $\Rightarrow$ $D=(1-\tau)y+(x-y)$;
Combining the above 6 cases, Lemma 2 is proved.
**Proof of Theorem 1.**
Recall that the loss function defined in takes the form $$L_{3n}({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}, {{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\rho_\tau\left[\varphi_0({{\bm X}}_i)-\varphi({{\bm X}}_i;{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})+\epsilon_i
-(A_i-\pi({{\bm X}}_i))\Delta C({{\bm X}}_i;{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}})\right].$$ By definition, $$\begin{aligned}
(\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}}^{R}_{\rho(\tau)},\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}}^{R}_{\rho(\tau)}) =& {\mathrm{argmin}}_{({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}},{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})}L_{3n}({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}},{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})-L_{3n}({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_0,{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}')\\
=& {\mathrm{argmin}}_{({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}},{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})}\left[L_{3n}({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}},{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})-L_{3n}({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_0,{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})\right]+
\left[L_{3n}({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_0,{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})-L_{3n}({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_0,{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}')\right],
\end{aligned}$$ Define $$\begin{aligned}
S_{1n}({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}, {{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}) =& L_{3n}({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}, {{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})-L_{3n}({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_0, {{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})=1/n\sum_{i=1}^n d_{1i};\\
S_{2n}({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}, {{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}) =& L_{3n}({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_0, {{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})-L_{3n}({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_0, {{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}')=1/n\sum_{i=1}^n d_{2i}
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
d_{1i} =& \rho_\tau\left[\varphi_0({{\bm X}}_i)-\varphi({{\bm X}}_i;{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})+\epsilon_i
-(A_i-\pi({{\bm X}}_i))\Delta C({{\bm X}}_i;{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}})\right]-\rho_\tau\left[\varphi_0({{\bm X}}_i)-\varphi({{\bm X}}_i;{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})+\epsilon_i\right],\\
d_{2i} =& \rho_\tau\left[\varphi_0({{\bm X}}_i)-\varphi({{\bm X}}_i;{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})+\epsilon_i\right]-\rho_\tau\left[\varphi_0({{\bm X}}_i)-\varphi({{\bm X}}_i;{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}')+\epsilon_i\right].
\end{aligned}$$ By Lemma 1, A3 and A5, ${\mbox{E}}|d_{1i}|\leq{\mbox{E}}|(A_i-\pi({{\bm X}}_i))\Delta C({{\bm X}}_i;{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}})|\leq{\mbox{E}}|\Delta C({{\bm X}}_i;{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}})|<\infty$ and ${\mbox{E}}|d_{2i}|\leq{\mbox{E}}|\varphi({{\bm X}}_i;{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})-\varphi({{\bm X}}_i;{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}')|\leq{\mbox{E}}|\varphi({{\bm X}}_i;{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})|+{\mbox{E}}|\varphi({{\bm X}}_i;{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}')|
<\infty$. Then, by Law of Large Number, $\forall\;{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}\in\mathcal{B}$, ${{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}\in\Gamma$, we have $S_{1n}({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}, {{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})\inprob G_1({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}},{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})\triangleq{\mbox{E}}(D)$, and $S_{2n}({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}, {{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})\inprob G_2({{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})$, where $$\begin{aligned}
D=&\rho_\tau\left[\varphi_0({{\bm X}})-\varphi({{\bm X}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})+\epsilon
-\{A-\pi({{\bm X}})\}\Delta C({{\bm X}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}})\right]-\rho_\tau\left[\varphi_0({{\bm X}})-\varphi({{\bm X}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})+\epsilon\right].
\end{aligned}$$ Below we show that a) $({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_0,{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}^*)$ is the minimizer of $G_1({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}},{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})+G_2({{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})$, b) $({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_0,{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}^*)$ is the unique minimizer. The consistency then follows from the argmax continuous mapping theorem under Assumption (A7).
Denote $K_1=\varphi_0({{\bm X}})-\varphi({{\bm X}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})+\epsilon$, $K_2=\{A-\pi({{\bm X}})\}\Delta C({{\bm X}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}})$. By Lemma 2, $$\begin{aligned}
D =& -\tau K_2{\mathrm{1}}\{K_1\geq0\}+(1-\tau) K_2{\mathrm{1}}\{K_1<0\}+(K_2-K_1){\mathrm{1}}\{K_1\geq0\}{\mathrm{1}}\{K_2>K_1\}\\
&+(K_1-K_2){\mathrm{1}}\{K_1<0\}{\mathrm{1}}\{K_2<K_1\}.
\end{aligned}$$ Since $\epsilon\perp A|{{\bm X}}$ and $\Pr(A|{{\bm X}})=\pi({{\bm X}})$, applying double expectation rule with ${{\bm X}}$, we have ${\mbox{E}}[-\tau K_2{\mathrm{1}}\{K_1\geq0\}]={\mbox{E}}[(1-\tau) K_2{\mathrm{1}}\{K_1<0\}]=0$. Thus, $$G_1({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}},{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})={\mbox{E}}[(K_2-K_1){\mathrm{1}}\{K_1\geq0\}{\mathrm{1}}\{K_2>K_1\}]+{\mbox{E}}[(K_1-K_2){\mathrm{1}}\{K_1<0\}{\mathrm{1}}\{K_2<K_1\}].
\label{eq:Gfunction}$$ It is easy to check $G_1({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}},{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})\geq0$ and achieves minimal value 0 at point $({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_0,{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})$ for all ${{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}\in\Gamma$. In addition, by A6, we know $G_2({{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})$ has unique minimizer ${{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}^*$. Combining the above two facts, a) is proved.
Combining A4, A8 and , we could prove $G_1({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}},{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})>0$ for all ${{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}\neq{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_0$ and ${{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}\in\Gamma$. So b) holds.
**Proof of Theorem 3.**
\(a) When $M(x)=H_{\alpha}(x)$, the proof follows similar steps as Theorem 1. The only difference is that $G_1({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}},{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})$ takes a different expression now and we need to redo the proof of 1) $G_1({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}},{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})>0$ $\forall{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}\neq{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_0$, ${{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}\in\Gamma$, and 2) $G_1({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_0,{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})=0$ $\forall{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}\in\Gamma$. By definition, $G_1({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}},{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})\triangleq{\mbox{E}}(D)$, where $$\begin{aligned}
D=H_\alpha\left[\varphi_0({{\bm X}})-\varphi({{\bm X}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})+\epsilon
-\{A-\pi({{\bm X}})\}\Delta C({{\bm X}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}})\right]-H_\alpha\left[\varphi_0({{\bm X}})-\varphi({{\bm X}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})+\epsilon\right].
\end{aligned}$$ Then, 2) holds immediately. Denote $K_1=\varphi_0({{\bm X}})-\varphi({{\bm X}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})+\epsilon$, $K_2=\{A-\pi({{\bm X}})\}\Delta C({{\bm X}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}})$. We have the following four cases:
1. If $K_1>\alpha$ then $H_\alpha(K_1-K_2)\geq\alpha(K_1-K_2)-0.5\alpha^2$. Thus, $D\geq-\alpha K_2$;
2. If $K_1<-\alpha$ then $H_\alpha(K_1-K_2)\geq\alpha(K_2-K_1)-0.5\alpha^2$. Thus, $D\geq\alpha K_2$;
3. If $K_1\in[-\alpha,\alpha]$ and $K_1-K_2\in[-\alpha,\alpha]$ then $D=1/2(K_1-K_2)^2-1/2K_1^2=-K_1K_2+1/2K_2^2$;
4. If $K_1\in[-\alpha,\alpha]$ and $K_1-K_2\not\in[-\alpha,\alpha]$ then $H_\alpha(K_1-K_2)\geq1/2(K_1-K_2)^2-\left\{1/2(\alpha+|K_2|)^2-\left[\alpha(\alpha+|K_2|)-1/2\alpha^2\right]\right\}=1/2(K_1-K_2)^2-1/2K_1^2$. Thus, $D\geq1/2(K_1-K_2)^2-1/2K_1^2-1/2K_2^2=-K_1K_2$.
Combining the above four equalities and inequalities, $$\begin{aligned}
G_1({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}},{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})\geq& {\mbox{E}}[-\alpha K_2{\mathrm{1}}\{K_1>\alpha\}] + {\mbox{E}}[\alpha K_2{\mathrm{1}}\{K_1<-\alpha\}] +
{\mbox{E}}[-K_1K_2{\mathrm{1}}\{K_1\in[-\alpha,\alpha]\}]\\
&+ {\mbox{E}}\left[1/2K_2^2{\mathrm{1}}\left(\{K_1\in[-\alpha,\alpha]\}\cup\{K_1-K_2\in[-\alpha,\alpha]\}\right)\right]
\end{aligned}$$ Since $\epsilon\perp A|{{\bm X}}$ and $\Pr(A|{{\bm X}})=\pi({{\bm X}})$, applying double expectation rule with ${{\bm X}}$, we have ${\mbox{E}}[-\alpha K_2{\mathrm{1}}\{K_1>\alpha\}]={\mbox{E}}[\alpha K_2{\mathrm{1}}\{K_1<-\alpha\}]={\mbox{E}}[-K_1K_2{\mathrm{1}}\{K_1\in[-\alpha,\alpha]\}]=0$. Thus, $$G_1({{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})\geq{\mbox{E}}\left[1/2K_2^2{\mathrm{1}}\left(\{K_1\in[-\alpha,\alpha]\}\cup\{K_1-K_2\in[-\alpha,\alpha]\}\right)\right].
\label{eq:Gfunction_thm2}$$ Combining , A4 and A8, we can check that 1) holds. Thus, part (a) is proved.
\(b) When $M(x)=J_{\epsilon}(x)$, similarly $D=J_\epsilon\left(K_1-K_2\right)-J_\epsilon\left(K_1\right)$. Notice that we have the following three cases:
1. If $K_1>\epsilon$ then $D\geq -K_2$;
2. If $K_1<-\epsilon$ then $D\geq K_2$;
3. If $K_1\in[-\epsilon,\epsilon]$ then $D\geq 0$;
The rest of the proof follows similar steps as part (a).
**Proof of Theorem 5.**
From Theorem 1, ${{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_{\tau}={{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_0$. Plugging this into Theorem 4 and applying double expectation rules, we have $$J(\tau)={\mbox{E}}\left[f_{\epsilon}\left(\tilde{{{\bm X}}}{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}(\tau)-\varphi_0({{\bm X}})|{{\bm X}}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\pi({{\bm X}})\{1-\pi({{\bm X}})\}\tilde{{{\bm X}}}\tilde{{{\bm X}}}{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}& {{\mathbf 0}}\\
{{\mathbf 0}}& \tilde{{{\bm X}}}\tilde{{{\bm X}}}{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}\end{array}
\right)\right]$$ and $$\Sigma(\tau,\tau)={\mbox{E}}\left\{\left[\tau-{\mathrm{1}}\left\{\epsilon<\tilde{{{\bm X}}}{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}(\tau)-\varphi_0({{\bm X}})\right\}\right]^2
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\pi({{\bm X}})\{1-\pi({{\bm X}})\}\tilde{{{\bm X}}}\tilde{{{\bm X}}}{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}& {{\mathbf 0}}\\
{{\mathbf 0}}& \tilde{{{\bm X}}}\tilde{{{\bm X}}}{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}\end{array}
\right)\right\}.$$ Thus, $\sqrt{n}(\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}}(\tau)-{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_0)\indist N({{\mathbf 0}}, J_{11}^{-1}(\tau)\Sigma_{11}(\tau,\tau)J_{11}^{-1}(\tau))$, where $J_{11}^{-1}(\tau)$ and $\Sigma_{11}(\tau,\tau)$ are defined as in Theorem 5. Conditional on ${{\bm X}}$, ${\mathrm{1}}\left\{\epsilon<\tilde{{{\bm X}}}{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}(\tau)-\varphi_0({{\bm X}})\right\}$ is a binomial random variable with $p=\Pr\left(\epsilon<\tilde{{{\bm X}}}{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}(\tau)-\varphi_0({{\bm X}})\right)$. Then, ${\mbox{E}}\left\{\left[\tau-{\mathrm{1}}\{\epsilon<\tilde{{{\bm X}}}{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}(\tau)-\varphi_0({{\bm X}})\}\right]^2|{{\bm X}}\right\}=(p-\tau)^2+p(1-p)\leq \tau^2+|1-2\tau|$. Thus, $\Sigma_{11}(\tau,\tau)\leq\left(\tau^2+|1-2\tau|\right){\mbox{E}}\left[\pi({{\bm X}})\{1-\pi({{\bm X}})\}\tilde{{{\bm X}}}\tilde{{{\bm X}}}{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}\right]$.
Appendix B: Additional Simulation Results {#appendix-b-additional-simulation-results .unnumbered}
=========================================
We conducted additional simulations with non-constant propensity scores. Specifically, we considered the following examples.
Examples with error terms independent with treatment {#examples-with-error-terms-independent-with-treatment .unnumbered}
----------------------------------------------------
We consider the following two models with p=3,
- Model I: $$Y_i=1+(X_{i1}-X_{i2})(X_{i1}+X_{i3})+\{A_i-\pi({{\bm X}}_{i})\}{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_0{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}\tilde{{{\bm X}}}_i+\sigma({{\bm X}}_{i})\epsilon_i,$$ where ${{\bm X}}_{i}=(X_{i1},X_{i2},X_{i3}){^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}$ are multivariate normal with mean 0, variance 1, and $\mathrm{Corr}(X_{ij},X_{ik})=0.5^{|j-k|}$, $\tilde{{{\bm X}}}_i=(1,{{\bm X}}_i{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}){^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}$ and ${{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_0=(0,1,-1,1){^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}$.
- Model II: $$Y_i={{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}_0{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}\tilde{{{\bm X}}}_i+\{A_i-\pi({{\bm X}}_{i})\}{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_0{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}\tilde{{{\bm X}}}_i+\sigma({{\bm X}}_{i})\epsilon_i,$$ where ${{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}_0{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}=(0.5,4,1,-3)$, and ${{\bm X}}_{i}$, $\tilde{{{\bm X}}}_{i}$ and ${{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}_0$ are the same as Model I.
We take linear forms for both the baseline and the contrast functions, where $\varphi({{\bm X}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})={{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}\tilde{{{\bm X}}}$ and $C({{\bm X}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}})={{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}\tilde{{{\bm X}}}$. We assume the propensity scores $\pi(\cdot)$ are known, and we study the non-constant case $(\pi({{\bm X}}_i)=\mathrm{logit}({{\bm X}}_{i1}-{{\bm X}}_{i2}))$ here. In addition, We consider two different $\sigma({{\bm X}}_{i})$ functions, i.e., the homogeneous case with $\sigma({{\bm X}}_{i})=1$, and the heterogenous case with $\sigma({{\bm X}}_{i})=0.5+(X_{i1}-X_{i2})^2$. The simulation results are given in Table \[table:modelI\_nonconstant\] and Table \[table:modelII\_nonconstant\].
[@ll ccc ccc ccc]{}\
& & & &\
(r)[3-5]{} (lr)[6-8]{} (l)[9-11]{} n & method & mse & PCD & $\delta_{0.5}$ & mse & PCD & $\delta_{0.5}$ & mse & PCD & $\delta_{0.5}$\
(r)[3-5]{} (lr)[6-8]{} (l)[9-11]{} 100 & LS & 1.70 (0.061) & 81.9 & 0.91 & 2.90 (0.114) & 77.6 & 1.34 & & 59.3 & 3.61\
& P(0.5) & 1.90 (0.069) & 80.1 & 1.09 & 2.13 (0.073) & 78.3 & 1.25 & 3.54 (0.128) & 75.7 & 1.57\
& P(0.25) & 2.35 (0.080) & 78.2 & 1.33 & 1.95 (0.076) & 80.4 & 1.08 & 8.45 (0.431) & 69.8 & 2.28\
& Huber & 1.51 (0.053) & 82.1 & 0.89 & 1.77 (0.065) & 80.6 & 1.02 & 3.67 (0.127) & 75.4 & 1.60\
200 & LS & 0.77 (0.026) & 86.8 & 0.50 & 1.35 (0.045) & 82.2 & 0.91 & & 59.2 & 3.63\
& P(0.5) & 0.88 (0.028) & 85.5 & 0.60 & 1.00 (0.029) & 83.0 & 0.79 & 1.54 (0.050) & 81.1 & 1.00\
& P(0.25) & 1.06 (0.035) & 84.5 & 0.68 & 0.83 (0.027) & 85.9 & 0.59 & 3.61 (0.143) & 74.7 & 1.70\
& Huber & 0.68 (0.022) & 87.3 & 0.46 & 0.81 (0.025) & 85.2 & 0.62 & 1.58 (0.052) & 80.7 & 1.03\
400 & LS & 0.39 (0.012) & 90.2 & 0.28 & 0.65 (0.020) & 86.9 & 0.48 & & 58.0 & 3.79\
& P(0.5) & 0.43 (0.013) & 89.3 & 0.32 & 0.47 (0.014) & 88.4 & 0.38 & 0.73 (0.022) & 86.5 & 0.51\
& P(0.25) & 0.53 (0.016) & 88.5 & 0.38 & 0.41 (0.013) & 90.5 & 0.27 & 1.50 (0.049) & 81.7 & 0.96\
& Huber & 0.34 (0.010) & 90.6 & 0.25 & 0.39 (0.012) & 89.6 & 0.30 & 0.72 (0.022) & 86.3 & 0.53\
800 & LS & 0.18 (0.006) & 93.3 & 0.13 & 0.32 (0.010) & 90.2 & 0.27 & & 58.3 & 3.75\
& P(0.5) & 0.21 (0.007) & 92.7 & 0.15 & 0.24 (0.007) & 91.5 & 0.20 & 0.36 (0.011) & 90.3 & 0.27\
& P(0.25) & 0.28 (0.009) & 92.4 & 0.17 & 0.21 (0.007) & 93.4 & 0.13 & 0.78 (0.026) & 86.9 & 0.50\
& Huber & 0.16 (0.005) & 93.7 & 0.11 & 0.19 (0.006) & 92.6 & 0.15 & 0.37 (0.010) & 89.9 & 0.28\
\
& & & &\
(r)[3-5]{} (lr)[6-8]{} (l)[9-11]{} n & method & mse & PCD & $\delta_{0.5}$ & mse & PCD & $\delta_{0.5}$ & mse & PCD & $\delta_{0.5}$\
(r)[3-5]{} (lr)[6-8]{} (l)[9-11]{} 100 & LS & 2.84 (0.111) & 78.2 & 1.33 & 9.96 (0.773) & 72.0 & 2.06 & & 55.2 & 4.18\
& P(0.5) & 2.01 (0.082) & 80.6 & 1.09 & 2.18 (0.080) & 79.2 & 1.21 & 4.18 (0.189) & 74.1 & 1.81\
& P(0.25) & 2.91 (0.110) & 76.7 & 1.52 & 3.22 (0.105) & 74.2 & 1.76 & 10.62 (0.475) & 65.3 & 2.87\
& Huber & 1.90 (0.074) & 80.9 & 1.06 & 2.38 (0.090) & 78.1 & 1.32 & 5.06 (0.230) & 71.9 & 2.04\
200 & LS & 1.46 (0.053) & 83.1 & 0.83 & 4.47 (0.371) & 76.8 & 1.51 & & 56.3 & 4.04\
& P(0.5) & 0.92 (0.033) & 86.4 & 0.55 & 0.98 (0.035) & 85.3 & 0.64 & 1.69 (0.065) & 81.5 & 0.98\
& P(0.25) & 1.35 (0.049) & 83.3 & 0.81 & 1.47 (0.049) & 81.6 & 0.97 & 4.73 (0.241) & 71.9 & 2.05\
& Huber & 0.86 (0.030) & 86.6 & 0.52 & 1.02 (0.036) & 84.7 & 0.68 & 2.11 (0.079) & 79.3 & 1.18\
400 & LS & 0.74 (0.029) & 87.4 & 0.47 & 2.65 (0.402) & 81.4 & 1.04 & & 56.2 & 4.06\
& P(0.5) & 0.45 (0.016) & 90.2 & 0.29 & 0.44 (0.017) & 89.5 & 0.34 & 0.79 (0.029) & 87.2 & 0.49\
& P(0.25) & 0.66 (0.025) & 88.3 & 0.41 & 0.70 (0.023) & 86.9 & 0.50 & 2.12 (0.091) & 79.5 & 1.19\
& Huber & 0.43 (0.016) & 90.2 & 0.28 & 0.48 (0.018) & 89.0 & 0.36 & 1.01 (0.036) & 85.0 & 0.65\
800 & LS & 0.36 (0.013) & 90.8 & 0.25 & 1.09 (0.066) & 85.0 & 0.69 & & 56.3 & 4.02\
& P(0.5) & 0.21 (0.008) & 93.2 & 0.14 & 0.24 (0.009) & 92.3 & 0.19 & 0.39 (0.014) & 90.5 & 0.27\
& P(0.25) & 0.33 (0.013) & 91.7 & 0.21 & 0.36 (0.012) & 90.8 & 0.25 & 1.01 (0.034) & 84.9 & 0.65\
& Huber & 0.20 (0.008) & 93.2 & 0.14 & 0.25 (0.009) & 92.1 & 0.19 & 0.49 (0.016) & 89.1 & 0.34\
[@ll ccc ccc ccc]{}\
& & & &\
(r)[3-5]{} (lr)[6-8]{} (l)[9-11]{} n & method & mse & PCD & $\delta_{0.5}$ & mse & PCD & $\delta_{0.5}$ & mse & PCD & $\delta_{0.5}$\
(r)[3-5]{} (lr)[6-8]{} (l)[9-11]{} 100 & LS & 0.36 (0.011) & 89.8 & 0.29 & 1.65 (0.085) & 80.8 & 1.06 & & 58.7 & 3.69\
& P(0.5) & 0.57 (0.017) & 86.9 & 0.46 & 0.61 (0.026) & 86.4 & 0.55 & 1.31 (0.045) & 81.7 & 0.93\
& P(0.25) & 0.65 (0.020) & 86.2 & 0.52 & 0.22 (0.008) & 91.7 & 0.20 & 4.67 (0.312) & 74.7 & 1.64\
& Huber & 0.38 (0.012) & 89.5 & 0.30 & 0.45 (0.018) & 88.3 & 0.40 & 1.70 (0.060) & 79.5 & 1.14\
200 & LS & 0.16 (0.004) & 92.9 & 0.14 & 0.74 (0.030) & 85.6 & 0.61 & & 59.1 & 3.64\
& P(0.5) & 0.25 (0.007) & 91.2 & 0.21 & 0.26 (0.008) & 90.7 & 0.24 & 0.52 (0.017) & 87.8 & 0.41\
& P(0.25) & 0.30 (0.008) & 90.3 & 0.26 & 0.09 (0.003) & 94.8 & 0.08 & 1.69 (0.074) & 81.3 & 0.92\
& Huber & 0.17 (0.005) & 92.8 & 0.14 & 0.19 (0.006) & 92.2 & 0.17 & 0.70 (0.022) & 86.2 & 0.53\
400 & LS & 0.08 (0.002) & 95.1 & 0.06 & 0.36 (0.013) & 89.7 & 0.30 & & 58.0 & 3.79\
& P(0.5) & 0.12 (0.003) & 93.8 & 0.10 & 0.12 (0.003) & 93.8 & 0.10 & 0.22 (0.006) & 91.6 & 0.19\
& P(0.25) & 0.14 (0.004) & 93.3 & 0.12 & 0.04 (0.001) & 96.5 & 0.03 & 0.63 (0.021) & 86.5 & 0.49\
& Huber & 0.08 (0.002) & 95.0 & 0.07 & 0.09 (0.002) & 94.8 & 0.07 & 0.30 (0.009) & 90.3 & 0.26\
800 & LS & 0.04 (0.001) & 96.5 & 0.03 & 0.18 (0.006) & 92.3 & 0.16 & & 58.2 & 3.76\
& P(0.5) & 0.06 (0.002) & 95.6 & 0.05 & 0.06 (0.002) & 95.6 & 0.05 & 0.10 (0.003) & 94.4 & 0.09\
& P(0.25) & 0.07 (0.002) & 95.3 & 0.06 & 0.02 (0.001) & 97.5 & 0.02 & 0.29 (0.009) & 90.6 & 0.23\
& Huber & 0.04 (0.001) & 96.4 & 0.03 & 0.04 (0.001) & 96.3 & 0.04 & 0.14 (0.004) & 93.2 & 0.12\
\
& & & &\
(r)[3-5]{} (lr)[6-8]{} (l)[9-11]{} n & method & mse & PCD & $\delta_{0.5}$ & mse & PCD & $\delta_{0.5}$ & mse & PCD & $\delta_{0.5}$\
(r)[3-5]{} (lr)[6-8]{} (l)[9-11]{} 100 & LS & 1.45 (0.059) & 82.9 & 0.85 & 8.53 (0.784) & 72.4 & 2.01 & & 54.9 & 4.22\
& P(0.5) & 0.94 (0.034) & 85.6 & 0.61 & 1.29 (0.058) & 83.3 & 0.86 & 2.27 (0.132) & 78.9 & 1.24\
& P(0.25) & 1.46 (0.051) & 81.5 & 0.96 & 1.78 (0.071) & 78.2 & 1.30 & 7.88 (0.422) & 68.1 & 2.46\
& Huber & 0.89 (0.034) & 86.1 & 0.57 & 1.46 (0.067) & 81.7 & 0.99 & 3.28 (0.157) & 75.1 & 1.65\
200 & LS & 0.84 (0.035) & 86.6 & 0.53 & 3.85 (0.358) & 77.6 & 1.43 & & 55.9 & 4.09\
& P(0.5) & 0.44 (0.016) & 90.0 & 0.29 & 0.60 (0.024) & 89.0 & 0.39 & 0.87 (0.034) & 86.3 & 0.56\
& P(0.25) & 0.69 (0.025) & 87.0 & 0.49 & 0.75 (0.024) & 85.5 & 0.59 & 3.08 (0.179) & 75.3 & 1.58\
& Huber & 0.43 (0.016) & 90.3 & 0.28 & 0.66 (0.025) & 87.7 & 0.47 & 1.32 (0.050) & 82.4 & 0.87\
400 & LS & 0.44 (0.020) & 90.3 & 0.28 & 2.34 (0.393) & 82.4 & 0.95 & & 55.9 & 4.09\
& P(0.5) & 0.23 (0.009) & 92.9 & 0.16 & 0.28 (0.011) & 92.5 & 0.19 & 0.39 (0.015) & 90.8 & 0.26\
& P(0.25) & 0.33 (0.011) & 91.0 & 0.23 & 0.36 (0.012) & 90.1 & 0.27 & 1.25 (0.048) & 82.8 & 0.82\
& Huber & 0.22 (0.008) & 93.1 & 0.15 & 0.31 (0.012) & 91.7 & 0.21 & 0.60 (0.022) & 88.0 & 0.43\
800 & LS & 0.23 (0.009) & 93.0 & 0.15 & 0.90 (0.057) & 86.2 & 0.60 & & 56.3 & 4.03\
& P(0.5) & 0.11 (0.004) & 95.0 & 0.07 & 0.14 (0.005) & 94.8 & 0.09 & 0.18 (0.006) & 93.6 & 0.12\
& P(0.25) & 0.17 (0.006) & 93.7 & 0.12 & 0.18 (0.006) & 93.0 & 0.14 & 0.59 (0.017) & 87.3 & 0.44\
& Huber & 0.10 (0.004) & 95.1 & 0.07 & 0.15 (0.006) & 94.2 & 0.11 & 0.29 (0.010) & 91.4 & 0.21\
We firstly notice that lsA-learning works much worse under the heterogeneous errors, while all other methods are generally less affected by the heterogeneity of the errors. When the baseline function is misspecified as in Model I, under the homogeneous normal errors, RR(H) works slightly better than lsA-learning, while $\mathrm{RR}(\rho_{0.25})$ works the worst. The difference in general is small. For the homogeneous log-normal errors, again RR(H) works the best, while $\mathrm{RR}(\rho_{0.5})$ and $\mathrm{RR}(\rho_{0.25})$ work slightly worse. Here lsA-learning has the worst performance. Under the homogeneous Cauchy errors, the lsA-learning is no longer consistent and work the worst. Both $\mathrm{RR}(\rho_{0.5})$ and RR(H) have good performance under the homogeneous Cauchy errors. When baseline function is correctly specified as in Model II, under homogeneous normal errors, lsA-learning performs the best. However, in this case RR(H) also has a very close performance. Under homogeneous log-normal errors, $\mathrm{RR}(\rho_{0.25})$ work the best and lsA-learning work the worst. Under homogeneous Cauchy errors, $\mathrm{RR}(\rho_{0.5})$ has the best performance and RR(H) has a close performance. lsA-learning is again not consistent.
Examples with error terms interacted with treatment {#examples-with-error-terms-interacted-with-treatment .unnumbered}
---------------------------------------------------
We consider the following model with p=2, $$Y_i=1 + 0.5\sin[\pi(X_{i1}-X_{i2})]+
0.25(1+X_{i1}+2X_{i2})^2+(A_i-\pi({{\bm X}}_{i})){{\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}}}_0{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}\tilde{{{\bm X}}}_i+\sigma({{\bm X}}_{i},A_i)\epsilon_i,$$ where ${{\bm X}}_{i}=(X_{i1},X_{i2}){^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}$, $\tilde{{{\bm X}}}_i=(1,{{\bm X}}_i{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}){^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}$, $\sigma({{\bm X}}_{i},A_i)=1+A_i d_0 X_{i1}^2$, ${{\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}}}_0{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}=(0.5,2,-1)$ and $X_{ik}$ are i.i.d. Uniform\[-1,1\]. We take linear forms for both the baseline and the contrast functions, where $\varphi({{\bm X}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}})={{\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}}{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}\tilde{{{\bm X}}}$, $C({{\bm X}};{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}})={{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}{^{\mbox{\tiny {\sf T}}}}{{\bm W}}$ and ${{\bm W}}=(\tilde{{{\bm X}}},X_{1}^2,X_{2}^2,X_{1}X_{2})$. $d_0=5$, 10 or 15. The error terms $\epsilon_i$ follows i.i.d. N(0,1) or Gamma(1,1)-1 distribution. The propensity scores $\pi(\cdot)$ are known, and we consider the non-constant case ($\pi({{\bm X}}_i)=\mathrm{logit}({{\bm X}}_{i1}-{{\bm X}}_{i2})$) here. The simulation results are given in Table \[table:interacted\_nonconstant\_ps\].
---------------------------------------------------------- ------- ----- ----------------- ----------------- ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- ------------------
(r)[4-6]{} (lr)[7-9]{} (lr)[10-12]{} (lr)[13-15]{} Error $d_0$ n $ \delta_{\mu}$ $ \delta_{0.5}$ $ \delta_{0.25}$ $ \delta_{\mu}$ $ \delta_{0.5}$ $ \delta_{0.25}$ $ \delta_{\mu}$ $ \delta_{0.5}$ $ \delta_{0.25}$ $ \delta_{\mu}$ $ \delta_{0.5}$ $ \delta_{0.25}$
Normal 5 100 0.19 0.19 0.36 0.20 0.20 0.34 0.30 0.30 0.23 0.17 0.17 0.33
200 0.11 0.11 0.28 0.13 0.13 0.25 0.21 0.21 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.23
400 0.06 0.06 0.21 0.08 0.08 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.16
800 0.03 0.03 0.16 0.06 0.06 0.11 0.15 0.15 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.11
10 100 0.29 0.29 0.93 0.24 0.24 0.88 0.44 0.44 0.50 0.24 0.24 0.88
200 0.21 0.21 0.92 0.18 0.18 0.84 0.37 0.37 0.34 0.17 0.17 0.83
400 0.13 0.13 0.87 0.14 0.14 0.75 0.32 0.32 0.25 0.12 0.12 0.75
800 0.08 0.08 0.80 0.11 0.11 0.64 0.28 0.28 0.21 0.08 0.08 0.64
15 100 0.35 0.35 1.58 0.27 0.27 1.51 0.53 0.53 0.72 0.26 0.26 1.51
200 0.29 0.29 1.56 0.21 0.21 1.47 0.50 0.50 0.54 0.20 0.20 1.47
400 0.21 0.21 1.58 0.17 0.17 1.37 0.48 0.48 0.39 0.15 0.15 1.38
800 0.14 0.14 1.52 0.14 0.14 1.26 0.45 0.45 0.31 0.12 0.12 1.27
Gamma 5 100 0.18 0.21 0.34 0.20 0.17 0.24 0.28 0.18 0.14 0.18 0.15 0.21
200 0.10 0.14 0.29 0.13 0.10 0.15 0.21 0.11 0.07 0.11 0.07 0.13
400 0.06 0.09 0.23 0.10 0.05 0.10 0.18 0.07 0.04 0.07 0.03 0.08
800 0.03 0.06 0.19 0.08 0.03 0.06 0.16 0.06 0.03 0.06 0.02 0.07
10 100 0.27 0.34 0.90 0.28 0.25 0.67 0.46 0.21 0.33 0.28 0.22 0.62
200 0.20 0.32 0.94 0.21 0.16 0.57 0.43 0.14 0.24 0.21 0.13 0.49
400 0.13 0.27 0.92 0.16 0.09 0.46 0.38 0.10 0.18 0.15 0.06 0.39
800 0.08 0.21 0.85 0.13 0.05 0.40 0.35 0.07 0.16 0.13 0.03 0.35
15 100 0.34 0.55 1.49 0.33 0.37 1.09 0.59 0.25 0.46 0.33 0.33 0.99
200 0.27 0.54 1.57 0.26 0.29 1.00 0.60 0.19 0.31 0.27 0.23 0.85
400 0.19 0.50 1.56 0.20 0.21 0.88 0.61 0.15 0.21 0.22 0.14 0.70
800 0.12 0.47 1.58 0.17 0.14 0.76 0.62 0.15 0.18 0.19 0.09 0.63
---------------------------------------------------------- ------- ----- ----------------- ----------------- ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- ------------------
: Summary results with non-constant propensity scores when errors interacted with treatment. Least square stands for lsA-learning. Pinball(0.5) stands for robust regression with pinball loss and parameter $\tau=0.5$. Pinball(0.25) stands for robust regression with pinball loss and parameter $\tau=0.25$. Huber stands for robust regression with Huber loss, where parameter $\alpha$ is tuned automatically with R function rlm.[]{data-label="table:interacted_nonconstant_ps"}
Based on Theorem 6 of the main paper, $\delta_{\mu}$ column for the lsA-learning method in Table \[table:interacted\_nonconstant\_ps\] converges to 0 as sample size increases. Under Normal error terms, we have $\delta_{0.5}=\delta_{\mu}$. Thus, the $\delta_{0.5}$ column for the lsA-learning method under Normal error also converges to 0. All other columns in Table \[table:interacted\_nonconstant\_ps\] converge to a positive constant instead of 0 as sample size goes to infinity. $\mathrm{RR}(H)$ and $\mathrm{RR}(\rho_{0.5})$ perform similarly in Table \[table:interacted\_nonconstant\_ps\]. We also find even though lsA-learning outperform all other methods in $\delta_{\mu}$ when sample size is large. It may be worse than $\mathrm{RR}(\rho_{0.5})$ and $\mathrm{RR}(H)$ when sample size is small due to the fact that lsA-learning is inefficient under the heteroscedastic or skewed errors. Last, we find that lsA-learning, $\mathrm{RR}(\rho_{0.5})$ and $\mathrm{RR}(\rho_{0.25})$ perform best at the columns $\delta_{\mu}$, $\delta_{0.5}$ and $\delta_{0.25}$ accordingly. The reason is given in the Remark under Theorem 2 of the main paper.
|
---
title: Deformations of Galois representations arising from degenerate extensions
---
Adam Logan
Introduction
============
This paper is inspired by that of Boston and Mazur \[B-M\], and work on this problem was begun when the author was a graduate student of Barry Mazur (supported by an NSF Graduate Fellowship). In the paper \[B-M\], the authors study the deformation theory of a certain type of $S_3$-extensions of $\Q$, which they term [*neat*]{}, and more specifically that of [*generic*]{} $S_3$-extensions, which satisfy an additional condition. Restricting their numerical study to one particular family of neat extensions, they note that all such extensions seem to satisfy their genericity condition.
Their principal result on generic $S_3$-extensions can be summarized as follows:
(\[B-M\], prop. 13\]) Let $L/\Q$ be a neat $S_3$-extension for the prime $p$ (we will define this in Section 2, below). The universal deformation ring of the natural representation of its Galois group into $GL_2(\F_p)$ is isomorphic to $\Z_p[[T_1,T_2,T_3]]$. If $L/\Q$ is generic, then:
[(a)]{} The inertially reducible locus is composed of the union of two smooth hypersurfaces in the universal deformation space.
[(b)]{} The globally dihedral locus is equal to the inertially dihedral locus and is a smooth hypersurface.
[(c)]{} The ordinary locus consists in a smooth analytic curve in the deformation space.
[(d)]{} The inertially ample locus is equal to the complement of the union of three hypersurfaces, any two of which meet transversely.
They also show that generic $S_3$-extensions actually exist:
(\[B-M\], prop. 9) Let $a$ be an integer such that $27+4a^3$ is positive, prime, and less than $10^4$. Then the splitting field of the polynomial $x^3+ax+1$ is a generic $S_3$-extension for the prime $27+4a^3$. (I have verified this for $27+4a^3 < 10^{15}/2$, and believe that there are no counterexamples.)
We will prove that the statements regarding the inertially reducible locus and the ordinary locus still hold in the degenerate case, and we will say something about the other loci as well. In addition, we will give two examples (of many) of degenerate $S_3$-extensions, one of them the splitting field of the polynomial $x^3+7x-12$.
I would like to thank Barry Mazur and Nigel Boston for discussions of this problem, and Fernando Gouvêa for encouraging me to pursue it after a long hiatus. Calculations in this paper were done using [gp]{} and the tables of number fields prepared at the Université de Bordeaux.
Basics
======
We start with some fundamental definitions borrowed from \[B-M\], with very slight modifications.
(Cf. \[B-M\], Definition 2.) Let $L/\Q$ be a totally complex $S_3$-extension in which $p$ splits as $(\p_1\p_2\p_3)^2$, and let $S$ be the set of finite ramified primes of $L$. We say that $L$ is [*admissible*]{} for $p$, or $L$ is [*neat*]{}, if:
[1.]{} Any global unit of $L$ which is locally a $p$th power at all elements of $S$ is globally a $p$th power.
[2.]{} The class number of $L$ is prime to $p$.
[3.]{} The completion of $L$ at any element of $S$ does not contain $p$th roots of $1$. (In particular, it follows that the cardinality of the residue field is not congruent to $1$ mod $p$.) Let $L$ be a neat $S_3$-extension of $\Q$, and let $\p_1, \p_2, \p_3$ be the primes of $L$ lying above $p$. Let $e_1, e_2$ be a basis for global units mod $p$th powers. Since we are assuming that $L$ is neat, we may suppose that $e_1$ is not a $p$th power in $L_{\p_1}$, and we may also arrange things so that $e_2$ is not a $p$th power in $L_{\p_2}$ or $L_{\p_3}$. If $e_2$ is not a $p$th power in $L_{\p_1}$ either, then $L$ is generic.
The [*degeneracy index*]{} of $L$ at $p$ will be the largest integer $i$ such that $e_2$ is a $p^i$th power in $L_{\p_1}$. (Of course this is a finite number, for the only elements of $L_{\p_1}$ which are $p^i$th powers for all $i$ are $p-1$-st roots of $1$.)
The authors of \[B-M\] pay particular attention to the Galois closures of cubic fields of the form $\Q(x)$, where $x^3+ax+1 = 0$, for $a$ an integer such that $27+4a^3$ is positive and prime. They show that the first seven such fields are generic $S_3$-extensions of $\Q$, using a simple numerical criterion. As noted above, I have extended this verification to all $a < 500000$, and find it hard to believe that there are any counterexamples. However, if one does not restrict to these particular cubic fields, it becomes easy to find degenerate $S_3$-extensions. (The tables of number fields available by anonymous FTP from [megrez.math.u-bordeaux.fr]{} greatly facilitate such a search.)
The rest of the paper will be devoted to modifying the proofs and results of Boston and Mazur so that they apply in the degenerate case. That is, we will determine the natural subspaces of the universal deformation space, just as they do in their generic situation. Regrettably, I do not have anything to say about the cases which are not neat, whether because the class number is a multiple of $p$ or because there is a unit which is a $p$th power locally at all primes over $p$ but not globally.
Definitions and Notations
=========================
We now recall some more definitions from \[B-M\].
Let $L$ be an $S_3$-extension of $\Q$, and let $p$ be a rational prime greater than $3$ which decomposes in $L$ as $\p_1\p_2\p_3$. (We assume that such a prime exists.) Let $S$ be the set of ramified primes of $L$. Let $P$ be the Galois group over $L$ of the maximal pro-$p$ extension of $L$ unramified away from $p$, or outside $S$ (in the situations we will be considering, these are the same), $G$ its Galois group over $\Q$, $L_p$ the completion of $L$ at $\p_1$, $P_p$ the Galois group over $L_p$ of its maximal pro-$p$ extension, and $G_p$ the Galois group of the maximal pro-$p$ extension of $L_p$ over $\Q_p$. We also fix an embedding of $\bar \Q$ into $\bar \Q_p$, and thus of $\Gal L_p$ into $\Gal L$, such that the inertia subgroup $P^0_p$ maps to the inertia subgroup for $\p_1$.
$P$ is a free pro-$p$ group on $4$ generators, and $P_p$ is a free pro-$p$ group on $3$ generators.
.
We take $\sigma$ (resp. $\tau$) to be an element of order $2$ (resp. $3$) in $S_3$. Following one of the notations in \[B-M\], we will let $P$ be generated by $u, \tau(u), \tau^2(u), v$, where $u$ conjugated by $\tau$ is, obviously, $\tau(u)$, $\tau(v) = v$, $\sigma(u) = u$, and $\sigma(v) = v^{-1}$. On the other hand, $P_p$ will be generated by $\xi, \eta, \phi$, with $\xi$ and $\eta$ generating the inertia and the nontrivial element of $\Z/2\Z$ acting as $+1$ on $\xi,
\phi$ and $-1$ on $\eta$.
Let $E$ be the group of global units of $L$. It is the direct product of a free abelian group of rank $2$ with a cyclic group of order $2$. For any place $v$ of $L$, let $E_v$ be the group of units in the ring of integers of $L_v$.
For any topological group $T$, let $\bar T$ be its $p$-Frattini quotient. More generally, let $\subbar{i} T$ be the maximal quotient of $T$ which is an abelian pro-$p$ group with exponent dividing $p^i$ (that is, $\subbar{i} T = T/(T,T)T^{p^i}$).
Let $K$ be a cubic extension of $\Q$. Let $L$ be its Galois closure, and let $S$ be the set of finite ramified primes of $L$. Global class field theory gives us a map from the idèle class group of $L$ to the abelianization of its absolute Galois group. This induces a map $\oplus_{v \in S} \bar E_v \mapsto \bar P$ which is trivial on the image in $\oplus_{v \in S} \bar E_v$ of the global units. Under the conditions that the class number of $L$ be prime to $p$ and that no completion of $L$ at a prime in $S$ contain the $p$th roots of $1$, this map is surjective.
In this situation we say, as above, that $L$ is [*neat*]{} for $p$, or for $S$, if the map $\bar E \mapsto \oplus_{v \in S} \bar E_v$ is injective. In this case, we consider a map $\bar E \mapsto \bar E_1$. If it too is injective, we are in the [*generic*]{} situation treated by Boston and Mazur. Otherwise, the extension is termed [*degenerate*]{}, as remarked above, and the degeneracy index is the largest $i$ for which the map $\subbar{i} E \mapsto
\subbar{i} E_1$ has cyclic image.
At this point we give our promised example of a degenerate $S_3$-extension.
Let $K$ be the field $\Q(x)$, where $x^3+7x-12 = 0$, and $L$ its Galois closure. We claim that $L$ is a degenerate $S_3$-extension of $\Q$, of degeneracy index $1$, with $p=5$. Here the set of ramified primes is $\{5,263\}$, both of which split as $(\p_1\p_2\p_3)^2$, so it is easy to check that the completions there do not contain fifth roots of $1$. The class number of $L$ is $2$.
Using [gp]{}, it is easy to check that the units of the cubic subfields of $L$ generate the full unit group of $K$. A fundamental unit of $K$ is $14x-19$. $K$ has a unique embedding into $\Q_5$, in which the image of $x$ is congruent to $62$ mod $125$, so that the image of the fundamental unit is congruent to $-1$ mod $25$, but not mod $125$, and is therefore a fifth power but not a $25$th power. I assert that the image of $x$ under the embedding of $K$ into $\Q_5(\sqrt{10})$ is not a fifth power. This will essentially complete the verification that $L$ is neat.
In fact, it is easy to show that a unit of $\Q_5(\sqrt{10})$ which is congruent to $1$ modulo $\m$, the maximal ideal, is a fifth power iff it is congruent to $1$ modulo $\m^3$. However, a root of $x^3+7x-12$ which does not belong to $\Q_5$ is congruent modulo $\m^2$ to $4 \pm \sqrt{10}$, and thus the unit is congruent modulo $\m^2$ to $2 \mp \sqrt{10}$ and cannot be a fifth power (multiply by $3^5$).
So, if we take a unit $u = \pm u_1^a u_2^b$ of $L$, where $u_1, u_2$ are fundamental units in different cubic subfields of $L$, then in one completion $u$ is a fifth power iff $5 | a$, and in another iff $5 | b$. Thus $u$ is a fifth power locally iff it is a fifth power globally, which completes the proof that $L$ is neat.
Let $p$ be a prime, $n$ a positive integer, and $r$ and $s$ integers with $p^n | (r+s)$. Suppose that the polynomial $x^3+rx^2+sx-1$ is irreducible and does not have all real roots, and let $K$ be its root field and $L$ its splitting field as above. Suppose further that $p$ decomposes in $K$ as $\p_1^2\p_2$. (This cannot be arranged for all $p$, since it requires the polynomial $x^4-8x^3+18x^2-27$ to have a root mod $p$, but it can for some, for example with $p = 5, r = -29, s = 4, n = 2$.) Clearly $K$ has a unit congruent to $1$ modulo $p^n$ in the embedding of $K$ into $\Q_p$. This must be the $p^{n-1}$-th power of a local unit, and it seems that it is always possible to arrange for $L$ to be neat by varying $r, s$ within their congruence classes mod $p^n$. Constructions like this lead me to believe that for all primes $p > 3$, there are $S_3$-extensions with all degeneracy indices at $p$, but I cannot prove it. Among other problems, it can never be possible to estimate the class number of $K$ as being less than $p$, as did Mazur \[M, section 1.13\], because for a fixed $p$ the discriminant must grow as $n$ increases.
Representation Theory
=====================
Let $G$ be a finite group and $F$ a field of characteristic prime to $\card G$. Then, of course, the group algebra $F[G]$ is semisimple. It is isomorphic to a direct sum of matrix algebras over $F$ iff all irreducible representations of $G$ (say there are $c$) can be defined over $F$.
Suppose we are in this case, and let $R$ be a local Artinian ring with residue field $F$. Since $R[G] \isisom F[G] \otimes_F R$, it is clear that $R[G]$ is likewise a direct sum of $c$ matrix algebras. Now, representations of $G$ with coefficients in $R$ correspond naturally to $R[G]$-modules free over $R$. These, then, correspond to $R^c$-modules free over $R$, that is, to $c$-tuples of free $R$-modules. In turn, these correspond canonically to $c$-tuples of $F$-modules, whence to $F[G]$-modules or to representations. In summary, a representation of $G$ to $M_n(R)$ is uniquely determined up to conjugacy by its reduction to $M_n(F)$. The usual theorems on reducibility of representations then follow for representations to $R$. For example, if we have a representation $\rho$ to $R$ which is an extension of representations, it must in fact be their sum, for $\rho$ and the sum have the same reduction to $M_n(F)$.
We will apply these ideas with $F = \F_p$ and $G = S_3$. In essence, they allow us to immediately take over all results about module decompositions given in \[B-M\] without change here. Since $P$, the Galois group of the maximal pro-$p$ extension of $L$ unramified away from $p$ over $L$, is a free pro-$p$ group, the groups $\subbar{i} P$ are all free modules over $\Z/p^i\Z$ of the same rank.
$A$ is a semidirect product of $P$ by $S_3$ such that for any $j$, $A$ acts on $\subbar{j} P$ by $V + \chi$, where $\chi$ is the nontrivial $1$-dimensional representation of $S_3$ with coefficients in $\F_p$ and $V$ is the natural $3$-dimensional representation of $S_3$. For any $j$, $A_p$ is a semidirect product of $P_p$ by $\Z/2\Z$, with $\Z/2\Z$ acting on $\subbar{j} P_p$ by $1 + 1 + \chi$. In the global case, the inertia subgroup maps to the space spanned by a basis vector of $V$ and $\chi$ (not a submodule, since different choices of prime above $p$ give different inertia subgroups); in the local case, to $1 + \chi$.
, together with the above to remove the restriction $j = 1$ made there.
Boston and Mazur study the exact sequence of $p$-Frattini quotients $$0 \mapsto \bar E \mapsto \bar E_1 \oplus \bar E_2 \oplus \bar E_3 \mapsto
\bar P \mapsto 0.$$ Likewise we will study the exact sequence of $p^i$-quotients. That is, we define a map $\Pi_j^i$ to be that given by class field theory from $\subbar{j} E_k$ to $\subbar{j} P$. Its image will be denoted $\subbar{j} P_k$, and by class field theory $\subbar{j} P_1$ is the image of the inertia subgroup $\subbar{j} P^0_p$ in $\subbar{j} P$.
Let $L$ be an $S_3$-extension of $\Q$, degenerate for $p$ with degeneracy index $i$. Then the intersection of any two, or all three, of the $\subbar{j} P_k$ is isomorphic to $\Z/p^l\Z$, where $l = \min(i,j)$. (In the case $j = 1$, this reduces to the results in the first part of \[B-M, section 2.3\].)
We consider the cases $i < j, \, j \le i$ separately. In the case $j \le i$, the image of $P_1$ is isomorphic to $\Z/p^j\Z$, and it is stable under the action of the involution of the Galois group which fixes $\p_1$. The rest of the proof in \[B-M, section 2.3\] can now be taken over word for word.
We now consider the case $i < j$. Everything is compatible with the inclusion maps $\subbar{j} E_k \mapsto \subbar{j+1} E_k$ and $\subbar{j} P \mapsto
\subbar{j+1} P$, so the image must contain a $\Z/p^i\Z$-subgroup, and no more elements of order dividing $p^i$. If there is an element of higher order in the intersection $\subbar{j} P_k \cap \subbar{j} P_{k'}$, say $y$, coming from $y_k$ and $y_{k'}$, then the element $y_k \oplus y_{k'} \oplus 0$ would be in the image of $\subbar{j} E$, by exactness. This would immediately imply that the degeneracy index of $L$ is greater than $i$.
Linking Local and Global Presentations
======================================
We have already described (in ) the presentations of the local and global Galois groups $G_p, G$. Now we must show how they behave under the map $G_p \mapsto G$ (in particular, what happens when we restrict this to a map $\Pi_p \mapsto \Pi$). This is where the difference between the generic and degenerate situations becomes important.
(Cf. \[B-M, lemma 2.4.4\].) Suppose that $i$, the degeneracy index of $L$, is at least $j$, and let $\xi, \eta$ be generators of the inertia subgroup of $\subbar{j} P_p$ such that the nontrivial element of $\Gal(L_p/\Q)$ acts as $+1$ on $\xi$ and $-1$ on $\eta$. Let $r, s$ be the images of $\xi, \eta$ in $\subbar{j} \Pi$, and let $R, S$ be the $S_3$-stable subspaces that they generate. Then $R \isisom 1 + \epsilon$ and $S \isisom \chi$. Recall that $\subbar{j} \Pi \isisom 1 + \chi + \epsilon$. Because $L$ has no unramified extensions of degree $p$, the $S_3$-stable subspace of $\subbar{j} \Pi$ generated by the image of a local inertia group—that is, $R + S$—must be the whole thing. Also, $R, S$ must be quotients of the inductions of $1$ and $\chi$ from $A_p = \Z/2\Z$ to $A = S_3$, respectively. On the other hand, if $i < j$, neither $R$ nor $S$ can be one-dimensional over $\Z/p^j\Z$, by . Thus, the statement on $R$ follows if we prove the statement about $S$.
Corresponding to $\xi, \eta$, we let $a, b$ be generators of $\subbar{j} E_1$ such that $a^\sigma = a, b^\sigma = 1/b$. Let $\upsilon$ be the global unit of $L$ which is a $p^j$th power in $L_{\p_1}$. Then the image of $\upsilon$ in $\subbar{j} E_{\p_2}$ must be a multiple of $b$. Indeed, on the one hand, the product of the three global conjugates of $\upsilon$ can be taken to be $1$, and on the other hand, the two conjugates that are not in $\Q_p$ are local conjugates in $L_p$, so when reduced to $\subbar{j} E_{L_p}$ they have the same coefficient of $a$, which must therefore be $0$. On the other hand, the coefficient of $b$ must be a unit, for otherwise $\upsilon$ would be a $p$th power everywhere locally, a possibility excluded by our hypotheses.
In particular, the image of $\subbar{j} E_L$ in $\oplus_k\, \subbar{j} E_k$ is spanned by $(b,-b,0)$ and $(0,b,-b)$. It follows that the intersection of the images of the $\subbar{j} E_k$ in $\subbar{j} P$ is the image of $(b,0,0)$, which is obviously the $\chi$ subspace as claimed.
A curious consequence of this proposition is as follows:
Let $L/\Q$ be an $S_3$-extension of degeneracy index at least $j$ for $p$, and let $F$ be the subextension of $\Q(\zeta_{p^{j+1}})$ which is of degree $p^j$ over $\Q$. Then the class group of the compositum $L \vee
F$ contains a subgroup isomorphic to $(\Z/p^j\Z)^2$.
It is sufficient, of course, to construct an unramified extension with this Galois group. The point is simply that the inertia groups for $\p_i$ in the extension cut out by $\subbar{j} P$ are isomorphic to $(\Z/p^j\Z)^2$ and have an intersection isomorphic to $(\Z/p^j\Z)$, which cuts out the extension $M$, say. On the other hand, $L \vee F
\subset M$ and is totally ramified over $L$ at each $\p_i$. Thus, $M/(L \vee F)$ is unramified at these primes, and (by definition of $P$) at all others as well.
We must now specify the relation between local and global presentations more precisely.
(Cf. \[B-M, prop. 10\].) Let $L$ be an admissible $S_3$-extension of $\Q$ of degeneracy index $i$ for the prime $p$. Then we may take the local and global systems of generators such that the image of $\xi$ is $u$ and, in the induced map on quotients $\subbar{j} \Pi_p \mapsto \subbar{j} \Pi$, the image of $\eta$ is $v$, if $i \ge j$. By \[B-M, prop. 7 and addendum\] we may take the image of $\xi$ to be $u$. The statement about $\eta$ follows from the last lemma, similarly to the proof of \[B-M, prop. 10\].
We have now accumulated all necessary information about the Galois groups and can proceed to studying the universal deformation.
The Universal Deformation
=========================
Let $L$ be an admissible $S_3$-extension; for the moment, the index of degeneracy does not matter. There is a Galois representation $\bar \rho: G \mapsto GL_2(\F_p)$, unique up to conjugacy, which factors through $\Gal L/\Q$ and maps it injectively into $GL_2(\F_p)$. For concreteness, we fix elements $\sigma$, $\tau$ in $S_3$ of order $2$ and $3$ respectively and map them to $$\pmatrix{1&0\cr 0&-1\cr}, \pmatrix{-1/2& 1/2 \cr -3/2 & -1/2\cr}.$$
We will be studying deformations of $\bar \rho$ to complete local noetherian rings with residue field $\F_p$. The universal deformation has been completely described.
The universal deformation ring is the power series ring $\Z_p[[T_1,T_2,T_3]]$, and the universal deformation may be given as follows: $$\sigma \mapsto \pmatrix{1&0\cr 0&-1\cr},
\tau \mapsto \pmatrix{-1/2&1/2\cr -3/2&-1/2\cr},
u \mapsto \pmatrix{1+T_1&0\cr 0&1+T_1\cr},
v \mapsto \pmatrix{(1-3T_3^2)^{1/2}&T_3\cr -3T_3&(1-3T_3^2)^{1/2}\cr}.$$
This is \[B-M\], prop. 11, and a detailed proof is given there.
To understand the universal deformation more fully, we must understand the image of $\eta$. Since $\eta$ conjugated by $\sigma$ is $\eta^{-1}$, the image of $\eta$ must have determinant $1$ and equal diagonal entries, so it is, say, $$\pmatrix{(1+fg)^{1/2}&f\cr g & (1+fg)^{1/2}\cr}.$$ Modulo $\m$, the power series $f$ is congruent to $T_3$, and $g$ to $-3T_3$.
As \[B-M\], prop. 12, except that here the image of $\subbar{1}
\eta$ under the natural map $\bar \Pi_p \mapsto \bar \Pi$ is $\bar v$.
We can now determine some of the natural subspaces. We will be considering representations of the Galois group into $GL_2(\Z_p)$ which are deformations of the representation into $GL_2(\F_p)$. Thus they come from the universal deformation, and are described by a continuous homomorphism $\Z_p[[T_1,T_2,T_3]] \mapsto \Z_p$. Such a homomorphism $\alpha$ is described by giving $\alpha(T_1), \alpha(T_2), \alpha(T_3)$; the space of such is therefore naturally identified with $p\Z_p \times p\Z_p \times p\Z_p$, which is a $3$-dimensional $p$-adic manifold. The only visible difference between our situation and the generic one is that here $f$ and $g$ are not transversal. Presumably the order of contact of their zero loci is equal to the degeneracy locus of the extension, but I do not see how to prove this.
(cf. \[B-M\], prop. 13.) The inertially reducible locus is the union of the hypersurfaces $f = 0$ and $g = 0$. The ordinary locus is the smooth curve defined by $T_1 = g = 0$.
Identical to the proofs given in \[B-M\].
It is still true that a representation is inertially dihedral iff $T_1 = T_2$ or $f = g = 0$. If, as is presumably the case, the loci $f = 0$ and $g = 0$ are distinct, the argument in \[B-M\] goes through to show that $f = g = 0$ implies $T_1 = T_2$. (This sounds like something that should be easy to prove, but I have not managed to.) It would then follow, just as in \[B-M\], that the inertially ample locus is the complement of the union of the inertially reducible and inertially dihedral loci.
= -1
References
==========
=20.0pt =-20.0pt \[B-M\] N. Boston, B. Mazur, [*Explicit universal deformations of Galois representations*]{}. In [*Algebraic Number Theory*]{}, Adv. Stud. Pure Math. [**17**]{}, 1–21.
\[M\] B. Mazur, [*Deforming Galois representations*]{}. In [*Galois groups over $\Q$*]{}, MSRI Publications [**16**]{}, 385–437.
|
---
abstract: 'Self-poisoning is a kinetic trap that can impair or prevent crystal growth in a wide variety of physical settings. Here we use dynamic mean-field theory and computer simulation to argue that poisoning is ubiquitous because its emergence requires only the notion that a molecule can bind in two (or more) ways to a crystal; that those ways are not energetically equivalent; and that the associated binding events occur with sufficiently unequal probability. If these conditions are met then the steady-state growth rate is in general a non-monotonic function of the thermodynamic driving force for crystal growth, which is the characteristic of poisoning. Our results also indicate that relatively small changes of system parameters could be used to induce recovery from poisoning.'
author:
- Stephen Whitelam$^1$
- Yuba Raj Dahal$^2$
- 'Jeremy D. Schmit$^2$'
title: 'Minimal physical requirements for crystal growth self-poisoning'
---
Introduction
============
One of the kinetic traps that can prevent the crystallization of molecules from solution is the phenomenon of [*self-posioning*]{}, in which molecules attach to a crystal in a manner not commensurate with the crystal structure and so impair or prevent crystal growthungar2005effect,de2003principles. This phenomenon has been seen in computer simulations of hard rodsşchilling2004self, and in the assembly of polymersḩiggs1994growth,ungar2000dilution,ungar2005effect and proteinsasthagiri2000role,schmit2013kinetic. A signature of self-poisoning is a growth rate that is a non-monotonic function of the thermodynamic driving force for crystal growth, with the slowing of growth as a function of driving force occurring in the rough-growth-front regime (a distinct effect, growth poisoning at low driving force, can occur if impurities impair 2D nucleation on the surface of a 3D crystalçabrera1958growth,land1999recovery,van1998impurity,sleutel2015mesoscopic). Unlike the slow dynamics associated with nucleationde2003principles,sear2007nucleation, self-poisoning cannot be overcome by seeding a solution with a crystal template or by inducing heterogeneous nucleation.
Here we use dynamic mean-field theory and computer simulation to argue that poisoning is ubiquitous because its emergence requires no specific spatial or molecular detail, but only the notion that a molecule can bind in two (or more) ways to a crystal, optimal and non-optimal; that the non-optimal way of binding is energetically less favorable than the optimal way of binding; and that any given binding event is more likely (by about an order of magnitude) to be non-optimal than to be optimal. If these conditions are met then the character of the steady-state growth regime changes qualitatively with crystal-growth driving force. Just past the solubility limit a crystal’s growth rate increases with thermodynamic driving force (supercooling or supersaturation). However, the dynamically-generated crystal also becomes less pure as driving force is increased, i.e. it incorporates more molecules in the non-optimal configuration. As a result, the effective driving force for growth of the [*impure*]{} crystal can diminish as the driving force for growth of the [*pure*]{} crystal increases, and so the impure crystal’s growth slows (this feedback effect is similar to the growth-rate ‘catastrophe’ described in Ref.van1998impurity). At even larger driving forces an impure precipitate of non-optimally-bound molecules grows rapidly. Self-poisoning of polymer crystallization was studied in Refs.ḩiggs1994growth,ungar2000dilution,ungar2005effect using analytic models and simulations. The present models have a similar minimal flavor to the models developed in those references, although our models are not designed to be models of polymer crystallization specifically, and contain no notion of molecular binding-site blocking. We show that poisoning can happen even if all molecular interactions are attractive, and that it results from a nonlinear dynamical feedback effect that couples crystal quality and crystal growth rate. Having identified the factors that lead to poisoning, the present models also suggest that relatively small changes of system parameters could be used to induce recovery from it.
In we introduce and analyze a mean-field model of the growth of a crystal from molecules able to bind to it in distinct ways. In we introduce a simulation model of the same type of process, but one that accommodates spatial fluctuations and particle-number fluctuations ignored by the mean-field theory. The behavior of these models is summarized in . Both the mean-field model and the simulations show crystal growth rate to be a non-monotonic function of the thermodynamic driving force for growth of the [*pure*]{} crystal, because the dynamically-generated crystal is in general impure. In some regimes the predictions of the two models differ in their specifics: the mean-field theory assumes a nonequilibrium steady-state of infinite lifetime, and the growth rate associated with this steady-state can vanish. Simulations, which satisfy detailed balance, eventually evolve to thermal equilibrium and so always display a non-zero growth rate. We conclude in .
Mean-field theory of growth poisoning {#sec_mf}
=====================================
The basic physical ingredients of growth poisoning are contained within a model of growth that neglects all spatial detail and accounts only for the ability of particles of distinct type (or, equivalently, distinct conformations of a single particle type) to bind to or unbind from a ‘structure’, which we resolve only in an implicit sense. We consider $K$ types of particle, labeled $i=1,2,\dots,K$ (we will focus shortly on the case of two particle types). We model the structure in a mean-field sense, resolving it only to the extent that we identify the relative abundance $n_i$ of particle type $i$ within the structure, where $\sum_i n_i = 1$ (we assume that sums over variables $i$ and $j$ run over all $K$ particle-type labels). Let us assume that the structure gains particles of type $i$ at rate $p_i C$, where $C$ is a notional concentration and $\sum_i p_i = 1$. Let us assume that particle types unbind from the structure with a rate proportional to their relative abundance within the structure, multiplied by some rate $\lambda$, which can depend on the set of variables $\{n_i\}$. If we write down a master equation for the stochastic process so defined, calculate expectation values of the variables $n_i$, and replace fluctuating quantities by their averages, then we get the following set of mean-field rate equations describing the net rates $\Gamma_i$ at which particles of type $i$ add to the structure: \[rates\] \_i = p\_i C - n\_i ({n\_i}), where $i=1,2,\dots,K$, and $\sum_i p_i = 1=\sum_i n_i$ as stated previously. To model a structure of interacting particles we assume a Boltzmann-like rate of unbinding, \[lambdas\] \_i({n\_i}) = (\_j \_[ij]{} n\_j), which assumes the interaction energy between particle types $i$ and $j$ to be $\epsilon_{ij}$, and assumes that particles ‘feel’ only the averaged composition $\{n_i\}$ of the structure.
We define the growth rate of the structure as \[growth\_rate\] V\_i \_i. In equilibrium the structure neither grows nor shrinks, and we have \[equilib\] \_i=0 for each $i=1,2,\dots,K$. We shall also assume the existence of a steady-state growth regime in which $V \geq 0$ but the composition of the structure does not change with time; in this regime we have \[steady\] n\_i=, i.e. the relative abundance of each particle type is proportional to the relative rate at which it is added to the structure.
At this point the set of equations – describes a generic model of growth via the binding and unbinding of particles of multiple types. The model is mean-field in both a spatial sense – no spatial degrees of freedom exist, and particle-structure interactions depend on the composition of the structure as a whole – and in the sense of ignoring fluctuations of particle number: the model resolves only net rates of growth. We now specialize the model to the case of crystal growth in the presence of impurities; different choices of parameters can be used to model other scenariosWhitelam2014a,Sue2015,mannige2015predicting.
We shall consider two particle types, and so set $K=2$. We will call particle types 1 and 2 ‘B’ for ‘blue’ and ‘R’ for ‘red’, respectively, for descriptive purposes (in Section \[results\] simulation configurations will be color-coded accordingly). We call the relative abundance of blue particles in the structure $n_1 \equiv n$, and so the relative abundance of red particles in the structure is $n_2=1-n$. We consider blue particles to represent the (unique) crystallographic orientation and conformation of a particular molecule, and red particles to represent the ensemble of non-crystallographic orientations and conformations of the same molecule. Alternatively, one could consider red particles to be an impurity species present in the same solution as the blue particles that we want to crystallize. We assume that an isolated particle is blue with probability $p$ and red with probability $1-p$, and so we choose $p_1 = p$ and so $p_2 = 1-p$ for the basic rates of particle addition in . We will assume that the blue-blue crystallographic or ‘specific’ interaction in is $\epsilon_{\rm BB}=-\es \kt$. We will assume that interactions between blue and red ($\epsilon_{\rm RB}$) or red and red ($\epsilon_{\rm RR}$) are ‘nonspecific’, and equal to $-\en \kt$. With these choices reads \[rateb\] \_[B]{} &=& pC -n \^n [e]{}\^[- ]{},\
\[rater\] \_[R]{} &=& (1-p) C -(1-n) [e]{}\^[- ]{}, where $\alpha \equiv {\rm e}^{-\Delta}$ and $\Delta \equiv \es -\en$. This model describes the growth of a structure whose character is defined by its ‘color’, $n$; for $n\approx 1$ the structure is almost blue, and we shall refer to this structure as the ‘crystal’. For $n$ small we have a mostly red structure, and we refer to this as the ‘precipitate’. Intermediate values of $n$ describe a structure that we shall refer to as an ‘impure’ crystal.
It is convenient to work with a set of rescaled rates and concentrations \[rescale\] (c, \_[R]{}, \_[B]{} ) (C,\_[R]{}, \_[B]{} ) [e]{}\^, in terms of which Equations and read \[ratebreduced\] \_[B]{} &=& p c -n \^n.\
\[raterreduced\] \_[R]{} &=& (1-p)c -(1-n). The rescaling defined by makes an important physical point: the timescale for crystal growth is measured most naturally in terms of the basic timescale ${\rm e}^{\en}$ for the unbinding of impurity (red) particles. Thus, for fixed energy scale $\en \kt$, lowering temperature serves to increase this basic timescale, indicating that cooling is not necessarily a viable strategy for speeding crystal growth.
Equation , which reduces to = , is the assumption that there exists a steady-state dynamic regime in which the relative abundance of red and blue particles in the growing structure is equal to the ratio of their rates of growth. Inserting into this condition Equations and gives the self-consistent relation \[noneqcomposition\] = . One can solve this equation graphically for solid composition $n$, as a function of the parameters $\es, \en, c$, and $p$. To determine the growth rate of the solid one inserts the value of $n$ so calculated into Equations and , and adds them: \[vee\] v=\_[R]{}+\_[B]{}. The physical growth rate is then $V = v {\rm e}^{-\en}$, obtained by undoing the rescaling .
![\[fig\_graphical\] Graphical construction used to determine the phase diagram of the mean-field model of growth poisoning (see (a)). The solutions of give the solid compositions at which the growth rate vanishes. The horizontal dotted line shows a value of $p/(1-p)$ for which three such solutions exist; the associated values $n_{\rm B}$, $n_{\rm A}$ and $n_{\rm R}$ lie on the ‘solubility’, ‘arrest’, and ‘precipitation’ lines shown in (a).](construction){width="\linewidth"}
To gain insight into the behavior of the model is it useful to solve for $c$, \[cparam\] c= (1-\^n), and to use this expression to eliminate $c$ from , giving \[vparam\] v= . Equations and can be regarded as parametric equations for the concentration $c$ at which one observes a particular growth rate $v$ of a solid of composition $n$ [^1]. The basic phenomenology revealed by Equations and is that altering concentration $c$ results in a change of composition $n$ of the growing structure, and that changes of both $c$ and $n$ affect the rate of growth $v$.
{width="\linewidth"}
In certain parameter regimes $v$ can become a non-monotonic function of $c$, which is crystal growth poisoning. This potential can be seen from ; setting $\partial v/\partial n = 0$ yields [^2] p = . The right-hand side of this equation is a non-monotonic function of $n$, and takes its maximum value when $n=2/\Delta$. Thus for $\Delta>2$ this equation has two solutions (equivalent to turning points of $v(n)$) provided that $\Delta(e^\Delta - 1 +\Delta)^{-1}<p<4
\Delta^{-1}(1+{\rm e}^2)^{-1}$. These two solutions underpin the behavior shown in : increasing concentration first causes the structure to grow more rapidly (because we increase the driving force for crystal growth), and then more slowly (as poisoning happens), and then more quickly again (as the structure grows in an ‘impure’ way). For $\Delta =4$ (see below) poisoning happens if $p<(1+{\rm e}^2)^{-1} \approx 0.12$. That is, for poisoning to happen the impure (red) species must be at least about 10 times more abundant in solution than the crystal-forming (blue) species.
Of particular interest are the locations in phase space where the growth rate vanishes. These locations can be identified by setting the right-hand side of to zero (or equivalently setting $\gamma_{\rm B}=\gamma_{\rm R}=0$ in Equations and ), giving \[eqstate\] = f(n) where \[eq\_func\] f(n) = \^n. Recall that $\alpha \equiv {\rm e}^{-\Delta}$ and $\Delta \equiv \es - \en$. Inspection of the properties of $f(n)$ reveals the conditions under which growth arrest can occur. To this end it is convenient to calculate the stationary points $n_\pm$ of $f(n)$, which are n\_= ( 1 ). Two stationary points exist for $\Delta >4$, where the function $f(n)$ has the behavior shown in . Arrest can happen if the horizontal line $p/(1-p)$ lies between the values $f(n_-)$ and $f(n_+)$, i.e. if > p > , where f(n\_) = { - ( 1)}, with $\chi \equiv \sqrt{1-4 \Delta^{-1}}$. In this case there are three solutions $n_\theta$ to . We shall call these solutions $n_{\rm B}$, $n_{\rm A}$, and $n_{\rm R}$. From the associated concentrations $c_\theta$ are \[eqconc\] c\_= , where $\theta = $ R, B, or A. The solution corresponding to the largest value of $n$ we call $n_{\rm B}$ (B for blue). The associated concentration $c_{\rm B}$ is that at which the mostly-blue solid or ‘crystal’ is in equilibrium, and we shall call the locus of such values, calculated for different parameter combinations, the ‘solubility line’. The solution corresponding to the smallest value of $n$ we call $n_{\rm R}$ (R for red). The associated concentration is that at which the mostly-red ‘precipitate’ is in equilibrium, and this lies on what we will call the ‘precipitation line’. The remaining solution we call $n_{\rm A}$ (A for arrest); it yields the concentration at which the impure crystal ceases to grow, and it lies on the ‘arrest line’.
Arrest therefore occurs when $\Delta$ is large enough that the (blue) crystal is stable thermodynamically [*and*]{} $p$ is small enough that the crystal’s emergence is kinetically hindered. If $p$ is large enough, i.e. if $p/(1-p)$ is greater than $f(n_-)$, then the crystal’s emergence is not kinetically hindered and growth arrest does not occur. Conversely, if $p$ is too small, i.e. if $p/(1-p)$ is less than $f(n_+)$, then $\Delta$ is too small to render the crystal thermodynamically stable.
We can use this set of equations to determine the behavior of our mean-field model of crystal growth, and we describe this behavior in . There we revert to ‘physical’ growth rates $V$ and concentrations $C$; these are related to their rescaled counterparts $v$ and $c$ via .
Computer simulations of two-component growth {#simulations}
============================================
{width="0.8\linewidth"}
We carried out lattice Monte Carlo simulations of two-component growth, similar to those done in Refs.Whitelam2014a,Hedges2014,Sue2015,mannige2015predicting. Simulations, which satisfy detailed balance with respect to a particular lattice energy function, accommodate spatial degrees of freedom and particle-number fluctuations omitted by the mean-field theory. Simulations therefore provide an assessment of which physics is captured by the mean-field theory and which it omits.
Simulation boxes consisted of a 3D cubic lattice of $15\times15\times100$ sites. Sites can be vacant (white), or occupied by a blue particle or a red particle. Periodic boundary conditions were applied along the two short directions. At each time step a site was chosen at random. If the chosen site was white then we proposed with probability $p$ to make it blue, and with probability $1-p$ to make it red. If the chosen site was red or blue then we proposed to make it white. No red-blue interchange was allowed. To model the slow dynamics in the interior of an aggregate we allowed no changes of state of any lattice site that had 6 colored nearest neighbors.
These proposals we accepted with the following probabilities: $$\begin{aligned}
\textrm{R} \to \textrm{W} &:& \min\left(1,(1 - p){\rm e}^{-\beta \Delta E}\right); \nonumber \\
\textrm{W} \to \textrm{R} &:& \min\left(1,(1 - p)^{-1}{\rm e}^{-\beta\Delta E}\right); \nonumber \\
\textrm{B} \to \textrm{W} &:& \min\left(1,p \,{\rm e}^{-\beta\Delta E} \right); \nonumber \\
\textrm{W} \to \textrm{B} &:& \min\left(1,p^{-1} {\rm e}^{-\beta \Delta E} \right), \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta E$ is the energy change resulting from the proposed move. This change was calculated from the lattice energy function $$\begin{aligned}
E = \sum_{<i,j>} \epsilon_{C(i)C(j)} + \sum_{i} \mu_{C(i)} \label{E}.\end{aligned}$$ The first sum runs over all distinct nearest-neighbor interactions and the second sum runs over all sites. The index $C(i)$ describes the color of site $i$, and is W (white), B (blue) or R (red); $\epsilon_{C(i)C(j)}$ is the interaction energy between colors $C(i)$ and $C(j)$; and the chemical potential $\mu_{C(i)}$ is $\mu \kt$, $-\kt \ln p$ and $-\kt \ln(1-p)$ for W, B and R, respectively (note that positive $\mu$ favors particles over vacancies). In keeping with the choices made in we take \_[BB]{}= -;\
\_[BR]{} = \_[RB]{}=\_[RR]{}= -. In the absence of pairwise energetic interactions the likelihood that a given site will be white, blue or red is respectively $1/(1+{\rm e}^{\mu})$, $p/(1+{\rm e}^{-\mu})$, and $(1-p)/(1+{\rm e}^{-\mu})$.
Simulations were begun with three complete layers of blue particles at one end of the box to eliminate the need for spontaneous nucleation. For fixed values of energetic parameters we measured the composition $n$ (the fraction of colored blocks that are blue) and growth rate of the structure produced at different values of the parameter $c \equiv {\rm e}^{\mu}$ (which for small $c$ is approximately equal to the likelihood than an isolated site will in equilibrium be colored rather than white).
{width="0.8\linewidth"}
Results
=======
\(a) shows the phase diagram of our mean-field model of crystal growth. The ‘solubility’ and ‘precipitation’ lines indicate where the crystal and precipitate are in equilibrium; the ‘arrest’ line shows where the growth rate of the impure crystal vanishes. The structure of this diagram is similar to that of certain experimental systems – see e.g. Refs.Asherie2004,Luft2011 or Fig. 14 of Ref.ungar2005effect – showing that the mean-field theory, although simple, can capture important features of real systems. Upon moving left to right across this diagram we observe the behavior shown in panels (b) and (c) of the figure. Growth rate $V$ first increases with concentration $C$, because the thermodynamic driving force for crystal growth increases. But at some point $V$ begins to decrease, i.e. poisoning occurs. This is so because the composition of the growing solid changes with concentration – it becomes less pure – and so the thermodynamic driving force for its growth decreases, even through the thermodynamic driving force for the growth of the [*pure*]{} crystal increases with $C$. As we pass the precipitation line the growth rate $V$ becomes large and positive (inset to panel (b)). This behavior is similar to that seen in e.g. Fig. 2 of Ref.ungar2000dilution.
The mean-field theory is simple in nature but furnishes non-trivial predictions. Key aspects of these predictions are borne out by our simulations, which resolve spatial detail and particle-number fluctuations omitted by the theory (we found similar theory-simulation correspondence in a different regime of parameter spaceWhitelam2014a). In we show simulation snapshots, taken after fixed long times, for a range of values of concentration $c$. One can infer from this picture that growth rate is a non-monotonic function of concentration. In all cases the equilibrium structure is a box mostly filled with blue particles. At small concentrations we see the growth of a structure similar to the equilibrium one. Poisoning occurs because the grown structure becomes less pure (more red) as $c$ increases, and so the effective driving force for its growth decreases even though the driving force for the growth of the pure crystal increases. At large concentrations we pass the precipitation line and the impure (red) solid grows rapidly.
In we show the number of layers $L$ deposited after fixed long simulation times for various concentrations $c$ (we consider a layer to have been added if more than half the sites in a given slice across the long box direction are are occupied by red or blue particles). The general trend seen in simulations is similar to that seen in the mean-field theory (panels (b) and (c) of ). At concentrations just above the blue solubility limit the structure’s growth rate increases approximately linearly with concentration. At higher concentrations the growth rate reaches a maximum and then drops sharply, because structure quality (and so the effective driving force for its growth) declines with concentration. One difference between mean-field theory and simulations is that in the latter the growth rate in the poisoning regime does not go to zero. This is so because simulations satisfy detailed balance, and must eventually evolve to equilibrium. Fluctuations (mediated within the bulk of the structure by vacancies) allow the composition of an arrested structure to evolve slowly toward equilibrium, and thereby to extend slowly. Thus the steady-state dynamic regime that has infinite lifetime with the mean-field theory has only finite lifetime within our simulations (because these eventually must reach equilibrium). Slow evolution of this nature is shown in .
{width="0.7\linewidth"}
Conclusions
===========
We have used mean-field theory and computer simulation to show that crystal growth self-poisoning requires no particular spatial or molecular detail, as long as a small handful of physical ingredients are realized. These ingredients are: the notion that a molecule can bind in two (or more) ways to a crystal; that those ways are not energetically equivalent; and that they are realized with sufficiently unequal probability. If these conditions are met then the steady-state growth rate of a structure is, in general, a non-monotonic function of the thermodynamic driving force for crystal growth. Self-poisoning is seen in a wide variety of physical systemsşchilling2004self,ungar2005effect,asthagiri2000role, because, we suggest, many molecular systems display the three physical ingredients we have identified as being sufficient conditions for poisoning. Protein crystallization, for instance, is notoriously difficult, and rational guidance for it is much neededţen1997enhancement,george1994predicting,shim2007using,haxton2012design,schmit2012growth,fusco2015soft. . Many protein crystallization trials result in clear solutions without any obvious indication of why crystals failed to appear [@Luft2011a], and in some of these cases self-poisoning might be happening.
There also exists a possible connection between the present work and the recent observation of protein clusters that appear in weakly-saturated solution and do not grow or shrinkpan2010origin. Other authors have proposedpan2010origin and formulatedlutsko2015mechanism models that explain the long-lived nature of such clusters via the slow interconversion of oligomeric and monomeric protein: in these models there exists a thermodynamic driving force to grow clusters of oligomers, but the growth of such clusters is hindered by the existence of monomeric protein. If we reinterpret the present model to regard the ‘red’ species as monomeric protein and the ‘blue’ species as oligomeric protein, then we obtain a possible connection to the mechanism described in Refs.pan2010origin, lutsko2015mechanism. From e.g. (a) we see that we can be in a region of phase space that is undersaturated with respect to monomeric (red) protein but supersaturated with respect to oligomeric (blue) protein (i.e. the thermodynamic ground state is a condensed structure built from oligomeric protein). There then exists a thermodynamic driving force to grow structures made of oligomeric protein, but the emergence of such structures is rendered slow by kinetic trapping (caused by the fact that monomeric protein is more abundant in isolation than is oligomeric protein). According to this interpretation the ‘stable’ protein clusters are kinetically trapped, and on long enough timescales would grow. However, we stress that this connection is tentative.
Having identified factors that lead to poisoning, the present models also suggest that relatively small changes of system parameters could be used to avoid it. For instance, and show that, given a set of molecular characteristics, small changes of concentration or temperature can take one from a poisoned regime to one in which crystal growth rate is relatively rapid. Recovery from poisoning could also be effected if one has some way of altering molecular characteristics, such as the value of the non-optimal binding energy scale; see and .
![Solubility and arrest line calculated from mean-field theory as in (with no precipitation line drawn), with a second solution, the larger loop to the right, drawn for the case of diminished nonspecific binding energy $\en \to 3\en/4$ (with $\Delta$ unchanged). This change greatly enlarges the region of phase space in which crystal growth can happen.[]{data-label="fig_mf_supp"}](fig_mf_supp){width="\linewidth"}
This work was done as part of a User project at the Molecular Foundry at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, supported by the Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02–05CH11231. JDS would like to acknowledge support from NIH Grant R01GM107487. Computer facilities were provided by the Beocat Research Cluster at Kansas State University, which is funded in part by NSF grants CNS-1006860, EPS-1006860, and EPS-0919443.
[30]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty @noop [**]{} (, ) pp. @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/j.ymeth.2004.03.028) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1517/17460441.2011.566857) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/S0006-3495(97)78094-9) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/cg1013945) @noop [****, ()]{} [ (), 10.1039/c5sm02234g](\doibase 10.1039/c5sm02234g)
[^1]:
[^2]: .
|
---
abstract: 'In this paper, a method of improving vertical positioning accuracy with the Global Positioning System (GPS) information and barometric pressure values is proposed. Firstly, we clear null values for the raw data collected in various environments, and use the 3$\sigma$-rule to identify outliers. Secondly, the Weighted Multinomial Logistic Regression (WMLR) classifier is trained to obtain the predicted altitude of outliers. Finally, in order to verify its effect, we compare the Multinomial Logistic Regression (MLR) method, the WMLR method, and the Support Vector Machine (SVM) method for the cleaned dataset which is regarded as the test baseline. The numerical results show that the vertical positioning accuracy is improved from 5.9 meters (the MLR method), 5.4 meters (the SVM method) to 5 meters (the WMLR method) for 67% test points.'
author:
- Yiyan Yao
- 'Xin-long Luo ^$\ast$^'
date: 'Received: date / Accepted: date'
title: Improving Vertical Positioning Accuracy with the Weighted Multinomial Logistic Regression Classifier
---
Introduction {#INTRO}
============
In recent years, the performance of the Global Positioning System (GPS) is excellent in outdoor environments [@RGG2015]. When users are outdoors, their locations can be obtained accurately through GPS. However, the GPS signals are blocked by the buildings and other obstacles, which result in large indoor positioning errors. Thus, the indoor positioning accuracy is often challenged, especially in the vertical direction. In the meantime, the space that we are living in is filled with many high-rise buildings and our most activities are indoors. Considering the practical requirement and the poor indoor positioning performance, researchers have tried many methods to improve the vertical positioning accuracy, such as the WiFi-based localization technology [@DZYXKY2018; @LLH2017; @ZHLJX2016] and the barometer-based positioning technology [@XWJC2015].
On the other hand, the GPS chip has been embedded in the most mobile terminals, which provides the location and timing information such as time, latitude, longitude, speed and altitude. Therefore, based on the GPS information, many researchers put forward some effective methods to improve the positioning accuracy of the low-cost GPS about 4 meters to 10 meters in several experiments [@IK2014]. Huang and Tsai propose an approach to calibrate the GPS position by using the context awareness technique from the pervasive computing and improve the positioning accuracy of GPS effectively [@HT2008]. The machine learning techniques are applied to assess and improve the GPS positioning accuracy under the forest canopy in [@ORMMS2011].
In this paper, we provide another machine learning technique [@ALTMY2018; @AASMGK2019; @AZISYDML2019] based on the Multinomial Logistic Regression (MLR) method [@KS2016; @MGB2008] for the vertical positioning problem. The research data are measured by many different user equipments and provided by Huawei Technologies Company, some data of which include the GPS three-dimensional information and the barometric pressure values, and Some data of which miss the GPS information or the barometric pressure values. We preprocess the research data firstly. Consequently, we identify the abnormal data with the $3\sigma$-rule and clear them. Meanwhile, some noises arise from the inaccurate data records and the different reference standards of different kinds of user equipments. These intrinsic noises lead to the poor distribution law between the air pressure and the corresponding altitude. In order to overcome these noise effects, we convert this vertical positioning problem into a classification problem and revise the weighted MLR method to improve its vertical positioning accuracy. Finally, in order to verify the effect of the Weighted Multinomial Logistic Regression (WMLR) method, we compare the MLR method, the WMLR method, and the Support Vector Machine (SVM) method [@CL2001; @CL2013; @CTS2017] for this vertical positioning problem. The numerical results show that the vertical positioning accuracy of the cleaned data is improved from 5.9 meters (the MLR method), 5.4 meters (the SVM method) to 5 meters (the WMLR method) for 67% test points.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In section \[RELATED\], some related works are discussed. In section \[SEC:1\], we describes the methodology of the data cleaning, the outlier detection and the data correction based on the WMLR classifier. In section \[RESULT\], we describe the data source and compare the MLR method, the WMLR method and the SVM method for the cleaned data which is regarded as the test baseline. The promising numerical results are also reported. Finally, some conclusions and the further works are discussed in section \[CONCLUSION\].
Related works {#RELATED}
=============
In the field of improving the indoor vertical positioning accuracy, many studies have been conducted. The related works can be roughly divided into two categories: the Received Signal Strength Strength Indication (RSSI) based methods and the barometric pressure based methods.
The RSSI of the Wi-Fi and the cellular network based methods use the collected the RSSI and build the database of the fingerprints for the floor positioning [@BSHL2016; @WLSL2014; @ZLC2012]. Some researchers consider the locations of the Wi-Fi access points to determine the floor [@GBRB2014]. In [@BSHL2016], the experimental data are collected from one or two buildings and the collecting device is fixed. They use the collected RSSI information and the pressure data to estimate the floor. In those papers, since the RSSI information is local, when the experimental environment changes, the training data need to be collected by hand and the discriminant parameters need to be trained again.
Since there are many Wi-Fi access points distributed in a crowded indoor environment and the wall cannot completely obstruct the signals, the signal interference and fluctuation of different floors will result in the inaccurate estimation. Some researchers propose the barometric altimetry for the floor determination. In [@XWJC2015], Xia et al. give a method based on the multiple reference barometers for the floor positioning in buildings and their method can give an accurate floor level. The disadvantages of their method are that the height thresholds should be given in the floor determination and they are sensitive to the local pressure conditions.
In [@CTS2017], Chriki et al. use the SVM method based on the RSSI measurements for the zoning localization problem. In [@ALTMY2018], Adege et al. propose an outdoor and indoor positioning method based on the hybrid of SVM and deep neural network algorithms according to the RSSI of the Wi-Fi. Since the SVM method only considers the support vector and the few points which are most relevant are used to make the classification, its classification result may be ineffective when the level of noise is high. The positioning method based on the deep neural network [@ALTMY2018; @HLL2017] requires a very large amount of data to perform better than other techniques, and it requires expensive GPUs and multiple devices to train complex models. The MLR method considers all training data points which smooth the noise such that the MLR method can handle the high level of noise of the training data. Furthermore, the MLR method can be used to handle the large scale problem [@K2019]. Therefore, in consideration of the performance gain of the weighted positioning algorithm [@LLH2017], we choose the MLR method with the weighted technique as the vertical positioning method based on the GPS and barometric pressure information of the user equipments.
The methodology {#SEC:1}
===============
Our positioning method is composed of several stages, including the data cleaning, the outlier detection, the data correction and the prediction of vertical altitude for the test feature vector. We described these procedures in the following subsections.
Data cleaning {#SECTDATACLEAN}
-------------
The raw dataset is measured at different places with different user equipments. In the dataset, many data miss the air pressure values due to some mobile devices without the barometers. We delete these data of the missing air pressure values firstly. Additionally, there are some abnormal data which deviate too far from the average value of the dataset and it is shown as follows. Assume that an average sea level pressure is 1013.25 hPa and the corresponding temperature is 15$^\circ$C, then the air pressure value and its corresponding altitude have the following relationship [@ZF2014]: $$\begin{aligned}
h=44330.8-4946.54p^{0.1902632}, \label{BAROHEIFORMULA}\end{aligned}$$ where the unit of altitude $h$ is meter, and the unit of the air pressure value $p$ is hpa. From formula , it is not difficult to find that the barometric pressure value and the corresponding altitude are the inverse relationship. However, from Fig. \[Figure2\], we find that the distribution between the air pressure values and the corresponding altitudes of the given data is irregular. Therefore, we conclude that there exists the data drift in the given real test data. Thus, we use the 3$\sigma$-rule to exclude the abnormal data as follows [@W2004]: $$\begin{aligned}
X \; \text{is thrown away when} \; |X - \mu| \ge 3 \sigma, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where the mean $\mu$ and the standard deviation $\sigma$ are computed by the following formula: $$\begin{aligned}
\mu =\frac{1}{n} \sum_{i = 1}^{n} X_{i} \; \text{and} \;
\sigma = \sqrt{\frac{1}{n-1}\sum_{i = 1}^{n}(X_{i}-\mu)^2}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ After performing the 3$\sigma$-rule, we eliminate the large deviation data and the $99.73\%$ data are retained.
![The distribution of the pressure values and the corresponding altitudes.[]{data-label="Figure2"}](distributionofpreandheightofid5696.pdf){width="9cm"}
Outlier detection {#SECTOUT}
-----------------
In subsection \[SECTDATACLEAN\], we have cleaned away the abnormal data which deviate too much from the dataset. However, there are still some outliers. An outlier is a point which differs significantly from the other points in a subdataset measured by the same device in a short time. We use the spherical distance computed by the haversine formula [@S1984] to identify the outlier. The haversine formula is illustrated by Fig. \[Figure 3\] and calculates the spherical distance between the two points $A(lon_a,\, lat_a)$ and $B(lon_b, \, lat_b)$ with the coordinate $(longitude, \, latitude)$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
d_{AD} & = 2Rsin(\Delta lon/2)cos(lat_a), \nonumber \\
d_{CB} & = 2Rsin(\Delta lon/2)cos(lat_b), \label{HAVFOM} \\
d_{AB} & = 2R\left|sin^2 \left(\frac{\Delta lat}{2}\right)
+ cos(lat_a) cos(lat_b) sin^2 \left(\frac{\Delta lon}{2}\right)\right|^{\frac{1}{2}},
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta lon=lon_{b}-lon_{a}$, $\Delta lat=lat_{b}-lat_{a}$, and $R$ is the radius of the Earth.
![The diagram of two points in a three-dimensional space.[]{data-label="Figure 3"}](sphericalDistance.pdf){width="7cm"}
Consequently, we estimate the diameter of a subdataset as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
d_{max} = \bar{v} \times t,\label{MAXDIST}\end{aligned}$$ where $\bar{v}$ is the mean velocity, and $t$ is the total measuring time of the subdataset. On the other hand, each point has a distance vector with other points. If over $50\%$ elements of the distance vector are greater than $d_{max}$, we regard this point as an outlier.
Data correction {#DATACORREC}
---------------
In this subsection, we describe the procedure of data correction and it is also the key step of our positioning method. This step is to predict the relatively accurate altitudes of the outliers. As mentioned in section \[SECTOUT\], the data distribution is roughly similar when the data are measured by the same device. Under this assumption, the altitudes of the subdataset are classified into different classes (labels). Thus, we encounter the multi-class classification problem.
### The multi-class classification problem {#SECPROBCONVER}
The outliers of the subdataset have been found with the method in section \[SECTOUT\]. Thus, we select the data except outliers as a training dataset. The input training dataset is composed of [$N$ pairwise points $(X_{n}, \, h_{n}) \, (n = 1, \, 2, \, \dots, N)$, where $X_{n}$ is the feature vector of the $n$-th point and $h_{n}$ is the corresponding altitude. Denote $h_{min}$ and $h_{max}$ as the minimum altitude and the maximum altitude, respectively. Parameter $\delta \, ( h_{min} < \delta < h_{max}$) is the quantization step of altitude. Then, for a given altitude $h$]{}, its corresponding class $k$ is computed as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
k = \left\lceil{\frac{h - h_{min}}{\delta}}\right\rceil + 1 \nonumber,\end{aligned}$$ where $h_{min} \leq h \leq h_{max}$,$\left\lceil{\cdot}\right\rceil$ is a function which will round the value toward positive infinity. When the predicted class of a point is obtained, we take the average altitude of its corresponding interval as the predicted altitude and which is computed by the following formula: $$\begin{aligned}
h^{p}_{k} = \left(k-\frac{1}{2}\right) \delta + h_{min}, \; k = 1, \, 2, \, \ldots,
\, K, \label{PREALT}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, after the above transformation procedure, the data correction problem is converted into a multi-class classification problem (see Table \[TABLECLASS\], where $K$ represents the number of classes and $K = \lceil (h_{max}-h_{min})/\delta \rceil$+1).
[lll]{} Class & Interval (meter) & Predicted altitude (meter)\
1 & $h_{min} \sim \delta + h_{min}$ & $\frac{1}{2}\delta+h_{min}$\
2 & $\delta + h_{min} \sim 2\delta+ h_{min}$ & $\frac{3}{2}\delta + h_{min}$\
& &\
k & $(k-1)\delta+h_{min} \sim k\delta+ h_{min}$ & $\left(k-\frac{1}{2}\right)\delta + h_{min}$\
& &\
K & $(K-1)\delta + h_{min} \sim K \delta + h_{min}$ & $\left(K - \frac{1}{2}\right)\delta + h_{min}$\
### The weighted multinomial logistic regression model {#SECMLR}
Logistic Regression (LR) is a machine learning method and widely used to the binary classification problem [@C2006]. The MLR method extends the binary LR method to the multiple classification problem. For the MLR model, each class has its parameter vector. According to the parameter vector and the data feature vector, the MLR method determines the classification of the data. In the positioning application scenario, every feature vector consists of time, longitude, latitude, air pressure value and speed.
The training process of the MLR model needs to obtain the parameter $\omega_{k}$ of the $k$-th class via solving the the maximum likelihood function [@ZLC2012], where $k = 1, \, 2, \, \cdots, K$. The conditional probability of the feature vector $X$ belonging to the class $Y$ is given by the following formula: $$\begin{aligned}
P(Y = k|X = x) = \frac{e^{\omega_{k}^T x}}{\sum^{K}_{i=1}e^{\omega_{i}^T x}}, \;
k= 1, 2, \cdots , K. \label{MLR}\end{aligned}$$ Then, the MLR method predicts the data category $k^{\ast}$ via solving the following maximum problem: $$\begin{aligned}
k^{\ast} \in \mathop{argmax}\limits_{k \in \{1, \, 2, \, \ldots, \, K \}}
P(Y = k|X = x). \label{CLASSIFICATION}\end{aligned}$$
After the data preprocessing of the previous steps, we obtain the training dataset, which consists of $N$ pairwise points $(X_{n},\, Y_{n}) \,
(n = 1, \, 2, \, \ldots, \, N)$, where $X_{n}$ represents the data feature vector and $Y_{n}$ represents its corresponding data class. According to formula and the independent assumption of the multivariate distribution, we obtain the likelihood function as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\prod^{N}_{n=1} P\left(Y = Y_{n} |X = X_{n}\right)
= \prod^{N}_{n=1}\left(\frac{e^{\omega_{Y_{n}}^T X_{n}}}
{\sum^{K}_{k=1}e^{\omega_{k}^T X_n}}\right). \label{PROD}\end{aligned}$$
Taking the logarithm of the two sides of formula , we obtain the following log-likelihood function: $$\begin{aligned}
log \left(\prod^{N}_{n=1}P\left(Y = Y_{n}|X = X_{n}\right)\right)
= \sum^{N}_{n=1} \left(\omega_{Y_{n}}^T X_{n}
- log \left({\sum^{K}_{k=1}e^{\omega_{k}^T X_{n}}}\right) \right). \label{LOG}\end{aligned}$$ Since the value of expression is less than zero, we define function $f(\Omega)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
f(\Omega) = \sum^{N}_{n=1} \left(-\omega_{Y_{n}}^T X_{n}
+ log \left({\sum^{K}_{k=1}e^{\omega_{k}^T X_{n}}}\right) \right),
\label{LOGLFUN}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Omega = [\omega_{1}, \, \omega_{2}, \, \ldots, \, \omega_{K}]$. Then, we obtain the maximum likelihood estimation $\Omega^{\ast}$ of parameter matrix $\Omega$ via solving the following optimization problem: $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega^{\ast} = \mathop{argmin} \limits_{\Omega}\ f(\Omega). \label{ORIOPT}\end{aligned}$$
Since the training dataset is separable, the value of function $f(\Omega)$ can be made arbitrarily close to zero via multiplying $\Omega$ by a large value [@KS2016]. In order to maintain the finiteness of $\Omega$, we obtain the parameter matrix $\Omega^{\ast}$ by solving its regularized problem of problem as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega^{*}=\mathop{argmin}\limits_{\Omega} \;
\left(f(\Omega)+\lambda \eta(\Omega)\right), \label{REGOPT}\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda > 0$ is the regularized parameter and the regularized function $\eta(\Omega)$ is convex and non-smooth. For this convex optimization problem, there are many efficient optimization methods to tackle it such as the quasi-Newton BFGS method (p. 198, [@NW1999]). Once the MLR model has been trained, we can predict the data category via solving the maximum problem .
We denote $\mathrm {I}= \{1, \, 2, \, \ldots, \, I\}$ as the index set of the feature vector $X$, where $I$ represents the dimension of the feature vector $X$. Select randomly $r$ features from $I$ features and record the index of selected features as the subset $\mathrm{S}$ of the index set $\mathrm{I}$. Since the $\ell_1$ regularizer is easier to obtain a sparse solution than the $\ell_2$ regularizer, we define a group-$\ell_1$-regularizer as $$\begin{aligned}
\eta_{\mathrm{S}} (\Omega) = \sum_{i \in \mathrm{S}}
\|[\Omega]_{\mathrm{I}_i}\|_{1}, \label{REGDEF}\end{aligned}$$ where $[\Omega]_{\mathrm{I}_i}$ is the $\mathrm{I}_{i}$-th row of parameter matrix $\Omega$, and $\|x\|_{1} = \sum_{i=1}^{m} |x_{i}| \; \text{for vector} \; x \in \Re^{m}$. Thus, the problem is written as the following group-sparse problem: $$\begin{aligned}
\min_{\Omega} \; \left(f(\Omega)+\lambda \eta_\mathrm{S}(\Omega)\right). \label{GSPARSE}\end{aligned}$$ If the parameter $\lambda$ is suitably selected, the solution $\Omega^{\ast}$ of problem will be group-row-sparse [@KCFH2005].
After $L$ operations as the procedure above, we obtain $L$ parameter matrices $\Omega^{\ast}_{1}$, $\Omega^{\ast}_{2}, \, \ldots, \, \Omega^{\ast}_{L}$. Multiply the $L$ parameter matrices $\Omega^{\ast}_{l} \, (l = 1,\, 2, \, \ldots, L)$ by their corresponding sub-features, then we obtain the predicted categories $k_{l}^{\ast} \, (l = 1, \, 2, \, \ldots, \, L)$ with formulas - and its predicted altitudes $h_{l}^{p} \, (l = 1, \, 2, \, \ldots, L)$ with formula as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
k^{\ast}_{l} = \mathop{argmax} \limits_{k \in \{1, \, 2, \, \ldots, \, K \}}
\left(\omega_{k}^{\ast l}\right)^{T} [X]_{\mathrm{S}_{l}}, \; \text{and} \;
h^{p}_{l} = \left(k^{\ast}_{l} -\frac{1}{2}\right)\delta + h_{min}, \;
l = 1, \, 2, \, \ldots, \, L, \label{PRECLASSK}\end{aligned}$$ where $[X]_{\mathrm{S}_{l}}$ represents the sub-features selected from the feature vector $X$ and the $i$-th element of $[X]_{\mathrm{S}_{l}}$ equals $X(\mathrm{S}_{l}(i))$, $\omega_{k}^{\ast l}$ is the $k$-th element of matrix $\Omega_{l}$.
Compute $L$ absolute errors between the original altitude $h$ and the $l$-th predicted altitude $h_{l}^{p} (l = 1, \, 2, \, \ldots, \, L)$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
Err_{l} = \left|h - h_{l}^{p}\right|, \; l = 1, \, 2, \, \ldots, L. \label{SOAE}\end{aligned}$$ Then, we obtain the weighted predicted altitude of the feature vector as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
h^{\ast} = \sum^{L}_{l=1} w_{l}h_{l}^{p}, \label{COEFFIESTI}\end{aligned}$$ where the weighted coefficients $w_{l} \, (l = 1, \, 2, \, \ldots, \, L)$ are computed by the following formula: $$\begin{aligned}
w_{l} = \frac{Err_{l}}{\sum^{L}_{l=1}Err_{l}}, \; l = 1, \, 2, \, \ldots, \, L.
\label{WEIGHTSOAE}\end{aligned}$$ According to the above discussions, we give the weighted multinomial logistic regression method for the vertical position problem in Algorithm \[alg:WMLR\].
\
the training data $(X_{n}, h_{n}), n = 1, \, 2, \, \ldots, \, N$;\
the test feature vector $X$ and its corresponding altitude $h$. \
the predicted altitude $h^{\ast}$ of the feature vector $X$. Given the regularized parameter $\lambda$, the dimension $r$ of the sub-feature vector, the quantization step $\delta$ of altitude, the number of the group-sparse operations $L$. Select randomly $r$ features from every feature vector of the training dataset and denote its corresponding index set of $r$ features as $\mathrm{S}_{l}$. Obtain the $l$-th regression coefficient matrix $\Omega^{\ast}_{l}$ via solving the optimization problem $\Omega_{l}^{\ast} = \mathop{argmin} \limits_{\Omega} \;
\left( f(\Omega)+\lambda \eta_{\mathrm{S}_{l}}(\Omega) \right)$, where $f(\Omega)$ is defined by equation and $\eta_{\mathrm{S}_{l}}(\Omega)$ is defined by equation . Obtain the predicted category $k^{\ast}_{l}$ and the $l$-th predicted altitude $h_{l}^{p}$ of the feature vector $X$ via solving problem . Compute the absolute error $Err_{l}$ between the original altitude and the predicted altitude of the feature vector $X$ from equation . Compute $L$ weighted coefficients $w_{l} \, (l = 1, \, 2, \, \ldots, \, L)$ from equation . Obtain the weighted predicted altitude $h^{\ast}$ of the feature vector $X$ from equation .
Numerical experiments {#RESULT}
=====================
In this section, we compare the MLR method, the WMLR method (Algorithm \[alg:WMLR\]) and the SVM method (coded by C. Chang and C. Lin, [@CL2013]) for the vertical positioning problem. The programs are performed under the MATLAB environment [@MATLAB].
The raw dataset is provided by Huawei Technologies Company and collected by different user equipments. From Fig. \[Figure 4\], we find that there are 12796 UserIds and the number of data collected by each UserId is different. In the dataset, each piece of data includes time, longitude, latitude, speed, altitude and some data also contain barometric pressure value. The measurement time of the experiment dataset spans almost three months from October 5 to December 25, 2018. The air pressure is relatively high because the temperature is relatively low in that season. Except for null values, the data type is numeric.
Since the raw dataset contains many null and abnormal values, we exclude those null and abnormal values with the method in subsection \[SECTDATACLEAN\]. Table \[TABCLEAN\] presents the statistical results of the cleaned data. From Table \[TABCLEAN\], we find that the distribution of data is not Gaussian. Thus, we standardize and normalize the data. After the data cleaning and normalization, we obtain a training set, every data element of which includes time, speed, longitude, latitude, pressure. We divide the dataset into two parts, i.e. $70\%$ data for training and $30\%$ data for testing.
Then, in order to verify the effect of Algorithm \[alg:WMLR\] (the WMLR method), we compare the performance of the MLR method, Algorithm \[alg:WMLR\], and the SVM method for the cleaned data. For Algorithm \[alg:WMLR\], we set the regularized parameter $\lambda = 10^{-3}$, the quantization step $\delta = 4$, the length of the group-sparse feature $r = 4$ and $L = C_{5}^{4} = 5$. The numerical results are put in Table \[TABVERACC\] and Fig. \[FIGVERACU\]. Table \[TABVERACC\] is the statistical results of the vertical positioning accuracy predicted by three methods. From Table \[TABVERACC\], we find that the vertical positioning accuracy is improved from 5.9 meters (the MLR method), 5.4 meters (the SVM method) to 5 meters (the WMLR method) for $67\%$ test points. Fig. \[FIGVERACU\] is the cumulative distribution function of the positioning accuracy. From Fig. \[FIGVERACU\], we find that the positioning error of WMLR is less than that of the SVM method and the WLR method when the cumulative probability is less than 90%, and the positioning accuracy of the SVM method is the best when the cumulative probability is greater than 90%.
[lllllll]{} & longitude& latitude& speed& pressure& label& altitude\
mean& 121.5767& 31.2595& 5.8808& 1021.3788& 0.9181& 22.9314\
std& 0.0030& 0.0020& 6.7051& 1.2559& 0.2742& 10.9594\
min& 121.5708& 31.2566& 0.0000& 1017.1787& 0.0000& 0.0534\
25%& 121.5742& 31.2579& 1.0000& 1020.5680& 1.0000& 15.7657\
50%& 121.5765& 31.2590& 3.0000& 1021.3281& 1.0000& 20.1303\
75%& 121.5792& 31.2610& 10.0000& 1022.3744& 1.0000& 28.5893\
max& 121.5820& 31.2653& 26.0000& 1024.0759& 1.0000& 78.1991\
[llllllll]{} & Min& Max& Mean& Median& Std &$67\%$ & $90\%$\
MLR & 0.0211& 48.8268& 5.9795& 4.4133& 6.7941 &5.9705 &11.7054\
WMLR & 0.0211& 31.9072& 4.6628& 3.2539& 3.2539 &5.0216 & 10.1085\
SVM & 0.0211& 25.2855& 4.9508& 3.9297& 4.0743 & 5.4383 & 10.3968\
Conclusion and future works {#CONCLUSION}
===========================
In this paper, a vertical positioning method with GPS information and the air pressure values is proposed. Firstly, we clean the missing and abnormal data. Then, according to the spherical distance matrix between points, we identify and exclude outliers. Consequently, we divide the cleaned data into two parts, i.e. $70\%$ data for training and $30\%$ data for testing. Based on the cleaned data, we compare the performances of the MLR method, the WMLR method (Algorithm \[alg:WMLR\]), and the SVM method for this vertical positioning problem. The numerical results show that the vertical positioning accuracy is improved from 5.9 meters (the MLR method), 5.4 meters (the SVM method) to 5 meters (the WMLR method). Therefore, the WMLR method has some improvements of the positioning accuracy for this vertical positioning problem.
The appealing positioning technology based on the WMLR method is that this method does not rely on the empirical pressure-height formula and it can automatically adjust the parameter matrix according to the local area. The integration of the MLR method and the weighted technique considers all training points such that it smoothes the noise to get a better prediction. For the WMLR method, since it exists the quantization step, it will result in enlarging the positioning error when the point is the misclassification, which is a problem to be solved in the future work. Besides, due to the heterogeneity of user equipments and the complexity of the real environment, there are some room of improvement on the vertical positioning accuracy of the WMLR method.
Financial and Ethical Disclosures {#financial-and-ethical-disclosures .unnumbered}
=================================
- Funding: This work was supported in part by Grant 61876199 from National Natural Science Foundation of China, Grant YBWL2011085 from Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., and Grant YJCB2011003HI from the Innovation Research Program of Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd..
- Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
[99]{} A. B. Adege, H. Lin, G. B. Tarekegn, Y. Y. Munaye and L. Yen, *An indoor and outdoor positioning using a hybrid of support vector machine and deep neural network algorithms*, Journal of Sensors, **2018**, 1-12 (2018). S. Alaee, A. Abdoli, C. Shelton, A. C. Murillo, A. C. Gerry and E. Keogh, *Features or shape? Tackling the false dichotomy of time series classification*, arXiv preprint, <https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.09614>, (2019). N. Ali, B. Zafar, M. K. Iqbal, M. Sajid, M. Y. Younis, S. H. Dar, M. T. Mahmood and I. H. Lee, *Modeling global geometric spatial information for rotation invariant classification of satellite images*, PLoS ONE, **14** (7), 1-24 (2019). S. Burgess, K. [Å]{}ström, M. Högström and B. Lindquist, *Smartphone positioning in multi-floor environments without calibration or added infrastructure*, 2016 International Conference on Indoor Positioning and Indoor Navigation (IPIN), IEEE (2016). C. Chang and C. Lin, *Training $\nu$-support vector classifiers: theory and algorithms*, Neural Computation, **13**, 2119-2147 (2001). C. Chang and C. Lin, *LIBSVM: a library for support vector machines*, the software package available at <https://www.csie.ntu.edu.tw/~cjlin/libsvm/>, 2013. B. Christopher M, *Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning*, Springer, New York, USA, 2006. A. Chriki, H. Touati and H. Snoussi, *SVM-based indoor localization in wireless sensor networks*, 2017 13th International Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing Conference, 1144-1149 (2017). H. Du, C. Zhang, Q. Ye, W. Xu, P. L. Kibenge and K. Yao, *A hybrid outdoor localization scheme with high-position accuracy and low-power consumption*, EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking, **2018** (4), 1-13 (2018). P. Gupta, S. Bharadwaj, S. Ramakrishnan and J. Balakrishnan, *Robust floor determination for indoor positioning*, 2014 Twentieth National Conference on Communications (NCC), Kanpur, 1-6 (2014). T.-Y. He, X.-L. Luo and Z.-H. Liu, *A probabilistic indoor localization algorithm based on restricted Boltzmann machine*, Proceedings of 2017 IEEE 2nd Advanced Information Technology, Electronic and Automation Control Conference, 1364-1368 (2017). J. Huang and C. Tsai, *Improve GPS positioning accuracy with context awareness*, 2008 First IEEE International Conference on Ubi-Media Computing, Lanzhou, 94-99 (2008). M. Islam and J. Kim, *An effective approach to improving low-cost GPS positioning accuracy in real-time navigation*, The Scientific World Journal, **2014**, 1-8 (2014), <http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/671494>. K. Kayabol, *Approximate sparse multinomial logistic regression for classification*, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, **42** (2), 490-493 (2019). T. Kim and S. Wright, *PMU placement for line outage identification via multiclass logistic regression*, IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, **9** (1), 122-131 (2016). B. Krishnapuram, L. Carin, M. A. T. Figueiredo and A. J. Hartemink, *Sparse multinomial logistic regression: Fast algorithms and generalization bounds*, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, **27** (6), 957-968 (2005). Z.-H. Liu, X.-L. Luo and T.-Y. He, *Indoor positioning system based on the improved W-KNN algorithm*, Proceedings of 2017 IEEE 2nd Advanced Information Technology, Electronic and Automation Control Conference, 1355-1359 (2017). L. Meier, S. V. D. Geer and P. Bühlmann, *The group Lasso for logistic regression*, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, **70** (1), 53-71 (2008). MATLAB 9.6.0 (R2019a), The MathWorks Inc., <http://www.mathworks.com>, 2019. J. Nocedal and S. J. Wright, *Numerical Optimization*, Springer-Verlag, 1999. C. Ordóñez, J. R. Rodríguez-Pérez, J. J. Moreira, J. M. Matías and E. Sanz-Ablanedo, *Machine learning techniques applied to the assessment of GPS accuracy under the forest canopy*, Journal of Surveying Engineering, **137**, 140-149 (2011). M. Rohani, D. Gingras and D. Gruyer, *A novel approach for improved vehicular positioning using cooperative map matching and dynamic base station DGPS concept*, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, **17** (1), 230-239 (2015). R. W. Sinnott, *Virtues of the haversine*, Sky and Telescope, **68** (2), 158-159 (1984). Y. H. Wang, H. Li, X.-L. Luo, Q. M. Sun, J. N. Liu, *A 3D fingerprinting positioning method based on cellular networks*, International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, 1-9 (2014), <http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/248981>. P. Williams, *Interactive Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences*, Sinauer Associates, Inc. Publishers, Sunderland, Massachusetts USA, 2004. H. Xia, X. Wang, Y. Qiao, J. Jian and Y. Chang, *Using multiple barometers to detect the floor location of smart phones with built-in barometric sensors for indoor positioning*, Sensors, **15**(4), 7857-7877 (2015). V. Zaliva and F. Franchetti, *Barometric and GPS altitude sensor fusion*, 2014 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, 1-5 (2014). J. Zhu, X.-L. Luo and D. Chen, *Maximum likelihood scheme for fingerprinting positioning in LTE system*, 2012 IEEE 14th International Conference on Communication Technology, 428-432 (2012). H. Zou, B. Huang, X. Lu, H. Jiang and L. Xie, *A robust indoor positioning system based on the procrustes analysis and weighted extreme learning machine*, IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, **15** (2), 1252-1266 (2016).
|
---
abstract: |
The Japanese Experiment Module (JEM) Extreme Universe Space Observatory (EUSO) will be launched and attached to the Japanese module of the International Space Station (ISS). Its aim is to observe UV photon tracks produced by ultra-high energy cosmic rays developing in the atmosphere and producing extensive air showers.
The key element of the instrument is a very wide-field, very fast, large-lense telescope that can detect extreme energy particles with energy above $10^{19}$ eV. The Atmospheric Monitoring System (AMS), comprising, among others, the Infrared Camera (IRCAM), which is the Spanish contribution, plays a fundamental role in the understanding of the atmospheric conditions in the Field of View (FoV) of the telescope. It is used to detect the temperature of clouds and to obtain the cloud coverage and cloud top altitude during the observation period of the JEM-EUSO main instrument.
SENER is responsible for the preliminary design of the Front End Electronics (FEE) of the Infrared Camera, based on an uncooled microbolometer, and the manufacturing and verification of the prototype model.
This paper describes the flight design drivers and key factors to achieve the target features, namely, detector biasing with electrical noise better than $100 \mu$V from $1$ Hz to $10$ MHz, temperature control of the microbolometer, from $10^{\circ}$C to $40^{\circ}$C with stability better than $10$ mK over $4.8$ hours, low noise high bandwidth amplifier adaptation of the microbolometer output to differential input before analog to digital conversion, housekeeping generation, microbolometer control, and image accumulation for noise reduction.
It also shows the modifications implemented in the FEE prototype design to perform a trade-off of different technologies, such as the convenience of using linear or switched regulation for the temperature control, the possibility to check the camera performances when both microbolometer and analog electronics are moved further away from the power and digital electronics, and the addition of switching regulators to demonstrate the design is immune to the electrical noise the switching converters introduce.
Finally, the results obtained during the verification phase are presented: FEE limitations, verification results, including FEE noise for each channel and its equivalent NETD and microbolometer temperature stability achieved, technologies trade-off, lessons learnt, and design improvement to implement in future project phases.
author:
- '[Óscar Maroto]{}'
- '[Laura Díez-Merino]{}'
- '[Jordi Carbonell]{}'
- '[Albert Tomàs]{}'
- '[Marcos Reyes]{}'
- '[Enrique Joven]{}'
- '[Yolanda Martín]{}'
- '[J. A. Morales de los Ríos]{}'
- |
[\
Luis Del Peral]{}
- '[M. D. Rodríguez Frías]{}'
title: '**Design of the Front End Electronics for the Infrared Camera of JEM-EUSO, and manufacturing and verification of the prototype model**'
---
**Keywords:** JEM-EUSO, Front End Electronics, FEE, microbolometer, IRCAM, infra-red detector.
Introduction
============
JEM-EUSO (Extreme Universe Space Observatory on the Japanese Experiment Module)[@Takahashi2009], [@Ebisuzaki2014], [@Adams2013] is a new type of observatory that will utilize very large volumes of the Earth’s atmosphere as a detector of the most energetic particles in the Universe. Its aim is to observe UV photon tracks produced by Ultra High Energy Cosmic Rays (UHECR), with energy above $10^{19}$ eV, generating Extensive Air Showers (EAS) in the atmosphere. The Atmospheric Monitoring System (AMS)[@Neronov2011] plays a fundamental role in our understanding of the atmospheric conditions in the Field of View (FoV) of the telescope and includes an infra-red camera for cloud coverage and cloud top height detection.
The monitoring of the cloud coverage by JEM-EUSO with an Atmospheric Monitor System is crucial to estimate the effective exposure with high accuracy and to increase the confidence level in the UHECRs events in particular at the threshold energy of the telescope. The AMS is a system used to detect the temperature of clouds and to obtain the cloud coverage and cloud top altitude during the observation period of the JEM-EUSO main instrument. Cloud top height retrieval can be performed using either stereo vision algorithms (therefore, two different views of the same scene are needed) or accurate radiometric information, since the measured radiance is basically related to the target temperature and therefore, according to standard atmospheric models, to its altitude. The observed radiation is basically related to the target temperature and emissivity and, in this particular case, it can be used to get an estimate of the cloud heights. The AMS will comprise an Infrared Camera (IRCAM)[@Rodriguez-Frias2013],[@Morales2013],[@JEM-EUSO2014],[@Morales2014], a LIDAR and JEM-EUSO slow data.
IRCAM, the technological contribution of the Spanish Consortium, is able to detect infrared radiation of the target with emissivity ($\epsilon$) greater than 0.6 and lower than 1 and estimates the temperature of the target under investigation with accuracy better than $3$ K. IRCAM consists of three subsystems:
- IRCAM Telecope Assembly.
- IRCAM Electronics Assembly.
- IRCAM Calibration Unit.
The main function of the IRCAM Telescope assembly is to acquire the infrared radiation and to convert it into digital counts. For that purpose, the Telescope Assembly includes the IRCAM detector, an uncooled microbolometer, the dedicated electronics to control it, the Front End Electronics (FEE), and the optics.
The IRCAM Electronics Assembly provides mechanisms to process and transmit the images obtained by the FEE from the microbolometer. It is composed of the Instrument Control Unit (ICU) and the Power Supply Unit (PSU). Their main function is to control and manage the overall system behavior, including the data management, the power drivers and the mechanisms.
Due to the requested accuracy measurement the IRCAM will perform an On-Board calibration by means of a dedicated Calibration Unit.
SENER is responsible for the preliminary design of the Front End Electronics (FEE) within the IRCAM, and the manufacturing and verification of the prototype model, under IAC supervision.
IRCAM FEE Main Requirements
===========================
The main requirements the IRCAM FEE shall comply with are listed in the following:
1. IRCAM FEE shall acquire images from an infrared detector, type ULIS UL 04 17 1, covering the spectral range $8-14 \mu$m and measuring temperatures between $200$ K and $320$ K[@ULIS2014].
2. IRCAM FEE shall generate the bias needed by the infrared detector to operate. These are enlisted in Table \[Table:requirements\].
3. The detector shall be controlled in temperature between $10^{\circ}$ C and $40^{\circ}$ C with stability better than $10$ mK over $4.8$ hours, by commanding the Thermo-Electric Cooler (TEC) of the microbolometer.
4. The NETD of the IRCAM FEE shall be lower than $75$ mK $\MVAt$ $300$ K and optics F\#1 of the target.
5. IRCAM FEE shall be able to perform frame averaging of at least 4 consecutive frames.
6. FEE shall be able to perform operation of sum and subtracting of frames.
7. IRCAM FEE shall be composed of two different modules, each of them, located at different positions, joint by a flex cable:
- FPA Focal Plane assembly (detector + mechanical I/F to the Optical subsystem).
- FEE electronic box.
IRCAM FEE Flight Design Overview
================================
IRCAM FEE has been divided into two different modules, namely, the Focal Plane Array (FPA) containing the low noise electronics needed for the infrared detector to operate optimally, and the Front End Electronics (FEE) hosting the digital electronics and TEC control circuitry.
![IRCAM FEE block diagram[]{data-label="Fig:FEE"}](FEE-lr.jpg){width="14cm"}
-------------------------- ---------- -------------- ------------------ ------------- -----------------------------
**Electrical** **Bias** **Optimum** **Range** **Maximum** **Maximum**
**function name** **Type** **value** **value** **current** **RMS noise**
**@ 300K**
VDDA Fixed $5$ V $60$ mA $< 100 \mu$V
(analog supply) $\pm 100$ mV
VDDL Fixed $3.3$ V $5$ mA $< 100$ mV
(digital supply) $\pm 300$ mV
VBUS Fixed $2.8$ V $1$ mA $< 100 \mu$V
(microbolometer biasing) $\pm 25$ mV
GFID Tunable Given $0$ to $5$V $1$ mA $2 \mu$V (1Hz to 1kHz)
(microbolometer in STR $\pm 5$ mV $5 \mu$V (1Hz to 10kHz)
biasing) $100 \mu$V (1Hz to 10MHz)
VSK (blind Tunable Given $2.0$ to $5.5$ V $1$ mA $2 \mu$V (1 Hz to 1 kHz)
microbolometer in STR $\pm 5$mV $5 \mu$V (1 Hz to 10 kHz)
biasing) $100 \mu$V (1 Hz to 10 MHz)
GSK (blind Fixed $2.2$ V $1$ mA $2 \mu$V (1 Hz to 1 kHz)
microbolometer $\pm 50$ mV $5 \mu$V (1 Hz to 10 kHz)
biasing) $100 \mu$V (1 Hz to 10 MHz)
-------------------------- ---------- -------------- ------------------ ------------- -----------------------------
: Requirements for microbolometer power supplies.[]{data-label="Table:requirements"}
Figure 1 shows the block diagram of the IRCAM FEE electronics.The main functionalities implemented in the IRCAM FEE are:
Power supplies generation for the FEE PCB
-----------------------------------------
All the power supplies are cold redundant and consequently OR-ing is needed. This block also filters the input power supplies and generates secondary voltages by using linear regulators and point of loads.
TEC temperature control
-----------------------
The microbolometer performance is optimum when the detector is stabilized to a constant temperature $\pm 10$ mK for the image acquisition time, presently defined as $4.8$ h. To fulfil this requirement, the design shown in Figure \[Fig:TEC\] is featured in the IRCAM FEE.
![TEC control block diagram. \[Fig:TEC\]](TEC-lr.jpg){width="14cm"}
This circuitry consists of a current regulator implemented with a buck converter and controlled by a double loop. The possible setting temperatures are between $10$ and $40^{\circ}$C, and it is only possible to heat up due to the facts that the temperature of the FPA is expected to be lower than the microbolometer setting temperature, and in case of heating/cooling cycles were mixed during image acquisition, the thermal stability would be much worse than $10$ mK.
The advantage of using a buck converter to implement the current regulator is the efficiency of the circuit, and as the power availability is little, it has been decided to choose this option. The drawback is that the switching noise could affect the low noise circuits as microbolometer power supplies generation or image acquisition. The alternative would be to use a linear regulator that is better in terms of noise, but the power consumption for big temperature jumps would be unaffordable. To analyze it, in the prototype the two options have been implemented to have a trade-off of both technologies.
Optical detector power supplies biasing
---------------------------------------
The required power supplies for the optical detector have very severe noise specifications and due to this, most of the power supplies generators are located near the optical sensor.
![Microbolometer power supplies bias. \[Fig:microbolometer\]](microbolometer-lr.jpg){width="14cm"}
The architecture of the optical detector power supplies generation is based on a voltage reference that is adjusted and filtered by using very low noise operational amplifiers in non-inverting or inverting configuration. To filter the noise, a Sallen-key topology has been selected. The current driver only applies to VDDA, which delivers $60$ mA maximum, and consists of a bipolar transistor working in linear zone, controlled by an operational amplifier output.
GFID and VSK power supplies must be tunable voltages. To provide the design with this capability, an 11bit DAC has been selected. $11$ bits means a resolution of $2.7$ mV in VSK and $2.5$ mV in GFID, thus complying with the specification. The DAC used has a simple R-2R topology that minimizes the noise.
Optical detector data acquisition
---------------------------------
This block is in charge of amplifying the signal provided by the microbolometer and performing the analog to digital conversion, to maximize signal to noise ratio. The microbolometer provides data to each channel at $10$ Msamples/s and therefore, the analog acquisition chain has been designed to cope with this data throughput.
![Analog acquisition chain block diagram. \[Fig:acquisition\]](acquisition-lr.jpg){width="14cm"}
The microbolometer measures the cloud temperature in a range between $200$ K and $320$ K. The typical responsivity of the microbolometer is specified by the manufacturer as $5$ mV/K, but it can be modified to obtain different images when the f-number of the optics changes. The range within it can be modified has been considered between $1.5$ mV/K and $8$ mV/K. The acquisition chain has been designed to allow a programmable offset and gain to adjust the input signal to the voltage required by the ADC, independently of the responsivity.
The offset shall be programmable through the FPGA. It generates a digital voltage, which is converted using a DAC and subtracted to the input signal in the first stage of the analog chain. The value of the offset is: $$V_{offset} = T_{min} K_{\mu B} G1$$ where $T_{min}$ is the minimum detectable temperature ($200$ K); $K_{\mu B}$, the responsivity of the microbolometer; and $G1$ is the gain of the microbolometer.
The whole gain of the analog chain is the product of the internal microbolometer gain ($G1$) and the gain of the second stage of the chain ($G2$). The gain $G1$ is programmable via serial bus in the $\mu B$ and the gain $G2$ is programmable via a resistance ladder multiplexed in the feedback loop. The product $G1\cdot G2$ must amplify the voltage input signal to a $1 V_{pp}$ differential signal (expected voltage at the ADC input), it is: $$G1\cdot G2 = \frac{V_{in-ADC}}{V_{max-\mu B}} = \frac{V_{in-ADC}}{(T_{max}-T_{min})K_{\mu B}}$$
The possible values for $G1$ are specified by the manufacturer and the values for $G2$ have been calculated to minimize the error in the amplification. These are detailed in Table \[Table:gain\]. All combinations between $G1$ and $G2$ are allowed to adapt the chain gain to the adjustable responsivity of the microbolometer. Minimum gain allowed shall be $1$, while maximum gain for very low power signals could rise up to $6.705$.
**G1** **G2**
-------- --------
1.000 1.000
1.125 1.070
1.290 1.140
1.500 1.210
1.800 1.280
2.250 1.350
3.000 1.420
4.500 1.490
: Programmable gain values in the analog acquisition chain \[Table:gain\]
Finally, after offset compensation and gain stage, the signal shall be converted from single-ended to differential signal before entering in the ADC.
The noise analysis performed for this module, which is the main contributor to the NETD added by the FEE is depicted in Table \[Table:analog\].
------------------ ------------------ ----------------- ---------------------
**Responsivity** **Analog Chain** **Total Noise** **Equivalent NETD**
**\[mV/K\]** **parameters** **\[$\mu$V\]** **\[mK\]**
K=1.50 G1=4.50 183.99 122.66
G2=1.21
K=2.54 G1=3.00 179.95 70.85
G2=1.07
K=3.71 G1=1.50 192.75 51.95
G2=1.49
K=4.36 G1=1.29 190.39 43.67
G2=1.42
K=5.22 G1=1.29 183.93 35.24
G2=1.21
K=6.40 G1=1.29 178.09 27.82
G2=1.00
K=7.30 G1=1.00 181.88 24.91
G2=1.14
------------------ ------------------ ----------------- ---------------------
: Analog acquisition chain noise for different responsivity values (microbolometer noise not included).[]{data-label="Table:analog"}
Considering the microbolometer has a NETD around $60$ mK for high responsibility values, the system NETD would be increased from $60$ mK to $64.97$ mK, only $5$ mK, by using equation: $$NETD_{IRCAM-FEE} = \sqrt{NETD_{FEE}^2+NETD_{\mu B}^2}$$
Digital design
--------------
The control of the whole system has been implemented by means of a RT Proasic FPGA, being it radiation tolerant up to $30$ krads that ensures the system is under known conditions regardless of the radiation events received. This electronics will be the responsible of the following activities:
- Acquiring images from the microbolometer.
- Processing the images and storing them into memory.
- Generating the clock signals for the microbolometer.
- Generating the power set-ups required by the microbolometer.
- Generating the signalling for the FPA and FEE electronics.
- Transmitting the images to the ICU.
- Receiving TC from the ICU.
- Sending TM to the ICU.
- Managing the IRCAM FEE modes.
- Acquiring instrument temperature sensors.
One of the key points of the digital design is the acquisition strategy to receive, store, process and retrieve an image. The image acquiring strategy is shown in Figure \[Fig:figure5\].
![Image acquisition strategy. \[Fig:figure5\]](figure5-lr.jpg){width="14cm"}
Five data and offset images will be acquired and reduced within $15$ seconds. The image reduction consists on discarding the first image acquired and averaging the other four images. Offset reduction is similar, first image will be discarded and the other four images will be averaged. Prior to the final image retrieval, the offset image is subtracted from the data image.
EEE parts selection
-------------------
IRCAM FEE preliminary design has been carried out taking into account flight standards, being the components radiation tolerant to $30$ krads total dose radiation, and immune to LET under $60$ MeV cm$^2$/mg . Apart from the radiation tolerance feature, the electronics components have been selected according to the following rules:
- ESCC class B components for those under ESA standards.
- QML V components for microcircuits under MIL standards.
- JANS for diodes and transistors under MIL standards.
- EFR-R for passives under MIL standards.
Mechanical design
-----------------
The mechanical design for the FPA and FEE can be seen in Figure \[Fig:figure6\]
![FPA and FEE mechanical design. \[Fig:figure6\]](figure6-lr.jpg){width="14cm"}
The FPA consists of the following elements:
- Frame and supports to host the optical filter.
- Heat conductor allowing heat conduction of the optical detector and associated electronics to a cold plate.
- Rigid-flex PCB, with the needed low noise electronics, such as microbolometer power supplies generation, image data amplification and A/D conversion.
On the other hand, FEE components are:
- FEE mechanical box.
- FEE PCB.
The IRCAM FEE is hosted within the Telescope Assembly as depicted in Figure \[Fig:figure7\].
![IRCAM FEE location within Telescope Assembly. \[Fig:figure7\]](figure7-lr.jpg){width="14cm"}
IRCAM FEE Prototype Design and Manufacturing
============================================
The aim of the IRCAM FEE prototype design (FEEP) is to have a functional IRCAM FEE model complying with the requirements described in section 2 with commercial components equivalent to those used for the flight design. A microbolomoter type ULIS UL 04 17 1 delivered by IAC has also been mounted to allow full FEEP verification.
Figure \[Fig:figure8\] depicts the FEEP as delivered to IAC. The FEEP is hosted within a box that protects it mechanically. The box interfaces electrically with the main power supply, the trigger signal interface, and the ICU simulation by means of three different connectors, and allows assembling of the optics on top of the optical detector.
![IRCAM FEE prototype. \[Fig:figure8\]](figure8-lr.jpg){width="14cm"}
For practical purposes, it has been decided to have a single board in which the FPA and FEE sections electrically isolated, and potentially joined by a connector with a similar length as the flight flex connector. The FPA is located at the left half of the board, near the detector, while the FEE is hosted at the right half.
The detector is soldered on an independent assembly, being it possible to mount and dismount the detector PCB from the rest of the electronics. The detector assembly will consist of the following parts:
- Optical detector.
- Heat conductor.
- Optical detector PCB.
The heat conductor has been designed to have the same volume as the flight one, and is placed in direct contact with the detector base. A metallic braided strap leads the heat from the heat conductor to a cold point external to the FEEP. The PCB has two connectors to provide the detector assembly with means to connect and disconnect it to/from the rest of the electronics.
In addition to the functional features of the flight design, the FEEP also has some other capabilities to ease the flight design testing and validation:
- The FEE and FPA side can be electrically communicated by two different ways, namely, a harness simulating the flex connector in the flight design, or directly by using electrical connections that can be enabled or disabled by means of jumpers located on the PCB. This way the effect of the harness length on the image results can be quantified.
- Apart from the buck converter designed for feeding the TEC, the prototype also features a linear regulator with the same purpose. The use of a linear regulator increases power needs but decreases noise on power supplies, and therefore, a trade-off of the two technologies can be done.
- An external signal ($3.3$ V TTL or CMOS) allows triggering a single image acquisition.
- As already explained, the detector is mounted on an isolated assembly, and this might worsen NETD.
- A simulator of the temperature sensing within the optical detector is included to be able to test the temperature regulation circuit with a standard Peltier.
- A single voltage supply of $24$ V, $1$ A is needed to feed the FEEP, and some DC/DC converters and linear regulator generate internally the voltage required by the electronics to operate nominally.
IRCAM FEE Prototype Verification
================================
The main results, limitations and lessons learned derived from the test campaign performed at SENER facilities are presented in the next sections.
Microbolometer Power Supplies Noise
-----------------------------------
The measurement has been done only in the frequency range from $10$ Hz to $51$ kHz with a Dynamic Signal Analyzer (DSA). Below $10$ Hz the measurement instrument, i.e. spectrum analyser, introduces noise one order of magnitude higher than the existing in the prototype board, and therefore, the lower frequency is limited to $10$ Hz. The maximum frequency the DSA can measure is $51$ kHz. A high pass filter with a cutting frequency of $1$ Hz has been used to eliminate the continuous signal at zero frequency.
The power spectral density (PSD) of the noise of each power supply is summarized in Table \[Table:table4\].
**Power Supply** **Noise**
------------------ ------------------------
VSK@5V 4.90925 $\mu$V$_{RMS}$
VGSK 4.98774 $\mu$V$_{RMS}$
GFID@5V 5.0095 $\mu$V$_{RMS}$
VDDA 8.5572 $\mu$V$_{RMS}$
VDDL 20.0827 $\mu$V$_{RMS}$
GND 4.91247 $\mu$V$_{RMS}$
: Power supplies noise PSD measurement.[]{data-label="Table:power"}
The noise in low frequency is the bigger contribution to the final noise and it decreases as frequency increases. To calculate the noise in the $10$ MHz bandwidth, the noise has been considered white noise and has been extrapolated, which is a worst case assumption. Using the spectral power distribution, the ratio between $10$ MHz and $51$ kHz is $14$, which leads to the PSD values shown in Table \[Table:table5\].
------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ --------------------
**Power Supply** **Noise** **Noise** **Microbolometer**
**(10 Hz - 51 kHz)** **(10 Hz - 10 MHz)** **specification**
VSK@5V 4.90925 $\mu$V$_{RMS}$ 68.743 $\mu$V$_{RMS}$ 100 $\mu$V
VGSK 4.98774 $\mu$V$_{RMS}$ 69.842 $\mu$V$_{RMS}$ 100 $\mu$V
GFID@5V 5.0095 $\mu$V$_{RMS}$ 70.147 $\mu$V$_{RMS}$ 100 $\mu$V
VDDA 8.5572 $\mu$V$_{RMS}$ 119.824 $\mu$V$_{RMS}$ 100 $\mu$V
VDDL 20.0827 $\mu$V$_{RMS}$ 281.214 $\mu$V$_{RMS}$ 100 $\mu$V
GND 4.91247 $\mu$V$_{RMS}$ 68.788 $\mu$V$_{RMS}$ 100 $\mu$V
------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ --------------------
: Power supplies noise PSD extrapolation to $10$ MHz.[]{data-label="Table:table5"}
All the values are compliant with the specifications with the exception of VDDA, which is slightly higher than specified. It could be due to the approximation done, which is a worst case consideration and in this case a measurement with higher bandwidth should be done.
TEC long-term stability
-----------------------
In the preliminary design, a switching voltage regulator was chosen due to the better efficiency compared to the linear regulators. Nevertheless, the prototype has means to control the TEC in either a switching or a linear way, just by shorting or opening some jumpers. One of the objectives of the FEEP fabrication is to decide which regulator configuration, switching or linear, is more suitable for JEM-EUSO needs. Our findings are the following:
- For small thermal jumps, it is, difference between ambient and TEC temperature less than $10$ K, the linear regulator configuration is recommended, as the power needed to operate is small (less than $200$ mA at $3.3$ V, it is, $0.66$ W, for a $8^\circ$C thermal jump), and the switching regulator needs a minimum thermal jump to operate achieving the $10$ mK thermal stability requirement. Given the standard laboratory conditions in which the FEEP was tested, the linear regulator configuration was used to perform the acceptance test, although the switching configuration has also been tested and its performance is considered correct.
- For big thermal jumps of more than $10^\circ$C, both configurations are possible to be used, although the linear configuration power consumption is bigger. In the tests performed at SENER in linear configuration, a thermal jump of $17$ K implied an increase of $3.3 \cdot 0.4=1.32$ W in power.
Due to hardware constraints in the design, the maximum allowed current to the TEC is around $1.2$ A, and therefore the maximum thermal jump allowed for the linear configuration is around $40-50$K. Nevertheless, for such big thermal jumps, the switching configuration is strongly recommended.
Depending on the final design of JEM-EUSO, either the switching or linear configuration, or even a combination of both of them, can be used.
At SENER, two tests have been carried-out to measure the long-term stability of the microbolometer temperature over $4.8$ hours, both in linear regulation configuration.
The first one with a temperature setting point of $30^{\circ}$C while the ambient is at $22^\circ$C showed a mean temperature of $30.0023^{\circ}$C and a standard deviation of $1.14$ mK, much lower than the $\pm 10$ mK required.
![Microbolometer temperature stability for 5th, $T_{amb}=22^\circ$C, $T_{sensing}=30^\circ$C. \[Fig:figure9\]](figure9-lr.jpg){width="14cm"}
The second test was executed similarly, changing the setting point to $39^\circ$C to have a $17^\circ$C difference between ambient and the setting point. In this case, the mean is $38.9966^\circ$C and the standard deviation $2.70$ mK, also within specifications.
![Microbolometer temperature stability for $5$ h, $T_{amb} = 22^\circ$C, $T_{setting} = 39^\circ$C. \[Fig:figure10\]](figure10-lr.jpg){width="14cm"}
Dead pixel effect
-----------------
Due to the big changes in microbolometer output voltage level during image transmission and the absolute maximum ratings for input voltage levels of the ADC, diodes have been added to protect the ADC. The use of the diodes and its slow recovery time imply every time a dead pixel is read, the effect in the output image is two consecutive pixels in the same channel seen as dead pixels. Alternatives to protect the ADC will be studied in further project phases.
![Dead pixel map and detail of the double dead-pixel effect. \[Fig:figure11\]](figure11-lr.jpg){width="14cm"}
NETD measurement without microbolometer
---------------------------------------
The noise of the whole acquisition chain, both analog and digital contribution of the IRCAM FEE prototype without the microbolometer has been measured. An offset on both channels of $0$ V and a configurable input voltage generated by a voltage reference is used to acquire several complete images. Table \[Table:table6\] shows the input voltage, the digital mean value and standard deviation obtained (in ADC counts and mK consideMicrobolomering a responsivity of $7.3$ mV/K) in each channel after the ADCs.
------------------- -------------------- ------------------ -------------------- ------------------
**Input Voltage**
**\[V\]** **Mean** **NETD \[ADC** **Mean** **NETD \[ADC**
**\[ADC counts\]** **counts, mK\]** **\[ADC counts\]** **counts, mK\]**
0.1 381.77 0.95, 32 388.97 0.82, 27
0.2 799.21 0.94, 31 806.42 0.8, 27
0.3 1206.10 0.91, 30 1213.49 0.8, 27
0.4 1618.38 0.89, 30 1625.77 0.74, 25
0.5 2031.47 0.94, 30 2039.24 0.74, 25
0.6 2439.02 0.94, 31 2447.47 0.74, 25
0.7 2853.08 0.98, 33 2861.99 0.75, 25
0.8 3265.37 1.01, 34 3274.63 0.76, 25
0.9 3677.69 1.02, 34 3687.53 0.77, 26
0.99 4048.44 1.04, 35 4058.50 0.77, 26
------------------- -------------------- ------------------ -------------------- ------------------
: Noise measurement of the acquisition chains in the digital domain.[]{data-label="Table:table6"}
According to Table \[Table:table6\], channel $1$ is noisier than channel $2$. This could be due to the PCB routing, although no direct cause has been found. Note the maximum NETD is $35$ mK including also the reference voltage used to feed the FEEP, and therefore, this is a worst case NETD. Thus the worst case IRCAM FEE NETD, considering the microbolometer has $60$ mK NETD would be $69.46$ mK, which is below the specified $75$ mK. By using four images averaging, theoretically the NETD could be reduced by one half.
From Table \[Table:table6\] it can also be seen that channel $2$ has $7$ counts offset with respect to channel $1$. This can be corrected by the FPGA as it has been characterized when a $0$ V input is inserted in both channel $1$ and $2$.
Another main result is that the NETD does not depend on the use of linear or switching regulation for the TEC control, so either regulator can be used in the final design.
These results can be complemented with the effects of the harness connecting FPA and FEE, which have not been evaluated so far. This is recommended to be done in the future to fully characterize the FEEP.
Conclusions
===========
The IRCAM FEE preliminary design and prototype design, manufacturing and verification have been carried out. The overall results show the FEEP NETD is within NETD budget even without frame averaging.
The linear versus switching regulation options to control the microbolometer temperature have been studied. Accordingly, it is advisable to use linear regulation when the thermal jump between ambient and microbolometer temperature is below $10^\circ$C. Between $10^\circ$C and $20^\circ$C thermal jump, both linear and switching regulation options are possible, while above $20^\circ$C the switching option is strongly recommended.
Although the overall results are considered successful, the effect of the harness connecting FPA and FEE on the IRCAM FEE NETD should be characterized in future studies, and an alternative to the diodes protecting the channel acquisition ADCs causing the double dead pixel effect should be considered.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work is funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness or MINisterio de Economia y COmpetitividad (MINECO) under projects AYA-ESP 2011-29489-C03-01, AYA-ESP 2011-29489-C03-02, AYA-ESP 2012-39115-C03-01, AYA-ESP 2012-39115-C03-03, CSD2009-00064 (Consolider MULTIDARK) and by Comunidad de Madrid (CAM) under project S2009/ESP-1496. We want to thank the JEM-EUSO collaboration, to which this work is entitled, and the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias (IAC) to give SENER the opportunity to join the JEM-EUSO project.
[9]{} Takahashi, Y. and the JEM-EUSO Collaboration, “The Jem-Euso Mission,” New J. Phys. 11(6), (2009). Ebisuzaki, T., Medina-Tanco, G. and Santangelo, A.,“The JEM-EUSO Mission,” Adv. Sp. Res. 53(10), 1499–1505 (2014). J.H. Adams Jr. et al (JEM-EUSO Collaboration), “An evaluation of the exposure in nadir observation of the JEM-EUSO mission,” Astroparticle Physics, 44, 76–90 (2013) Neronov, A., Rodriguez-Frias, M. D., Toscano, S. and Wada, S., “Atmospheric Monitoring System of JEM-EUSO,” Proc. 32nd Int.Cosm. Ray Conf., 91–94 (2011). Rodriguez-Frias, M. D., Licandro, J., Sabau, M. D., Reyes, M., Belenguer,T., Gonzalez-Alvarado,M.C., Joven, E., Morales de los Rios, J. A., Saez-Palomino, M., Prieto, Saez-Cano, G., Carretero, J., Perez-Cano, S., del Peral, L., “Towards the preliminary Design Review of the Infrared Camera of the JEM-EUSO Collaboration” Proc. 33rd Int. Cosm. Ray Conf., 95–98, Rio de Janeiro (2013). Morales de los Rios, J. A., del Peral, L., Saez-Cano, G., Prieto, H., Carretero, J. H., Sabau, M. D., Belenguer, T., Gonzalez Alvarado, C., Sanz Palomino, M. et al., “An End to End Simulation code for the IR-Camera of the JEM-EUSO Space Observatory,” Proc. 33nd Int. Cosm. Ray Conf., Rio de Janeiro (2013). The JEM-EUSO Collaboration, “The Infrared Camera onboard JEM-EUSO,” Experimental Astron., (in press, 2014). Morales de los Ríos, J. A., et al, “The infrared camera prototype characterization for the JEM-EUSO space mission,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, 74–83 (2014) ULIS, “Nano640E-UL 04 17 1-011,” 2014, in http://www.ulis-ir.com/index.php?infrared-detector=25–%m-640x480, (23 April 2014).
|
---
abstract: 'In this note, we propose a formal framework accounting for the sensitivity of a function of the domain with respect to the addition of a thin ligament. To set ideas, we consider the model setting of elastic structures, and we approximate this question by a thin tubular inhomogeneity problem: we look for the sensitivity of the solution to a partial differential equation posed inside a background medium, and that of a related quantity of interest, with respect to the inclusion of a thin tube filled with a different material. A practical formula for this sensitivity is derived, which lends itself to numerical implementation. Two applications of this idea in structural optimization are presented.'
author:
- 'C. Dapogny^1^'
bibliography:
- './genbib.bib'
title: A connection between topological ligaments in shape optimization and thin tubular inhomogeneities
---
\[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\]
*^1^ Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP[^1], LJK, 38000 Grenoble, France*,
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dans cette note, on introduit une approche formelle visant à évaluer la sensibilité d’une fonction du domaine par rapport à la greffe d’un ligament très fin sur celui-ci. Dans le contexte modèle des structures élastiques, nous approchons cette question par un problème de petite inclusion tubulaire : on étudie la sensibilité de la solution d’une équation aux dérivées partielles posée dans un milieu ambiant, ainsi que celle d’une quantité d’intérêt associée, par rapport à l’inclusion d' un tube fin contenant un matériau distinct de celui du milieu ambiant. On obtient une formule explicite pour cette sensibilité, qui se prête à l’implémentation numérique. Cette idée est illustrée par deux applications en optimisation structurale.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction {#sec.intro}
============
Most optimal design frameworks rely on a measure of the sensitivity of the objective (and constraint) function with respect to ‘small modifications’ of shapes. One popular method in this direction is that of Hadamard, whereby variations of a shape are understood as perturbations of their boundaries; see e.g. [@allaire2004structural; @henrot2018shape; @pironneau1982optimal; @sokolowski1992introduction]. This information is sometimes combined with topological derivatives, as in [@allaire2005structural]; these indicate where internal holes can be beneficially nucleated. Conversely, mechanisms to add material to a shape have seldom been investigated. In principle, asymptotic expansions similar to those underlying topological derivatives would make it possible to account for the addition of small bubbles of material. Such floating islands, disconnected from the main structure, are however unefficient and undesirable from the mechanical viewpoint, and it would actually be more relevant to add *bars*, connecting distant regions of the shape.
The sensitivity of the solution to a partial differential equation and that of a shape functional with respect to the graft of a thin ligament to the considered domain have been studied in [@nazarov2004topological; @nazarov2005topological; @nazarov2005self], under the name of ‘exterior topological derivative’. Unfortunately, the rigorous asymptotic analyses conducted in these works are intricate and difficult to exploit in practice, as the authors themselves acknowledge.
In this note, we propose an alternative, formal approach, which is easier to handle in theory and more amenable to numerical implementation. In the model setting of a 2d structure $\Omega$, we use the ersatz material approximation to replace the linear elasticity system on $\Omega$ with a ‘background’ problem taking place on a larger hold-all domain $D$, filled with a smooth inhomogeneous material $A_0$. The addition of a thin ligament to $\Omega$ is then reformulated as the inclusion of a thin tubular inhomogeneity with different material properties $A_1$ from $A_0$. The sensitivity of the elastic displacement of the structure and that of a related quantity of interest—the pivotal ingredients of this viewpoint— can then be calculated by borrowing techniques from the literature devoted to low-volume inhomogeneities. Such asymptotic problems have indeed been quite extensively investigated; see [@capdeboscq2003general], then [@beretta2003asymptotic; @beretta2009thin] about thin tubular inclusions for the conductivity equation, and [@beretta2006asymptotic] in the 2d linearized elasticity case.
This note is preliminary to a longer work [@dapogny2020topolig] in preparation, where the extension to 3d (the situation being utterly different from that in 2d), as well as multiple other applications are discussed, and a general and simple formal method is proposed to calculate the thin tubular inhomogeneity asymptotics.
The remainder of this note is organized as follows. The considered setting of linear elastic structures is introduced in \[sec.setting\], as well as its approximation by a thin tubular inhomogeneity problem. We recall in \[sec.ueJe\] the first-order asymptotic expansion of the solution to the linear elasticity system when the background medium is perturbed by a thin tubular inclusion, and we introduce a suitable adjoint method to calculate the first-order correction of a related quantity of interest, which is new to the best of our knowledge. Two numerical examples illustrating these ideas are eventually presented in \[sec.num\].
Presentation of the structural optimization problem and relation with thin tubular inhomogeneities {#sec.setting}
==================================================================================================
Optimization of the shape of a 2d elastic structure {#sec.elasexact}
---------------------------------------------------
In the 2d linear elasticity setting, shapes are bounded, Lipschitz domains $\Omega \subset {{\mathbb R}}^2$ whose boundary $\partial \Omega= \Gamma_D \cup \Gamma_N \cup \Gamma$ is divided into three disjoint parts: $\Omega$ is clamped on $\Gamma_D$, traction loads $g \in L^2(\Gamma_N)^2$ are applied on $\Gamma_N$, and the traction-free region $\Gamma$ is the only one which is subject to optimization. Assuming body forces $f \in L^2({{\mathbb R}}^2)^2$, the displacement $u_\Omega: \Omega \to {{\mathbb R}}^2$ is the unique solution in the space $H^1_{\Gamma_D}(\Omega)^2 := \left\{Êu \in H^1(\Omega)^2, \:\: u = 0 \text{ on } \Gamma_D \right\}$ to the system: $$\label{eq.linelas}
\left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
-{\text{\rm div}}(Ae(u_\Omega)) = f & \text{in } \Omega, \\
u_\Omega = 0 & \text{on } \Gamma_D, \\
Ae(u_\Omega)n = g &\text{on } \Gamma_N, \\
Ae(u_\Omega) = 0 & \text{on } \Gamma,
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $e(u) := \frac{1}{2}(\nabla u + \nabla u^T)$ is the strain tensor, and $A$ is the Hooke’s law of the constituent material: $$\label{eq.hooke}
\text{for any symmetric } 2 \times 2 \text{ matrix } e,\:\: Ae = 2\mu e + \lambda {\text{\rm tr}}(e) {\text{\rm I}},$$ involving the Lamé coefficients $\lambda,\mu$ of the material. The performance of $\Omega$ is measured in terms of a function $J(\Omega)$ of the domain, say for simplicity: $$\label{eq.JOm}
J(\Omega) = \int_\Omega{j(u_\Omega) \: dx},$$ where $j: {{\mathbb R}}^2 \to {{\mathbb R}}$ is a smooth function satisfying adequate growth conditions.
We consider the variation $\Omega_{\sigma,{\varepsilon}}$ where a ligament $\omega_{\sigma,{\varepsilon}}$ with thickness ${\varepsilon}\ll 1$ is grafted to $\Omega$: $$\Omega_{\sigma,{\varepsilon}}= \Omega \cup \omega_{\sigma, {\varepsilon}}, \text{ where } \omega_{\sigma,{\varepsilon}} := \left\{Êx \in {{\mathbb R}}^2, \:\: \text{\rm dist}(x,\sigma) < {\varepsilon}\right\},$$ and $\sigma$ is a smooth, non self-intersecting curve in ${{\mathbb R}}^2$ whose endpoints belong to $\partial \Omega$; see \[fig.incl2set\] (left). Assuming homogeneous Neumann boundary conditions on $\partial \omega_{\sigma,{\varepsilon}}$ in the defining system for $u_{\Omega_{\sigma,{\varepsilon}}}$ (the version of \[eq.linelas\] posed on $\Omega_{\sigma,{\varepsilon}}$), we look for an expansion of the form: $$\label{eq.ligasym}
J(\Omega_{\sigma,{\varepsilon}}) = J(\Omega) + {\varepsilon}dJ_L(\Omega)(\sigma) + o({\varepsilon}),$$ where it is tempting to call the first-order term $dJ_L(\Omega)(\sigma)$ the ‘ligament derivative’ of $J(\Omega)$.
The thin tubular inhomogeneity problem
--------------------------------------
We replace \[eq.linelas\] with the following equation, taking place in a fixed ‘hold-all’ domain $D$: $$\label{eq.elasbg}
\left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
-{\text{\rm div}}(A_0e(u_0)) = f & \text{in } D, \\
u_0 = 0 & \text{on } \Gamma_D, \\
A_0e(u_0)n = g &\text{on } \Gamma_N, \\
A_0e(u_0) = 0 & \text{on } \Gamma,
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $A_0$ is a smooth Hooke’s tensor of the form \[eq.hooke\] with inhomogeneous coefficients $\lambda_0(x),\mu_0(x)$. This problem is an approximation of that in \[sec.elasexact\] if $A_0$ is defined as a smooth transition between the Hooke’s tensor $A$ inside $\Omega$ and that of a very soft material $\eta A$, $\eta \ll 1$, inside the void $D\setminus \Omega$ (this is the classical ersatz material method; see [@allaire2004structural]); see \[fig.incl2set\] (right).
The perturbed version of \[eq.elasbg\] where a tube $\omega_{\sigma,{\varepsilon}}$ filled by another material $A_1$ with Lamé parameters $\lambda_1(x)$, $\mu_1(x)$ is included in $D$ is: $$\label{eq.inhpert}
\left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
-{\text{\rm div}}(A_{\varepsilon}e(u_{\varepsilon})) = f & \text{in } D, \\
u_{\varepsilon}= 0 & \text{on } \Gamma_D, \\
A_{\varepsilon}e(u_{\varepsilon})n = g &\text{on } \Gamma_N, \\
A_{\varepsilon}e(u_{\varepsilon}) = 0 & \text{on } \Gamma,
\end{array}
\right.
\text{ with } A_{\varepsilon}(x) = \left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
A_1(x) & \text{if } x \in {\omega_{\sigma,\varepsilon}}, \\
A_0(x) & \text{otherwise}.
\end{array}
\right.$$ The approximate counterparts $J_\sigma(0)$ and $J_\sigma({\varepsilon})$ of the functionals $J(\Omega)$ and $J(\Omega_{\sigma,{\varepsilon}})$ in \[eq.JOm\] read: $$\label{eq.Jsigmae}
J_\sigma(0) = \int_D{j(u_0)\:dx}, \:\: J_\sigma({\varepsilon}) = \int_D{j(u_{\varepsilon}) \: dx},$$ and we approximate $dJ_L(\Omega)(\sigma)$ in \[eq.ligasym\] by the first-order term $J_\sigma^\prime(0)$ in the expansion: $$J_\sigma({\varepsilon}) =J_\sigma(0) + {\varepsilon}J_\sigma^\prime(0) + o({\varepsilon}).$$
![*(Left) Graft of a ligament with base curve $\sigma$ to an elastic structure $\Omega$; (right) corresponding thin tubular inclusion inside an approximating background medium occupying the larger domain $D$.*[]{data-label="fig.incl2set"}](incl2set){width="100.00000%"}
An adjoint method for the topological ligament {#sec.ueJe}
==============================================
In this section, we discuss asymptotic formulas for $u_{\varepsilon}$ and $J_\sigma({\varepsilon})$ in \[eq.inhpert,eq.Jsigmae\] as ${\varepsilon}\to 0$.
Asymptotic formula for the state $u_{\varepsilon}$
--------------------------------------------------
Let the $2\times 2$ matrix field $N(x,y) = \left\{ N_{ij}(x,y)\right\}_{i=1,2 \atop j=1,2}$ be the fundamental solution of the system \[eq.elasbg\]. More precisely, for any $x \in D$, the $j^{\text{\rm th}}$ column vector $y \mapsto N_j(x,y) = \left\{N_{ij}(x,y) \right\}_{i=1,2}$ satisfies: $$\left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
{\text{\rm div}}_y(A_0e_y(N_j(x,y))) = \delta_{y=x} e_j & \text{in } D, \\
A_0e_y(N_j(x,y))n(y) = 0 & \text{on }Ê\Gamma_N \cup \Gamma, \\
N_j(x,y) = 0 & \text{on } \Gamma_D.
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $e_j$ is the $j^{\text{\rm th}}$ vector in the canonical basis of ${{\mathbb R}}^2$. The main result of interest is the following:
\[th.asymue\] Let $x \in \overline{D} \setminus \sigma$; the solution $u_{\varepsilon}$ to the perturbed system \[eq.inhpert\] fulfills the following expansion: $$\label{eq.asymue}
\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}(u_{\varepsilon}- u_0)(x) = u_1 + o(1), \text{ where } u_1(x) = \int_{\sigma}{{\mathcal M}(y) e(u_0)(y) : e_y(N(x,y)) \:d \ell(y)},$$ and the remainder $o(1)$ is uniform when $x$ is confined to a fixed compact subset $K \subset \overline{D} \setminus \sigma$. The polarization tensor ${\mathcal M}(y)$ reads, for any symmetric $2\times 2$ matrix $e$: $$\label{eq.M}
{\mathcal M}(y) e = \alpha(y) {\text{\rm tr}}(e) {\text{\rm I}}+ \beta(y) e + \gamma(y) (e \tau \cdot \tau ) \tau \otimes \tau + \rho(y) (e n \cdot n) n \otimes n,$$ involving the (inhomogeneous) coefficients: $$\alpha = 2(\lambda_1-\lambda_0) \frac{\lambda_0 + 2\mu_0}{\lambda_1 + 2\mu_1}, \:\: \beta = 4(\mu_1- \mu_0) \frac{\mu_0}{\mu_1},$$ and $$\gamma = 4(\mu_1-\mu_0) \left( \frac{2\lambda_1 + 2\mu_1 - \lambda_0}{\lambda_1 + 2\mu_1} -\frac{\mu_0}{\mu_1}\right), \:\: \rho = 4(\mu_1 - \mu_0) \frac{\mu_1\lambda_0- \mu_0 \lambda_1}{\mu(\lambda_1 + 2\mu_1)} .$$
The rigorous (difficult) proof of this result is given in [@beretta2006asymptotic]. Interestingly, this formula can also be obtained thanks to a formal method based on energy minimization, close to that used in [@nguyen2009representation; @dapogny2017uniform].
An adjoint state method for the derivative of an observable
-----------------------------------------------------------
We are now in position to derive the behavior of the functional $J_\sigma({\varepsilon})$ in \[eq.Jsigmae\] as ${\varepsilon}\to 0$.
\[th.asymje\] The following expansion holds: $$\label{eq.Jsigmap}
J_\sigma({\varepsilon}) = J_\sigma(0) + {\varepsilon}J_\sigma^\prime(0) + o(1), \text{ where }ÊJ^\prime_\sigma(0) := \int_\sigma{{\mathcal M}(y) e(u_0):e(p_0) \:d \ell(y)},$$ where ${\mathcal M}(y)$ is the polarization tensor in \[eq.M\], and the adjoint state $p_0 \in H^1_{\Gamma_D}(\Omega)^2$ is the solution to: $$\label{eq.adj}
\left\{Ê
\begin{array}{cl}
-{\text{\rm div}}(A_0 e(p_0)) = -j^\prime(u_0) & \text{in } D, \\
p_0 = 0 & \text{on } \Gamma_D, \\
Ae(p_0) n = 0 & \text{on } \Gamma_N \cup \Gamma.
\end{array}
\right.$$
A variant of the Aubin-Nitsche trick (see e.g. [@ciarlet2002finite]) allows to show that the limit $J_\sigma^\prime(0) = \lim_{{\varepsilon}\to 0}{\frac{J_\sigma({\varepsilon}) - J_\sigma(0)}{{\varepsilon}}}$ exists and has the expression: $$J_\sigma^\prime(0) = \int_D{j^\prime(u_0) u_1 \:dx},$$ where $u_1$ is the first-order term in \[eq.asymue\]. Now introducing the adjoint state \[eq.adj\], we obtain: $$\begin{array}{>{\displaystyle}cc>{\displaystyle}l}
J_\sigma^\prime(0) &=& \int_D{j^\prime(u_0(x)) \left(\int_\sigma{{\mathcal M}(y) e(u_0)(y) : e_y(N(x,y)) \:d \ell(y)} \right)\: d x}.\\
&=& \int_\sigma{{\mathcal M}(y) e(u_0)(y):e_y\left( \int_D{j^\prime(u_0(x)) N(x,y) \:d x}\right) \: d \ell(y)} \\
&=& \int_\sigma{{\mathcal M}(y) e(u_0)(y):e(p_0)(y) \:d \ell(y)},
\end{array}$$ where we have used the integral representation formula: $$p_0(y) = \int_D{j^\prime(u_0(x))N(x,y) \: dx}.$$
Practical interest of the result {#sec.practinterest}
--------------------------------
We return to our purpose of finding a curve $\sigma$ such that the variation $\Omega_{\sigma,{\varepsilon}}$ of a given shape $\Omega$ achieves a lower value $J(\Omega_{\sigma,{\varepsilon}}) < J(\Omega)$. According to the discussion of \[sec.setting\], we consider the background medium $A_0$ in $D$ obtained from $\Omega$ via the ersatz material approximation, and we search for $\sigma$ such that $J_\sigma^\prime(0)<0$.
Using \[th.asymje\], and assuming for simplicity that $\sigma$ is a line segment with (constant) tangent vector $\tau = (\tau_1,\tau_2) \in {{\mathbb R}}^2$, formula \[eq.Jsigmap\] can be rewritten: $$J_\sigma^\prime(0) = \int_\sigma{P(y,\tau_1,\tau_2) \:d\ell (y)},$$ where for a given point $y \in \sigma$, $(\tau_1,\tau_2) \mapsto P(y,\tau_1,\tau_2)$ is a bivariate $4^{\text{\rm th}}$-order homogeneous polynomial, whose coefficients depend explicitly on $y$ via the entries of $e(u_0)(y)$, $e(p_0)(y)$.
The search for an ‘optimal’ line segment $\sigma$ such that $J_\sigma^\prime(0)<0$ is then achieved along the following lines:
1. Solve \[eq.elasbg\] and \[eq.adj\] (e.g. by the finite element method) for $u_0$ and $p_0$, respectively.
2. Calculate the coefficients of the polynomial $P(y,\cdot,\cdot)$ using the formulas in \[th.asymue,th.asymje\];
3. For all points $z_1, z_2$ in (a discretization of) $\partial \Omega$, calculate $J_{\sigma}^\prime(0)$, when $\sigma$ is the line segment $[z_1,z_2]$, and retain the couple $(z_1,z_2)$ achieving the negative value of $J_{\sigma}^\prime(0)$ with largest modulus.
Note that the step (3) in this program is relatively unexpensive since the involved quantities—and notably the coefficients of $P(y,\cdot,\cdot)$ for $y \in D$—are computed beforehand, once and for all.
Numerical algorithm {#sec.num}
===================
We finally apply the methodology of \[sec.practinterest\] to two shape optimization problems of the form: $$\label{eq.sopb}
\min\limits_\Omega {J(\Omega)}, \text{ s.t. } C(\Omega) = 0.$$ Both examples are addressed using Hadamard’s boundary variation method (see again [@allaire2004structural; @henrot2018shape; @pironneau1982optimal; @sokolowski1992introduction]). We track the motion of the shape $\Omega$ thanks to the level set-based mesh evolution method from [@allaire2014shape]; this allows for an explicit, meshed representation of $\Omega$ at each stage of the process, and no ersatz material approximation is needed to compute shape gradients. The constrained optimization in \[eq.sopb\] is treated by the null-space algorithm from [@feppon2019null]. We enrich this classical framework with the addition of material ligaments to $\Omega$ using the methodology of \[sec.practinterest\] in two different ways.
Adding bars in the course of the shape optimization process {#sec.canti}
-----------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we seek to add bars to the shape in order to enrich its topology in the course of a ‘classical’ shape optimization process driven by the method of Hadamard. The physical setting is that of the cantilever test-case, as depicted on \[fig.cantiex\] (top, left). Shapes are contained in a box with size $2\times 1$; they are attached on the left-hand side of their boundary, and a unit vertical load $g = (0,-1)$ is applied on a region $\Gamma_N$ at the middle of their right-hand side. Omitting body forces for simplicity, we aim to minimize the compliance of the shape $\Omega$ under a volume constraint, i.e. we solve \[eq.sopb\] with: $$J(\Omega) = \int_{\Gamma_N}{g \cdot u_\Omega \:ds},\:\: C(\Omega)= \int_\Omega {\:dx} - V_T, \text{ and the volume target } V_T = 0.8.$$
Starting from the shape in \[fig.cantiex\] (top, left), we consider a situation where the parameters of the optimization algorithm are tuned so that the volume constraint tends to be satisfied ‘too fast’: the holes merge permaturely (\[fig.cantiex\], (top,right)), and the resulting shape has a trivial topology, with a large value $4.115$ of the compliance (computation not reported). We consider the same test-case, except that every 10 iterations, from iteration $40$ to $100$, the procedure in \[sec.practinterest\] is used to graft bars to the structure. The resulting shape has a richer topology, for an improved final value of the compliance $2.718$; see \[fig.cantiex\] for snapshots of the evolution process and \[fig.cantiexcv\] for the associated convergence histories. Note that some of the bars created during the topological ligament steps eventually disappear after some iterations.
[cc]{}
![*From left to right, top to bottom: Iterations 0 (with details of the test-case), 40, 51, 61, 85, and 200 of the cantilever test-case of \[sec.canti\].*[]{data-label="fig.cantiex"}](canticrasset){width="119.50000%"}
&
![*From left to right, top to bottom: Iterations 0 (with details of the test-case), 40, 51, 61, 85, and 200 of the cantilever test-case of \[sec.canti\].*[]{data-label="fig.cantiex"}](canticras40){width="100.00000%"}
\
Ê
![*From left to right, top to bottom: Iterations 0 (with details of the test-case), 40, 51, 61, 85, and 200 of the cantilever test-case of \[sec.canti\].*[]{data-label="fig.cantiex"}](canticras51){width="100.00000%"}
&
![*From left to right, top to bottom: Iterations 0 (with details of the test-case), 40, 51, 61, 85, and 200 of the cantilever test-case of \[sec.canti\].*[]{data-label="fig.cantiex"}](canticras61){width="100.00000%"}
\
Ê
![*From left to right, top to bottom: Iterations 0 (with details of the test-case), 40, 51, 61, 85, and 200 of the cantilever test-case of \[sec.canti\].*[]{data-label="fig.cantiex"}](canticras85){width="100.00000%"}
&
![*From left to right, top to bottom: Iterations 0 (with details of the test-case), 40, 51, 61, 85, and 200 of the cantilever test-case of \[sec.canti\].*[]{data-label="fig.cantiex"}](canticras200){width="100.00000%"}
\
Ê
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![*Convergence histories for the compliance (left) and the volume (right) of the shape in the cantilever example of \[sec.canti\].*[]{data-label="fig.cantiexcv"}](cplycrascanti){width="100.00000%"} ![*Convergence histories for the compliance (left) and the volume (right) of the shape in the cantilever example of \[sec.canti\].*[]{data-label="fig.cantiexcv"}](volcrascanti){width="100.00000%"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A judicious initialization for truss-like structures {#sec.mastex}
----------------------------------------------------
Our strategy can also be used as a preprocessing of a traditional shape optimization process, in situations where truss-like structures (i.e. containing lots of bars) are expected. In the setting of a T-shaped mast (see \[fig.mastex\] (top, left)) we consider the minimization \[eq.sopb\] of the volume under a compliance constraint: $$J(\Omega) = \int_\Omega{dx}, \text{ and } C(\Omega) = \int_{\Gamma_N}{g \cdot u_\Omega \:ds} - C_T, \text{ and the target value } C_T = 0.4.$$ Starting from an empty shape, a first stage aims to enrich the structure with bars of the form $[z_1,z_2]$, connecting endpoints $z_1,z_2$ sought within a user-defined set of points in $D$ (in red in \[fig.mastex\] (top, left)), following the methodology of \[sec.practinterest\]. The process ends when the compliance of the structure is close to the target $C_T$ (in our case, when it reaches the value $1.25$); the resulting shape is that in \[fig.mastex\] (top, right).
In a second stage, we use this structure as the initialization for the resolution of \[eq.sopb\] by means of the Hadamard’s boundary variation method; see \[fig.mastex\] (bottom row) and \[fig.mastexcv\] for the convergence histories.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![*(Upper row, from left to right): Steps 3 (with details of the test-case), 6, and 9 of the first stage of bar insertion; (lower row, from left to right) steps 10, 60 and 200 of the second stage, in the mast example of \[sec.mastex\].*[]{data-label="fig.mastex"}](mastcrasset){width="115.00000%"} ![*(Upper row, from left to right): Steps 3 (with details of the test-case), 6, and 9 of the first stage of bar insertion; (lower row, from left to right) steps 10, 60 and 200 of the second stage, in the mast example of \[sec.mastex\].*[]{data-label="fig.mastex"}](mastcras6){width="100.00000%"} ![*(Upper row, from left to right): Steps 3 (with details of the test-case), 6, and 9 of the first stage of bar insertion; (lower row, from left to right) steps 10, 60 and 200 of the second stage, in the mast example of \[sec.mastex\].*[]{data-label="fig.mastex"}](mastcras9){width="100.00000%"}
![*(Upper row, from left to right): Steps 3 (with details of the test-case), 6, and 9 of the first stage of bar insertion; (lower row, from left to right) steps 10, 60 and 200 of the second stage, in the mast example of \[sec.mastex\].*[]{data-label="fig.mastex"}](mastcras210){width="100.00000%"} ![*(Upper row, from left to right): Steps 3 (with details of the test-case), 6, and 9 of the first stage of bar insertion; (lower row, from left to right) steps 10, 60 and 200 of the second stage, in the mast example of \[sec.mastex\].*[]{data-label="fig.mastex"}](mastcras260){width="100.00000%"} ![*(Upper row, from left to right): Steps 3 (with details of the test-case), 6, and 9 of the first stage of bar insertion; (lower row, from left to right) steps 10, 60 and 200 of the second stage, in the mast example of \[sec.mastex\].*[]{data-label="fig.mastex"}](mastcras2200){width="100.00000%"}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![*Convergence histories for (left) the compliance in the first stage, (middle) the compliance in the second stage and (right) the volume in the mast example of \[sec.mastex\].*[]{data-label="fig.mastexcv"}](mastcply1){width="100.00000%"} ![*Convergence histories for (left) the compliance in the first stage, (middle) the compliance in the second stage and (right) the volume in the mast example of \[sec.mastex\].*[]{data-label="fig.mastexcv"}](mastcply2){width="100.00000%"} ![*Convergence histories for (left) the compliance in the first stage, (middle) the compliance in the second stage and (right) the volume in the mast example of \[sec.mastex\].*[]{data-label="fig.mastexcv"}](mastvol2){width="100.00000%"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Acknowledgements.** This work was partially supported by the project ANR-18-CE40-0013 SHAPO financed by the French Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR).
[^1]: Institute of Engineering Univ. Grenoble Alpes
|
---
bibliography:
- 'bib.bib'
---
\#1
|
---
abstract: 'A surface of codimension higher than one embedded in an ambient space possesses a connection associated with the rotational freedom of its normal vector fields. We examine the Yang-Mills functional associated with this connection. The theory it defines differs from Yang-Mills theory in that it is a theory of surfaces. We focus, in particular, on the Euler-Lagrange equations describing this surface, introducing a framework which throws light on their relationship to the Yang-Mills equations.'
---
2em [Yang-Mills theory à la string]{} 3em [Riccardo Capovilla${}^{(1)}$ and Jemal Guven${}^{(2)}$\
]{} *[ ${}^{(1)}$ Departamento de Física\
Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados\
Apdo Postal 14-740, 07000 México, D. F., MEXICO\
${}^{(2)}$ Instituto de Ciencias Nucleares\
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México\
Apdo. Postal 70-543, 04510 México, D.F,, MEXICO]{}*
1em 1em
1em
PACS: 04.60.Ds
3em
[*Dedicated to Octavio Obregón, on the occasion of his 60th birthday.*]{}
3em
Consider a surface of codimension $N$ embedded in an ambient space. There are then $N$ normal vector fields. Let us suppose that $N$ is two or higher. The normal vectors are then defined only up to a rotation, and a sign. There is a natural $O(N)$ connection on the surface associated with this freedom known as the [*normal*]{} connection, or extrinsic twist. This connection possesses a curvature. While the role it plays is very different from that played by the extrinsic curvature of the surface, the [*normal*]{} curvature is not independent of the latter: the Ricci integrability conditions determine it completely in terms of a quadratic in the extrinsic curvature [@Spivak].
There are various interesting local geometrically invariant functionals one can construct out of the normal curvature. Several of these characterize geometrical features peculiar to particular dimensions: one such invariant, characterizing two-dimensional surfaces embedded in four-dimensions, is the integral of the normal curvature itself; this invariant was introduced by Polyakov in the context of a stringy description of QCD [@Polyakov]. For arbitrary surface dimensions, there is a natural invariant quadratic in the normal curvature: the $O(N)$ Yang-Mills functional. Appearances are deceptive however; this is not a genuine Yang-Mills theory. The dynamical variables are the embedding functions of the surface, not the connection itself. More appropriately, one should consider the theory it defines as an induced Yang-Mills theory. This is the functional we will focus on in this note. In particular, we would like to clarify the relationship between the two theories. This situation is analogous to that for Regge and Teitelboim’s model for gravity in terms of an Einstein-Hilbert action, where the embedding functions, rather than the metric, appear as the dynamical variables [@RT]. To spell out the parallel, we have adapted the title of their paper – [*Gravity à la string*]{} – to its Yang-Mills counterpart.
In particular, if the surface is four-dimensional this functional is also conformally invariant. It is one of the few low order conformal invariants of the surface geometry. Perhaps the best known among these invariants is quadratic in the Weyl tensor, which depends only on the intrinsic geometry[@Wald]. There are also polynomial invariants — apparently not so well-known to physicists — associated with the extrinsic geometry of the surface [@Willmore]. The simplest invariants of this kind are constructed using the traceless part of the extrinsic curvature. There are two independent quartics of this form [@CCG]. Indeed, using the Gauss-Codazzi equations for the surface, it is possible to express the Weyl invariant as a linear combination of the two. In addition, a third invariant can be associated with a non-trivial competition between a quartic in extrinsic curvature and a quadratic in gradients, neither of which alone is conformally invariant [@guven].
3em Consider a $d$-dimensional surface $\Sigma$ embedded in $R^{d+N}$, where $N\ge 2$, described parametrically as follows: $$x = X (\xi^a)\,.
\label{eq:xX0}$$ Here $x=(x^1,\dots,x^{d+N})$ are local coordinates for the ambient space, $\xi^a$, $a=1,\dots, d$ are $d$ arbitrary coordinates on the surface, and $X = (X^1, \dots, X^{d+N}) $ denote the embedding functions. The only geometrically significant derivatives of $X$ are those encoded in the metric tensor $g_{ab}= e_a\cdot e_{b}$ and the extrinsic curvature tensor $K_{ab}{}^I= e_a\cdot \partial_b \,n^I
=K_{ba}{}^I$, where $e_a= \partial_a X $ are the $d$ coordinate tangent vectors, and $n^I$ are any $N$ mutually orthogonal normal vectors ($I=1,\cdots, N$). The Gauss-Weingarten equations describing how this surface gets embedded in the ambient space are given by ($\nabla_a$ is the usual metric compatible covariant derivative on $\Sigma$) $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla_a e_b &=& - K_{ab}{}^I n_I \,, \label{eq:gw1}\\
\tilde \nabla_a n^I &=& K_{ab}{}^{I} g^{bc} e_c \,. \label{eq:gw2}\end{aligned}$$ We have introduced the $O(N)$ covariant derivative on the surface, $\tilde \nabla_a$, associated with its invariance under rotations of the normal vectors: $$\tilde \nabla_a \Phi^I = \partial_a \Phi^I + A_a{}^{I}{}_J \, \Phi^J\,,$$ with $\Phi^I$ an arbitrary normal scalar, and where the normal connection is given by $$A_a{}^{IJ} = n^I \cdot \partial_a n^J = - A_a{}^{JI}\,,$$ of course for $N=1$ it vanishes identically. We denote by $F_{ab}{}^{IJ}$ the normal curvature associated with the normal connection $A_a{}^{IJ}$: $[\tilde\nabla_a,\tilde\nabla_b] \Phi^I = F_{ab}{}^{IJ}\Phi_J$. Explicitly: $$F_{ab}{}^{IJ} = \partial_a A_b{}^{IJ} +
A_a{}^{IK} A_{b\,K}{}^J - (a \, \leftrightarrow b)\,.
\label{eq:curva}$$ There are integrability conditions associated with the Gauss-Weingarten equations. Besides the well-known Gauss-Codazzi-Mainardi integrability conditions, when the number of extra dimensions is two or higher, one has the Ricci identities [@Spivak]: $$F_{ab}{}^{IJ} = K_{ac}{}^I K^c{}_b{}^J - (I \,\leftrightarrow\, J)\,.
\label{eq:Ricci}$$ Thus the normal curvature associated with $A_a{}^{IJ}$ is completely determined by the induced metric $g_{ab}$ and the extrinsic curvature $K_{ab}{}^I$.
With the normal curvature, we can construct the geometric functional ($dV $ is the surface volume element constructed with $g_{ab}$) $$I_0 [X] = {1\over 4} \int dV \, F^{ab}{}_{IJ} F_{ab}{}^{IJ}\,.
\label{eq:YM}$$ Superficially, it resembles an $O(N)$ Yang-Mills theory on the surface. It differs in the important respect that $I_0$ is a functional of the embedding functions $X$ and not of the connection $A_a{}^{IJ}$. One important consequence of this fact is that, while this functional is of first order in derivatives of the connection $A_a{}^{IJ}$, it is of second order in derivatives of the embedding functions $X$; this can be seen by looking at the Ricci identities (\[eq:Ricci\]): $F^2 \sim K^4$, it is quartic in powers of the extrinsic curvature. We remark that, if $d=4$, the action $I_0$ is conformally invariant.
It is instructive to examine how the difference in the choice of the field variables manifests itself at the level of the Euler-Lagrange equations. We will compare the Euler-Lagrange derivative ${\cal E}$, determining the response of the functional $I_0$ to a surface deformation, $X \to X + \delta X$, $$\delta_X I_0 = \int dV \, {\cal E} \cdot \delta X\,,$$ with the Euler-Lagrange derivative ${\cal E}^{a}{}_{IJ}$ corresponding to a variation in the connection $A_a{}^{IJ} \to A_a{}^{IJ} + \delta A_a{}^{IJ}$, $$\delta_A I_0 = \int dV \, {\cal E}^{a}{}_{IJ} \;\delta A_a{}^{IJ}\,.$$ The first obvious thing to note is that the two differ in the number of independent variations: $d+N$ in the former versus $d\times
N(N-1)/2$ in the latter. For the latter, using the expression $\delta_A F_{ab}{}^{IJ} = 2 \nabla_{[a} \delta A_{b]}{}^{IJ}$, for the variation of the normal curvature, we have the Yang-Mills equations $${\cal E}^a{}_{IJ} = \nabla_b \; F^{ab}{}_{IJ} = 0\,.
\label{eq:YME}$$
In order to obtain the variation of $I_0$ with respect to $X$, various strategies are possible. One could vary the connection $A_a{}^{IJ}$ directly, using the variational expressions obtained [*e.g.*]{} in Ref. [@defos]. This approach, however, has the disadvantage of introducing a connection deformation which plays no role at the end, but that appears annoyingly in intermediate calculation. A second approach would be to use the Ricci identities (\[eq:Ricci\]) to express the normal curvature in terms of the metric and the extrinsic curvature, and then vary these geometrical quantities. However, in this way the connection with Yang-Mills theory is blurred. The strategy we adopt is to introduce auxiliary variables, along the lines first suggested in Ref. [@auxil] in a different context. We thus construct the functional $$\begin{aligned}
I[ X,& e_a , n^I , A_a{}^{IJ} , g_{ab} , \lambda_a{}^{IJ} ,
\lambda^{ab} , \lambda^{IJ}, \lambda^a{}_I , {\cal F}^a ] = I_0 [
A_a{}^{IJ}, g_{ab} ]- \int dV \,\left[ \lambda_{IJ}^a \,(A^{IJ}_a -
n^I \cdot \nabla_a n^J) \right. \nonumber \\ &- \left. {1\over 2}
\lambda^{ab} (g_{ab} - e_a \cdot e_b) - {1\over 2} \lambda_{IJ}
(n^I\cdot n^J - \delta^{IJ}) - \lambda^a{}_I (n^I\cdot e_a) + {\cal
F}^a\cdot (e_a- \partial_a X) \right]\,. \label{eq:aux}\end{aligned}$$ Following the approach introduced in Ref. [@auxil], we treat the connection $A_a{}^{IJ}$ as variables independent of $X$. We must then introduce Lagrange multipliers to enforce the constraints that connect $A_a{}^{IJ}$ to the geometry. In this approach, the induced metric $g_{ab}$, as well as the basis vectors $\{ e_a , n^I \}$, are also treated as independent. The innocuous apearing constraints anchoring the tangent vectors to a derivatives of the embedding functions $X$, via the Lagrange multipliers ${\cal F}^a$ will play a very important role: they identify the conserved momentum. At first sight, the introduction of a plethora of auxiliary variables appears only to complicate matters. However, as we will see, it is downhill from here: the inplementation of the constraints is straightforward. In particular, we do not need to know the variation of any of the surface geometric tensors in terms of $\delta X$. The geometrical significance of the different Lagrange multipliers will emerge automatically.
We start by considering the variation of (\[eq:aux\]) with respect to $A^{IJ}_a$. We obtain immediately $$\tilde\nabla_b F^{ab}{}_{IJ} = \lambda^a{}_{IJ}\,.$$ Thus the Lagrange multiplier $\lambda^a{}_{IJ}$ is identified with the Euler-Lagrange derivative ${\cal E}^ a{}_{IJ}$ introduced above (see Eq. (\[eq:YME\])), and it acts as a source for the Yang-Mills field. It is clear that, if $\lambda^{IJ}_a\ne 0$, the Yang-Mills equations are not satisfied.
Next, consider variations with respect to the tangent vectors $e_a$: $${\cal F}^a = - \lambda^{ab} e_b + \lambda^a{}_I n^I \,.$$ This is simply an expansion for ${\cal F}^a$ in terms of the basis adapted to the surface $\{e_a , n^I \}$.
The equations for the embedding functions $X$ is the statement that ${\cal F}^a$ is covariantly conserved: $$\nabla_a {\cal F}^a =0\,.
\label{eq:conserv}$$ By examining the translational invariance of the functional $I$, it is clear that ${\cal F}^a$ is the conserved momentum density. Under $X\to X+a$, where $a$ is constant, we have $I\to I + \delta I$, where $$\delta I = - a \cdot \int dV\, \nabla_a {\cal F}^a\,.$$ In particular, note that we can decompose the conservation law (\[eq:conserv\]) into its tangential and normal parts by projection and using the Gauss-Weingarten equations (\[eq:gw1\]), (\[eq:gw2\]): $$\begin{aligned}
-\nabla_a \lambda^{ab} + \lambda^a{}_I \; K_a{}^{b\, I} &=& 0\,, \label{eq:const}\\
\nabla_a \lambda^a{}_I + \lambda^{ab} K_{ab\, I} &=& 0 \label{eq:consn}\,.\end{aligned}$$ The tangential projection is the Bianchi identity associated with the reparametrization invariance of the functional $I$. The second, normal, is the Euler-Lagrange derivative for the functional $I_0 [
X ]$ with respect to the embedding functions $X$ (see [*. e.g.*]{} [@ACG]). What remains to be done is to identify the geometric content of the components $\lambda^{ab}$ and $\lambda^a{}_I$. For this, consider now the variation with respect to the induced metric $g_{ab}$. It identifies the tangential component of the stress tensor $\lambda^{ab}$ with the metric stress tensor for the Yang-Mills functional (\[eq:YM\]): $$\lambda^{ab} = T^{ab} =
F^{ac}{}^{IJ} F^b{}_c{}_{IJ} - {1 \over 4} g^{ab} F_{cd}{}^{IJ}
F^{cd}{}_{IJ}\,, \label{eq:tab}$$ where the metric stress tensor $T^{ab}$ is defined in the usual way as $$T^{ab} = {1 \over 2 \sqrt{g}} { \delta I_0 \over \delta g_{ab}}\,.
\label{eq:tdef}$$ Note that $T^{ab}$ itself is not conserved. If $d=4$, it is, however, traceless, the hallmark of conformal invariance. We find that the tangential projection of the conservation law for ${\cal
F}^a$ (\[eq:const\]) now reads $$\nabla_a T^{ab} = K_a{}^{b\, I} \; \lambda^a{}_I\,.$$ The extrinsic curvature of the surface and the normal component of the momentum density provide a source for the divergence of the metric stress tensor $T^{ab}$.
To determine the normal component of ${\cal F}^a$, $\lambda^a{}_I$, we consider the last variation, with respect to the normal vectors $n^I$: $$\lambda^a{}_{IJ} \nabla_a n^J + \nabla_a (\lambda_{IJ}^a n^J) +
\lambda_{IJ} n^J + \lambda^a{}_I e_a =0\,.$$ The tangential projection of this equation identifies the Lagrange multiplier $\lambda^a{}_I$, or the normal component of the momentum density, for us: $$\lambda^a{}_I = - 2 \lambda^b{}_{IJ} K^a{}_b{}^J = - 2 {\cal
E}^b{}_{IJ} K^a{}_b{}^J = -2 (\tilde\nabla_c F^{bc}{}_{IJ})
K^a{}_b{}^J\,.$$ The normal projection identifies the remaining Lagrange multiplier $\lambda_{IJ}$ as $$\lambda_{IJ} = 2 A_{a(I}{}^K \lambda^a{}_{|K|J)}\,,$$ together with the vanishing of the divergence of the Lagrange multiplier $\lambda^a{}_{IJ}$, or equivalently, of the Yang-Mills Euler-Lagrange derivative: $$\tilde\nabla_a \lambda^a{}_{IJ} = \nabla_a {\cal E}^a{}_{IJ} = 0\,.$$ This is the Bianchi identity associated with the $O(N)$ invariance of the Yang-Mills functional.
We conclude that the momentum density takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal F}^a &=& - T^{ab} e_b - 2
K^{a}{}_{b}{}^J \; {\cal E}^b{}_{IJ}
n^I\,, \nonumber \\
&=&- T^{ab} e_b - 2 K^{a}{}_{b}{}^J \; (\nabla_c F^{cb}{}_{IJ} )
n^I\,.\end{aligned}$$ The first line is valid for [*any*]{} functional of the normal connection. It requires only to determine the variations of the functional with respect to the induced metric $g_{ab}$, to obtain $T^{ab}$ via Eq. (\[eq:tdef\]), and with respect to the connection to obtain ${\cal E}^a{}_{IJ}$. The second line is specific to the Yang-Mills model and $T^{ab}$ is given by (\[eq:tab\]). Note that, unless the Yang-Mills equations hold, there is a non-trivial normal component of the momentum density.
It is immediate to see that the tangential projection of the divergence of ${\cal F}^a$, (\[eq:const\]), is an identity. The vanishing of the normal projection of the divergence of ${\cal F}^a$ produces the Euler-Lagrange equations of the functional $I$ with respect to $X$ (see [*e.g.*]{} [@ACG]): $$2 \tilde\nabla_a [ K^{a}{}_{b}{}^J \; (\nabla_c F^{cb}{}_{IJ} ) ] -
K_{ab}{}^I T^{ab}=0\,. \label{eq:eom}$$ These equations are fourth order in derivatives of the embedding functions. Even if the Yang-Mills equations are satisfied, so that the first term vanishes, one must still contend with the second term. In this case, however, the equations reduce to second order: curiously, they are reminiscent of the Euler-Lagrange equations for the Regge-Teitelboim model [@RT].
In conclusion, we have described a theory of embedded surfaces described by a Yang-Mills functional. In particular, we have examined the relationship between this theory and Yang-Mills theory at the level of the Euler-Lagrange equations as well as the conserved momentum. While the two theories differ, there are also intriguing connections. A detailed discussion will be presented elsewhere.
[Acknowledgments]{}
Partial support from CONACyT grants 44974-F, 51111 as well as DGAPA PAPIIT grant IN119206-3 is acknowledged.
[99]{}
M. Spivak, [*A Comprehensive Introduction to Differential Geometry. Vol.Four, Second Edition*]{} (Publish or Perish, 1979).
A. Polyakov, [*Nucl. Phys. B*]{} [**268**]{} 406 (1986).
T. Regge and C. Teitelboim, [*Proceedings of the Marcel Grossman Meeting*]{}, Trieste, Italy, (1975), ed. Ruffini R (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1977) 77.
R. M. Wald, [*General Relativity*]{} (University of Chicago Press 1984).
T.J. Willmore, [*Total Curvature in Riemannian Geometry*]{} (Chichester: Ellis Horwood, 1982).
R. Capovilla, R. Cordero, J. Guven, [*Mod. Phys. Lett. A*]{} [**11**]{} 2755 (1996).
J. Guven [*J. Phys. A: Math. and Gen.*]{} [**38**]{} 7943 (2005).
R. Capovilla and J. Guven, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**51**]{} 6736 (1995).
J. Guven, [*J. Phys. A: Math and Gen.*]{} [**37**]{} L313 (2004).
G. Arreaga, R. Capovilla, and J. Guven, [*Ann. Phys.*]{} [**279**]{} 126 (2000).
|
---
abstract: 'Measurements of azimuthal differences between forward di-pions are sensitive to the low-${\it x}$ gluon content of the proton and provide the best opportunity to probe for gluon saturation in nuclei. Previously reported analyses have shown that the gluon saturation regime may have been reached at STAR by looking at forward di-pions in d+Au collisions. Further insight into the uncorrelated pedestal below the near-side and away-side peaks in azimuthal correlations may be provided by differentiating between d+Au and p+Au collisions, by tagging on intact neutrons in the deuteron beam in d+Au collisions. Comparisons to recent theories indicate that multi-parton interactions play a more significant role in d+Au collisions than p+Au collisions and offer a unique opportunity to study correlations between leading partons inside nucleons. The general features found for the peaks in forward di-pion azimuthal correlations in d+Au collisions are also present in p+Au collisions.'
author:
- Chris Perkins for the STAR Collaboration
bibliography:
- 'sample.bib'
title: 'Small-${\it x}$ and Forward Measurements at STAR'
---
[ address=[UC Berkeley/Space Sciences Lab, Stony Brook University]{} ]{}
Introduction
============
It is known that gluon densities in the proton rise for decreasing longitudinal partonic momentum fractions, ${\it x}$, however this rise cannot continue indefinitely for smaller ${\it x}$ values due to unitarity constraints. Eventually, gluon recombination becomes important and non-linear contributions to evolution equations must be included, at which point the gluon density saturates [@MuellerQiu1986] [@McLerranVenugopalan1994]. One model that describes these effects is the Color Glass Condensate (CGC) [@GribovLevinRyskin1983] [@MuellerQiu1986] [@McLerranVenugopalan1994] [@IancuVenugopalan2003] [@IancuLeonidovMcLerran2001] model which is a semi-classical, effective field theory used to describe low-${\it x}$ gluons within nuclei. The gluon saturation regime can be reached for low ${\it x}$ values, large $\sqrt{s}$, large rapidities (y), and heavy nuclear targets (A).
By looking at forward rapidities at the Solenoidal Tracker at RHIC (STAR), asymmetric partonic collisions are probed, primarily involving high-${\it x}$ valence quarks in the probe colliding with low-${\it x}$ gluons in the target. Therefore, the best opportunity to study saturation behavior at STAR is to look at forward rapidities using nuclear targets. Perturbative QCD predicts that in standard 2-to-2 processes there is a high probability for back-to-back di-jets. In a saturation picture, however, the $p_T$ of one jet can be balanced by multiple interactions with the dense gluon field in the target leading to a suppression of back-to-back jets [@KharzeevLevinMcLerran2005]. Measurements of azimuthal correlations between two forward $\pi^0$ can probe a more limited, and smaller, ${\it x}$ range than inclusive measurements.
Experimental Setup
==================
The STAR detector provides nearly hermetic coverage over a full 2$\pi$ azimuthal range and wide pseudo-rapidity range [@Braidot2011Thesis]. The Beam-Beam Counter (BBC) was used to differentiate between central and peripheral d+Au collisions. The Zero-Degree Calorimeter (ZDC) gives good neutron identification which can be used to tag intact neutrons from the deuteron beam. The Barrel Electro-magnetic Calorimeter (BEMC) was used to identify neutral pions at mid-rapidity. The Forward Meson Spectrometer (FMS) was used to trigger on neutral pions at forward-rapidities which is critical to reach the ${\it x}$ values needed to probe saturation effects. The FMS is an array of lead glass cells with full azimuthal coverage providing electromagnetic calorimetry over a range of 2.5 < $\eta$ < 4. The data in this analysis were collected during RHIC Run 8 at $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV.
Azimuthal Correlations in $p+p$ and $d+Au$ Collisions
=====================================================
When triggering on a forward $\pi^0$, the rapidity of an associated $\pi^0$ is correlated with the $x_{bj}$ of the soft parton involved in the scattering. Previously reported analyses [@Braidot2011Thesis] have measured azimuthal correlations between forward $\pi^0$ and both mid-rapidity $\pi^0$ and $h^\pm$ associated particles using the STAR BEMC which measure gluon densities at moderate ${\it x}$ ranges. These analyses have shown no significant broadening in the away-side peak from p+p collisions to d+Au collisions and no hints of a disappearance of the away-side peak, indicating that this kinematic region does not reach the gluon saturation regime.
The lowest ${\it x}$ region can be reached at STAR by triggering on forward $\pi^0$ and measuring ${\it forward}$ associated $\pi^0$. The previously reported analyses are not yet efficiency or background corrected but show a similar near-side peak in p+p and centrality averaged d+Au collisions [@Braidot2009QM]. The away-side peak, however, is significantly broadened when comparing p+p collisions to d+Au collisions, hinting that the gluon saturation regime may have been reached. Further evidence is provided by using the gold-side BBC charge sum to differentiate between central and peripheral d+Au collisions. The away-side peak in peripheral d+Au collisions is similar to that seen in p+p collisions. In central d+Au collisions, however, the away-side peak shows strong suppression and is in good agreement with CGC model calculations [@AlbaceteMarquet2010].
![ (Left) Reconstructed $\pi^0$ invariant mass in d+Au collisions. Left plot shows leading $\pi^0$, Right plot shows sub-leading $\pi^0$. (Middle) Top plot shows gold-facing BBC charge sum distribution with and without neutron tagging for minimum bias events. Bottom plot shows a clear spectator neutron peak for the deuteron-facing ZDC response. (Right) Reconstructed $\pi^0$ invariant mass in neutron tagged d+Au collisions. Left plot shows leading $\pi^0$, Right plot shows sub-leading $\pi^0$.[]{data-label="mass_bbc_zdc"}](m4.71.20110627.1.eps "fig:"){width="32.00000%"} ![ (Left) Reconstructed $\pi^0$ invariant mass in d+Au collisions. Left plot shows leading $\pi^0$, Right plot shows sub-leading $\pi^0$. (Middle) Top plot shows gold-facing BBC charge sum distribution with and without neutron tagging for minimum bias events. Bottom plot shows a clear spectator neutron peak for the deuteron-facing ZDC response. (Right) Reconstructed $\pi^0$ invariant mass in neutron tagged d+Au collisions. Left plot shows leading $\pi^0$, Right plot shows sub-leading $\pi^0$.[]{data-label="mass_bbc_zdc"}](bbcsq.20110331.eps "fig:"){width="32.00000%"} ![ (Left) Reconstructed $\pi^0$ invariant mass in d+Au collisions. Left plot shows leading $\pi^0$, Right plot shows sub-leading $\pi^0$. (Middle) Top plot shows gold-facing BBC charge sum distribution with and without neutron tagging for minimum bias events. Bottom plot shows a clear spectator neutron peak for the deuteron-facing ZDC response. (Right) Reconstructed $\pi^0$ invariant mass in neutron tagged d+Au collisions. Left plot shows leading $\pi^0$, Right plot shows sub-leading $\pi^0$.[]{data-label="mass_bbc_zdc"}](m4.71.20110402.1.eps "fig:"){width="32.00000%"}
![ Uncorrected coincidence probability versus azimuthal angle difference between two forward $\pi^0$ given a triggered forward $\pi^0$ at $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV. (Left) p+p collisions (Middle) d+Au collisions, Centrality averaged (Right) d+Au collisions, Peripheral events []{data-label="pp_dau"}](m4.84.20091024.8034.2.eps "fig:"){width="32.00000%"} ![ Uncorrected coincidence probability versus azimuthal angle difference between two forward $\pi^0$ given a triggered forward $\pi^0$ at $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV. (Left) p+p collisions (Middle) d+Au collisions, Centrality averaged (Right) d+Au collisions, Peripheral events []{data-label="pp_dau"}](m4.71.20091024.8034.2.eps "fig:"){width="32.00000%"} ![ Uncorrected coincidence probability versus azimuthal angle difference between two forward $\pi^0$ given a triggered forward $\pi^0$ at $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV. (Left) p+p collisions (Middle) d+Au collisions, Centrality averaged (Right) d+Au collisions, Peripheral events []{data-label="pp_dau"}](m4.71.20091024.8134.0.500.eps "fig:"){width="32.00000%"}
![ Uncorrected coincidence probability versus azimuthal angle difference between two forward $\pi^0$ given a triggered forward $\pi^0$ in d+Au collisions with the described neutron tag (p+Au) at $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 Gev. (Left) Centrality averaged (Right) Peripheral events []{data-label="pau"}](m4.71.20110402.8034.2.eps "fig:"){width="39.00000%"} ![ Uncorrected coincidence probability versus azimuthal angle difference between two forward $\pi^0$ given a triggered forward $\pi^0$ in d+Au collisions with the described neutron tag (p+Au) at $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 Gev. (Left) Centrality averaged (Right) Peripheral events []{data-label="pau"}](m4.71.20110402.8134.0.500.eps "fig:"){width="39.00000%"}
Azimuthal Correlations in $p+Au$ Collisions
===========================================
It may also be useful to distinguish between p+Au and d+Au collisions by looking for events where the neutron in the deuteron beam stays intact. A clear single-neutron peak can be seen in the deuteron-facing ZDC response for RHIC Run 8 d+Au Minimum Bias triggered data (See Figure \[mass\_bbc\_zdc\]) which can be used to select events where the neutron stays intact. Cutting on this single-neutron peak introduces a slight bias towards peripheral collisions but a significant sample of central collisions remain. The reconstructed di-pion invariant masses are shown in Figure \[mass\_bbc\_zdc\] with and without the neutron tag. Because the invariant mass distributions look similar, it is expected that efficiency corrections of azimuthal correlations should be similar with and without neutron tagging although quantitative studies are still ongoing.
Uncorrected forward di-pion azimuthal correlations for centrality averaged and peripheral d+Au (no neutron tag) and p+Au (with neutron tag) collisions are shown in Figures \[pp\_dau\] and \[pau\]. The inclusion of the spectator neutron tag reduces the uncorrelated pedestal for both the centrality averaged and peripheral collisions. The spectator neutron condition also has very little impact on the near-side and away-side peak heights above pedestal and peak widths. A study of systematic errors is still in progress.
While most theories thus far have focused on peak heights and widths in di-pion azimuthal correlations, new theories have been put forth to explain the uncorrelated pedestal. One theory postulates that the difference in pedestal level between p+p and d+Au collisions arrises due to multiple parton interactions in the d+Au collision [@StrikmanVogelsang2011]. This theory includes both multiple scattering from one nucleon in the deuteron beam and one scattering from each nucleon on the deuteron beam. The reduction of the uncorrelated pedestal from d+Au collisions to p+Au collisions indicates that multi-parton interactions play a more significant role in d+Au collisions. Systematic study of the correlations between p+p, p+Au, and d+Au collisions are ongoing. These observations could provide a unique window into correlations between leading partons within nucleons without having to use more complicated techniques such as double-scattering observables.
Conclusions
===========
Previously reported analyses have shown no significant away-side peak broadening in forward-mid rapidity di-hadron azimuthal correlations. Forward-forward rapidity di-pion azimuthal correlations have, however, shown significant broadening in the away-side peak between p+p and d+Au collisions and strong suppression of the away-side peak in central d+Au collisions. Tagging intact spectator neutrons from the deuteron beam allows differentiation between p+Au and d+Au collisions which can give further insight into the uncorrelated pedestal. Data appears to indicate that multi-parton interactions may contribute more to the pedestal in d+Au than p+Au collisions. Other basic aspects of the azimuthal correlations are not significantly changed between d+Au and p+Au collisions.
|
---
abstract: 'Soft biometric information such as gender can contribute to many applications like as identification and security. This paper explores the use of a Binary Statistical Features (BSIF) algorithm for classifying gender from iris texture images captured with NIR sensors. It uses the same pipeline for iris recognition systems consisting of iris segmentation, normalisation and then classification. Experiments show that applying BSIF is not straightforward since it can create artificial textures causing misclassification. In order to overcome this limitation, a new set of filters was trained from eye images and different sized filters with padding bands were tested on a subject-disjoint database. A Modified-BSIF (MBSIF) method was implemented. The latter achieved better gender classification results (94.6% and 91.33% for the left and right eye respectively). These results are competitive with the state of the art in gender classification. In an additional contribution, a novel gender labelled database was created and it will be available upon request.'
author:
- |
Juan Tapia and Claudia Arellano\
Universidad Tecnologica de Chile - INACAP\
[j\[email protected]]{}\
**A pre-print version of the paper accepted at 12th IAPR International Conference on Biometrics.**
bibliography:
- 'References\_OC.bib'
title: 'Gender Classification from Iris Texture Images Using a New Set of Binary Statistical Image Features.'
---
Introduction
============
Whenever people log onto computers, access an ATM, pass through airport security, use credit cards, or enter high-security areas, their identities need to be verified [@Bowyer2008281; @ASH:2014:canpass]. There is tremendous interest in reliable and secure identification methods. An active research area of this involves gender classification. Algorithms for automatic gender classification have several applications. They can be used for database binning and retrieval, for intelligent user interfaces or visual surveillance. They can also be used to provide demographic information to improve social services, to facilitate payment methods and for marketing applications in general.
Gender classification based on iris images is promising despite challenging problems presented in terms of image analysis [@Lagree2011; @Thomas2007; @Tapia2013]. The human iris is an annular part between the pupil and the white sclera. The iris has an extraordinary structure and includes many interlacing minute features such as freckles, coronas, stripes, furrows, crypts and so on. These visible features, generally called the texture of the iris, are unique to each individual [@Adler1965; @Daugman2001; @Daugman2004]. Research has also shown that the iris is essentially stable throughout a person’s life. Furthermore, since the iris is externally visible, iris-based biometrics systems can be non-invasive to their users [@Daugman2001; @Daugman2004] which is important for practical applications. All these properties (i.e., uniqueness, stability and non-invasiveness) make gender classification suitable and attractive as a complement for achieving highly reliable personal identification.
In this work a gender classification method is proposed. It uses normalised iris texture information which is codified using MBSIF. The outline of this paper is as follows: Section \[SOA\] reviews the state of the art in gender classification methods and describes the BSIF algorithm used in this work. Section \[proposal\] describes the pipeline of this work and the challenges faced when implementing MBSIF algorithms. Experimental set-up and the results of gender classification using several classifiers and MBSIF implementation settings are shown in Section \[experimentsResults\]. Finally, the conclusions are presented in section \[conclusiones\].
Related work {#SOA}
============
Gender Classification
---------------------
Human faces provide important visual information for gender classification [@ASH:2014:canpass; @UIP2014]. Most work done to date on gender classification has involved the analysis of facial images and used different pattern analysis to increase the accuracy of classification [@He2011; @Alexandre2010; @Han2014; @Tapia2013].
Previous work on gender classification from iris images has focused on handcrafted feature extraction methods using normalised NIR iris images [@Ojala2002; @Thomas2007; @Lagree2011; @Bansal2012; @Kannala2012; @Costa-Abreu2015; @Tapia2017]. Some research has utilised uniform patterns or combined uniform patterns with non-uniform patterns to improve performance [@Zhou20084314; @Shan2012431]. A small number of methods have used Deep Learning on Soft-biometrics such as gender with periocular NIR images [@KuehlkampBeckerBowyer2017; @TapiaAravena2017; @SinghNagpalVatsaEtAl2017].
Tapia et al. [@TapiaPerezBowyer2016] classified gender directly from the same binary iris-code that is used for recognition. They found that relevant information for predicting gender is distributed across the iris, rather than localised in particular concentric bands. Therefore, selected features representing a subset of the iris region can achieve better results than when using the whole iris. They have reported 89% correct gender prediction by fusing the best features of iris-code from left and right eyes.
Bobeldyk et al. [@BobeldykRoss2016] explored gender-prediction accuracy associated with four different regions from NIR iris images: the extended ocular region, the iris-excluded ocular region, the iris-only region, and the normalised iris-only region. They also used a BSIF texture operator to extract features from these four regions. The ocular region demonstrated its best performance at 85.7%, while the normalised or unwrapped images exhibited the worst performance, with an almost 20% decrease in performance over the ocular region. A summary of gender classification work is presented in Table \[my-label\].
[|c|c|c|c|c|c|]{} Paper & I/P & Source & NS & Type & Acc. %\
-------------------------------
V .Thomas et al.[@Thomas2007]
-------------------------------
: \[my-label\] Summary of gender classification methods using eye images. NS: Number of Subjects, I: Iris Images, P: Periocular Images, Th: Thermal, CP: Cellphone Images.
& I & Iris & N/A & NIR & 75,00\
-------------------------------
S. Lagree et al.[@Lagree2011]
-------------------------------
: \[my-label\] Summary of gender classification methods using eye images. NS: Number of Subjects, I: Iris Images, P: Periocular Images, Th: Thermal, CP: Cellphone Images.
& I & Iris & 300 & NIR & 62,17\
-------------------------------
A. Bansal et al.[@Bansal2012]
-------------------------------
: \[my-label\] Summary of gender classification methods using eye images. NS: Number of Subjects, I: Iris Images, P: Periocular Images, Th: Thermal, CP: Cellphone Images.
& I & Iris & 200 & NIR & 83,60\
-----------------------------------
J. Tapia et al.[@JuanE.Tapia2014]
-----------------------------------
: \[my-label\] Summary of gender classification methods using eye images. NS: Number of Subjects, I: Iris Images, P: Periocular Images, Th: Thermal, CP: Cellphone Images.
& I & Iris & 1,500 & NIR & 91.00\
---------------------------------------
M. Fairhurst et al.[@Costa-Abreu2015]
---------------------------------------
: \[my-label\] Summary of gender classification methods using eye images. NS: Number of Subjects, I: Iris Images, P: Periocular Images, Th: Thermal, CP: Cellphone Images.
& I & Iris & 200 & NIR & 89,74\
----------------------------------------
J. Tapia et al.[@TapiaPerezBowyer2016]
----------------------------------------
: \[my-label\] Summary of gender classification methods using eye images. NS: Number of Subjects, I: Iris Images, P: Periocular Images, Th: Thermal, CP: Cellphone Images.
& I & Iris & 1,500 & NIR & 89,00\
---------------------------------------
D. Bobeldyk et al.[@BobeldykRoss2016]
---------------------------------------
: \[my-label\] Summary of gender classification methods using eye images. NS: Number of Subjects, I: Iris Images, P: Periocular Images, Th: Thermal, CP: Cellphone Images.
& I/P & Iris & 1,083 & NIR & 85,70\
----------------------------------------------
Kuehlkamp et al.[@KuehlkampBeckerBowyer2017]
----------------------------------------------
: \[my-label\] Summary of gender classification methods using eye images. NS: Number of Subjects, I: Iris Images, P: Periocular Images, Th: Thermal, CP: Cellphone Images.
& I/P & Iris & 1,500 & NIR & 80.00\
-----------------------
J. Tapia.[@Tapia2017]
-----------------------
: \[my-label\] Summary of gender classification methods using eye images. NS: Number of Subjects, I: Iris Images, P: Periocular Images, Th: Thermal, CP: Cellphone Images.
& I/P & Iris & 1,500 & NIR & 79.33\
------------------------------------
J. Tapia et al.[@TapiaAravena2017]
------------------------------------
: \[my-label\] Summary of gender classification methods using eye images. NS: Number of Subjects, I: Iris Images, P: Periocular Images, Th: Thermal, CP: Cellphone Images.
& I & Iris & 1,500 & NIR & 83.00\
-------------------------------
J. Merkow et al.[@Merkow2010]
-------------------------------
: \[my-label\] Summary of gender classification methods using eye images. NS: Number of Subjects, I: Iris Images, P: Periocular Images, Th: Thermal, CP: Cellphone Images.
& P & Faces & 936 & VIS & 80,00\
-------------------------------
C. Chen et al.[@ChenRoss2011]
-------------------------------
: \[my-label\] Summary of gender classification methods using eye images. NS: Number of Subjects, I: Iris Images, P: Periocular Images, Th: Thermal, CP: Cellphone Images.
& P & Faces & 1,003 & NIR/Th & 93,59\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Castrillon-Santana et al. [@Castrillon-SantanaLorenzo-NavarroRamon-Balmaseda2016]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: \[my-label\] Summary of gender classification methods using eye images. NS: Number of Subjects, I: Iris Images, P: Periocular Images, Th: Thermal, CP: Cellphone Images.
& P & Faces & 1,500 & VIS & 92,46\
----------------------------------------------
Rattani et al.[@RattaniReddyDerakhshani2017]
----------------------------------------------
: \[my-label\] Summary of gender classification methods using eye images. NS: Number of Subjects, I: Iris Images, P: Periocular Images, Th: Thermal, CP: Cellphone Images.
& P & Iris & 550 & VIS/ CP & 91,60\
-----------------------------------
J. Tapia et al.[@TapiaViedma2017]
-----------------------------------
: \[my-label\] Summary of gender classification methods using eye images. NS: Number of Subjects, I: Iris Images, P: Periocular Images, Th: Thermal, CP: Cellphone Images.
& P & Iris & 120/120 & NIR/VIS & 90,00\
Binary Statistical Image Feature (BSIF)
----------------------------------------
BSIF [@Kannala2012] is a local descriptor constructed by binarising the responses to linear filters. In contrast to previous binary descriptors, ***the filters learn from thirteen natural images*** using independent component analysis (ICA). The code value of pixels is considered as a local descriptor of the image intensity pattern in the pixels’ surroundings. The value of each element (i.e bit) in the binary code string is computed by binarising the response of a linear filter with a zero threshold. Each bit is associated with a different filter, and the length of the bit string determines the number of filters used. The set of filters is learned from a training set of natural image patches by maximising the statistical independence of the filter responses [@Hyvrinen](See Figure \[filter\]). The details of the parameters learned by the linear filters are described below: Given an image patch $X$ of size $l\times l$ pixels and a linear filter $W_{i}$ of the same size, the filter responses $s_{i}$ are obtained by: $$s_{i}=\sum_{u,v}W_{i}(u,v)X(u,v)=w_{i}^{T}x,$$
Where, vector notation is introduced in the latter stage, for instance the vector $w$ and $x$ contain the pixels of $W_{i}$ and $X.$ The binarised feature $b_{i}$ is obtained by setting $b_{i}=1$ if $s_{i}>0$ and $b_{i}=0$ otherwise. Given $n$ linear filters $W_{i}$, we may stack them to a matrix $W$ of size $n \times l^{2}$ and compute all responses at once, i.e. $s=Wx$. We obtain the bit string $b$ by binarising each element $s_{i}$ of $s$ as above. Thus, given the linear feature detectors $W_{i}$, computation of the bit string $b$ is straightforward. Also, it is clear that the bit strings for all image patches of size $l\times l$, surrounding each pixel of an image can be computed conveniently by $n$ convolutions.
The final image is obtained by:
$$CodeIM=CodeIm+(Cr>0)*(2^{nbits})$$
Where, $CodeIm$ is an accumulative image, $Cr$ is the convolution between the filter and the image that is later binarised and multiplied by the number of bits. For instance, if we use 9 bits then we compute $CodeIm$ for $2^{1}$ later for $2^{2}$ up to $2^{9}$. The final image will be the sum of the 9 images for each $CodeIm$.
-------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
BSIF have been used for several applications including biometrics from iris images [@KomulainenHadidPietikaeinen2014; @DoyleBowyer2015; @RathgebStruckBusch2016]. In this work, a gender classification algorithm using normalised NIR iris images is proposed. It uses a similar pipeline than iris recognition systems. The iris is segmented and occlusions are masked. BSIF can be sensitive to image boundaries and the occlusion mask creating artificial texture which may mislead gender classification results.
This paper explores a new set of filters (See Figure \[filter\]) trained from thirteen eye images instead of natural images as used in traditional approach. The influence of the filter size, the padding (boundaries) and the number of bits used when implementing MBSIF algorithm are also explored.
Gender classification using BSIF {#proposal}
================================
This paper proposes the use of the same pipeline that is used for iris recognition systems. The input image is segmented in a pre-process step. The iris region is then transformed to a polar space and codified using MBSIF. Finally, gender classification is performed using a new database and several classifiers (Section \[classifier\]).
Iris Segmentation and Normalisation
-----------------------------------
The iris is detected from the input image using commercial software Osiris [@osiris]. A segmentation mask occludes the eyelids, eyelashes and specular reflection portions of the iris image which are not useful for gender classification. It is important to note that iris images of different persons, or even the left and right iris images for a given person, may not present exactly the same mask and imaging conditions (see Figure \[pipeline1\]). Illumination by LEDs during capture may come from either side of the sensor, specular highlights may be present in different places in the image. Eyelid and head position may also affect segmentation.
The segmented iris is normalised or unwrapped with radial $(r)$ and angular $(\theta)$ resolutions which determine the size of the rectangular iris image. The size of the normalised iris can significantly influence the iris recognition rate. In this work, a rectangular image of $20(r)$x $240(\theta)$ created using Osiris software [@osiris] with automatic segmentation is used for all experiments.
Right Eye Left Eye
---- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a) ![\[pipeline1\] Two original images from right and left eye (a). Segmented and masked images with eyelid and eyelash detection using Osiris (b). Images (c) and (d) are normalised images from the right and left eye both with the mask in yellow.](Images/04236d195_right "fig:") ![\[pipeline1\] Two original images from right and left eye (a). Segmented and masked images with eyelid and eyelash detection using Osiris (b). Images (c) and (d) are normalised images from the right and left eye both with the mask in yellow.](Images/04236d196_leff "fig:")
b) ![\[pipeline1\] Two original images from right and left eye (a). Segmented and masked images with eyelid and eyelash detection using Osiris (b). Images (c) and (d) are normalised images from the right and left eye both with the mask in yellow.](Images/04236d195-segmented_right "fig:") ![\[pipeline1\] Two original images from right and left eye (a). Segmented and masked images with eyelid and eyelash detection using Osiris (b). Images (c) and (d) are normalised images from the right and left eye both with the mask in yellow.](Images/04236d196-segmented_left "fig:")
c)
d)
BSIF filters application
------------------------
BSIF filters compute the convolution with each normalised masked image. Each filter represents a different pattern. The final image is the results of all previous images binarised by $2^n$ bits. The best filter size is one that represents the correct size of the mask with the lowest number of bits. If the filter is smaller than the mask, then artificial texture information will be created and the resulting image will not well represent its original information. On the other hand, if the mask of the iris is larger than the filter, a flat area will be obtained and the filter will need to be adjusted by reducing its size. Since the size of the normalised iris image is 20 $\times$ 240, special care needs to be taken in order to minimise the effects of boundary and its influence on filter size. A common approach to dealing with border effects is to pad the original image with extra rows and columns based on your filter size.
Traditional implementation of BSIF increases the size of the image and wraps the filter around it. Unfortunately, this implementation directly affects the results of the binarised iris image. Figure \[figure\_BSIF\] (A) shows an example where this implementation is used. The first row (a), shows the normalised iris image obtained directly from Osiris software [@osiris]. The second row (b) shows the extra rows added through the wrapping process. A $5\times240$ pixel band is added to the top and bottom of the original image. Additional bands of $5\times20$ pixels are added to the vertical sides of the image (left and right). Note that the horizontal band added to the top of the image represents the bottom of the original image (mask area) and, the horizontal band added to the bottom of the image represents the top of the original image (Figure \[figure\_BSIF\], column (A), row (b)). This implementation directly affects the resulting binarised image since the boundary added creates artificial texture as can be seen in the resulting images in Figure \[figure\_BSIF\], column (A), row (d).
[ccc]{}\
(a) & & \
(b) & & \
(c) & & \
(d) & & \
&(A)&(B)\
&Traditional BSIF Implementation & Proposed MBSIF Implementation\
A alternative way to deal with border effects is to pad the original image with zeros (Or a constant value), reflecting the image at the borders or replicating the first and last row/column as many times as needed
In order to overcome the boundary effect of traditional BSIF implementation a portion of the image is replicated in both directions (top and bottom). Figure \[figure\_BSIF\], column (B), shows the details of this implementation and their effect on binarised images. As can be seen in column (B) row (d), the resulting binarised image follows the pattern of the input masked image. Therefore, there is no extra information artificially added to the iris image. This approach should better represent the information contained in the input images. A new set of filters were obtained by using a novel set of eyes images (instead of natural ones). These images were used to extract patches and to train our modified version of the algorithm (MBSIF). In the experimental section several filters size are tested and compared. Two approaches are implemented, MBSIF and MBSIF histogram.
Gender classification {#classifier}
---------------------
Several classification algorithms are used to test gender information from iris texture images. Those algorithms are: Adaboost M1, LogitBoost, GentleBoost, RobustBoost, LPBoost, TotalBoost and RusBoost. Additionally, a Random Forest classifier with 500 trees, a Gini Index, and a LIBSVM classifier with Gaussian Kernel (RBF) were also used. A comparison of the results obtained with these classifiers is shown in section \[experimentsResults\].
Databases
---------
**GFI-UND:** The GFI-UND database used in this paper contains images taken with an LG 4000 sensor. This dataset is the same used in [@TapiaPerezBowyer2016]. The LG 4000 uses near-infrared illumination and acquires 480x640, 8-bit/pixel images. Examples of iris images are shown in Figure \[pipeline1\]. The GFI-UND iris database was used to train and test a gender classifier.
For each subject (750 males and 750 females, for a total of 3,000 images), one left eye image was selected at random from the set of left eye images, and one right eye image was selected at random from the right eye images. A training portion of the dataset was created by randomly selecting 80% of the males and 80% of the females. A 5-fold cross-validation on this training set is used to select parameters for each classifier. Once the parameter selection was finalised, a classifier was trained on the full 80% of the training data, and a single evaluation was made on 20% of the test data. Experiments are conducted separately for the left iris and the right iris. The masks were set to zero in all images. To the authors’ understanding, the GFI-UND database [@TapiaPerezBowyer2016] is the only dataset created exclusively for gender classification from iris images. It it a person-disjoint set with 1,500 different subjects.
**UNAB-Val:** As an additional contribution, a new gender-labelled database was created. This is a person-disjoint dataset that was captured using an iCAM TD-100 NIR sensor. The iCAM TD-100 uses near-infrared illumination and acquires 480x640 8-bit pixels per image. This set of iris images were obtained over 5 sessions with 66 female and 70 male subjects. Each subject has 5 images per eye. In total 660 female images and 700 male images were captured. This database is to be increased continuously since the capturing process is active as of writing. This database will be available upon request. Additional datasets were requested but unfortunately were not available [@KumarPassi2010; @SunTan2009; @RattaniDerakhshaniSaripalleEtAl2016].
Experiments and results {#experimentsResults}
=======================
Several experiments were performed in order to test the use of MBSIF for gender classification. Figure \[Classifiers\] shows gender classification results when using the left and right eye data set (from GFI-UND database) and 10 different classifiers. In this experiment, the BSIF algorithm was implemented using the standard padding as shown in Figure \[figure\_BSIF\] (A). The best classifiers for both eyes are Adaboost and SVM. Several filter sizes (from 5 $\times$5 up to 13$\times$13) and number of bits from 5 to 12 were used. The best results are shown in Figure \[Classifiers\]. They were achieved when a filter size of 13 $\times$ 13 and 8 bits was used for the left eye images and a filter of 13 $\times$ 13 and 7 bits for the right eye. The maximum classification rate obtained with this implementation (BSIF) was $65\%$ and $67\%$ for the left and right eye respectively.
![\[Classifiers\]Classification rates for the left and right eye when using several classifiers and standard BSIF implementation.](Images/BSIF_2.png "fig:")\
In order to find the best classification rate with our proposed MBSIF algorithm, several filter sizes (5x5, 7x7, 9x9, 11x11, 13x13, 15x15 and 17x17) with a different number of bits (from 5 bits up to 12 bits) were tested. The number of bits represent the number of filters used in the convolution. Experiments using the entire image (all the filter sizes and from 5-12 bit) and using the normalised histogram of images were performed (See Figure \[graficos\]). One of the advantages of using the normalised histogram is that the vector size of each image is smaller. It only depends on the number of bits. For instance, when using 5 bits, the resulting vector has 32 bins, whereas when using 6 bits, the resulting vector has 64 bins and so on. Figure \[graficos\] shows results for the left and right eye images using our proposed implementation of BSIF for both cases: when using the entire image and when using the histogram. In the case of left eye images the best result (94.33%) was obtained with the filter 11x11 and 6 bits. This represents 144 correct identifications out of 150 male images and 140 correct identifications out of 150 female images. A slightly improved result was achieved when using the MBSIF histogram (94.66%). In this case, the best result was obtained with a 11x11 filter and 10 bits (1024 bins). For right eye images the best results when using the proposed MBSIF implementation was $91.66\%$ and it was obtained with a 11x11 filter and 10 bits (2,048 bins). Gender classification results were slightly better when using the MBSIF histogram ( 92.00%). In this case, results represent 140 out of 150 for male and 136 out of 150 for female images.
A summary of the best results obtained from the experiments is shown in Table \[tablafinal\]. The best gender classification rates were achieved when boundaries of the normalised iris texture were replicated (Figure \[figure\_BSIF\](B)) instead of wrapped around (Figure \[figure\_BSIF\](A)). The algorithm was trained using the GFI-UND database and tested using the GFI-UND-Val and UNAB-Val datasets. The difference was only 4% on average with both datasets.
------------- ------------------ -------- ---------- ------------------ ------------------
Method FS NB Database Left-Eye Right-Eye
(%) (%)
BSIF (A) 11$\times$11 12 GFI-UND $61.67$ $67.00$
MBSIF (B) 11$\times$11 6 GFI-UND $94.33$ $91.66$
MBSIF-H (B) **11$\times$11** **10** GFI-UND $\textbf{94.66}$ $\textbf{92.00}$
------------- ------------------ -------- ---------- ------------------ ------------------
: \[tablafinal\]Summary of gender classification rates using BSIF, MBSIF and MBSIF histogram. FS: Filter Size, NB: Number of bits.
------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------
Left Eye Images Right Eye Images
 
(a) (b)
 
(c) (d)
------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------
Conclusions {#conclusiones}
===========
BSIF filters can extract and encode general patterns present in traditional images such as faces or periocular images but when applied to normalised iris images with masks, artificial textures are produced. These artificial textures can affect gender classification rates. Through this paper experiments have shown that special care needs to be taken on boundaries when dealing with BSIF filters.
The patterns detected by traditional BSIF method do not represent the texture of the iris well. Traditional BSIF use thirteen natural images to create the filter patches. The filter created from Eye-Images was more suitable to capture the texture inside the iris. This also allows the gender classification rate to be improved.
Traditional setting of BSIF increases the image size by wrapping the image values. This implementation has an impact on gender classification rates when using masked normalised iris images. Under this setting, gender classification rates of only 61% and 67% were achieved for right and left eye images respectively. In order to overcome the boundary effect of traditional BSIF implementation a portion of the image is replicated in both directions (top and bottom). This implementation improved the gender classification result considerably up to 94% and 92% for left and right eye images respectively. The best results were achieved when the MBSIF histogram was used. There are clear computational advantages to predicting gender from the normalised image rather than computing another different texture representation. This method can be easily included in the same pipeline of recognition systems. The use of the normalised iris can reduced computational cost thanks to the small size of the image. This is particularly important when large amounts of data needs to be processed such as gender classification in highly populated countries (i.e India, china). Experiments were validated using two databases and several classifiers. Gender classification results obtained were competitive with the state of the art. As an additional contribution, a new gender-labelled database was created and will be available to other researchers upon request.
Acknowledgments
===============
This research was partially funded by FONDECYT INICIACION 11170189 and Universidad Andres Bello, DCI.
|
---
abstract: 'An Euclidean first-passage percolation (FPP) model describing the competing growth between $k$ different types of infection is considered. We focus on the long time behavior of this multi-type growth process and we derive multi-type shape results related to its morphology.'
address: |
Institut de Mathématiques\
École Polytechinique Fédérale de Lausanne\
CH-1015 Lausanne\
Switzerland\
author:
- 'Leandro P. R. Pimentel'
title: 'Multi-type shape theorems for FPP models'
---
Introduction {#int}
============
In standard planar first-passage percolation [@HW65] each pair $\x$ and $\y$ of nearest-neighbor of $\bZ^2$ has an edge connecting them and each edge is equipped with a non-negative random variable (passage time) which may be interpreted as the time it takes for an infection to be transmitted from $\x$ to $\y$. We assume these random variables are i.i.d. with a continuous distribution $\bF$. The passage time $t(\gamma)$ for a nearest-neighbor path $\gamma$ is simply the sum of the passage times along the path. For $\x,\y\in\bZ^2$, the first-passage time from $\x$ to $\y$, which we denote $T(\x,\y)$, is the infimum of $t(\gamma)$ over all paths $\gamma$ from $\x$ to $\y$. For $t\geq 0$, let $\B(t)$ be the set of sites $\x$ reached from the origin $\0$ by time $t$, i.e. $T(\0,\x)\leq t$. One may think of sites in $\x\in \B(t)$ as infected and those in $\B(t)^c$ as healthy, and that at time $0$ the origin $\0$ is infected by some type of disease. The process $\big\{\B(t)\,:\,t\geq 0\big\}$ is then a model for the growth of an infection.
An interesting aspect of the evolution of the infection, namely the *tree of infection*, is constructed as follows. First notice that, since the passage time distribution is continuous, for all $\x,\y\in\bZ^2$ there is (almost surely) an unique time-minimizing path (or geodesic) from $\x$ to $\y$, which we denote $\rho(\x,\y)$, such that $T(\x,\y)=t\big(\rho(\x,\y)\big)$. Thus $\rho(\x,\y)$ may be interpreted as the path through which the infection was transmitted from $\0$ to $\x$. With this picture in mind, the tree of infection $\Gamma$ is defined by the union of edges $\e\in\rho(\0,\x)$ over all $\x\in\bZ^2$. Newman [@n95] has shown that the number $K(\Gamma)$ of topological ends of $\Gamma$, i.e. the number of semi-infinite self-avoiding paths in $\Gamma$, is infinite provided an exponential moment condition on $\bF$ and a certain hypothesis concerning the uniformly bounded curvature of the asymptotic shape of $\B(t)$. In spite of the curvature hypothesis is plausible it has so far not been proved.
In order to study the tree of infection, Hägggström and Pemantle [@hp98; @hp99] have introduced a multi-type growth model as follows. At time $0$ we start with $k$ different sites of $\bZ^2$, say $\x_1,\dots,\x_k$, each one representing a different type of infection. A site $\y\in\bZ^2$ is then infected at time $\min\big\{T(\x_1,\y),\dots,T(\x_k,\y)\big\}$ and it is acquired by the infection which first arrives there, i.e. by the unique type $j\in\{1,\dots,k\}$ such that $T(\x_j,\y)=\min\big\{T(\x_1,\y),\dots,T(\x_k,\y)\big\}$ (Figure \[f2\]) . It may happens that at some early stage one of the types of infection completely surrounds another one, which then is prevented to grow indefinitely. If this does not occur, or equivalently, if all types of infection grow unboundedly, we say that $k$-coexistence occurs.
![Growth and Competition[]{data-label="f2"}](tfgrow){width="50.00000%"}
Turning back to the question of topological ends of $\Gamma$, Häggström and Pemantle have noticed that if $k$-coexistence occurs with positive probability then $K(\Gamma)\geq k$ occurs with positive probability. They also have shown that, if one considers an exponential passage time distribution then $2$-coexistence occurs with positive probability, and thus $K(\Gamma)\geq 2$ occurs with positive probability. Later Garet and Marchand [@gm04] and Hoffman [@H05] have extended this last result for stationary and ergodic FPP models on $\bZ^d$.
In this work we focus on the long time behavior of this multi-type growth model. However, differently from the above mentioned authors, we choose a first-passage percolation set-up on a random Delaunay triangulation [@VW90] whose spherical symmetry (isotropy) ensures that the asymptotic shape of the corresponding growth process is an euclidean ball. This choice allows us to prove various statements concerning minimizing paths, such as $\bP\big(K(\Gamma)=\infty\big)=1$, who could mostly only be conjectured by Newman in the standard model. In this setting, the main results we will prove are the following:
- If a type of infection survives then the region it conquers is (asymptotically) a cone with a random angle (Theorem \[t1\], Remark \[rand+strai\]);
- If the $k$ initial sites form a regular polygon centered at the origin with radius $r$, then the probability that $k$ coexistence occurs tends to $1$ when $r$ tends to infinity. Moreover, for all $\epsilon>0$, the probability that for all $j\in\{1,\dots,k\}$ the region conquered by infection $j$ contains (asymptotically) the cone with axis through $\0$ and $\x_j$ and angle $\frac{\pi}{k}-\epsilon$ also tends to $1$ (Theorem \[t2\]).
The main idea to prove our results is to explore the relation between this multi-type growth model and the asymptotic behavior of $T(\x,\y_n)-T(\0,\y_n)$ when $\y_n$ goes to infinity along a ray of angle $\alpha$ (Theorem \[tBuse-1\] and Theorem \[tBuse-2\]). We also study some roughening aspects of the one-dimensional boundary between the infections, namely the *competition interface*, which were pointed out by physicists in numerical simulations [@dd91; @sk95] (Remark \[rand+strai\]). We note that analogous problems in the context of last-passage percolation and totally asymmetric exclusion processes were treated by Ferrari and Pimentel [@fp04-1] and Ferrari, Martin and Pimentel [@fp04-2]. Deijfen, Häggström and Bagley [@dhb03] have also considered isotropic multi-type growth models in $\bR^d$ where the growth is driven by outbursts in the infected region.
Multi-type growth process
-------------------------
Consider the random graph $\calD:=(\calD_v,\calD_e)$, named the *Delaunay triangulation*, constructed as follows. The vertex set $\calD_v\subseteq\bR^2$ is the set of points realized in a two-dimensional homogeneous Poisson point process with intensity $1$. To each vertex $\v$ corresponds an open and bounded polygonal region $\C_\v$ (the Voronoi tile at $\v$) consisting of the set of points of $\bR^2$ which are closer to $\v$ than to any other $\v'\in\calD_v$. The edge set $\calD_e$ consists of non oriented pairs $(\v,\v')$ such that $\C_\v$ and $\C_{\v'}$ share a one-dimensional edge (Figure \[f1\]). One can see that (with probability one) each Voronoi tile is a convex and bounded polygon, and the graph $\calD :=(\calD_v,\calD_e)$ is a triangulation of the plane [@M91].
![The Delaunay triangulation and the Voronoi tessellation[]{data-label="f1"}](vor2){width="30.00000%"}
The *Voronoi tessellation* $\calV:=(\calV_v,\calV_e)$ is defined by taking the vertex set $\calV_v$ equal to the set of vertices of the Voronoi tiles and the edge set $\calV_e$ equals to the set of edges of the Voronoi tiles.
Each edge $\e\in\calD_e$ is independently assigned a nonnegative random variable $\tau_\e$ from a common distribution $\bF$ (the passage time distribution) that is independent of the Poisson process $\calD_v$. We assume throughout that $\bF$ is continuous and that $$\label{a1}
\int e^{ax}\bF(dx)<\infty\,\mbox{ for some }\,a\in(0,\infty)\,.$$ We denote by $(\Omega,\calF,\bP)$ our underline probability space, i.e. from each realization $\omega\in\Omega$ one can determine the Poisson point process as well the passage time configuration. This model inherits the euclidean (translation and rotational) invariance of the Poisson point process.
The passage time $t(\gamma)$ of a path $\gamma$ in $\calD$ is the sum of the passage times of the edges in $\gamma$: $$t(\gamma):=\sum_{\e\in\gamma}\tau_\e \,.$$ The first-passage time between two vertices $\v$ and $\v'$ in $\calD_v$ is defined by $$T(\v,\v'):=\inf\big\{t(\gamma);\,\gamma\in\calC(\v,\v')\big\} ,$$ where $\calC(\v,\v')$ the set of all paths connecting $\v$ to $\v'$. We extend the first-passage time $T$ to $\x,\y\in\bR^2$ by setting $T(\x,\y):=T\big(\v(\x),\v(\y)\big)$, where $\v(\x)$ is the almost sure unique vertex $\v\in\calP$ with $\x\in\C_{\v}$. We say that $\rho(\v,\v')\in\calC(\v,\v')$ is a geodesic between $\v$ and $\v'$ if $t\big(\rho(\v,\v')\big)=T(\v,\v')$. For each $\x,\y\in\bR^2$ we denote $\rho(\x,\y):=\rho\big(\v(\x),\v(\y)\big)$. One can see that if $\bF$ is a continuous function then, almost surely, for all $\v,\v'\in\calD_v$ there exists a unique geodesic $\rho(\v,\v')$ [@p-105]. A self-avoiding and semi-infinite path $\rho=(\v_1,\v_2,\dots)$ in $\calD$ is called a semi-infinite geodesic if for all $\v_j,\v_k\in\rho$, the path $(\v_j,\v_{j+1},...,\v_k)$ is the unique geodesic connecting $\v_j$ to $\v_k$.
Given $k$ different points $\x_1,...,\x_k\in\bR^2$, the initial configuration of seeds, we define the multi-type growth process $\big\{(\B_{\x_1}(t),...,\B_{\x_k}(t))\,:\,t\geq 0\big\}$ by $$\B_{\x_j}(t):=\big\{\x\in\bR^2\,:\,\x\in c(\C_\v)\,\mbox{ for some }\,\v\in\calB_{\x_j}(t)\big\}\,,$$ where $$\calB_{\x_j}(t):=\big\{\v\in\calD_v\,:\,T(\x_j,\v)\leq t\,\mbox{ and }\,\min_{l=1,...,k}\{T(\x_l,\v)\}=T(\x_j,\v)\big\}\,,$$ and $c(\C_\v)$ denotes the closure of the tile $\C_\v$. If there exists $j<l$ such that $\v_{\x_j}=\v_{\x_l}$ then we set $\B_{\x_j}$ as before and $\B_{\x_l}(t)=\emptyset$.
When $k=1$ then we have a single growth process $\B_\x(t)$ which represents the set of points reached by time $t$ from the initial seed $\x$. For a continuous distribution $\bF$ satisfying the following shape theorem [@p-105; @VW92] holds: there exists a constant $\mu(\bF)\in(0,\infty)$, namely the time constant, such that for all $\epsilon>0$ $$\bP\big((1-\epsilon )t \D(1/\mu)\subseteq \B_\0(t)\subseteq (1+\epsilon )t
\D(1/\mu)\mbox{ eventually }\big)=1 \,,$$ where $\D(r):=\{\x\in\bR^2 \,:\, |\x|\leq r\}$ and $\0:=(0,0)$.
When $k\geq2$ the process $\big\{(\B_{\x_1}(t),...,\B_{\x_k}(t))\,:\,t\geq 0\big\}$ is a model for competing growth on the plane where each point $\x\in\bR^2$ is acquired by the specie $j\in\{1,\dots,k\}$ which first arrives there. The competition interface $\psi$ is the one-dimensional boundary between the species when $t=\infty$. This interface can be seen as a finite union of polygonal curves determined by edges in $\calV$ (the Voronoi tessellation) which are shared by tiles in different species. A branch of the competition interface is a self-avoiding path $\varphi=(\x_n)_{n\geq 1}$ in $\calV$ such that $\{\x_n\,:\,n\geq 1\}\subseteq\psi$.
For each $\alpha\in[0,2\pi)$ we say that a self-avoiding path $(\x_{n})_{n\geq 1}$, with vertices in $\bR^2$ and such that $|\x_n|\to\infty$ when $n\to\infty$, is a $\alpha$-path if $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{\x_{n}}{|\x_{n}|}=e^{i\alpha}:=(\cos\alpha,\sin\alpha)\,.$$ In this case we also say that $(\x_n)_\bN$ has the asymptotic orientation $e^{i\alpha}$. This is equivalent to $$\lim_{n\to\infty}ang(\x_{n},e^{i\alpha})=0\,,$$ where $ang(\x,\y)$ denotes the angle in $[0,\pi]$ between the points $\x,\y\in\bR^2$. Thus, a sufficient condition for a path $(\x_{n})_{n\geq 1}$ to be a $\alpha$-path for some $\alpha\in[0,2\pi)$ is, for some fixed $\delta\in(0,1)$ and some constant $c>0$, for sufficiently large $n$ $$ang(\x_{n},\x_m)\leq |\x_n|^{-\delta}\,\mbox{ whenever }m > n\,,$$ which is the so called $\delta$-straightness property for semi-infinite paths introduced by Newman [@n95].
\[t1\] For $k\geq 2$ let $\Omega_k$ be the event that, for the competing growth model with $k$-different species, there exists a finite subset $\Theta:=\{\theta_1,...,\theta_m\}$ of $[0,2\pi)$ such that every branch $\varphi$ of the competition interface is a $\theta(\varphi)$-path for some $\theta\in\Theta$. Under , $\bP\big(\Omega_k\big)=1$.
\[rand+strai\] In Section \[geo\] (part \[pr-rand+strai\]) we will give a sketch of the proof that for all $\alpha\in[0,2\pi)$ $$\bP\big(\theta=\alpha\mbox{ for some }\theta\in\Theta\big)=0\,,$$ and that if $\xi\in(3/4,1)$ then, almost surely, for all branch $\varphi=(\x_{n})_{n\geq 1}$ of the competition interface there is a constant $c>0$ such that $$ang(\x_{n},e^{i\theta(\varphi)})\leq c|\x_n|^{\xi-1}\mbox{ eventually }\,.$$
Let $\x_1(r)=(0,r),\dots,\x_k(r)$ be the vertices of a regular polygon with $k$ sides and radius $r$. For each $j=1,...,k$ define the projection of the random set $\B_{j}^r:=\B_{\x_j(r)}(\infty)$ onto $\S^1$, the set of unit vectors $|\x|=1$, by $$\S_{j,r}:=\{\x = e^{i\alpha}\in \S^{1}\,:\,\bL_{s\x}(\alpha)\subseteq \B_{j}^{r}\,\mbox{ for some }\,s>0\}\,,$$ where $\bL_\x(\alpha)$ denotes the line starting from $\x$ and with direction $e^{i\alpha}$. For each $\epsilon\in (0,\pi/k)$ and $j\in\{1,\dots,k\}$ define $$\S_{j}(\epsilon):=\{\x\in\S^1\,:\, ang(\x,\x_j(r))\leq \frac{\pi}{k}-\epsilon\}\,.$$
\[t2\] Let $k\geq 2$. Under , for all $\epsilon>0$ $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\bP\big(\S_{j}(\epsilon)\subseteq \S_{j,n}\,\emph{ for all $j=1,\dots,k$ }\big)=1\,.$$
Busemann type asymptotics and the competition interface
-------------------------------------------------------
To illustrate the approach we follow in this work to study the competition interface assume that $k=2$. Consider the line $\bL_\0(\alpha)$ starting from the origin $\0$ and with direction $e^{i\alpha}$. Then we have three possibilities: i) either it intersets the competition interface infinitely many times; ii) or it is eventually contained in $\B_{\x_1}(\infty)$; iii) or it is eventually contained in $\B_{\x_2}(\infty)$. Notice that the former implies $$\liminf_{s\to\infty}\big(T(\x_{1},se^{i\alpha})-T(\x_{2} ,se^{i\alpha})\big)\leq
0\leq\limsup_{s\to\infty}\big(T(\x_{1},se^{i\alpha})-T(\x_{2},se^{i\alpha})\big)\,,$$ while the second implies $$\limsup_{s\to\infty}\big(T(\x_{1},se^{i\alpha})-T(\x_{2} ,se^{i\alpha})\big)\leq 0\,,$$ and the third implies $$0\leq \liminf_{s\to\infty}\big(T(\x_{1},se^{i\alpha})-T(\x_{2} ,se^{i\alpha})\big)\,.$$ It turns out that the above expressions resemble Busemann type asymptotics for $T$ (see Ballmann [@b95] for more details on this subject). Newman [@n95; @ln96] has shown for the lattice model that, under suitable assumptions on the curvature of the limit shape, $T(\x_1,\y_n)-T(\x_2,\y_n)$ attains eventually a nonzero value $H^{\alpha}(\x_1,\x_2)$, called the Busemann function. By following his method, and by taking profit of the isotropy in our model, we will show[^1]:
\[tBuse-1\] For $\alpha\in[0,2\pi)$ let $\Omega_0(\alpha)$ be the event that for all $\v,\bar{\v}\in\calD_v$, there exists $H^{\alpha}(\v,\bar{\v})$, nonzero for $\v\neq\bar{\v}$, such that $$\label{eBuse-1}
\lim_{{|\x|\to\infty}\atop{\x/|\x|\to e^{i\alpha}}}\big(T(\v,\x)-T(\bar{\v},\x)\big)=H^{\alpha}(\v,\bar{\v})\,.$$ Under , $\bP\big(\Omega_0(\alpha)\big)=1$.
For $\x ,\y\in\bR^2$ we set $H^\alpha(\x,\y):=H^\alpha\big(\v(\x),\v(\y)\big)$. It was conjectured by Howard and Newman [@hn01] that $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{H^{\alpha}(n\vec{e}_1,\0)}{n}=-\mu(\bF)\cos\alpha\,,$$ where $\vec{e}_1:=(1,0)$. This observation is related to the asymptotic behavior of our multi-type growth model and the key result to show Theorem \[t2\] is the following theorem, which is a small step towards the above conjecture.
\[tBuse-2\] For $\alpha\in[0,\pi/2)$ let $\Omega_1(\alpha)\subseteq\Omega_0(\alpha)$ be the event that $$\label{eBuse-2}
-\mu(\bF)\leq \lim\inf_{n\to\infty}\frac{H^{\alpha}(n\vec{e}_{1},\0)}{n}\leq \limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac{H^{\alpha}(n\vec{e}_{1},\0)}{n}\leq -\mu(\bF)\frac{\cos\alpha}{1+\sin\alpha}\,.$$ Under , $\bP\big(\Omega_1(\alpha)\big)=1$. In particular, with probability one, $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{H^{0}(n\vec{e}_{1},\0)}{n}=-\mu(\bF)\,.$$
Overview {#overview .unnumbered}
--------
In Section \[multi\] we will deduce Theorem \[t1\] and Theorem \[t2\] from Theorem \[tBuse-1\] and Theorem \[tBuse-2\]. In Section \[pre\] we will start by defining the probability space where our model takes place and we will show a modification lemma that will play an important rule in the study of coalescence of semi-infinite geodesics. After that we will study some geometrical aspects of Voronoi tilings. We note that in the Delaunay triangulation context some technical difficulties are imposed by its long range dependence. Some of them will be avoided by making references to results of a previous work of the author [@p-105; @p-205]. In the third part we will recall some geometrical lemmas concerning the $\delta$-straightness of semi-infinite paths. Finally, in Section \[geo\] will study existence and coalescence of semi-infinite geodesics to show Theorem \[tBuse-1\] and Theorem \[tBuse-2\]. It will largely parallel the analog study develop by Newman et al [@hn01; @ln96; @n95; @np95] in the lattice and in the Euclidean FPP models.
Proof of the multi-type shape theorems {#multi}
======================================
For each $j=1,...,k$, let $\S_{j}$ denote the set of unit vectors $e^{i\beta}$ such that $\bL_{se^{i\beta}}(\beta)\subseteq \B_{\x_j}(\infty)$ for some $s>0$ and let $$\S_{0}:=(\cup_{j=1}^{l}\S_{j})^{c}\,.$$ Let $$\D_n:=\{e^{i\beta}\,:\,\beta=2k\pi/2^{n}\mbox{ for some }1\leq k\leq 2^{n}\}\,$$ and $\D:=\cup_{n\geq 1}\D_n$. Consider the event $\cap_{\alpha\in\D}\Omega_0(\alpha)$ that for all $\alpha\in\D$ and $\v,\bar{\v}\in\calD_v$ there exists $H^{\alpha}(\v,\bar{\v})$, nonzero for $\v\neq\bar{\v}$, such that $$\lim_{{|\x|\to\infty}\atop{\x/|\x|\to e^{i\alpha}}}\big(T(\v,\x)-T(\bar{\v},\x)\big)=H^{\alpha}(\v,\bar{\v})\,.$$ By Theorem \[tBuse-1\], $\bP\big(\cap_{\alpha\in\D}\Omega_0(\alpha)\big)=1$.
We claim that, on this event, every branch of the competition interface is an $\theta$-path for some $\theta\in[0,2\pi)$. To see this, notice that if $e^{i\alpha}\in \S_{0}$ then for some $j_1 \ne j_2$, $\bL_{\0}(\alpha)$ intersects infinitely many times the region $\B_{\x_{j_1}}(\infty)$ and the region $\B_{\x_{j_2}}$. Thus $$\liminf_{s\to\infty}\big(T(\x_{j_1},se^{i\alpha})-T(\x_{j_2} ,se^{i\alpha})\big)\leq
0\leq\limsup_{s\to\infty}\big(T(\x_{j_1},se^{i\alpha})-T(\x_{j_2},se^{i\alpha})\big)\,,$$ which implies that $\D\cap\S_0=\emptyset$. Let $\C_k^n$ be the cone consisting of points $re^{i\beta}$ such that $r>0$ and $\beta\in(2\pi k/2^n,2\pi(k+1)/2^n)$. Now, if $\D\cap\S_0=\emptyset$ and $e^{i\beta}\in\D$ then every branch $\varphi$ of the competition interface can not intersect infinitely many times the line $\bL_{\0}(\beta)$. So, for each branch $\varphi$ of the competition interface we can find a sequence of cones $(\C^{n}_{k_{n}})_{n\geq1}$, with $n\to\infty$ and $\C^{n+1}_{k_{n+1}}\subseteq \C^{n}_{k_{n}}$, such that $\varphi$ is eventually contained in $C^{n}_{k_{n}}$. This implies that $\varphi$ must be a $\theta$-path for some $\theta\in[0,2\pi)$.
Since $$\bP\big(\S_{j}(\epsilon)\subseteq \S^{r}_{j}\big)=\bP\big(\S_{1}(\epsilon)\subseteq \S^{r}_{1}\big)$$ for all $j=1,...,k$, we only need to prove that $$\label{e1kshape}
\lim_{r\to\infty}\bP\big(\S_{1}(\epsilon)\subseteq \S^{r}_{1}\big)=1\,.$$ To do so, for each $j=1,\dots,k$ let $\alpha^k_j:=\pi(j-1)/k$, $\vec{e}^k_j:=e^{2i\alpha^k_j}$ and $A_{r}:=\cap_{j=1}^{k} A^{j}_{r}$, where $$A_{r}^{j}:= \cap_{l\ne j}\big[H^{\alpha^k_j}(r\vec{e}^k_l,r\vec{e}^k_j)>0\big]\,.$$ Let $\alpha^{+\epsilon}_{k}:=\frac{\pi}{k}-\epsilon$ and $\alpha^{-\epsilon}_{k}:= (2\pi-\frac{\pi}{k})+\epsilon$ and set $$B_{r}(\epsilon):=\cap_{j=2,\dots,k}\big[H^{\alpha^{+\epsilon}_{k}}(r\vec{e}^k_j,r\vec{e}^k_1)>0\mbox{ and }H^{\alpha^{-\epsilon}_{k}}(r\vec{e}^k_j,r\vec{e}^k_1)>0\big]\,.$$ By Theorem \[tBuse-2\] $$\label{e2kshape}
\lim_{r\to\infty}\bP\big(A_{r}\cap B_r(\epsilon)\big)=1\,.$$ The connectivity of the regions $\B_j^r$ yields that, on $A_r\cap B_r(\epsilon)$, $\S_1(\epsilon)\subseteq \S_1^r$. Together with , this yields and the proof of Theorem \[t2\] is complete.
Auxiliary results {#pre}
=================
The probability space {#pre-ps}
---------------------
During the subsequent proofs we will consider the following construction of $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},\bP)$, the underline probability space of our FPP model. Let $\u_{0}=(0,0),\u_{2},\dots$ be a ordering of $\bZ^{2}$ and for each $k\geq 1$ let $$\B_{k}:=\u_{k}+[-1/2,1/2]^{2}\,.$$ Consider $$\calN=\{N_{k}\,:\, k\geq 1\},$$ a collection of i.i.d. Poisson random variables with intensity $1$; $$\calU_k=\{U_{k,l}\,:\, l\geq 1\},$$ a collection of independent random points in the plane so that $U_{k,l}$ has an uniform distribution in the square box $B_{k}$; $$\calT_k=\{\tau_{k,l}^{m,n}\,:\, l\geq 1,m\geq k,n\geq 1\mbox{ and }n>l\mbox{
whenever }k=m\},$$ a collection of i.i.d. non negative random variables with common distribution $\bF$ (the passage time distribution). We also impose that all these collections are independent of each other.
To determine the vertex set $\calD_v=\calP$, at each square box $\B_{k}$ we put $N_{k}$ points given by $U_{k,1},...,U_{k,N_{k}}$. This procedure determines a Poisson point process $\calP$ from the collections $\calN$ and $\calU_k$ with $k\geq 1$. Given $\e\in\calD_e$ we know that there exist an unique pair $(U_{k,l},U_{m,n})$, where either $m>k$ or $m=k$ and $n>l$, so that $\e=(U_{k,l},U_{m,n})$. Set $\tau_{e}=\tau_{k,l}^{m,n}$.
For each $k\geq 1$ denote by $(\Omega^{k},\mathcal{F}^{k},\bP^{k})$ the probability induced by the random variable $N_k$ and the collections $\calU_k$, $\calT_k$. The probability space $(\Omega,\calF,\bP)$ is defined to be the product space of $(\Omega^{k},\calF^k,\bP^{k})$ over $k\geq 1$.
An important step in the construction of the Busemann function is the proof of the coalescence behavior of semi-infinite geodesics with the same asymptotic orientation. In this proof, we will use the following modification lemma. Let $\mathnormal{K}$ be the collection of all finite sequences $$\label{E:prescription}
I=\big((k_{j},l_{j},m_{j},n_{j})\big)_{j=1,...,q}\in(\bN^{4})^{q}$$ where $q\geq 1$, $(k_{j},l_{j},m_{j},n_{j})\ne(k_{i},l_{i},m_{i},n_{i})$ for $j\ne i$, $k_{1}\leq...\leq k_{q}$, and either $ k_{j}< m_{j}$ or $l_{j}<n_{j}$. To each $I\in\mathnormal{K}$ corresponds a random vector $(\tau_{k_{j},l_{j}}^{m_{j},n_{j}})_{j=1,...,q}$. We denote $(\Omega_{I},\calF_{I},\bP_{I})$ the probability space induced by this random vector. Let $$\hat{\Omega}_{I}:=\{\hat{\omega}_{I}\,:\,\exists\,\omega_{I}\in\Omega_{I}\mbox{ with }(\hat{\omega}_{I},\omega_{I})\in\Omega\}$$ and denote by $\hat{\bP}_I$ the probability law $\bP$ restricted to this subset. For each $I\subseteq\mathnormal{K}$, $A\subseteq\Omega$ and $\omega_{1}\in\hat{\Omega}_{I}$ define $$A_{I,\omega_{1}}:=\{\omega_{2}\in\Omega_{I}\,:\,\omega=(\omega_{1},\omega_{2})\in A\}\,.$$ Let $\{R_{I}\,:\,I\in\mathnormal{K}\}$ be a family of events $R_{I}\in\calF_{I}$ such that $\bP_{I}(R_{I})>0$ for all $I$. Then define the map on $\calF$ by $$\Phi_{I}(A):=\{\omega_{1}\in\hat{\Omega}_{I}\,:\,\bP_{I}(A_{I,\omega_{1}})>0\}\times R_{I}.$$ Suppose that $W(\omega)$ is a random element of $\mathnormal{K}$, which may be interpreted as the set of indexes (edges) whose passage time value will be modified. For $A\subseteq\Omega$, let $$\tilde{\Phi}(A):=\cup_{I\in\mathnormal{K}}\big[\{\omega_{1}\in\hat{\Omega}_{I}\,:\,A(I)_{I,\omega_{1}}\ne\emptyset\}\times R_{I}\big],$$ where $A(I):=A\cap [W=I]$.
\[lmodif\] For each $A\in\calF$, $\tilde{\Phi}(A)$ contains $\Phi(A)\in\calF$ defined as the following union $$\Phi(A):=\cup_{I\in\mathnormal{K}}\Phi_{I}\big(A(I)\big).$$ Furthermore, if $\bP(A)>0$ then $\bP\big(\Phi(A)\big)>0$.
If $\bP_{I}\big(A(I)_{I,w_{1}}\big)>0$ then $A(I)_{I,w_{1}}\ne\emptyset$ and so $\Phi(A)\subseteq\tilde{\Phi(A)}$. Since $\mathnormal{K}$ is countable and $A=\cup_{I\in\mathnormal{K}}A(I)$, if $\bP(A)>0$ then there exists $I\in\mathnormal{K}$ such that $\bP\big(A(I)\big)>0$. For this $I$, by Fubini’s theorem $$\label{emodi2}
0<\bP\big(A(I)\big)=\int_{\hat{\Omega}_{I}}\bP_{I}\big(A(I)_{I,w_{1}}\big)\hat{\bP}_{I}(dw_{1}).$$ Let $$\hat{A}_{I}:=\{ w_{1}\,:\,\bP_{I}\big(A(I)_{I,w_{1}}\big)>0\}\,.$$ By , $\hat{\bP}_{I}\big(\hat{A}_{I}\big)>0$. According to the definition of $\Phi_{I}$, $$\bP\Big(\Phi_{I}\big(A(I)\big)\Big)=\hat{\bP}_{I}(\hat{A}_{I})\bP_{I}(R_{I})>0\,.$$ Since $\Phi_{I}\big(A(I)\big)\subseteq\Phi(A)$, we conclude that $\bP\big(\Phi(A)\big)>0$.
Some geometrical aspects of Delaunay triangulations {#pre-geom}
---------------------------------------------------
In this part we are going to study some geometrical aspects of Delaunay triangulations. Let $\x,\y\in\bR^2$ and construct a path $\gamma(\x,\y):=(\v_1,...,\v_{k})$ in $\calD$ connecting $\v(\x)$ to $\v(\y)$ as follows: set $\v_1:=\v(\x)$; if $\v_1\neq\v(\y)$ let $\v_{2}$ be the (almost-surely) unique nearest neighbor of $\v_1$ such that the edge of $\C_{\v_1}$ that is perpendicular to the line segment $[\v_1,\v_2]$ cross $[\x,\y]$; given $\v_l$ with $l\geq 1$, if $\v_{l}\neq\v(\y)$ then we set $\v_{l+1}$ to be the (almost-surely) unique nearest neighbor of $\v_l$, different from $\v_{l-1}$, such that the edge of $\C_{\v_l}$ that is perpendicular to $[\v_l,\v_{l+1}]$ cross $[\x,\y]$; otherwise we set $k:=l$ and the construction is finished. We denote $|\gamma(\0,n\vec{e}_1)|$ the number of edges in $\gamma(\0,n\vec{e}_1)$.
For $\z\in\bR^2$ and $L>0$ let $$\B_\z^{L}:=L\z+[-L/2,L/2]\,$$ For $n>0$ consider the set $\calE_n$ composed of edges $(\v,\bar{\v})\in\calD_e$ with $\C_\v\cap\B_\z^{1}\neq\emptyset$ or $\C_{\bar\v}\cap\B_\z^{1}\neq\emptyset$ for some $\z\in[\0,n\vec{e}_1]$. We denote $|\calE_n|$ the number of edges in $\calE_n$.
\[lgraph2\] There exists constants $z_j,c_j>0$ such that for all $n\geq 1$, $$\label{egraph2*}
\bP\big(|\gamma(\0,n\vec{e}_1)|\geq z n\big)\leq e^{-c_1 zn}\,\mbox{ whenever }z\geq z_0\,,$$ and $$\label{egraph3*}
\bP\big(|\calE_n|\geq z n\big)\leq e^{-c_2 zn}\,\mbox{ whenever }z\geq z_1\,.$$
The proof of this lemma is performed through renormalization ideas developed in [@p-205]. To avoid some repetitions we give a sketch of the proof and leave the details to the reader, which can be filled by following the arguments in the proof of Proposition 2.2 in [@p-205] (which is exactly the proof in ).
For $\z\in\bZ^2$ and $L>0$ divide a square box $\B_\z^{L}$ into thirty-six sub boxes of the same length, say $\B_1,\dots,\B_{36}$. We stipulate $\B$ is a full box if all those thirty-six sub boxes have at least one Poissonian point (Figure \[ffull\]).
![Renormalization: a full box[]{data-label="ffull"}](full){width="20.00000%"}
We say that $\Lambda:=(\B_{\z_1}^{L},\dots,\B_{\z_k}^{L})$ is a circuit of boxes if $(\z_1,\dots,\z_k)$ is a circuit in $\bZ^2$ (in the usual sense). Let $\lambda$ be the closed polygonal path composed by the line segments connecting $L\z_j$ to $L\z_{j+1}$, where $j=1,\dots,k-1$, together with $[\z_k,\z_1]$. To each circuit $\Lambda$ we associate two subsets of the plane: $\Lambda^{in}$ denotes the interior of the bounded component of $\bR^2\backslash\cup_{j=1}^k\B_{\z_j}^{L}$ while $\lambda^{in}$ will denote the interior of the bounded component of $\bR^2\backslash\lambda$. Now, assume that $\Lambda:=(\B_{\z_j}^{L})_{j=1}^k$ is a circuit composed by full boxes. By Lemma 2.1 in [@p-205], we have the following geometrical property: if $\C_{\v}\cap \Lambda^{in}\neq\emptyset$ then $\C_{\v}\subseteq \lambda^{in}$. One important consequence of this is that the set of vertices used by $\gamma(\0,n\vec{e}_1)$ or by $\calE_n$ are both contained in the region $\R_n$ limited by the smallest circuit of full boxes surrounding the line segment $[\0,n\vec{e}_1]$. Therefore to show Lemma \[lgraph2\] is enough to prove the analog decay for the number of Poissonian points in $\R_n$ [^2].
Notice that, since each box is full independently of each other and the probability that it occurs goes to $1$ when $L$ goes to infinity, for a fixed large $L_0>0$, the probability that $\R_n$ contains more than $zn$ boxes decays as $e^{-czn}$ (see for instance Grimmet [@G99]).
Now, the number of points in $\R_n$, say $R_n$, is the sum of independent Poisonian random variables. This is less or equal to $M_m$, the maximum of the number of points in $\R$ over all connected regions $\R$ intersecting at most $m$ boxes the origin $\0$. Thus, on the event that $\R_n$ contains less than $zn$ boxes, we have $R_n\leq M_{zn}$. On the other hand, $M_m$ can be seen as a Greedy lattice animal model and for such a model we can also show, for large $\bar{c}>0$, that the probability that $M_{m}\geq \bar{c}m$ decays as $e^{-cm}$ (Lemma 2.3 of [@p-205]).
By cooking together the arguments in these two last paragraphs one obtains that the probability that the number of points in $\R_n$ is greater than $zn$ also decays as $e^{-czn}$, for some constant $c>0$ and sufficiently large $z$.
Let $T_\calD$ denote the graph metric on $\calD$, i.e. for $\v,\bar{\v}\in\calD_v$, $T_\calD(\v,\bar{\v})$ is the minimum number of edges that one path should pass to go from $\v$ to $\bar{\v}$. Notice that $T_\calD(\v,\bar{\v})$ is the first-passage time between $\v$ and $\bar{\v}$ if one associates to each edge $\e$ the passage time value $1$. For each $\A,\B\subseteq\bR^2$ we set $T_\calD(\A,\B)$ to be the minimum of $T_\calD(\v,\tilde{\v})$ over all pairs $\v$ and $\tilde{\v}$ such that $\C_\v\cap\A\neq\emptyset$ and $\C_{\tilde{\v}}\cap\B\neq\emptyset$. By the shape theorem, we have:
\[lgraph1\] There exists $\nu\in(0,\infty)$ such that almost surely $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{T_\calD(\A,ne^{i\alpha}+\B)}{n}=\nu\,.$$
We notice that $\nu$ does not depend either on $\A$ and $\B$ or on $\alpha\in[0,2\pi)$. One can also see that, if we denote $\lambda=\lambda(\bF)$ the supremum of the support of $\bF$ then $$\mu(\bF)\leq \bE(\tau_e)\nu <\lambda\nu\,$$ (one must assume that $\bF$ is not concentrate in one point, which is the case since $\bF$ is continuous).
We shall also use the following lemma, which is (5.2) of Lemma 5.2 in [@hn01]:
\[5.2\] For $\xi\in (0,1)$ and $r>0$ let $A_{\xi,r}$ be the event that there exists $\x\in\bR^2$ with $|\x|\leq 2r$ and $|\x-\v(\x)|\geq r^\xi$. Then, for some constant $c_1>0$, $$\bP\big(A_{\xi,r}\big)\leq c_1 e^{-r^{2\xi}}$$
$\delta$-straightness of semi-infinite paths {#pre-del}
--------------------------------------------
Recall that for $\alpha\in[0,2\pi)$ we have defined that a self-avoiding path $(\x_{n})_{n\geq 1}$, with vertices in $\bR^2$ and such that $|\x_n|\to\infty$ when $n\to\infty$, is a $\alpha$-path if $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{\x_{n}}{|\x_{n}|}=e^{i\alpha}:=(\cos\alpha,\sin\alpha)\,,$$ and that a sufficient condition for a path $(\x_{n})_{n\geq 1}$ to be a $\alpha$-path for some $\alpha\in[0,2\pi)$ is that, for some fixed $\delta\in(0,1)$ and $c>0$, and for large enough $n$ $$ang(\x_{n},\x_m)\leq |\x_n|^{-\delta}\,\mbox{ whenever }m>n$$ ($\delta$-straightness). A sufficient condition for $\delta$-straightness is given by the next lemma, which is exactly Lemma 2.7 in [@hn01]:
\[hn-101\] If $(\x_n)_\bN$ is a sequence of points in $\bR^2$ with $|\x_n|\to\infty$ when $n\to\infty$, and such that for all large $n$ $$|\x_{n+1}-\x_n|\leq |\x_n|^{1-\delta}\mbox{ and }d(\x_n,[\x_1,\x_m])\leq |\x_m|^{1-\delta}\mbox{ for }m>n\,,$$ then there exist a contant $c>0$ such that for all $n$ sufficiently large, $$\label{eang}
ang(\x_n,\x_m)\leq c|\x_n|^{-\delta}\,\mbox{ whenever }m>n\,.$$
We also consider the $\delta$-straightness property for trees (we have the tree of infection in mind) as follows. For $\epsilon\in[0,\pi)$ let $$\C(\x,\epsilon):=\{\y\in\bR^{2}\backslash\{0\}\,:\,ang(\y,\x)\leq\epsilon\}\,.$$ If $\calT$ is a tree embedded in $\bR^{2}$, for each pair $\v,\tilde{\v}\in\calT$ let $\calR_{out}(v,\tilde{v})$ be the set of all $\hat{\v}\in\calT$ such that the unique path in $\calT$ connecting $\v$ to $\hat{\v}$ touches $\tilde{\v}$. For $\delta\in(0,1)$, define that $\calT$ is $\delta$-straight at $\v$ if, for all but finitely many $\tilde{\v}\in\calT$, $$\calR_{out}(\v,\tilde{\v})\subseteq \:\v+C(\tilde{\v}-\v,c|\tilde{\v}-\v|^{-\delta})\,.$$ We say that a subset $\calP$ of $\bR^2$ is omnidirectional if, for all $M>0$, the set composed of unit vectors $\v/|\v|$ with $\v\in\calP$ and $|\v|>M$ is dense in $\S^1$. The above lemma, which is Proposition 2.8 in [@hn01], states that $\delta$-straightness implies existence of an asymptotic orientation:
\[hn-201\] Assume that $\calT$ is a tree embedded in $\bR^2$, whose vertex set is locally finite but omnidirectional, and such that every vertex has finite degree. Assume further that for some vertex $\v$, $\calT$ is $\delta$-straight at $\v$. Then $\calT$ satisfies the following:
1. Every semi-infinite path in $\calT$ starting from $\v$ has an asymptotic orientation;\
2. For every $\alpha\in[0,2\pi)$ there exist at least one semi-infinite path in $\calT$ starting at $\v$ and with asymptotic orientation $e^{i\alpha}$.
3. Every semi-infinite path $(\v_n)_{n\geq 1}$ in $\calT$ starting from $\v$ is $\delta$-straight about its asymptotic orientation $e^{i\alpha}$, i.e. $ang(\v_n,e^{i\alpha})<c|\v_n|^{-\delta}$ eventually.
Semi-infinite geodesics and the Busemann function {#geo}
=================================================
Semi-infinite geodesics: existence
----------------------------------
Recall that a path $\rho=(\v_1,\v_2,\dots)$ in $\calD$ is a semi-infinite geodesic if for all $\v_j,\v_k\in\rho$, the path $(\v_j,\v_{j+1},...,\v_k)$ is the unique geodesic connecting $\v_j$ to $\v_k$. Semi-infinite geodesics starting from $\v\in\calD_v$ and with asymptotic orientation $e^{i\alpha}$ are denoted $\rho_{\v}(\alpha)$.
\[pexis\] Let $\Omega_2$ be the event that for all semi-infinite geodesic $\rho$ there exists $\alpha=\alpha(\rho )\in [0,2\pi)$ such that $\rho$ is a $\alpha$-path, and that for all $\alpha\in[0,2\pi)$ and for all $\v\in\calD_v$ there exists at least one geodesic starting from $\v$ and with asymptotic orientation $e^{i\alpha}$. Under , $\bP(\Omega_2)=1$.
The first step to show the existence of semi-infinite geodesics and its convergence is the following result on the fluctuations of $T$, which is exactly Corollary 1.1 in [@p-205]:
\[l2\] Under , for all $\kappa\in(1/2,1)$ there exist constants $\delta,c_j>0$ such that for all $r\geq 1$ and $s\in [c_1 (\log r)^{1/\delta},c_2 r^{\kappa}]$ $$\bP\big(|T(\0,r\vec{e}_1)-\mu r|\geq sr^{\kappa}\big)\leq e^{-c_3 s^{\delta}}\,.$$
The second step is to parallel Newman and Piza [@np95] to prove that the control of the fluctuations of $T$ can give the control of the fluctuations of a minimizing path connecting $\0$ to $r\vec{e}_1$ about the line segment $[\0,r\vec{e}_1]$. Precisely, for $\xi\in (0,1)$ let $$\C_r^\xi:=\{\x\in\bR^2\,:\,d(\x,[\0,r\vec{e}_1])\leq r^\xi\}\,,$$ where $[\x,\y]$ denotes the line segment connecting $\x$ to $\y$ and $d(\x,\A)$ denotes the euclidean distance between $\x$ and $\A\subseteq\bR^2$.
\[l1\] For all $\xi\in(3/4,1)$ there exist constants $c,\delta>0$ such that for all $r\geq 1$ $$\bP\big(\rho(\0,r\vec{e}_1)\not\subseteq\C_r^\xi\big)\leq e^{-cr^\delta}\,.$$
Let $\kappa\in(1/2,1)$, $\tilde{\kappa}\in(\kappa,1)$ and set $\xi\:=(\tilde{\kappa}+1)/2$. Let $$\C^{1,\xi}_{r}:=\{\x\in\bR^{2}\backslash \C^{\xi}_{r}\,:\, d(\x,\C^{\xi}_{r})<r^{\xi}\}\,.$$ Denote by $F_{r}$ the event defined by the following properties:
- $\v_{\0},\v_{r\vec{e}_1}\in \C_r^{\xi}$
- for all edges $\e=(\v,\tilde{\v})$ with $|\v|\leq 2r$ or $|\tilde{\v}|\leq 2r$ we have that $|\v-\tilde{\v}|\leq r^{\xi}$.
Notice that $F_r^c\subseteq A_{\xi,r/3}$ (as in Lemma \[5.2\]), and thus $$\label{HN1}
\bP\big(F_r^c\big)\leq c_1e^{-(r/3)^{2\xi}}\,.$$
For each $\z\in\bZ^2$ consider the random variable $$T_{\z}:=\max_{|\v-\z|\leq 1}\{T(\z,\v)\}\,.$$ We claim that, under , for some constants $c_2,c_3>0$ $$\label{e7t3}
\bP(T_{\z}\geq r^{\kappa})=\bP\big(T_{\0}\geq r^{\kappa}\big)\leq c_2e^{-c_3r^{\kappa}}\,.$$ To see this, notice that $T_\0\leq \sum_{\e\in\calE_1}\tau_\e$, where $\calE_1$ is the set of edges $\e=(\v,\bar{\v})$ in $\calD_e$ with $\C_{\v}\cap \B_{\0}^1\neq\emptyset$ or $\C_{\bar{\v}}\cap \B_{\0}^1\neq\emptyset$. By Lemma \[lgraph2\], $\bE\big(\exp(a|\calE_1|)\big)< \infty$ for some $a>0$. Combining this with assumption and the independence between the Poisson point process and the passage time distribution, one obtains .
Now, $$\big[\rho(\0,r\vec{e}_1)\not\subseteq\C_r^\xi\big]\cap F_{r}\subseteq$$ $$\label{e1t3}
\big[\exists v\in\calD_v\cap \C_{r}^{1,\xi}\,:\, T(0,\v)+T(\v,r\vec{e}_1)=T(0,r\vec{e}_1)\big]\subseteq A(r)\,,$$ where $$A(r):=\big[\exists \z\in\bZ^{2}\cap \C_{r}^{1,\xi}\,:\, T(\0,\z)+T(\z,r\vec{e}_1)\leq T(\0,r\vec{e}_1)+2T_{\z}\big]\,.$$ Let $$\Delta(\z,r\vec{e}_1):= \mu|\z-r\vec{e}_1|+\mu|\z|-\mu|r\vec{e}_1|\,.$$ Thus $$T(\0,\z)+T(\z,r\vec{e}_1)\leq T(\0,r\vec{e}_1)+2T_{\z}$$ if and only if, $$\Delta(\z,r\vec{e}_1)\leq \big(T(\0,r\vec{e}_1)-\mu r\big)+\big(\mu|\z|-T(\0,\z)\big)+$$ $$\big(\mu|\z-r\vec{e}_1|-T(\z,r\vec{e}_1)\big)+2T_{\z}\,.$$ This implies that $A(r)\subseteq\cup_{j=0}^{3}A_{j}(r)$, where $$A_{0}(r):=\big[\exists \z\in\bZ^{2}\cap \C_{r}^{1,\xi}\,:\,T_{\z}\geq \frac{\Delta(\z,r\vec{e}_1)}{8}\big]\,,$$ $$A_{1}(r):=\big[\exists \z\in\bZ^{2}\cap \C_{r}^{1,\xi}\,:\,|T(\z,r\vec{e}_1)-\mu|\z-r\vec{e}_1||\geq \frac{\Delta(\z,r\vec{e}_1)}{4}\big]\,,$$ $$A_{2}(r):=\big[\exists \z\in\bZ^{2}\cap \C_{r}^{1,\xi}\,:\,|T(\0,\z)-\mu|\z||\geq\frac{\Delta(\z,r\vec{e}_1)}{4}\big]\,,$$ $$A_{3}(r):=\big[\exists \z\in\bZ^{2}\cap \C_{r}^{1,\xi}\,:\,|T(\0,r\vec{e}_1)-\mu|r\vec{e}_1||\geq\frac{\Delta(\z,r\vec{e}_1)}{4}\big]\,.$$ Combining this with one gets that $$\label{e3t3}
\bP\big(\rho(\0,r\vec{e}_1)\not\subseteq\C_r^\xi\big)\leq \bP\big(F_{r}^{c}\big)+ \sum_{j=0}^{3}\bP\big(A_{j}(r)\big)\,.$$
Notice there exist constants $b_{1},b_{2}>0$ such that for sufficiently large $r>0$ and $\z\in\bZ^{2}\cap \C_{r}^{1,\xi}$ we have that $$\label{e4*t3}
b_{1}r^{\tilde{\kappa}}=b_{1}r^{2\xi-1}\leq \Delta(\z,r\vec{e}_1)\leq b_{2}r^{\xi}=b_{2}r^{\frac{\tilde{\kappa}+1}{2}}\,,$$ and $$\label{e4t3}
r^{\xi}\leq |\z|,|\z-r\vec{e}_1|\leq 2r\,.$$
Together with Lemma , and yield that for some constant $c_1 >0$ $$\label{e5t3}
\bP\big(A_{j}(r)\big)\leq e^{-c_{1}r^{\delta}}\,.$$ Combining with , , and one can finish the proof of this lemma.
For $\v\in\calD_v$ let $\calT_{\v}$ be the union over all $\tilde{\v}\in \calD_v$ of the unique geodesic between $\v$ and $\tilde{\v}$ (the tree of infection at $\v$). Therefore, $\calT_{\v}$ is a tree spanning all $\calD_v$. Thus, the third step is to use Lemma \[l1\] and the concept of *$\delta$-straightness* for trees discussed before.
Combining Lemma \[l1\] and Lemma \[5.2\] with the Borel-Cantelli’s lemma, one has that for all $\delta=1-\xi\in(0,1/4)$, almost surely, the assumptions of Lemma \[hn-101\] hold for all semi-infinite path (geodesic) $(\v_n)_{n\geq 1}$ in $\calT_\v$. So, $\calT_\v$ is $\delta$-straight at $\v$. Since, with probability one, a realization of the Poisson point process is omnidirectional, together with Lemma \[hn-201\] this yields Proposition \[pexis\].
\[r-straight\] Let $\xi\in(3/4,1)$. The almost sure $(1-\xi)$-straightness of the tree of infection also implies that for all $\alpha\in[0,2\pi)$, if $(\v_1,\v_2,\dots)$ is a semi-infinite geodesic with asymptotic orientation $e^{i\alpha}$ then $$ang(\v_n,e^{i\alpha})\leq c|\v_n|^{\xi-1}$$ for sufficiently large $n$.
Semi-infinite geodesics: uniqueness and coalescence
---------------------------------------------------
Concerning uniqueness of semi-infinite geodesics we have:
\[puni\] For $\alpha\in[0,2\pi)$ let $\Omega_3(\alpha)$ be the event that for all $\v\in \calD_v$ there exists at most one geodesic starting from $\v$ and with asymptotic orientation $e^{i\alpha}$. Assume only that $\bF$ is continuous. Then $\bP\big(\Omega_3(\alpha)\big)=1$
For $(k,l)\in\bN^2$, let $A_\alpha(k,l)$ be the event that $U_{k,l}\in \calD_v$ (or equivalently, $N_k\geq l$) and there exists two semi-infinite geodesics starting from $\v=U_{k,l}$, with asymptotic orientation $e^{i\alpha}$, and such that after $\v$ they do not intersect each other. Thus, $$\big(\Omega_3(\alpha)\big)^c\subseteq \cup_{(k,l)\in\bN^2}A_\alpha(k,l)\,.$$ Now, semi-infinite geodesics starting from the same vertex are not allowed to cross each other and, if a semi-infinite geodesics is caught between two semi-infinite geodesics with the same asymptotic orientation $e^{i\alpha}$ then it must have the asymptotic orientation $e^{i\alpha}$ (by planarity). Therefore, if we denote by $d_{\v}$ the degree of the site $\v=U_{k,l}$ then $$|\{\alpha\in[0,2\pi)\,:\,\1_{A_\alpha(k,l)}(\omega)=1\}|\leq d_{\v}(\omega)\,.$$ ($|A|$ is the cardinality of the set $A$). In particular, almost surely, $$\int_{[0,2\pi)}\1_{A_\alpha(k,l)}d\alpha =0\,,$$ and so, by Fubini’s theorem, $$0\leq \int_{[0,2\pi)}\bP\Big(\big(\Omega_3(\alpha)\big)^c\Big)d\alpha=\int_{\Omega}\big(\int_{[0,2\pi)}\1_{\big(\Omega_3(\alpha)\big)^c}d\alpha\big)d\bP\leq$$ $$\int_{\Omega}\big(\int_{[0,2\pi)}\sum_{(k,l)}\1_{A_\alpha(k,l)}d\alpha\big)d\bP=\int_{\Omega}\big(\sum_{(k,l)}\int_{[0,2\pi)}\1_{A_\alpha(k,l)}d\alpha\big)d\bP=0\,.$$ Consequently, there exists $I\subseteq[0,2\pi)$ with total Lebesgue measure so that for all $\alpha\in I$, $\bP\big(\Omega_3(\alpha)\big)=1$. Since $\bP\big(\Omega_3(\alpha)\big)$ does not depend on $\alpha$, this yields Proposition \[puni\].
The last result we require to construct the Busemann function is the coalescence behavior of semi-infinite geodesics with the same asymptotic direction:
\[pcoal\] For $\alpha\in[0,2\pi)$ let $\Omega_4(\alpha)\subseteq\Omega_3(\alpha)$ be the event that for all $\v,\bar{\v}\in\calD_v$, if $\rho_{\v}(\alpha)$ and $\rho_{\bar{\v}}(\alpha)$ do exist (and are unique) then they must coalesce, i.e. there exists $\c=\c(\v,\bar{\v},\alpha)\in\calD_v$ such that $$\rho_{\v}(\alpha)=\rho(\v,\c)\cup\rho_{\c}(\alpha)\,\mbox{ and }\,\rho_{\bar{\v}}(\alpha)=\rho(\bar{\v},\c)\cup\rho_{\c}(\alpha)\,.$$ Assume only that $\bF$ is continuous. Then $\bP\big(\Omega_4(\alpha)\big)=1$.
We note that the almost sure statement in Proposition \[pcoal\] is for fixed $\alpha\in[0,2\pi)$. As we will see later, almost surely, there exists a random direction $\theta$ so that neither uniqueness nor coalescence hold. Indeed, we will show (in part \[pr-rand+strai\]) that every branch of the competition interface follows one of those random directions for which coalescence does not hold[^3].
Let $\calS(\alpha)$ denote the union over all $\v\in\calD_v$ of $\rho_{\v}(\alpha)$. Then $\calS(\alpha)$ is a forest with say $N(\alpha)$ disjoint trees. Notice that, on $\big[N(\alpha)\leq 1\big]\cap\Omega_3(\alpha)$, there are no site disjoint semi-infinite geodesic with asymptotic orientation $e^{i\alpha}$. So, Proposition \[pcoal\] will follow if we prove that $\bP\big(N(\alpha)\leq 1\big)=1$. As noted by Licea and Newman [@ln96], in this set up we can apply the Burton and Keanne [@bk89] method. This method requires several steps which we will be organized as independent claims. To state the first one, let $\delta\in\bQ$ (the set of rational numbers) and $\x_{i}=\big(x_i(1),x_i(2)\big),\tilde{\x}_{i}=\big(\tilde{x}_i(1),\tilde{x}_i(2)\big)\in\bQ^{2}$ for $i=1,...,j$ such that $x_1(2)\leq\dots\leq x_j(2)$ and $\tilde{x}_1(2)\leq\dots\leq\tilde{x}_j(2)$. Assume further that $x_i(1)\leq -\delta$ and that $\tilde{x}_i(1)\geq \delta$. Denote by $A_{\delta}(\x_{1},...,\x_{j},\tilde{\x}_{1},...,\tilde{\x}_{j})$ the event determined by the following:
- at each $D_{\delta}(\x_{i})$ and $D_{\delta}(\tilde{\x}_{i})$ there is an unique vertex $\v_{i}$ and $\tilde{\v}_{i}$ respectively;
- each $\e_{i}=(v_{i},\tilde{v}_{i})$ is an edge in $\calD_e$ and $\e_{i}\in\rho_{\v_{i}}(0)$;
- after $\v_{i}$, $\rho_{\v_{i}}(0)$ has vertices only with strictly positive coordinates;
- all $\rho_{\v_{i}}(0)$ are disjoint.
\[emodi1\] If $$\bP\big(N(0)\geq 2\big)>0\,$$ then $$\bP\big(A_{\delta}(\x_{1},\x_2,\x_3,\tilde{\x}_{1},\tilde{\x}_2,\tilde{\x}_{3})\big)>0\,,$$ for some $\delta\in\bQ$ and $\x_{i},\tilde{\x}_{i}\in\bQ^{2},i=1,2,3$.
Since $\bQ$ is enumerable, if $0<\bP\big(N(0)\geq 2\big)$ then there exist $\delta\in\bQ$ and $\x_{1},\x_{2},\tilde{\x}_{1},\tilde{\x}_{2}\in\bQ^{2}$ such that $$0<\bP\big(A_{\delta}(\x_{1},\x_{2},\tilde{\x}_{1},\tilde{\x}_{2})\big)\,.$$ Let $c_{n}$ be the maximum between the second coordinate of $\x_{2}$ and $\tilde{\x}_{2}$ and let $c_{s}$ be the minimum between the second coordinate of $\x_{1}$ and $\tilde{\x}_{1}$. Consider the rectangle $$\R_{0}:= [-\delta,\delta]\times (c_{s}-\delta,c_{n}+\delta)\,.$$ Let $\z_{0}$ be the circumcenter of the rectangle $\R_{0}$ and let $M_{0}$ be the vertical length of $\R_{0}$. For each $l\in\bZ$ set $\z_{l}:= \z_{0}+lM_0(0,1)$. Denote $\R_{l}:= z_{l}+\R_{0}$ and $$A(l):= A_{\delta}(\x^{l}_{1},\x^{l}_{2},\tilde{\x}^{l}_{1},\tilde{\x}^{l}_{2})\,,$$ where $\x^{l}_{j}:=\x_{j}+\z_{l}\in \R_l$ and $\tilde{\x}^{l}_{j}:=\tilde{\x}_{j}+\z_{l}$. Thus, $\bP\big(A(l)\big)=\bP\big(A(0)\big)$. By the Fatou’s lemma, $$0<\bP\big(A(0)\big)\leq \bP\big(\limsup_{l} A(l)\big)\leq \bP\big(\cup_{l_{1}\ne l_{2}}A(l_{1})\cap A(l_{2})\big)\,.$$ Therefore, there are $l_{1},l_{2}$ such that $$0<\bP\big(A(l_{1})\cap A(l_{2})\big)\,.$$
Without lost of generality assume that $l_1<l_2$. We claim that, in this case, the geodesic starting from $\v_{1}^{l_{1}}$ can not intersect either the geodesic starting from $\v_{1}^{l_{2}}$ or the geodesic starting from $\v_{2}^{l_{2}}$. This is so because otherwise (by planarity) the geodesic starting at $\v_{1}^{l_{1}}$ would intersect the geodesic starting from $\v_{2}^{l_{1}}$, which contradicts the definition of $A(l_{1})$. Thus, $$A(l_{1})\cap A(l_{2})\subseteq
A_{\delta}(\x_{1}^{l_{1}},\x_{1}^{l_{2}},\x_{2}^{l_{2}},\tilde{\x}_{1}^{l_{1}},\tilde{\x}_{1}^{l_{2}},\tilde{\x}_{2}^{l_{2}})\,$$ which yields Claim \[emodi1\].
The second step is given by the following claim: for $m,k\geq 0$ let $F_{m,k}$ be the event that some tree in $\calS(0)$ touches a vertex in the rectangle $$\R_{m,k}:=\big\{(x(1),x(2))\,:\,0\leq x(1)\leq m\mbox{ and }|x(2)|\leq k\big\},$$ but no other in $$\Q_{m}:=\big\{(x(1),x(2))\,:\,x(1)\leq m\big\}\backslash\R_{m,k}\,.$$
\[lmodi-0\] If for some $\delta\in\bQ$ and $\x_{i},\tilde{\x}_{i}\in\bQ^{2},i=1,2,3$ we have $$\bP\big(A_{\delta}(\x_{1},\x_2,\x_3,\tilde{\x}_{1},\tilde{\x}_2,\tilde{\x}_{3})\big)>0\,$$ then $$\bP\big(F_{m,k}\big)>0\,,$$ for some $m,k\geq 0$.
To prove this claim we shall use a local modification argument based on Lemma \[lmodif\], and we will divide this proof into two parts: in the first one we will assume that $\bF$ has unbounded support while in the second one we will assume that $\bF$ has bounded support.
#### **Part 1: $\bF$ has unbounded support.**
Let $\delta\in\bQ$ and $\x_{1},\x_{2},\x_{3},\tilde{\x}_{1},\tilde{\x}_{2},\tilde{\x}_{3}\in\bQ^2$ given by Claim \[emodi1\]. Let $\R_0:=[-\delta,\delta]\times[c_{s}-\delta,c_{n}+\delta]$, where $c_{n}$ be the maximum between the second coordinate of $\x_{3}$ and $\tilde{\x}_{3}$ and let $c_{s}$ be the minimum between the second coordinate of $\x_{1}$ and $\tilde{\x}_{1}$. Denote by $\Xi$ the set of edges which cross the rectangle $\R_0$ and the vertical coordinate axis. Then $\e_{i}:=(\v_{i},\tilde{\v}_{i})\in\Xi$ for all configurations in $A_{\delta}(\x_{1},\x_{2},\x_{3},\tilde{\x}_{1},\tilde{\x}_{2},\tilde{\x}_{3})$ (recall that $\x_{i}\in
C_{\v_{i}}$ and $\tilde{\x}_{i}\in C_{\tilde{\v}_{i}}$).
Define the event $B_{\lambda}$ by those configurations such that for all $\e=(\v_{1},\v_{2})\in\Xi$ there exists $\gamma$ with connecting $\v_{1}$ to $\v_{2}$, with $t(\gamma)<\lambda$, but not using edges in $\Xi$. Since $$\lim_{\lambda\to\infty}\bP\big(B_{\lambda}\big)=1\,,$$ we can choose a sufficiently large $\lambda>0$ such that $$\label{emod1}
\bP\big(A_{\delta}(\x_{1},\x_{2},\x_{3},\tilde{\x}_{1},\tilde{\x}_{2},\tilde{\x}_{3})\cap B_{\lambda}\big)>0\,.$$
Now we apply Lemma \[lmodif\]. To do so define $W(\omega)$, a random element of $\mathnormal{K}$, by the following procedure: given $\omega\in\Omega$ set $$W(\omega):=\big((k_{j},l_{j},n_{j},m_{j})\big)_{j=1,...,q}\,$$ by ordering all $(k,l,m,n)$ (according to ) so that $\e(\omega)=\big(U_{k,l}(\omega),U_{m,n}(\omega)\big)\in\Xi(\omega)$ and $\tau_\e\leq\lambda$. Thus $W$ is an ordered representation of the indexes of the edges $\e\in\Xi$ with $\tau_e\leq\lambda$.
For each $I\in\mathnormal{K}$ let $$R_{I}:=(\lambda,+\infty)^{q}\subseteq\Omega_{I}=\bR^q\,,$$ and let $$A:=A_{\delta}(\x_{1},\x_{2},\x_{3},\tilde{\x}_{1},\tilde{\x}_{2},\tilde{\x}_{3})\cap
B_{\lambda}\,$$ (given by ). Since $\bF$ has unbounded support, $\bP_{I}(R_{I})>0$ for all $I\in\mathnormal{K}$. By Lemma \[lmodif\], there exist a measurable $\Phi(A)\subseteq\tilde{\Phi}(A)$.
Now consider a configuration $\tilde{\omega}\in\Phi(A)\subseteq\tilde{\Phi}(A)$. By definition, there exists $I\in\mathnormal{K}$, $\omega_1\in\hat{\Omega}_I$, $\omega_2\in \Omega_I$ and $\tilde{\omega}_2\in R_I$ such that $\tilde{\omega}=(\omega_1,\tilde{\omega}_2)$ and $(\omega_1,\omega_2)\in A$. Since $\omega_2$ and $\tilde{\omega}_2$ concern only travel times which are associated to $I$ and $\omega_2\leq\tilde{\omega}_2$ (considering the canonical order in $\bR^q$), the paths $\rho_{\tilde{\v}_{i}}(0)(\omega_1,\omega_2)$ for $i=1,2,3$ remain disjoint geodesics, with asymptotic orientation $\vec{e}_1$, for the configuration $\tilde{\omega}=(\omega_1,\tilde{\omega}_2)$. By the same reason, $\tilde{\omega}\in B_\lambda$. On the other hand, since $\tilde{\omega}_2\in R_I$, we have that for all $\e\in\Xi$, $\tau_e(\tilde{\omega})>\lambda$ and thus no geodesic could have an edge in $\Xi$. Therefore $\Phi(A)\subseteq F_{m,k}$, where $k:=\max\{c_s,c_n\}$ and $m:=\delta + \max\{\tilde{x}_{1}(1),\tilde{x}_{2}(1),\tilde{x}_{3}(1)\}$. Since $\bP(A)>0$, we also have that $0<\bP\big(\Phi(A)\big)\leq \bP\big(F_{m,k}\big)$, which yields Claim \[lmodi-0\] when $\bF$ has unbounded support.
#### **Part 2: $\bF$ has bounded support.**
Consider again $\delta\in\bQ$ and $\x_{1},\x_{2},\x_{3},\tilde{\x}_{1},\tilde{\x}_{2},\tilde{\x}_{3}\in\bQ^2$ given by Claim \[emodi1\]. Let $\vec{e}_2:=(0,1)$, $\c_n:=(0,c_n)$ and $\c_s:=(0,c_s)$. For $\epsilon,\tilde{\epsilon}>0$ and $m>0$, let $$\Q_{m,\tilde{\epsilon}}:=m\vec{e}_1+[-\tilde{\epsilon}m\vec{e}_2,\tilde{\epsilon}\vec{e}_2]\,$$ and let $B^{\epsilon,\tilde{\epsilon}}_{m}$ be the event that for every $\z\in [\c_s,\c_n]$ and every $\u\in \Q_{m,\tilde{\epsilon}}$, $$\label{ecoal2}
T(z,u)< (\mu +\epsilon)m\,.$$ By the shape theorem, we have that for any $\epsilon>0$ and for sufficiently small $\tilde{\epsilon}$, $$\label{elimit3}
\lim_{m\to \infty}\bP\big(B^{\epsilon,\tilde{\epsilon}}_{m}\big)=1\,.$$
Denote by $C^{\tilde{\epsilon}}_{m,k}$ the event that for each $i=1,2,3$, $\rho_{\v_{i}}(0)$ touches the hyperplane with direction $\vec{e}_2$ and containing $(0,m)$ for the first time (coming from $\v_{i}$) within the vertical segment $\Q_{m,\tilde{\epsilon}}$. Since all those geodesics are $0$-paths, $$\label{elimit1}
\lim_{m\to \infty}\bP\big(C^{\tilde{\epsilon}}_{m}\big)=1$$ for all $\tilde{\epsilon}>0$.
For $m,k>0$ let $C_{m,k}$ denote the event that for each $i=1,2,3$, $\rho_{\v_{i}}(0)$ does not intersect the region consisting of points $(x(1),x(2))\in\bR^2$ such that $x(1)\in [0,m]$ and $|x(2)|>k$. Thus, for any fixed $m>0$, $$\label{elimit2}
\lim_{k\to \infty}\bP\big(C_{m,k}\big)=1\,$$ (by the same reason to obtain ).
Let $\x,\y\in\bR^2$ and recall the definition of the path $\gamma(\x,\y)$ given in Section \[pre\] (part \[pre-geom\]). By Lemma \[lgraph2\], $$\label{egraph2}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\bP\big(|\gamma(\0,n\vec{e}_1)|\geq c_1 n\big)=0\,,$$ for some contant $c_1>0$. We also have considered the graph metric $T_\calD$ and, by Lemma \[lgraph1\], $$\label{egraph1}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{T_\calD\big([\c_s,\c_n],\Q_{m,\tilde{\epsilon}}\big)}{m}=\nu\,.$$
For each $i=1,2,3$, let $\rho_{i}$ denote the piece of $\rho_{\v_{i}}(0)$ between $\tilde{\v}_{i}$ and the first time it intersect $[m\vec{e}_1 -\tilde{\epsilon}m\vec{e}_2,m\vec{e}_1+\tilde{\epsilon}m\vec{e}_2]$, say at the point $\u_i$. For $\z\in[\c_s,\c_n]$ and $\u\in\Q_{m,\tilde{\epsilon}}$, let $\phi(\z,\u)$ be the path connecting $\z$ to $\u$, which first moves vertically by using $\gamma(\z,\v_1)$, then follows $\rho_{1}$, then moves vertically again by using $\gamma(\u_1,\u)$. Thus, on the intersection between $A_{\delta}(\x_{1},\x_{2},\x_{3},\tilde{\x}_{1},\tilde{\x}_{2},\tilde{\x}_{3})$, $C^{\tilde{\epsilon}}_{m}$, $ C_{m,k}$ and $B^{\epsilon,\tilde{\epsilon}}_{m}$, we have that $$t\big(\phi(z,u)\big)=t\big(\gamma(\z,\v_1)\big)+t\big(\rho_{1}\big)+t\big(\gamma(\u_1,\u)\big)\leq$$ $$\label{egraph3}
\lambda |\gamma(\c_s,\c_n)|+(\mu+\epsilon)m+\lambda|\gamma(m\vec{e}_1 -\tilde{\epsilon}m\vec{e}_2,m\vec{e}_1+\tilde{\epsilon}m\vec{e}_2 )|\,.$$
We also have that, by and (since $\mu(\bF)<\lambda(\bF)\nu$), there exists $\epsilon_{0},\tilde{\epsilon}_{0}>0$ such that for all $\epsilon<\epsilon_{0}$, $\tilde{\epsilon}<\tilde{\epsilon}_{0}$, $$\label{metric}
\lim_{m\to \infty}\bP\big(D(\lambda,\epsilon,\tilde{\epsilon})\big)=1\,.$$ where $D(\lambda,\epsilon,\tilde{\epsilon})$ is the event that $$\lambda |\gamma(\c_s,\c_n)|+(\mu+\epsilon)m+\lambda|\gamma(m\vec{e}_1 -\tilde{\epsilon}m\vec{e}_2,m\vec{e}_1+\tilde{\epsilon}m\vec{e}_2 )|$$ $$\leq (\lambda-\epsilon)T_\calD\big([\c_s,\c_n],\Q_{m,\tilde{\epsilon}}\big)\,.$$
Let $$A:=A_{\delta}(\x_{1},\x_{2},\x_{3},\tilde{\x}_{1},\tilde{\x}_{2},\tilde{\x}_{3})\cap C^{\tilde{\epsilon}}_{m}\cap C_{m,k}\cap B^{\epsilon,\tilde{\epsilon}}_{m}\cap D(\lambda,\epsilon,\tilde{\epsilon})\,.$$ Combining with , and , we get that $\bP\big(A\big)>0$ for sufficiently small $\epsilon>0$ and $\tilde{\epsilon}>0$ and for sufficiently large $m>0$ and $k>0$. Notice that for all configurations in $A$, and every $\z\in[\c_s,\c_n]$ and $\u\in\Q_{m,\tilde{\epsilon}}$ we must have that $$\label{emod2}
T(\z,\u)\leq t\big(\phi(\z,\u)\big)\leq (\lambda-\epsilon) T_\calD\big([\c_s,\c_n],\Q_{m,\tilde{\epsilon}}\big)\,.$$
Now we are able to use Lemma \[lmodif\] again. Let $\Xi$ be the set of edges in the interior of the region bounded by $\rho_{1}$, $\rho_{3}$, $[\c_s,\c_n]$ and $\Q_{m,\tilde{\epsilon}}$. Define $W(\omega)$ as follows: given $\omega\in\Omega$ we set $$W(\omega):=\big((k_{j},l_{j},m_{j},n_{j})\big)_{j=1,...,q}$$ by ordering all $(k,l,m,n)$ (according to ) so that $\e(\omega)=\big(U_{k,l}(\omega),U_{m,n}(\omega)\big)\in\Xi(\omega)$ with $\tau_\e\leq\lambda-\epsilon$. So $W$ represents the indexes of the edges $\e\in\Xi$ with $\tau_\e\leq\lambda -\epsilon$. For each $I\in\mathnormal{K}$, let $R_{I}:=(\lambda-\epsilon,\lambda)^{q}\subseteq\Omega_{I}$ and take $A$ above defined. Since $\bF(\lambda-\epsilon)<1$ then $\bP_{I}(R_{I})>0$. Thus, by Lemma there exists a measurable $\Phi(A)\subseteq\tilde{\Phi}(A)$.
Pick a configuration $\tilde{\omega}=(\omega_1,\omega_2)\in\tilde{\Phi}(A)$. By using the same argument we have done for the other case, one can see that the paths $\rho_{\tilde{\v}_{i}}(0)(\omega_1,\omega_2)$ for $i=1,3$ remain disjoint geodesics, with asymptotic orientation $\vec{e}_1$, for the configuration $\tilde{\omega}$. The same holds for $\rho_{\u_2}(0)$ and for the inequality . On the other hand, by , no path $\rho$ connecting $\z\in[\c_s,\c_n]$ to $\u\in\Q_{m,\tilde{\epsilon}}$ that is entirely containing in the region $\Xi$ can be a geodesic for the configuration $\tilde{\omega}$ because, otherwise, $$T(\z,\u)=t(\rho)>(\lambda-\epsilon) T_\calD\big([\c_s,\c_n],\Q_{m,\tilde{\epsilon}}\big)\,.$$ This allows us to conclude that $$\Phi(A)\subseteq\tilde{\Phi}(A)\subseteq F_{m,k}\,$$ (with $m,k>0$ given by the definition of $A$). Since $\bP\big(A\big)>0$ we have that $0<\bP\big(\Phi(A)\big)<\bP\big(F_{m,k}\big)$, which yields Claim \[lmodi-0\] when $\bF$ has bounded support.
The third and last step is:
\[lmodi-1\] $\bP\big(F_{m,k}\big)=0$ for all $m,k\geq 0$.
In fact, consider a rectangular array of non-intersecting translates $\R_{m,k}^{\z}$ of the basic rectangle $\R_{m,k}=\R^{\0}_{m,k}$ and of $\Q_m=\Q_m^{\0}$ indexed by $\z\in\bZ^{2}$, and also consider the corresponding event $F_{m,k}^{\z}$. Notice that if $F_{m,k}^{\z}$ and $F_{m,k}^{\tilde{\z}}$ occur, then the corresponding trees in $\calS(0)$ must be disjoint. Thus, if $N_{L}$ is the number of $\z\in [0,L]^{2}$ such that $F_{m,k}^{\z}$ occurs, then $$N_{L}\leq |\{\mbox{ edges crossing the boundary of }[0,L]^{2}\}|.$$ However, by Lemma \[lgraph2\], the expected value of the number of edges crossing the boundary of $[0,L]^{2}$ is of order $L$. By translation invariance, $$\bE\big(N_{L}\big)=n_{L}\bP\big(F_{M,k}\big),$$ where $n_{L}$ is the number of rectangles $\R_{m,k}^{z}$ intersecting $[0,L]^{2}$. Since $n_L$ is of order $L^2$, the assumption $\bP\big(F_{m,k}\big)> 0$ leads to a contradiction.
Now we are able to prove Proposition \[pcoal\]:
Combining Claim \[emodi1\] with Claim \[lmodi-0\] and Claim \[lmodi-1\] one obtains $$\label{lcoal}
\bP\big(N(\alpha)\leq 1\big)=\bP\big(N(0)\leq 1\big)=1\,.$$ By noticing that $\Omega_3\cap\big[N(\alpha\big)\leq 1\big]\subseteq \Omega_4(\alpha)$ one can see that Proposition \[pcoal\] follows from Proposition \[puni\] together with .
Existence and asymptotics for the Busemann function {#asyBuse}
---------------------------------------------------
The idea to prove Theorem \[tBuse-1\] is to combine existence, uniqueness and coalescence of semi-infinite geodesics in a fixed direction $e^{i\alpha}$ to show that if $\z_n\to\infty$ along this direction then for sufficiently large $n$ we have $$T(\x,\z_n)-T(\y,\z_n)=T(\x,\c)-T(\y,\c)\,,$$ where $\c$ is coalescence point in direction $e^{i\alpha}$ (Proposition \[pcoal\]). We begin by introducing what we mean by convergence of paths. Assume that $(\gamma_n)_{n\geq 0} $ is a sequence of finite paths with vertices in $\bR^2$, and for each $n\geq 0$ denote $\gamma_n=(\z_0^n,\z_1^n,\dots,\z_{l_n}^n)$. We define that $\gamma_n$ converges to a semi-infinite path $\gamma=(\x_0,\x_1\,\dots)$, and we write $\gamma=\lim_{n\to\infty}\gamma_n$, if for all $k\geq 1$ there exists $n_k\geq 1$ so that $\gamma_n=(\x_0,\x_1,\dots,\x_k,\z_{k+1}^n,\dots,\z_{l_n}^n)$ for all $n\geq n_k$. For each sequence $(\z_n)_{n\geq 0}$ of vertices in $\bR^2$ with $|\z_n|\to\infty$ and $\z\in\bR^2$ we denote $\Pi\big(\z,(\z_n)_{n\geq 0}\big)$ the set of all semi-infinite paths $\rho$ so that there exists a subsequence $(n_j)_{j\geq 0}$ with $\lim_{j\to\infty} \rho(\z,\z_{n_j})=\rho$.
\[geoconv\] Let $\Omega_1$ be the event that, for all $\alpha\in[0,2\pi)$, if $(\z_n)_{n\geq 1}$ has the asymptotic orientation $e^{i\alpha}$ then: i) $\Pi\big(\z,(\z_n)_{n\geq 1}\big)\neq\emptyset$; ii) every $\rho\in\Pi\big(\z,(\z_n)_{n\geq 1}\big)$ is semi-infinite geodesic with the asymptotic orientation $e^{i\alpha}$. Under , $\bP\big(\Omega_1\big)=1$.
Let $\calT$ be the tree with vertex set $\cup_{n\geq 1} \rho(\z,\z_n)$ and oriented edges $(\u,\v)\in\calD_e$ (in the Delaunay triangulation) so that $\rho(\z,\u)\subseteq\rho(\z,\v)$. Notice that $\calT$ is an infinite tree. Since every vertex in the Delaunay triangulation has finite degree, the same is true for the vertices in $\calT$. Therefore, by a standard compactness argument, $\Pi\big(\z,(\z_n)_{n\geq 1}\big)\neq\emptyset$. To show that every $\rho\in\Pi\big((\z_n)_{n\geq 1}\big)$ has the asymptotic orientation $e^{i\theta}$ consider $\D\subseteq\S^1$ as in the proof of Theorem \[t1\]. By Proposition \[pexis\] and Proposition \[puni\], almost surely, for all $\beta\in[0,2\pi)$ such that $e^{i\beta}\in \D$ there exists an unique semi-infinite geodesic starting from $\v(\z)$ and with asymptotic orientation $e^{i\beta}$, which we have denoted by $\rho_{\z}(\beta)$. Now, let $\beta_1,\beta_2\in[0,2\pi)$ such that $e^{i\beta_1},e^{i\beta_2}\in \D$. Assume further that, by following the counter-clokwise orientation of $\S^1$, the unit vector $e^{i\alpha}$ is in between the unit vectors $e^{i\beta_1}$ and $e^{i\beta_2}$. Notice that the paths $\rho_{\z}(\beta_1)$ and $\rho_{\z}(\beta_2)$ bifurcate at some point $\v$ and have no further points in common. On the other hand, $(\z_n)_{n\geq 0}$ has the asymptotic orientation $e^{i\alpha}$. Therefore, once $k$ is large enough, $\rho(\z,\z_k)$ should be in between $\rho_{\z}(\beta_1)$ and $\rho_{\z}(\beta_2)$, and thus the same is true for any limit $\rho$. Since $\D$ is dense in $\S^1$, it follows that $\rho$ has the asymptotic orientation $e^{i\alpha}$.
Consider the intersection between $\Omega_1$ (path convergence, Lemma \[geoconv\]) and $\Omega_4(\alpha)$ (coalescence and uniqueness of semi-infinite geodesics, Proposition \[pcoal\]). In this case, if $(\z_n)_{n\geq 1}$ has the asymptotic orientation $e^{i\alpha}$ then $\lim_{n\to\infty}\rho(\x,\z_n)=\rho_\x(\alpha)$. Together with coalescence, this yields that for $\x,\y\in\bR^2$ there exists $\c=\c(\x,\y,\alpha)\in\calD_v$ and $n_0>0$ such that $$\rho(\x,\z_n)=\rho(\x,\c)\cup\rho(\c,\z_n)\mbox{ and
}\rho(\y,\z_n)=\rho(\y,\c)\cup\rho(\c,\z_n)\,$$ for all $n\geq n_0$, which implies that $$T(\x,\z_n)-T(\y,\z_n)=T(\x,\c)-T(\y,\c)\,$$ for all $n\geq n_0$.
Let $\bH_{r}^\alpha$ be the hyperplane that pass through $\a_r:=a_r e^{i\alpha}$ and $r\vec{e}_1$, where $a_r=r/\cos\alpha$. Let $\x_{r}$ be the crossing point between the linear interpolation of $\rho_{\0}(\alpha)$ and $\bH_{r}^\alpha$ that maximizes the distance from $\a_r $. We claim that $$\label{E:asycoal0}
-T(r\vec{e}_{1},\0)\leq H^{\alpha}(r\vec{e}_{1},\0)\leq T(r\vec{e}_{1},\x_{r})-T(\x_{r},\0)\,.$$ The left-hand side of follows directly from the triangle inequality for $T$, since $H^{\alpha}(r\vec{e}_{1},\0)=T(\x,\c_r)-T(\y,\c_r)$ (as in the proof of Theorem \[tBuse-1\]). To show the right-hand side, notice that if $\x_{r}\not\in\rho(\0,\c_r)$ then $\c_r \in\rho(\0,\x_{r})$ which implies that $\c_r\in\rho(r\vec{e}_{1},\x_{r})$. Thus $$H^{\alpha}(r\vec{e}_{1},\0)=T(r\vec{e}_{1},\c_r)-T(\0,\c_r)= T(r\vec{e}_{1},\x_{r})-T(\x_{r},\0)\,.$$ If $\x_{r}\in\rho(\0,\c_r)$ then $$T(\0,\c_r)=T(\0,\x_{r})+T(\x_{r},\c_r)\,.$$ Consequently, $$\label{asycoal0*}
H^{\alpha}(r\vec{e}_{1},\0)=T(r\vec{e}_{1},\c_r)-T(\0,\c_r)=\big(T(r\vec{e}_{1},\c_r)-T(\c_r,\x_{r})\big)-T(\0,\x_{r})\,.$$ Since (again the triangle inequality) $$T(r\vec{e}_{1},\c_r)-T(\c_r,\x_{r})\leq T(r\vec{e}_{1},\x_{r})\,,$$ yields .
Now, $$T(r\vec{e}_{1},\x_{r})-T(\x_{r},\0)=$$ $$\big(T(r\vec{e}_{1},\x_{r})-\mu|r\vec{e}_{1}-\a_{r}|\big)\Big(\,:=\,I_1(r)\,\Big)$$ $$+\big(\mu|\a_r|-T(\x_{r},\0)\big)\,\,\Big(\,:=\,I_2(r)\,\Big)$$ $$+\mu|r\vec{e}_{1}-\a_{r}|-\mu|\a_r|\,\,\Big(\,:=\,I_3(r)\,\Big)\,.$$ By Remark \[r-straight\], if we pick $\xi\in(3/4,1)$ then for some constant $c>0$, almost surely, $|\x_r-\a_r|\leq cr^\xi$ for sufficiently large $r$. On the other hand, by the triangle inequality, $$|T(\x_r,r\vec{e}_1)-T(\a_r,r\vec{e}_1)|\leq T(\x_r,\a_r)\mbox{ and }|T(\x_r,\0)-T(\a_r,\0)|\leq T(\x_r,\a_r)\,.$$ Thus $$\limsup_{r\to\infty}\frac{|I_1(r)|}{r}\leq \limsup_{r\to\infty}\frac{|T(r\vec{e}_{1},\a_{r})-\mu|r\vec{e}_{1}-\a_{r}||}{r}+\limsup_{r\to\infty}\frac{\max_{|\z-\a_r|\leq cr^\xi}\{T(\a_r,\z)\}}{r}$$ and $$\limsup_{r\to\infty}\frac{|I_2(r)|}{r}\leq \limsup_{r\to\infty}\frac{|T(\0,\a_{r})-\mu|\a_{r}||}{r}+\limsup_{r\to\infty}\frac{\max_{|\z-\a_r|\leq cr^\xi}\{T(\a_r,\z)\}}{r}\,.$$
Combining Lemma \[l2\] with translation invariance one gets that for all $\epsilon>0$ $$\sum_{r\geq 1}\bP\big(|T(r\vec{e}_{1},\a_{r})-\mu|r\vec{e}_{1}-\a_{r}||\geq \epsilon r\big)<\infty\mbox{ and }\sum_{r\geq 1}\bP\big(|T(\0,\a_{r})-\mu|\a_{r}||\geq \epsilon r\big)<\infty$$ Therefore, by Borel-Cantelli’s lemma, $$\limsup_{r\to\infty}\frac{|T(r\vec{e}_{1},\a_{r})-\mu|r\vec{e}_{1}-\a_{r}||}{r}=0\mbox{ and }\limsup_{r\to\infty}\frac{|T(\0,\a_{r})-\mu|\a_{r}||}{r}=0\,.$$ In [@p-205] (Lemma 4.3 there) it is proved that, for some constants $c_0,x_0>0$, if $x>x_0$ then $$\bP\big(T(\0,\z)>x|\z|)\leq e^{-c_0 x|\z|}\,.$$ By noticing that, with high probability, the number of vertices belonging to a ball of radius $cr^{\xi}$ is of order $r^{2\xi}$, one can get that, for all $\epsilon>0$, $$\sum_{r\geq 1}\bP\big(\max_{|\z|\leq cr^\xi}\{T(\0,\z)\}>\epsilon r\big)<\infty\,.$$ Thus, together with the Borel-Cantelli’s lemma (and translation invariance), this yields $$\limsup_{r\to\infty}\frac{\max_{|\z-\a_r|\leq cr^\xi}\{T(\a_r,\z)\}}{r}=0\,.$$ Consequently, $$\limsup_{r\to\infty}\frac{|I_1(r)|}{r}=\limsup_r\frac{|I_2(r)|}{r}=0\,.$$ Since $$\lim_{r\to\infty}\frac{I_3(r)}{r}=\mu\frac{\sin\alpha-1}{\cos\alpha}=-\mu\frac{\cos\alpha}{1+\sin\alpha}\,$$ we finally have that $$\lim_{r\to\infty}\frac{T(r\vec{e}_{1},\x_{r})-T(\x_{r},\0)}{r}=-\mu\frac{\cos\alpha}{1+\sin\alpha}\,.$$ Together with , this yields Theorem \[tBuse-2\].
Competition versus coalescence {#pr-rand+strai}
------------------------------
In this section we give a sketch of the proof of the statements in Remark \[rand+strai\]. Let $\varphi:=(\z_{1},\z_{2},\dots)$ be a branch of the competition interface. Thus this branch marks the boundary between two different species, say $j_1$ and $j_2$. Assume further that if one moves along $\z_{n},\z_{n+1},\dots$ then on the right hand side we always see species $j_1$ while on the left hand side one see species $j_2$. By Theorem \[t1\], this branch has the direction $e^{i\theta}$ for some $\theta=\theta(\varphi)$. For $l=1,2$, let $(\v_{n}^{l})_{n\geq 1}$ be the sequence of vertices in $\calD_v\cap\B_{\x_{j_l}}$, so that the tile $\C_{\v_{n}^{l}}$ has an edge boundary that belongs to $\varphi$ . Thus, we have that $\v_{n}^{l}$ has the asymptotic orientation $e^{i\theta(\varphi)}$ (since, by Lemma \[5.2\], the distance between $\v_n^{l}$ and the corresponding branch of the competition interface is small if compared with $|\v_n|$). Together with Lemma \[geoconv\], this yields that there exists a subsequence $(n_m)_{m\geq 1}$ and a semi-infinite geodesic $\rho_l$, with asymptotic orientation $\theta(\varphi)$, so that $\rho(\x_l,\v_{n_m}^l)\to \rho_l$. Since $\rho(\x_l,\v_n^l)$ is a geodesic connecting two points in $\B_{\x_{j_l}}(\infty)$, we have that $\rho(\x_l,\v_n^l)\subseteq\B_{\x_{j_l}}(\infty)$ and thus $\rho_l\subseteq \B_{\x_{j_l}}(\infty)$.
Consequently, we have two geodesics $\rho_1$ and $\rho_2$ with the same orientation $e^{i\theta(\varphi)}$, but which do not coalesce (because $\rho_i\subseteq\B_{\x_{j_l}}$ for $l=1,2$). By Proposition \[pcoal\], this occurs with zero probability which shows the first statement of Remark \[rand+strai\].
By Remark \[r-straight\], for all $\xi\in(3/4,1)$, $\rho_{1}$ and $\rho_{2}$ are $(1-\xi)$-straight about its asymptotic orientation $e^{i\theta(\varphi)}$. Since $\varphi$ is caught between $\rho_{1}$ and $\rho_{2}$, this also implies that $\varphi$ is $(1-\xi)$-straight about its asymptotic orientation $e^{i\theta(\varphi)}$, which shows the second statement of Remark \[rand+strai\].
#### **Acknowledgment**
This work was developed during my doctoral studies [@p04] at Impa and I would like to thank my adviser, Prof. Vladas Sidoravicius, for his dedication and encouragement during this period. I also thank Prof. Charles Newman for proposing me the problem studied here, Prof. Thomas Mountford for a careful reading and useful comments about a previous version of this work, and Prof. James Martin for providing me the numerical simulations in Figure \[f2\]. Finally, I thank the whole administrative staff of IMPA for their assistance and CNPQ for financing my doctoral studies, without which this work would have not been possible.
[60]{}
W. Ballmann. [*Lectures on spaces of nonpositive curvature*]{}. Birkhäuser Verlag, (1995).
R. Burton and M. Keane. Density and uniqueness in percolation. [*Comm. Math. Phys. **121***]{} (1989), 501-505.
M. Deijfen, O. Häggström and J. Bagley. A stochastic model for competing growth on $\R^d$. [*Markov Proc. Relat. Fields **10***]{} (2004), 217-248.
B. Derrida andR. Dickman. On the interface between two growing Eden clusters. [*J. Phys. A **24***]{} (1991), 191-193.
P.A. Ferrari and L.P.R. Pimentel. Competition interfaces and second class particles [*Ann. Probab. **33***]{} (2005), 1235-1254.
P.A. Ferrari, J.B. Martin and L.P.R. Pimentel. Roughening and inclination of competition interfaces. [*Phys. Rev. E **73***]{} (2006), 031602.
O. Garet and R. Marchand. Coexistence in two-type first-passage percolation models. [*Ann. Appl. Probab. **15***]{} (2005), 298-330.
G. Grimmett. Percolation (second edition). Springer-Verlag (1999).
O. Häggström and R. Pemantle. First passage percolation and a model for competing spatial growth. [*J. Appl. Prob. **35***]{} (1998) 683-692.
O. Häggström and R. Pemantle. Absence of mutual unbounded growth for almost all parameter values in the two-type Richardson model. [*Stoch. Process. Appl. **90***]{} (1999), 207-222.
J.M. Hammersley and D.J.A. Welsh. First-passage percolation, sub-additive process, stochastic network and generalized renewal theory. Springer-Verlag (1965), 61-110.
C. Hoffman. Coexistence for Richardson type competing spatial growth models. [*Ann. Appl. Probab. **15***]{} (2005), 739-747.
C.D. Howard and C.M. Newman. Euclidean models of first-passage percolation. [*Probab. Theory Related Fields **108***]{} (1997), 153-170.
C.D. Howard and C.M. Newman. Geodesics and spanning trees for Euclidean first-passage percolation, [*Ann. Probab. **29***]{} (2001), 577-623.
C. Licea and C.M. Newman. Geodesics in two dimension first-passage percolation. [*Ann. Probab. **24***]{} (1996), 399-410.
C.M. Newman. A surface view of first-passage percolation. In [*Proc. Intern. Congress of Mathematicians 94 **2***]{} (S. D. Chatterji, ed.), Birkhauser (1995), 1017-1023.
C.M. Newman and M.S.T. Piza. Divergence of shape fluctuations in two dimensions. [*Ann. Probab. **23***]{} (1995), 977-1005.
J. Moller. Lectures on random Voronoi tessellations. [ *Lectures Notes in Stat. **87***]{}, Springer-Verlag (1991).
L.P.R. Pimentel. Competing growth, interfaces and geodesics in first-passage percolation on Voronoi tilings. Phd Thesis, IMPA, Rio de Janeiro (2004).
L.P.R. Pimentel. The time constant and critical probabilities for percolation models. [*Elect. Comm. Probab. **11*** ]{} (2006) 160-167.
L.P.R. Pimentel. Asymptotics for first-passage times on Delaunay triangulations. Pre-print available from ArXiv:math.PR/0510605.
Y. Saito and M. Müller-Krumbhaar. Critical Phenomena in Morphology Transitions of Growth Models with Competition. [*Phys. Rev. Lett. **74***]{} (1995), 4325.
M.Q. Vahidi-Asl and J.C. Wierman. First-passage percolation on the Voronoi tessellation and Delaunay triangulation. [*Random Graphs 87*]{} (M. Karonske, J. Jaworski and A. Rucinski, eds.), Wiley (1990) 341-359.
M.C. Vahidi-Asl and J.C. Wierman. A shape result for first-passage percolation on the Voronoi tessellation and Delaunay triangulation. [*Random Graphs 89*]{}, (A. Frieze and T. Luczak, eds.), Wiley (1992), 247-262.
[^1]: We also refer to [@hn97], where an analog result is proved in an Euclidean first-passage percolation set-up.
[^2]: Recall that, by the Euler formula, the number of edges and vertices in a triangulation have the same order.
[^3]: For more on the non coalescence of semi-infinite geodesics see Section 1.3 in [@hn01]
|
---
abstract: 'We have analyzed [*XMM-Newton*]{} and [*Chandra*]{} observations of the transient magnetar spanning more than 11 years, from the initial phases of the 2003 outburst to the current quiescent level. We investigated the evolution of the pulsar spin period and we found evidence for two distinct regimes: during the outburst decay, $\dot{\nu}$ was highly variable in the range $-(2-4.5)\times10^{-13}$ Hz s$^{-1}$, while during quiescence the spin-down rate was more stable at an average value [ of $-1\times10^{-13}$ Hz s$^{-1}$]{}. Only during $\sim$3000 days (from MJD 54165 to MJD 56908) in the quiescent stage it was possible to find a phase-connected timing solution, with $\dot{\nu}=-4.9\times10^{-14}$ Hz s$^{-1}$, and a positive second frequency derivative, $\ddot{\nu}=1.8\times10^{-22}$ Hz s$^{-2}$. These results are in agreement with the behavior expected if the outburst of was due to a strong magnetospheric twist.'
author:
- |
Fabio Pintore$^1$, Federico Bernardini$^{2,12}$, Sandro Mereghetti$^1$, Paolo Esposito$^1$, Roberto Turolla$^{3,11}$, Nanda Rea$^{4,5}$, Francesco Coti Zelati$^{6,4,10}$, Gian Luca Israel$^7$, Andrea Tiengo$^{8,1,9}$, Silvia Zane$^{11}$\
$^1$ INAF - IASF Milano, Via E. Bassini 15, I-20133 Milano, Italy\
$^2$ New York University Abu Dhabi, Saadiyat Island, Abu Dhabi, 129188, United Arab Emirates\
$^3$ Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia, Universita di Padova, via F. Marzolo 8, I-35131 Padova, Italy\
$^4$ Anton Pannekoek Institute for Astronomy, University of Amsterdam, Postbus 94249, NL-1090-GE Amsterdam, the Netherlands\
$^5$ Instituto de Ciencias de l’Espacio (ICE, CSIC-IEEC), Carrer de Can Magrans, S/N, 08193, Barcelona, Spain\
$^6$ Universita dell’Insubria, via Valleggio 11, I-22100 Como, Italy\
$^7$ INAF - Osservatorio Astronomico di Roma, via Frascati 33, I-00040 Monteporzio Catone, Roma, Italy\
$^8$IUSS - Istituto Universitario di Studi Superiori, piazza della Vittoria 15, I-27100 Pavia, Italy\
$^9$ Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Pavia, via A. Bassi 6, 27100 Pavia, Italy\
$^{10}$ INAF - Osservatorio Astronomico di Brera, Via Bianchi 46, I-23807 Merate (LC), Italy\
$^{11}$ MSSL, University College London, Holmbury St. Mary, Dorking Surrey, RH5 6NT, UK\
$^{12}$ INAF $-$ Osservatorio Astronomico di Capodimonte, Salita Moiariello 16, I-80131 Napoli, Italy\
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: 'The variable spin-down rate of the transient magnetar XTEJ1810–197'
---
stars: magnetars – stars: neutron – X-rays: stars – magnetic fields – pulsars: individual: (XTE J1810–197)
Introduction
============
[ Magnetars are isolated neutron stars whose persistent emission and occasional outbursts are powered by magnetic energy (@duncan92 [@thompson93; @paczynski92]; see also @mereghetti08 [@turolla15]).]{} was discovered with the [*Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer (RXTE)*]{} as a 5.45 s X-ray pulsar [@ibrahim04] during a bright outburst in 2003, and associated to a previously known but unclassified [*ROSAT*]{} source. Further multiwavelength observations [@woods05short; @rea04; @halpern08], led to classify XTE J1810-197 as a magnetar candidate.
XTE J1810-197 is the prototype of transient members of this class of sources. It likely spent at least 23 years in quiescence (at a flux of $\sim$$7\times10^{-13}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$[, in the 0.5–10 keV energy band]{}) before entering in outburst, in the 2003, when the flux increased by a factor of $\sim$100 [@gotthelf04]. For an [ estimated]{} distance of $3.5$ kpc [@camilo06; @minter08], the maximum observed luminosity was $\sim$$10^{35}$ erg s$^{-1}$, but might have reached an even higher luminosity, since the initial part of the outburst was missed. was also the first magnetar from which pulsed radio emission was detected [@camilo06; @camilo07]. A large, unsteady spin-down of $\dot{P}\sim10^{-11}$ s s$^{-1}$ was measured during the outburst decay through radio and X-ray observations, which suggested that the surface dipolar magnetic field is $\sim2\times10^{14}$ G [@gotthelf04; @ibrahim04; @camilo06].
The spectrum of during the outburst has been modeled by several authors with two or three blackbody components of different temperature. The colder one has been interpreted as the (persistent) emission from the whole neutron star surface, while the hotter ones have been associated to cooling regions responsible for the outburst [@gotthelf04; @bernardini09; @bernardini11; @alford16]. The appearance of hot spots could be due to the release of (magnetic) energy deep in the crust, or to Ohmic dissipation of back-flowing currents as they hit the star surface [@perna08; @albano10; @beloborodov09; @pons12]. The X-ray pulse profile was energy-dependent and time-variable in amplitude, and it could be generally modelled by a single sinusoidal function [e.g. @ibrahim04; @camilo07; @bernardini09; @bernardini11; @alford16].
[ $^a$ Mean time of the observation.]{}
Here we report on the pulse period evolution of exploiting the full set of [*[*XMM-Newton*]{}*]{} and [*[*Chandra*]{}*]{} X-ray observations carried out in the years 2003–2014 during the outburst decay and in the following quiescent period.
Observations and data reduction {#data_reduction}
===============================
We made use of 24 [*[*XMM-Newton*]{}*]{} and 14 [*[*Chandra*]{}*]{} observations of totalizing an exposure time of $\sim$$830$ ks (see the log of observations in Table \[log\]).
The [*[*XMM-Newton*]{}*]{} data were reduced using SAS v. 14.0.0 and the most recent calibrations. We used the data obtained with the EPIC instrument, which consists of one pn camera and two MOS cameras. For each observation, we selected events with single and double pixel events ([pattern]{}$\leq$4) for EPIC-pn and single, double, triple and quadruple pixel events for EPIC-MOS ([pattern]{}$\leq$12). We set ‘[flag]{}=0’ so to exclude bad pixels and events coming from the CCD edge. The source and background events were extracted from 30$''$ and 60$''$ radius circular regions, respectively. Time intervals with high particle background were removed.
In three observations (7, 13 and 35) we found inconsistent values between the phases of the pulses derived (as described in the next Section) from the MOS and pn data. This is due to a known sporadic problem in the timing of EPIC-pn data, causing a shift of $\pm$1 second in the times attributed to the counts. We identified the times at which the problems occurred and corrected the data [ by adding (or subtracting) 1 second to the photon time of arrival from the instant when the problem occurred [see @martin12]]{}.
The *[*Chandra*]{}* observations were reduced using the [ciao]{} v.4.7 software and adopting the standard procedures. Source events were extracted from a region of 20$''$ radius around the position of and background counts from a similar region close to the source.
Photon arrival times of both satellites were converted to the Solar system barycenter using the milliarcsec radio position of (RA = 272.462875 deg, Dec. = –19.731092 deg, (J2000); @helfand07) and the JPL planetary ephemerides DE405.
Timing analysis {#timing}
===============
In order to study the evolution of the spin frequency from outburst to quiescence (i.e. covering the whole data set) we initially measured the spin frequency in each individual pointing by applying a phase-fitting technique in every observation. The phase of a pulse is defined as $\phi=\phi_0 + \int \nu dt$, where $\nu$ is the spin frequency. If the coherence of the signal is maintained between subsequent observations, the data can be be fitted by the polynomial:
$$\label{phase-fit}
\phi (t) = \phi_0 + \nu_0 (t-T_0) + \cfrac{1}{2} \dot{\nu} (t-T_0)^2 + \cfrac{1}{6} \ddot{\nu} (t-T_0)^3 + ...$$
where $T_0$ is the reference epoch, $\nu_0$ is the frequency at $T_0$, $\dot{\nu}$ is the spin frequency derivative and $\ddot{\nu}$ is second-order spin frequency derivative [e.g. @dallosso03 for more details].
Thanks to the large counting statistics of each single observation, it was possible to obtain accurate measurements of the frequencies by applying the phase-fitting technique to a number of short time intervals (durations from 300 s to 5 ks, depending on the counting statistics) within each observation and we were able to align the pulse-phases by use only the linear term of Eq. \[phase-fit\]. The frequencies derived in this way are plotted as a function of time in the middle panel of Figure \[flux\_freq\_der\], while in the top panel we show the flux evolution of .
To derive the fluxes plotted in Figure \[flux\_freq\_der\], we fitted the time-averaged spectra of each observation with a model consisting of two to three blackbodies (see e.g. @bernardini09 [@alford16] for more details). The interstellar absorption was kept fixed to the value of $5.7\times10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$, derived from the spectrum of the first [*[*XMM-Newton*]{}*]{} observation. The temperatures that we found for the three blackbodies ($\sim$0.1, 0.3 and 0.5 keV) are consistent with those reported in @bernardini09 and @alford16, to which we refer for more details. The maximum flux observed by [*[*XMM-Newton*]{}*]{} during the outburst was $(3.18\pm0.04)\times10^{-11}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ (absorbed flux in the 0.3-10 keV energy range). The flux decreased until about MJD 54500, after which it remained rather constant (see also @gh07 [@bernardini11; @alford16]). We found that the flux slowly decreased, finally reaching a constant value of $(7.5\pm0.2)\times10^{-13}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$, which we derived by fitting with a constant the fluxes of all the observations after MJD 54500 (see Fig. \[flux\_freq\_der\]-[*top panel*]{}). This value is within the range of fluxes measured by [*ROSAT*]{}, [*ASCA*]{} and [*Einstein*]{} before the onset of the outburst ($(5-10) \times 10^{-13}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$; @gotthelf04).
It is clear from Fig. \[flux\_freq\_der\] that the source timing properties tracked remarkably well the evolution of the flux. The average spin-down rate was larger during the first 3-4 years, during the outburst decay, and then it decreased while the source was in (or close to) quiescence. We can distinguish two time intervals, separated at MJD $\sim54000$, in which a linear fit can approximately describe the frequency evolution. The slopes of the two linear functions are $(-3.9\pm0.2)\times10^{-13}$ Hz s$^{-1}$ ($\chi^2_{\nu}/dof=6.7/9$) and $(-1.00\pm0.05)\times10^{-13}$ Hz s$^{-1}$ ($\chi^2_{\nu}/dof=1.8/24$) before and after MJD 54000, respectively. These values represent the long-term averaged spin-down rates, but the residuals of the linear fits indicate that the time evolution of the frequency derivative is more complex. To better investigate this behavior, we performed several linear fits to small groups of consecutive frequency measurements. We adopted a moving-window approach by using partially overlapping sets of points. In this way we obtained the $\dot \nu$ values plotted in the bottom panel of Figure \[flux\_freq\_der\]. They show a highly variable spin-down rate, especially during the outburst decay, when it ranged from $-4.5\times10^{-13}$ Hz s$^{-1}$ to $-0.5\times10^{-13}$ Hz s$^{-1}$.
Phase-coherent timing solutions for have been reported for the initial part of the outburst [@ibrahim04; @camilo07]. We tried to phase-connect all the [*XMM-Newton*]{} and [*Chandra*]{} observations, but this turned out to be rather difficult due to the large timing noise. However, we were able to find a phase-connected solution for the data during quiescence (i.e. all the observations obtained after MJD 54100), as follows. For each observation, we folded the EPIC (pn plus MOS) or [*[*Chandra*]{}*]{} data at a frequency of 0.18048 Hz (corresponding to $P=5.54078$ s, the average spin period after MJD 54100). For each observation the phase of the pulsation was then derived by fitting a constant plus a sinusoid to the folded pulse profile in the 0.3-10 keV energy range. We initially aligned, with only the linear term in Eq. \[phase-fit\], the [*[*XMM-Newton*]{}*]{} observations 18 and 19 that were the most closely spaced ($\sim$2 days). Then, we included one by one the other observations, as the uncertainty on the best-fit parameters became increasingly smaller allowing us to connect more distant points. We included higher order derivatives only if the improvement in the fit was significant in the timing solution. After the inclusion of [*Chandra*]{} observations 21 and 22, the quadratic term became statistically significant, while the third order polynomial term was needed after the inclusion of observations 25 and 26. The best fit parameters of the final solution are reported in Table \[timing\_sol\] and the fit is shown in Figure \[best-fit\]. The fit with $\nu$, $\dot{\nu}$ and $\ddot{\nu}$ has $\chi_\nu^2$= 65.7 (for 20 dof). Such a large value reflects the presence of a strong timing noise. In fact, the residuals shown in the lower panel of Figure \[best-fit\] indicate significant deviations from the best fit solution, especially during the last 1000 days, when they are as large as $\sim$0.2 cycles in phase.
Some timing irregularity occurred also when the source was in quiescence. In particular, around MJD $\sim$55400 the spin-down rate was much larger than the quiescent average value and larger than that seen during the outburst decay. Quite remarkably, also a spin-up episode was detected (see Figure \[flux\_freq\_der\]-*bottom*). This is better illustrated in Figure \[glitch\_fit\] which shows the frequency measurements around this time. Unfortunately, the sparse coverage and the large error bars of some points do not allow us to establish whether this was a sudden event, like an anti-glitch, or simply due to an increased timing noise episode. Assuming that the time irregularity is an anti-glitch, we fitted the data in the time range MJD 54300–57000, with the following simple model:
$\nu(t) = \nu_0 + \dot{\nu_0}\cdot t $ for $t<t_g$
$\nu(t) = \nu_0 + \dot{\nu_0}\cdot t + \Delta\nu \cdot e^{(-(t-t_g)/\tau)}$ for $t>t_g$
where $\tau$ is the decay time and $t_g$ is the time of the glitch, which we kept fixed in the fit. If the glitch occurred immediately after observation 25 ($t_g=55354$), we obtained a good fit ($\chi^2_{\nu} = 1.14$ for 21 dof, shown by the solid line in Figure \[glitch\_fit\]) with $\Delta\nu = (6.5\pm5.8)\times10^{-5}$ Hz, $\tau=51\pm21$ days, $\nu_0 = 0.18093(3) $ Hz and $\dot{\nu_0} =-9.4 (3)\times 10^{-14}$ Hz s$^{-1}$. If instead the glitch occurred at observation 26 ($t_g=55444$), we obtain $\Delta\nu < 1 \times10^{-4}$ Hz and $\tau < 200$ days ($3\sigma$ upper limits).
Discussion
==========
Variations in the spin-down rate are not uncommon in magnetars and have been observed both in transient and persistent sources. They are believed to originate from changes in the magnetosphere geometry and particles outflow which produce a varying torque on the neutron star. Since also the emission properties from magnetars depend on the evolution of their dynamic magnetospheres, some correlation between spin-period evolution and radiative properties is not surprising.
Parameter Units
-------------------- ------------------------- -------------
Time range 54165–56908 MJD
T$_{0}$$^a$ 54002.0430729 MJD
$\nu_0$ 0.1804821(1) Hz
$\dot{\nu}$ $-4.9(2)\times10^{-14}$ Hz s$^{-1}$
$\ddot{\nu}$ $1.8(1)\times10^{-22}$ Hz s$^{-2}$
$P$ 5.540716(3) s
$\dot{P}$ $1.51(7)\times10^{-12}$ s s$^{-1}$
$\ddot{P}$ $-5.5(4)\times10^{-21}$ s s$^{-2}$
$\chi_\nu^2 (dof)$ 65.7 (20)
: Best-fit timing solution of the [*[*XMM-Newton*]{}*]{} and [*[*Chandra*]{}*]{} observations. Errors are at 1$\sigma$.[]{data-label="timing_sol"}
$^a$ Reference epoch.
![Frequencies measured around the time of the possible anti-glitch. The solid line is the best-fit discussed in the text. []{data-label="glitch_fit"}](freq_glitch_fit-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="8.3cm"}
The most striking examples, among persistent magnetars, are given by SGR 1806–20 and 1E 1048.1–5937. The average spin-down rate of SGR 1806–20, as well as its spectral hardness, increased in the $\sim 4$ years of enhanced bursting activity which led to the giant flare of December 2004 [@mereghetti05]. However, a further increase (by a factor of 2–3) of the long term spin-down rate occurred both in 2006 and 2008, while the flux and bursting rate showed no remarkable changes [@younes15]. In 1E 1048.1–5937, significant enhancements of the spin-down rate, which then subsided through repeated oscillations, have been observed to lag the occurrence of X-ray outbursts [@archibald15]. Other persistent magnetars, for which phase-coherent timing solutions extending over several years could be mantained, showed $\dot \nu$ variations and/or glitches, sometimes (but not always) related to changes in the source flux and the emission of bursts [e.g. @dib14].
Transient magnetars offer, in principle, the best opportunity to investigate the correlations between the variations in the spin-down rate and the radiative properties. However, the observations of transient magnetars carried out up to now have shown a variety of different behaviors. Furthermore, for many of them, no detailed information is available on the spin-down during the quiescent state, that instead in this work we now have found for . No firm conclusion on the evolution of the spin-down rate could be derived from the two outbursts of CXOU J164710.2–455216, for which a positive $\ddot\nu$ was reported only during the decay of the first outburst, while the insufficient time coverage prevented such a measure for the second one [@rodriguez14]. A positive $\ddot\nu$ was reported for both Swift J1822.3–1606 (which went in outburst in July 2011 and was subsequently monitored for about 500 days; @rodriguez16), as well as for SGR J1935+2154 (outburst in July 2014, time coverage $\sim 260$ days; @israel16), and, tentatively, also for SGR 0501+4516 (for this source observations actually covered part of the quiescent state but phase connection along the entire dataset could not be ensured; @camero14). On the other hand, an increase of the spin-down rate during the outburst decay was reported for SGR J1745–29 [@kaspi14; @cotiZelati15].
Our analysis of [*XMM-Newton*]{} and [*Chandra*]{} data spanning 11 years has shown that in the transient magnetar the spin frequency evolution tracked remarkably well the luminosity state. During the outburst decay, the average spin-down rate was $(-3.9\pm0.2)\times10^{-13}$ Hz s$^{-1}$, but large variations around this value were seen, as already noticed by several authors [@halpern05; @camilo07; @bernardini09]. During the long quiescent state after the end of the outburst, the average spin-down rate was a factor of $\sim4$ smaller. Although some timing noise was still present, the variations in $\dot \nu$ were smaller in the quiescent state, except for a few months in Summer 2010. The timing irregularities in that period might have been caused by the occurrence of an anti-glitch, similar to that seen in the persistent magnetar 1E 2259+586 [@archibald13]. [ We found that the pulse-shape in the 0.3–10 keV energy range was nearly sinusoidal and the pulse fraction decreased during the outburst decay, as already reported by e.g. @perna08, @albano10 and @bernardini09. We note that the pulse-shape remained nearly sinusoidal also during quiescence (see also @bernardini11 [@alford16]).]{}
The spectral properties of magnetars are commonly explained in terms of the twisted magnetosphere model [@thompson02b], according to which part of the magnetic helicity is transferred from the internal to the external magnetic field, which acquires a non-vanishing toroidal component (a twist). The currents required to support the twisted external field resonantly up-scatter thermal photons emitted by the star surface, leading to the formation of the power-law tails observed up to hundreds of keV. Since twisted fields have a weaker dependence on the radial distance with respect to a dipole, the higher magnetic field at the light cylinder radius results in an enhanced spin-down rate. The increased activity of magnetars is often associated to the development (or an increase) of a twist, which should lead to higher fluxes, local surface temperature increases, harder spectra and larger spin-down rates. However, this holds for globally twisted fields (meaning that the twist affects the entire external field). The transport of helicity from the interior is mediated by the star crust: in order to occur the crust must yield, allowing a displacement of the field lines. Crustal displacements are small compared to the star radius, so the twist is most likely localized to a bundle of field lines anchored on the displaced platelet [@beloborodov09]. Once implanted, the twist must necessarily decay to maintain its own supporting currents, unless energy is constantly supplied from the star interior. The sudden appearance of a localized twist and its subsequent decay can explain some of the observed properties of transient magnetars [@beloborodov09; @albano10], including the fact that transient spectra are often thermal, as in the case of , since resonant Compton scattering may be not very effective, although the mechanism responsible for the heating of the star surface is still unclear (either Ohmic dissipation by backflowing currents or deep crustal heating; @beloborodov09 [@pons12]). If strong enough, a localized twist can still influence the spin-down rate, which is expected to increase first and then decrease as the magnetosphere untwists, as we observed in .
Conclusions
===========
was the first transient magnetar to be discovered and it is probably one of the best studied. In particular, it has been possible to trace in great detail its spectral properties over the long ($\sim 3$ years) outburst decay and to monitor it during quiescence for several years afterwards. By investigating the evolution of its spin frequency with all the available [*XMM-Newton*]{} and [*Chandra*]{} data, we found evidence for two distinct regimes: during the outburst decay, $\dot{\nu}$ was highly variable in the range $-(2-4.5)\times10^{-13}$ Hz s$^{-1}$, while during quiescence the spin-down rate was more stable and had an average value smaller by a factor $\sim4$.
This evolution of the spin-down rate is in agreement with the suggestion that the outburst of transient magnetars may be caused by a strong twist of a localized bundle of magnetic field lines [@beloborodov09]. Evidences for an evolution of $\dot\nu$ in other transient magnetars are far less conclusive, possibly reflecting the fact that, if the twist is not very strong, or the twisted bundle too localized, its effect on the spin-down rate are smaller. [ A detailed calculation of the spin-down torque for a spatially-limited twisted field requires a full non-linear approach and has not been presented yet. @beloborodov09 discussed a simple estimate, valid for small twists ($\psi<1\ \mathrm{rad}$) $$\label{deltamu}
\Delta\mu/\mu\sim (\psi^2/4\pi)\log(u_*/u_\mathrm{LC})\,,$$ where $\Delta\mu$ is the “equivalent” increase in the dipole moment produced by the twist and $u$ is the area of the j-bundle, evaluated at the star surface and at the light cylinder. Since $\Delta\dot\nu/\nu \sim 2\Delta\mu/\mu$, a fractional variation of $\dot\nu$ of a factor of $\sim 4$, as observed (see Figure \[flux\_freq\_der\], lower panel), can not be achieved with a small twist, $\psi<1$. This indicates that the (maximal) twist in was most probably larger, $\psi\ga 1 \ \mathrm{rad}$, so that equation (\[deltamu\]) does not hold anymore. A quite large value of the twist in the outburst of was also inferred by @beloborodov09, on the (qualitative) basis that only a strong twist can produce a change of the spin-down rate. ]{}
ERRATUM: “The variable spin-down rate of the transient magnetar XTEJ1810–197” {#erratum-the-variable-spin-down-rate-of-the-transient-magnetar-xtej1810197 .unnumbered}
=============================================================================
Prompted by the recent paper by Camilo et al. (2016), we re-examined our phase-connected timing solution for XTE J1810–197 (Pintore et al. 2016), and we found a flaw in the procedure to compute the errors during some steps of our analysis. Due to this mistake, the phase-connected solution on 3000 days of X-ray data (reported in Tab. 2 and Fig. 2 of Pintore et al. 2016) is wrong.
With the new analysis of the data, we can phase-connect 13 observations with a good fit ($\chi^2_{\nu}$ (dof)$=0.9 (9)$; solution 1 in Tab.3 and Fig.4-top), from MJD 55079 to MJD 55814 (observations from 18 to 30 of Pintore et al. 2016). The inclusion of also the two observations at MJD 55976 and MJD 56071 (observations 31 and 32) yields best fit parameters (solution 2 in Tab.3 and Fig.4-bottom) consistent with those obtained by Camilo et al. (2016) for the same set of observations, but with a higher $\chi_\nu^2$ with respect to solution 1.
The table and figures reported here supersede Tab. 2 and Fig. 2 of Pintore et al. (2016). We note that these changes do not affect the main conclusions of that paper.
$^a$ Reference epoch.\
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
Camilo F., Ransom S. M., Halpern J. P., Alford J. A. J., Cognard I., Reynolds J. E., Johnston S., Sarkissian J., van Straten W., 2016, ApJ, 820, 110
Pintore F., Bernardini F., Mereghetti S., Esposito P., Turolla R., Rea N., Coti Zelati F., Israel G. L., Tiengo A., Zane S., 2016, MNRAS, 458, 2088
|
---
abstract: |
This paper develops mixed-normal approximations for probabilities that vectors of multiple Skorohod integrals belong to random convex polytopes when the dimensions of the vectors possibly diverge to infinity. We apply the developed theory to establish the asymptotic mixed normality of the realized covariance matrix of a high-dimensional continuous semimartingale observed at a high-frequency, where the dimension can be much larger than the sample size. We also present an application of this result to testing the residual sparsity of a high-dimensional continuous-time factor model.
*Keywords*: Bootstrap; Chernozhukov-Chetverikov-Kato theory; High-dimensions; High-frequency data; Malliavin calculus; Multiple testing.
author:
- 'Yuta Koike[^1] [^2] [^3] [^4]'
bibliography:
- 'base.bib'
title: 'Mixed-normal limit theorems for multiple Skorohod integrals in high-dimensions, with application to realized covariance'
---
Introduction
============
Covariance matrix estimation of multiple assets is one of the most active research areas in high-frequency financial econometrics. Recently, many authors have been attacking the high-dimensionality in covariance matrix estimation from high-frequency data. A pioneering work on this topic is the paper by @WZ2010, where the regularization methods (banding and thresholding) proposed in @BL2008band [@BL2008th] have been applied to estimating high-dimensional quadratic covariation matrices from noisy and non-synchronous high-frequency data. Subsequently, their approach has been enhanced by several papers such as [@TWZ2013; @KWZ2016; @KKLW2018]. Meanwhile, such methods require a kind of sparsity of the target quadratic covariation matrix itself, which seems unrealistic in financial data in view of the celebrated factor structure such as the Fama-French three-factor model of [@3factor]. To overcome this issue, @FFX2016 have proposed a covariance estimation method based on a continuous-time (approximate) factor model with observable factors, which can be seen as a continuous-time counterpart of the method introduced in @FLM2011. The method has been further extended in various directions such as situations with unobservable factor, noisy and non-synchronous observations, heavy-tail errors and so on; see [@AX2017; @DLX2017; @KLW2017; @FK2017; @Pelger2019] for details. As an alternative approach to avoid assuming the sparsity of the target matrix itself, @BNS2018 have proposed applying the graphical Lasso, which imposes the sparsity on the inverse of the target matrix rather than the target matrix itself. On the empirical side, high-dimensional covariance matrix estimation from high-frequency financial data is particularly interesting in portfolio allocation. We refer to [@Ubukata2010; @FLY2012; @LSS2016] for illustrations of relevant empirical work on this topic, in addition to the empirical results reported in the papers cited above. 0 Additionally, it would be worth mentioning that investigation of the spectral structure is also an issue in the context of high-dimensional covariance estimation. In high-frequency financial econometrics this was pioneered by @ZL2011, which investigates the problem of estimating the spectral distribution of the quadratic covariation estimation of a high-dimensional continuous Itô semimartingale from its high-frequency observation data. A similar problem has been studied in [@HP2014] under a different assumption on the model. Another important topic related to this issue is principal component analysis (PCA). In a high-dimensional setting, @KW2016 have studied PCA for integrated covariance matrices based on noisy and non-synchronous high-frequency data. Meanwhile, the recent work of @CMZ2018 investigates alternative PCA for high-frequency data based on the concept of realized eigenvalues, which was introduced in @AX2017jasa, in a high-dimensional setting.
To the best of the author’s knowledge, however, there is no work to establish a statistical inference theory validating simultaneous hypothesis testing and construction of uniformly valid confidence regions for high-dimensional quadratic covariation estimation from high-frequency data. Such a theory is important in statistical applications as illustrated by the following example: Let $Y=(Y_t)_{t\in[0,1]}$ be a $d$-dimensional continuous semimartingale. We denote by $Y^i$ the $i$-th component of $Y$ for every $i=1,\dots,d$. If one attempts to apply a regularization procedure to estimating the quadratic covariation matrix $[Y,Y]_1=([Y^i,Y^j]_1)_{1\leq i,j\leq d}$ of $Y$, it is important to understand whether the target matrix is really sparse or not, and if so, how sparse it is. This amounts to evaluating the following series of the statistical hypotheses *simultaneously*: $$\label{test:sparse}
H_{(i,j)}: [Y^i,Y^j]_1\equiv0,\qquad i,j=1,\dots,d\text{ such that }i<j.$$ A natural way to construct test statistics for this problem is to estimate $[Y,Y]_1$ and test whether each of the entries is significantly away from 0 or not. Now suppose that $Y$ is observed at the equidistant times $t_h=h/n$, $h=0,1,\dots,n$. Then the most canonical estimator for $[Y,Y]_1$ would be the so-called *realized covariance matrix*: $$\label{def:rc}
\widehat{[Y,Y]}^n_1:=\sum_{h=1}^n(Y_{t_h}-Y_{t_{h-1}})(Y_{t_h}-Y_{t_{h-1}})^\top.$$ If one wants to test the null hypothesis such that all the hypotheses in is true, it is natural to consider the maximum type statistic $$\max_{(i,j)\in\Lambda}\left|\widehat{[Y,Y]}^n_1\right|,$$ where $\Lambda:=\{(i,j)\in\{1,\dots,d\}^2:i<j\}$. More generally, if one wants to control the family-wise error rate in multiple testing for the hypotheses , it is enough to approximate the distribution of $\max_{(i,j)\in\mathcal{L}}|\widehat{[Y,Y]}^n_1|$ for any $\mathcal{L}\subset\Lambda$, with the help of the stepdown procedure illustrated in @RW2005. Hence the problem amounts to approximating the distributions of such maximum type statistics in an appropriate sense. Using the test statistics considered in @BM2016, this type of testing problem can be extended to the sparsity test for the residual processes of a continuous-time factor model with an observable factor thus promising in applications to high-frequency financial data. In addition, such a problem will also be useful for covariance matrix modeling in a low-frequency setting because it often suffers from the curse of dimensionality due to the increase of the number of unknown parameters to be estimated, and thus it is a common practice to impose a certain structure on covariance matrices for reducing the number of unknown parameters in models. For example, @TWYZ2011 have proposed fitting a matrix factor model to daily covariance matrices which are estimated from high-frequency data using the methodology of [@WZ2010], while @KO2016 [@KO2018] have introduced a dynamic (multiple-block) equicorrelation structure to multivariate stochastic volatility models. The afore-mentioned testing will be useful for examining the validity of such specification. If the dimension $d$ is fixed, the desired approximation can be obtained as a simple consequence of a multivariate mixed-normal limit theorem for $\sqrt{n}(\widehat{[Y,Y]}^n_1-[Y,Y]_1)$, which is well-studied in the literature and holds true under quite mild assumptions; see e.g. Theorem 5.4.2 of [@JP2012]. The problem here is how to establish an analogous result when the dimension $d$ possibly diverges as $n$ tends to infinity.
Indeed, even for the sum of independent random vectors, it is far from trivial to establish such a result in a situation where the dimension is possibly (much) larger than the sample size. This is not surprising because objective random vectors are typically not tight in the usual sense in such a high-dimensional setting, so any standard method to establish central limit theorems no longer works. A significant breakthrough in this subject was achieved by the seminal work of @CCK2013, where a Gaussian approximation of the maxima of the sum of independent random vectors in terms of the Kolmogorov distance has been established under quite mild assumptions which allow the dimension is (possibly exponentially) larger than the sample size. With the help of the Gaussian comparison theorem by @CCK2015, it enables us to construct feasible statistical inference procedures based on the maximum type statistics. Their theory, which we call the *Chernozhukov-Chetverikov-Kato theory*, or the *CCK theory* for short, has been developed in the subsequent work by @CCK2014 [@CCK2016] and @CCK2017: the first two papers have developed Gaussian approximation of the suprema of empirical processes, while the latter has extended the results of [@CCK2013] to a central limit theorem for hyperrectangles, or sparsely convex sets in more general. Extension of the CCK theory to statistics other than the sum of independent random vectors has also been studied in many articles: Weakening the independence assumption has been studied in e.g. [@ZW2015; @ZC2017; @CCK2014c; @CQYZ2018]; @Chen2017 and @CK2017 [@CK2017rand] have developed theories for $U$-statistics. Moreover, some authors have applied the CCK theory to statistical problems regarding high-frequency data; see @KK2017 and @Koike2017stein. Nevertheless, none of the above studies is applicable to our problem due to its non-ergodic nature. That is, the asymptotic covariance matrix is random and depends on the $\sigma$-filed of the original probability space, the asymptotic distribution is essentially non-Gaussian.
Meanwhile, inspection of the proofs of the CCK theory reveals that most the parts do not rely on *any* structure of the underlying statistics. To be precise, let $S_n$ be the random vector corresponding to the objective statistic and suppose that we aim at approximating the distribution of $S_n$ by its Gaussian analog $S_n^\dagger$ which has the same mean and covariance matrix as those of $S_n$. In the proofs of the CCK theory, the fact that $S_n$ is the sum of independent random vectors is crucial only to obtain a good quantitative estimate for the quantities $|E[f(S_n)]-E[f(S_n^\dagger)]|$ for sufficiently smooth functions $f$. In the original CCK theory [@CCK2013; @CCK2017], such an estimate has been established by the so-called *Stein’s method*, especially *Slepian’s interpolation* (also known as the *smart path method*) and *Stein’s leave-one-out method*. Although their approach is not directly applicable to our problem, it suggests that we might alternatively use *Malliavin’s integration by parts formula* because it can be viewed as an infinite-dimensional version of Stein’s identity (cf. @SY2004). In fact, the recent active research in probabilistic literature shows a beautiful harmony between Malliavin calculus and Stein’s method, which is nowadays called the *Malliavin-Stein method*; we refer to the monograph [@NP2012] for an introduction of this subject. Indeed, this idea has already been applied in [@Koike2017stein] to a situation where $S_n$ is a vector of smooth Wiener functionals (especially multiple Wiener-Itô integrals) and $S_n^\dagger$ is Gaussian, which has produced several impressive results. Our plan here is to apply this idea to a situation where $S_n$ is a vector of multiple Skorohod integrals and $S_n^\dagger$ is conditionally Gaussian. In this regard, a relevant result has been given in Theorem 5.1 of @NNP2016. However, this result is not directly applicable to the current situation because it assumes that the components of $S_n^\dagger$ are conditionally independent, which is less interesting to statistical applications (and especially not the case in the problem illustrated above). To remove such a restriction from the result of [@NNP2016], we employ the novel interpolation method introduced in @NY2017, instead of Slepian’s interpolation used in [@NNP2016] and the original CCK theory. Another problem in the present context is validation of standardizing statistics by random variables. In a low-dimensional setting, this is typically achieved by proving the so-called *stable convergence in law* (see e.g. [@PV2010] for details). However, in a high-dimensional setting, the meaning of stable convergence is unclear and its naïve extension is not useful because of the lack of the continuous mapping theorem and the delta method (see Section \[sec:main\] for a relevant discussion). So we also aim at developing a formulation appropriate to validating such an operation. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section \[sec:preliminaries\] is devoted to some preliminaries on notation and concepts used in the paper. Section \[sec:main\] presents the main results obtained in this paper. In Section \[sec:rc\] we apply the developed theory to establish the asymptotic mixed normality of realized covariance matrices in a high-dimensional setting and illustrate its application to testing the residual sparsity of a continuous-time factor model. Section \[sec:simulation\] provides a small simulation study as well as an empirical illustration using real data. All the proofs are collected in the Appendix.
Preliminaries {#sec:preliminaries}
=============
In this section we present some notation and concepts used throughout the paper.
Basic notation {#sec:basic}
--------------
We begin by introducing some basic notation which more or less common in the literature. For a vector $x\in\mathbb{R}^d$, we write the $i$-th component of $x$ as $x^i$ for $i=1,\dots,d$. Also, we set $\min x:=\min_{1\leq i\leq d}x^i$. For two vectors $x,y\in\mathbb{R}^d$, the statement $x\leq y$ means $x^i\leq y^i$ for all $i=1,\dots,d$. For a vector $x\in\mathbb{R}^d$ and a scalar $a\in\mathbb{R}$, we set $$x\pm a:=(x^1\pm a,\dots,x^d\pm a)^\top.$$ Here, $\top$ stands for the transpose of a matrix.
For a matrix $A$, we write its $(i,j)$-th entry as $A^{ij}$. Also, $A^{i\cdot}$ and $A^{\cdot j}$ denote the $i$-th row vector and the $j$-th column vector, respectively. Here, we regard both the vectors $A^{i\cdot}$ and $A^{\cdot j}$ as column vectors. If $A$ is an $m\times d$ matrix, we denote by ${\@ifstar{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
s
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{A}_\infty$ the $\ell_\infty$-operator norm of $A$: $${\@ifstar{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
s
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{A}_\infty=\max_{1\leq i\leq m}\sum_{j=1}^d|A^{ij}|.$$ If $B$ is another $m\times d$ matrix, we denote by $A\cdot B$ the Frobenius inner product of $A$ and $B$. That is, $$A\cdot B:=\sum_{i=1}^m\sum_{j=1}^dA^{ij}B^{ij}.$$ For a $d\times d$ matrix $A$, we denote by $\operatorname{diag}(A)$ the $d$-dimensional vector consisting of the diagonal entries of $A$, i.e. $\operatorname{diag}(A)=(A^{11},\dots,A^{dd})^\top$.
For a random variable $\xi$ and a number $p>0$, we write $\|\xi\|_p=(E[|\xi|^p])^{1/p}$. We also use the notation $\|\xi\|_\infty$ to denote the essential supremum of $\xi$. We will denote by $L^{\infty-}$ the space of all random variables $\xi$ such that $\|\xi\|_p<\infty$ for every $p\in[1,\infty)$. The notation $\to^p$ stands for convergence in probability.
If $V$ is a real Hilbert space, we denote by $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_V$ and $\|\cdot\|_V$ the inner product and norm of $V$, respectively. Also, we denote by $L^p(\Omega;V)$ the set of all $V$-valued random variables $\xi$ such that $E[\|\xi\|_V^2]<\infty$.
Given real Hilbert spaces $V_1,\dots,V_k$, we write their Hilbert space tensor product as $V_1\otimes\cdots\otimes V_k$. For a real Hilbert space $V$, we write the $k$th tensor power of $V$ as $V^{\otimes k}$, i.e. $$V^{\otimes k}:=\underbrace{V\otimes\cdots\otimes V}_{k}.$$ For an element $f\in V^{\otimes k}$, we write the (canonical) symmetrization of $f$ as $\operatorname{Sym}(f)$. Namely, the map $V^{\otimes k}\ni f\mapsto \operatorname{Sym}(f)\in V^{\otimes k}$ is characterized as the unique continuous linear operator on $V^{\otimes k}$ such that $$\operatorname{Sym}(f_1\otimes\cdots\otimes f_k)=\frac{1}{k!}\sum_{\tau\in\mathcal{S}_k}f_{\tau(1)}\otimes\cdots\otimes f_{\tau(k)}$$ for all $f_1,\dots,f_k\in V$, where $\mathcal{S}_k$ denotes the set of all permutations of $\{1,\dots,k\}$, i.e. the symmetric group of degree $k$. An element $f\in V^{\otimes k}$ is said to be *symmetric* if $\operatorname{Sym}(f)=f$. We refer to Appendix E of [@Janson1997] for details on Hilbert space tensor products. 0
Tensors
-------
In this subsection we introduce some notation related to tensors (or multi-way arrays) which are necessary to state our main results.
We denote by $\mathbb{K}$ the real field $\mathbb{R}$ or the complex field $\mathbb{C}$ and consider a vector space $V$ over $\mathbb{K}$. Let $q$ be a positive integer $q$. We denote by $\mathcal{T}^q_d(V)$ the set of all $V$-valued functions on $\{1,\dots,d\}^q$ ($V$-valued $d$-dimensional $q$-way tensors). For a tensor $T\in\mathcal{T}^q_d(V)$ and indices $i_1,\dots,i_q\in\{1,\dots,d\}$ we write $T(i_1,\dots,i_q)$ as $T_{i_1,\dots,i_q}$ and $T$ itself as $T=(T_{i_1,\dots,i_q})_{1\leq i_1,\dots,i_q\leq d}$. We identify $\mathcal{T}^1_d(V)$ with $V^d$ and $\mathcal{T}^2_d(V)$ with the set of all $V$-valued $d\times d$ matrices, respectively. When $V=\mathbb{K}$, $\mathcal{T}^q_d(\mathbb{K})$ is naturally identified with the Hilbert space tensor product $(\mathbb{K}^d)^{\otimes q}$.
For two $\mathbb{K}$-valued tensors $S,T\in\mathcal{T}^q_d(\mathbb{K})$, we define their Hadamard-type product (i.e. entry-wise product) by $$S\circ T:=(S_{i_1,\dots,i_q}T_{i_1,\dots,i_q})_{1\leq i_1,\dots,i_q\leq d}\in\mathcal{T}_d^q(\mathbb{K}).$$ Also, we set $$\|T\|_{\ell_1}:=\sum_{1\leq i_1,\dots,i_q\leq d}|T_{i_1,\dots,i_q}|,\qquad
\|T\|_{\ell_\infty}:=\max_{1\leq i_1,\dots,i_q\leq d}|T_{i_1,\dots,i_q}|.$$
For $T\in \mathcal{T}^q_d(V)$ and $v\in V$, we define $$\langle T,v\rangle_V:=(\langle T_{i_1,\dots,i_q},v\rangle_V)_{1\leq i_1,\dots,i_q\leq d}\in\mathcal{T}^q_d(\mathbb{K}).$$
Let $H_1,H_2$ be two real separable Hilbert space. For $S\in \mathcal{T}^{p}_d(H_1)$ and $T\in \mathcal{T}^{q}_d(H_2)$, we define $$S\otimes T=(S_{i_1,\dots,i_p}\otimes T_{j_1,\dots,j_q})_{1\leq i_1,\dots,i_p,j_1,\dots,j_q\leq d}\in\mathcal{T}^{p+q}_d(H_1\otimes H_2).$$
Multi-way arrays {#sec:array}
----------------
In this subsection we introduce some notation related to multi-way arrays (or tensors) which are necessary to state our main results.
Given a positive integer $N$, we set $[N]:=\{1,\dots,N\}$ for short. We denote by $\mathbb{K}$ the real field $\mathbb{R}$ or the complex field $\mathbb{C}$ and consider a vector space $V$ over $\mathbb{K}$. Given $q$ positive integers $N_1,\dots,N_q$, we denote by $V^{N_1\times\cdots\times N_q}$ the set of all $V$-valued $N_1\times\cdots\times N_q$ arrays, i.e. $V$-valued functions on $[N_1]\times\cdots\times[N_q]$. Note that $V^{N_1\times N_2}$ corresponds to the set of all $V$-valued $N_1\times N_2$ matrices. When $N_1=\cdots=N_q=N$, we call an element of $V^{N_1\times\cdots\times N_q}$ a $V$-valued $N$-dimensional $q$-way array. For an array $T\in V^{N_1\times\cdots\times N_q}$ and indices $i_k\in [N_k]$ ($k=1,\dots,q$), we write $T(i_1,\dots,i_q)$ as $T^{i_1,\dots,i_q}$ and $T$ itself as $T=(T^{i_1,\dots,i_q})_{(i_1,\dots,i_q)\in\prod_{k=1}^q[N_k]}$. When $V=\mathbb{K}$, $V^{N_1\times\cdots\times N_q}$ is naturally identified with the Hilbert space tensor product $\mathbb{K}^{N_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes\mathbb{K}^{N_q}$ by the unique linear isomorphism $\iota:\mathbb{K}^{N_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes\mathbb{K}^{N_q}\to\mathbb{K}^{N_1\times\cdots\times N_q}$ such that $\iota(x_1\otimes\cdots\otimes x_q)=(x_1^{i_1}\cdots x_q^{i_q})_{(i_1,\dots,i_q)\in\prod_{k=1}^q[N_k]}$ for $x_k\in\mathbb{K}^{N_k}$, $k=1,\dots,q$ (cf. Example E.10 of [@Janson1997]).
For two $\mathbb{K}$-valued arrays $S,T\in\mathbb{K}^{N_1\times\cdots\times N_q}$, we define their Hadamard-type product (i.e. entry-wise product) by $$S\circ T:=(S^{i_1,\dots,i_q}T^{i_1,\dots,i_q})_{(i_1,\dots,i_q)\in\prod_{k=1}^q[N_k]}\in\mathbb{K}^{N_1\times\cdots\times N_q}.$$ Also, we set $$\|T\|_{\ell_p}:=
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle\left\{\sum_{(i_1,\dots,i_q)\in\prod_{k=1}^q[N_k]}|T^{i_1,\dots,i_q}|^p\right\}^{1/p} & \text{if }p\in(0,\infty),\\
\displaystyle\max_{(i_1,\dots,i_q)\in\prod_{k=1}^q[N_k]}|T^{i_1,\dots,i_q}| & \text{if }p=\infty.
\end{array}\right.$$
Now suppose that $V$ is a real Hilbert space. For $T\in V^{N_1\times\cdots\times N_q}$ and $x\in V$, we define Let $m$ be a positive integer. For each $j=1,\dots,m$, let $V_j$ be a real Hilbert space, $p_j\in\mathbb{N}$, $N_1^{(j)},\dots,N_{p_j}^{(j)}\in\mathbb{N}$ and $T_j\in V_j^{N^{(j)}_1\times\cdots\times N^{(j)}_{p_j}}$. Then we define In particular, we write $$T^{\otimes m}:=\underbrace{T\otimes\cdots\otimes T}_{m}.$$
Malliavin calculus {#sec:malliavin}
------------------
This subsection introduces some notation and concepts from Malliavin calculus used throughout the paper. We refer to @Nualart2006, Chapter 2 of @NP2012 and Chapter 15 of @Janson1997 for further details on this subject.
Given a probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},P)$, let $\mathbb{W}=(\mathbb{W}(h))_{h\in H}$ be an isonormal Gaussian process over a real separable Hilbert space $H$.
Let $V$ be another real separable Hilbert space. For any real number $p\geq1$ and any integer $k\geq1$, $\mathbb{D}_{k,p}(V)$ denotes the stochastic Sobolev space of $V$-valued random variables which are $k$ times differentiable in the Malliavin sense and the derivatives up to order $k$ have finite moments of order $p$. If $F\in\mathbb{D}_{k,p}(V)$, we denote by $D^kF$ the $k$th Malliavin derivative of $F$, which is a random variable taking its values in the space $L^p(\Omega;H^{\otimes k}\otimes V)$. We write $DF$ instead of $D^1F$ for short. We set $\mathbb{D}_{k,\infty}(V)=\bigcap_{p=1}^\infty\mathbb{D}_{k,p}(V)$. If $V=\mathbb{R}$, we simply write $\mathbb{D}_{k,p}(V)$ as $\mathbb{D}_{k,p}$.
For a $d$-dimensional random vector $F\in\mathbb{D}_{k,p}(\mathbb{R}^d)$, we identify the $k$th Malliavin derivative $D^kF$ of $F$ as the $(H^{\otimes k})^d$-valued random variable $(D^kF^1,\dots,D^kF^d)$ . Similarly, for a $d\times d'$ matrix valued random variable $F\in\mathbb{D}_{k,p}(\mathbb{R}^{d\times d'})$, we identify $D^kF$ as the $(H^{\otimes k})^{d\times d'}$-valued random variable $(D^kF^{ij})_{(i,j)\in[d]\times[d']}$.
For a positive integer $q$, we denote by $\delta^q$ the $q$-th multiple Skorohod integral, which is the adjoint operator of the densely defined operator $L^2(\Omega)\supset\mathbb{D}_{q,2}\ni F\mapsto D^qF\in L^2(\Omega;H^{\otimes q})$. That is, the domain $\operatorname{Dom}(\delta^q)$ of $\delta^q$ is defined as the set of all $H^{\otimes q}$-valued random variables $u$ such that there is a constant $C>0$ satisfying $|E[\langle u,D^qF\rangle_{H^{\otimes q}}]|\leq C\|F\|_2$ for all $F\in\mathbb{D}_{q,2}$, and the following duality formula holds for any $u\in\operatorname{Dom}(\delta^q)$ and $F\in\mathbb{D}_{q,2}$: $$E[F\delta^q(u)]=E[\langle u,D^qF\rangle_{H^{\otimes q}}].$$
Multi-indices
-------------
This subsection collects some notation related to multi-indices.
Let $q$ be a positive integer. We denote by $\mathbb{Z}_+$ the set of all non-negative integers. We define $$\mathcal{A}(q):=\{\alpha\in\mathbb{Z}_+^q:\alpha_1+2\alpha_2+\cdots+q\alpha_q=q\}.$$ For a multi-index $\alpha=(\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_q)\in\mathbb{Z}_+^q$, we set $|\alpha|=\alpha_1+\cdots+\alpha_q$ as usual. Given another positive integer $r$, we define $$\mathcal{N}_r(\alpha):=\left\{\nu=(\nu_{ij})_{(i,j)\in[q]\times[r]}:\nu_{ij}\in\mathbb{Z},\sum_{j=1}^r\nu_{ij}=\alpha_i \right\}$$ and $$\mathcal{N}^*_r(\alpha)=\{\nu=(\nu_{ij})\in\mathcal{N}_r(\alpha):\nu_{q1}=0\}.$$ Moreover, we define $${\textcolor{black}{{\overline{\mathcal{A}}}(q):=\bigcup_{p=1}^q\mathcal{A}(p)\quad\text{and}\quad}}
{\overline{\mathcal{N}}}^*_r(q):=\bigcup_{\alpha\in{\textcolor{black}{{\overline{\mathcal{A}}}}}(q)}\mathcal{N}^*_r(\alpha).$$ Finally, for an element $\nu=(\nu_{ij})\in\mathcal{N}_4(\alpha)$, we set $|\nu|_*:=|\nu_{\cdot 1}|+2|\nu_{\cdot 2}|+|\nu_{\cdot 3}|$ and $|\nu|_{**}:=|\nu|_*+|\nu_{\cdot4}|$.
Main results {#sec:main}
============
Throughout the paper, we consider an asymptotic theory such that the parameter $n\in\mathbb{N}$ tends to infinity. For each $n\in\mathbb{N}$, we consider a probability space $(\Omega^{n},\mathcal{F}^{n},P^{n})$, and we suppose that all the random variables at stage $n$ are defined on $(\Omega^{n},\mathcal{F}^{n},P^{n})$. We also suppose that an isonormal Gaussian process $\mathbb{W}_n=(\mathbb{W}_n(h))_{h\in H_n}$ over a real separable Hilbert space $H_n$ is defined on $(\Omega^{n},\mathcal{F}^{n},P^{n})$. To keep the notation simple, we subtract the indices $n$ from $(\Omega^{n},\mathcal{F}^{n},P^{n})$, $\mathbb{W}_n$ and $H_n$, respectively. So we will write them simply as $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},P)$, $\mathbb{W}$ and $H$, respectively. In particular, note that the spaces and the operators associated with $\mathbb{W}$ (which are introduced in Section \[sec:malliavin\]) implicitly depend on $n$, although we do not attach the index $n$ to them.
For each $n\in\mathbb{N}$, let $M_n$ be a $d$-dimensional random vector consisting of multiple Skorohod integrals: $$M_n^j=\delta^{q_j}(u_n^j),\qquad j=1,\dots,d,$$ where $q_j$ is a positive integer and $u_n^j\in\operatorname{Dom}(\delta^{q_j})$ for every $j$. Here, we assume that the dimension $d$ possibly depends on $n$ as $d=d_n$, while $q_j$’s do not depend on $n$. We also assume $d_n\geq{\textcolor{black}{3}}$ for every $n$ and ${\overline{q}}:=\sup_{j}q_j<\infty$. Our aim is to study mixed-normal limit theorems for the following functionals: $$Z_n=M_n+W_n,\qquad n=1,2,\dots,$$ where $W_n$’s are $d$-dimensional random vectors which represent the uncentered part of the functionals. Let us introduce mixed-normal random vectors approximating the functionals $Z_n$ in law as follows: $$\mathfrak{Z}_n=\mathfrak{C}_n^{1/2}\zeta_n+W_n,\qquad n=1,2,\dots.$$ Here, $\mathfrak{C}_n$ is a $d\times d$ symmetric positive semidefinite random matrix and $\zeta_n$ is a $d$-dimensional standard Gaussian vector independent of $\mathcal{F}$, which is defined on an extension of the probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},P)$ if necessary. The main aim of this paper is to investigate reasonable regularity conditions under which the distribution of $Z_n$ is well-approximated by that of $\mathfrak{Z}_n$. To be precise, we are interested in the following type of result: $$\sup_{z\in\mathbb{R}^d}\left|P(Z_n\leq z)-P(\mathfrak{Z}_n\leq z)\right|\to0\qquad\text{as }n\to\infty.$$ It is well-recognized in statistic literature, however, that this type of result is usually insufficient for statistical applications because it does not ensure standardization by a *random* vector which is still random in the limit; such an operation is crucial for Studentization in the present context. In a low-dimensional setting, this issue is usually resolved by proving the stability of the convergence so that $$(Z_n,X)\to^{\mathcal{L}}(\mathfrak{Z}_n,X)\qquad\text{as }n\to\infty$$ for any $m$-dimensional ($\mathcal{F}$-measurable) random variable $X$, where $\to^{\mathcal{L}}$ denotes the convergence in law. This statement is no longer meaningful in a high-dimensional setting such that $d\to\infty$ as $n\to\infty$, so we need to reformulate it appropriately. A naïve idea is to consider the following statement: $$\label{stable-kol}
\sup_{z\in\mathbb{R}^d,x\in\mathbb{R}^m}\left|P(Z_n\leq z,X\leq x)-P(\mathfrak{Z}_n\leq z,X\leq x)\right|\to0\qquad\text{as }n\to\infty.$$ However, if $m$ depends also on $n$, this type of statement is not attractive neither theoretical nor practical points of view due to the following reasons: From a theoretical point of view, we need to assume a so-called *anti-concentration inequality* for $X$ to prove this type of result by the CCK approach, but it is usually hard to check such an inequality for general random variables, especially when $m\to\infty$ as $n\to\infty$. Besides, from a practical point of view, it is still unclear whether the convergence ensures the validity of standardization of $Z_n$ because no analog of the continuous mapping theorem has been established yet for high-dimensional central limit theorems of the form . For these reasons we choose the way to directly prove convergence results for normalized statistics of $Z_n$. More formally, let $\Xi_n$ be an $m\times d$ random matrix, where $m=m_n\geq{\textcolor{black}{3}}$ possibly depends on $n$. Our aim is to establish $$\label{aim}
\sup_{y\in\mathbb{R}^m}|P(\Xi_nZ_n\leq y)-P(\Xi_n\mathfrak{Z}_n\leq y)|\to0$$ as $n\to\infty$ under reasonable regularity conditions on $Z_n$ and $\Xi_n$. Mathematically speaking, given a vector $y\in\mathbb{R}^m$, the set $\{z\in\mathbb{R}^d:\Xi_nz\leq y\}$ is a finite intersection of hyperplanes in $\mathbb{R}^d$, i.e. convex polytopes in $\mathbb{R}^d$, the convergence can be considered as a high-dimensional central limit theorem for random convex polytopes. If we take $\Xi_n$ as the $d\times d$ diagonal matrix whose diagonals are the inverses of the “standard errors” of $Z_n$, the convergence does ensures the validity of (marginal) standardization of $Z_n$.
Now, our main theorem is stated as follows:
\[thm:main\] Suppose that $M_n,W_n\in\mathbb{D}_{\overline{q},\infty}(\mathbb{R}^d)$ and $\mathfrak{C}_n\in\mathbb{D}_{\overline{q},\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{d\times d})$ and that $u_n^j$ is symmetric for all $n$ and $j$. Suppose also that $\Xi_n$ can be written as $\Xi_n=\Upsilon_n\circ{\boldsymbol{X}}_n$ with $\Upsilon_n$ being an $m\times d$ (deterministic) matrix such that ${\@ifstar{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
s
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{\Upsilon_n}_\infty\geq1$ and ${\boldsymbol{X}}_{n}\in\mathbb{D}_{\overline{q},\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{m\times d})$. Assume that the following convergences hold true: $$\label{qtan-conv}
{\@ifstar{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
s
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{\Upsilon_n}_\infty^2E\left[\|{\boldsymbol{X}}_n\|_{\ell_\infty}^2\|\Delta_n\|_{\ell_\infty}\right](\log m)^2\to0$$ and $$\label{delta-conv}
{\@ifstar{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
s
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{\Upsilon_n}_\infty^{|\nu|_{**}+1}E\left[\left(1+\|{\boldsymbol{X}}_n\|_{\ell_\infty}^{|\nu|_*+1}\right)\left(1+\|Z_n\|_{\ell_\infty}^{|\nu_{\cdot 4}|}+\|\mathfrak{Z}_n\|_{\ell_\infty}^{|\nu_{\cdot 4}|}\right)\max_{1\leq j\leq d}\|\Delta_{n,j}(\nu)\|_{\ell_\infty}\right](\log m)^{\frac{3}{2}|\nu|_{**}+\frac{1}{2}}\to0$$ as $n\to\infty$ for every $\nu\in{\overline{\mathcal{N}}}_4^*({\overline{q}})$, where $$\label{qtan}
\Delta_n=\left(\langle D^{q_j}M^i_n,u_n^j\rangle_{H^{\otimes q_j}}-\mathfrak{C}_n^{ij}\right)_{1\leq i,j\leq d}$$ and $$\label{eq:delta}
\Delta_{n,j}(\nu):=\left\langle \bigotimes_{k=1}^{q_j}(D^kM_n)^{\otimes \nu_{k1}}\otimes(D^k\mathfrak{C}_n)^{\otimes \nu_{k2}}\otimes(D^kW_n)^{\otimes \nu_{k3}}\otimes(D^k{\boldsymbol{X}}_{n})^{\otimes \nu_{k4}},u_n^j\right\rangle_{H^{\otimes q_j}}$$ Assume also that the following condition is satisfied: $$\label{diag-tight}
\lim_{b\downarrow0}\limsup_{n\to\infty}P(\min\operatorname{diag}(\Xi_n\mathfrak{C}_n\Xi_n^\top)<b)=0.$$ Then we have as $n\to\infty$.
The variable $\Delta_n$ defined in is called the *quasi-tangent* in [@NY2017].
The variable $\Delta_{n,j}(\nu)$ defined in takes values in $$\mathbb{R}^{\underbrace{\scriptstyle{d\times\cdots\times d}}_{|\nu|_{*}}\times\underbrace{\scriptstyle{m\times\cdots\times m}}_{|\nu_{\cdot4}|}
\times\underbrace{\scriptstyle{d\times\cdots\times d}}_{|\nu_{\cdot4}|}}$$ when $\nu=(\nu_{kl})\in\bigcup_{\alpha\in\mathcal{A}(q_j)}\mathcal{N}_4^*(\alpha)$. To see this, let us recall that $D^kM_n$, $D^k\mathfrak{C}_n$, $D^kW_n$ and $D^k{\boldsymbol{X}}_n$ take values in $(H^{\otimes k})^d$, $(H^{\otimes k})^{d\times d}$, $(H^{\otimes k})^d$ and $(H^{\otimes k})^{m\times d}$, respectively (cf. Section \[sec:malliavin\]). Therefore, according to the notation defined by , the variable $$\bigotimes_{k=1}^{q_j}(D^kM_n)^{\otimes \nu_{k1}}\otimes(D^k\mathfrak{C}_n)^{\otimes \nu_{k2}}\otimes(D^kW_n)^{\otimes \nu_{k3}}\otimes(D^k{\boldsymbol{X}}_{n})^{\otimes \nu_{k4}}$$ takes values in $$\left(H^{\otimes \sum_{k=1}^{q_j}k(\nu_{k1}+\nu_{k2}+\nu_{k3}+\nu_{k4})}\right)^{\underbrace{\scriptstyle{d\times\cdots\times d}}_{\sum_{k=1}^{q_j}(\nu_{k1}+2\nu_{k2}+\nu_{k3})}
\times\underbrace{\scriptstyle{m\times\cdots\times m}}_{\sum_{k=1}^{q_j}\nu_{k4}}
\times\underbrace{\scriptstyle{d\times\cdots\times d}}_{\sum_{k=1}^{q_j}\nu_{k4}}}
=\left(H^{\otimes q_j}\right)^{\underbrace{\scriptstyle{d\times\cdots\times d}}_{|\nu|_{*}}\times\underbrace{\scriptstyle{m\times\cdots\times m}}_{|\nu_{\cdot4}|}
\times\underbrace{\scriptstyle{d\times\cdots\times d}}_{|\nu_{\cdot4}|}},$$ where the last identity follows from the relation $\sum_{k=1}^{q_j}k(\nu_{k1}+\nu_{k2}+\nu_{k3}+\nu_{k4})=q_j$. Hence, according to the notation defined by , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_{n,j}(\nu)&=\left\langle \bigotimes_{k=1}^{q_j}(D^kM_n)^{\otimes \nu_{k1}}\otimes(D^k\mathfrak{C}_n)^{\otimes \nu_{k2}}\otimes(D^kW_n)^{\otimes \nu_{k3}}\otimes(D^k{\boldsymbol{X}}_{n})^{\otimes \nu_{k4}},u_n^j\right\rangle_{H^{\otimes q_j}}\\
&\in\mathbb{R}^{\underbrace{\scriptstyle{d\times\cdots\times d}}_{|\nu|_{*}}\times\underbrace{\scriptstyle{m\times\cdots\times m}}_{|\nu_{\cdot4}|}
\times\underbrace{\scriptstyle{d\times\cdots\times d}}_{|\nu_{\cdot4}|}}.\end{aligned}$$
In Theorem \[thm:main\], we require all the variables appearing there to have finite moments of all orders just for simplicity. It would be enough for them to have finite moments up to order $p$ only, where $p$ would be a function of ${\overline{q}}$.
As in the original CCK theory, it is possible to give a quantitative version of the convergence , but we do not implement it here to make the statement of the theorem simpler.
In particular, when $q_j=1$ for all $j$, they consist of the following convergences: $$\begin{aligned}
&{\@ifstar{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
s
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{\Upsilon_n}_\infty^2E\left[\|{\boldsymbol{X}}_n\|_{\ell_\infty}^2\max_{1\leq i,j\leq d}\left|\langle DM^i_n,u_n^j\rangle_{H}-\mathfrak{C}_n^{ij}\right|\right](\log m)^2\to0,\\
&{\@ifstar{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
s
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{\Upsilon_n}_\infty^{3}E\left[(1+\|{\boldsymbol{X}}_n\|_{\ell_\infty}^{3})\max_{1\leq i,j,k\leq d}\left|\langle D\mathfrak{C}_n^{ij},u_n^k\rangle_{H}\right|\right](\log m)^{\frac{7}{2}}\to0,\\
&{\@ifstar{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
s
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{\Upsilon_n}_\infty^{2}E\left[(1+\|{\boldsymbol{X}}_n\|_{\ell_\infty}^{2})\max_{1\leq i,j\leq d}\left|\langle DW^{i}_n,u_n^j\rangle_{H}\right|\right](\log m)^{2}\to0,\\
&{\@ifstar{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
s
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{\Upsilon_n}_\infty^{2}E\left[\left(1+\|Z_n\|_{\ell_\infty}+\|\mathfrak{Z}_n\|_{\ell_\infty}\right)\max_{1\leq i\leq m}\max_{1\leq j,k\leq d}\left|\langle D{\boldsymbol{X}}^{ij}_n,u_n^k\rangle_{H}\right|\right](\log m)^2\to0.\end{aligned}$$ 0 $$\mathcal{A}(2)=\{(0,1),(2,0)\}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{N}_4((0,1))=\left\{
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}\right),
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0
\end{array}\right),
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0
\end{array}\right),
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1
\end{array}\right)
\right\}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{N}_4((2,0))
&=\left\{
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
2 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}\right),
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 2 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}\right),
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 0 & 2 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}\right),
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 0 & 0 & 2\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}\right),
\right.\\
&\hphantom{=\{}
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}\right),
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}\right),
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}\right),
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 1 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}\right),\\
&\left.\hphantom{=\{}
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 1 & 0 & 1\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}\right),
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 0 & 1 & 1\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}\right)
\right\}\end{aligned}$$
hen $q_j=2$ for all $j$, they consist of the following convergences: where $F_n,G_n\in\{M_n,W_n\}$.
As a special case of Theorem \[thm:main\], we can deduce a high-dimensional central limit theorem for multiple Skorohod integrals in hyperrectangles as follows. Let $\mathcal{A}^\mathrm{re}(d)$ be the set of all hyperrectangles in $\mathbb{R}^d$, i.e. $\mathcal{A}^\mathrm{re}(d)$ consists of all sets $A$ of the form $$A=\{z\in\mathbb{R}^d:a_j\leq z^j\leq b_j\text{ for all }j=1,\dots,d\}$$ for some $-\infty\leq a_j\leq b_j\leq\infty$, $j=1,\dots,d$. Taking $\Xi_n$ as $$\Xi_n=\left(\begin{array}{c}
\mathsf{E}_d\\
-\mathsf{E}_d
\end{array}\right)$$ in Theorem \[thm:main\], where $\mathsf{E}_d$ denotes the identity matrix of size $d$, we obtain the following result (note that continues to hold true while $\mathbb{R}^d$ is replaced by $(-\infty,\infty]^d$):
\[coro:main\] Suppose that $M_n,W_n\in\mathbb{D}_{\overline{q},\infty}(\mathbb{R}^d)$ and $\mathfrak{C}_n\in\mathbb{D}_{\overline{q},\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{d\times d})$ and that $u_n^j$ is symmetric for all $n$ and $j$. Assume that the following convergences hold true: $$E\left[\|{\boldsymbol{X}}_n\|_{\ell_\infty}^2\|\Delta_n\|_{\ell_\infty}\right](\log d)^2\to0$$ and $$E\left[\left(1+\|{\boldsymbol{X}}_n\|_{\ell_\infty}^{|\nu|_*+1}\right)\left(1+\|Z_n\|_{\ell_\infty}^{|\nu_{\cdot 4}|}+\|\mathfrak{Z}_n\|_{\ell_\infty}^{|\nu_{\cdot 4}|}\right)\max_{1\leq j\leq d}\|\Delta_{n,j}(\nu)\|_{\ell_\infty}\right](\log d)^{\frac{3}{2}|\nu|_{**}+\frac{1}{2}}\to0$$ as $n\to\infty$ for every $\nu\in{\overline{\mathcal{N}}}_4^*({\overline{q}})$. Assume also that the following condition is satisfied: $$\lim_{b\downarrow0}\limsup_{n\to\infty}P(\min\operatorname{diag}(\mathfrak{C}_n)<b)=0.$$ Then we have $$\sup_{A\in\mathcal{A}^\mathrm{re}(d)}\left|P(Z_n\in A)-P(\mathfrak{Z}_n\in A)\right|\to0$$ as $n\to\infty$.
Some related results for statistical applications {#some-related-results-for-statistical-applications .unnumbered}
-------------------------------------------------
In many applications, the objective variables are only approximately multiple Skorohod integrals. The following lemma is useful for such a situation.
\[lemma:approx\] For each $n\in\mathbb{N}$, let $Y_n,Y_n'$ be $m$-dimensional random vectors such that $$\sqrt{\log m}\|Y_n'-Y_n\|_{\ell_\infty}\to^p0$$ and $$\sup_{y\in\mathbb{R}^m}|P(Y_n\leq y)-P(\Xi_n\mathfrak{Z}_n\leq y)|\to0$$ as $n\to\infty$. Then we have $$\sup_{y\in\mathbb{R}^m}|P(Y'_n\leq y)-P(\Xi_n\mathfrak{Z}_n\leq y)|\to0$$ as $n\to\infty$, provided that holds true.
In terms of statistical applications, the mixed-normal approximation given by Theorem \[thm:main\] is often infeasible because the “asymptotic” covariance matrix $\mathfrak{C}_n$ usually contains unobservable quantities. In the following we give two auxiliary results bridging this gap. The first result ensures the validity of estimating the $\mathcal{F}$-conditional distribution of $\Xi_n\mathfrak{Z}_n$ while we replace $\mathfrak{C}_n,W_n$ and $\Xi_n$ by their estimators.
\[prop:comparison\] For each $n$, let ${\widehat{\mathfrak{C}}}_n,{\widehat{W}}_n$ and ${\widehat{\Xi}}_n$ be a $d\times d$ symmetric positive semidefinite random matrix, a $d$-dimensional random vector and an $m\times d$ random matrix, respectively. Set $\widehat{\mathfrak{Z}}_n:=\widehat{\mathfrak{C}}_n^{1/2}\zeta_n+{\widehat{W}}_n$. Suppose that $$\label{eq:consistent}
\sqrt{\log m}\|{\widehat{\Xi}}_n{\widehat{W}}_n-\Xi_nW_n\|_{\ell_\infty}\to^p0,\qquad
(\log m)^2\|{\widehat{\Xi}}_n\widehat{\mathfrak{C}}_n{\widehat{\Xi}}_n^\top-\Xi_n\mathfrak{C}_n\Xi_n^\top\|_{\ell_\infty}\to^p0$$ as $n\to\infty$. Then we have $$\sup_{y\in\mathbb{R}^m}|P({\widehat{\Xi}}_n\widehat{\mathfrak{Z}}_n\leq y|\mathcal{F})-P(\Xi_n\mathfrak{Z}_n\leq y|\mathcal{F})|\to0$$ as $n\to\infty$, provided that holds true.
We remark that the above proposition only gives a way to estimate the $\mathcal{F}$-conditional distribution of $\Xi_n\mathfrak{Z}_n$ when we have appropriate estimators for relevant variables: It says nothing about how to estimate the *unconditional* distribution of $\Xi_n\mathfrak{Z}_n$. Because of the non-ergodic nature of the problem, in general there seems no hope of consistently estimating the latter quantity even if we can consistently estimate unknown variables contained in $\Xi_n\mathfrak{Z}_n$. In a low-dimensional setting this issue is usually resolved by standardizing the objective statistic by a consistent estimator for its asymptotic covariance matrix, which is validated via the stability of convergence in law. In a high-dimensional setting, however, standardizing the (joint) distribution of the objective statistic is often difficult: Estimators for the conditional covariance matrix of the objective statistic are usually singular because the sample size is smaller than the dimension, and even if it is regular, computation of the inverse is typically time-consuming. Nevertheless, we can fortunately show that, in order to estimate quantiles of the unconditional distribution $\Xi_n\mathfrak{Z}_n$, it is sufficient to only estimate its $\mathcal{F}$-conditional distribution. We remark that this fact has already been known in high-frequency financial econometrics and typically been used to construct jump-related testing procedures; see [@JT2009; @LTT2017] for example. Formally, we can prove the following result:
\[prop:quantile\] For each $n\in\mathbb{N}$, let $T_n,T_n^\dagger,T_n^*$ be random variables defined on an extension of the probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},P)$. Suppose that $$\begin{aligned}
&\sup_{x\in\mathbb{R}}\left|P(T_n\leq x)-P(T_n^\dagger\leq x)\right|\to0,
&\sup_{x\in\mathbb{R}}\left|P(T_n^*\leq x|\mathcal{F})-P(T_n^\dagger\leq x|\mathcal{F})\right|\to^p0\end{aligned}$$ as $n\to\infty$. Suppose also that there is a sequence $(E_n)$ of elements in $\mathcal{F}$ such that the $\mathcal{F}$-conditional distribution of $T_n^\dagger$ has the density on $E_n$ for every $n$ and $\lim_{n\to\infty}P(E_n)=1$. For each $n\in\mathbb{N}$, let $q_n^*$ be the $\mathcal{F}$-conditional quantile function of $T_n^*$: $$q_n^*(\alpha)=\inf\{x\in\mathbb{R}:P(T_n^*\leq x|\mathcal{F})\geq \alpha\},\qquad \alpha\in(0,1).$$ Then we have $$P(T_n \leq q_n^*(\alpha))\to\alpha$$ as $n\to\infty$ for all $\alpha\in(0,1)$.
Application to realized covariance {#sec:rc}
==================================
In this section we assume that the probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},P)$ admits the structure such that $\Omega=\Omega'\times\mathbf{W}$, $\mathcal{F}=\mathcal{F}'\otimes\mathbf{B}$ and $P=P'\times\mathbf{P}$ for some probability space $(\Omega',\mathcal{F}',P')$ and the $r$-dimensional Wiener space $(\mathbf{W},\mathbf{B},\mathbf{P})$ over time interval $[0,1]$, and consider the partial Malliavin calculus with respect to the $r$-dimensional Brownian motion $B=(B_t)_{t\in[0,1]}$ defined by $B_t(\omega',w)=w(t)$ for $\omega'\in\Omega'$, $w\in\mathbf{W}$ and $t\in[0,1]$ (cf. Section 6.1 of [@Yoshida1997]). In this setting the Hilbert space $H$ coincides with the space $L^2([0,1];\mathbb{R}^r)$. We here allow the dimension $r=r_n$ to possibly depend on $n\in\mathbb{N}$, so $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},P)$ and $B$ may depend on $n$, but we subtract the index $n$ from the notation. Let $(\mathcal{B}_t)_{t\in[0,1]}$ the filtration generated by the canonical process on $\mathbf{W}$, and define the filtration $(\mathcal{F}_t)_{t\in[0,1]}$ of $\mathcal{F}$ by $\mathcal{F}_t:=\mathcal{F}'\otimes\mathcal{B}_t$ for $t\in[0,1]$. On the stochastic basis $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},(\mathcal{F}_t),P)$, we consider the $d$-dimensional continuous Itô semimartingale $Y=(Y_t)_{t\in[0,1]}$ given by the following: $$Y_t=Y_0+\int_0^t\mu_sds+\int_0^t\sigma_sdB_s,\qquad t\in[0,1].$$ Here, $\mu=(\mu_s)_{s\in[0,1]}$ is a $d$-dimensional $(\mathcal{F}_t)$-progressively measurable process and $\sigma=(\sigma_s)_{s\in[0,1]}$ is an $\mathbb{R}^{d\times r}$-valued $(\mathcal{F}_t)$-progressively measurable process such that $$\int_0^1\left(\|\mu_s\|_{\ell_1}+\|\sigma_s\|_{\ell_2}^2\right)ds<\infty\quad\text{a.s.}$$ We remark that the processes $\mu$ and $\sigma$ generally depend on $n$ because $d$ and $r$ may depend on $n$. However, following the custom of high-dimensional statistics, we subtract the index $n$ from the notation as above.
We observe the process $Y$ at the discrete time points $t_h=t_h^n=h/n$, $h=0,1,\dots,n$. In such a setting, the discretized quadratic covariation matrix $$\widehat{[Y,Y]}^n_1:=\sum_{h=1}^n(Y_{t_h}-Y_{t_{h-1}})(Y_{t_h}-Y_{t_{h-1}})^\top,$$ which is known as the *realized covariance matrix* in high-frequency financial econometrics, is a natural estimator for the quadratic covariance matrix of $Y$: $$[Y,Y]_1=\int_0^1\Sigma_tdt,\qquad\Sigma_t:=\sigma_t\sigma_t^\top.$$ The aim of this section is to establish the asymptotic mixed normality of the estimator $\widehat{[Y,Y]}^n_1$ in a high-dimensional setting such that the dimension $d$ is possibly (much) larger than the sample size $n$.
Before stating the result, we introduce some notation. First, for a random variable $F$ taking values in $\mathbb{R}^{N_1\times\cdots\times N_q}$ for some $N_1,\dots,N_q\in\mathbb{N}$, we set $\|F\|_{p,\ell_2}:=\|\|F\|_{\ell_2}\|_p$ for every $p\in(0,\infty]$. Next, for a positive integer $k$, we identify the space $H^{\otimes k}$ with $L^2([0,1]^k;(\mathbb{R}^r)^{\otimes k})$ in the canonical way . Therefore, if a random variable $F$ is $k$ times differentiable in the Malliavin sense, the $k$th Malliavin derivative $D^kF$ of $F$ $L^2([0,1]^k;(\mathbb{R}^r)^{\otimes k})$, so we can consider the value $D^kF(t_1,\dots,t_k)$ in $(\mathbb{R}^r)^{\otimes k}$ evaluated at $(t_1,\dots,t_k)\in[0,1]^k$. We denote this value by $D_{t_1,\dots,t_k}F$. Moreover, for an index $(a_1,\dots,a_k)\in\{1,\dots,r\}^k$, we write the $(a_1,\dots,a_k)$-th entry of $D_{t_1,\dots,t_k}F$ as $D^{(a_1,\dots,a_k)}_{t_1,\dots,t_k}F$ (note that we identify $(\mathbb{R}^r)^{\otimes k}$ with $\mathbb{R}^{r\times\cdots\times r}$). We remark that the variable $D_{t_1,\dots,t_k}F$ is defined only a.e. on $[0,1]^k\times\Omega$ with respect to the measure $\operatorname{\mathsf{Leb}}_k\times P$, where $\operatorname{\mathsf{Leb}}_k$ denotes the Lebesgue measure on $[0,1]^k$. Therefore, if $D_{t_1,\dots,t_k}F$ satisfies some property a.e. on $[0,1]^k\times\Omega$ with respect to the measure $\operatorname{\mathsf{Leb}}_k\times P$, by convention we will always take a version of $D_{t_1,\dots,t_k}F$ satisfying that property everywhere on $[0,1]^k\times\Omega$ if necessary. 0 If $F\in\mathbb{D}_{2,p}(\mathbb{R}^r)$ for some $p\geq1$, we define $${\@ifstar{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
s
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{D_{s,t}F}_*:=\sup\left\{\sqrt{\sum_{a=1}^r\left(A\cdot D^2_{s,t}F^a\right)^2}:A\in\mathbb{R}^{r\times r},\|A\|_{\ell_2}\leq1\right\}$$ for $s,t\in[0,1]$. Namely, ${\@ifstar{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
s
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{D_{s,t}F}_*$ is the operator norm of the random map $\mathbb{R}^{r\times r}\ni A\mapsto (A\cdot D_{s,t}F^1,\dots,A\cdot D_{s,t}F^r)^\top\in\mathbb{R}^r$. We can bound ${\@ifstar{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
s
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{D_{s,t}F}_*$ as $${\@ifstar{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
s
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{D_{s,t}F}_*\leq\sqrt{\sum_{a,b,c=1}^r\left(D^{(a,b)}_{s,t}F^c\right)^2}=\|D_{s,t}F\|_{\ell_2}.$$ We also set ${\@ifstar{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
s
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{D_{s,t}F}_{p,*}:=\|{\@ifstar{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
s
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{D_{s,t}F}_*\|_p$ for $p\in(0,\infty]$.
We define the $d^2\times d^2$ random matrix $\mathfrak{C}_n$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathfrak{C}_n^{(i-1)d+j,(k-1)d+l}:=
n\sum_{h=1}^n\left\{\left(\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\Sigma_s^{ik}ds\right)\left(\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\Sigma_s^{jl}ds\right)
+\left(\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\Sigma_s^{il}ds\right)\left(\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\Sigma_s^{jk}ds\right)\right\},\\
i,j,k,l=1,\dots,d,\end{aligned}$$ which plays the role of the conditional covariance matrix of the approximating mixed-normal distribution in our setting.
In the fixed dimensional setting, $\mathfrak{C}_n$ converges in probability as $n\to\infty$ to the random matrix $\bar{\mathfrak{C}}$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\mathfrak{C}}^{(i-1)d+j,(k-1)d+l}:=
\int_0^1\left(\Sigma_t^{ik}\Sigma_t^{jl}+\Sigma_t^{il}\Sigma_t^{jk}\right)dt,\qquad
i,j,k,l=1,\dots,d\end{aligned}$$ under mild regularity assumptions, so $\bar{\mathfrak{C}}$ plays the role of the asymptotic covariance matrix in such a setting. However, in the high-dimensional setting the convergence rate of $\mathfrak{C}_n$ to $\bar{\mathfrak{C}}$ does matter and we usually need an additional condition like to derive it. To avoid such an extra assumption, we use the “intermediate version” $\mathfrak{C}_n$ of $\bar{\mathfrak{C}}$ to state Theorem \[thm:rc\] below.
0 For a random variable $\xi$ and a positive number $\alpha$, we define $$\|\xi\|_{\psi_\alpha}:=\inf\{C>0:E[\psi_\alpha(|\xi|/C)]\leq1\},$$ where we set $\psi_\alpha(x)=\exp(x^\alpha)-1$ for every $x\geq0$.
\[thm:rc\] Suppose that $\mu_t\in\mathbb{D}_{1,\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{d})$ and $\sigma_t\in\mathbb{D}_{2,\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{d\times r})$ for all $t\in[0,1]$. For every $n\in\mathbb{N}$, let $W_n\in\mathbb{D}_{2,\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{d^2})$, ${\boldsymbol{X}}_n\in\mathbb{D}_{2,\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{m\times d^2})$ and $\Upsilon_n$ be an $m\times d^2$ (deterministic) matrix such that ${\@ifstar{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
s
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{\Upsilon_n}_\infty\geq1$, where $m=m_n$ possibly depends on $n\in\mathbb{N}$. Define $\Xi_n:=\Upsilon_n\circ{\boldsymbol{X}}_n$ and assume $$\label{rc:diag}
\lim_{b\downarrow0}\limsup_{n\to\infty}P(\min\operatorname{diag}(\Xi_n\mathfrak{C}_n\Xi_n^\top)<b)=0.$$ Then the following statements hold true:
1. Suppose that there is a constant $\varpi\in(0,\frac{1}{2})$ such that ${\@ifstar{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
s
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{\Upsilon_n}_\infty^5=O(n^\varpi)$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&\sup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}
\max_{1\leq i\leq d^2}\left(
\|W^{i}_n\|_p
{\textcolor{black}{+}}\sup_{0\leq t\leq 1}\|D_tW_n^{i}\|_{p,\ell_2}
+\sup_{0\leq s,t\leq 1}\|D_{s,t}W_n^{i}\|_{p,\ell_2}
\right)
<\infty,\label{eq-W}\\
&\sup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}
\max_{1\leq i\leq m}\max_{1\leq j\leq d^2}\left(
\|{\boldsymbol{X}}^{ij}_n\|_p
{\textcolor{black}{+}}\sup_{0\leq t\leq 1}\|D_t{\boldsymbol{X}}_n^{ij}\|_{p,\ell_2}
+\sup_{0\leq s,t\leq 1}\|D_{s,t}{\boldsymbol{X}}_n^{ij}\|_{p,\ell_2}
\right)
<\infty,\label{eq-X}\\
&\sup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}
\max_{1\leq i\leq d}\sup_{0\leq t\leq 1}\left(
\|\mu_t^{i}\|_p
+\sup_{0\leq s,t\leq 1}\|D_s\mu_t^{i}\|_{p,\ell_2}
\right)
<\infty,\label{eq-mu}\\
&\sup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}
\max_{1\leq i\leq d}\sup_{0\leq t\leq 1}\left(
\|\Sigma_t^{ii}\|_p
+\sup_{0\leq s,t\leq 1}\|D_s\sigma_t^{i\cdot}\|_{p,\ell_2}
+\sup_{0\leq s,t,u\leq 1}\|D_{s,t}\sigma_u^{i\cdot}\|_{p,\ell_2}
\right)
<\infty\label{eq-sigma}\end{aligned}$$ for all $p\in[1,\infty)$. 0 Suppose also that there is a constant $\gamma\in(0,1]$ such that $$\max_{1\leq i,j\leq d}\max_{1\leq h\leq n}\sup_{s,t\in I_h}\left\|\Sigma_t^{ij}-\Sigma_s^{ij}\right\|_{p}=O(n^{-\gamma})$$ as $n\to\infty$ for all $p\in[2,\infty)$. Suppose also that $d=O(n^\mathfrak{c})$ and $m=O(n^\mathfrak{c})$ as $n\to\infty$ for some $\mathfrak{c}>0$. Then we have $$\label{rc:result}
\sup_{y\in\mathbb{R}^m}\left|P\left(\Xi_n\left(S_n+W_n\right)\leq y\right)-P(\Xi_n(\mathfrak{C}_n^{1/2}\zeta_n+W_n)\leq y)\right|\to0$$ as $n\to\infty$, where $$S_n:=\operatorname{vec}\left[\sqrt{n}\left(\widehat{[Y,Y]}^n_1-[Y,Y]_1\right)\right]$$ and $\zeta_n$ is a $d^2$-dimensional Gaussian vector independent of $\mathcal{F}$.
0
2. Suppose that there is a number $\alpha\in(0,2]$ such that ${\@ifstar{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
s
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{\Upsilon_n}_\infty^5(\log d)^{\frac{10}{\alpha}}\upsilon_n^{10}(\log m)^{\frac{13}{2}}=o(\sqrt{n})$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&\max_{1\leq i\leq d^2}\left\{
\|W^{i}_n\|_{\psi_\alpha}+\|X^{i}_n\|_{\psi_\alpha}
+\sup_{0\leq t\leq 1}\left(\|D_tW_n^{i}\|_{\psi_\alpha,\ell_2}+\|D_tX^{i}_n\|_{\psi_\alpha,\ell_2}\right)\right.\\
&\left.\hphantom{\max_{1\leq i\leq d^2}\quad}+\sup_{0\leq s,t\leq 1}\left(\|D_{s,t}^2W_n^{i}\|_{\psi_\alpha,\ell_2}+\|D^2_{s,t}X^{i}_n\|_{\psi_\alpha,\ell_2}\right)
\right\}=O(\upsilon_n),\\
&\max_{1\leq i\leq d}\sup_{0\leq t\leq 1}\left(
\|\Sigma_t^{ii}\|_{\psi_\alpha}
+\sup_{0\leq s,t\leq 1}\|D_s\sigma_t^{i\cdot}\|_{\psi_\alpha,\ell_2}^2
+\sup_{0\leq s,t,u\leq 1}\|D_{s,t}\sigma_u^{i\cdot}\|_{\psi_\alpha,\ell_2}^2
\right)=O(\upsilon_n)\end{aligned}$$ as $n\to\infty$. Then we have as $n\to\infty$.
3. Suppose that ${\@ifstar{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
s
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{\Upsilon_n}_\infty^5(\log dm)^{\frac{13}{2}}=o(\sqrt{n})$ as $n\to\infty$ and - are satisfied for $p=\infty$. 0 $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}
\max_{1\leq i\leq d^2}\left(
\|W^{i}_n\|_\infty+
+\sup_{0\leq t\leq 1}\|D_tW_n^{i}\|_{\infty,\ell_2}
+\sup_{0\leq s,t\leq 1}\|D_{s,t}^2W_n^{i}\|_{\infty,\ell_2}
\right)
&<\infty,\\
\sup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}
\max_{1\leq i\leq m}\max_{1\leq j\leq d^2}\left(
\|{\boldsymbol{X}}^{ij}_n\|_\infty+
+\sup_{0\leq t\leq 1}\|D_t{\boldsymbol{X}}_n^{ij}\|_{\infty,\ell_2}
+\sup_{0\leq s,t\leq 1}\|D_{s,t}^2{\boldsymbol{X}}_n^{ij}\|_{\infty,\ell_2}
\right)
&<\infty,\\
\sup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}
\max_{1\leq i\leq d}\sup_{0\leq t\leq 1}\left(
\|\Sigma_t^{ii}\|_\infty
+\sup_{0\leq s,t\leq 1}\|D_s\sigma_t^{i\cdot}\|_{\infty,\ell_2}^2
+\sup_{0\leq s,t,u\leq 1}\|D_{s,t}\sigma_u^{i\cdot}\|_{\infty,\ell_2}^2
\right)
&<\infty.\end{aligned}$$ Then we have as $n\to\infty$.
\[rmk:rc\] We enumerate some remarks on the assumptions of Theorem \[thm:rc\] in the following:
1. In typical applications of Theorem \[thm:rc\], we take $W_n\equiv0$ and $X_n$ a smooth functional of the volatility process $\sigma$. ence only the assumptions on $\mu$ and $\sigma$ do matter (see also Section \[sec:factor\]). The Malliavin differentiability conditions on $\mu$ and $\sigma$ are satisfied, for example, when $\mu$ and $\sigma$ are respectively solutions of stochastic differential equations (SDEs) with sufficiently regular coefficients; see e.g. Section 2.2.2 of [@Nualart2006]. We remark that the (local) Malliavin differentiability has been known for solutions of some SDEs with irregular coefficients as well; see Section 4 of @AE2008 and Lemma 5.9 of @Naganuma2013 for example.
2. A major restriction imposed by the assumptions of Theorem \[thm:rc\] is that they require the arrays $(D_s^{(a)}\sigma_t^{ib})_{(a,b)\in[r]^2}$ and $(D_{s,t}^{(a,b)}\sigma_u^{ic})_{(a,b,c)\in[r]^2}$ are sufficiently “sparse” for all $s,t,u\in[0,1]$ so that $$\sup_{0\leq s,t\leq 1}\|D_s\sigma_t^{i\cdot}\|_{p,\ell_2}\quad\text{and}\quad\sup_{0\leq s,t,u\leq 1}\|D_{s,t}\sigma_u^{i\cdot}\|_{p,\ell_2}$$ do not diverge as $n\to\infty$. This is a restriction because $r$ typically diverges as $n\to\infty$ in a high-dimensional setting. Such a condition is satisfied e.g. when $Y^i$ and $(\sigma_t^{i\cdot})_{t\in[0,1]}$ depend on only finitely many components of $B$ for each $i$ (they may vary with $i$, though). Therefore, it is satisfied if the price and volatility processes have a certain factor structure, which seems realistic in financial applications.
3. The Malliavin differentiability condition on $\mu$ in Theorem \[thm:rc\] can be replaced by a continuity condition on $\mu$ analogous to . In fact, it is used only to prove Lemma \[drift\], where it is only crucial that $\mu$ is well-approximated by a “strongly predictable” process.
4. Assumptions on the second Malliavin derivatives of the volatility process $\sigma_t$ sometimes appear in high-frequency financial econometrics even for the fixed-dimensional case; see [@CG2011; @CPTV2017] for example.
5. The assumptions of Theorem \[thm:rc\] do not rule out the possibility of the presence of jumps in the volatility process $\sigma$; see @Fukasawa2011.
6. \[rmk:moment\] It would be enough in Theorem \[thm:rc\](a) to assume conditions – for some $p\in[1,\infty)$ only, where $p$ depends on the value of $\mathfrak{c}$, i.e. the divergence rates of $d$ and $m$.
By an analogous discussion to the one before Corollary \[coro:main\], we can deduce a high-dimensional central limit theorem for realized covariance in hyperrectangles from Theorem \[thm:rc\]:
\[coro:rc\] Under the assumptions of Theorem \[thm:rc\] with replacing by $$\lim_{b\downarrow0}\limsup_{n\to\infty}P(\min\operatorname{diag}(\mathfrak{C}_n)<b)=0,$$ we have $$\sup_{A\in\mathcal{A}^\mathrm{re}(d^2)}\left|P\left(S_n+W_n\in A\right)-P\left(\mathfrak{C}_n^{1/2}\zeta_n+W_n\in A\right)\right|\to0$$ as $n\to\infty$.
In some situations, it is more convenient to consider a localized version of the assumptions of Theorem \[thm:rc\] as follows:
\[thm:rc-local\] For every $n\in\mathbb{N}$, let $W_n$ be a $d^2$-dimensional random vector, ${\boldsymbol{X}}_n$ be an $m\times d^2$ random matrix and $\Upsilon_n$ be an $m\times d^2$ (deterministic) matrix such that ${\@ifstar{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
s
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{\Upsilon_n}_\infty\geq1$, where $m=m_n$ possibly depends on $n\in\mathbb{N}$. Moreover, for every $\nu\in\mathbb{N}$, let $\Omega_n(\nu)\in\mathcal{F}$, $\mu(\nu)=(\mu(\nu)_t)_{t\in[0,1]}$ be a $d$-dimensional $(\mathcal{F}_t)$-progressively measurable process, $\sigma(\nu)=(\sigma(\nu)_t)_{t\in[0,1]}$ be an $\mathbb{R}^{d\times r}$-valued $(\mathcal{F}_t)$-progressively measurable process, $W_n(\nu)\in\mathbb{D}_{2,\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{d^2})$ and ${\boldsymbol{X}}_n(\nu)\in\mathbb{D}_{2,\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{m\times d^2})$, and suppose that the following conditions are satisfied:
1. $\lim_{\nu\to\infty}\limsup_{n\to\infty}P(\Omega_n(\nu)^c)=0$.
2. For all $\nu\in\mathbb{N}$ and $t\in[0,1]$, $\mu_t=\mu(\nu)_t$ and $\sigma_t=\sigma(\nu)_t$ on $\Omega_n(\nu)$ as well as $\mu(\nu)_t\in\mathbb{D}_{1,\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{d})$ and $\sigma(\nu)_t\in\mathbb{D}_{2,\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{d\times r})$.
3. For all $\nu\in\mathbb{N}$, $W_n=W_n(\nu)$ and ${\boldsymbol{X}}_n={\boldsymbol{X}}_n(\nu)$ on $\Omega_n(\nu)$.
4. For all $\nu\in\mathbb{N}$, holds true with replacing ${\boldsymbol{X}}_n$ and $\sigma$ by ${\boldsymbol{X}}_n(\nu)$ and $\sigma(\nu)$ respectively.
Then the following statements hold true:
1. Suppose that there are constants $\varpi\in(0,\frac{1}{2})$ and $\mathfrak{c}>0$ such that ${\@ifstar{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
s
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{\Upsilon_n}_\infty^5=O(n^\varpi)$, $d=O(n^\mathfrak{c})$ and $m=O(n^\mathfrak{c})$ as $n\to\infty$. Suppose also that, for all $\nu\in\mathbb{N}$, - are satisfied for all $p\in[1,\infty)$ with replacing $W_n,{\boldsymbol{X}}_n,\mu,\sigma$ by $W_n(\nu),{\boldsymbol{X}}_n(\nu),\mu(\nu),\sigma(\nu)$ respectively. Then we have as $n\to\infty$.
2. Suppose that ${\@ifstar{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
s
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{\Upsilon_n}_\infty^5(\log dm)^{\frac{13}{2}}=o(\sqrt{n})$ as $n\to\infty$ and, for all $\nu\in\mathbb{N}$, - are satisfied for $p=\infty$ with replacing $W_n,{\boldsymbol{X}}_n,\mu,\sigma$ by $W_n(\nu),{\boldsymbol{X}}_n(\nu),\mu(\nu),\sigma(\nu)$ respectively. Then we have as $n\to\infty$.
To make Theorems \[thm:rc\]–\[thm:rc-local\] statistically feasible, we need to estimate the “asymptotic” covariance matrix $\mathfrak{C}_n$. We can construct a “consistent” estimator for $\mathfrak{C}_n$ in the same way as in the low-dimensional setting of @BNS2004rc: Define the $d^2$-dimensional random vectors $\chi_h$ by $$\chi_{h}:=\operatorname{vec}\left[(Y_{t_h}-Y_{t_{h-1}})(Y_{t_h}-Y_{t_{h-1}})^\top\right],\qquad
h=1,\dots,n.$$ Then we set $$\widehat{\mathfrak{C}}_n:=n\sum_{h=1}^n\chi_h\chi_h^\top-\frac{n}{2}\sum_{h=1}^{n-1}\left(\chi_h\chi_{h+1}^\top+\chi_{h+1}\chi_{h}^\top\right).$$
\[prop:acov\] For all $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and $\nu\in\mathbb{N}$, let $\Omega_n(\nu)\in\mathcal{F}$, $\mu(\nu)=(\mu(\nu)_t)_{t\in[0,1]}$ be a $d$-dimensional $(\mathcal{F}_t)$-progressively measurable process and $\sigma(\nu)=(\sigma(\nu)_t)_{t\in[0,1]}$ be an $\mathbb{R}^{d\times r}$-valued $(\mathcal{F}_t)$-progressively measurable process, and suppose that the following conditions are satisfied:
1. $\lim_{\nu\to\infty}\limsup_{n\to\infty}P(\Omega_n(\nu)^c)=0$.
2. For all $\nu\in\mathbb{N}$ and $t\in[0,1]$, $\mu_t=\mu(\nu)_t$ and $\sigma_t=\sigma(\nu)_t$ on $\Omega_n(\nu)$ as well as $\sigma(\nu)_t\in\mathbb{D}_{1,\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{d\times r})$.
3. There is a constant $\gamma\in(0,\frac{1}{2}]$ such that $$\label{sigma-modulus}
\sup_{0< t\leq1-\frac{1}{n}}\left\|\max_{1\leq k,l\leq d}\left|\Sigma(\nu)^{kl}_{t+\frac{1}{n}}-\Sigma(\nu)^{kl}_t\right|\right\|_2=O(n^{-\gamma})$$ as $n\to\infty$, where $\Sigma(\nu)_t:=\sigma(\nu)_t\sigma(\nu)_t^\top$.
Then the following statements hold true:
1. Suppose that $$\label{acov-moment}
\sup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}
\max_{1\leq i\leq d}\sup_{0\leq t\leq 1}\left(
\|\mu(\nu)_t^i\|_p
+\|\Sigma(\nu)_t^{ii}\|_p
+\sup_{0\leq s,t\leq 1}\|D_s\sigma(\nu)_t^{i\cdot}\|_{p,\ell_2}
\right)
<\infty$$ for all $p\in[1,\infty)$ and $\nu\in\mathbb{N}$. Suppose also that $d=O(n^{\mathfrak{c}})$ as $n\to\infty$ for some $\mathfrak{c}>0$. Then we have $
\|{\widehat{\mathfrak{C}}}_n-\mathfrak{C}_n\|_{\ell_\infty}=O_p(n^{-\varpi})
$ as $n\to\infty$ for any $\varpi\in(0,\gamma)$.
2. Suppose that is satisfied for $p=\infty$. Then we have $
\|{\widehat{\mathfrak{C}}}_n-\mathfrak{C}_n\|_{\ell_\infty}=O_p(n^{-1/2}\log^2 d+n^{-\gamma})
$ as $n\to\infty$.
It is presumably possible to remove the (local) Malliavin differentiability assumption on $\sigma_t$ from Proposition \[prop:acov\] if we impose an additional condition on $d$ and $n^{-\gamma}$ (such an additional assumption will be even unnecessary to prove the part (a) only, but we keep that condition to prove two claims in a unified way).
When the dimension $d$ is very large, computation of ${\widehat{\mathfrak{C}}}_n^{1/2}$ is practically challenging, it is better to employ a (wild) bootstrap to generate random vectors having the same distributions as that of ${\widehat{\mathfrak{C}}}_n^{1/2}\zeta_n$ as follows. Let $(e_h)_{h=1}^\infty$ be a centered Gaussian process independent of $\mathcal{F}$, which is defined on an extension of $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},P)$ if necessary. Then we define $$S_n^*:=\sqrt{n}\sum_{h=1}^ne_h\chi_h.$$ The Gaussian process $(e_h)_{h=1}^\infty$ must have an appropriate covariance matrix so that the $\mathcal{F}$-conditional matrix of $S_n^*$ mimics ${\widehat{\mathfrak{C}}}_n$. As is well-known in the literature (see e.g. [@Hounyo2014]), the standard i.i.d. wild bootstrap fails to approximate the joint distributions of statistics in the present context.[^5] Alternatively, we assume that $(e_h)_{h=1}^\infty$ is stationary with auto-covariance function $$E[e_he_{h+\ell}]
=\left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
1 & \text{if }\ell=0, \\
-\frac{1}{2} & \text{if }\ell=1, \\
0 & \text{otherwise}.
\end{array}
\right.$$ Then we can easily check that the $\mathcal{F}$-conditional covariance matrix of $S_n^*$ is equal to ${\widehat{\mathfrak{C}}}_n$, $S_n^*$ has the same distribution as that of ${\widehat{\mathfrak{C}}}_n^{1/2}\zeta_n$. We remark that such a sequence $(e_h)_{h=1}^\infty$ considered above can be generated by the following Gaussian MA(1) process: $$e_h=\eta^*_h-\eta^*_{h-1},\qquad h=1,\dots,n,$$ where $(\eta^*_h)_{h=0}^n$ is a sequence of i.i.d. centered Gaussian variables with variance $\frac{1}{2}$. Therefore, we can rewrite $S_n^*$ as $$S_n^*=\sqrt{n}\sum_{h=1}^{n-1}\eta^*_h(\chi_h-\chi_{h+1})+\sqrt{n}(\eta^*_n\chi_n-\eta^*_0\chi_1).$$ The second term on the right side of the above equation is usually asymptotically negligible, so the bootstrap procedure considered here is essentially the same as the *wild blocks of blocks bootstrap* proposed in @Hounyo2014.
Testing the residual sparsity of a continuous-time factor model {#sec:factor}
---------------------------------------------------------------
As an application of the theory developed above, we consider the problem of testing the correlation structure of the residual process of a continuous-time factor model. This problem was investigated in Section 4 of @BM2016 for the case of two assets, and we are aim at extending their analysis to a multiple assets situation. Specifically, we suppose that the $d$-th asset $Y^d$ is regarded as an observable factor and consider the following continuous-time factor model: $$\label{factor-model}
Y^j=\beta^jY^d+R^j,\qquad j=1,\dots,\underline{d}:=d-1.$$ Here, $\beta^j$ is a constant and $R^j$ is a semimartingale such that $[R^j,Y^d]\equiv0$. Let us set $\Lambda_n:=\{(i,j):1\leq i<j\leq \underline{d}\}$. For each $(i,j)\in\Lambda_n$, we consider the following hypothesis testing problem: $$\label{rs-test}
H_0^{(i,j)}:[R^i,R^j]_1=0\quad\text{a.s.}\qquad
\text{vs}\qquad
H_1^{(i,j)}:[R^i,R^j]_1\neq0\quad\text{a.s.}$$ Our aim is to test the hypothesis simultaneously for $(i,j)\in\Lambda_n$, but we start with constructing a test statistic for a fixed $(i,j)\in\Lambda_n$. For notational convenience, we construct the test statistic for every pair $(i,j)$ in $\{1,\dots,{\underline{d}}\}^2$.
Considering the case $Y^d\equiv0$, we have $R^i=Y^i$ for all $i=1,\dots,{\underline{d}}$. ence the problem turns to multiple testing for the hypotheses .
We follow [@BM2016] and consider the following statistic $$\mathfrak{T}^{ij}:=[Y^i,Y^d]_1[Y^j,Y^d]_1-[Y^i,Y^j]_1[Y^d,Y^d]_1,$$ which is zero under $H_0^{(i,j)}$. Therefore, it is natural to consider the estimated version of $\mathfrak{T}^{ij}$ as follows: $$\hat{\mathfrak{T}}^{ij}_n:=\widehat{[Y^i,Y^d]}^n_1\widehat{[Y^j,Y^d]}^n_1-\widehat{[Y^i,Y^j]}^n_1\widehat{[Y^d,Y^d]}^n_1.$$ In order to make the test statistic scale invariant, we consider the Studentized version of $\hat{\mathfrak{T}}^{ij}_n$. According to [@BM2016], the “asymptotic variance” of $\hat{\mathfrak{T}}^{ij}_n$ is given by the following statistic: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathfrak{V}^{ij}_n&:=[Y^j,Y^d]_1^2\mathfrak{C}_n^{id,id}+[Y^i,Y^d]_1^2\mathfrak{C}_n^{jd,jd}
+[Y^i,Y^j]_1^2\mathfrak{C}_n^{d^2,d^2}+[Y^d,Y^d]_1^2\mathfrak{C}_n^{(i-1)d+j,(i-1)d+j}\\
&\quad+2[Y^d,Y^d]_1[Y^i,Y^j]_1\mathfrak{C}_n^{(i-1)d+j,d^2}
+2[Y^i,Y^d]_1[Y^j,Y^d]_1\mathfrak{C}_n^{id,jd}\\
&\quad-2[Y^i,Y^d]_1[Y^d,Y^d]_1\mathfrak{C}_n^{(i-1)d+j,jd}
-2[Y^j,Y^d]_1[Y^d,Y^d]_1\mathfrak{C}_n^{(i-1)d+j,id}\\
&\quad-2[Y^i,Y^j]_1[Y^i,Y^d]_1\mathfrak{C}_n^{jd,d^2}
-2[Y^i,Y^j]_1[Y^j,Y^d]_1\mathfrak{C}_n^{id,d^2}.\end{aligned}$$ Let us denote by $\hat{\mathfrak{V}}^{ij}_n$ the estimated version of $\mathfrak{V}^{ij}_n$, i.e. we define $\hat{\mathfrak{V}}^{ij}_n$ by the right side of the above equation with replacing $[Y,Y]_1$ and $\mathfrak{C}_n$ by $\widehat{[Y,Y]}_1$ and ${\widehat{\mathfrak{C}}}_n$, respectively. Then we define the test statistic by $$T_n^{(i,j)}:=\frac{\sqrt{n}\hat{\mathfrak{T}}^{ij}_n}{\sqrt{\hat{\mathfrak{V}}^{ij}_n}}.$$ The statistic $T_n^{(i,j)}$ is generally uncentered unless the null hypothesis $H_0^{(i,j)}$ is true, and it is convenient to consider the centered version of $T_n^{(i,j)}$ in the general situation as follows: $$\tilde{T}_n^{(i,j)}:=\frac{\sqrt{n}\left(\hat{\mathfrak{T}}^{ij}_n-\mathfrak{T}^{ij}_n\right)}{\sqrt{\hat{\mathfrak{V}}^{ij}_n}}.$$ Note that we can rewrite $\hat{\mathfrak{T}}^{ij}_n-\mathfrak{T}^{ij}_n$ as $$\begin{gathered}
\hat{\mathfrak{T}}^{ij}_n-\mathfrak{T}^{ij}_n
=\left(\widehat{[Y^i,Y^d]}^n_1-[Y^i,Y^d]_1\right)\widehat{[Y^j,Y^d]}^n_1
+[Y^i,Y^d]_1\left(\widehat{[Y^j,Y^d]}^n_1-[Y^j,Y^d]_1\right)\\
-\left(\widehat{[Y^i,Y^j]}^n_1-[Y^i,Y^j]_1\right)\widehat{[Y^d,Y^d]}^n_1
-[Y^i,Y^j]_1\left(\widehat{[Y^d,Y^d]}^n_1-[Y^d,Y^d]_1\right).\end{gathered}$$ Therefore, a bootstrapped version of $\tilde{T}_n^{(i,j)}$ is defined as $$T_{n,*}^{(i,j)}:=\frac{\sqrt{n}\hat{\mathfrak{T}}^{ij}_{n,*}}{\sqrt{\hat{\mathfrak{V}}^{ij}_n}},$$ where $$\hat{\mathfrak{T}}^{ij}_{n,*}:=\widehat{[Y^i,Y^d]}^{n,*}_1\widehat{[Y^j,Y^d]}^n_1
+\widehat{[Y^i,Y^d]}^{n}_1\widehat{[Y^j,Y^d]}^{n,*}_1
-\widehat{[Y^i,Y^j]}^{n,*}_1\widehat{[Y^d,Y^d]}^{n}_1
-\widehat{[Y^i,Y^j]}^{n}_1\widehat{[Y^d,Y^d]}^{n,*}_1$$ and $$\widehat{[Y^i,Y^j]}^{n,*}_1:=\sqrt{n}\sum_{h=1}^ne_h(Y^i_{t_h}-Y^i_{t_{h-1}})(Y^j_{t_h}-Y^j_{t_{h-1}}),\qquad
i,j=1,\dots,d.$$ Set $\tilde{T}_n=(\tilde{T}_n^{(i,j)})_{1\leq i,j\leq{\underline{d}}}$ and $T_{n,*}=(T_{n,*}^{(i,j)})_{1\leq i,j\leq{\underline{d}}}$. We derive mixed-normal approximations for $\operatorname{vec}(\tilde{T}_n)$ and $\operatorname{vec}(T_{n,*})$ by applying the theory developed above. For this purpose we define the ${\underline{d}}^2\times d^2$ random matrix ${\boldsymbol{X}}_n$ by $${\boldsymbol{X}}_n^{(i-1){\underline{d}}+j,(k-1)d+l}=
\left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
~[Y^j,Y^d]_1/\sqrt{\mathfrak{V}_n^{ij}} & \text{if }k=i,~l=d, \\
~[Y^i,Y^d]_1/\sqrt{\mathfrak{V}_n^{ij}} & \text{if }k=j,~l=d, \\
~-[Y^d,Y^d]_1/\sqrt{\mathfrak{V}_n^{ij}} & \text{if }k=l=d, \\
~-[Y^i,Y^j]_1/\sqrt{\mathfrak{V}_n^{ij}} & \text{if }k=i, l=j,\\
0 & \text{otherwise}
\end{array}
\right.$$ for $i,j=1,\dots,{\underline{d}}$ and $k,l=1,\dots,d$. Note that the statistics $\operatorname{vec}(\tilde{T}_n)$ and $\operatorname{vec}(T_{n,*})$ can be approximated by ${\boldsymbol{X}}_nS_n$ and ${\boldsymbol{X}}_nS_n^*$, respectively. We then obtain the following result.
\[prop:factor-test\] For all $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and $\nu\in\mathbb{N}$, let $\Omega_n(\nu)\in\mathcal{F}$, $\mu(\nu)=(\mu(\nu)_t)_{t\in[0,1]}$ be a $d$-dimensional $(\mathcal{F}_t)$-progressively measurable process and $\sigma(\nu)=(\sigma(\nu)_t)_{t\in[0,1]}$ be an $\mathbb{R}^{d\times r}$-valued $(\mathcal{F}_t)$-progressively measurable process, and suppose that the following conditions are satisfied:
1. $\lim_{\nu\to\infty}\limsup_{n\to\infty}P(\Omega_n(\nu)^c)=0$.
2. For all $\nu\in\mathbb{N}$ and $t\in[0,1]$, $\mu_t=\mu(\nu)_t$ and $\sigma_t=\sigma(\nu)_t$ on $\Omega_n(\nu)$ as well as $\sigma(\nu)_t\in\mathbb{D}_{1,\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{d\times r})$.
3. For all $p\in[1,\infty)$, it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
&\sup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}
\max_{1\leq i\leq d}\sup_{0\leq t\leq 1}\left(
\|\mu_t^{i}\|_p
+\sup_{0\leq s,t\leq 1}\|D_s\mu(\nu)_t^{i}\|_{p,\ell_2}
\right)
<\infty,\\
&\sup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}
\max_{1\leq i\leq d}\sup_{0\leq t\leq 1}\left(
\|\Sigma(\nu)_t^{ii}\|_p
+\sup_{0\leq s,t\leq 1}\|D_s\sigma(\nu)_t^{i\cdot}\|_{p,\ell_2}
+\sup_{0\leq s,t,u\leq 1}\|D_{s,t}\sigma(\nu)_u^{i\cdot}\|_{p,\ell_2}
\right)
<\infty,\end{aligned}$$ where $\Sigma(\nu)_t:=\sigma(\nu)_t\sigma(\nu)_t^\top$.
4. There is a constant $\gamma\in(0,\frac{1}{2}]$ such that holds true as $n\to\infty$.
5. For all $p\in[1,\infty)$, it holds that $$\label{v-inv-moment}
\sup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\max_{1\leq i,j\leq {\underline{d}}}E\left[\left(\mathfrak{V}_n(\nu)^{ij}\right)^{-p}\right]<\infty,$$ where $\mathfrak{V}_n(\nu)$ is defined analogously to $\mathfrak{V}_n$ with replacing $\Sigma$ by $\Sigma(\nu)$.
Then we have $$\sup_{A\in\mathcal{A}^\mathrm{re}(\underline{d}^2)}\left|P\left(\operatorname{vec}\left(\tilde{T}_n\right)\in A\right)-P\left({\boldsymbol{X}}_n\mathfrak{C}_n^{1/2}\zeta_n\in A\right)\right|\to0$$ and $$\sup_{A\in\mathcal{A}^\mathrm{re}(\underline{d}^2)}\left|P\left(\operatorname{vec}\left(T_{n,*}\right)\in A|\mathcal{F}\right)-P\left({\boldsymbol{X}}_n\mathfrak{C}_n^{1/2}\zeta_n\in A|\mathcal{F}\right)\right|\to^p0$$ as $n\to\infty$, provided that $d=O(n^{\mathfrak{c}})$ as $n\to\infty$ for some $\mathfrak{c}>0$.
Now we return to the problem of testing simultaneously for $(i,j)\in\Lambda_n$. Here, we consider a more general setting described in the following for the purposes of application (cf. Section \[sec:empirical\]). We suppose that the set $\Lambda_n$ is decomposed into non-empty disjoint sets $\Lambda_n^{1},\dots,\Lambda_n^{\mathsf{L}}$ as $\Lambda_n=\bigcup_{\ell=1}^{\mathsf{L}}\Lambda_n^{\ell}$. We consider the problem of testing $$\label{test:group}
\bigwedge_{\lambda\in\Lambda_n^{\ell}}H_0^\lambda\qquad\text{vs}\qquad
\bigvee_{\lambda\in\Lambda_n^{\ell}}H_1^\lambda$$ simultaneously for $\ell=1,\dots,\mathsf{L}$. Here, for a subset $\mathcal{L}$ of $\Lambda_n$, $\bigwedge_{\lambda\in\mathcal{L}}H_0^\lambda$ (resp. $\bigvee_{\lambda\in\mathcal{L}}H_1^\lambda$) denotes the hypothesis that $H_0^\lambda$ is true for all $\lambda\in\mathcal{L}$ (resp. $H_1^\lambda$ is true for some $\lambda\in\mathcal{L}$). For simplicity of notation, we set $\mathsf{H}_0^\ell:=\bigwedge_{\lambda\in\Lambda_n^{\ell}}H_0^\lambda$ and $\mathsf{H}_1^\ell:=\bigvee_{\lambda\in\Lambda_n^{\ell}}H_1^\lambda$. If we let $\mathsf{L}$ be the number of elements in $\Lambda_n$ and write $\Lambda_n=\{\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_{\mathsf{L}}\}$ and set $\Lambda_n^{\ell}=\{\lambda_\ell\}$ for $\ell=1,\dots,\mathsf{L}$, we recover the original problem of testing simultaneously for $(i,j)\in\Lambda_n$.
Our aim is the strong control of the family-wise error rate (FWER) in this problem. More formally, let $\Theta_n$ be a set of pairs $(\mu,\sigma)$ of coefficient processes, which is considered as the set of all data generating processes we are interested in (note that the data generating process may vary with $n$ mainly because the dimensions $d$ and $r$ may depend on $n$). For each $\theta\in\Theta_n$, we denote by $\mathcal{L}_n(\theta)$ the set of all indices $\ell\in\{1,\dots,\mathsf{L}\}$ for which the hypothesis $\mathsf{H}_0^\ell$ holds true when $\theta$ is the true data generating process. Then, the FWER for $\theta\in\Theta_n$, which is denoted by $\operatorname{\mathbf{FWER}}(\theta)$, is defined as the probability that $\mathsf{H}_0^\ell$ for some $\ell\in\mathcal{L}_n(\theta)$ is rejected when $\theta$ is the true data generating process. Given the significance level $\alpha\in(0,1)$, we aim at constructing multiple testing procedures such that $$\label{eq:fwer}
\limsup_{n\to\infty}\operatorname{\mathbf{FWER}}(\theta_n)\leq\alpha$$ for any sequence $\theta_n\in\Theta_n$ ($n=1,2,\dots$) of data generating processes. To accomplish this, we employ the stepdown procedure of @RW2005 which we describe in the following. First, given a fixed index $\ell$, we shall use the test statistic $\mathsf{T}_n^{\ell}:=\max_{\lambda\in\Lambda_n^{\ell}}|T_n^\lambda|$ for the problem . Next, we sort the observed test statistics in descending order and denote them by $$\mathsf{T}_n^{\ell_1}\geq\cdots \geq \mathsf{T}_n^{\ell_{\mathsf{L}}}.$$ Also, for every subset $\mathcal{L}\subset\{1,\dots,\mathsf{L}\}$, suppose that we have a critical value $c_n^{\mathcal{L}}(1-\alpha)$ to test the null $\bigwedge_{\lambda\in\mathcal{L}}H_0^\lambda$ against the alternative $\bigvee_{\lambda\in\mathcal{L}}H_1^\lambda$. Those critical values can be random variables and will be specified later. Then the stepdown procedure reads as follows:
1. Let $\mathcal{L}_1:=\{1,\dots,\mathsf{L}\}$. If $\mathsf{T}_n^{\ell_1}\leq c_n^{\mathcal{L}_1}(1-\alpha)$, then accept all the hypotheses and stop; otherwise, reject $\mathsf{H}_0^{\ell_1}$ and continue.
2. Let $\mathcal{L}_2:=\mathcal{L}_1\setminus\{\ell_1\}$. If $\mathsf{T}_n^{\ell_2}\leq c_n^{\mathcal{L}_2}(1-\alpha)$, then accept all the hypotheses $\mathsf{H}_0^{\ell}$ for $\ell\in\mathcal{L}_2$ and stop; otherwise, reject $\mathsf{H}_0^{\ell_2}$ and continue.
$\vdots$
3. Let $\mathcal{L}_k:=\mathcal{L}_{k-1}\setminus\{\ell_{k-1}\}$. If $\mathsf{T}_n^{\ell_k}\leq c_n^{\mathcal{L}_k}(1-\alpha)$, then accept all the hypotheses $\mathsf{H}_0^{\ell}$ for $\ell\in\mathcal{L}_k$ and stop; otherwise, reject $\mathsf{H}_0^{\ell_k}$ and continue.
$\vdots$
4. If $\mathsf{T}_n^{\lambda_{\mathsf{L}}}\leq c_n^{\{\ell_{\mathsf{L}}\}}(1-\alpha)$, then accept $\mathsf{H}_0^{\ell_\mathsf{L}}$; otherwise, reject $\mathsf{H}_0^{\ell_\mathsf{L}}$.
According to Theorem 3 of [@RW2005], the above stepdown procedure satisfies if the critical values $c_n^{\mathcal{L}}(1-\alpha)$, $\mathcal{L}\subset\{1,\dots,\mathsf{L}\}$, satisfy the following conditions:
1. \[monotone\] $c_n^{\mathcal{L}}(1-\alpha)\leq c_n^{\mathcal{L}'}(1-\alpha)$ whenever $\mathcal{L}\subset\mathcal{L}'\subset\{1,\dots,\mathsf{L}\}$.
2. \[max-quantile\] For any sequence $\theta_n\in\Theta_n$ ($n=1,2,\dots$), it holds that $$\limsup_{n\to\infty}P\left(\max_{\ell\in\mathcal{L}_n(\theta_n)}\mathsf{T}_n^\ell >c_n^{\mathcal{L}_n(\theta_n)}(1-\alpha)\right)\leq\alpha$$ whenever $\theta_n$ is the true data generating process for every $n$.
The first method to construct the desired critical values is the well-known *Bonferroni-Holm method*. Namely, we set $c_n^{\mathcal{L}}(1-\alpha):=q_{N(0,1)}(1-\alpha/(2\#[\bigcup_{\ell\in\mathcal{L}}\Lambda_n^{\ell}]))$ for every $\mathcal{L}\subset\Lambda$, where $q_{N(0,1)}$ denotes the quantile function of the standard normal distribution and $\#[\bigcup_{\ell\in\mathcal{L}}\Lambda_n^{\ell}]$ is the number of elements in $\bigcup_{\ell\in\mathcal{L}}\Lambda_n^{\ell}$. The second method is to use the $(1-\alpha)$-quantile of $\max_{\ell\in\mathcal{L}}\mathsf{T}_n^\ell$. Of course, we cannot analytically compute the quantiles of $\max_{\ell\in\mathcal{L}}\mathsf{T}_n^\ell$ in general, so we approximate them by resampling as in [@RW2005; @CCK2013]. Formally, setting $\mathsf{T}_{n,*}^{\ell}:=\max_{\lambda\in\Lambda_n^{\ell}}|T_{n,*}^{\lambda}|$, we use the $\mathcal{F}$-conditional $(1-\alpha)$-quantile of $\max_{\ell\in\mathcal{L}}\mathsf{T}_{n,*}^{\ell}$ as $c_n^{\mathcal{L}}(1-\alpha)$, which can be evaluated by simulation. We refer to this method as the *Romano-Wolf method* in the following.
\[coro:testing\] Suppose that the assumptions of Proposition \[prop:factor-test\] are satisfied for any sequence $(\mu,\sigma)=(\mu^{(n)},\sigma^{(n)})\in\Theta_n$ ($n=1,2,\dots$) of data generating processes whenever $(\mu^{(n)},\sigma^{(n)})$ is the true data generating process for every $n$. Then, both the Bonferroni-Holm and Romano-Wolf methods satisfy conditions \[monotone\]–\[max-quantile\], holds true.
The Romano-Wolf method takes account of the dependence structure of the test statistics while the Bonferroni-Holm method ignores it, the former is generally more powerful than the latter, especially when the test statistics are strongly dependent on each other. Meanwhile, we need no resampling to implement the Bonferroni-Holm method, it is computationally more attractive than the Romano-Wolf method.
Another possible application of Theorem \[thm:rc\] would be selection of the thresholds in high-dimensional quadratic covariation estimation from high-frequency data (see e.g. @WZ2010 for such an estimation method): We refer to Section 4.1 of @Chen2017 for details on such an application in the case of i.i.d. observations.
Simulation study and an empirical illustration {#sec:simulation}
==============================================
In this section we present a small Monte Carlo study to assess the finite sample performance of the multiple testing procedures proposed in Section \[sec:factor\]. We also demonstrate how the proposed methodology works in a real world using high-frequency data from the components of the S&P 100 index.
Simulations
-----------
We focus on the problem of testing the hypotheses simultaneously for $(i,j)\in\Lambda_n$. The simulation design is basically adopted from [@FFX2016], but we include only the first factor representing the market factor in our model. Specifically, we simulate model with the following specification[^6]: $$dY^d_t=\mu dt+\sqrt{v_t}dB^d_t,\qquad
dR^j_t=\gamma_j^\top d{\underline{B}}_t\quad(j=1,\dots,{\underline{d}})$$ and $$\label{heston}
dv_t=\kappa(\theta-v_t)dt+\eta\sqrt{v_t}\left(\rho dB^d_t+\sqrt{1-\rho^2}dB^{d+1}_t\right).$$ Here, $\mu,\kappa,\theta,\eta$ and $\rho$ are constants, ${\underline{B}}_t=(B^1_t,\dots,B^{{\underline{d}}}_t)$, and $\gamma_1,\dots,\gamma_{{\underline{d}}}$ are ${\underline{d}}$-dimensional random vectors independent of $B$. The values of $\beta^1,\dots,\beta^{{\underline{d}}}$ are independently drawn from the uniform distribution on $[0.25,2.25]$. We set $\mu=0.05$, $\kappa=3$, $\theta=0.09$, $\eta=0.3$ and $\rho=-0.6$. The initial value $v_0$ is drawn from the stationary distribution of the process $(v_t)_{t\in[0,1]}$, i.e. the gamma distribution with shape $2\kappa\theta/\eta^2$ and rate $2\kappa/\eta^2$. We assume that $\Gamma:=(\gamma_i^\top\gamma_j)_{1\leq i,j\leq {\underline{d}}}$ is a block diagonal matrix with 10 blocks of size $({\underline{d}}/10)\times({\underline{d}}/10)$ whose diagonals are uniformly generated from $[0.2,0.5]$ and the corresponding correlation matrices have the constant correlation of $\rho_\gamma$. We set ${\underline{d}}=100$ and vary $\rho_\gamma$ as $\rho_\gamma\in\{0.25,0.5,0.75\}$. For each scenario, we compute the FWERs and the average powers (i.e. the average probabilities of rejecting the false null hypotheses) of the Bonferroni-Holm and Romano-Wolf methods at the 5% level based on 10,000 Monte Carlo iterations respectively. Here, we generate 999 bootstrap resamples for the Romano-Wolf method. Tables \[table:fwer\] and \[table:power\] report the results. [We see from Table \[table:fwer\] that both the methods succeed in controlling the FWERs under the nominal level 5%, although both are rather conservative.]{} Table \[table:power\] shows that the average powers in both the methods tend to 1 as $n$ and $\rho_\gamma$ increase. The table also reveals that the Romano-Wolf method is more powerful than the Bonferroni-Holm method. As expected, the difference of the average powers between two methods becomes pronounced as the correlation $\rho_\gamma$ of the residual processes increases.
0
$n=26$ $n=39$ $n=78$ $n=130$ $n=195$ $n=390$
-------------------- -------- -------- -------- --------- --------- ---------
$\rho_\gamma=0.25$
BH 0.017 0.009 0.005 0.009 0.018 0.039
RW 0.062 0.024 0.010 0.014 0.023 0.044
$\rho_\gamma=0.50$
BH 0.016 0.008 0.005 0.011 0.018 0.036
RW 0.068 0.029 0.012 0.018 0.028 0.046
$\rho_\gamma=0.75$
BH 0.015 0.006 0.005 0.008 0.014 0.024
RW 0.071 0.037 0.021 0.024 0.037 0.055
: Family-wise error rates at the 5% level[]{data-label="table:fwer"}
rn $n=26$ $n=39$ $n=78$ $n=130$ $n=195$ $n=390$
-------------------- -------- -------- -------- --------- --------- ---------
$\rho_\gamma=0.25$
Holm 0.010 0.004 0.002 0.003 0.008 0.018
RW 0.022 0.007 0.003 0.004 0.009 0.018
$\rho_\gamma=0.50$
Holm 0.009 0.004 0.002 0.003 0.007 0.017
RW 0.023 0.008 0.004 0.005 0.009 0.019
$\rho_\gamma=0.75$
Holm 0.008 0.003 0.002 0.003 0.006 0.010
RW 0.026 0.011 0.006 0.008 0.014 0.023
: Family-wise error rates at the 5% level[]{data-label="table:fwer"}
0
$n=26$ $n=39$ $n=78$ $n=130$ $n=195$ $n=390$
-------------------- -------- -------- -------- --------- --------- ---------
$\rho_\gamma=0.25$
BH 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.009 0.072 0.639
RW 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.012 0.080 0.651
$\rho_\gamma=0.50$
BH 0.000 0.001 0.049 0.539 0.974 1.000
RW 0.001 0.004 0.077 0.604 0.980 1.000
$\rho_\gamma=0.75$
BH 0.002 0.012 0.367 0.977 1.000 1.000
RW 0.011 0.041 0.566 0.992 1.000 1.000
: Average powers at the 5% level[]{data-label="table:power"}
rn $n=26$ $n=39$ $n=78$ $n=130$ $n=195$ $n=390$
-------------------- -------- -------- -------- --------- --------- ---------
$\rho_\gamma=0.25$
Holm 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.046 0.563
RW 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.048 0.567
$\rho_\gamma=0.50$
Holm 0.000 0.001 0.028 0.421 0.950 1.000
RW 0.000 0.001 0.037 0.458 0.956 1.000
$\rho_\gamma=0.75$
Holm 0.001 0.007 0.262 0.953 1.000 1.000
RW 0.004 0.017 0.393 0.977 1.000 1.000
: Average powers at the 5% level[]{data-label="table:power"}
0
$n=26$ $n=39$ $n=78$ $n=130$ $n=195$ $n=390$ $n=520$ $n=780$
-------------------- -------- -------- -------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
$\rho_\gamma=0.25$
Holm 0.018 0.012 0.015 0.025 0.035 0.061 0.069 0.078
RW 0.040 0.026 0.022 0.031 0.042 0.067 0.076 0.083
$\rho_\gamma=0.50$
Holm 0.019 0.012 0.015 0.024 0.039 0.057 0.066 0.072
RW 0.042 0.025 0.024 0.035 0.046 0.068 0.076 0.080
$\rho_\gamma=0.75$
Holm 0.017 0.013 0.014 0.022 0.035 0.048 0.050 0.058
RW 0.049 0.032 0.030 0.039 0.055 0.070 0.074 0.083
$\rho_\gamma=0.25$
Holm 0.017 0.009 0.005 0.009 0.018 0.039 0.052 0.062
RW 0.062 0.024 0.010 0.014 0.023 0.044 0.056 0.068
$\rho_\gamma=0.50$
Holm 0.016 0.008 0.005 0.011 0.018 0.036 0.046 0.058
RW 0.068 0.029 0.012 0.018 0.028 0.046 0.057 0.069
$\rho_\gamma=0.75$
Holm 0.015 0.006 0.005 0.008 0.014 0.024 0.029 0.034
RW 0.071 0.037 0.021 0.024 0.037 0.055 0.061 0.075
: Family-wise error rates at the 5% level[]{data-label="table:fwer"}
$n=26$ $n=39$ $n=78$ $n=130$ $n=195$ $n=390$ $n=520$ $n=780$
-------------------- -------- -------- -------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
$\rho_\gamma=0.25$
Holm 0.000 0.001 0.009 0.070 0.263 0.860 0.973 0.999
RW 0.001 0.001 0.011 0.078 0.277 0.865 0.974 1.000
$\rho_\gamma=0.50$
Holm 0.003 0.014 0.269 0.889 0.999 1.000 1.000 1.000
RW 0.007 0.023 0.321 0.907 0.999 1.000 1.000 1.000
$\rho_\gamma=0.75$
Holm 0.017 0.083 0.804 0.999 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
RW 0.039 0.149 0.878 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
$\rho_\gamma=0.25$
Holm 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.009 0.072 0.639 0.892 0.996
RW 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.012 0.080 0.651 0.896 0.996
$\rho_\gamma=0.50$
Holm 0.000 0.001 0.049 0.539 0.974 1.000 1.000 1.000
RW 0.001 0.004 0.077 0.604 0.980 1.000 1.000 1.000
$\rho_\gamma=0.75$
Holm 0.002 0.012 0.367 0.977 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
RW 0.011 0.041 0.566 0.992 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
: Average powers at the 5% level[]{data-label="table:power"}
Empirical illustration {#sec:empirical}
----------------------
We apply our methodology to high-frequency returns of the components of the S&P 100 index while taking the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY) as the observable factor process. The sample period is the one month, March 2018, and we regard this period as the interval $[0,1]$ (over-night returns are ignored). The data are provided by Bloomberg. Following @FFX2016, we use 15 minute returns to avoid notable market microstructure effects. To illuminate the block diagonal structure reported in [@FFX2016], we sort the assets by their Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS) sectors while we construct the log-price processes $Y^j$, $j=1,\dots,{\underline{d}}$.
We begin by examining the sparsity of the quadratic covariation matrix of the assets without taking account of the factor process. The top panel of Figure \[fig:sparse\] shows the corresponding realized correlation matrix. Here, we perform multiple testing for the hypotheses using the Romano-Wolf method with 999 bootstrap resamples and change the entries for which the null hypotheses are not rejected at the 5% level to blanks. The violet squares indicate GICS sector classifications. Namely, all assets in the same square belong to the same sector. We clearly find that the raw realized correlation matrix is far from sparse, i.e. most the entries are not blank. In fact, our test suggests that about % pairs would have significant correlations at the 5% level. Meanwhile, the bottom panel of Figure \[fig:sparse\] shows the realized correlation matrix of the residual processes of the assets regressed on SPY. Again, we perform multiple testing for the hypotheses as above to change the entries with insignificant correlations to blanks. The violet squares have the same meaning as above. In contrast to the first case, the realized correlation matrix exhibits the remarkable diagonal structure inherited from the assets’ sectors. In this case only about % pairs are significantly correlated at the 5% level.
To investigate this diagonal structure more deeply, we conduct another multiple testing for the absence of covariations within and between sectors after regressing assets on SPY. Formally, let $G_1,\dots,G_N$ be all the sectors, then we set $I_k:=\{i\in\{1,\dots,{\underline{d}}\}:\text{ the $i$-th asset $Y^i$ belongs to the sector $G_k$}\}$ for every $k=1,\dots,N$ and $\Lambda_n^{(k,l)}:=\Lambda_n\cap(I_k\times I_l)$ for all $k,l=1,\dots,N$. We test the null hypothesis $\bigwedge_{\lambda\in\Lambda_n^{(k,l)}}H_0^\lambda$ against the alternative $\bigvee_{\lambda\in\Lambda_n^{(k,l)}}H_1^\lambda$ simultaneously for all $1\leq k\leq l\leq N$ using the Romano-Wolf method with 999 bootstrap resamples. In our analysis there are totally $N=11$ sectors: Consumer Discretionary, Consumer Staples, Financials, Health Care, Industrials, Information Technology, Materials, Real Estate, Telecommunication Services, and Utilities. Since Materials and Real Estate contain only one asset respectively, we exclude the case $k=l$ from the above hypotheses when $G_k$ is Materials or Real Estate. The results are reported in Table \[table:sectors\]. , the $p$-values for the absence of within-sector covariations are very small across all the sectors, which suggests within-sector covariations should exist for all the sectors. In contrast, we find that between-sector covariations can be insignificant for several pairs. For example, assets belonging to Materials (M) are not significantly correlated with assets belonging to the other sectors at the 5% level. The table also reveals a similar between-sector covariation pattern to the one observed in [@FFX2016]. Namely, they report that the correlation between Energy (E) and Financials (F) disappears but Consumer Staples (CS) and Utilities (U) remain strongly correlated after 2010, which is consistent with the $p$-values reported in Table \[table:sectors\].
Overall, our methodology partially provides a statistically formal support of the findings by [@FFX2016], although the scope of our analysis is quite limited and thus more comprehensive empirical studies will be necessary.
0
![ Realized correlation matrices of the S&P100 assets (top) and their residual processes regressed on SPY (bottom). They are computed from 5 minute returns in the one business week from March 19, 2018 to March 23, 2018, where we ignore over-night returns. We perform multiple testing for whether each the entry is zero or not using the Romano-Wolf method with 999 bootstrap replications, then the entries which are not significantly away from zero at the 5% level are made blank. The violet squares indicate sector blocks. The figure was depicted using the `R` function `corrplot` from the `corrplot` package. []{data-label="fig:sparse"}](sk_figure.eps)
![ Realized correlation matrices of the S&P 100 assets (top) and their residual processes regressed on SPY (bottom). They are computed from 15 minute returns in March 2018, where we ignore over-night returns. We perform multiple testing for whether each the entry is zero or not using the Romano-Wolf method with 999 bootstrap resamples, then the entries which are not significantly away from zero at the 5% level are made blank. The violet squares indicate sector blocks. The figure was depicted using the `R` function `corrplot` from the `corrplot` package. []{data-label="fig:sparse"}](sk_figure201903.eps)
CD CS E F HC I IT M RE TS U
---- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
CD 0.001 0.002 0.119 0.246 0.003 0.246 0.001 0.076 0.246 0.226 0.045
CS 0.001 0.044 0.007 0.001 0.413 0.001 0.891 0.025 0.017 0.001
E 0.001 0.502 0.446 0.211 0.076 0.932 0.098 0.662 0.076
F 0.001 0.246 0.246 0.076 0.846 0.246 0.662 0.246
HC 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.932 0.308 0.008 0.024
I 0.001 0.246 0.502 0.846 0.662 0.224
IT 0.001 0.446 0.246 0.072 0.004
M – 0.932 0.909 0.932
RE – 0.256 0.004
TS 0.001 0.001
U 0.001
: $p$-values of multiple testing for the absence of within- and between-secor covariations (the null hypotheses are the absence of covariations). []{data-label="table:sectors"}
0
CD CS E F HC I IT M TS U
---- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
CD 0.001 0.003 0.056 0.309 0.003 0.507 0.001 0.849 0.003 0.283
CS 0.001 0.014 0.507 0.003 0.484 0.012 0.849 0.004 0.001
E 0.001 0.849 0.233 0.507 0.035 0.849 0.266 0.507
F 0.001 0.419 0.146 0.284 0.677 0.507 0.507
H 0.001 0.507 0.110 0.849 0.419 0.003
I 0.001 0.309 0.849 0.849 0.507
IT 0.001 0.507 0.266 0.012
M 0.849 0.849
TS 0.001 0.248
U 0.001
: $p$-values of multiple testing for the absence of within- and between-secor covariations (the null hypotheses are the absence of covariations). These values are computed using the Romano-Wolf method with 999 bootstrap replications. The sector names are abbreviated as follows: CD: Consumer Discretionary; CS: Consumer Staples; F: Financials; HC: Health Care; I: Industrials; IT: Information Technology; M: Materials; TS: Telecommunication Services; U: Utilities. Note that our analysis contains no asset belonging to Real Estate. Also, since only one asset belongs to Materials in our analysis, the $p$-value for the absence of within-sector covariation in Materials is not available and thus not reported.[]{data-label="table:sectors"}
Proofs for Section \[sec:main\]
===============================
Additional notation
-------------------
This subsection introduces some additional notation related to multi-way arrays and derivatives, which are necessary for the subsequent proofs.
As in Section \[sec:array\], $\mathbb{K}$ denotes the real field $\mathbb{R}$ or the complex field $\mathbb{C}$. We consider a vector space $V$ over $\mathbb{K}$. Let $N_1,\dots,N_q$ be positive integers. For $T\in V^{N_1\times\cdots\times N_q}$ and $x\in \mathbb{K}^{N_1\times\cdots\times N_q}$, we set $$T[x]:=\sum_{(i_1,\dots,i_q)\in\prod_{k=1}^q[N_k]}T^{i_1,\dots,i_q}x^{i_1,\dots,i_q}\in V.$$ In particular, for $x_j\in\mathbb{K}^{N_j}$ ($j=1,\dots,q$) we have $$T[x_1\otimes\cdots\otimes x_q]=\sum_{(i_1,\dots,i_q)\in\prod_{k=1}^q[N_k]}T^{i_1,\dots,i_q}x_1^{i_1}\cdots x_q^{i_q}.$$ Here, note that we identify $\mathbb{K}^{N_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes\mathbb{K}^{N_q}$ with $\mathbb{K}^{N_1\times\cdots\times N_q}$ in the canonical way (see Section \[sec:array\]). Moreover, we evidently have $$\label{tensor:holder}
|T[x]|\leq\|T\|_{\ell_\infty}\|x\|_{\ell_1}.$$
Now suppose that $\mathbb{K}=\mathbb{R}$ and $V$ is a real Hilbert space. Then we have $$\label{tensor:inner}
\langle T[x],v\rangle_V
=\sum_{(i_1,\dots,i_q)\in\prod_{k=1}^q[N_k]}\langle T^{i_1,\dots,i_q},v\rangle_Vx^{i_1,\dots,i_q}
=\langle T,v\rangle_V[x]$$ for any $v\in V$ . 0 $$\begin{aligned}
\langle S[x^1,\dots,x^p],T[y^1,\dots,y^q]\rangle_V
=\sum_{1\leq i_1,\dots,i_p,j_1,\dots,j_q\leq d}\langle S_{i_1,\dots,i_p},T_{j_1,\dots,j_q}\rangle_Vx^1_{i_1}\cdots x^p_{i_p}y^1_{j_1}\cdots y^q_{j_q}\end{aligned}$$ Let $V_0$ be another real Hilbert space and $N_1',\dots,N_p'\in\mathbb{N}$. Then, for any $S\in V_0^{N_1'\times\cdots\times N_p'}$ and $y\in\mathbb{R}^{N_1'\times\cdots\times N_p'}$, it holds that $$\label{tensor:commute}
T[x]\otimes S[y]=(T\otimes S)[x\otimes y].$$ In fact, we have $$\begin{aligned}
T[x]\otimes S[y]
&=\sum_{(i_1,\dots,i_q)\in\prod_{k=1}^q[N_k]}\sum_{(j_1,\dots,j_p)\in\prod_{k=1}^p[N'_k]}(T^{i_1,\dots,i_q}x^{i_1,\dots,i_q})\otimes({\textcolor{black}{S^{j_1,\dots,j_p}}}y^{j_1,\dots,j_p})\\
&=\sum_{(i_1,\dots,i_q)\in\prod_{k=1}^q[N_k]}\sum_{(j_1,\dots,j_p)\in\prod_{k=1}^p[N'_k]}(T^{i_1,\dots,i_q}\otimes S^{j_1,\dots,j_p})x^{i_1,\dots,i_q}y^{j_1,\dots,j_p}\\
&=(T\otimes S)[x\otimes y].\end{aligned}$$ Let $\phi=(\phi(y))_{y\in\mathbb{R}^N}$ be a real-valued function. If $\phi$ is a $C^\infty$ function, we define the $\mathbb{R}$-valued $N$-dimensional $q$-way array $\partial_y^{\otimes q}\phi(y)$ by $$\partial_y^{\otimes q}\phi(y)=(\partial_{y^{i_1}\cdots y^{i_q}}\phi(y))_{1\leq i_1,\dots,i_q\leq N}\in\mathbb{R}^{N\times\cdots\times N}$$ for any $y\in\mathbb{R}^N$ and $q\in\mathbb{N}$, where $\partial_{y^{i_1}\cdots y^{i_q}}:=\partial^q/\partial y^{i_1}\cdots \partial y^{i_q}$. We set $\partial_y^{\otimes 0}\phi(y):=\phi(y)$ by convention. In general, we say that $\phi$ is *rapidly decreasing* if $\phi$ is a $C^\infty$ function and $$\sup_{y\in\mathbb{R}^N}(1+\|y\|_{\ell_2})^A\|\partial_y^{\otimes q}\phi(y)\|_{\ell_\infty}<\infty$$ for any $A>0$ and $q\in\mathbb{Z}_+$. When $\phi$ is rapidly decreasing, we define its Fourier transform $\hat{\phi}:\mathbb{R}^N\to\mathbb{C}$ by $$\hat{\phi}(\mathsf{y})=\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\phi(y)e^{-y[\mathsf{iy}]}dy,\qquad \mathsf{y}\in\mathbb{R}^N.$$ Here, $\mathsf{i}$ denotes the imaginary unit. By Theorem 7.4(c) from [@Rudin1991], one has $$\label{eq:rudin}
T[(\mathsf{iy})^{\otimes q}]\hat{\phi}(\mathsf{y})=T[\widehat{\partial_y^{\otimes q}\phi}(\mathsf{y})]$$ for any $\mathsf{y}\in\mathbb{R}^N$, $q\in\mathbb{N}$ and $\mathbb{C}$-valued $N$-dimensional $q$-way array $T\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times\cdots\times N}$.
If $i_1=\cdots=i_q=i$, we will write $\partial_{y^{i_1}\cdots y^{i_q}}$ as $\partial^q_{y^i}$. We set $\partial^0_{y^i}\varphi(y)=\varphi(y)$ by convention. For a multi-index $\alpha=(\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_N)\in\mathbb{Z}_+^N$, we write $\partial^\alpha_y:=\partial^{\alpha_1}_{y^1}\cdots\partial^{\alpha_N}_{y^N}$ as usual. Given a subset $\mathcal{A}=\{a_1,\dots,a_k\}$ of $\{1,\dots,s\}$, we will write $\prod_{a\in\mathcal{A}}\partial_{y^{i_a}}:=\partial_{y^{i_{a_1}}\cdots y^{i_{a_k}}}$. We set $(\prod_{a\in\emptyset}\partial_{y^{i_a}})\phi(y):=\phi(y)$ by convention.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:main\]
-----------------------------
We begin by noting that it is enough to prove the theorem for the special case that all the rows of the matrix ${\boldsymbol{X}}_n$ are identical:
\[lemma:reduction\] Suppose that the claim of Theorem \[thm:main\] holds true if ${\boldsymbol{X}}_{n}^{1\cdot}=\cdots={\boldsymbol{X}}_{n}^{m\cdot}$ for every $n\in\mathbb{N}$. Then the claim of Theorem \[thm:main\] holds true for the general case as well.
Define the $m\times md$ matrix ${\overline{\Upsilon}}_n$ by $${\overline{\Upsilon}}_n=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
(\Upsilon_n^{1\cdot})^\top & 0 & \cdots & \cdots & 0 \\
0 & (\Upsilon_n^{2\cdot})^\top & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
\vdots & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots & \vdots \\
0 & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots & 0 \\
0 & \cdots & \cdots & 0 & (\Upsilon_n^{m\cdot})^\top
\end{array}
\right).$$ We also define the $m\times md$ random matrix ${\overline{{\boldsymbol{X}}}}_n$ so that all the rows are identical to the $md$-dimensional random vector given by $$(({\boldsymbol{X}}_n^{1\cdot})^\top,\dots,({\boldsymbol{X}}_{n}^{m\cdot})^\top).$$ In addition, we define the $md$-dimensional random vector ${\overline{Z}}_n$ so that $${\overline{Z}}_n^\top=(\underbrace{Z_n^\top,\dots,Z_n^\top}_{m})^\top.$$ By assumption we can apply Theorem \[thm:main\] with taking ${\overline{\Upsilon}}_n$, ${\overline{{\boldsymbol{X}}}}_n$ and ${\overline{Z}}_n$ as $\Upsilon_n$, ${\boldsymbol{X}}_n$ and $Z_n$ respectively, which yields the desired result.
Taking account of Lemma \[lemma:reduction\], we focus only on the case that ${\boldsymbol{X}}_{n}^{1\cdot}=\cdots={\boldsymbol{X}}_{n}^{m\cdot}=:X_n$ for every $n\in\mathbb{N}$. Next we recall the following anti-concentration inequality called Nazarov’s inequality in [@CCK2017]:
Let $\xi$ be an $m$-dimensional centered Gaussian vector such that $\|\xi^j\|_2\geq a$ for all $j=1,\dots,m$ and some constant $a>0$. Then for any $y\in\mathbb{R}^m$ and $\varepsilon>0$, $$P(\xi\leq y+\varepsilon)-P(\xi\leq y)\leq\frac{\varepsilon}{a}\left(\sqrt{2\log m}+2\right).$$
The above form of Nazarov’s inequality is found in [@CCK2017nazarov]. An application of the above result immediately yields the following anti-concentration inequality for a mixed-normal random vector:
\[mixed-nazarov\] Let $\xi$ be an $m$-dimensional standard Gaussian vector. Also, let $\Gamma$ be an $m\times m$ symmetric positive-semidefinite random matrix independent of $\xi$. Then for any $y\in\mathbb{R}^m$ and $b,\varepsilon>0$, $$P(\Gamma^{1/2}\xi\leq y+\varepsilon)-P(\Gamma^{1/2}\xi\leq y)\leq\frac{\varepsilon}{\sqrt{b}}\left(\sqrt{2\log m}+2\right)+P\left(\min\operatorname{diag}(\Gamma)<b\right).$$
Now we turn to the main body of the proof. As is pointed out in the Introduction, the key part of the proof is to derive reasonable estimates for the quantities $$\label{gap}
E[f(Z_n,X_n)]-E[f(\mathfrak{Z}_n,X_n)]$$ for smooth functions $f:\mathbb{R}^{2d}\to\mathbb{R}$. In fact, the remaining part of the proof is essentially the same as the one for the high-dimensional central limit theorem of [@CCK2017]. To get a reasonable estimate for , we derive an interpolation formula for it, borrowing an idea from [@NY2017]. Namely, we use the duality between iterated Malliavin derivatives and multiple Skorohod integrals combined with the interpolation method in the frequency domain introduced in [@NY2017] (see also [@TY2017]). Following [@NY2017], we set $$\lambda_n(\theta;\mathsf{z},\mathsf{x})=\theta M_n[\mathsf{i}\mathsf{z}]+2^{-1}(1-\theta^2) \mathfrak{C}_n[(\mathsf{i}\mathsf{z})^{\otimes2}]+W_n[\mathsf{i}\mathsf{z}]+ X_n[\mathsf{i}\mathsf{x}]$$ and $$\varphi_n(\theta;\mathsf{z},\mathsf{x})=E[e^{\lambda_n(\theta;\mathsf{z},\mathsf{x})}]$$ for $\theta\in[0,1]$ and $\mathsf{z},\mathsf{x}\in\mathbb{R}^d$. We first derive a representation formula for the derivative of $\varphi_n(\theta;\mathsf{z},\mathsf{x})$ with respect to $\theta$. For this purpose we need the following Malliavin derivative version of the (generalized) Faà di Bruno formula for the iterated derivative of a composition of functions:
\[faa\] Let $q,r$ be positive integers and $g=(g(x))_{x\in\mathbb{R}^r}$ be a real-valued $C^q$ function all of whose partial derivatives up to order $q$ are of polynomial growth. Then, for any $F\in\mathbb{D}_{q,\infty}(\mathbb{R}^r)$, we have $g(F)\in\mathbb{D}_{q,\infty}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
D^qg(F)=\sum_{\alpha\in\mathcal{A}(q)}\sum_{\nu\in\mathcal{N}_r(\alpha)}\mathsf{C}(\alpha,\nu)\partial_{x_1}^{|\nu_{\cdot1}|}\cdots \partial_{x_r}^{|\nu_{\cdot r}|}g(F)\operatorname{Sym}\left(\bigotimes_{i=1}^{q}\bigotimes_{j=1}^{r}(D^iF^j)^{\otimes \nu_{ij}}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\mathsf{C}(\alpha,\nu)=\frac{q!}{\prod_{i=1}^{q}(i!)^{\alpha_i}\prod_{j=1}^r\nu_{ij}!}.$$
Noting that Malliavin derivatives can be characterized by directional derivatives along Cameron-Martin shifts (cf. Chapter 15 of [@Janson1997]), we can derive Lemma \[faa\] from the usual Faà di Bruno formula (found in e.g. [@Mishkov2000]). Alternatively, we can prove Lemma \[faa\] in a parallel way to the usual Faà di Bruno formula using the chain rule for Malliavin derivatives (see e.g. Theorem 15.78 of [@Janson1997]) instead of that for standard ones.
\[lemma:cf-deriv\] Under the assumptions of Theorem \[thm:main\], the partial derivative $\partial_\theta\varphi_n(\theta;\mathsf{z},\mathsf{x})$ exists and it is given by $$\begin{aligned}
&\partial_\theta\varphi_n(\theta;\mathsf{z},\mathsf{x})\\
&=\theta \sum_{i,j=1}^dE\left[e^{\lambda(\theta;\mathsf{z},\mathsf{x})}\left(\left\langle D^{q_j}{\textcolor{black}{M^i_n}},u_n^j\right\rangle_{H^{\otimes q_j}}-\mathfrak{C}_n^{ij}\right)(\mathsf{i}\mathsf{z}^i)(\mathsf{i}\mathsf{z}^j)\right]\\
&+\sum_{j=1}^d\sum_{\alpha\in\mathcal{A}(q_j)}\sum_{\nu\in\mathcal{N}^*_4(\alpha)}\mathsf{C}(\alpha,\nu)\theta^{|\nu_{\cdot1}|}\{2^{-1}(1-\theta^2)\}^{|\nu_{\cdot2}|}(\mathsf{i}\mathsf{z}^j)
E\left[e^{\lambda(\theta;\mathsf{z},\mathsf{x})}\Delta_{n,j}(\nu)[(\mathsf{i}\mathsf{z})^{\otimes (\nu_{i1}+2\nu_{i2}+\nu_{i3})}\otimes(\mathsf{i}\mathsf{x})^{\otimes \nu_{i4}}]\right].\end{aligned}$$
By assumption the function $\theta\mapsto\varphi_n(\theta;\mathsf{z},\mathsf{x})$ is evidently differentiable and we have $$\label{phi-deriv}
\partial_\theta\varphi_n(\theta;\mathsf{z},\mathsf{x})=E[e^{\lambda_n(\theta;\mathsf{z},\mathsf{x})}(M_n[\mathsf{i}\mathsf{z}]-\theta \mathfrak{C}_n[(\mathsf{i}\mathsf{z})^{\otimes2}])].$$ By duality we obtain $$E[e^{\lambda_n(\theta;\mathsf{z},\mathsf{x})}M_n^j]
=E[\langle D^{q_j}\Re[e^{\lambda_n(\theta;\mathsf{z},\mathsf{x})}],u_n^j\rangle_{H^{\otimes q_j}}]
+\mathsf{i}E[\langle D^{q_j}\Im[e^{\lambda_n(\theta;\mathsf{z},\mathsf{x})}],u_n^j\rangle_{H^{\otimes q_j}}]$$ for every $j$. Therefore, Lemma \[faa\] yields 0 $$\begin{aligned}
D^qe^{\lambda(\theta;\mathsf{z},\mathsf{x})}=\sum_{\alpha\in\mathcal{A}(q)}\sum_{\nu\in\mathcal{N}_3(\alpha)}\mathsf{C}(\alpha,\nu)e^{\lambda(\theta;\mathsf{z},\mathsf{x})}\bigotimes_{i=1}^{q}(\theta(\mathsf{i}\mathsf{z})^\top D^iZ_n)^{\otimes \nu_{i1}}(2^{-1}(1-\theta^2)(\mathsf{i}\mathsf{z})^\top D^iG (\mathsf{i}\mathsf{z}))^{\otimes \nu_{i2}}((\mathsf{i}\mathsf{x})^\top D^iX)^{\otimes \nu_{i3}}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{gathered}
E[e^{\lambda_n(\theta;\mathsf{z},\mathsf{x})}M_n^j]
=\sum_{\alpha\in\mathcal{A}(q_j)}\sum_{\nu\in\mathcal{N}_4(\alpha)}\mathsf{C}(\alpha,\nu)\theta^{|\nu_{\cdot1}|}\{2^{-1}(1-\theta^2)\}^{|\nu_{\cdot2}|}\cdot\mathsf{i}^{|\nu_{\cdot1}|+2|\nu_{\cdot2}|+|\nu_{\cdot3}|+|\nu_{\cdot4}|}\\
\times E\left[e^{\lambda(\theta;\mathsf{z},\mathsf{x})}\left\langle \bigotimes_{i=1}^{q_j}(D^iM_n[\mathsf{z}])^{\otimes \nu_{i1}}\otimes(D^i\mathfrak{C}_n[\mathsf{z}^{\otimes2}])^{\otimes \nu_{i2}}\otimes(D^iW_n[\mathsf{z}])^{\otimes \nu_{i3}}\otimes(D^iX_n[\mathsf{x}])^{\otimes \nu_{i4}},u_n^j\right\rangle_{H^{\otimes q_j}}\right],\end{gathered}$$ where we also use the identity $$\label{eq:symm}
\langle \operatorname{Sym}(f),g\rangle_{H^{\otimes q}}=\langle f,g\rangle_{H^{\otimes q}}$$ holding for any $f,g\in H^{\otimes q}$ such that $g$ is symmetric. Now, by we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\bigotimes_{i=1}^{q_j}(D^iM_n[\mathsf{z}])^{\otimes \nu_{i1}}\otimes(D^i\mathfrak{C}_n[\mathsf{z}^{\otimes2}])^{\otimes \nu_{i2}}\otimes(D^iW_n[\mathsf{z}])^{\otimes \nu_{i3}}\otimes(D^iX_n[\mathsf{x}])^{\otimes \nu_{i4}}\\
&=\bigotimes_{i=1}^{q_j}(D^iM_n)^{\otimes \nu_{i1}}[\mathsf{z}^{\otimes \nu_{i1}}]\otimes(D^i\mathfrak{C}_n)^{\otimes \nu_{i2}}[\mathsf{z}^{\otimes2\nu_{i2}}]\otimes(D^iW_n)^{\otimes \nu_{i3}}[\mathsf{z}^{\otimes \nu_{i3}}]\otimes(D^iX_n)^{\otimes \nu_{i4}}[\mathsf{x}^{\otimes \nu_{i4}}]\\
&=\left(\bigotimes_{i=1}^{q_j}(D^iM_n)^{\otimes \nu_{i1}}\otimes(D^i\mathfrak{C}_n)^{\otimes \nu_{i2}}\otimes(D^iW_n)^{\otimes \nu_{i3}}\otimes(D^iX_n)^{\otimes \nu_{i4}}\right)[\mathsf{z}^{\otimes (\nu_{i1}+2\nu_{i2}+\nu_{i3})}\otimes\mathsf{x}^{\otimes \nu_{i4}}],\end{aligned}$$ using we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&E[e^{\lambda_n(\theta;\mathsf{z},\mathsf{x})}M_n^j]\\
&=\sum_{\alpha\in\mathcal{A}(q_j)}\sum_{\nu\in\mathcal{N}_4(\alpha)}\mathsf{C}(\alpha,\nu)\theta^{|\nu_{\cdot1}|}\{2^{-1}(1-\theta^2)\}^{|\nu_{\cdot2}|}\cdot\mathsf{i}^{|\nu_{\cdot1}|+2|\nu_{\cdot2}|+|\nu_{\cdot3}|+|\nu_{\cdot4}|}
E\left[e^{\lambda(\theta;\mathsf{z},\mathsf{x})}\Delta_{n,j}(\nu)[\mathsf{z}^{\otimes (\nu_{i1}+2\nu_{i2}+\nu_{i3})}\otimes\mathsf{x}^{\otimes \nu_{i4}}]\right]\\
&=\theta E\left[e^{\lambda(\theta;\mathsf{z},\mathsf{x})}\left\langle D^{q_j}M_n,u_n^j\right\rangle_{H^{\otimes q_j}}[\mathsf{i}\mathsf{z}]\right]\\
&+\sum_{\alpha\in\mathcal{A}(q_j)}\sum_{\nu\in\mathcal{N}^*_4(\alpha)}\mathsf{C}(\alpha,\nu)\theta^{|\nu_{\cdot1}|}\{2^{-1}(1-\theta^2)\}^{|\nu_{\cdot2}|}
E\left[e^{\lambda(\theta;\mathsf{z},\mathsf{x})}\Delta_{n,j}(\nu)[(\mathsf{i}\mathsf{z})^{\otimes (\nu_{i1}+2\nu_{i2}+\nu_{i3})}\otimes(\mathsf{i}\mathsf{x})^{\otimes \nu_{i4}}]\right].\end{aligned}$$ Combining this identity with , we obtain the desired result.
The following lemma is presumably a standard result. We prove it for the shake of completeness.
\[regularization\] Let $f=(f(y))_{y\in\mathbb{R}^N}$ be a real-valued $C^\infty$ function all of whose partial derivatives are of polynomial growth. Then there is a sequence $(f_j)_{j=1}^\infty$ of compactly supported real-valued $C^\infty$ functions on $\mathbb{R}^N$ such that $$\label{eq:vitali}
E\left[\xi_0 \partial_y^\alpha f_j(\xi_1,\dots,\xi_N)\right]\to E\left[\xi_0\partial_y^\alpha f(\xi_1,\dots,\xi_N)\right]$$ as $j\to\infty$ for any $\xi_0,\xi_1,\dots,\xi_N\in L^{\infty-}$ and $\alpha\in\mathbb{Z}_+^N$.
Take a $C^\infty$ function $\phi:\mathbb{R}^N\to[0,\infty)$ having compact support and satisfying $\phi(0)=1$. For every $j=1,2,\dots$, we define the function $\phi_j:\mathbb{R}^N\to[0,\infty)$ by $\phi_j(y)=\phi(j^{-1}y)$, $y\in\mathbb{R}^N$. Then we define $f_j:=f\phi_j$ for $j=1,2,\dots$. $f_j$ is evidently a $C^\infty$ function with compact support. Moreover, we have $\partial_{y}^\alpha f_j(y)\to\partial_{y}^\alpha f(y)$ as $j\to\infty$ for any $y\in\mathbb{R}^N$ and $\alpha\in\mathbb{Z}_+^N$. In addition, for any $s\in\mathbb{N}$, there is a constant $C>0$ which depends only on $\phi$ and $s$ such that $|f_j(y)|\leq C(|f(y)|+\sum_{k=1}^s\|\partial_y^{\otimes k}f(y)\|_{\ell_1})$ for any $y\in\mathbb{R}^N$; we can easily prove these facts by directly differentiating $f_j$ with the help of the Leibniz formula and the chain rule. Consequently, we have $\sup_{j\in\mathbb{N}}\|\xi_0 \partial_y^\alpha f_j(\xi_1,\dots,\xi_N)\|_2<\infty$ for any $\alpha\in\mathbb{Z}_+^N$ because $\xi_0,\xi_1,\dots,\xi_N\in L^{\infty-}$ and all the partial derivatives of $f$ have polynomial growth. Therefore, $(\xi_0 \partial_y^\alpha f_j(\xi_1,\dots,\xi_N))_{j\in\mathbb{N}}$ is uniformly integrable, the Vitali convergence theorem yields . This completes the proof.
Now we get the following interpolation formula for :
\[interpolation\] Let $f:\mathbb{R}^{2d}\to\mathbb{R}$ be a $C^\infty$ function all of whose partial derivatives are of polynomial growth. Under the assumptions of Theorem \[thm:main\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
&E[f(Z_n,X_n)]-E[f(\mathfrak{Z}_n,X_n)]\\
&=\sum_{i,j=1}^{d}\int_0^1\theta E\left[\left(\langle D^{q_j}M^i_n,u_n^j\rangle_{H^{\otimes q_j}}-\mathfrak{C}_n^{ij}\right)\partial_{z_i}\partial_{z_j}f(\theta Z_n+\sqrt{1-\theta^2}\mathfrak{Z}_n,X_n)\right]d\theta\\
&+\sum_{j=1}^d\sum_{\alpha\in\mathcal{A}(q_j)}\sum_{\nu\in\mathcal{N}_{4}^*(\alpha)}\mathsf{C}(\alpha,\nu)\int_0^1\theta^{|\nu_{\cdot 1}|}(2^{-1}(1-\theta^2))^{|\nu_{\cdot 2}|}
E\left[\Delta_{n,j}(\nu)[\partial_z^{\otimes|\nu|_*}\partial_x^{\otimes|\nu_{\cdot 4}|}\partial_{z_j}f(\theta Z_n+\sqrt{1-\theta^2}\mathfrak{Z}_n,X_n)]\right]d\theta.\end{aligned}$$
Thanks to Lemma \[regularization\], it is enough to prove the lemma when $f$ is rapidly decreasing. In this case the Fourier inversion formula and the Fubini theorem yield $$\begin{aligned}
E[f(Z_n,X_n)]-E[f(\mathfrak{Z}_n,X_n)]
&=(2\pi)^{-2d}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2d}}\hat{f}(\mathsf{z},\mathsf{x})\{\varphi(1;\mathsf{z},\mathsf{x})-\varphi(0;\mathsf{z},\mathsf{x})\}d\mathsf{z}d\mathsf{x}\\
&=(2\pi)^{-2d}\int_0^1d\theta\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2d}}\hat{f}(\mathsf{z},\mathsf{x})\partial_\theta\varphi(\theta;\mathsf{z},\mathsf{x})d\mathsf{z}d\mathsf{x}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence the desired result follows from Lemma \[lemma:cf-deriv\], and the Fourier inversion formula.
0 $$\begin{aligned}
&\hat{f}(\mathsf{z},\mathsf{x})E[e^{\lambda(\theta;\mathsf{z},\mathsf{x})}Z[\mathsf{i}\mathsf{z}]]\\
&=\sum_{j=1}^d\sum_{\alpha\in\mathcal{A}(q_j)}\sum_{\nu\in\mathcal{N}_3(\alpha)}\mathsf{C}(\alpha,\nu)e^{\lambda(\theta;\mathsf{z},\mathsf{x})}\theta^{|\nu_{\cdot 1}|}(2^{-1}(1-\theta^2))^{|\nu_{\cdot 2}|}\\
&\times E\left[\left\langle\bigotimes_{i=1}^{q_j}(D^iZ)^{\otimes\nu_{i1}}\otimes(D^iG)^{\otimes \nu_{i2}}\otimes(D^iX)^{\otimes \nu_{i3}},u_j\right\rangle_{H^{\otimes q_j}}[(\mathsf{i}\mathsf{z})^{\otimes|\nu_{\cdot 1}|}\otimes(\mathsf{i}\mathsf{z})^{\otimes2|\nu_{\cdot 2}|}\otimes(\mathsf{i}\mathsf{x})^{\otimes|\nu_{\cdot 3}|}]\mathsf{i}\mathsf{z}_j\hat{f}(\mathsf{z},\mathsf{x})\right]\\
&=\sum_{j=1}^d\sum_{\alpha\in\mathcal{A}(q_j)}\sum_{\nu\in\mathcal{N}_3(\alpha)}\mathsf{C}(\alpha,\nu)\theta^{|\nu_{\cdot 1}|}(2^{-1}(1-\theta^2))^{|\nu_{\cdot 2}|}\\
&\times E\left[\left\langle\bigotimes_{i=1}^{q_j}(D^iZ)^{\otimes\nu_{i1}}\otimes(D^iG)^{\otimes \nu_{i2}}\otimes(D^iX)^{\otimes \nu_{i3}},u_j\right\rangle_{H^{\otimes q_j}}[(\partial_z^{\otimes|\nu_{\cdot 1}|+2|\nu_{\cdot 2}|}\partial_x^{\otimes|\nu_{\cdot 3}|}\partial_{z_j}f)^{\hat{}}(\mathsf{z},\mathsf{x})e^{\lambda(\theta;\mathsf{z},\mathsf{x})}]\right]\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
&(2\pi)^{-\check{d}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{\check{d}}}\hat{f}(\mathsf{z},\mathsf{x})E[e^{\lambda(\theta;\mathsf{z},\mathsf{x})}Z[\mathsf{i}\mathsf{z}]]d\mathsf{z}d\mathsf{x}\\
&=\sum_{j=1}^d\sum_{\alpha\in\mathcal{A}(q_j)}\sum_{\nu\in\mathcal{N}_3(\alpha)}\mathsf{C}(\alpha,\nu)\theta^{|\nu_{\cdot 1}|}(2^{-1}(1-\theta^2))^{|\nu_{\cdot 2}|}\\
&\times E\left[\left\langle\bigotimes_{i=1}^{q_j}(D^iZ)^{\otimes\nu_{i1}}\otimes(D^iG)^{\otimes \nu_{i2}}\otimes(D^iX)^{\otimes \nu_{i3}},u_j\right\rangle_{H^{\otimes q_j}}[\partial_z^{\otimes|\nu_{\cdot 1}|+2|\nu_{\cdot 2}|}\partial_x^{\otimes|\nu_{\cdot 3}|}\partial_{z_j}f(\theta Z+\sqrt{1-\theta^2}G^{1/2}\zeta,X)]\right]\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\hat{f}(\mathsf{z},\mathsf{x})E[e^{\lambda(\theta;\mathsf{z},\mathsf{x})}G[(\mathsf{i}\mathsf{z})^{\otimes2}]]
&=E[G[(\partial_z^{\otimes2}f)^\wedge(\mathsf{z},\mathsf{x})e^{\lambda(\theta;\mathsf{z},\mathsf{x})}]]\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
(2\pi)^{-\check{d}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{\check{d}}}\hat{f}(\mathsf{z},\mathsf{x})E[e^{\lambda(\theta;\mathsf{z},\mathsf{x})}G[(\mathsf{i}\mathsf{z})^{\otimes2}]]d\mathsf{z}d\mathsf{x}
&=E[G[\partial_z^{\otimes2}f(\theta Z+\sqrt{1-\theta^2}G^{1/2}\zeta,X)]]\end{aligned}$$
We will use the following elementary result in the proof:
\[z-leibniz\] Let $k,l$ be two positive integers. Then we have 0 $$\partial_{z^{i_1}\cdots z^{i_k}}^k\left(z^{j_1}\cdots z^{j_l}\right)
=\left\{\begin{array}{cl}
\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}
c_1,\dots,c_k=1\\
c_s\neq c_t
\end{subarray}}^l\prod_{s=1}^k1_{\{j_{c_s}=i_s\}}\prod_{b\neq c_1,\dots,c_k}z^{j_b} & \text{if }k\leq l,\\
0 & \text{otherwise}
\end{array}\right.$$ $$\partial_{z^{i_1}\cdots z^{i_k}}\left(z^{j_1}\cdots z^{j_l}\right)
=\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}
c_1,\dots,c_k=1\\
c_s\neq c_t
\end{subarray}}^l\prod_{s=1}^k1_{\{j_{c_s}=i_s\}}\prod_{b\neq c_1,\dots,c_k}z^{j_b}$$ for any $i_1,\dots,i_k,j_1,\dots,j_l\in\{1,\dots,d\}$.
One can easily prove the above lemma by induction on $k$ and application of the Leibniz rule, we omit its proof.
0
$$\begin{aligned}
\partial_{z^i}\left(z^{j_1}\cdots z^{j_l}\right)
=\sum_{a=1}^l1_{\{j_a=i\}}\prod_{b\neq a}z^{j_b}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\partial_{z^{i_1}z^{i_2}}^2\left(z^{j_1}\cdots z^{j_l}\right)
=\sum_{a_1=1}^l1_{\{j_{a_1}=i_1\}}\partial_{z^{i_2}}\prod_{b\neq a_1}z^{j_b}
=\sum_{a_1=1}^l1_{\{j_{a_1}=i_1\}}\sum_{a_2\neq a_1}1_{\{j_{a_2}=i_2\}}\prod_{b\neq a_1,a_2}z^{j_b}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\partial_{z^{i_1}\cdots z^{i_{N+1}}}^{N+1}\left(z^{j_1}\cdots z^{j_l}\right)
&=\partial_{z^{i_{N+1}}}\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}
c_1,\dots,c_N=1\\
c_s\neq c_t
\end{subarray}}^l\prod_{s=1}^N1_{\{j_{c_s}=i_s\}}\prod_{b\neq c_1,\dots,c_N}z^{j_b}\\
&=\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}
c_1,\dots,c_N=1\\
c_s\neq c_t
\end{subarray}}^l\prod_{s=1}^N1_{\{j_{c_s}=i_s\}}\sum_{c_{N+1}\neq c_1,\dots,c_N}1_{\{j_{c_{N+1}}=i_{N+1}\}}\prod_{b\neq c_1,\dots,c_{N+1}}z^{j_b}\end{aligned}$$
Finally, as in the original CCK theory, a special approximation of the maximum function (called the “smooth max function”) will play a crucial role in our proof. The following lemma summarizes the key properties of this smooth max function used in the proof:
\[lemma:dz\] Let $\varepsilon>0$ and set $\beta=\varepsilon^{-1}\log m$. Define the function $\Phi_\beta:\mathbb{R}^{m}\to\mathbb{R}$ by $$\label{def:Phi}
\Phi_\beta(w)=\beta^{-1}\log\left(\sum_{j=1}^{m}\exp(\beta w^j)\right),\qquad w\in\mathbb{R}^{m}.$$ Then we have $$\label{max-smooth}
0\leq \Phi_\beta(w)-\max_{1\leq j\leq m}w^j\leq \beta^{-1}\log m=\varepsilon$$ for every $w\in\mathbb{R}^{m}$. Moreover, for any $C^\infty$ function $g:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$, $s\in\mathbb{N}$, $\varepsilon>0$ and $w\in\mathbb{R}^m$, it holds that $$\label{eq:dz}
\left\|\partial_w^{\otimes s}g(\varepsilon^{-1}\Phi_\beta(w))\right\|_{\ell_1}\leq C_{g,s}\max\{\varepsilon^{-s},\varepsilon^{-1}\beta^{s-1}\}
=C_{g,s}\varepsilon^{-s}(\log m)^{s-1},$$ where $C_{g,s}>0$ depends only on $g$ and $s$.
First, note that $\Phi_\beta$ is usually denoted by $F_\beta$ in the literature on the CCK theory. Now, is stated in e.g. Eq.(1) of [@CCK2015]. On the other hand, is obtained by applying Lemma 5 in [@DZ2017] with $h=g$, $n=1$, $m=s$ and $b=\varepsilon^{-1}$ in their notation.
First, as is already noted in the above, for the proof it is enough to focus only on the case that ${\boldsymbol{X}}_{n}^{1\cdot}=\cdots={\boldsymbol{X}}_{n}^{m\cdot}=:X_n$ for every $n\in\mathbb{N}$ due to Lemma \[lemma:reduction\]. Note that in this case we have $\Xi_nz=\Upsilon_n(z\circ X_n)$ for every $z\in\mathbb{R}^d$.
We turn to the main body of the proof. Take a number $\varepsilon>0$ arbitrarily, and set $\beta=\varepsilon^{-1}\log m$. . We also take a $C^\infty$ function $g:\mathbb{R}\to[0,1]$ such that all the derivatives of $g$ bounded and $g(t)=1$ for $t\leq0$ and $g(t)=0$ for $t\geq1$.
Now let us fix a vector $y\in\mathbb{R}^{m}$ arbitrarily, and define the functions $\varphi:\mathbb{R}^{m}\to\mathbb{R}$, $\psi:\mathbb{R}^{d}\to\mathbb{R}$ and $f:\mathbb{R}^{2d}\to\mathbb{R}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi(w)&=g(\varepsilon^{-1}\Phi_\beta(w-y-\varepsilon)),\qquad w\in\mathbb{R}^{m},\\
\psi(v)&=\varphi(\Upsilon_nv),\qquad v\in\mathbb{R}^d,\\
f(z,x)&=\psi(z\circ x),\qquad z,x\in\mathbb{R}^{d}.\end{aligned}$$ For any $k,l\in\mathbb{Z}_+$ and any $z,x\in\mathbb{R}^d$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\partial_z^{\otimes k}\partial_x^{\otimes l}f(z,x)\right\|_{\ell_1}
&=\sum_{i_1,\dots,i_k,j_1,\dots,j_l=1}^d\left|\partial_{z^{i_1}\cdots z^{i_k}}\left(z^{j_1}\cdots z^{j_l}\partial_{v^{j_1}\cdots v^{j_l}}\psi(z\circ x)\right)\right|.\end{aligned}$$ Applying the Leibniz rule repeatedly (cf. Proposition 5 of [@Hardy2006]), we deduce $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\partial_z^{\otimes k}\partial_x^{\otimes l}f(z,x)\right\|_{\ell_1}
&=\sum_{i_1,\dots,i_k,j_1,\dots,j_l=1}^d\left|\sum_{\mathcal{A}\subset\{1,\dots,k\}}\left(\prod_{a\in\mathcal{A}}\partial_{z^{i_a}}\right)\left(z^{j_1}\cdots z^{j_l}\right)\left(\prod_{a\notin\mathcal{A}}x^{i_a}\right)\left(\prod_{a\notin\mathcal{A}}\partial_{v^{i_a}}\right)\partial_{v^{j_1}\cdots v^{j_l}}\psi(z\circ x)\right|\\
&\leq\sum_{j_1,\dots,j_l=1}^d\sum_{\mathcal{A}\subset\{1,\dots,k\}}\sum_{i_1,\dots,i_k=1}^d\left|\left(\prod_{a\in\mathcal{A}}\partial_{z^{i_a}}\right)\left(z^{j_1}\cdots z^{j_l}\right)\left(\prod_{a\notin\mathcal{A}}x^{i_a}\right)\left(\prod_{a\notin\mathcal{A}}\partial_{v^{i_a}}\right)\partial_{v^{j_1}\cdots v^{j_l}}\psi(z\circ x)\right|.\end{aligned}$$ Now let us fix a subset $\mathcal{A}$ of $\{1,\dots,k\}$. Let $r$ be the number of elements of $\mathcal{A}$ and we write $\mathcal{A}=\{a_1,\dots,a_r\}$ and $\{1,\dots,k\}\setminus\mathcal{A}=\{b_1,\dots,b_{k-r}\}$. Assume $1\leq r\leq l$. Then, by Lemma \[z-leibniz\] we obtain 0 $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_{z^{i_{a_1}}\cdots z^{i_{a_r}}}^r\left(z^{j_1}\cdots z^{j_l}\right)
=\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}
c_1,\dots,c_r=1\\
c_s\neq c_t
\end{subarray}}^l\prod_{s=1}^r1_{\{j_{c_s}=i_{a_s}\}}\prod_{b\neq c_1,\dots,c_r}z^{j_b}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{i_1,\dots,i_k=1}^d\left|\left(\prod_{a\in\mathcal{A}}\partial_{z^{i_a}}\right)\left(z^{j_1}\cdots z^{j_l}\right)\left(\prod_{a\notin\mathcal{A}}x^{i_a}\right)\left(\prod_{a\notin\mathcal{A}}\partial_{v^{i_a}}\right)\partial_{v^{j_1}\cdots v^{j_l}}\psi(z\circ x)\right|\\
&=\sum_{i_1,\dots,i_k=1}^d\left|\left(\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}
c_1,\dots,c_r=1\\
c_s\neq c_t
\end{subarray}}^l\prod_{s=1}^r1_{\{j_{c_s}=i_{a_s}\}}\prod_{b\neq c_1,\dots,c_r}z^{j_b}\right)\left(\prod_{t=1}^{k-r}x^{i_{b_t}}\right)\partial_{v^{i_{b_1}}\cdots v^{i_{b_{k-r}}}v^{j_1}\cdots v^{j_l}}\psi(z\circ x)\right|\\
&=\sum_{i_{a_1},\dots,i_{a_r}=1}^d\left|\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}
c_1,\dots,c_r=1\\
c_s\neq c_t
\end{subarray}}^l\prod_{s=1}^r1_{\{j_{c_s}=i_{a_s}\}}\prod_{b\neq c_1,\dots,c_r}z^{j_b}\right|
\sum_{i_{b_1},\dots,i_{b_{k-r}}=1}^d\left|\left(\prod_{t=1}^{k-r}x^{i_{b_t}}\right)\partial_{v^{i_{b_1}}\cdots v^{i_{b_{k-r}}}v^{j_1}\cdots v^{j_l}}\psi(z\circ x)\right|\\
&\leq{\textcolor{black}{\frac{l!}{(l-r)!}}}\|z\|_{\ell_\infty}^{l-r}\|x\|_{\ell_\infty}^{k-r}\left\|\partial_v^{\otimes(k-r)}\partial_{v^{j_1}\cdots v^{j_l}}\psi(z\circ x)\right\|_{\ell_1}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that the above inequality evidently holds true if $\mathcal{A}=\emptyset$. Moreover, we obviously have $
\left(\prod_{a\in\mathcal{A}}\partial_{z^{i_a}}\right)\left(z^{j_1}\cdots z^{j_l}\right)=0
$ if $r>l$. Consequently, we infer that $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\partial_z^{\otimes k}\partial_x^{\otimes l}f(z,x)\right\|_{\ell_1}
&\leq\sum_{r=0}^{k\wedge l}{\textcolor{black}{r!}}\binom{k}{r}\binom{l}{r}\|z\|_{\ell_\infty}^{l-r}\|x\|_{\ell_\infty}^{k-r}\left\|\partial_v^{\otimes(k+l-r)}\psi(z\circ x)\right\|_{\ell_1}.\end{aligned}$$ Meanwhile, we can easily verify that $$\partial_{v^{i_1}\dots v^{i_s}}\psi(v)=\sum_{j_1,\dots,j_s=1}^m\partial_{w^{j_1}\dots w^{j_s}}\varphi(\Upsilon_nv)\Upsilon_n^{j_1i_1}\cdots\Upsilon_n^{j_si_s}$$ for any $s\in\mathbb{N}$ and $i_1,\dots,i_s\in\{1,\dots,d\}$. Hence we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|\partial_v^{\otimes s}\psi(v)\|_{\ell_1}
\leq\left(\max_{1\leq j\leq m}\sum_{i=1}^d|\Upsilon_n^{ji}|\right)^s\sum_{j_1,\dots,j_s=1}^m|\partial_{w^{j_1}\dots w^{j_s}}\varphi(\Upsilon_nv)|
={\@ifstar{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
s
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{\Upsilon_n}_\infty^s\|\partial_w^{\otimes s}\varphi(\Upsilon_nv)\|_{\ell_1}.\end{aligned}$$ Now, by it holds that $$\|\partial_w^{\otimes s}\varphi(w)\|_{\ell_1}\leq C_{g,s}\varepsilon^{-s}(\log m)^{s-1}$$ for all $w\in\mathbb{R}^{m}$, where $C_{g,s}>0$ is a constant which depends only on $g$ and $s$. Therefore, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\partial_z^{\otimes k}\partial_x^{\otimes l}f(z,x)\right\|_{\ell_1}
&\leq c_{g,k,l}\sum_{r=0}^{k\wedge l}{\textcolor{black}{r!}}\binom{k}{r}\binom{l}{r}\|z\|_{\ell_\infty}^{l-r}\|x\|_{\ell_\infty}^{k-r}{\@ifstar{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
s
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{\Upsilon_n}_\infty^{k+l-r}\varepsilon^{-(k+l-r)}(\log m)^{k+l-r-1}\\
&\leq c'_{g,k,l}\left(\|z\|_{\ell_\infty}\vee1\right)^{l}\left(\|x\|_{\ell_\infty}\vee1\right)^k{\textcolor{black}{{\@ifstar{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
s
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{\Upsilon_n}_\infty^{k+l}}}{\textcolor{black}{\varepsilon_1^{-(k+l)}}}(\log m)^{k+l-1},\end{aligned}$$ where $c_{g,k,l},c_{g,k,l}'>0$ are constants which depend only on $g$ and $k,l$ . We especially infer that all the partial derivatives of $f$ are of polynomial growth. Therefore, by and Lemma \[interpolation\] we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\eta_n(\varepsilon)&:=|E[f(Z_n,X_n)]-E[f(\mathfrak{Z}_n,X_n)]|\\
&{\textcolor{black}{\leq\int_0^1E\left[\|\Delta_n\|_{\ell_\infty}\sum_{i,j=1}^{d}\left|\partial_{z_i}\partial_{z_j}f(\theta Z_n+\sqrt{1-\theta^2}\mathfrak{Z}_n,X_n)\right|\right]d\theta}}\\
&\quad{\textcolor{black}{+K_{{\overline{q}}}\sum_{j=1}^d\sum_{\alpha\in\mathcal{A}(q_j)}\sum_{\nu\in\mathcal{N}_{4}^*(\alpha)}\int_0^1E\left[\|\Delta_{n,j}(\nu)\|_{\ell_\infty}\|\partial_z^{\otimes|\nu|_*}\partial_x^{\otimes|\nu_{\cdot 4}|}\partial_{z_j}f(\theta Z_n+\sqrt{1-\theta^2}\mathfrak{Z}_n,X_n)\|_{\ell_1}\right]d\theta}}\\
&\leq\int_0^1E\left[\|X_n\|_{\ell_\infty}^2{\@ifstar{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
s
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{\Upsilon_n}_\infty^2\|\Delta_n\|_{\ell_\infty}\sum_{i,j=1}^{{\textcolor{black}{m}}}\left|\partial_{w_i}\partial_{w_j}\varphi(X_n\circ(\theta Z_n+\sqrt{1-\theta^2}\mathfrak{Z}_n))\right|\right]d\theta\\
&{\textcolor{black}{\quad+K_{{\overline{q}}}\sum_{\alpha\in{\overline{\mathcal{A}}}({\overline{q}})}\sum_{\nu\in\mathcal{N}_{4}^*(\alpha)}\int_0^1E\left[\max_{1\leq j\leq d}\|\Delta_{n,j}(\nu)\|_{\ell_\infty}\|\partial_z^{\otimes(|\nu|_*+1)}\partial_x^{\otimes|\nu_{\cdot 4}|}f(\theta Z_n+\sqrt{1-\theta^2}\mathfrak{Z}_n,X_n)\|_{\ell_1}\right]d\theta}}\\
&\leq c''_{g,\overline{q}}{\textcolor{black}{\varepsilon_1^{-2}}}(\log m){\@ifstar{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
s
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{\Upsilon_n}_\infty^2E\left[\|X_n\|_{\ell_\infty}^2\|\Delta_n\|_{\ell_\infty}\right]\\
&\quad+c''_{g,\overline{q}}\sum_{\alpha\in{\textcolor{black}{{\overline{\mathcal{A}}}}}(\overline{q})}\sum_{\nu\in\mathcal{N}_{4}^*(\alpha)}{\textcolor{black}{\varepsilon_1^{-|\nu|_{**}-1}}}(\log m)^{|\nu|_{**}}{\@ifstar{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
s
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{\Upsilon_n}_\infty^{|\nu|_{**}+1}E\left[\left(1+\|X_n\|_{\ell_\infty}^{|\nu|_*+1}\right)\left(1+\|Z_n\|_{\ell_\infty}^{|\nu_{\cdot 4}|}+\|\mathfrak{Z}_n\|_{\ell_\infty}^{|\nu_{\cdot 4}|}\right)\max_{1\leq j\leq d}\|\Delta_{n,j}(\nu)\|_{\ell_\infty}\right],\end{aligned}$$ where . Now we have $$\begin{aligned}
P(\Xi_nZ_n\leq y)&\leq P(\Phi_\beta(\Upsilon_n(Z_n\circ X_n)-y-\varepsilon)\leq0)~(\because\text{Eq.\eqref{max-smooth}})\\
&\leq E[f(Z_n,X_n)]
\leq E[f(\mathfrak{Z}_n,X_n)]+\eta_n(\varepsilon)\\
&\leq P(\Phi_\beta(\Upsilon_n(\mathfrak{Z}_n\circ X_n)-y-\varepsilon)<\varepsilon)+\eta_n(\varepsilon)~(\because\text{the definition of $g$})\\
&\leq P(\Xi_n\mathfrak{Z}_n\leq y+2\varepsilon)+\eta_n(\varepsilon)~(\because\text{Eq.\eqref{max-smooth}}).\end{aligned}$$ 0 Note that the $\mathcal{F}$-conditional covariance matrix of $\Upsilon_n(\mathfrak{Z}_n\circ X_n)$ is given by $\Gamma_n:=\Upsilon_n(X_n^{\otimes2}\circ \mathfrak{C}_n)\Upsilon_n^\top$. Then, for any $b>0$, we have on the set $\{\operatorname{diag}(\Gamma_n)\geq b\}$ $$\label{eq:nazarov}
P(\Upsilon_n(\mathfrak{Z}_n\circ X_n)\leq y+2\varepsilon|\mathcal{F})
\leq P(\Upsilon_n(\mathfrak{Z}_n\circ X_n)\leq y|\mathcal{F})+\frac{2\varepsilon}{b}(\sqrt{2\log m}+2)$$ by the Nazarov inequality (cf. Theorem 1 of [@CCK2017nazarov]). Set $\Gamma_n:=\Xi_n\mathfrak{C}_n\Xi_n^\top$. Then, by Lemma \[mixed-nazarov\] we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
P(\Xi_nZ_n\leq y)
&\leq P(\min\operatorname{diag}(\Gamma_n)<b)
+P(\Xi_n\mathfrak{Z}_n\leq y)+\frac{2\varepsilon}{\sqrt{b}}(\sqrt{2\log m}+2)+\eta_n(\varepsilon)\end{aligned}$$ for every $b>0$. By an analogous argument we also obtain $$\begin{aligned}
P(\Xi_nZ_n\leq y)
&\geq P(\min\operatorname{diag}(\Gamma_n)<b)
-P(\Xi_n\mathfrak{Z}_n\leq y)-\frac{2\varepsilon}{\sqrt{b}}(\sqrt{2\log m}+2)-\eta_n(\varepsilon).\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, we conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{y\in\mathbb{R}^m}\left|P(\Xi_nZ_n\leq y)-P(\Xi_n\mathfrak{Z}_n\leq y)\right|
&\leq P(\min\operatorname{diag}(\Gamma_n)<b)
+\frac{2\varepsilon}{\sqrt{b}}(\sqrt{2\log m}+2)+\eta_n(\varepsilon).\end{aligned}$$ Taking $$\begin{gathered}
\varepsilon=\left(\sqrt{\log m}{\@ifstar{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
s
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{\Upsilon_n}_\infty^2E\left[\|X_n\|_{\ell_\infty}^2\|\Delta_n\|_{\ell_\infty}\right]\right)^{1/3}\vee\\
\max_{\nu\in{\overline{\mathcal{N}}}_4^*({\overline{q}})}\left\{(\log m)^{|\nu|_{**}-\frac{1}{2}}{\@ifstar{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
s
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{\Upsilon_n}_\infty^{|\nu|_{**}+1}E\left[(1+\|X_n\|_{\ell_\infty}^{|\nu|_*+1})\left(1+\|Z_n\|_{\ell_\infty}^{|\nu_{\cdot 4}|}+\|\mathfrak{Z}_n\|_{\ell_\infty}^{|\nu_{\cdot 4}|}\right)\max_{1\leq j\leq d}\|\Delta_{n,j}(\nu)\|_{\ell_\infty}\right]\right\}^{\frac{1}{|\nu|_{**}+2}},\end{gathered}$$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{n\to\infty}\sup_{y\in\mathbb{R}^m}\left|P(\Xi_nZ_n\leq y)-P(\Xi_n\mathfrak{Z}_n\leq y)\right|
&\leq \limsup_{n\to\infty}P(\min\operatorname{diag}(\Gamma_n)<b)\end{aligned}$$ by assumption. Letting $b\to0$, we complete the proof.
Proof of Lemma \[lemma:approx\]
-------------------------------
Take a number $\varepsilon>0$ arbitrarily. For any $y\in\mathbb{R}^m$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
P(Y_n\leq y)
&\leq P(\sqrt{\log m}\|Y_n-\Xi_nZ_n\|_{\ell_\infty}>\varepsilon)
+P(\Xi_nZ_n\leq y+\varepsilon/\sqrt{\log m})\\
&\leq P(\sqrt{\log m}\|Y_n-\Xi_nZ_n\|_{\ell_\infty}>\varepsilon)
+P(\Xi_n\mathfrak{Z}_n\leq y+\varepsilon/\sqrt{\log m})+\rho_n,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\rho_n:=\sup_{y\in\mathbb{R}^m}|P(\Xi_nZ_n\leq y)-P(\Xi_n\mathfrak{Z}_n\leq y)|.$$ Therefore, Lemma \[mixed-nazarov\] yields $$\begin{gathered}
P(Y_n\leq y)
\leq P(\sqrt{\log m}\|Y_n-\Xi_nZ_n\|_{\ell_\infty}>\varepsilon)
+P(\Xi_n\mathfrak{Z}_n\leq y)\\
+\frac{2\varepsilon}{\sqrt{b\log m}}(\sqrt{2\log m}+2)+P(\min\operatorname{diag}(\Gamma_n)<b)
+\rho_n\end{gathered}$$ for any $b>0$. An analogous argument yields $$\begin{gathered}
P(Y_n\leq y)
\geq -P(\sqrt{\log m}\|Y_n-\Xi_nZ_n\|_{\ell_\infty}>\varepsilon)
+P(\Xi_n\mathfrak{Z}_n\leq y)\\
-\frac{2\varepsilon}{\sqrt{b\log m}}(\sqrt{2\log m}+2)+P(\min\operatorname{diag}(\Gamma_n)<b)
-\rho_n,\end{gathered}$$ we conclude that $$\begin{gathered}
\sup_{y\in\mathbb{R}^m}|P(Y_n\leq y)-P(\Xi_n\mathfrak{Z}_n\leq y)|
\leq P(\sqrt{\log m}\|Y_n-\Xi_nZ_n\|_{\ell_\infty}>\varepsilon)\\
+\frac{2\varepsilon}{\sqrt{b\log m}}(\sqrt{2\log m}+2)+P(\min\operatorname{diag}(\Gamma_n)<b)
+\rho_n.\end{gathered}$$ Now, by assumption we obtain $$\limsup_{n\to\infty}\sup_{y\in\mathbb{R}^m}|P(Y_n\leq y)-P(\Xi_n\mathfrak{Z}_n\leq y)|
\leq \frac{2\varepsilon}{\sqrt{b}}\left(\sqrt{2}+\frac{2}{\sqrt{\log 2}}\right)+\limsup_{n\to\infty}P(\min\operatorname{diag}(\Gamma_n)<b).$$ We first let $\varepsilon\to0$. After that, we let $b\to0$. Then we conclude that $$\limsup_{n\to\infty}\sup_{y\in\mathbb{R}^m}|P(Y_n\leq y)-P(\Xi_n\mathfrak{Z}_n\leq y)|
=0.$$ This completes the proof.
0 faa di bruno $$\begin{aligned}
D^q\varphi(F)=\sum_{\alpha\in\mathcal{A}(q)}\frac{q!}{\prod_{i=1}^{q}(i!)^{\alpha_i}\alpha_i!}\varphi^{|\alpha|}(F)\bigotimes_{i=1}^{q}(D^iF)^{\otimes \alpha_{i}}\end{aligned}$$
$$\mathcal{A}(q)=\{\alpha\in\mathbb{Z}_+^q:\alpha_1+2\alpha_2+\cdots+q\alpha_q=q\}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
D^qe^{\lambda(\theta;\mathsf{z},\mathsf{x})}
&=\sum_{\alpha\in\mathcal{A}(q)}\frac{q!}{\prod_{i=1}^{q}(i!)^{\alpha_i}\alpha_i!}e^{\lambda(\theta;\mathsf{z},\mathsf{x})}\bigotimes_{i=1}^{q}(D^i\lambda(\theta;\mathsf{z},\mathsf{x}))^{\otimes \alpha_{i}}\\
&=e^{\lambda(\theta;\mathsf{z},\mathsf{x})}D^q\lambda(\theta;\mathsf{z},\mathsf{x})
+\sum_{\alpha\in\mathcal{A}_0(q)}\frac{q!}{\prod_{i=1}^{q}(i!)^{\alpha_i}\alpha_i!}e^{\lambda(\theta;\mathsf{z},\mathsf{x})}\bigotimes_{i=1}^{q}(D^i\lambda(\theta;\mathsf{z},\mathsf{x}))^{\otimes \alpha_{i}}\end{aligned}$$
$$\mathcal{A}_0(q)=\{\alpha\in\mathbb{Z}_+^q:\alpha_1+2\alpha_2+\cdots+q\alpha_q=q,\alpha_q=0\}$$
multinomial formula $$\begin{aligned}
(D^i\lambda(\theta;\mathsf{z},\mathsf{x}))^{\otimes \alpha_i}
=\sum_{|\beta|=\alpha_i}\frac{\alpha_i!}{\beta!}(\theta\mathsf{i}\mathsf{z}^\top D^iZ)^{\otimes\beta_1}\otimes(-2^{-1}(1-\theta^2)\mathsf{z}^\top D^iG\mathsf{z})^{\otimes\beta_2}\otimes(\mathsf{i}\mathsf{x}^\top D^iX)^{\otimes\beta_3}\end{aligned}$$
$$\varphi(\theta,\lambda)
=E\left[e^{\mathsf{i}\theta\lambda^\top F-\frac{1-\theta^2}{2}\lambda^\top\mathfrak{C}\lambda}\right]$$
$$\frac{\partial\varphi}{\partial\theta}(\theta,\lambda)
=E\left[e^{\mathsf{i}\theta\lambda^\top F-\frac{1-\theta^2}{2}\lambda^\top\mathfrak{C}\lambda}\left(\mathsf{i}\lambda^\top F+\theta\lambda^\top\mathfrak{C}\lambda\right)\right]$$
$$\begin{aligned}
E\left[e^{\mathsf{i}\theta\lambda^\top F-\frac{1-\theta^2}{2}\lambda^\top\mathfrak{C}\lambda}F_j\right]
=E\left[(D^{q_j}e^{\mathsf{i}\theta\lambda^\top F-\frac{1-\theta^2}{2}\lambda^\top\mathfrak{C}\lambda})u_j\right]\end{aligned}$$
Chain rule and Faa di Bruno $$\begin{aligned}
&D^{q_j}e^{\mathsf{i}\theta\lambda^\top F-\frac{1-\theta^2}{2}\lambda^\top\mathfrak{C}\lambda}\\
&=\sum_{{\boldsymbol{k}}\in\mathcal{K}(q_j)}\frac{q_j!}{\prod_{i=1}^{q_j}(i!)^{k_i}\prod_{l=1}^dk_l!}e^{\mathsf{i}\theta\lambda^\top F-\frac{1-\theta^2}{2}\lambda^\top \mathfrak{C}\lambda}\bigotimes_{i=1}^{q_j}(D^i(\mathsf{i}\theta\lambda^\top F-\frac{1-\theta^2}{2}\lambda^\top\mathfrak{C}\lambda))^{\otimes k_{i}}\\
&=e^{\mathsf{i}\theta\lambda^\top F-\frac{1-\theta^2}{2}\lambda^\top \mathfrak{C}\lambda}D^{q_j}(\mathsf{i}\theta\lambda^\top F-\frac{1-\theta^2}{2}\lambda^\top\mathfrak{C}\lambda)\\
&+e^{\mathsf{i}\theta\lambda^\top F-\frac{1-\theta^2}{2}\lambda^\top \mathfrak{C}\lambda}\sum_{{\boldsymbol{k}}\in\mathcal{K}_0(q_j)}\frac{q_j!}{\prod_{i=1}^{q_j}(i!)^{k_i}\prod_{l=1}^dk_l!}\bigotimes_{i=1}^{q_j}(D^i(\mathsf{i}\theta\lambda^\top F-\frac{1-\theta^2}{2}\lambda^\top\mathfrak{C}\lambda))^{\otimes k_{i}}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
(D^i(\mathsf{i}\theta\lambda^\top F-\frac{1-\theta^2}{2}\lambda^\top\mathfrak{C}\lambda))^{\otimes \alpha_{i}}
=\sum_{k=0}^{\alpha_i}\binom{\alpha_i}{k}(\mathsf{i}\theta)^k\left(\frac{1-\theta^2}{2}\right)^{\alpha_i-k}(\lambda^\top D^iF)^{\otimes k}(\lambda^\top D^i\mathfrak{C}\lambda)^{\alpha_i-k}\end{aligned}$$
Proof of Proposition \[prop:comparison\]
----------------------------------------
The proof is analogous to that of Theorem 2 from [@CCK2015] (see also the proof of Theorem 4.1 from [@CCK2017]). Setting $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_n:=\Xi_n\mathfrak{C}_n\Xi_n^\top,\qquad
\widehat{\Gamma}_n:={\widehat{\Xi}}_n\widehat{\mathfrak{C}}_n{\widehat{\Xi}}_n^\top,\qquad
\mu_n:=\Xi_nW_n,\qquad
{\widehat{\mu}}_n:={\widehat{\Xi}}_n{\widehat{W}}_n,\end{aligned}$$ we have $$P(\Xi_n\mathfrak{Z}_n\leq y|\mathcal{F})=P(\Gamma_n^{1/2}\xi_n+\mu_n\leq y|\mathcal{F}),\qquad
P({\widehat{\Xi}}_n\widehat{\mathfrak{Z}}_n\leq y|\mathcal{F})=P(\widehat{\Gamma}_n^{1/2}\xi_n'+{\widehat{\mu}}_n\leq y|\mathcal{F})$$ for all $y\in\mathbb{R}^m$, where $\xi_n$ and $\xi_n'$ are two independent $m$-dimensional standard Gaussian vectors jointly independent of $\mathcal{F}$. Therefore, it is enough to prove $$\sup_{y\in\mathbb{R}^m}|P(\widehat{\Gamma}_n^{1/2}\xi_n'+{\widehat{\mu}}_n\leq y|\mathcal{F})-P(\Gamma_n^{1/2}\xi_n+\mu_n\leq y|\mathcal{F})|\to^p0$$ as $n\to\infty$. In addition, thanks to the condition , it suffices to prove the above convergence on the set $\Omega_b:=\{\operatorname{diag}(\Gamma_n)\geq b\}$ for an arbitrarily fixed $b>0$. More precisely, it is enough to prove $$P\left(\Omega_b\cap\left\{\sup_{y\in\mathbb{R}^m}|P(\widehat{\Gamma}_n^{1/2}\xi_n'+{\widehat{\mu}}_n\leq y|\mathcal{F})-P(\Gamma_n^{1/2}\xi_n+\mu_n\leq y|\mathcal{F})|>\eta\right\}\right)\to0$$ as $n\to\infty$ for any $\eta>0$.
We first prove $$\label{comp-aim1}
P\left(\Omega_b\cap\left\{\sup_{y\in\mathbb{R}^m}|P(\Gamma_n^{1/2}\xi_n+{\widehat{\mu}}_n\leq y|\mathcal{F})-P(\Gamma_n^{1/2}\xi_n+\mu_n\leq y|\mathcal{F})|>\eta\right\}\right)\to0$$ as $n\to\infty$ for any $\eta>0$. By Nazarov’s inequality we have $$|P(\Gamma_n^{1/2}\xi_n+{\widehat{\mu}}_n\leq y|\mathcal{F})-P(\Gamma_n^{1/2}\xi_n+\mu_n\leq y|\mathcal{F})|
\leq\frac{\|{\widehat{\mu}}_n-\mu_n\|_{\ell_\infty}}{\sqrt{b}}\left(\sqrt{2\log m}+2\right)$$ a.s. on the set $\Omega_b$ for every $y\in\mathbb{R}^m$. Since the function ${\textcolor{black}{y}}\mapsto|P(\Gamma_n^{1/2}\xi_n+{\widehat{\mu}}_n\leq y|\mathcal{F})-P(\Gamma_n^{1/2}\xi_n+\mu_n\leq y|\mathcal{F})|$ is a.s. right-continuous, the above result yields $$\sup_{y\in\mathbb{R}^m}|P(\Gamma_n^{1/2}\xi_n+{\widehat{\mu}}_n\leq y|\mathcal{F})-P(\Gamma_n^{1/2}\xi_n+\mu_n\leq y|\mathcal{F})|
\leq\frac{\|{\widehat{\mu}}_n-\mu_n\|_{\ell_\infty}}{\sqrt{b}}\left(\sqrt{2\log m}+2\right)$$ a.s. on the set $\Omega_b$. Hence follows from the assumption .
Thanks to , it suffices to prove $$P\left(\Omega_b\cap\left\{\sup_{y\in\mathbb{R}^m}|P(\widehat{\Gamma}_n^{1/2}\xi_n'+{\widehat{\mu}}_n\leq y|\mathcal{F})-P(\Gamma_n^{1/2}\xi_n+{\widehat{\mu}}_n\leq y|\mathcal{F})|>\eta\right\}\right)\to0$$ as $n\to\infty$ for any $\eta>0$. However, since we have $$\sup_{y\in\mathbb{R}^m}|P(\widehat{\Gamma}_n^{1/2}\xi_n'+{\widehat{\mu}}_n\leq y|\mathcal{F})-P(\Gamma_n^{1/2}\xi_n+{\widehat{\mu}}_n\leq y|\mathcal{F})|
=\sup_{y\in\mathbb{R}^m}|P(\widehat{\Gamma}_n^{1/2}\xi_n'\leq y|\mathcal{F})-P(\Gamma_n^{1/2}\xi_n\leq y|\mathcal{F})|,$$ this amounts to proving $$\label{comp-aim2}
P\left(\Omega_b\cap\left\{\sup_{y\in\mathbb{R}^m}|P(\widehat{\Gamma}_n^{1/2}\xi_n'\leq y|\mathcal{F})-P(\Gamma_n^{1/2}\xi_n\leq y|\mathcal{F})|>\eta\right\}\right)\to0$$ as $n\to\infty$ for any $\eta>0$. To prove this claim, we take a number $\varepsilon>0$ arbitrarily and set $\beta=\varepsilon^{-1}\log m$ as in the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\]. Then we define the function $\Phi_\beta:\mathbb{R}^{m}\to\mathbb{R}$ by . We also take a $C^\infty$ function $g:\mathbb{R}\to[0,1]$ such that all the derivatives of $g$ is bounded and $g(t)=1$ for $t\leq0$ and $g(t)=0$ for $t\geq1$.
Fix a vector $y\in\mathbb{R}^{m}$ arbitrarily and define the function $\varphi:\mathbb{R}^{m}\to\mathbb{R}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi(w)&=g(\varepsilon^{-1}\Phi_\beta(w-y-\varepsilon)),\qquad w\in\mathbb{R}^{m}.\end{aligned}$$ Then we define the stochastic process $\Psi=(\Psi(t))_{t\in[0,1]}$ by $$\Psi(t)=E\left[\varphi\left(\sqrt{t}\widehat{\Gamma}_n^{1/2}\xi_n'+\sqrt{1-t}\Gamma_n^{1/2}\xi_n\right)|\mathcal{F}\right],\qquad t\in[0,1].$$ We evidently have $$\frac{d\Psi(t)}{dt}=E\left[\partial_{w}^{\otimes1}\varphi\left(\sqrt{t}\widehat{\Gamma}_n^{1/2}\xi_n'+\sqrt{1-t}\Gamma_n^{1/2}\xi_n\right)\left[\frac{\widehat{\Gamma}_n^{1/2}\xi_n'}{\sqrt{t}}-\frac{\Gamma_n^{1/2}\xi_n}{\sqrt{1-t}}\right]|\mathcal{F}\right]\qquad \text{for all }t\in(0,1)$$ with probability one. Then, Stein’s identity yields $$\frac{d\Psi(t)}{dt}=E\left[\partial_{w}^{\otimes2}\varphi\left(\sqrt{t}\widehat{\Gamma}_n^{1/2}\xi_n'+\sqrt{1-t}\Gamma_n^{1/2}\xi_n\right)\left[\widehat{\Gamma}_n-\Gamma_n\right]|\mathcal{F}\right]\qquad \text{for all }t\in(0,1)$$ with probability one. Consequently, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\left|E\left[\varphi\left(\widehat{\Gamma}_n^{1/2}\xi_n'\right)|\mathcal{F}\right]-E\left[\varphi\left(\Gamma_n^{1/2}\xi_n\right)|\mathcal{F}\right]\right|
&\leq\int_0^1\left|\frac{d\Psi(t)}{dt}\right|dt\\
&\leq C\varepsilon^{-2}(\log m)\|\widehat{\Gamma}_n-\Gamma_n\|_{\ell_\infty}\end{aligned}$$ by Lemmas 3–4 of [@CCK2015], where $C>0$ is a constant which depends only on $g$. Now we have $$\begin{aligned}
P\left(\widehat{\Gamma}_n^{1/2}\xi_n'\leq y|\mathcal{F}\right)&\leq P\left(\Phi_\beta(\widehat{\Gamma}_n^{1/2}\xi_n'-y-\varepsilon)\leq0|\mathcal{F}\right)~(\because\text{Eq.\eqref{max-smooth}})\\
&\leq E\left[\varphi\left(\widehat{\Gamma}_n^{1/2}\xi_n'\right)|\mathcal{F}\right]
\leq E\left[\varphi\left(\Gamma_n^{1/2}\xi_n\right)|\mathcal{F}\right]+C\varepsilon^{-2}(\log m)\|\widehat{\Gamma}_n-\Gamma_n\|_{\ell_\infty}\\
&\leq P\left(\Phi_\beta(\Gamma_n^{1/2}\xi_n-y-\varepsilon)<\varepsilon|\mathcal{F}\right)+C\varepsilon^{-2}(\log m)\|\widehat{\Gamma}_n-\Gamma_n\|_{\ell_\infty}~(\because\text{the definition of $g$})\\
&\leq P\left(\Gamma_n^{1/2}\xi_n\leq y+2\varepsilon\right)+C\varepsilon^{-2}(\log m)\|\widehat{\Gamma}_n-\Gamma_n\|_{\ell_\infty}~(\because\text{Eq.\eqref{max-smooth}}).\end{aligned}$$ Since we have on the set $\Omega_b$ $$P(\Gamma_n^{1/2}\xi_n\leq y+2\varepsilon|\mathcal{F})
\leq P(\Gamma_n^{1/2}\xi_n\leq y|\mathcal{F})+\frac{2\varepsilon}{\sqrt{b}}(\sqrt{2\log m}+2)$$ by the Nazarov inequality, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
P\left(\widehat{\Gamma}_n^{1/2}\xi_n'\leq y|\mathcal{F}\right)
&\leq P(\Gamma_n^{1/2}\xi_n\leq y|\mathcal{F})+\frac{2\varepsilon}{\sqrt{b}}(\sqrt{2\log m}+2)+C\varepsilon^{-2}(\log m)\|\widehat{\Gamma}_n-\Gamma_n\|_{\ell_\infty}\end{aligned}$$ a.s. on the set $\Omega_b$. By an analogous argument we also obtain $$\begin{aligned}
P\left(\widehat{\Gamma}_n^{1/2}\xi_n'\leq y|\mathcal{F}\right)
&\geq P(\Gamma_n^{1/2}\xi_n\leq y|\mathcal{F})-\frac{2\varepsilon}{\sqrt{b}}(\sqrt{2\log m}+2)-C\varepsilon^{-2}(\log m)\|\widehat{\Gamma}_n-\Gamma_n\|_{\ell_\infty}\end{aligned}$$ a.s. on the set $\Omega_b$. Therefore, we conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
\left|P\left(\widehat{\Gamma}_n^{1/2}\xi_n'\leq y|\mathcal{F}\right)-P(\Gamma_n^{1/2}\xi_n\leq y|\mathcal{F})\right|
\leq \frac{2\varepsilon}{b}(\sqrt{2\log m}+2)+C\varepsilon^{-2}(\log m)\|\widehat{\Gamma}_n-\Gamma_n\|_{\ell_\infty}\end{aligned}$$ a.s. on the set $\Omega_b$. Since the function $y\mapsto \left|P\left(\widehat{\Gamma}_n^{1/2}\xi_n'\leq y|\mathcal{F}\right)-P(\Gamma_n^{1/2}\xi_n\leq y|\mathcal{F})\right|$ is a.s. right-continuous, the above result implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{y\in\mathbb{R}^m}\left|P\left(\widehat{\Gamma}_n^{1/2}\xi_n'\leq y|\mathcal{F}\right)-P(\Gamma_n^{1/2}\xi_n\leq y|\mathcal{F})\right|
\leq \frac{2\varepsilon}{b}(\sqrt{2\log m}+2)+C\varepsilon^{-2}(\log m)\|\widehat{\Gamma}_n-\Gamma_n\|_{\ell_\infty}\end{aligned}$$ a.s. on the set $\Omega_b$. Hence we deduce $$\begin{aligned}
&P\left(\Omega_b\cap\left\{\sup_{y\in\mathbb{R}^m}|P(\widehat{\Gamma}_n^{1/2}\xi_n'\leq y|\mathcal{F})-P(\Gamma_n^{1/2}\xi_n\leq y|\mathcal{F})|>\eta\right\}\right)\\
&\leq P\left(\frac{2\varepsilon}{b}(\sqrt{2\log m}+2)+C\varepsilon^{-2}(\log m)\|\widehat{\Gamma}_n-\Gamma_n\|_{\ell_\infty}>\eta\right)\end{aligned}$$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$. Now, take a number $a>0$ such that $\frac{2a}{b}(\sqrt{2}+2/\sqrt{\log 2})\leq\frac{\eta}{2}$ and set $\varepsilon=a/\sqrt{\log m}$. Then the above inequality yields $$\begin{aligned}
&P\left(\Omega_b\cap\left\{\sup_{y\in\mathbb{R}^m}|P(\widehat{\Gamma}_n^{1/2}\xi_n'\leq y|\mathcal{F})-P(\Gamma_n^{1/2}\xi_n\leq y|\mathcal{F})|>\eta\right\}\right)
\leq P\left(\frac{C}{a}(\log m)^2\|\widehat{\Gamma}_n-\Gamma_n\|_{\ell_\infty}>\frac{\eta}{2}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, 0 noting that the inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\|\widehat{\Gamma}_n-\Gamma_n\|_{\ell_\infty}
\leq{\@ifstar{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
s
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{\Upsilon_n}_\infty^2
\left(\|{\widehat{{\boldsymbol{X}}}}_n\|_{\ell_\infty}^2\|\widehat{\mathfrak{C}}_n-\mathfrak{C}_n\|_{\ell_\infty}
+\|{\widehat{{\boldsymbol{X}}}}_n-{\boldsymbol{X}}_n\|_{\ell_\infty}(\|{\widehat{{\boldsymbol{X}}}}_n\|_{\ell_\infty}+\|{\boldsymbol{X}}_n\|_{\ell_\infty})\|\mathfrak{C}_n\|_{\ell_\infty}\right),\end{aligned}$$ we obtain the desired result from the condition . follows from the assumption , which yields the desired result.
Proof of Proposition \[prop:quantile\]
--------------------------------------
We follow Step 3 in the proof of Theorem 2 from [@KS2016]. First, by assumption and Theorem 9.2.2 of [@Dudley2002] there is a sequence $\varepsilon_n$ of positive numbers tending to 0 such that $$P\left(\mathcal{E}_n^c\right)\leq\varepsilon_n,\qquad
\sup_{x\in\mathbb{R}}\left|P\left(T_n\leq x\right)-P\left(T_n^\dagger\leq x\right)\right|\leq\varepsilon_n$$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$, where $$\mathcal{E}_n=\left\{\sup_{x\in\mathbb{R}}\left|P\left(T_n^\dagger\leq x|\mathcal{F}\right)-P\left(T^*_n\leq x|\mathcal{F}\right)\right|\leq\varepsilon_n\right\}.$$ Next, let us denote by $q_n^\dagger$ the $\mathcal{F}$-conditional quantile function of $T_n^\dagger$. Then, on the set $\mathcal{E}_n\cap E_n$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
P\left(T^*_n\leq q_n^\dagger(\alpha+\varepsilon_n)|\mathcal{F}\right)
\geq P\left(T_n^\dagger\leq q_n^\dagger(\alpha+\varepsilon_n)|\mathcal{F}\right)-\varepsilon_n
=\alpha.\end{aligned}$$ on $\mathcal{E}_n\cap E_n$ it holds that $q_n^*(\alpha)\leq q_n^\dagger(\alpha+\varepsilon_n).$ Therefore, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
P\left(T_n\leq q_n^*(\alpha)\right)
&\leq P\left(T_n\leq q_n^\dagger(\alpha+\varepsilon_n)\right)+P(\mathcal{E}_n^c)+P(E_n^c)\\
&\leq P\left(T_n^\dagger\leq q_n^\dagger(\alpha+\varepsilon_n)\right)+2\varepsilon_n+P(E_n^c)
=\alpha+3\varepsilon_n+P(E_n^c).\end{aligned}$$ Meanwhile, for any $\omega\in\mathcal{E}_n\cap E_n$ and any $z\in\mathbb{R}$ such that $P(T_n^*\leq z|\mathcal{F})(\omega)\geq\alpha$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
P\left(T_n^\dagger\leq q_n^\dagger(\alpha-\varepsilon_n)(\omega)|\mathcal{F}\right)(\omega)
=\alpha-\varepsilon_n
\leq P(T_n^*\leq z|\mathcal{F})(\omega)-\varepsilon_n
\leq P\left(T_n^\dagger\leq z|\mathcal{F}\right)(\omega).\end{aligned}$$ ence it holds that $q_n^\dagger(\alpha-\varepsilon_n)(\omega)\leq z$. This implies that $q_n^*(\alpha)\geq q_n^\dagger(\alpha-\varepsilon_n)$ on $\mathcal{E}_n\cap E_n$. Therefore, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
P\left(T_n< q_n^*(\alpha)\right)
&\geq P\left(T_n< q_n^\dagger(\alpha-\varepsilon_n)\right)-P(\mathcal{E}_n^c)-P(E_n^c)\\
&\geq P\left(T_n^\dagger< q_n^\dagger(\alpha-\varepsilon_n)\right)-2\varepsilon_n-P(E_n^c)
=\alpha-3\varepsilon_n-P(E_n^c).\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, we obtain $P\left(T_n\leq q_n^*(\alpha)\right)\to\alpha$ as $n\to\infty$.
Proofs for Section \[sec:rc\]
=============================
Proof of Theorem \[thm:rc\]
---------------------------
We first introduce some notation. For two sequences $(x_n),(y_n)$ of numbers, the notation $x_n\lesssim y_n$ means that there is a *universal* constant $C>0$ such that $x_n\leq Cy_n$ for all $n$. Here, the value of the constant $C$ will change from line to line. We define the $d$-dimensional processes $\mathsf{A}=(\mathsf{A}_t)_{t\in[0,1]}$ and $\mathsf{M}=(\mathsf{M}_t)_{t\in[0,1]}$ by $$\mathsf{A}_t=\int_0^t\mu_sds,\qquad
\mathsf{M}_t=\int_0^t\sigma_sdB_s$$ for every $t\in[0,1]$. If $\phi=(\phi_t)_{t\in[0,1]}$ is an $r$-dimensional $(\mathcal{F}_t)$-progressively measurable process such that $\int_0^1\|\phi_t\|_{\ell_2}^2dt<\infty$ a.s., we define $$\int_0^t\phi_s\cdot dB_s:=\sum_{a=1}^r\int_0^t\phi_s^adB^a_s$$ for all $t\in[0,1]$.
For every $n\in\mathbb{N}$, we set $I_h=I_h^n:=(t_{h-1},t_h]$ for every $h=1,\dots,n$ and define the filtration $(\mathcal{G}^n_t)_{t\in[0,1]}$ by $\mathcal{G}^n_0:=\mathcal{F}_0$ and $$\mathcal{G}^n_t:=\mathcal{F}_{t_{h-1}}$$ when $t\in I_h$ for some $h=1,\dots,n$. Then we define the process $(\varsigma_t)_{t\in[0,1]}$ by $$\varsigma_t=E[\sigma_t|\mathcal{G}^n_{t}],\qquad t\in[0,1]$$ (we subtract the index $n$ from $\varsigma_t$ although it depends on $n$). For all $i,j=1,\dots,d$, we define the symmetric $H^{\otimes2}$-valued random variable $u_n^{ij}$ by $$u_n^{ij}:=\sqrt{n}\sum_{h=1}^nf_n^{ij}1_{I_h\times I_h},$$ where $f_n^{ij}=\operatorname{Sym}\left(\varsigma^{i\cdot}\otimes\varsigma^{j\cdot}\right)$. We note the following result:
\[lemma:double\] Given an index $n\in\mathbb{N}$, let $\xi=(\xi_t)_{t\in[0,1]}$ and $\eta=(\eta_t)_{t\in[0,1]}$ be $(\mathcal{G}^n_t)$-adapted $r$-dimensional processes such that $\sup_{t\in[0,1]}E[\|\xi_t\|_{\ell_2}^4+\|\eta_t\|_{\ell_2}^4]<\infty$. Then $\xi\otimes\eta1_{I_h\times I_h}\in\operatorname{Dom}(\delta^2)$ and $$\delta^2(\xi\otimes\eta1_{I_h\times I_h})=\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\left(\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\xi_s\cdot dB_s\right)\eta_t\cdot dB_t+\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\left(\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\xi_s\cdot dB_s\right)\eta_t\cdot dB_t$$ for every $h=1,\dots,n$.
Set $S:=\{(s,t)\in[0,1]^2:s\leq t\}$. For any $t\in[0,1]$, the process $(\xi_s\eta_t1_{(I_h\times I_h)\cap S}(s,t))_{s\in[0,1]}$ is evidently $\mathbf{F}$-predictable and $H$-valued, it belongs to $\operatorname{Dom}(\delta)$ and $$\delta(\xi\eta_t1_{(I_h\times I_h)\cap S}(\cdot,t))=\eta_t1_{I_h}(t)\int_0^t\xi_s1_{I_h}(s)\cdot dB_s$$ by Proposition 1.3.11 of [@Nualart2006]. Moreover, from the above expression the process $(\delta(\xi\eta_t1_{(I_h\times I_h)\cap S}(\cdot,t)))_{t\in[0,1]}$ is evidently $\mathbf{F}$-predictable and $H$-valued. Therefore, Proposition 1.3.11 of [@Nualart2006] and Proposition 2.6 of [@NZ1988] imply that $\xi\otimes\eta1_{(I_h\times I_h)\cap S}$ belongs to $\operatorname{Dom}(\delta^2)$ and $$\delta^2(\xi\otimes\eta1_{(I_h\times I_h)\cap S})
=\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\left(\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\xi_s\cdot dB_s\right)\eta_t\cdot dB_t.$$ Similarly, we can show that $\xi\otimes\eta1_{(I_h\times I_h)\cap S^c}\in \operatorname{Dom}(\delta^2)$ and $$\delta^2(\xi\otimes\eta1_{(I_h\times I_h)\cap S^c})
=\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\left(\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\eta_s\cdot dB_s\right)\xi_t\cdot dB_t.$$ This completes the proof.
Thanks to Lemma \[lemma:double\], we have $u_n^{ij}\in\operatorname{Dom}(\delta^2)$, we can define the variable $M_n^{ij}$ by $$M_n^{ij}=\delta^2(u_n^{ij}).$$
Next we prove some auxiliary results. We begin by noting some elementary facts which are frequently used throughout the proof. First, for any random variable $\xi$ and any $p,q\in(0,\infty)$, it holds that $$\||\xi|^q\|_p=\|\xi\|_{pq}^q.$$ Second, for two random variables $\xi,\eta$ and numbers $p\in(0,\infty)$, $q\in(1,\infty)$, we have $$\|\xi\eta\|_p\leq\|\xi\|_{qp}\|\eta\|_{\frac{q}{q-1}p}.$$ This is a consequence of the Hölder inequality. These facts will be used without reference in the following. We also refer to two inequalities which are repeatedly used throughout the proof. The first one is the following integral version of the Minkowski inequality:
\[minkowski\] Let $(\mathcal{X},\mathcal{A},\mathfrak{m})$ be a $\sigma$-finite measure space and $f:\mathcal{X}\times \Omega\to[0,\infty]$ be an $\mathcal{A}\otimes\mathcal{F}$-measurable function. Then we have $$\left\|\int_{\mathcal{X}}f(x)\mathfrak{m}(dx)\right\|_p
\leq\int_{\mathcal{X}}\|f(x)\|_p\mathfrak{m}(dx)$$ for all $p\in[1,\infty]$.
Proposition \[minkowski\] is an easy consequence of the standard Minkowski inequality via approximating the function $f$ by simple functions (see also Proposition C.4 of [@Janson1997]).
The second one is the following Burkholder-Davis-Gundy inequality with a sharp constant:
\[sharp-BDG\] There is a universal constant $c>0$ such that $$\left\|\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}|M_t|\right\|_p\leq c\sqrt{p}\left\|\langle M\rangle_T^{1/2}\right\|_p$$ for any $p\in[2,\infty)$ and any continuous martingale $M=(M_t)_{t\in[0,T]}$ with $M_0=0$.
We then prove some auxiliary estimates.
\[lemma:BDG\] There is a universal constant $C>0$ such that $$\left\|\sum_{h=h_0+1}^{h_1}\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\left(\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\eta_s\cdot dB_s\right)\xi_t\cdot dB_t\right\|_p
\leq C\frac{p\sqrt{h_1-h_0}}{n}\sup_{t_{h_0}< t< t_{h_1}}\|\xi_t\|_{qp,\ell_2}\sup_{t_{h_0}< s< t_{h_1}}\|\eta_s\|_{\frac{q}{q-1}p,\ell_2}$$ for any $p\in[2,\infty)$, $q\in(1,\infty)$, $n\in\mathbb{N}$, $h_0,h_1=0,1,\dots,n$ such that $h_0< h_1$ and any $r$-dimensional $(\mathcal{F}_t)$-progressively measurable processes $\xi$ and $\eta$ such that $\sup_{t\in[0,1]}(\|\xi_t\|_p+\|\eta_t\|_p)<\infty$ for all $p\in[1,\infty)$.
Set $q'=q/(1-q)$. By Propositions \[minkowski\]–\[sharp-BDG\] we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\sum_{h=h_0+1}^{h_1}\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\left(\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\eta_s\cdot dB_s\right)\xi_t\cdot dB_t\right\|_p
&\lesssim\sqrt{p}\left\|\sqrt{\sum_{h=h_0+1}^{h_1}\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\|\xi_t\|_{\ell_2}^2\left(\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\eta_s\cdot dB_s\right)^2dt}\right\|_p\\
&\leq\sqrt{p\sum_{h=h_0+1}^{h_1}\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\|\xi_t\|_{qp,\ell_2}^2\left\|\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\eta_s\cdot dB_s\right\|_{q'p}^2dt}\\
&\lesssim p\sqrt{\sum_{h=h_0+1}^{h_1}\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\|\xi_t\|_{qp,\ell_2}^2\left\|\sqrt{\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\|\eta_s\|_{\ell_2}^2ds}\right\|_{q'p}^2dt}\\
&\leq\frac{p\sqrt{h_1-h_0}}{n}\sup_{t_{h_0}< t< t_{h_1}}\|\xi_t\|_{qp,\ell_2}\sup_{t_{h_0}< s< t_{h_1}}\|\eta_s\|_{q'p,\ell_2}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence we obtain the desired result.
0
\[ocone\] There is a universal constant $C>0$ such that $$\sup_{0\leq t\leq 1}\left\|\sigma^{i\cdot}_t-\varsigma^{i\cdot}_t\right\|_{2p,\ell_2}^2\leq\frac{Cp}{n}\sup_{0\leq u\leq v\leq1}\|D_{u}\sigma^{i\cdot}_{v}\|_{2p,\ell_2}^2$$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$, $i=1,\dots,r$ and $p\in[2,\infty)$.
By the Clark-Ocone formula (Proposition A.1 of [@NP1988]) we have $$\sigma^{ia}_t=E[\sigma^{ia}_t|\mathcal{F}_{t_{h-1}}]+\int_{t_{h-1}}^tE[D_s\sigma^{ia}_t|\mathcal{F}_{s}]\cdot dB_s$$ for all $t\in I_h$. Therefore, it suffices to show that there is a universal constant $C>0$ such that $$\max_{1\leq h\leq n}\sup_{t\in I_h}\left\|\sum_{a=1}^r\left(\int_{t_{h-1}}^tE[D_s\sigma^{ia}_t|\mathcal{F}_{s}]\cdot dB_s\right)^2\right\|_p\leq\frac{Cp}{n}\sup_{0\leq u\leq v\leq1}\|D_{u}\sigma^{i\cdot}_{v}\|_{2p,\ell_2}^2$$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$, $i=1,\dots,r$ and $p\in[2,\infty)$.
Fix $n\in\mathbb{N}$, $i=1,\dots,r$ and $p\in[2,\infty)$ arbitrarily. We also fix $h=1,\dots,n$ and $t\in I_h$ arbitrarily. Then, by Itô’s formula we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{a=1}^r\left(\int_{t_{h-1}}^\tau E[D_s\sigma^{ia}_t|\mathcal{F}_{s}]dB_s\right)^2\\
&=2\int_{t_{h-1}}^\tau \sum_{a=1}^r\left(\int_{t_{h-1}}^sE[D_u\sigma^{ia}_t|\mathcal{F}_{u}]dB_u\right)E[D_s\sigma^{ia}_t|\mathcal{F}_{s}]dB_s
+\int_{t_{h-1}}^\tau \sum_{a=1}^r\left\|E\left[D_s\sigma^{ia}_t|\mathcal{F}_{s}\right]\right\|_{\ell_2}^2ds\\
&=:\mathbf{I}_\tau+\mathbf{II}_\tau\end{aligned}$$ for every $\tau\in[t_{h-1},t]$. The Lyapunov inequality and Proposition \[minkowski\] yield $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\mathbf{II}_\tau\right\|_p
\leq\frac{1}{n}\sup_{0\leq u\leq v\leq1}\|D_{u}\sigma^{i\cdot}_{v}\|_{2p,\ell_2}^2.\end{aligned}$$ Meanwhile, Propositions \[minkowski\]–\[sharp-BDG\] as well as the Schwarz and Lyapunov inequalities yield $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\mathbf{I}_\tau\right\|_{p}
&\lesssim\sqrt{p}\left\|\sqrt{\sum_{b=1}^r\int_{t_{h-1}}^\tau\left|\sum_{a=1}^r\left(\int_{t_{h-1}}^sE[D_u\sigma^{ia}_t|\mathcal{F}_{u}]dB_u\right)E[D^{(b)}_s\sigma^{ia}_t|\mathcal{F}_{s}]\right|^2ds}\right\|_{p}\\
&\leq\sqrt{p}\left\|\int_{t_{h-1}}^\tau\sum_{a=1}^r\left(\int_{t_{h-1}}^sE[D_u\sigma^{ia}_t|\mathcal{F}_{u}]dB_u\right)^2\sum_{a,b=1}^rE[D^{(b)}_s\sigma^{ia}_t|\mathcal{F}_{s}]^2ds\right\|_{p/2}^{1/2}\\
&\leq\sqrt{p\int_{t_{h-1}}^\tau\left\|\sum_{a=1}^r\left(\int_{t_{h-1}}^sE[D_u\sigma^{ia}_t|\mathcal{F}_{u}]dB_u\right)^2E\left[\|D_s\sigma^{i\cdot}_t\|_{\ell_2}^2|\mathcal{F}_{s}\right]\right\|_{p/2}ds}\\
&\leq\sqrt{p\int_{t_{h-1}}^\tau\left\|\sum_{a=1}^r\left(\int_{t_{h-1}}^sE[D_u\sigma^{ia}_t|\mathcal{F}_{u}]dB_u\right)^2\right\|_p\left\|E\left[\|D_s\sigma^{i\cdot}_t\|_{\ell_2}^2|\mathcal{F}_{s}\right]\right\|_{p}ds}\\
&\leq\sqrt{p\sup_{0\leq u\leq v\leq1}\|D_{u}\sigma^{i\cdot}_{v}\|_{2p,\ell_2}^2\int_{t_{h-1}}^\tau\left\|\sum_{a=1}^r\left(\int_{t_{h-1}}^sE[D_u\sigma^{ia}_t|\mathcal{F}_{u}]dB_u\right)^2\right\|_pds}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, defining the function $g:[t_{h-1},t]\to[0,\infty)$ by $$g(\tau)=\left\|\sum_{a=1}^r\left(\int_{t_{h-1}}^\tau E[D_s\sigma^{ia}_t|\mathcal{F}_{s}]dB_s\right)^2\right\|_{p}^2,\qquad \tau\in[t_{h-1},t],$$ we conclude that $$g(\tau)\leq\frac{2}{n^2}\sup_{0\leq u\leq v\leq1}\|D_{u}\sigma^{i\cdot}_{v}\|_{2p,\ell_2}^4+C_0p\sup_{0\leq u\leq v\leq1}\|D_{u}\sigma^{i\cdot}_{v}\|_{2p,\ell_2}^2\int_{t_{h-1}}^\tau\sqrt{g(s)}ds$$ for any $\tau\in[t_{h-1},t]$ with some universal constant $C_0>0$. Hence the Bihari inequality (cf. Section 3 of [@Bihari1956]) yields $$\sqrt{g(t)}\leq\frac{\sqrt{2}}{n}\sup_{0\leq u\leq v\leq1}\|D_{u}\sigma^{i\cdot}_{v}\|_{2p,\ell_2}^2
+\frac{C_0p}{2n}\sup_{0\leq u\leq v\leq1}\|D_{u}\sigma^{i\cdot}_{v}\|_{2p,\ell_2}^2.$$ This implies that the desired result holds true with the constant $C=1/\sqrt{2}+C_0/2$.
\[ocone\] There is a universal constant $C>0$ such that $$\max_{1\leq h\leq n-1}\sup_{t\in[t_{h-1},t_{h+1}]}\left\|\xi_t-E[\xi_t|\mathcal{F}_{t_{h-1}}]\right\|_{2p,\ell_2}\leq C\sqrt{\frac{p}{n}}\sup_{0\leq u\leq v\leq1}\|D_{u}\xi_{v}\|_{2p,\ell_2}$$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$, $p\in[2,\infty)$, $\mathsf{r}\in\mathbb{N}$ and any $\mathsf{r}$-dimensional $(\mathcal{F}_t)$-progressively measurable process $\xi$ such that $\xi_t\in\mathbb{D}_{1,\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{\mathsf{r}})$ for all $t\in[0,1]$.
By the Clark-Ocone formula (Proposition A.1 of [@NP1988]) we have $$\xi^{a}_t=E[\xi^{a}_t|\mathcal{F}_{t_{h-1}}]+\int_{t_{h-1}}^tE[D_s\xi^{a}_t|\mathcal{F}_{s}]\cdot dB_s\qquad\text{a.s.}$$ for all $t\in [t_{h-1},t_{h+1}]$ and $a=1,\dots,\mathsf{r}$. Therefore, it suffices to show that there is a universal constant $C'>0$ such that $$\max_{1\leq h\leq n-1}\sup_{t\in[t_{h-1},t_{h+1}]}\left\|\sum_{a=1}^\mathsf{r}\left(\int_{t_{h-1}}^tE[D_s\xi^{a}_t|\mathcal{F}_{s}]\cdot dB_s\right)^2\right\|_p\leq C'\frac{p}{n}\sup_{0\leq u\leq v\leq1}\|D_{u}\xi_{v}\|_{2p,\ell_2}^2$$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and $p\in[2,\infty)$.
Fix $h=1,\dots,n-1$ and $t\in[t_{h-1},t_{h+1}]$ arbitrarily. By Itô’s formula we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{a=1}^\mathsf{r}\left(\int_{t_{h-1}}^\tau E[D_s\xi^{a}_t|\mathcal{F}_{s}]\cdot dB_s\right)^2\\
&=2\int_{t_{h-1}}^\tau \sum_{a=1}^\mathsf{r}\left(\int_{t_{h-1}}^sE[D_u\xi^{a}_t|\mathcal{F}_{u}]\cdot dB_u\right)E[D_s\xi^{a}_t|\mathcal{F}_{s}]\cdot dB_s
+\int_{t_{h-1}}^\tau \sum_{a=1}^\mathsf{r}\left\|E\left[D_s\xi^{a}_t|\mathcal{F}_{s}\right]\right\|_{\ell_2}^2ds\\
&=:\mathbf{I}_\tau+\mathbf{II}_\tau\end{aligned}$$ for every $\tau\in[t_{h-1},t]$. The Lyapunov inequality and Proposition \[minkowski\] yield $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\mathbf{II}_\tau\right\|_p
\leq\frac{1}{n}\sup_{0\leq u\leq v\leq1}\|D_{u}\xi_{v}\|_{2p,\ell_2}^2.\end{aligned}$$ Meanwhile, $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\mathbf{I}_\tau\right\|_{p}
&\lesssim\sqrt{p}\left\|\sqrt{\sum_{b=1}^r\int_{t_{h-1}}^\tau\left|\sum_{a=1}^\mathsf{r}\left(\int_{t_{h-1}}^sE[D_u\xi^{a}_t|\mathcal{F}_{u}]\cdot dB_u\right)E[D^{(b)}_s\xi^{a}_t|\mathcal{F}_{s}]\right|^2ds}\right\|_{p}
~{\textcolor{black}{(\because\text{Proposition \ref{sharp-BDG}})}}\\
&\leq\sqrt{p}\left\|\int_{t_{h-1}}^\tau\sum_{a=1}^\mathsf{r}\left(\int_{t_{h-1}}^sE[D_u\xi^{a}_t|\mathcal{F}_{u}]\cdot dB_u\right)^2\sum_{a=1}^\mathsf{r}\sum_{b=1}^rE[D^{(b)}_s\xi^{a}_t|\mathcal{F}_{s}]^2ds\right\|_{p/2}^{1/2}
~{\textcolor{black}{(\because\text{Schwarz})}}\\
&\leq\sqrt{p\int_{t_{h-1}}^\tau\left\|\sum_{a=1}^\mathsf{r}\left(\int_{t_{h-1}}^sE[D_u\xi^{a}_t|\mathcal{F}_{u}]dB_u\right)^2E\left[\|D_s\xi_t\|_{\ell_2}^2|\mathcal{F}_{s}\right]\right\|_{p/2}ds}
~(\because\text{Lyapunov, Proposition \ref{minkowski}})\\
&\leq\sqrt{p\int_{t_{h-1}}^\tau\left\|\sum_{a=1}^\mathsf{r}\left(\int_{t_{h-1}}^sE[D_u\xi^{a}_t|\mathcal{F}_{u}]\cdot dB_u\right)^2\right\|_p\left\|E\left[\|D_s\xi_t\|_{\ell_2}^2|\mathcal{F}_{s}\right]\right\|_{p}ds}
~(\because\text{Schwarz})\\
&\leq\sqrt{p\sup_{0\leq u\leq v\leq1}\|D_{u}\xi_{v}\|_{2p,\ell_2}^2\int_{t_{h-1}}^\tau\left\|\sum_{a=1}^\mathsf{r}\left(\int_{t_{h-1}}^sE[D_u\xi^{a}_t|\mathcal{F}_{u}]\cdot dB_u\right)^2\right\|_pds}
~{\textcolor{black}{(\because\text{Lyapunov})}}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, defining the function $g:[t_{h-1},t]\to[0,\infty)$ by $$g(\tau)=\left\|\sum_{a=1}^\mathsf{r}\left(\int_{t_{h-1}}^\tau E[D_s\xi^{a}_t|\mathcal{F}_{s}]\cdot dB_s\right)^2\right\|_{p}^2,\qquad \tau\in[t_{h-1},t],$$ we obtain $$g(\tau)\leq\frac{2}{n^2}\sup_{0\leq u\leq v\leq1}\|D_{u}\xi_{v}\|_{2p,\ell_2}^4+C_0p\sup_{0\leq u\leq v\leq1}\|D_{u}\xi_{v}\|_{2p,\ell_2}^2\int_{t_{h-1}}^\tau\sqrt{g(s)}ds$$ for any $\tau\in[t_{h-1},t]$ with some universal constant $C_0>0$. Hence the Bihari inequality (cf. Section 3 of [@Bihari1956]) yields $$\sqrt{g(t)}\leq\frac{\sqrt{2}}{n}\sup_{0\leq u\leq v\leq1}\|D_{u}\xi_{v}\|_{2p,\ell_2}^2
+\frac{C_0p}{2n}\sup_{0\leq u\leq v\leq1}\|D_{u}\xi_{v}\|_{2p,\ell_2}^2.$$ This implies that the desired result holds true with the constant $C'=1/\sqrt{2}+C_0/2$.
\[sigma-l2\] Under the assumptions of Theorem \[thm:rc\], it holds that $\|\varsigma^{i\cdot}_t\|_{2p,\ell_2}\leq\|\sigma^{i\cdot}_t\|_{2p,\ell_2}=\|\Sigma^{ii}_t\|_{p}^{1/2}$ for any $t\in[0,1]$, $i=1,\dots,d$ and $p\geq1$.
The last equality is evident from the identity $\|\sigma^{i\cdot}_t\|_{\ell_2}^2=\Sigma^{ii}_t$. Meanwhile, the Lyapunov inequality yields $$\begin{aligned}
\|\varsigma^{i\cdot}_t\|_{\ell_2}^2
=\sum_{a=1}^r\left(E\left[\sigma^{ia}_t|\mathcal{G}^n_t\right]\right)^2
\leq \sum_{a=1}^rE\left[\left(\sigma^{ia}_t\right)^2|\mathcal{G}^n_t\right]
=E\left[\left\|\sigma^{i\cdot}_t\right\|_{\ell_2}^2|\mathcal{G}^n_t\right].\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the Lyapunov inequality again yields $
E\left[\|\varsigma^{i\cdot}_t\|_{\ell_2}^{2p}\right]
\leq E\left[\left(E\left[\left\|\sigma^{i\cdot}_t\right\|_{\ell_2}^2|\mathcal{G}^n_t\right]\right)^p\right]
\leq E\left[\left\|\sigma^{i\cdot}_t\right\|_{\ell_2}^{2p}\right].
$ This means $\|\varsigma^{i\cdot}_t\|_{2p,\ell_2}\leq\|\sigma^{i\cdot}_t\|_{2p,\ell_2}$.
\[sigma-deriv\] Under the assumptions of Theorem \[thm:rc\], for all $i=1,\dots,d$ and $u\in[0,1]$, $\varsigma^{i\cdot}_u\in\mathbb{D}_{2,\infty}(\mathbb{R}^r)$ and $D_s\varsigma^{i\cdot}_u,D_{s,t}\varsigma^{i\cdot}_u$ are $\mathcal{G}^n_u$-measurable for any $s,t\in[0,1]$. Moreover, the following estimates hold true for any $p\in[1,\infty)$ and $s,t\in[0,1]$: $$\begin{aligned}
\|D_{t}\varsigma^{i\cdot}_u\|_{2p,\ell_2}&\leq\|D_{t}\sigma^{i\cdot}_u\|_{2p,\ell_2},\label{eq:deriv1}\\
\|D_{s,t}\varsigma^{i\cdot}_u\|_{2p,\ell_2}&\leq\|D_{s,t}\sigma^{i\cdot}_u\|_{2p,\ell_2},\label{eq:deriv2}\\
\max_{1\leq k\leq d}\left\|\sum_{a=1}^r\varsigma^{ka}_{s}D_s^{(a)}\varsigma^{i\cdot}_{u}\right\|_{p,\ell_2}
&\leq\max_{1\leq k\leq d}\left\|\Sigma^{kk}_u\right\|_{p}^{1/2}\left\|D_s\sigma^{i\cdot}_{u}\right\|_{2p,\ell_2},\label{eq:deriv3}\\
\max_{1\leq k,l\leq d}\left\|\sum_{a,b=1}^r\varsigma^{ka}_{s}\varsigma^{lb}_{t}D^{(a,b)}_{s,t}\varsigma^{i\cdot}_{u}\right\|_{p,\ell_2}
&\leq\max_{1\leq k\leq d}\left\|\Sigma^{kk}_s\right\|_{\frac{3}{2}p}\left\|D_{s,t}\sigma^{i\cdot}_{u}\right\|_{3p,\ell_2}.\label{eq:deriv4}\end{aligned}$$
First, by Proposition 3.1 of [@JS1990] $\varsigma^{i\cdot}_u\in\mathbb{D}_{2,2}(\mathbb{R}^r)$ and we have $$D_s^{(a)}\varsigma^{i\cdot}_u=E\left[D_s^{(a)}\sigma^{i\cdot}_u|\mathcal{G}_u^n\right]1_{\left[0,(\lceil nu\rceil-1)/n\right]}(s),\qquad
D_{s,t}^{(a,b)}\varsigma^{i\cdot}_u=E\left[D_{s,t}^{(a,b)}\sigma^{i\cdot}_u|\mathcal{G}_u^n\right]1_{\left[0,(\lceil nu\rceil-1)/n\right]^2}(s,t)$$ for any $s,t\in[0,1]$ and $a,b=1,\dots,r$. In particular, $D_s\varsigma^{i\cdot}_u,D_{s,t}\varsigma^{i\cdot}_u$ are $\mathcal{G}^n_u$-measurable. Moreover, – can be shown in an analogous way to the proof of Lemma \[sigma-l2\], which also implies that $\varsigma^{i\cdot}_u\in\mathbb{D}_{2,\infty}(\mathbb{R}^r)$.
Next, the Schwarz inequality, Lemma \[sigma-l2\] and yield $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\sum_{a=1}^r\varsigma^{ka}_{s}D_s^{(a)}\varsigma^{i\cdot}_{u}\right\|_{p,\ell_2}
&=\left\|\sqrt{\sum_{b=1}^r\left(\sum_{a=1}^r\varsigma^{ka}_{s}D_s^{(a)}\varsigma^{ib}_{u}\right)^2}\right\|_{p}
\leq\left\|\|\varsigma^{k\cdot}_s\|_{\ell_2}\left\|D_s\varsigma^{i\cdot}_{u}\right\|_{\ell_2}\right\|_{p}
\leq\left\|\Sigma^{kk}_u\right\|_{p}^{1/2}\left\|D_s\sigma^{i\cdot}_{u}\right\|_{2p,\ell_2},\end{aligned}$$ we obtain .
Finally, the Schwarz inequality, Lemma \[sigma-l2\] and yield $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\sum_{a,b=1}^r\varsigma^{ka}_{s}\varsigma^{lb}_{t}D^{(a,b)}_{s,t}\varsigma^{i\cdot}_{u}\right\|_{p,\ell_2}
&=\left\|\sqrt{\sum_{c=1}^r\left(\sum_{a,b=1}^r\varsigma^{ka}_{s}\varsigma^{lb}_{t}D^{(a,b)}_{s,t}\varsigma^{ic}_{u}\right)^2}\right\|_{p}
\leq\left\|\|\varsigma^{k\cdot}_{s}\|_{\ell_2}\|\varsigma^{l\cdot}_{t}\|_{\ell_2}\|D^2_{s,t}\varsigma^{i\cdot}_{u}\|_{\ell_2}\right\|_{p}\\
&\leq\left\|\|\varsigma^{k\cdot}_{s}\|_{\ell_2}\|\varsigma^{l\cdot}_{t}\|_{\ell_2}\right\|_{\frac{3}{2}p}\|D^2_{s,t}\varsigma^{i\cdot}_{u}\|_{3p,\ell_2}
\leq\left\|\Sigma^{kk}_s\right\|_{\frac{3}{2}p}^{1/2}\left\|\Sigma^{ll}_t\right\|_{\frac{3}{2}p}^{1/2}\|D^2_{s,t}\sigma^{i\cdot}_{u}\|_{3p,\ell_2},\end{aligned}$$ we obtain and thus complete the proof.
0
\[lemma:BDG\] There is a universal constant $C>0$ such that $$\left\|\sum_{h=h_0}^n\delta^2(\xi\otimes\eta1_{I_h}\times1_{I_h})\right\|_p
\leq C\frac{p}{\sqrt{n}}\sup_{0\leq t\leq 1}\|\xi_t\|_{qp,\ell_2}\sup_{0\leq s\leq 1}\|\eta_s\|_{\frac{q}{q-1}p,\ell_2}$$ for any $p\in[2,\infty)$, any $q>1$, any $n\in\mathbb{N}$, any $h_0=1,\dots,n$ and any $r$-dimensional $(\mathcal{G}^n_t)$-adapted processes $\xi$ and $\eta$ such that $\xi_t,\eta_t\in L^{\infty-}$ for every $t$.
$q'=q/(1-q)$ $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\sum_{m=1}^n\xi_m\cdot(B_{t_m}-B_{t_{m-1}})\right\|_p
\lesssim\sqrt{\frac{p}{n}}\left\|\sqrt{\sum_{m=1}^n\|\xi_m\|_{\ell_2}^2}\right\|_p
\leq\sqrt{p}\max_{1\leq m\leq n}\|\xi_m\|_{p,\ell_2}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{h=h_0}^n\delta^2(\xi\otimes\eta1_{I_h}\times1_{I_h})
=\sum_{h=h_0}^n\sum_{a=1}^r\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\left(\xi_t^a\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\eta_s\cdot dB_s+\eta_t^a\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\xi_s\cdot dB_s\right)dB_t^a\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\sum_{h=h_0}^n\delta^2(\xi\otimes\eta1_{I_h}\times1_{I_h})\right\|_p
&\lesssim\sqrt{p}\left\|\sqrt{\sum_{h=h_0}^n\sum_{a=1}^r\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\left(\xi_t^a\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\eta_s\cdot dB_s+\eta_t^a\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\xi_s\cdot dB_s\right)^2dt}\right\|_p\\
&\leq\sqrt{2p}\left\|\sum_{h=h_0}^n\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\left\{\|\xi_t\|_{\ell_2}^2\left(\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\eta_s\cdot dB_s\right)^2+\|\eta_t\|_{\ell_2}^2\left(\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\xi_s\cdot dB_s\right)^2\right\}dt\right\|_{p/2}^{1/2}\\
&\leq\sqrt{2p\sum_{h=h_0}^n\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\left\{\|\xi_t\|_{qp,\ell_2}^2\left\|\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\eta_s\cdot dB_s\right\|_{q'p}^2+\|\eta_t\|_{qp,\ell_2}^2\left\|\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\xi_s\cdot dB_s\right\|_{q'p}^2\right\}dt}\\
&\lesssim p\sqrt{\sum_{h=h_0}^n\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\left\{\|\xi_t\|_{qp,\ell_2}^2\left\|\sqrt{\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\|\eta_s\|_{\ell_2}^2ds}\right\|_{q'p}^2+\|\eta_t\|_{qp,\ell_2}^2\left\|\sqrt{\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\|\xi_s\|_{\ell_2}^2ds}\right\|_{q'p}^2\right\}dt}\\
&\leq\frac{p}{\sqrt{n}}\sqrt{\sum_{h=h_0}^n\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\left\{\|\xi_t\|_{qp,\ell_2}^2\sup_{0\leq s\leq 1}\|\eta_s\|_{q'p,\ell_2}^2+\|\eta_t\|_{qp,\ell_2}^2\sup_{0\leq s\leq 1}\|\xi_s\|_{q'p,\ell_2}^2\right\}dt}\\
&\leq\frac{\sqrt{2}p}{\sqrt{n}}\sup_{0\leq t\leq 1}\|\xi_t\|_{qp,\ell_2}\sup_{0\leq s\leq 1}\|\eta_s\|_{q'p,\ell_2}\end{aligned}$$
Now we turn to the main body of the proof. We begin by evaluating the approximation error between $\sqrt{n}(\widehat{[Y^i,Y^j]}^n_1-[Y^i,Y^j]_1)$ and $M_n^{ij}$.
\[drift\] Under the assumptions of Theorem \[thm:rc\], it holds that $$\max_{1\leq i,j\leq d}\left\|\sqrt{n}\widehat{[\mathsf{A}^i,\mathsf{A}^j]}^n_1\right\|_p
\leq\frac{1}{{\textcolor{black}{\sqrt{n}}}}\max_{1\leq i\leq d}\sup_{0\leq s\leq 1}\|\mu^i_s\|_{2p}^2$$ for any $p\in[1,\infty)$ and $n\in\mathbb{N}$. Moreover, there is a universal constant $C>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\sqrt{n}\widehat{[\mathsf{M}^i,\mathsf{A}^j]}^n_1\right\|_p
\leq\frac{C}{\sqrt{n}}\sup_{0\leq s\leq 1}\|\sigma^{i\cdot}_s\|_{2p,\ell_2}\left(
\sqrt{p}\sup_{0\leq t\leq 1}\left\|\mu^{j}_t\right\|_{2p}
+p\sup_{0\leq u\leq v\leq 1}\|D_u\mu^j_v\|_{2p,\ell_2}
\right)\end{aligned}$$ for any $p\in[2,\infty)$, $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and $i,j=1,\dots,d$.
The first claim is an immediate consequence of the Hölder inequality and Proposition \[minkowski\].
To prove the second claim, by Itô’s formula we decompose $\sqrt{n}\widehat{[\mathsf{M}^i,\mathsf{A}^j]}^n_1$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\sqrt{n}\widehat{[\mathsf{M}^i,\mathsf{A}^j]}^n_1
&=\sqrt{n}\sum_{h=1}^n\left\{\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\left(\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\mu^{j}_sds\right)\sigma^{i\cdot}_t\cdot dB_t+\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\left(\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\sigma^{i\cdot}_s\cdot dB_s\right)\mu^{j}_tdt\right\}\\
&=:\mathbf{I}_n^{ij}+\mathbf{II}_n^{ij}.\end{aligned}$$ By Propositions \[minkowski\]–\[sharp-BDG\] we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|\mathbf{I}_n^{ij}\|_p
&\lesssim \sqrt{np}\left\|\sqrt{\sum_{h=1}^n\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\left(\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\mu^{j}_sds\right)^2\|\sigma^{i\cdot}_t\|_{\ell_2}^2 dt}\right\|_p\\
&\leq\sqrt{\frac{p}{n}}\sup_{0\leq s\leq 1}\left\|\mu^{j}_s\right\|_{2p}\sup_{0\leq t\leq 1}\|\sigma^{i\cdot}_t\|_{2p,\ell_2}.\end{aligned}$$ In the meantime, we further decompose $\mathbf{II}_n^{ij}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{II}_n^{ij}&=\sqrt{n}\sum_{h=1}^n\left\{\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\left(\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\sigma^{i\cdot}_s\cdot dB_s\right)E\left[\mu^{j}_t|\mathcal{G}_t^n\right]dt
+\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\left(\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\sigma^{i\cdot}_s\cdot dB_s\right)\left(\mu^j_t-E\left[\mu^{j}_t|\mathcal{G}_t^n\right]\right)dt\right\}\\
&=:\mathbf{II}_n^{ij}(1)+\mathbf{II}_n^{ij}(2).\end{aligned}$$ Since $E\left[\mu^{j}_t|\mathcal{G}_t^n\right]$ is $\mathcal{F}_{t_{h-1}}$-measurable for $t\in I_h$, we have $$\mathbf{II}_n^{ij}(1)=\sqrt{n}\sum_{h=1}^n\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\left(\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}1_{(t_{h-1},t]}(s)E\left[\mu^{j}_t|\mathcal{G}_t^n\right]\sigma^{i\cdot}_s\cdot dB_s\right)dt.$$ Therefore, the stochastic Fubini theorem (e.g. Corollary 5.28 of [@Medv2007]) yields $$\mathbf{II}_n^{ij}(1)=\sqrt{n}\sum_{h=1}^n\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\left(\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}1_{(t_{h-1},t]}(s)E\left[\mu^{j}_t|\mathcal{G}_t^n\right]dt\right)\sigma^{i\cdot}_s\cdot dB_s.$$ Hence, Propositions \[minkowski\]–\[sharp-BDG\] and the Lyapunov inequality imply that $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\mathbf{II}_n^{ij}(1)\right\|_p
&\lesssim\sqrt{np}\left\|\sqrt{\sum_{h=1}^n\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\left(\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}1_{(t_{h-1},t]}(s)E\left[\mu^{j}_t|\mathcal{G}_t^n\right]dt\right)^2\|\sigma^{i\cdot}_s\|_{\ell_2}^2ds}\right\|_p\\
&\leq\sqrt{\frac{p}{n}}\sup_{0\leq t\leq 1}\|\mu^j_t\|_{2p}\sup_{0\leq s\leq 1}\|\sigma^{i\cdot}_s\|_{2p,\ell_2}.\end{aligned}$$ Meanwhile, Propositions \[minkowski\]–\[sharp-BDG\] and Lemma \[ocone\] yield $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\mathbf{II}_n^{ij}(2)\right\|_p
&\leq\sqrt{n}\sum_{h=1}^n
\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\left\|\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\sigma^{i\cdot}_s\cdot dB_s\right\|_{2p}\left\|\mu^j_t-E\left[\mu^{j}_t|\mathcal{G}_t^n\right]\right\|_{2p}dt\\
&\lesssim p\sum_{h=1}^n\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\left\|\sqrt{\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\|\sigma^{i\cdot}_s\|_{\ell_2}^2ds}\right\|_{2p}dt\sup_{0\leq u\leq v\leq 1}\|D_u\mu^j_v\|_{2p,\ell_2}\\
&\leq\frac{p}{\sqrt{n}}\sup_{0\leq s\leq1}\|\sigma^{i\cdot}_s\|_{2p,\ell_2}\sup_{0\leq u\leq v\leq 1}\|D_u\mu^j_v\|_{2p,\ell_2}.\end{aligned}$$ Combining these estimates, we complete the proof.
\[approx-M\] Under the assumptions of Theorem \[thm:rc\], there is a universal constant $C>0$ such that $$\max_{1\leq i,j\leq d}\left\|\sqrt{n}\left(\widehat{[\mathsf{M}^i,\mathsf{M}^j]}^n_1-[Y^i,Y^j]_1\right)-M_n^{ij}\right\|_p
\leq C\frac{p^{3/2}}{\sqrt{n}}\max_{1\leq i\leq d}\sup_{0\leq s\leq 1}\left\|\Sigma^{ii}_s\right\|_{p}^{1/2}\max_{1\leq j\leq d}\sup_{0\leq u\leq v\leq1}\|D_{u}\sigma^{j\cdot}_{v}\|_{2p,\ell_2}$$ for every $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and $p\in[2,\infty)$.
By Itô’s formula we deduce the following decomposition: $$\begin{aligned}
&\sqrt{n}\left(\widehat{[\mathsf{M}^i,\mathsf{M}^j]}^n_1-[Y^i,Y^j]_1\right)\\
&=\sqrt{n}\sum_{h=1}^n\left\{\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\left(\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\sigma^{j\cdot}_s\cdot dB_s\right)\sigma^{i\cdot}_t\cdot dB_t+\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\left(\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\sigma^{i\cdot}_s\cdot dB_s\right)\sigma^{j\cdot}_t\cdot dB_t\right\}\\
&=:\mathbf{I}_n^{ij}+\mathbf{II}_n^{ij}.\end{aligned}$$ Propositions \[minkowski\]–\[sharp-BDG\] and Lemmas \[ocone\]–\[sigma-l2\] yield $$\begin{aligned}
&\left\|\sqrt{n}\sum_{h=1}^n\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\left(\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\sigma^{j\cdot}_s\cdot dB_s\right)\left(\sigma^{i\cdot}_t-\varsigma^{i\cdot}_t\right)\cdot dB_t\right\|_p\\
&\lesssim\sqrt{np}\left\|\sqrt{\sum_{h=1}^n\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\left(\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\sigma^{j\cdot}_s\cdot dB_s\right)^2\left\|\sigma^{i\cdot}_t-\varsigma^{i\cdot}_t\right\|_{\ell_2}^2dt}\right\|_p\\
&\leq\sqrt{np}\sqrt{\sum_{h=1}^n\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\left\|\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\sigma^{j\cdot}_s\cdot dB_s\right\|_{2p}^2\left\|\sigma^{i\cdot}_t-\varsigma^{i\cdot}_t\right\|_{2p,\ell_2}^2dt}\\
&\lesssim p\sqrt{\sup_{0\leq s\leq 1}\left\|\Sigma^{jj}_s\right\|_{p}\sup_{0\leq t\leq 1}\left\|\sigma^{i\cdot}_t-\varsigma^{i\cdot}_t\right\|_{2p,\ell_2}^2}
\lesssim\frac{p^{3/2}}{\sqrt{n}}\sup_{0\leq s\leq 1}\left\|\Sigma^{jj}_s\right\|_{p}^{1/2}\sup_{0\leq u\leq v\leq1}\|D_{u}\sigma^{i\cdot}_{v}\|_{2p,\ell_2}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&\left\|\sqrt{n}\sum_{h=1}^n\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\left(\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\left(\sigma^{j\cdot}_s-\varsigma^{j\cdot}_s\right)\cdot dB_s\right)\varsigma^{i\cdot}_t\cdot dB_t\right\|_p\\
&\lesssim \sqrt{np}\left\|\sqrt{\sum_{h=1}^n\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\left(\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\left(\sigma^{j\cdot}_s-\varsigma^{j\cdot}_s\right)\cdot dB_s\right)^2\|\varsigma^{i\cdot}_t\|_{\ell_2}^2dt}\right\|_p\\
&\lesssim \sqrt{n}p\sqrt{\sum_{h=1}^n\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\left\|\sqrt{\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\left\|\sigma^{j\cdot}_s-\varsigma^{j\cdot}_s\right\|_{\ell_2}^2ds}\right\|_{2p}^2\|\varsigma^{i\cdot}_t\|_{2p,\ell_2}^2dt}\\
&\lesssim\frac{p^{3/2}}{\sqrt{n}}\sup_{0\leq u\leq v\leq1}\|D_{u}\sigma^{j\cdot}_{v}\|_{2p,\ell_2}\sup_{0\leq s\leq 1}\left\|\Sigma^{ii}_s\right\|_{p}^{1/2}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence we obtain $$\left\|\mathbf{I}_n^{ij}-\sqrt{n}\sum_{h=1}^n\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\left(\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\varsigma^{j\cdot}_s\cdot dB_s\right)\varsigma^{i\cdot}_t\cdot dB_t\right\|_p
\lesssim \frac{p^{3/2}}{\sqrt{n}}\max_{1\leq i,j\leq d}\sup_{0\leq u\leq v\leq1}\|D_{u}\sigma^{j\cdot}_{v}\|_{2p,\ell_2}\sup_{0\leq s\leq 1}\left\|\Sigma^{ii}_s\right\|_{p}^{1/2}.$$ Analogously we can prove $$\left\|\mathbf{II}_n^{ij}-\sqrt{n}\sum_{h=1}^n\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\left(\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\varsigma^{i\cdot}_s\cdot dB_s\right)\varsigma^{j\cdot}_t\cdot dB_t\right\|_p
\lesssim \frac{p^{3/2}}{\sqrt{n}}\max_{1\leq i,j\leq d}\sup_{0\leq u\leq v\leq1}\|D_{u}\sigma^{j\cdot}_{v}\|_{2p,\ell_2}\sup_{0\leq s\leq 1}\left\|\Sigma^{ii}_s\right\|_{p}^{1/2}.$$ Consequently, the desired result follows from Lemma \[lemma:double\].
Next we establish some properties of $M_n^{ij}$ which are necessary for application of our main theorem. The first result gives the moment bounds.
\[M-moment\] Under the assumptions of Theorem \[thm:rc\], there is a universal constant $C>0$ such that $$\max_{1\leq i,j\leq d}\|M_n^{ij}\|_p\leq Cp\max_{1\leq i\leq d}\sup_{0\leq t\leq 1}\|\Sigma^{ii}_t\|_p
$$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and $p\in[2,\infty)$.
This is an immediate consequence of Lemmas \[lemma:double\]–\[lemma:BDG\] and \[sigma-l2\].
Second, we prove the Malliavin differentiability of $M_n^{ij}$ and compute its Malliavin derivatives. For this purpose we prove an auxiliary result. Recall that we have $\mathbb{D}_{1,2}(H)\subset\operatorname{Dom}(\delta)$ by Proposition 1.3.1 of [@Nualart2006].
\[heisenberg\] Let $k\in\mathbb{N}$.
1. Suppose that $u\in\mathbb{D}_{k,2}(H)$ satisfies $D_{t_1,\dots,t_j}^{(a_1,\dots,a_j)}u\in\operatorname{Dom}(\delta)$ for all $j=1,\dots,k$, $a_1,\dots,a_j\in\{1,\dots,r\}$ and $t_1,\dots,t_j\in[0,1]$ and $$\label{ass:heisenberg}
\sum_{j=1}^kE\left[\int_{[0,1]^j}\left\|\delta\left(D_{t_1,\dots,t_j}u\right)\right\|_{\ell_2}^2dt_1\cdots dt_j\right]<\infty.$$ Then we have $\delta(u)\in\mathbb{D}_{k,2}$ and $$\label{eq:heisenberg}
D_{t_1,\dots,t_k}\delta(u)=\delta\left(D_{t_1,\dots,t_k}u\right)+k\operatorname{Sym}\left(D^{k-1}u\right)(t_1,\dots,t_k)$$ for all $t_1,\dots,t_k\in[0,1]$.
2. If $u\in\mathbb{D}_{k,2}(H)$ is $\mathbf{F}$-adapted, then $\delta(u)\in\mathbb{D}_{k,2}$ and holds true for all $t_1,\dots,t_k\in[0,1]$.
\(a) We prove the claim by induction on $k$. When $k=1$, the claim follows from Proposition 1.3.8 of [@Nualart2006]. Next, supposing that the claim holds true for $k=K\in\mathbb{N}$, we prove the claim for $k=K+1$. From we have $$\label{fubini:heisenberg}
E\left[\int_0^1\left\|\delta\left(D_t\left(D_{t_1,\dots,t_{K}}u\right)\right)\right\|_{\ell_2}^2dt\right]<\infty$$ for all $t_1,\dots,t_{K}\in[0,1]$. Moreover, by the assumption of the induction holds true for all $t_1,\dots,t_{K}\in[0,1]$. Now let us take $t_1,\dots,t_{K}\in[0,1]$ arbitrarily, and set $v:=D_{t_1,\dots,t_K}u$. Then, by assumptions and Proposition 1.3.8 of [@Nualart2006], $\delta(v)\in\mathbb{D}_{1,2}$ and $D_t\delta(v)=\delta(D_tv)+v(t)$ for all $t\in[0,1]$. Therefore, by we have $D_{t_1,\dots,t_K}\delta(u)\in\mathbb{D}_{1,2}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
D_t\left(D_{t_1,\dots,t_K}\delta(u)\right)
&=\delta(D_tv)+v(t)+KD_t\operatorname{Sym}\left(D^{K-1}u\right)(t_1,\dots,t_K)\\
&=\delta\left(D_{t_1,\dots,t_K,t}u\right)+(K+1)\operatorname{Sym}\left(D^{K}u\right)(t_1,\dots,t_K,t)\end{aligned}$$ for all $t\in[0,1]$. This implies that the claim also holds true for $k=K+1$ and thus completes the proof.
\(b) This claim is an immediate consequence of claim (a) and Propositions 1.2.8 and 1.3.11 of [@Nualart2006].
We then obtain the following result.
\[M-deriv\] Under the assumptions of Theorem \[thm:rc\], the following statements hold true for any $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and $i,j=1,\dots,d$:
1. $f_n^{ij}\in\mathbb{D}_{2,\infty}(H^{\otimes2})$ and it holds that $$\label{eq:1st-deriv}
D_s^{(a)}f_n^{ij}(u,v)=\frac{1}{2}(D^{(a)}_s\varsigma_u^{i\cdot}\otimes \varsigma_v^{j\cdot}+\varsigma_u^{i\cdot}\otimes D_s^{(a)}\varsigma_v^{j\cdot}
+D_s^{(a)}\varsigma_u^{j\cdot}\otimes \varsigma_v^{i\cdot}+\varsigma_u^{j\cdot}\otimes D_s^{(a)}\varsigma_v^{i\cdot})$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
D_{s,t}^{(a,b)}f^{ij}_{n}(u,v)
&=\frac{1}{2}\left(D^{(a,b)}_{s,t}\varsigma^{i\cdot}_{u}\otimes\varsigma^{j\cdot}_{v}+D_s^{(a)}\varsigma^{i\cdot}_{u}\otimes D_t^{(b)}\varsigma^{j\cdot}_{v}+D_t^{(b)}\varsigma^{i\cdot}_{u}\otimes D_s^{(a)}\varsigma^{j\cdot}_{v}+\varsigma^{i\cdot}_{u}\otimes D^{(a,b)}_{s,t}\varsigma^{j\cdot}_{v}\right.\nonumber\\
&\left.+D^{(a,b)}_{s,t}\varsigma^{j\cdot}_{u}\otimes\varsigma^{i\cdot}_{v}+D_s^{(a)}\varsigma^{j\cdot}_{u}\otimes D_t^{(b)}\varsigma^{i\cdot}_{v}+D_t^{(b)}\varsigma^{j\cdot}_{u}\otimes D_s^{(a)}\varsigma^{i\cdot}_{v}+\varsigma^{j\cdot}_{u}\otimes D^{(a,b)}_{s,t}\varsigma^{i\cdot}_{v}\right)\label{eq:2nd-deriv}\end{aligned}$$ for any $a,b=1,\dots,r$ and $s,t,u,v\in[0,1]$.
2. $u_n^{ij}\in\mathbb{D}_{2,\infty}(H^{\otimes2})$ and $u_n^{ij}(s,\cdot)^{a\cdot},D_s^{(a)}u_n^{ij}(t,\cdot)^{b\cdot}\in\operatorname{Dom}(\delta)$, $D_{s,t}^{(a,b)}u_n^{ij}\in\operatorname{Dom}(\delta^2)$ for any $a,b=1,\dots,r$ and $s,t\in[0,1]$.
3. $M_n^{ij}\in\mathbb{D}_{2,\infty}$ and we have $$\begin{aligned}
D_s^{(a)}M_n^{ij}&=\delta^2(D_s^{(a)}u_n^{ij})+2\delta(u_n^{ij}(s,\cdot)^{a\cdot}),\\
D_{s,t}^{(a,b)}M_n^{ij}&=\delta^2\left(D_{s,t}^{(a,b)}u_n^{ij}\right)
+2\delta\left(D_{s}^{(a)}u_n^{ij}(t,\cdot)^{b\cdot}\right)
+2\delta\left(D_{t}^{(b)}u_n^{ij}(s,\cdot)^{a\cdot}\right)
+2u_n^{ij}(s,t)^{ab}\end{aligned}$$ for any $a,b=1,\dots,r$ and $s,t\in[0,1]$.
Claim (a) follows from Lemma \[sigma-deriv\] as well as Lemma 15.82 and Theorem 15.83 of [@Janson1997]. Claim (b) is a consequence of claim (a), Proposition 1.3.11 of [@Nualart2006] and Lemmas \[lemma:double\] and \[sigma-deriv\].
Now we prove claim (c). By Lemma \[lemma:double\] we can rewrite $M_n^{ij}$ as $$\label{M-deriv:eq1}
M_n^{ij}=2\sqrt{n}\sum_{h=1}^n\int_{I_h}\delta(f_n^{ij}(\cdot,t)1_{I_h\cap[0,t]})\cdot dB_t.$$ From claim (a), $f_n^{ij}(\cdot,t)\in\mathbb{D}_{2,\infty}(H)$ for all $t\in[0,1]$, Lemma \[heisenberg\](b) implies that $\delta(f_n^{ij}(\cdot,t)1_{I_h\cap[0,t]})\in\mathbb{D}_{2,2}(\mathbb{R}^r)$ and $$\begin{aligned}
D_u^{(a)}\delta(f_n^{ij}(\cdot,t)1_{I_h\cap[0,t]})&=\delta(D_u^{(a)}f_n^{ij}(\cdot,t)1_{I_h\cap[0,t]})+f_n^{ij}(u,t)^{a\cdot}1_{I_h\cap[0,t]}(u),\\
D_{u,v}^{(a,b)}\delta(f_n^{ij}(\cdot,t)1_{I_h\cap[0,t]})&=\delta(D_{u,v}^{(a,b)}f_n^{ij}(\cdot,t)1_{I_h\cap[0,t]})
+D_v^{(b)}f_n^{ij}(u,t)^{a\cdot}1_{I_h\cap[0,t]}(u)
+D_u^{(a)}f_n^{ij}(v,t)^{b\cdot}1_{I_h\cap[0,t]}(v)\end{aligned}$$ for all $a,b=1,\dots,r$ and $u,v\in[0,1]$. These formulae imply that the process $(\delta(f_n^{ij}(\cdot,t)))_{t\in[0,1]}$ belongs to $\mathbb{D}_{2,2}(H)$, Lemma \[heisenberg\](b) again implies that $\int_{I_h}\delta(f_n^{ij}(\cdot,t)1_{I_h\cap[0,t]})\cdot dB_t\in\mathbb{D}_{2,2}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&D_u^{(a)}\left(\int_{I_h}\delta(f_n^{ij}(\cdot,t)1_{I_h\cap[0,t]})\cdot dB_t\right)
=\int_{I_h}D_u^{(a)}\delta(f_n^{ij}(\cdot,t)1_{I_h\cap[0,t]})\cdot dB_t+\delta(f_n^{ij}(\cdot,u)^{\cdot a}1_{I_h\cap[0,u]})1_{I_h}(u)\nonumber\\
&=\int_{I_h}\delta(D_u^{(a)}f_n^{ij}(\cdot,t)1_{I_h\cap[0,t]})\cdot dB_t
+\int_{I_h}f_n^{ij}(u,t)^{a\cdot}1_{I_h\cap[0,t]}(u)\cdot dB_t
+\delta(f_n^{ij}(\cdot,u)^{\cdot a}1_{I_h\cap[0,u]})1_{I_h}(u)\nonumber\\
&=\int_{I_h}\left(\int_{t_{h-1}}^tD_u^{(a)}f_n^{ij}(s,t)dB_s\right)\cdot dB_t
+\delta(f_n^{ij}(u,\cdot)^{a \cdot}1_{I_h\times I_h}(u,\cdot))\label{M-deriv:eq2}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&D_{u,v}^{(a,b)}\left(\int_{I_h}\delta(f_n^{ij}(\cdot,t)1_{I_h\cap[0,t]})\cdot dB_t\right)\nonumber\\
&=\int_{I_h}D_{u,v}^{(a,b)}\delta(f_n^{ij}(\cdot,t)1_{I_h\cap[0,t]})\cdot dB_t
+D_v^{(b)}\delta(f_n^{ij}(\cdot,u)^{\cdot a}1_{I_h\cap[0,u]})1_{I_h}(u)
+D_u^{(a)}\delta(f_n^{ij}(\cdot,v)^{\cdot b}1_{I_h\cap[0,v]})1_{I_h}(v)\nonumber\\
&=\int_{I_h}\left\{\delta(D_{u,v}^{(a,b)}f_n^{ij}(\cdot,t)1_{I_h\cap[0,t]})
+D_v^{(b)}f_n^{ij}(u,t)^{a\cdot}1_{I_h\cap[0,t]}(u)
+D_u^{(a)}f_n^{ij}(v,t)^{b\cdot}1_{I_h\cap[0,t]}(v)\right\}\cdot dB_t\nonumber\\
&\quad+\left\{\delta(D_v^{(b)}f_n^{ij}(\cdot,u)^{\cdot a}1_{I_h\cap[0,u]})+f_n^{ij}(v,u)^{ba}1_{I_h\cap[0,u]}(v)\right\}1_{I_h}(u)\nonumber\\
&\quad+\left\{\delta(D_u^{(a)}f_n^{ij}(\cdot,v)^{\cdot b}1_{I_h\cap[0,v]})+f_n^{ij}(u,v)^{ab}1_{I_h\cap[0,v]}(u)\right\}1_{I_h}(v)\nonumber\\
&=\int_{I_h}\left\{\int_{t_{h-1}}^tD_{u,v}^{(a,b)}f_n^{ij}(s,t)dB_s
+D_v^{(b)}f_n^{ij}(u,t)^{a\cdot}1_{I_h\cap[0,t]}(u)
+D_u^{(a)}f_n^{ij}(v,t)^{b\cdot}1_{I_h\cap[0,t]}(v)\right\}\cdot dB_t\nonumber\\
&\quad+\delta(D_v^{(b)}f_n^{ij}(\cdot,u)^{\cdot a}1_{I_h\cap[0,u]})1_{I_h}(u)
+\delta(D_u^{(a)}f_n^{ij}(\cdot,v)^{\cdot b}1_{I_h\cap[0,v]})1_{I_h}(v)
+f_n^{ij}(u,v)^{ab}1_{I_h\times I_h}(u,v)\nonumber\\
&=\int_{I_h}\left\{\int_{t_{h-1}}^tD_{u,v}^{(a,b)}f_n^{ij}(s,t)dB_s\right\}\cdot dB_t
+\delta(D_v^{(b)}f_n^{ij}(u,\cdot)^{a\cdot}1_{I_h\times I_h}(u,\cdot))\nonumber\\
&\quad+\delta(D_u^{(a)}f_n^{ij}(v,\cdot)^{b\cdot}1_{I_h\times I_h}(v,\cdot))
+f_n^{ij}(u,v)^{ab}1_{I_h\times I_h}(u,v)\label{M-deriv:eq3}\end{aligned}$$ for all $a,b=1,\dots,r$ and $u,v\in[0,1]$. Now, noting that formulae – can be rewritten as $$D_s^{(a)}f_n^{ij}(u,v)=\operatorname{Sym}\left(D^{(a)}_s\varsigma^{i\cdot}\otimes \varsigma^{j\cdot}\right)(u,v)
+\operatorname{Sym}\left(\varsigma^{i\cdot}\otimes D^{(a)}_s\varsigma^{j\cdot}\right)(u,v)$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
D_{s,t}^{(a,b)}f^{ij}_{n}(u,v)
&=\operatorname{Sym}\left(D^{(a,b)}_{s,t}\varsigma^{i\cdot}\otimes\varsigma^{j\cdot}\right)(u,v)
+\operatorname{Sym}\left(D_s^{(a)}\varsigma^{i\cdot}\otimes D_t^{(b)}\varsigma^{j\cdot}\right)(u,v)\\
&\quad+\operatorname{Sym}\left(D_t^{(b)}\varsigma^{i\cdot}\otimes D_s^{(a)}\varsigma^{j\cdot}\right)(u,v)
+\operatorname{Sym}\left(\varsigma^{i\cdot}_{u}\otimes D^{(a,b)}_{s,t}\varsigma^{j\cdot}_{v}\right)(u,v),\end{aligned}$$ by Lemma \[lemma:double\] we obtain Now claim (c) follows from and the assumptions of the lemma.
Third, we prove the Malliavin differentiability of $\Sigma$ and $\mathfrak{C}_n$ as well as establish moment estimates for their Malliavin derivatives.
\[S-deriv\] Under the assumptions of Theorem \[thm:rc\], for any $i,j=1,\dots,d$ and $t\in[0,1]$, $\Sigma_t^{ij}\in\mathbb{D}_{2,\infty}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\|D_u\Sigma^{ij}_t\|_{p,\ell_2}
&\leq2\max_{1\leq i,j\leq d}\left\|\Sigma^{ii}_t\right\|_{p}^{1/2}\|D_u\sigma^{j\cdot}_t\|_{2p,\ell_2},\\
\|D_{u,v}\Sigma^{ij}_t\|_{p,\ell_2}
&\leq2\left(\max_{1\leq i,j\leq d}\left\|\Sigma^{ii}_t\right\|_{p}^{1/2}\|D_{u,v}\sigma^{j\cdot}_t\|_{2p,\ell_2}
+\max_{1\leq i,j\leq d}\|D_u\sigma^{i\cdot}_t\|_{2p,\ell_2}\|D_v\sigma^{j\cdot}_t\|_{2p,\ell_2}\right)\end{aligned}$$ for any $p\in[1,\infty)$ and $u,v\in[0,1]$.
Since $\Sigma_t^{ij}=\sum_{a=1}^r\sigma^{ia}_t\sigma^{ja}_t$, Theorem 15.78 of [@Janson1997] implies that $\Sigma_t^{ij}\in\mathbb{D}_{2,\infty}$ for all $t\in[0,1]$ and $$D\Sigma^{ij}_t=\sum_{a=1}^r\left(\sigma^{ja}_tD\sigma^{ia}_t+\sigma^{ia}_tD\sigma^{ja}_t\right)$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
D^2\Sigma^{ij}_t=\sum_{a=1}^r\left(\sigma^{ja}_tD^2\sigma^{ia}_t
+D\sigma^{ja}_t\otimes D\sigma^{ia}_t
+D\sigma^{ia}_t\otimes D\sigma^{ja}_t
+\sigma^{ia}_tD^2\sigma^{ja}_t\right).\end{aligned}$$ In particular, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|D_u\Sigma^{ij}_t\|_{\ell_2}
&\leq\sum_{a=1}^r\left(|\sigma^{ja}_t|\|D\sigma^{ia}_t\|_{\ell_2}+|\sigma^{ia}_t|\|D\sigma^{ja}_t\|_{\ell_2}\right)
\leq\sqrt{\Sigma^{jj}_t}\|D\sigma^{i\cdot}_t\|_{\ell_2}+\sqrt{\Sigma^{ii}_t}\|D\sigma^{j\cdot}_t\|_{\ell_2}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\|D_{u,v}\Sigma^{ij}_t\|_{\ell_2}
&\leq\sum_{a=1}^r\left(|\sigma^{ja}_t|\|D_{u,v}\sigma^{ia}_t\|_{\ell_2}
+\|D_u\sigma^{ja}_t\|_{\ell_2}\|D_v\sigma^{ia}_t\|_{\ell_2}
+\|D_u\sigma^{ia}_t\|_{\ell_2}\|D_v\sigma^{ja}_t\|_{\ell_2}
+|\sigma^{ia}_t|\|D_{u,v}\sigma^{ja}_t\|_{\ell_2}\right)\\
&\leq\sqrt{\Sigma^{jj}_t}\|D_{u,v}\sigma^{i\cdot}_t\|_{\ell_2}
+\|D_u\sigma^{j\cdot}_t\|_{\ell_2}\|D_v\sigma^{i\cdot}_t\|_{\ell_2}
+\|D_u\sigma^{i\cdot}_t\|_{\ell_2}\|D_v\sigma^{j\cdot}_t\|_{\ell_2}
+\sqrt{\Sigma^{ii}_t}\|D_{u,v}\sigma^{j\cdot}_t\|_{\ell_2}\end{aligned}$$ by the triangular and Schwarz inequalities. Hence we complete the proof by the Hölder inequality.
\[C-deriv\] Under the assumptions of Theorem \[thm:rc\], $\mathfrak{C}_n\in\mathbb{D}_{2,\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{d^2\times d^2})$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&\|D_u\mathfrak{C}_n^{(i-1)d+j,(k-1)d+l}\|_{p,\ell_2}
\leq 8\max_{1\leq i,j\leq d}\sup_{0\leq s,t\leq 1}\|\Sigma^{ii}_s\|_{2p}^{3/2}\|D_u\sigma^{j\cdot}_t\|_{4p,\ell_2},\\
&\|D_{u,v}\mathfrak{C}_n^{(i-1)d+j,(k-1)d+l}\|_{p,\ell_2}\\
&\leq 8\max_{1\leq i,j,k\leq d}\sup_{0\leq s,t\leq 1}\|\Sigma^{ii}_s\|_{2p}^{3/2}\|D_{u,v}\sigma^{j\cdot}_t\|_{4p,\ell_2}
+24\max_{1\leq i,j,k\leq d}\sup_{0\leq s,t,\tau\leq 1}\|\Sigma^{ii}_s\|_{2p}\|D_{u}\sigma^{j\cdot}_t\|_{4p,\ell_2}\|D_{v}\sigma^{k\cdot}_\tau\|_{4p,\ell_2}\end{aligned}$$ for any $p\in[1,\infty)$, $n\in\mathbb{N}$, $i,j,k,l=1,\dots,d$ and $u,v\in[0,1]$.
By Remark 15.87 of [@Janson1997], $\int_{I_h}\Sigma^{ij}_tdt\in\mathbb{D}_{2,\infty}$ and $$D\left(\int_{I_h}\Sigma^{ij}_tdt\right)=\int_{I_h}D\Sigma^{ij}_tdt,\qquad
D^2\left(\int_{I_h}\Sigma^{ij}_tdt\right)=\int_{I_h}D^2\Sigma^{ij}_tdt$$ for any $i,j=1,\dots,d$ and $h=1,\dots,n$. Therefore, by Theorem 15.78 of [@Janson1997], the Schwarz inequality and Proposition \[minkowski\] we obtain $\mathfrak{C}_n^{(i-1)d+j,(k-1)d+l}\in\mathbb{D}_{2,\infty}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\|D_u\mathfrak{C}_n^{(i-1)d+j,(k-1)d+l}\|_{p,\ell_2}
&\leq 4\max_{1\leq i,j,k,l\leq d}\sup_{0\leq s,t\leq 1}\|\Sigma^{ik}_s\|_{2p}\|D_u\Sigma^{kl}_t\|_{2p,\ell_2},\\
\|D_{u,v}\mathfrak{C}_n^{(i-1)d+j,(k-1)d+l}\|_{p,\ell_2}
&\leq 4\max_{1\leq i,j,k,l\leq d}\sup_{0\leq s,t\leq 1}\left(\|\Sigma^{ik}_s\|_{2p}\|D^2_{u,v}\Sigma^{kl}_t\|_{2p,\ell_2}
+\|D_{u}\Sigma^{ik}_s\|_{2p,\ell_2}\|D_{v}\Sigma^{jl}_t\|_{2p,\ell_2}
\right)\end{aligned}$$ for any $p\geq1$, $i,j,k,l=1,\dots,d$ and $u,v\in[0,1]$. Now the desired result follows from the Schwarz inequality and Lemma \[S-deriv\].
Now we proceed to checking the conditions of Theorem \[thm:main\] in the current setting.
\[quasi-torsion\] Under the assumptions of Theorem \[thm:rc\], there is a universal constant $C>0$ such that $$\begin{gathered}
\max_{1\leq i,j,k,l\leq d}\left\|\left\langle D^2M_n^{ij},u_n^{kl}\right\rangle_{H^{\otimes2}}-\mathfrak{C}_n^{(i-1)d+j,(k-1)d+l}\right\|_p\\
\leq C\frac{p}{\sqrt{n}}
\left(
\max_{1\leq i,j\leq d}\sup_{0\leq s\leq1}\left\|\Sigma^{jj}_s\right\|_{2p}^{3/2}\sup_{0\leq s,t,u\leq1}\left\|D_{s,t}\sigma^{i\cdot}_{u}\right\|_{4p,\ell_2}
+\max_{1\leq i,k\leq d}\sup_{0\leq s,u\leq1}\left\|\Sigma^{kk}_u\right\|_{2p}\left\|D_s\sigma^{i\cdot}_{u}\right\|_{4p,\ell_2}^2
\right)\\
+C\sqrt{\frac{p}{n}}\max_{1\leq i,j\leq d}\sup_{0\leq s,t,u\leq1}\|D_s\sigma_u^{i\cdot}\|_{4p,\ell_2}\|\Sigma_t^{jj}\|_{2p}^{3/2}\end{gathered}$$ for any $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and $p\in[2,\infty)$.
By Lemma \[M-deriv\] the desired result follows once we verify the following statements for all $p\in[2,\infty)$ (note ): $$\begin{aligned}
&\left\|\langle\delta^2(D^2u_n^{ij}),u_n^{kl}\rangle_{H^{\otimes2}}\right\|_p\nonumber\\
&\lesssim\frac{p}{\sqrt{n}}
\left(
\max_{1\leq i,j\leq d}\sup_{0\leq s\leq1}\left\|\Sigma^{jj}_s\right\|_{2p}^{3/2}\sup_{0\leq s,t,u\leq1}\left\|D_{s,t}\sigma^{i\cdot}_{u}\right\|_{4p,\ell_2}
+\max_{1\leq i,k\leq d}\sup_{0\leq s,u\leq1}\left\|\Sigma^{kk}_u\right\|_{2p}\left\|D_s\sigma^{i\cdot}_{u}\right\|_{4p,\ell_2}^2
\right)\label{eq:1st-term},\\
&\left\|\langle\delta(Du_n^{ij}),u_n^{kl}\rangle_{H^{\otimes2}}\right\|_p
\lesssim \sqrt{\frac{p}{n}}\max_{1\leq i,j\leq d}\sup_{0\leq s,t,u\leq1}\|D_s\sigma_u^{i\cdot}\|_{4p,\ell_2}\|\Sigma_t^{jj}\|_{2p}^{3/2},\label{eq:2nd-term}\\
&\left\|2\langle u_n^{ij},u_n^{kl}\rangle_{H^{\otimes2}}-\mathfrak{C}_n^{(i-1)d+j,(k-1)d+l}\right\|_p
\lesssim\sqrt{\frac{p}{n}}\max_{1\leq i\leq d}\sup_{0\leq u\leq v\leq1}\|D_u\sigma_v^{i\cdot}\|_{4p,\ell_2}\max_{1\leq j\leq d}\sup_{0\leq t\leq 1}\|\Sigma_t^{jj}\|_{2p}^{3/2}.\label{eq:3rd-term}\end{aligned}$$
We first verify . We can rewrite $\langle\delta^2(D^2u_n^{ij}),u_n^{kl}\rangle_{H^{\otimes2}}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\delta^2(D^2u_n^{ij}),u_n^{kl}\rangle_{H^{\otimes2}}
&=n\sum_{h,h'=1}^n\sum_{a,b=1}^r\int_{I_h\times I_h}\delta^2(D^{(a,b)}_{s,t}f^{ij}_{n}1_{I_{h'}}\times 1_{I_{h'}})f^{kl}_n(s,t)^{ab}dsdt\\
&=n\sum_{h,h'=1}^n\sum_{a,b=1}^r\int_{I_h\times I_h}\delta^2\left(D^{(a,b)}_{s,t}f^{ij}_{n}1_{I_{h'}}\times 1_{I_{h'}}\right)\varsigma^{ka}_s\varsigma^{lb}_tdsdt,
$$ ence Proposition \[minkowski\] yields $$\left\|\langle\delta^2(D^2u_n^{ij}),u_n^{kl}\rangle_{H^{\otimes2}}\right\|_p
\leq n\sum_{h=1}^n\int_{I_h\times I_h}\left\|\sum_{h':h'>h}\delta^2\left(\sum_{a,b=1}^r\varsigma^{ka}_s\varsigma^{lb}_tD^{(a,b)}_{s,t}f^{ij}_{n}1_{I_{h'}}\times 1_{I_{h'}}\right)\right\|_pdsdt.$$ Now, from we infer that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{a,b=1}^r\varsigma^{ka}_{s}\varsigma^{lb}_{t}D^{(a,b)}_{s,t}f^{ij}_{n}(u,v)
&=\frac{1}{2}\left\{\left(\sum_{a,b=1}^r\varsigma^{ka}_{s}\varsigma^{lb}_{t}D^{(a,b)}_{s,t}\varsigma^{i\cdot}_{u}\right)\otimes\varsigma^{j\cdot}_{v}
+\left(\sum_{a=1}^r\varsigma^{ka}_{s}D_s^{(a)}\varsigma^{i\cdot}_{u}\right)\otimes \left(\sum_{b=1}^r\varsigma^{lb}_{t}D_t^{(b)}\varsigma^{j\cdot}_{v}\right)\right.\\
&+\left(\sum_{b=1}^r\varsigma^{lb}_{t}D_t^{(b)}\varsigma^{i\cdot}_{u}\right)\otimes \left(\sum_{a=1}^r\varsigma^{ka}_{s}D_s^{(a)}\varsigma^{j\cdot}_{v}\right)
+\varsigma^{i\cdot}_{u}\otimes \left(\sum_{a,b=1}^r\varsigma^{ka}_{s}\varsigma^{lb}_{t}D^{(a,b)}_{s,t}\varsigma^{j\cdot}_{v}\right)\\
&+\left(\sum_{a,b=1}^r\varsigma^{ka}_{s}\varsigma^{lb}_{t}D^{(a,b)}_{s,t}\varsigma^{j\cdot}_{u}\right)\otimes\varsigma^{i\cdot}_{v}+\left(\sum_{a=1}^r\varsigma^{ka}_{s}D_s^{(a)}\varsigma^{j\cdot}_{u}\right)\otimes \left(\sum_{b=1}^r\varsigma^{lb}_{t}D_t^{(b)}\varsigma^{i\cdot}_{v}\right)\\
&\left.+\left(\sum_{b=1}^r\varsigma^{lb}_{t}D_t^{(b)}\varsigma^{j\cdot}_{u}\right)\otimes \left(\sum_{a=1}^r\varsigma^{ka}_{s}D_s^{(a)}\varsigma^{i\cdot}_{v}\right)+\varsigma^{j\cdot}_{u}\otimes \left(\sum_{a,b=1}^r\varsigma^{ka}_{s}\varsigma^{lb}_{t}D^{(a,b)}_{s,t}\varsigma^{i\cdot}_{v}\right)
\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence Lemmas \[lemma:BDG\] and \[sigma-l2\]–\[sigma-deriv\] yield $$\begin{aligned}
&\sup_{0\leq s,t\leq 1}\left\|\sum_{h':h'>h}\delta^2\left(\sum_{a,b=1}^r\varsigma^{ka}_s\varsigma^{lb}_tD^{(a,b)}_{s,t}f^{ij}_{n}1_{I_{h'}}\times 1_{I_{h'}}\right)\right\|_p\\
&\lesssim\frac{p}{\sqrt{n}}\left(\sup_{0\leq s,t,u,v\leq1}\left\|\sum_{a,b=1}^r\varsigma^{ka}_{s}\varsigma^{lb}_{t}D^{(a,b)}_{s,t}\varsigma^{i\cdot}_{u}\right\|_{\frac{4}{3}p,\ell_2}\left\|\varsigma^{j\cdot}_v\right\|_{4p,\ell_2}\right.
+\sup_{0\leq s,t,u,v\leq1}\left\|\sum_{a=1}^r\varsigma^{ka}_{s}D_s^{(a)}\varsigma^{i\cdot}_{u}\right\|_{2p,\ell_2}\left\|\sum_{b=1}^r\varsigma^{lb}_{t}D_t^{(b)}\varsigma^{j\cdot}_{v}\right\|_{2p,\ell_2}\\
&\left.\qquad\qquad+\sup_{0\leq s,t,u,v\leq1}\left\|\varsigma^{i\cdot}_{u}\right\|_{4p,\ell_2}\left\|\sum_{a,b=1}^r\varsigma^{ka}_{s}\varsigma^{lb}_{t}D^{(a,b)}_{s,t}\varsigma^{j\cdot}_{v}\right\|_{\frac{4}{3}p,\ell_2}\right)\\
&\lesssim\frac{p}{\sqrt{n}}
\left(
\max_{1\leq i,j\leq d}\sup_{0\leq s\leq1}\left\|\Sigma^{jj}_s\right\|_{2p}^{3/2}\sup_{0\leq s,t,u\leq1}\left\|D_{s,t}\sigma^{i\cdot}_{u}\right\|_{4p,\ell_2}
+\max_{1\leq i,k\leq d}\sup_{0\leq s,u\leq1}\left\|\Sigma^{kk}_u\right\|_{2p}\left\|D_s\sigma^{i\cdot}_{u}\right\|_{4p,\ell_2}^2
\right).\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, we obtain .
Next we verify . e have $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\delta(Du_n^{ij}),u_n^{kl}\rangle_{H^{\otimes2}}
&=n\sum_{h=1}^n\sum_{a=1}^r\int_{I_h\times I_h}\delta(D_s^{(a)}f_n^{ij}(\cdot,t)1_{I_h}(\cdot))\cdot f_n^{kl}(s,t)^{a\cdot}dsdt.\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\delta(Du_n^{ij}),u_n^{kl}\rangle_{H^{\otimes2}}
&=n\sum_{h=1}^n\int_{I_h\times I_h}\left(\int_{I_h}\left(\sum_{a,b=1}^rf_n^{kl}(s,t)^{ab}D_s^{(a)}f_n^{ij}(u,t)^{b\cdot}\right)\cdot dB_u\right)dsdt.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, Propositions \[minkowski\]–\[sharp-BDG\] and the Schwarz inequality yield $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\langle\delta(Du_n^{ij}),u_n^{kl}\rangle_{H^{\otimes2}}\right\|_p
&\lesssim\sqrt{p}n\sum_{h=1}^n\int_{I_h\times I_h}\left\|\sqrt{\int_{I_h}\sum_{c=1}^r\left(\sum_{a,b=1}^rf_n^{kl}(s,t)^{ab}D_s^{(a)}f_n^{ij}(u,t)^{bc}\right)^2du}\right\|_pdsdt\\
&\leq\sqrt{p}n\sum_{h=1}^n\int_{I_h\times I_h}\left\|\int_{I_h}\|f_n^{kl}(s,t)\|_{\ell_2}^2\|D_sf_n^{ij}(u,t)\|_{\ell_2}^2du\right\|_{p/2}^{1/2}dsdt\\
&\leq\sqrt{p}n\sum_{h=1}^n\int_{I_h\times I_h}\sqrt{\int_{I_h}\|f_n^{kl}(s,t)\|_{2p,\ell_2}^2\|D_sf_n^{ij}(u,t)\|_{2p,\ell_2}^2du}dsdt\\
&\leq\sqrt{\frac{p}{n}}\sup_{0\leq s,t,u\leq1}\|f_n^{kl}(s,t)\|_{2p,\ell_2}\|D_sf_n^{ij}(u,t)\|_{2p,\ell_2}.\end{aligned}$$ Since we have $
\|f_n^{kl}(s,t)\|_{2p,\ell_2}
\leq\sqrt{\|\Sigma^{kk}_s\|_{2p}\|\Sigma^{ll}_t\|_{2p}}
$ and $$\|D_sf_n^{ij}(u,t)\|_{2p,\ell_2}
\leq2\max_{1\leq i,j\leq d}\sup_{0\leq s,t,u\leq1}\|D_s\sigma_u^{i\cdot}\|_{4p,\ell_2}\|\Sigma_t^{jj}\|_{2p}^{1/2}$$ by the Schwarz inequality and Lemmas \[sigma-l2\]–\[sigma-deriv\], we obtain .
Finally we verify . We can rewrite $2\langle u_n^{ij},u_n^{kl}\rangle_{H^{\otimes2}}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
2\langle u_n^{ij},u_n^{kl}\rangle_{H^{\otimes2}}
&=n\sum_{h=1}^n\sum_{a,b=1}^r\int_{I_h\times I_h}\left(\varsigma_s^{ia}\varsigma_t^{jb}\varsigma_s^{ka}\varsigma_t^{lb}+\varsigma_s^{ia}\varsigma_t^{jb}\varsigma_t^{kb}\varsigma_s^{la}\right)dsdt\\
&=n\sum_{h=1}^n\left\{\left(\int_{I_h}\varsigma_s^{i\cdot}\cdot\varsigma_s^{k\cdot}ds\right)\left(\int_{I_h}\varsigma_s^{j\cdot}\cdot\varsigma_s^{l\cdot}ds\right)
+\left(\int_{I_h}\varsigma_s^{i\cdot}\cdot\varsigma_s^{l\cdot}ds\right)\left(\int_{I_h}\varsigma_s^{j\cdot}\cdot\varsigma_s^{k\cdot}ds\right)
\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ 0 $$\begin{aligned}
&\left|n\sum_{h=1}^n\left(\int_{I_h}(\varsigma_s^{i\cdot}-\sigma^{i\cdot}_s)\cdot\varsigma_s^{k\cdot}ds\right)\left(\int_{I_h}\varsigma_s^{j\cdot}\cdot\varsigma_s^{l\cdot}ds\right)\right|\\
&\leq n\sum_{h=1}^n\left(\int_{I_h}\|\varsigma_s^{i\cdot}-\sigma^{i\cdot}_s\|_{\ell_2}\|\varsigma_s^{k\cdot}\|_{\ell_2}ds\right)\left(\int_{I_h}\|\varsigma_s^{j\cdot}\|_{\ell_2}\|\varsigma_s^{l\cdot}\|_{\ell_2}ds\right)\end{aligned}$$ Note that we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\left\|n\sum_{h=1}^n\left(\int_{I_h}(\varsigma_s^{i\cdot}-\sigma^{i\cdot}_s)\cdot\varsigma_s^{k\cdot}ds\right)\left(\int_{I_h}\varsigma_s^{j\cdot}\cdot\varsigma_s^{l\cdot}ds\right)\right\|_p\\
&\leq n\sum_{h=1}^n\left(\int_{I_h}\|\varsigma_s^{i\cdot}-\sigma^{i\cdot}_s\|_{4p,\ell_2}\|\varsigma_s^{k\cdot}\|_{4p,\ell_2}ds\right)\left(\int_{I_h}\|\varsigma_s^{j\cdot}\|_{4p,\ell_2}\|\varsigma_s^{l\cdot}\|_{4p,\ell_2}ds\right)\\
&\lesssim\sqrt{\frac{p}{n}}\sup_{0\leq u\leq v\leq1}\|D_u\sigma_v^{i\cdot}\|_{4p,\ell_2}\max_{1\leq j\leq d}\sup_{0\leq t\leq 1}\|\Sigma_t^{jj}\|_{2p}^{3/2}\end{aligned}$$ for any $i,j,k,l=1,\dots,d$ by Proposition \[minkowski\] and Lemmas \[ocone\] and \[sigma-l2\]. Therefore, we obtain and complete the proof of the lemma.
\[lemma:2nd-deriv\] Under the assumptions of Theorem \[thm:rc\], we have $$\left\|\langle D^2F,u^n_{ij}\rangle_{H^{\otimes2}}\right\|_p
\leq\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\sup_{0\leq s,t\leq 1}\left\|D_{s,t}F\right\|_{2p,\ell_2}\max_{1\leq i\leq d}\sup_{0\leq s\leq 1}\left\|\Sigma_s^{ii}\right\|_{2p}$$ for any $p\in[1,\infty)$, $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and $F\in\mathbb{D}_{2,\infty}$.
Since $D^2F$ is symmetric, yields $$\begin{aligned}
\langle D^2F,u^n_{ij}\rangle_{H^{\otimes2}}
&=\sqrt{n}\sum_{h=1}^n\langle D^2F,\varsigma_s^{i\cdot}\otimes \varsigma_t^{j\cdot}1_{I_h\times I_h}\rangle_{H^{\otimes2}}
=\sqrt{n}\sum_{h=1}^n\int_{I_h\times I_h}D_{s,t}F\cdot\varsigma_s^{i\cdot}\otimes \varsigma_t^{j\cdot}dsdt.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, by Proposition \[minkowski\], the Schwarz inequality and Lemma \[sigma-l2\] we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\langle D^2F,u^n_{ij}\rangle_{H^{\otimes2}}\right\|_p
&\leq\sqrt{n}\sum_{h=1}^n\int_{I_h\times I_h}\left\|D_{s,t}F\cdot\varsigma_s^{i\cdot}\otimes \varsigma_t^{j\cdot}\right\|_pdsdt\\
&\leq\sqrt{n}\sum_{h=1}^n\int_{I_h\times I_h}\left\|D_{s,t}F\right\|_{2p,\ell_2}\left\|\varsigma_s^{i\cdot}\right\|_{4p,\ell_2}\left\|\varsigma_t^{j\cdot}\right\|_{4p,\ell_2}dsdt\\
&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\sup_{0\leq s,t\leq 1}\left\|D_{s,t}F\right\|_{2p,\ell_2}\max_{1\leq i\leq d}\sup_{0\leq s\leq 1}\left\|\Sigma_s^{ii}\right\|_{2p}.\end{aligned}$$ This completes the proof.
\[lemma:DM\] Under the assumptions of Theorem \[thm:rc\], there is a universal constant $C>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\max_{1\leq i,j,k\leq d}\|D_sM_n^{ij}\cdot\varsigma_s^{k\cdot}\|_p
\leq C\left(p\max_{1\leq i\leq d}\sup_{0\leq s,t\leq 1}\left\|D_s\sigma^{i\cdot}_t\right\|_{3p,\ell_2}\max_{1\leq j\leq d}\sup_{0\leq t\leq 1}\|\Sigma^{jj}_t\|_{\frac{3}{2}p}
+\sqrt{p}\max_{1\leq i\leq d}\sup_{0\leq t\leq 1}\left\|\Sigma^{ii}_t\right\|_{\frac{3}{2}p}^{3/2}
\right)\end{aligned}$$ for any $p\in[2,\infty)$, $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and $s\in(0,1]$.
By Lemma \[M-deriv\] the desired result follows once we verify the following statements for all $p\in[2,\infty)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\|\delta^2(D_su_n^{ij})\cdot\varsigma_s^{k\cdot}\|_p
&\lesssim p\max_{1\leq i\leq d}\sup_{0\leq s,t\leq 1}\left\|D_s\sigma^{i\cdot}_t\right\|_{3p,\ell_2}\max_{1\leq j\leq d}\sup_{0\leq t\leq 1}\|\Sigma^{jj}_t\|_{\frac{3}{2}p},\label{eq:1st-DM},\\
\left\|\delta(u_n^{ij}(s,\cdot))\cdot\varsigma^{k\cdot}_s\right\|_p
&\lesssim \sqrt{p}\max_{1\leq i\leq d}\sup_{0\leq t\leq 1}\left\|\Sigma^{ii}_t\right\|_{\frac{3}{2}p}^{3/2}.\label{eq:2nd-DM}\end{aligned}$$ Let $h$ be the unique integer such that $s\in I_h$. First we verify . $$\begin{aligned}
\delta^2(D^{(a)}_su_n^{ij})
=\sqrt{n}\sum_{h'=1}^n\delta^2(D^{(a)}_sf_n^{ij}1_{I_{h'}\times I_{h'}})
=\sqrt{n}\sum_{h':h'>h}\delta^2(D^{(a)}_sf_n^{ij}1_{I_{h'}\times I_{h'}})\end{aligned}$$ for any $a=1,\dots,r$. ence Lemmas \[lemma:double\] and \[sigma-deriv\] yield $$\begin{aligned}
\delta^2(D_su_n^{ij})\cdot\varsigma_s^{k\cdot}
=\sqrt{n}\sum_{h':h'>h}\delta^2\left(\sum_{a=1}^r\varsigma_s^{ka}D^{(a)}_sf_n^{ij}1_{I_{h'}\times I_{h'}}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Since $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{a=1}^r\varsigma_s^{ka}D^{(a)}_sf_n^{ij}\\
&=\frac{1}{2}\left\{\left(
\sum_{a=1}^r\varsigma_s^{ka}D^{(a)}_s\varsigma^{i\cdot}\right)\otimes\varsigma^{j\cdot}+\varsigma^{i\cdot}\otimes \left(\sum_{a=1}^r\varsigma_s^{ka}D^{(a)}_s\varsigma^{j\cdot}\right)
+\left(\sum_{a=1}^r\varsigma_s^{ka}D^{(a)}_s\varsigma^{j\cdot}\right)\otimes\varsigma^{i\cdot}+\varsigma^{j\cdot}\otimes \left(\sum_{a=1}^r\varsigma_s^{ka}D^{(a)}_s\varsigma^{i\cdot}\right)
\right\},\end{aligned}$$ Lemmas \[lemma:double\]–\[lemma:BDG\] and \[sigma-l2\]–\[sigma-deriv\] imply that $$\begin{aligned}
\|\delta^2(D_su_n^{ij})\cdot\varsigma_s^{k\cdot}\|_p
&\lesssim p\max_{1\leq i,k\leq d}\sup_{0\leq t\leq 1}\left\|\sum_{a=1}^r\varsigma_s^{ka}D^{(a)}_s\varsigma^{i\cdot}_t\right\|_{\frac{3}{2}p,\ell_2}\max_{1\leq j\leq d}\sup_{0\leq t\leq 1}\|\varsigma^{j\cdot}_t\|_{3p,\ell_2}\\
&\leq p\max_{1\leq i,k\leq d}\sup_{0\leq t\leq 1}\|\Sigma_s^{kk}\|_{\frac{3}{2}p}^{1/2}\left\|D_s\sigma^{i\cdot}_t\right\|_{3p,\ell_2}\max_{1\leq j\leq d}\sup_{0\leq t\leq 1}\|\Sigma^{jj}_t\|_{\frac{3}{2}p,\ell_2}^{1/2}\\
&\leq p\max_{1\leq i\leq d}\sup_{0\leq s,t\leq 1}\left\|D_s\sigma^{i\cdot}_t\right\|_{3p,\ell_2}\max_{1\leq j\leq d}\sup_{0\leq t\leq 1}\|\Sigma^{jj}_t\|_{\frac{3}{2}p}.\end{aligned}$$
Next we verify . Proposition 1.3.11 of [@Nualart2006] yields $$\begin{aligned}
\delta(u_n^{ij}(s,\cdot))
&=\frac{\sqrt{n}}{2}\sum_{h'=1}^n1_{I_{h'}}(s)\int_{I_{h'}}\left(\varsigma^{i\cdot}_s\otimes \varsigma^{j\cdot}_t+\varsigma^{j\cdot}_s\otimes \varsigma^{i\cdot}_t\right)dB_t
=\frac{\sqrt{n}}{2}\int_{I_{h}}\left(\varsigma^{i\cdot}_s\otimes \varsigma^{j\cdot}_t+\varsigma^{j\cdot}_s\otimes \varsigma^{i\cdot}_t\right)dB_t,\end{aligned}$$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\delta(u_n^{ij}(s,\cdot))\cdot\varsigma^{k\cdot}_s
&=\frac{\sqrt{n}}{2}\int_{I_{h}}\left\{\left(\varsigma^{k\cdot}_s\cdot\varsigma^{i\cdot}_s\right)\varsigma^{j\cdot}_t+\left(\varsigma^{k\cdot}_s\cdot\varsigma^{j\cdot}_s\right)\varsigma^{i\cdot}_t\right\}dB_t.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, Propositions \[minkowski\]–\[sharp-BDG\], the Schwarz inequality and Lemma \[sigma-l2\] yield $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\delta(u_n^{ij}(s,\cdot))\cdot\varsigma^{k\cdot}_s\right\|_p
&\lesssim \sqrt{np}\left\|\sqrt{\int_{I_{h}}\left\|\left(\varsigma^{k\cdot}_s\cdot\varsigma^{i\cdot}_s\right)\varsigma^{j\cdot}_t+\left(\varsigma^{k\cdot}_s\cdot\varsigma^{j\cdot}_s\right)\varsigma^{i\cdot}_t\right\|_{\ell_2}^2dt}\right\|_p\\
&\leq \sqrt{np\int_{I_{h}}\left\|\left(\varsigma^{k\cdot}_s\cdot\varsigma^{i\cdot}_s\right)\varsigma^{j\cdot}_t+\left(\varsigma^{k\cdot}_s\cdot\varsigma^{j\cdot}_s\right)\varsigma^{i\cdot}_t\right\|_{p,\ell_2}^2dt}\\
&\leq 2\max_{1\leq i,j,k\leq d}\sqrt{np\int_{I_{h}}\left\|\varsigma^{k\cdot}_s\cdot\varsigma^{i\cdot}_s\right\|_{\frac{3}{2}p}^2\left\|\varsigma^{j\cdot}_t\right\|_{3p,\ell_2}^2dt}\\
&\leq 2\sqrt{p}\max_{1\leq i\leq d}\sup_{0\leq t\leq 1}\left\|\varsigma^{i\cdot}_t\right\|_{3p,\ell_2}^3
\leq2\sqrt{p}\max_{1\leq i\leq d}\sup_{0\leq t\leq 1}\left\|\Sigma^{ii}_t\right\|_{\frac{3}{2}p}^{3/2}.\end{aligned}$$ This completes the proof.
\[lemma:1st-deriv\] Under the assumptions of Theorem \[thm:rc\], there is a universal constant $C>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
&\left\|\langle DM_n^{ij}\otimes DM_n^{i'j'},u_n^{kl}\rangle_{H^{\otimes}}\right\|_p\\
&\leq \frac{C}{\sqrt{n}}\left(p\max_{1\leq i\leq d}\sup_{0\leq s,t\leq 1}\left\|D_s\sigma^{i\cdot}_t\right\|_{6p,\ell_2}\max_{1\leq j\leq d}\sup_{0\leq t\leq 1}\|\Sigma^{jj}_t\|_{3p}
+\sqrt{p}\max_{1\leq i\leq d}\sup_{0\leq t\leq 1}\left\|\Sigma^{ii}_t\right\|_{3p}^{3/2}
\right)^2,\\
&\left\|\langle DM_n^{ij}\otimes DF,u_n^{kl}\rangle_{H^{\otimes}}\right\|_p\\
&\leq \frac{C}{\sqrt{n}}\left(p\max_{1\leq i\leq d}\sup_{0\leq s,t\leq 1}\left\|D_s\sigma^{i\cdot}_t\right\|_{6p,\ell_2}\max_{1\leq j\leq d}\sup_{0\leq t\leq 1}\|\Sigma^{jj}_t\|_{3p}^{3/2}
+\sqrt{p}\max_{1\leq i\leq d}\sup_{0\leq t\leq 1}\left\|\Sigma^{ii}_t\right\|_{3p}^2
\right)\sup_{0\leq s\leq 1}\left\|D_sF\right\|_{3p,\ell_2},\\
&\left\|\langle DF\otimes DG,u_n^{kl}\rangle_{H^{\otimes}}\right\|_p
\leq \frac{C}{\sqrt{n}}\max_{1\leq i\leq d}\sup_{0\leq t\leq 1}\left\|\Sigma^{ii}_t\right\|_{3p}\sup_{0\leq s\leq 1}\left\|D_sF\right\|_{3p,\ell_2}\sup_{0\leq s\leq 1}\left\|D_sG\right\|_{3p,\ell_2}\end{aligned}$$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$, $i,j,i',j',k,l=1,\dots,d$, $F,G\in\mathbb{D}_{1,\infty}$ and $p\in[2,\infty)$.
For any $H$-valued random variables $\xi,\eta$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\xi\otimes\eta,u_n^{ij}\rangle_{H^{\otimes2}}
=\frac{\sqrt{n}}{2}\sum_{h=1}^n\left\{\left(\int_{I_h}\xi_s\cdot\varsigma_s^{i\cdot}ds\right)\left(\int_{I_h}\eta_s\cdot\varsigma_s^{j\cdot}ds\right)
+\left(\int_{I_h}\xi_s\cdot\varsigma_s^{j\cdot}ds\right)\left(\int_{I_h}\eta_s\cdot\varsigma_s^{i\cdot}ds\right)
\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ Proposition \[minkowski\] yields $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\langle\xi\otimes\eta,u_n^{ij}\rangle_{H^{\otimes2}}\right\|_p
\leq\sqrt{n}\max_{1\leq i,j\leq d}\sum_{h=1}^n\left(\int_{I_h}\left\|\xi_s\cdot\varsigma_s^{i\cdot}\right\|_{2p}ds\right)\left(\int_{I_h}\left\|\eta_s\cdot\varsigma_s^{j\cdot}\right\|_{2p}ds\right).\end{aligned}$$ Now the desired result follows from the Schwarz inequality and Lemmas \[sigma-l2\] and \[lemma:DM\].
Set $\mathfrak{S}_n:=\mathfrak{C}_n^{1/2}\zeta_n$. By the hypercontractivity of Gaussian variables, we have $$\begin{aligned}
E\left[|\mathfrak{S}_n^k|^p\mid\mathcal{F}\right]\leq\left(\sqrt{(p-1)\mathfrak{C}_n^{kk}}\right)^p\end{aligned}$$ for any $k=1,\dots,d^2$ and $p\in[2,\infty)$. ence we obtain $$\label{eq:hyper}
\max_{1\leq k\leq d^2}\left\|\mathfrak{S}_n^k\right\|_p\leq\sqrt{p-1}\left\|\mathfrak{C}_n^{kk}\right\|_{p/2}^{1/2}
\leq2\sqrt{p-1}\max_{1\leq i\leq d}\sup_{0\leq t\leq1}\|\Sigma^{ii}_t\|_p$$ for any $p\in[2,\infty)$ by the Hölder inequality and Proposition \[minkowski\].
0 $$\begin{aligned}
{\@ifstar{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
s
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{\Upsilon_n}_\infty p^{3/2+2/\alpha}\upsilon_n^2\sqrt{\log m}=o(\sqrt{n})\\
{\@ifstar{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
s
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{\Upsilon_n}_\infty^2 p^{1+4/\alpha}\upsilon_n^4(\log m)^2=o(\sqrt{n})\\
{\@ifstar{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
s
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{\Upsilon_n}_\infty^{3}p^{5/\alpha}\upsilon_n^5(\log m)^{\frac{7}{2}}\to0\\
{\@ifstar{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
s
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{\Upsilon_n}_\infty^{2}p^{4/\alpha}\upsilon_n^4(\log m)^{2}\to0\\
{\@ifstar{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
s
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{\Upsilon_n}_\infty^{2}p^{1+3/\alpha}\upsilon_n^3(\log m)^2\to0\\
{\@ifstar{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
s
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{\Upsilon_n}_\infty^{3}p^{2+6/\alpha}\upsilon_n^6(\log m)^{\frac{7}{2}}\to0\\
{\@ifstar{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
s
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{\Upsilon_n}_\infty^{5}p^{10/\alpha}\upsilon_n^{10}(\log m)^{\frac{13}{2}}\to0\\
{\@ifstar{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
s
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{\Upsilon_n}_\infty^{3}p^{6/\alpha}\upsilon_n^6(\log m)^{\frac{7}{2}}\to0\\
{\@ifstar{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
s
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{\Upsilon_n}_\infty^{3}p^{2+5/\alpha}(\log m)^{\frac{7}{2}}\to0\\
{\@ifstar{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
s
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{\Upsilon_n}_\infty^{4}p^{1+8/\alpha}(\log m)^{5}\to0\\
{\@ifstar{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
s
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{\Upsilon_n}_\infty^{3}p^{2+6/\alpha}(\log m)^{\frac{7}{2}}\to0\\
{\@ifstar{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
s
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{\Upsilon_n}_\infty^{4}p^{8/\alpha}(\log m)^{5}\to0\\
{\@ifstar{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
s
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{\Upsilon_n}_\infty^{4}p^{1+8/\alpha}(\log m)^{5}\to0\end{aligned}$$
Proof of Theorem \[thm:rc-local\]
---------------------------------
For every $\nu\in\mathbb{N}$, define the process $Y(\nu)=(Y(\nu)_t)_{t\in[0,1]}$ by $$Y(\nu)_t=Y_0+\int_0^t\mu(\nu)_sds+\int_0^t\sigma(\nu)_sdB_s,\qquad t\in[0,1].$$ By the local property of Itô integrals (cf. pages 17–18 of [@Nualart2006]) we have $Y_t=Y(\nu)_t$ on $\Omega_n(\nu)$ for all $t\in[0,1]$. Therefore, setting $S_n(\nu):=\operatorname{vec}\left[\sqrt{n}\left(\widehat{[Y(\nu),Y(\nu)]}^n_1-[Y(\nu),Y(\nu)]_1\right)\right]$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_n(\nu):=\sup_{y\in\mathbb{R}^m}\left|P\left(\Xi_n(\nu)\left(S_n(\nu)+W_n(\nu)\right)\leq y\right)-P(\Xi_n(\nu)(\mathfrak{C}_n(\nu)^{1/2}\zeta_n+W_n(\nu))\leq y)\right|\to0\end{aligned}$$ as $n\to\infty$ by Theorem \[thm:rc\]. Now, for every $y\in\mathbb{R}^m$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
P\left(\Xi_n\left(S_n+W_n\right)\leq y\right)
&\leq P\left(\Xi_n(\nu)\left(S_n(\nu)+W_n(\nu)\right)\leq y\right)+P(\Omega_n(\nu)^c)\\
&\leq P(\Xi_n(\nu)(\mathfrak{C}_n(\nu)^{1/2}\zeta_n+W_n(\nu))\leq y)+\rho_n(\nu)+P(\Omega_n(\nu)^c)\\
&\leq P(\Xi_n(\mathfrak{C}_n^{1/2}\zeta_n+W_n)\leq y)+\rho_n(\nu)+2P(\Omega_n(\nu)^c).\end{aligned}$$ By an analogous argument we also have $$P\left(\Xi_n\left(S_n+W_n\right)\leq y\right)\geq P(\Xi_n(\mathfrak{C}_n^{1/2}\zeta_n+W_n)\leq y)-\rho_n(\nu)-2P(\Omega_n(\nu)^c).$$ Consequently, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{n\to\infty}\sup_{y\in\mathbb{R}^m}\left|P\left(\Xi_n\left(S_n+W_n\right)\leq y\right)-P(\Xi_n(\mathfrak{C}_n^{1/2}\zeta_n+W_n)\leq y)\right|
\leq 2\limsup_{n\to\infty}P(\Omega_n(\nu)^c).\end{aligned}$$ Letting $\nu\to\infty$, we complete the proof.
Proof of Proposition \[prop:acov\]
----------------------------------
We introduce some notation. Given a process $\xi=(\xi_t)_{t\in[0,1]}$ and an interval $I=(S,T]\subset[0,1]$, we set $$\xi(I):=\xi_T-\xi_S,\qquad
\xi(I)_t:=\xi_{t\wedge T}-\xi_{t\wedge S}\quad(t\in[0,1]).$$ Also, we define $$L(h)^{ij}:=\mathsf{M}^i(I_h)\mathsf{M}^j(I_h)-[\mathsf{M}^i,\mathsf{M}^j](I_h),\qquad
L(h)^{ij}_t:=\mathsf{M}^i(I_h)_t\mathsf{M}^j(I_h)_t-[\mathsf{M}^i,\mathsf{M}^j](I_h)_t\quad(t\in[0,1])$$ for $i,j=1,\dots,d$ and $h=1,\dots,n$, where $I_h:=(t_{h-1},t_h]$.
Next we remark that a localization procedure allows us to reduce the situation of the proposition to the case that $\mu=\mu(\nu)$ and $\sigma=\sigma(\nu)$ for all $n,\nu\in\mathbb{N}$:
\[lemma:local\] Suppose that the statement of Proposition \[prop:acov\] holds true when we additionally assume $\mu=\mu(\nu)$ and $\sigma=\sigma(\nu)$ for all $n,\nu\in\mathbb{N}$. Then the original statement of Proposition \[prop:acov\] holds true as well.
The proof of Lemma \[lemma:local\] is analogous to the one of Theorem \[thm:rc-local\], so we omit it.
\[lemma:driftV3\] There is a universal constant $C>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\max_{1\leq i,j,k,l\leq d}\sup_{1\leq h\leq n}n^2\left\|\mathsf{A}^i(I_h)\mathsf{X}^j(I_h)\mathsf{Y}^k(I_h)\mathsf{Z}^l(I_h)\right\|_p
&\leq \frac{C}{\sqrt{n}}\max_{1\leq i,j\leq d}\sup_{0\leq ,ts\leq 1}\left\|\mu_s^{ii}\right\|_{4p}\left(
\left\|\mu_t^{j}\right\|_{4p}^3
+p^{3/2}\left\|\Sigma_t^{jj}\right\|_{2p}^{3/2}\right)\end{aligned}$$ for any $\mathsf{X},\mathsf{Y},\mathsf{Z}\in\{\mathsf{A},\mathsf{M}\}$, $p\in[2,\infty)$ and $n\in\mathbb{N}$.
This is an immediate consequence of the Hölder inequality and Propositions \[minkowski\]–\[sharp-BDG\].
\[lemma:V3dV\] There is a universal constant $C>0$ such that $$\max_{1\leq i,j,k,l\leq d}\left\|n\sum_{h=1}^n\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\mathsf{M}^j(I_h)_s\mathsf{M}^k(I_h)_s\mathsf{M}^l(I_h)_sd\mathsf{M}^i_s\right\|_p
\leq C\frac{p^2}{\sqrt{n}}\max_{1\leq i\leq d}\sup_{0\leq s\leq 1}\left\|\Sigma_s^{ii}\right\|_{2p}^2$$ for all $p\in[2,\infty)$ and $n\in\mathbb{N}$.
Propositions \[minkowski\]–\[sharp-BDG\] yield $$\begin{aligned}
&\left\|n\sum_{h=1}^n\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\mathsf{M}^j(I_h)_s\mathsf{M}^k(I_h)_s\mathsf{M}^l(I_h)_sd\mathsf{M}^i_s\right\|_p\\
&\lesssim n\sqrt{p}\left\|\sqrt{\sum_{h=1}^n\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\mathsf{M}^j(I_h)_s^2\mathsf{M}^k(I_h)^2_s\mathsf{M}^l(I_h)^2_sd[\mathsf{M}^i,\mathsf{M}^i]_s}\right\|_p\\
&\leq n\sqrt{p\sum_{h=1}^n\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\left\|\mathsf{M}^j(I_h)_s\right\|_{4p}^2\left\|\mathsf{M}^k(I_h)_s\right\|_{4p}^2\left\|\mathsf{M}^l(I_h)_s\right\|_{4p}^2\left\|\Sigma_s^{ii}\right\|_{2p}ds}\\
&\lesssim np^2\sqrt{\sum_{h=1}^n\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\left\|\sqrt{\int_{t_{h-1}}^s\Sigma^{jj}_udu}\right\|_{4p}^2\left\|\sqrt{\int_{t_{h-1}}^s\Sigma^{kk}_udu}\right\|_{4p}^2\left\|\sqrt{\int_{t_{h-1}}^s\Sigma^{ll}_udu}\right\|_{4p}^2\left\|\Sigma_s^{ii}\right\|_{2p}ds}\\
&\leq \frac{p^2}{\sqrt{n}}\max_{1\leq i\leq d}\sup_{0\leq s\leq 1}\left\|\Sigma_s^{ii}\right\|_{2p}^2.\end{aligned}$$ This completes the proof.
\[l-qv\] Suppose that the assumptions of of Proposition \[prop:acov\] hold true under the additional assumption that $\mu=\mu(\nu)$ and $\sigma=\sigma(\nu)$ for all $n,\nu\in\mathbb{N}$. Then there is a universal constant $C>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
&\max_{1\leq i,j,k,l\leq d}\left\|n\sum_{h=1}^{n-\nu}L(h)^{ij}[\mathsf{M}^k,\mathsf{M}^l](I_{h+\nu})\right\|_p\\
&\leq\frac{C}{\sqrt{n}}\left(p\max_{1\leq i\leq d}\sup_{0\leq t\leq1}\|\Sigma^{ii}_t\|_{2p}^2
+p^{3/2}\max_{1\leq i\leq d}\sup_{0\leq t\leq 1}\|\Sigma_t^{ii}\|_{2p}^{3/2}
\max_{1\leq k\leq d}\sup_{0\leq u\leq v\leq 1}\|D_u\sigma^{k\cdot}_v\|_{4p,\ell_2}\right)\end{aligned}$$ for all $p\in[2,\infty)$, $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and $\nu\in\{0,1\}$.
We decompose the target quantity as $$\begin{aligned}
n\sum_{h=1}^{n-\nu}L(h)^{ij}[\mathsf{M}^k,\mathsf{M}^l](I_{h+\nu})
&=n\sum_{h=1}^{n-\nu}L(h)^{ij}\int_{I_{h+\nu}}E\left[\Sigma^{kl}_t|\mathcal{F}_{t_{h-1}}\right]dt
+n\sum_{h=1}^{n-\nu}L(h)^{ij}\int_{I_{h+\nu}}\left(\Sigma^{kl}_t-E\left[\Sigma^{kl}_t|\mathcal{F}_{t_{h-1}}\right]\right)dt\\
&=:\mathbf{I}_n+\mathbf{II}_n.\end{aligned}$$ First we consider $\mathbf{I}_n$. Set $$\phi_h:=\int_{I_{h+\nu}}E\left[\Sigma^{kl}_t|\mathcal{F}_{t_{h-1}}\right]dt,\qquad
h=1,\dots,n-\nu.$$ Then we can rewrite $\mathbf{I}_n$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{I}_n=n\sum_{h=1}^{n-\nu}\left\{\int_{I_h}\left(\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\sigma^{i\cdot}_s\cdot dB_s\right)\phi_h\sigma^{j\cdot}\cdot dB_t
+\int_{I_h}\left(\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\phi_h\sigma^{j\cdot}_s\cdot dB_s\right)\sigma^{i\cdot}\cdot dB_t
\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, Lemmas \[sigma-l2\]–\[lemma:BDG\] and the Hölder inequality imply that $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\mathbf{I}_n\right\|_p
&\lesssim p\sqrt{n}\sup_{0\leq s\leq 1}\|\sigma^{i\cdot}_s\|_{4p,\ell_2}\sup_{0\leq s< 1-\nu/n}\|\phi_{\lceil ns\rceil}\sigma^{j\cdot}_s\|_{\frac{4}{3}p,\ell_2}
\leq p\sqrt{n}\sup_{0\leq s\leq 1}\|\Sigma^{ii}_s\|_{2p}^{1/2}\sup_{0\leq s< 1-\nu/n}\|\phi_{\lceil ns\rceil}\|_{2p}\|\Sigma^{jj}_s\|_{2p}^{1/2}.\end{aligned}$$ Now, Proposition \[minkowski\] and the Lyapunov and Schwarz inequalities yield $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{0\leq s< 1-\nu/n}\|\phi_{\lceil ns\rceil}\|_{2p}
\leq\frac{1}{n}\sup_{0\leq t\leq 1}\|\Sigma^{kl}_t\|_{2p}
\leq\frac{1}{n}\max_{1\leq k\leq d}\sup_{0\leq t\leq 1}\|\Sigma^{kk}_t\|_{2p}.\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, we obtain $$\left\|\mathbf{I}_n\right\|_p\lesssim \frac{p}{\sqrt{n}}\max_{1\leq i\leq d}\sup_{0\leq t\leq1}\|\Sigma^{ii}_t\|_{2p}^2.$$ Next we consider $\mathbf{II}_n$. By Proposition \[minkowski\] we have $$\|\mathbf{II}_n\|_p
\leq n\sum_{h=1}^{n-\nu}\|L(h)^{ij}\|_{2p}\int_{I_{h+\nu}}\left\|\Sigma^{kl}_t-E\left[\Sigma^{kl}_t|\mathcal{F}_{t_{h-1}}\right]\right\|_{2p}dt.$$ Itô’s formula, Lemmas \[lemma:BDG\] and \[sigma-l2\] yield $$\|L(h)^{ij}\|_{2p}\lesssim\frac{p}{n}\max_{1\leq i\leq d}\sup_{0\leq t\leq 1}\|\Sigma_t^{ii}\|_{2p}.$$ Meanwhile, Lemmas \[ocone\] and \[S-deriv\] yield $$\left\|\Sigma^{kl}_t-E\left[\Sigma^{kl}_t|\mathcal{F}_{t_{h-1}}\right]\right\|_{2p}
\lesssim\sqrt{\frac{p}{n}}\sup_{0\leq u\leq v\leq 1}\|D_u\Sigma^{kl}_v\|_{2p,\ell_2}
\lesssim\sqrt{\frac{p}{n}}\max_{1\leq k,l\leq d}\sup_{0\leq u\leq v\leq 1}\|\Sigma^{ll}_v\|_{2p}^{1/2}\|D_u\sigma^{k\cdot}_v\|_{4p,\ell_2}.$$ Consequently, we obtain $$\|\mathbf{II}_n\|_p
\lesssim\sqrt{\frac{p^3}{n}}\max_{1\leq i\leq d}\sup_{0\leq t\leq 1}\|\Sigma_t^{ii}\|_{2p}^{3/2}
\max_{1\leq k\leq d}\sup_{0\leq u\leq v\leq 1}\|D_u\sigma^{k\cdot}_v\|_{4p,\ell_2}.$$ We thus complete the proof.
\[qv-dl\] Under the assumptions of of Lemma \[l-qv\], there is a universal constant $C>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
&\max_{1\leq i,j,k,l\leq d}\left\|n\sum_{h=1}^n\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}L(h)^{kl}_td[\mathsf{M}^i,\mathsf{M}^j]_t\right\|_p\\
&\leq\frac{C}{\sqrt{n}}\left(p\max_{1\leq i\leq d}\sup_{0\leq t\leq1}\|\Sigma^{ii}_t\|_{2p}^2
+p^{3/2}\max_{1\leq i\leq d}\sup_{0\leq t\leq 1}\|\Sigma_t^{ii}\|_{2p}^{3/2}
\max_{1\leq k\leq d}\sup_{0\leq u\leq v\leq 1}\|D_u\sigma^{k\cdot}_v\|_{4p,\ell_2}\right)\end{aligned}$$ for all $p\in[2,\infty)$ and $n\in\mathbb{N}$.
By Itô’s formula we can rewrite the target quantity as $$\begin{aligned}
n\sum_{h=1}^n\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}L(h)^{kl}_td[\mathsf{M}^i,\mathsf{M}^j]_t
=n\sum_{h=1}^nL(h)^{kl}[\mathsf{M}^i,\mathsf{M}^j](I_h)
+n\sum_{h=1}^n\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}[\mathsf{M}^i,\mathsf{M}^j](I_h)_tdL(h)^{kl}_t.\end{aligned}$$ Since we have $$\begin{aligned}
&n\sum_{h=1}^n\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}[\mathsf{M}^i,\mathsf{M}^j](I_h)_tdL(h)^{kl}_t\\
&=n\sum_{h=1}^n\left\{\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\left(\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\sigma_s^{k\cdot}\cdot dB_s\right)[\mathsf{M}^i,\mathsf{M}^j](I_h)_t\sigma_t^{l\cdot}\cdot dB_t
+\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\left(\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\sigma_s^{l\cdot}\cdot dB_s\right)[\mathsf{M}^i,\mathsf{M}^j](I_h)_t\sigma_t^{k\cdot}\cdot dB_t
\right\}\end{aligned}$$ by Itô’s formula, Lemmas \[lemma:BDG\] and \[sigma-l2\] yield $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|n\sum_{h=1}^n\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}[\mathsf{M}^i,\mathsf{M}^j](I_h)_sdL(h)^{kl}_s\right\|_p
&\lesssim \sqrt{n}p\max_{1\leq k,l\leq d}\sup_{0\leq s\leq1}\|\sigma_s^{k\cdot}\|_{4p,\ell_2}\sup_{0\leq s\leq1}\|[\mathsf{M}^i,\mathsf{M}^j](I_h)_s\sigma_s^{l\cdot}\|_{\frac{4}{3}p,\ell_2}\\
&\leq \sqrt{n}p\max_{1\leq k,l\leq d}\sup_{0\leq s\leq1}\|\Sigma_s^{kk}\|_{2p}^{1/2}\sup_{0\leq s\leq1}\|[\mathsf{M}^i,\mathsf{M}^j](I_h)_s\|_{2p}\|\Sigma_s^{ll}\|_{2p}^{1/2}.\end{aligned}$$ Since Proposition \[minkowski\] and the Schwarz inequality imply that $$\|[\mathsf{M}^i,\mathsf{M}^j](I_h)_s\|_{2p}\leq\frac{1}{n}\sup_{0\leq s\leq1}\|\Sigma_s^{ij}\|_{2p}
\leq\frac{1}{n}\max_{1\leq i\leq d}\sup_{0\leq s\leq1}\|\Sigma_s^{ii}\|_{2p},$$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|n\sum_{h=1}^n\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}[\mathsf{M}^i,\mathsf{M}^j](I_h)_sdL(h)^{kl}_s\right\|_p
\lesssim \frac{p}{\sqrt{n}}\max_{1\leq i\leq d}\sup_{0\leq s\leq1}\|\Sigma_s^{ii}\|_{2p}^2.\end{aligned}$$ Combining this estimate with Lemma \[l-qv\], we obtain the desired result.
\[lemma:no-lag\] Under the assumptions of of Lemma \[l-qv\], there is a universal constant $C>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
&\max_{1\leq i,j,k,l\leq d}\left\|n\sum_{h=1}^n\mathsf{M}^i(I_h)\mathsf{M}^j(I_h)\mathsf{M}^k(I_h)\mathsf{M}^l(I_h)\right.\\
&\left.\hphantom{\max_{1\leq i,j,k,l\leq d}}-n\sum_{h=1}^n\left\{[\mathsf{M}^i,\mathsf{M}^j](I_h)[\mathsf{M}^k,\mathsf{M}^l](I_h)
+[\mathsf{M}^i,\mathsf{M}^k](I_h)[\mathsf{M}^j,\mathsf{M}^l](I_h)
+[\mathsf{M}^j,\mathsf{M}^k](I_h)[\mathsf{M}^i,\mathsf{M}^l](I_h)\right\}\right\|_p\\
&\leq\frac{C}{\sqrt{n}}\left(p^2\max_{1\leq i\leq d}\sup_{0\leq t\leq1}\|\Sigma^{ii}_t\|_{2p}^2
+p^{3/2}\max_{1\leq i\leq d}\sup_{0\leq t\leq 1}\|\Sigma_t^{ii}\|_{2p}^{3/2}
\max_{1\leq k\leq d}\sup_{0\leq u\leq v\leq 1}\|D_u\sigma^{k\cdot}_v\|_{4p,\ell_2}\right)\end{aligned}$$ for all $p\in[2,\infty)$ and $n\in\mathbb{N}$.
Using Itô’s formula repeatedly, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathsf{M}^i(I_h)\mathsf{M}^j(I_h)\mathsf{M}^k(I_h)\mathsf{M}^l(I_h)\\
&=\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\mathsf{M}^j(I_h)_s\mathsf{M}^k(I_h)_s\mathsf{M}^l(I_h)_sd\mathsf{M}^i_s
+\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\mathsf{M}^i(I_h)_s\mathsf{M}^k(I_h)_s\mathsf{M}^l(I_h)_sd\mathsf{M}^j_s\\
&\quad+\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\mathsf{M}^i(I_h)_s\mathsf{M}^j(I_h)_s\mathsf{M}^l(I_h)_sd\mathsf{M}^k_s
+\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\mathsf{M}^i(I_h)_s\mathsf{M}^j(I_h)_s\mathsf{M}^k(I_h)_sd\mathsf{M}^l_s\\
&\quad+\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}L(h)^{kl}_sd[\mathsf{M}^i,\mathsf{M}^j]_s
+\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}L(h)^{jl}_sd[\mathsf{M}^i,\mathsf{M}^k]_s
+\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}L(h)^{jk}_sd[\mathsf{M}^i,\mathsf{M}^l]_s\\
&\quad+\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}L(h)^{il}_sd[\mathsf{M}^j,\mathsf{M}^k]_s
+\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}L(h)^{ik}_sd[\mathsf{M}^j,\mathsf{M}^l]_s
+\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}L(h)^{ij}_sd[\mathsf{M}^k,\mathsf{M}^l]_s\\
&\quad+[\mathsf{M}^i,\mathsf{M}^j](I_h)[\mathsf{M}^k,\mathsf{M}^l](I_h)
+[\mathsf{M}^i,\mathsf{M}^k](I_h)[\mathsf{M}^j,\mathsf{M}^l](I_h)
+[\mathsf{M}^j,\mathsf{M}^k](I_h)[\mathsf{M}^i,\mathsf{M}^l](I_h)\end{aligned}$$ for every $h$. Therefore, the desired result follows from Lemmas \[lemma:V3dV\] and \[qv-dl\].
\[vv-lag\] Under the assumptions of of Lemma \[l-qv\], there is a universal constant $C>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\max_{1\leq i,j,k,l\leq d}\left\|n\sum_{h=1}^{n-1}\mathsf{M}^i(I_h)\mathsf{M}^j(I_h)\int_{t_{h}}^{t_{h+1}}\mathsf{M}^l(I_{h+1})_sd\mathsf{M}^k_s\right\|_p
\leq C\frac{p^2}{\sqrt{n}}\max_{1\leq i\leq d}\sup_{0\leq s\leq 1}\|\Sigma^{ii}_s\|_{2p}^2\end{aligned}$$ for all $p\in[2,\infty)$ and $n\in\mathbb{N}$.
Proposition \[minkowski\]–\[sharp-BDG\] yield $$\begin{aligned}
&\left\|n\sum_{h=1}^{n-1}\mathsf{M}^i(I_h)\mathsf{M}^j(I_h)\int_{t_{h}}^{t_{h+1}}\mathsf{M}^l(I_{h+1})_sd\mathsf{M}^k_s\right\|_p\\
&\lesssim n\sqrt{p}\left\|\sqrt{\sum_{h=1}^{n-1}\mathsf{M}^i(I_h)^2\mathsf{M}^j(I_h)^2\int_{t_{h}}^{t_{h+1}}\mathsf{M}^l(I_{h+1})_s^2d[\mathsf{M}^k,\mathsf{M}^k]_s}\right\|_p\\
&\leq n\sqrt{p\sum_{h=1}^{n-1}\left\|\mathsf{M}^i(I_h)\right\|_{4p}^2\left\|\mathsf{M}^j(I_h)\right\|_{4p}^2\int_{t_{h}}^{t_{h+1}}\left\|\mathsf{M}^l(I_{h+1})_s\right\|_{4p}^2\left\|\Sigma_s^{kk}\right\|_{2p}ds}\\
&\lesssim np^2\sqrt{\sum_{h=1}^{n-1}\left\|\sqrt{\int_{I_h}\Sigma^{ii}_sds}\right\|_{4p}^2\left\|\sqrt{\int_{I_h}\Sigma^{jj}_sds}\right\|_{4p}^2\int_{t_{h}}^{t_{h+1}}\left\|\sqrt{\int_{t_h}^s\Sigma^{ll}_sds}\right\|_{4p}^2\left\|\Sigma_s^{kk}\right\|_{2p}ds}\\
&\leq\frac{p^2}{\sqrt{n}}\max_{1\leq i\leq d}\sup_{0\leq s\leq 1}\|\Sigma^{ii}_s\|_{2p}^2.\end{aligned}$$ This completes the proof.
\[lemma:lag\] Under the assumptions of of Lemma \[l-qv\], there is a universal constant $C>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
&\max_{1\leq i,j,k,l\leq d}\left\|n\sum_{h=1}^{n-1}\mathsf{M}^i(I_h)\mathsf{M}^j(I_h)\mathsf{M}^k(I_{h+1})\mathsf{M}^l(I_{h+1})-n\sum_{h=1}^{n-1}[\mathsf{M}^i,\mathsf{M}^j](I_h)[\mathsf{M}^k,\mathsf{M}^l](I_{h+1})\right\|_p\\
&\leq\frac{C}{\sqrt{n}}\left(p^2\max_{1\leq i\leq d}\sup_{0\leq t\leq1}\|\Sigma^{ii}_t\|_{2p}^2
+p^{3/2}\max_{1\leq i\leq d}\sup_{0\leq t\leq 1}\|\Sigma_t^{ii}\|_{2p}^{3/2}
\max_{1\leq k\leq d}\sup_{0\leq u\leq v\leq 1}\|D_u\sigma^{k\cdot}_v\|_{4p,\ell_2}\right)\end{aligned}$$ for all $p\in[2,\infty)$ and $n\in\mathbb{N}$.
By Itô’s formula we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathsf{M}^i(I_h)\mathsf{M}^j(I_h)\mathsf{M}^k(I_{h+1})\mathsf{M}^l(I_{h+1})
&=\mathsf{M}^i(I_h)\mathsf{M}^j(I_h)\int_{t_{h}}^{t_{h+1}}\mathsf{M}^l(I_{h+1})_sd\mathsf{M}^k_s
+\mathsf{M}^i(I_h)\mathsf{M}^j(I_h)\int_{t_{h}}^{t_{h+1}}\mathsf{M}^k(I_{h+1})_sd\mathsf{M}^l_s\\
&\quad+L(h)^{ij}[\mathsf{M}^k,\mathsf{M}^l](I_{h+1})
+[\mathsf{M}^i,\mathsf{M}^j](I_h)[\mathsf{M}^k,\mathsf{M}^l](I_{h+1})\end{aligned}$$ for every $h$. Therefore, the desired result follows from Lemmas \[l-qv\] and \[vv-lag\].
Thanks to Lemma \[lemma:local\], throughout the proof we may assume $\mu=\mu(\nu)$ and $\sigma=\sigma(\nu)$ for all $n,\nu\in\mathbb{N}$.
\(a) According to Lemmas \[lemma:driftV3\], \[lemma:no-lag\] and \[lemma:lag\], it suffices to show that $$\begin{aligned}
&E\left[\max_{1\leq i,j,k,l\leq d}\left|n[\mathsf{M}^i,\mathsf{M}^j](I_n)[\mathsf{M}^k,\mathsf{M}^l](I_{n})\right|\right]=O(n^{-\varpi}),\label{acov:aim1}\\
&E\left[\max_{1\leq i,j,k,l\leq d}\left|n\sum_{h=1}^{n-1}[\mathsf{M}^i,\mathsf{M}^j](I_h)\left\{[\mathsf{M}^k,\mathsf{M}^l](I_{h+1})-[\mathsf{M}^k,\mathsf{M}^l](I_{h})\right\}\right|\right]=O(n^{-\varpi}).\label{acov:aim2}\end{aligned}$$ is evident from assumptions. In the meantime, the Schwarz inequality and Proposition \[minkowski\] yield $$\begin{aligned}
&E\left[\max_{1\leq i,j,k,l\leq d}\left|n\sum_{h=1}^{n-1}[\mathsf{M}^i,\mathsf{M}^j](I_h)\left\{[\mathsf{M}^k,\mathsf{M}^l](I_{h+1})-[\mathsf{M}^k,\mathsf{M}^l](I_{h})\right\}\right|\right]\nonumber\\
&\leq n\sum_{h=1}^{n-1}E\left[\max_{1\leq i,j\leq d}\left|[\mathsf{M}^i,\mathsf{M}^j](I_h)\right|\max_{1\leq k,l\leq d}\left|[\mathsf{M}^k,\mathsf{M}^l](I_{h+1})-[\mathsf{M}^k,\mathsf{M}^l](I_{h})\right|\right]\nonumber\\
&\leq \sup_{0\leq t\leq1}\left\|\max_{1\leq i,j\leq d}\left|\Sigma^{ij}_t\right|\right\|_2\sup_{0< t\leq 1-\frac{1}{n}}\left\|\max_{1\leq k,l\leq d}\left|\Sigma^{kl}_{t+\frac{1}{n}}-\Sigma^{kl}_t\right|\right\|_2,\label{proof:modulus}\end{aligned}$$ 0 In the meantime, by the Schwarz inequality we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\max_{1\leq i,j,k,l\leq d}\left|n\sum_{h=1}^{n-1}[\mathsf{M}^i,\mathsf{M}^j](I_h)\left\{[\mathsf{M}^k,\mathsf{M}^l](I_{h+1})-[\mathsf{M}^k,\mathsf{M}^l](I_{h})\right\}\right|\nonumber\\
&\leq n\max_{1\leq i,j\leq d}\sqrt{\sum_{h=1}^{n-1}\left|[\mathsf{M}^i,\mathsf{M}^j](I_h)\right|^2}\max_{1\leq k,l\leq d}\sqrt{\sum_{h=1}^{n-1}\left|[\mathsf{M}^k,\mathsf{M}^l](I_{h+1})-[\mathsf{M}^k,\mathsf{M}^l](I_{h})\right|^2}\nonumber\\
&\leq \sup_{0\leq t\leq1}\left\|\max_{1\leq i,j\leq d}\left|\Sigma^{ij}_t\right|\right\|_2\sup_{0\leq t\leq 1-\frac{1}{n}}\left\|\max_{1\leq k,l\leq d}\left|\Sigma^{kl}_{t+\frac{1}{n}}-\Sigma^{kl}_t\right|\right\|_2,\label{proof:modulus}\end{aligned}$$ also follows from assumptions. This completes the proof.
\(b) By assumptions we have $E[\max_{1\leq i,j,k,l\leq d}\left|n[\mathsf{M}^i,\mathsf{M}^j](I_n)[\mathsf{M}^k,\mathsf{M}^l](I_{n})\right|]=O(n^{-1})$. Moreover, from and assumptions, we also have $$E\left[\max_{1\leq i,j,k,l\leq d}\left|n\sum_{h=1}^{n-1}[\mathsf{M}^i,\mathsf{M}^j](I_h)\left\{[\mathsf{M}^k,\mathsf{M}^l](I_{h+1})-[\mathsf{M}^k,\mathsf{M}^l](I_{h})\right\}\right|\right]=O(n^{-\gamma}).$$ Therefore, the desired result follows from Lemmas \[lemma:driftV3\], \[lemma:no-lag\] and \[lemma:lag\] as well as Lemma A.7 and Proposition A.1 of [@Koike2017stein].
Proof of Proposition \[prop:factor-test\]
-----------------------------------------
An analogous argument to the proof of Theorem \[thm:rc-local\] allows us to assume $\mu=\mu(\nu)$ and $\Sigma=\Sigma(\nu)$ for all $n,\nu\in\mathbb{N}$.
Define the ${\underline{d}}^2\times d^2$ random matrix $\hat{{\boldsymbol{X}}}_n$ by $$\hat{{\boldsymbol{X}}}_n^{(i-1){\underline{d}}+j,(k-1)d+l}=
\left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
~{\widehat{[Y^j,Y^d]}}^n_1/\sqrt{\hat{\mathfrak{V}}_n^{ij}} & \text{if }k=i,~l=d, \\
~[Y^i,Y^d]_1/\sqrt{\hat{\mathfrak{V}}_n^{ij}} & \text{if }k=j,~l=d, \\
~-{\widehat{[Y^d,Y^d]}}^n_1/\sqrt{\hat{\mathfrak{V}}_n^{ij}} & \text{if }k=l=d \\
~-[Y^i,Y^j]_1/\sqrt{\hat{\mathfrak{V}}_n^{ij}} & \text{if }k=i, l=j\\
0 & \text{otherwise}.
\end{array}
\right.$$ for $i,j=1,\dots,{\underline{d}}$ and $k,l=1,\dots,d$. We also define the ${\underline{d}}^2\times d^2$ matrix ${\underline{\Upsilon}}_n$ by $${\underline{\Upsilon}}_n^{(i-1){\underline{d}}+j,(k-1)d+l}=
\left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
1 & \text{if }k\in\{i,j\}, l=d , \\
-1 & \text{if }k=i, l=j\text{ or }k=l=d, \\
0 & \text{otherwise}
\end{array}
\right.$$ for $i,j=1,\dots,{\underline{d}}$ and $k,l=1,\dots,d$. Then we set $$\Xi_n=
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
{\boldsymbol{X}}_n \\
-{\boldsymbol{X}}_n
\end{array}
\right),\qquad
\hat{\Xi}_n=
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\hat{{\boldsymbol{X}}}_n \\
-\hat{{\boldsymbol{X}}}_n
\end{array}
\right),\qquad
\Upsilon_n=
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
{\underline{\Upsilon}}_n \\
-{\underline{\Upsilon}}_n
\end{array}
\right).$$ Since we have $$\hat{\Xi}_nS_n=
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\operatorname{vec}(T_n) \\
-\operatorname{vec}(T_n)
\end{array}
\right),\qquad
\hat{\Xi}_nS_n^*=
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\operatorname{vec}(T_n^*) \\
-\operatorname{vec}(T_n^*)
\end{array}
\right)$$ as well as all the diagonal entries of $\Xi_n\mathfrak{C}_n\Xi_n^\top$ are equal to 1 by the definition of ${\boldsymbol{X}}_n$, Lemma \[lemma:approx\] and Proposition \[prop:comparison\] imply that it suffices to prove the following equations: $$\begin{aligned}
&\sup_{y\in(\infty,\infty]^{2{\underline{d}}^2}}|P(\Xi_nS_n\leq y)-P(\Xi_n\mathfrak{C}_n^{1/2}\zeta_n\leq y)|\to0,\label{factor-aim1}\\
&\sqrt{\log d}\|\hat{\Xi}_nS_n-\Xi_nS_n\|_{\ell_\infty}\to^p0,\label{factor-aim2}\\
&(\log d)^2\|\hat{\Xi}_n\hat{\mathfrak{C}}_n\hat{\Xi}_n^\top-\Xi_n\mathfrak{C}_n\Xi_n^\top\|_{\ell_\infty}\to^p0\label{factor-aim3}\end{aligned}$$ as $n\to\infty$.
We begin by proving . Since ${\boldsymbol{X}}_n={\boldsymbol{X}}_n\circ{\underline{\Upsilon}}_n$ and ${\@ifstar{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
s
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{ \mathopen{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}
\mathclose{|\mkern-1.5mu|\mkern-1.5mu|}
}{{\underline{\Upsilon}}_n}_\infty=4$, an application of Theorem \[thm:rc\] implies that the desired result follows once we show that ${\boldsymbol{X}}_n\in\mathbb{D}_{2,\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{{\underline{d}}^2}\otimes \mathbb{R}^{d^2})$ and $$\sup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\max_{1\leq i\leq{\underline{d}}^2,1\leq j\leq d^2}\left(\|{\boldsymbol{X}}_n^{ij}\|_p+\sup_{0\leq t\leq 1}\|D_t{\boldsymbol{X}}_n^{ij}\|_{p,\ell_2}
+\sup_{0\leq s,t\leq 1}\|D_{s,t}{\boldsymbol{X}}_n^{ij}\|_{p,\ell_2}
\right)<\infty$$ for all $p\in[2,\infty)$. By Remark 15.87 of [@Janson1997], we have $[Y^i,Y^j]_1\in\mathbb{D}_{2,\infty}$ and $D^q[Y^i,Y^j]_1=\int_0^1D^q\Sigma_t^{ij}dt$ for any $i,j=1,\dots,d$ and $q=1,2$. Therefore, by Corollary 15.80 of [@Janson1997], the desired result follows once we show that $1/\sqrt{\mathfrak{V}_n^{ij}}\in\mathbb{D}_{2,\infty}$ for any $i,j=1,\dots,{\underline{d}}$ and $$\label{v-half-moment}
\sup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\max_{1\leq i,j\leq{\underline{d}}}\left(\left\|\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathfrak{V}_n^{ij}}}\right\|_p
+\sup_{0\leq t\leq 1}\left\|D_t\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathfrak{V}_n^{ij}}}\right)\right\|_{p,\ell_2}
+\sup_{0\leq s,t\leq 1}\left\|D_{s,t}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathfrak{V}_n^{ij}}}\right)\right\|_{p,\ell_2}
\right)<\infty$$ for all $p\in[2,\infty)$. Note that we have $$\|D_t[Y^i,Y^j]_1\|_{p,\ell_2}\leq\sup_{0\leq u\leq1}\|D_t\Sigma_u^{ij}\|_{p,\ell_2},\qquad
\left\|D_{s,t}[Y^i,Y^j]_1\right\|_{p,\ell_2}\leq\sup_{0\leq u\leq1}\left\|D_{s,t}\Sigma_u^{ij}\right\|_{p,\ell_2}$$ for all $i,j=1,\dots,d$, $p\in[2,\infty)$ and $s,t\in[0,1]$ by Proposition \[minkowski\]. Therefore, Lemmas \[S-deriv\]–\[C-deriv\] and Corollary 15.80 of [@Janson1997] imply that $\mathfrak{V}_n^{ij}\in\mathbb{D}_{2,\infty}$ for any $i,j=1,\dots,{\underline{d}}$ and $$\sup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\max_{1\leq i,j\leq{\underline{d}}}\left(\left\|\mathfrak{V}_n^{ij}\right\|_p
+\sup_{0\leq t\leq 1}\left\|D_t\mathfrak{V}_n^{ij}\right\|_{p,\ell_2}
+\sup_{0\leq s,t\leq 1}\left\|D_{s,t}\mathfrak{V}_n^{ij}\right\|_{p,\ell_2}
\right)<\infty$$ for all $p\in[2,\infty)$. Now, since we can write $1/\sqrt{\mathfrak{V}_n^{ij}}=(\mathfrak{V}_n^{ij})^{5/2}(\mathfrak{V}_n^{ij})^{-3}$, Theorem 15.78 and Lemma 15.152 of [@Janson1997] as well as imply that $1/\sqrt{\mathfrak{V}_n^{ij}}\in\mathbb{D}_{2,\infty}$ for any $i,j=1,\dots,{\underline{d}}$ and holds true for all $p\in[2,\infty)$. Hence we complete the proof of .
Next we prove –. First, note that we have $\|S_n\|_{\ell_\infty}=O_p(n^\eta)$ as $n\to\infty$ for any $\eta>0$ by Corollary \[coro:rc\] and . Since $\|[Y,Y]_1\|_{\ell_\infty}=O_p(n^\eta)$ as $n\to\infty$ for any $\eta>0$ by assumptions, this especially yields $\|{\widehat{[Y,Y]}}^n_1\|_{\ell_\infty}=O_p(n^\eta)$ as $n\to\infty$ for any $\eta>0$. Next we verify $$\max_{1\leq i,j\leq {\underline{d}}}|\hat{\mathfrak{V}}_n^{ij}-\mathfrak{V}_n^{ij}|=O_p(n^{-\varpi})$$ as $n\to\infty$ for any $\varpi\in(0,\gamma)$. In fact, by definition we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\max_{1\leq i,j\leq {\underline{d}}}|\hat{\mathfrak{V}}_n^{ij}-\mathfrak{V}_n^{ij}|\\
&\lesssim \left(\left\|{\widehat{[Y,Y]}}^n_1\right\|_{\ell_\infty}+\left\|[Y,Y]_1\right\|_{\ell_\infty}\right)
\left(\left\|\hat{\mathfrak{C}}_n\right\|_{\ell_\infty}+\left\|\mathfrak{C}_n\right\|_{\ell_\infty}\right)
\left(\left\|{\widehat{[Y,Y]}}^n_1-[Y,Y]_1\right\|_{\ell_\infty}
+\left\|\hat{\mathfrak{C}}_n-\mathfrak{C}_n\right\|_{\ell_\infty}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Since $\|\mathfrak{C}_n\|_{\ell_\infty}=O_p(n^\eta)$ for any $\eta>0$ by assumptions, the desired result follows from Proposition \[prop:acov\] and the results noted above. In particular, it holds that $\max_{1\leq i,j\leq{\underline{d}}}|1/\sqrt{\hat{\mathfrak{V}}_n^{ij}}|=O_p(n^\eta)$ for any $\eta>0$ because $\max_{1\leq i,j\leq{\underline{d}}}|1/\sqrt{\mathfrak{V}_n^{ij}}|=O_p(n^\eta)$ for any $\eta>0$ by assumptions. Moreover, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|\hat{{\boldsymbol{X}}}_n-{\boldsymbol{X}}_n\|_{\ell_\infty}
\leq\max_{1\leq i,j\leq {\underline{d}}}\left|\frac{1}{\sqrt{\hat{\mathfrak{V}}_n^{ij}}}\right|\left\|{\widehat{[Y,Y]}}^n_1-[Y,Y]_1\right\|_{\ell_\infty}
+\max_{1\leq i,j\leq {\underline{d}}}\left|\frac{1}{\sqrt{\hat{\mathfrak{V}}_n^{ij}}}-\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathfrak{V}_n^{ij}}}\right|\left\|[Y,Y]_1\right\|_{\ell_\infty},\end{aligned}$$ it holds that $\|\hat{{\boldsymbol{X}}}_n-{\boldsymbol{X}}_n\|_{\ell_\infty}=O_p(n^{-\varpi})$ as $n\to\infty$ for any $\varpi\in(0,\gamma)$. Noting that we have $\|{\boldsymbol{X}}_n\|_{\ell_\infty}=O_p(n^\eta)$ for any $\eta>0$ by assumptions, this particularly implies that $\|\hat{{\boldsymbol{X}}}_n\|_{\ell_\infty}=O_p(n^\eta)$ for any $\eta>0$.
Now since we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|\hat{\Xi}_nS_n-\Xi_nS_n\|_{\ell_\infty}
&\leq4\|\hat{{\boldsymbol{X}}}_n-{\boldsymbol{X}}_n\|_{\ell_\infty}\|S_n\|_{\ell_\infty}
$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\|\hat{\Xi}_n\hat{\mathfrak{C}}_n\hat{\Xi}_n^\top-\Xi_n\mathfrak{C}_n\Xi_n^\top\|_{\ell_\infty}&\leq16\left\{
\|\hat{{\boldsymbol{X}}}_n\|_{\ell_\infty}^2\|\hat{\mathfrak{C}}_n-\mathfrak{C}_n\|_{\ell_\infty}
+\left(\|\hat{{\boldsymbol{X}}}_n\|_{\ell_\infty}+\|{\boldsymbol{X}}_n\|_{\ell_\infty}\right)\|\mathfrak{C}_n\|_{\ell_\infty}\|\hat{{\boldsymbol{X}}}_n-{\boldsymbol{X}}_n\|_{\ell_\infty}
\right\},\end{aligned}$$ – follow from the results remarked above. Thus we complete the proof.
Proof of Corollary \[coro:testing\]
-----------------------------------
By construction both the Bonferroni-Holm and Romano-Wolf methods evidently satisfy condition \[monotone\]. So it remains to check that they also satisfy \[max-quantile\]. Since it holds that $\max_{\ell\in\mathcal{L}_n(\theta_n)}\mathsf{T}_n^\ell=\max_{\ell\in\mathcal{L}_n(\theta_n)}\max_{\lambda\in\Lambda^{\ell}_n}|\tilde{T}_n^\lambda|$, Proposition \[prop:factor-test\] yields $$P\left(\max_{\ell\in\mathcal{L}_n(\theta_n)}\mathsf{T}_n^\ell >c_n^{\mathcal{L}_n(\theta_n)}(1-\alpha)\right)
-P\left(\max_{\ell\in\mathcal{L}_n(\theta_n)}\max_{k\in\mathcal{K}^\ell_n}\left|\tilde{\zeta}_n^k\right| >c_n^{\mathcal{L}_n(\theta_n)}(1-\alpha)\right)\to0$$ as $n\to\infty$, where $\mathcal{K}^\ell_n:=\{(i-1){\underline{d}}+j:(i,j)\in\Lambda^{\ell}_n\}$ and $\tilde{\zeta}_n:={\boldsymbol{X}}_n\mathfrak{C}_n^{1/2}\zeta_n$. Now if we use the Bonferroni-Holm method, we have $$\begin{aligned}
P\left(\max_{\ell\in\mathcal{L}_n(\theta_n)}\max_{k\in\mathcal{K}^\ell_n}\left|\tilde{\zeta}_n^k\right| >c_n^{\mathcal{L}_n(\theta_n)}(1-\alpha)\right)
\leq\sum_{\ell\in\mathcal{L}_n(\theta_n)}\sum_{k\in\mathcal{K}^\ell_n}P\left(\left|\tilde{\zeta}_n^k\right| >q_{N(0,1)}\left(1-\frac{\alpha}{2\#[\bigcup_{\ell\in\mathcal{L}_n(\theta_n)}\mathcal{K}^\ell_n]}\right)\right)
=\alpha,\end{aligned}$$ condition \[max-quantile\] is satisfied. Meanwhile, if we use the Romano-Wolf method, Propositions \[prop:quantile\] and \[prop:factor-test\] yield $$P\left(\max_{\ell\in\mathcal{L}_n(\theta_n)}\max_{k\in\mathcal{K}^\ell_n}\left|\tilde{\zeta}_n^k\right| >c_n^{\mathcal{L}_n(\theta_n)}(1-\alpha)\right)\to\alpha$$ as $n\to\infty$, condition \[max-quantile\] is satisfied. Thus we complete the proof.
0
Additional simulation results {#appendix:simulate}
=============================
As noted in Section \[sec:simulation\], we conduct a similar simulation study to Section \[sec:simulation\] while we change the volatility process from model to the following one (known as a continuous-time GARCH-type volatility process): $$\label{garch}
dv_t=\kappa(\theta-v_t)dt+\eta v_t\left(\rho dB^d_t+\sqrt{1-\rho^2}dB^{d+1}_t\right),$$ where the parameters $\kappa,\theta,\eta,\rho$ are chosen in the same way as in Section \[sec:simulation\]. The initial value $v_0$ is drawn from the stationary distribution of the process $(v_t)_{t\in[0,1]}$ as in Section \[sec:simulation\]. Namely, $1/v_0$ is drawn from the gamma distribution with shape $1+2\kappa/\eta^2$ and rate $2\theta\kappa/\eta^2$ (cf. Theorem 2.3 of [@Nelson1990]).
The results are reported in Tables \[garch:fwer\]–\[garch:power\]. We find that the reported values are very close to the ones in Tables \[table:fwer\]–\[table:power\].
rn $n=26$ $n=39$ $n=78$ $n=130$ $n=195$ $n=390$
-------------------- -------- -------- -------- --------- --------- ---------
$\rho_\gamma=0.25$
Holm 0.020 0.016 0.016 0.028 0.038 0.062
RW 0.043 0.028 0.023 0.034 0.044 0.068
$\rho_\gamma=0.50$
Holm 0.019 0.015 0.018 0.028 0.041 0.059
RW 0.046 0.029 0.026 0.039 0.049 0.070
$\rho_\gamma=0.75$
Holm 0.018 0.014 0.016 0.025 0.036 0.049
RW 0.051 0.033 0.033 0.042 0.058 0.073
$\rho_\gamma=0.25$
Holm 0.018 0.009 0.006 0.010 0.020 0.041
RW 0.072 0.026 0.012 0.016 0.026 0.047
$\rho_\gamma=0.50$
Holm 0.018 0.009 0.006 0.012 0.020 0.039
RW 0.073 0.032 0.014 0.020 0.030 0.050
$\rho_\gamma=0.75$
Holm 0.015 0.007 0.006 0.008 0.015 0.025
RW 0.076 0.040 0.025 0.026 0.040 0.060
: Family-wise error rates at the 5% level (GARCH)[]{data-label="garch:fwer"}
$n=26$ $n=39$ $n=78$ $n=130$ $n=195$ $n=390$
-------------------- -------- -------- -------- --------- --------- ---------
$\rho_\gamma=0.25$
Holm 0.000 0.001 0.010 0.074 0.272 0.863
RW 0.001 0.002 0.012 0.084 0.286 0.868
$\rho_\gamma=0.50$
Holm 0.004 0.015 0.290 0.902 0.999 1.000
RW 0.008 0.025 0.343 0.919 0.999 1.000
$\rho_\gamma=0.75$
Holm 0.018 0.091 0.838 1.000 1.000 1.000
RW 0.042 0.161 0.903 1.000 1.000 1.000
$\rho_\gamma=0.25$
Holm 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.011 0.077 0.647
RW 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.014 0.086 0.658
$\rho_\gamma=0.50$
Holm 0.000 0.001 0.055 0.573 0.978 1.000
RW 0.002 0.004 0.086 0.637 0.984 1.000
$\rho_\gamma=0.75$
Holm 0.002 0.013 0.404 0.987 1.000 1.000
RW 0.011 0.044 0.607 0.996 1.000 1.000
: Average powers at the 5% level (GARCH)[]{data-label="garch:power"}
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The author wishes to thank the associate editor and the referee for their careful reading and valuable comments that substantially improved the original version of this paper. This work was supported by JST, CREST and JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers JP16K17105, JP17H01100, JP18H00836.
[^1]: Mathematics and Informatics Center and Graduate School of Mathematical Sciences, The University of Tokyo, 3-8-1 Komaba, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153-8914 Japan
[^2]: Department of Business Administration, Graduate School of Social Sciences, Tokyo Metropolitan University, Marunouchi Eiraku Bldg. 18F, 1-4-1 Marunouchi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0005 Japan
[^3]: The Institute of Statistical Mathematics, 10-3 Midori-cho, Tachikawa, Tokyo 190-8562, Japan
[^4]: CREST, Japan Science and Technology Agency
[^5]: It is also known that empirical bootstrap fails in the present context as well; see e.g. [@DGM2013] for a discussion.
[^6]: One can show that the volatility process $\sigma$ generated by *locally* satisfy the condition for any $p\in[1,\infty)$ as long as the Feller condition $2\kappa\theta>\eta^2$ is satisfied. In fact, one can show this by setting $\Omega_n(\nu):=\{\inf_{t\in[0,1]}\sigma_t\geq\nu^{-1}\}$ and taking smoothed versions of $\sigma_t$ analogous to the one considered in [@AE2008] as $\sigma(\nu)$’s for $\nu=1,2,\dots$.
|
---
abstract: 'Automated decision making systems are increasingly being used in real-world applications. In these systems for the most part, the decision rules are derived by minimizing the training error on the available historical data. Therefore, if there is a bias related to a sensitive attribute such as gender, race, religion, etc. in the data, say, due to cultural/historical discriminatory practices against a certain demographic, the system could continue discrimination in decisions by including the said bias in its decision rule. We present an information theoretic framework for designing fair predictors from data, which aim to prevent discrimination against a specified sensitive attribute in a supervised learning setting. We use equalized odds as the criterion for discrimination, which demands that the prediction should be independent of the protected attribute conditioned on the actual label. To ensure fairness and generalization simultaneously, we compress the data to an auxiliary variable, which is used for the prediction task. This auxiliary variable is chosen such that it is decontaminated from the discriminatory attribute in the sense of equalized odds. The final predictor is obtained by applying a Bayesian decision rule to the auxiliary variable.'
author:
- |
AmirEmad Ghassami$^*$, Sajad Khodadadian$^*$, Negar Kiyavash$^{*\dagger}$\
Departments of ECE$^*$ and ISE$^\dagger$, and Coordinated Science Laboratory$^*$,\
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, USA.\
`{ghassam2,sajadk2,kiyavash}@illinois.edu`
bibliography:
- 'Refs.bib'
title: |
Fairness in Supervised Learning:\
An Information Theoretic Approach
---
Fairness, Equalized odds, Supervised learning.
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Automated decision making systems based on statistical inference and learning are increasingly common in a wide range of real-world applications such as health care, law enforcement, education, and finance. These systems are trained based on historical data, which might be biased towards certain attributes of the data points [@dwork2012fairness; @hardt2016equality; @celis2017ranking]. Hence, such data without noticing possible biases could result in discrimination, which is defined as gratuitous distinction between individuals with different sensitive attribute. These attributes include sex, race, religion, and are referred to as protected attributes in the literature. As an example, in the US justice system, courts use features of criminals such as their age, race, sex, years being in jail, etc., to estimate their possible recidivism–future arrest. After considering these features, the court assigns a score to each in-jail individual, and decides on whether to release that person. If the score exceeds some certain limit, it will be safe to release that individual. For instance, as noted by Angwin et al. analysis [@angwin2016machine], risk scores in the criminal justice system–the COMPAS risk tool–are biased negatively towards African-Americans. They showed that this risk score unjustifiably shows high risk of recidivism for African-American people compared to what it should actually be. As another example, the authors in [@kay2015unequal] have studied the accuracy of gender representation in online image searches. The results indicate that for instance, in a Google image search for “C.E.O.”, 11 percent of the depicted results are women, even though 27 percent of U.S. chef executives are women; and in a search for “telemarketer”, 64 percent of the people depicted were female, while the occupation is evenly split between men and women.
There is an interesting connection between the problem of fairness and differential privacy [@dwork2008differential; @dwork2006calibrating; @kalantari2016optimal]. As in the differential privacy problem, one tries to hide the identity of individuals, in the fairness problem, the goal is to hide the information about the protected attribute. More details regarding this connection is presented in [@dwork2012fairness].
Different criteria for assessing discrimination has been suggested in the literature. The most commonly used criterion is the so-called *demographic parity*, which requires the predictor to be statistically independent from the protected attribute. That is, denoting the protected attribute and the prediction by $A$ and $\hat{Y}$, respectively, demographic parity requires the model to satisfy $$P(A,\hat{Y})=P(A)P(\hat{Y}).$$ While demographic parity and its variants have been used in several works [@zemel2013learning; @feldman2015certifying; @zafar2017fairness; @edwards2015censoring], in some scenarios this criterion fails to provide fairness to all demographics [@dwork2012fairness]. For example, in the case of hiring an employee, where majority of the applicants are from a certain demographic, if we force the decision making system to be independent of that demographic, the system has to pick equal number of applicants from each demographic. Therefore, the system may admit a lower qualified individual from the smaller demographic to guarantee that the percentages of hired people from different demographics matches. Moreover, denoting the true label by $Y$, in most of the cases, as in the image search example, $Y$ is correlated with the protected attribute (see Figure \[fig:GM\]). Therefore, as demographic parity forces $\hat{Y}$ to be independent of $A$, this criterion will not be satisfied for the ideal predictor $\hat{Y}=Y$.
Hardt, Price and Srebro have recently proposed *equalized odds* as a new criterion of fairness [@hardt2016equality]. This notion demands that the predictor should be independent of the protected attribute conditioned on the actual label $Y$. Therefore, equalized odds requires the model to satisfy $$\label{eq:EO}
P(A,\hat{Y}|Y)=P(A|Y)P(\hat{Y}|Y).$$ Returning to the example of hiring an employee, this measure implies that *among the qualified applicants*, the probability of hiring two people from different demographics should be the same. That is, if two people from different demographics are both qualified, or both not qualified, the system should hire them with equal probability. Also, note that unlike demographic parity, equalized odds allows for the ideal predictor $\hat{Y}=Y$.
In this paper, we present a new framework for designing fair predictors from data. We utilize an information theoretic approach to model the information content of variables in the system relative to one another. We use equalized odds as the criterion to assess discrimination. In our proposed scheme, a data variable $X$, is first mapped to an auxiliary variable $U$, to decontaminate it from the discriminatory attribute as well as ensuring generalization. To design this auxiliary variable, for input variable $X$ and true label $Y$, we seek to find a compact representation $U$ of $X$ that contains at most a certain level of information about the variable $X$ (to avoid overfitting), but maximizes $I(Y;U)$ (quality of decision). The auxiliary variable $U$ is in turn used as the input for the prediction task. Similar to [@hardt2016equality], our framework is only based on joint statistics of the variables rather than functional forms; hence, such a formulation is more general. Furthermore, as in many cases, the functional form of the score and underlying training data are not public. Our formulation (unlike that of [@hardt2016equality], for instance) allows both $A$ and $Y$ to have arbitrary cardinality, which implies that we can have multi-level protected attributes and labels. We cast the task of finding a fair predictor as an optimization problem and propose an iterative solution for solving this problem. We observe that the proposed solution does not necessarily converge for some levels of fairness. This suggests that for a given requirement on the accuracy of a predictor, certain levels of fairness may not be achievable.
A somewhat similar idea to our approach is presented in [@zemel2013learning], in which the authors used an intermediate representation space with elements called prototypes. However, besides the fact that in that work demographic parity is used as the measure of discrimination, the method used for choosing the prototypes is quite different. Specifically, the main approach to avoid overfitting in the learning process is limiting the number of prototypes[^1], while we achieve the same goal by controlling the information in the auxiliary variable about the data. The approach in [@zemel2013learning] has extended in [@louizos2015variational] with deep variational auto-encoders with priors that encourage independence between sensitive and latent factors of variation.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:model\] we review the notion of equalized odds and introduce our model as well as the details of our proposed learning procedure. Additionally, we propose the optimization that must be solved to address the fairness issue. In Section \[sec:solve\] we propose an iterative approach for solving the optimization problem introduced. Our concluding remarks are presented in Section \[sec:conc\].
Model Description {#sec:model}
=================
We consider a purely observational setting in which we train a predictor from labeled data. For each sample, we have a set of attributes, which includes protected attributes such as gender, race, religion, etc. The protected attributes are denoted by $A$. We use $X$ to denote the rest of the attributes. We denote the true label by $Y$ and the prediction of the label $Y$ by $\hat{Y}$. For instance, for the example regarding risk of recidivism explained in Section \[sec:intro\], $A$ represents the race of each individual, $X$ represents other features of that individual (which could be correlated to the individual’s race) and $Y$ determines whether he/she has committed any crimes after being released from the jail.
![Graphical model of the proposed framework. $A$, $X$ and $Y$ denote the protected attribute, the rest of the attributes and the true label, respectively. $U$ is the compressed representor of $X$, which is used for designing the prediction $\hat{Y}$.[]{data-label="fig:GM"}](GM)
The graphical model of our setup is depicted in Figure \[fig:GM\]. As seen in this figure, $X$ and $A$ can be correlated, and given $X$, $A$ is independent of the true label $Y$. This property is essential, otherwise, the protected attribute is in fact a direct cause of the label and using this attribute in the prediction process should not be considered as discriminatory.
In order to find a fair predictor, if the joint distribution $P(A,X,Y)$ was known, we could find $P(\Hat{Y}|X)$ close to $P(Y|X)$ in the sense of equalized odds. However in reality only the empirical distribution $\Hat{P}(A,X,Y)$, which is obtained from data is available; therefore it is required to make sure that the predictor generalizes.
*Generalization*: Since the number of available samples is finite, to prevent overfitting (ensuring generalization) we should constraint our hypothesis space. To do so, we compress our variable $X$ to an auxiliary variable $U$, which in turn is used for the prediction task. We also choose $U$ such that it is not contaminated by discrimination in the sense of equalized odds [@hardt2016equality] defined in the following.
\[def:EO\] \[Equalized odds\] We say that a variable $U$ satisfies equalized odds with respect to protected attribute $A$ and outcome $Y$, if $U$ and $A$ are independent conditional on $Y$, that is, $$I(A;U|Y)=0.$$
This definition is equivalent to the one in expression .
Once $U$ is decontaminated from discriminatory attribute $A$, one can use any predictor to predict $Y$ from this auxiliary variable. We propose to apply a Bayesian empirical risk minimization decision rule in this work for the prediction task.
To obtain the mechanism for generating the auxiliary variable, we seek for a compact representation $U$ of $X$ that maximizes the utility/quality of prediction $I(Y;U)$, while it contains at most a certain level of information about the variable $X$. This is in essence similar to the goal in the information bottleneck (IB) method [@tishby2000information]. Maximizing $I(Y;U)$ corresponds to maximizing the utility of $U$, and keeping $I(X;U)$ bounded could be viewed as regularization, which rejects complex hypotheses to ensure generalization. See [@xu2017information] for a detailed discussion regarding using mutual information for finding bounds on generalization error. Note that the fact that we present fairness, accuracy and compactness via mutual information, provides us with a setting in which we do not need to have any requirement on the cardinality of variables (as opposed to [@hardt2016equality; @zemel2013learning]).
Next, we present the details of designing the transition probability kernel for generating the auxiliary variable, as well as designing the final predictor.
Designing the Auxiliary Variable {#sec:aux}
--------------------------------
As stated earlier, the goal of our learning scheme is to produce a compressed representor of $X$, which has as much information about the true label as possible, and is fair in the sense of Definition \[def:EO\]. We relax the equalized odds requirement in that we allow $U$ to have a certain amount of information about the variable $A$ conditioned on $Y$. The reason for this choice will become clear in Section \[sec:solve\]. Therefore, the objective is to find mechanism $P(U|X)$, which maximizes $I(U;Y)$ as well as
1. Ensures fairness: The information shared between the protected attribute and $U$ given the true label does not exceed a certain threshold $C$, that is $$I(A;U|Y)\le C.$$
2. Ensures generalization: The mutual information in $X$ and $U$ does not exceed a certain threshold $D$, that is $$I(X;U)\le D.$$
Therefore, we aim to solve the following optimization problem. $$\begin{aligned}
&\max_{P(U|X)} ~I(U;Y)\\
&\text{s.t. }~~~I(A;U|Y)\le C,\\
&~~~~~~~I(X;U)\le D.\end{aligned}$$
Designing the Predictor {#sec:hat}
-----------------------
As stated before, after obtaining a decontaminated variable $U$, this variable can be used for the prediction task. We utilize a Bayesian decision rule described in the following.
Let $\mathcal{U}$ be the alphabet of the variable $U$ and $\mathcal{Y}$ be the alphabet of variables $Y$ and $\hat{Y}$. To quantify the quality of a decision, define a loss function $\ell:\mathcal{Y}\times\mathcal{Y}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^+$, where $\ell(\hat{y},y)$ determines the cost of predicting $\hat{y}$ when the true label was $y$. The decisions are based on auxiliary variable $U$, which is statistically related to the true label. We denote the decision rule by $\delta:\mathcal{U}\rightarrow\mathcal{Y}$. The loss of the decision rule $\delta$ is defined as follows. $$L(\delta)=\mathbb{E}_{U,Y}[\ell(\delta(U),Y)].$$ Using $L(\delta)$, the Bayesian risk minimization decision rule is $$\delta^*=\arg\min_{\delta}L(\delta).$$ For instance, for the case of binary labels with Hamming loss, defined as $\ell(y,\hat{y})=\mathbbm{1}[y\neq\hat{y}]$, we have $$\delta^*(u)=\mathbbm{1}\bigg[P(Y=1|u)\ge P(Y=0|u)\bigg],$$ which implies that we vote for the label with the maximum posterior probability.
Solving the Fairness Optimization Problem {#sec:solve}
=========================================
In this Section, we propose a solution for the fairness optimization problem presented in Section \[sec:model\]. The Lagrangian for this problem will be as follows[^2] $$\label{eq:lag}
\mathcal{L}(P(U|X)) = \alpha I(X;U) +\beta I(A;U|Y)-I(U;Y),$$ where the parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ determine the trade off between accuracy, information compression, and fairness.
Equation is similar to the objective function in [@chechik2003extracting], where for given variables $X$, $Y^+$, and $Y^-$, the authors aimed to uncover structures in $P(X,Y^+)$ that do not exist in $P(X,Y^-)$, used for hierarchical text categorization.
We propose an alternating optimization method to solve the aforementioned problem. The pseudo-code of the proposed approach is presented in Algorithm \[alg:itt\]. In each iteration, $\mathcal{L}$ is reduced by minimizing objective function over three distributions $Q(U|X)$, $R(U)$, and $S(Y|U)$ separately. Functions $f(X,U,\alpha,\beta)$ and $Z(X,\alpha,\beta)$ are used for updating $Q(U|X)$, which are defined as follows: $$\label{eq:Z}
Z(x,\alpha,\beta)=\sum_u R(u)\exp(f(x,u,\alpha,\beta)),
\vspace{-4mm}$$ and $$\label{eq:f}
\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
f&(x,u,\alpha,\beta)=\\
&\frac{\beta}{\alpha}\sum_{y'} P(y'|x)D(P(A|x)||\frac{\sum_{x''}Q(u|x'')P(x,y,A)}{\sum_{x''}Q(u|x'')P(x,y)})\\
&-\frac{1}{\alpha}D(P(Y|x)|S(Y|u)).
\end{aligned}
\end{aligned}$$
\[thm:1\] For values of $\beta$ small enough, and any arbitrary value $\alpha$, Algorithm \[alg:itt\] converges to a stationary point of the Lagrangian functions $\mathcal{L}$ given in equation .
See Appendix \[sec:Ap1\] for a proof.
Empirical distribution $\hat{P}(A,X,Y)$, initial distributions $Q^0{(U|X)}$, $R^0{(U)}$, and $S^0{(Y|U)}$ parameters $\alpha$, $\beta$, termination threshold $\epsilon > 0$. Initiate $\mathcal{L}^0=0$, $\mathcal{L}^1=\epsilon$, and $t=1$. $Q^t(u|x)\leftarrow\frac{R^{t-1}(u)}{Z^{t-1}(x,\alpha,\beta)}\exp(f^{t-1}(x,u,\alpha,\beta))$, $\forall u,x$. $R^{t}(u)\leftarrow\sum_{x'} Q^t(u|x')P(x')$, $\forall u$. $S^t(y|u)\leftarrow\frac{1}{R^t(u)}\sum_{x'} Q^{t}(u|x')P(y,x')$, $\forall u,y$.
$\mathcal{L}^{t+1} \leftarrow\alpha I(X;U) +\beta I(A;U|Y)-I(U;Y)$. $t=t+1$. Conditional distribution $Q(U|X)$.
In general there is no guarantee that Algorithm \[alg:itt\] converges to the global minimum of the Lagrangian. Nevertheless, experimental results show that this altenative optimization algorithm almost always converges to a local minimum of the objective function in . Note that since achieving the global optimum is not guaranteed, one should initiate the algorithm from several different starting distributions.
The fact that convergence occurs only for a certain range of values for parameter $\beta$, suggests that for a given requirement on the accuracy of a predictor, certain levels of fairness may not be achievable. This can imply an inherent bound for the level of fairness that any algorithm can achieve, a conclusion which could have not been obtained from the other existing works.
Conclusion {#sec:conc}
==========
We studied the problem of fairness in supervised learning, which is motivated by the fact that automated decision making systems may inherit biases related to sensitive attributes, such as gender, race, religion, etc., from the historical data that they have been trained on. We presented a new framework for designing fair predictors from data via an information theoretic machinery. Equalized odds was used as the criterion for discrimination, which demands that the prediction should be independent of the protected attribute conditioned on the actual label. In our proposed scheme, a data variable is first mapped to an auxiliary variable to decontaminate it from the discriminatory attribute as well as ensuring generalization. We modeled the task of designing the auxiliary variable as an optimization problem which aims to force the variable to be fair in the sense of equalized odds and maximizes the mutual information between the auxiliary variable and the true label, whilst keeping the information that this variable contains about the data limited. We proposed an alternative solution for solving this optimization problem. We observed that the proposed solution does not necessarily converge for some levels of fairness. This suggests that for a given requirement on the accuracy of a predictor, certain levels of fairness may not be achievable. The final predictor is obtained by applying a Bayesian decision rule to the auxiliary variable. Finding an exact bound on the achievable level of fairness, as well as applying the proposed method to real data is considered as our future work.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:1\] {#sec:Ap1}
==========================
The Lagrangian in equation can be written as follows: $$\label{eq:prf2}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}(P(U|X))=&\alpha \sum_{x,u}P(x) P(u|x)\log\frac{P(u|x)}{P(u)}+\beta G(P(U|X))\\
&+\sum_{x,u,y}P(x,y)P(u|x)\log\frac{P(y|x)}{P(y|u)}-I(X;Y),
\end{aligned}
%\vspace{-3mm}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
&G(P(U|X))=I(A;U|Y)\\
&= \sum_{a,u,y,x} P(u|x)P(a,y,x) \log \frac{\sum_{x'}P(u|x')P(x',y,a)}{\sum_{x'}P(u|x')P(x',y)}.
\end{aligned}$$ We note that, the only unknown parameters are $P(U|X)$, and all of the other distributions can be estimated from the given samples of $(X,Y,A)$.\
Changing the notation of $P(u|x)$ to $Q(u|x)$ (to emphasize that it is designed), and using [@cover2012elements Lemma 10.8.1], we can write the optimization as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
&\min_{Q(u|x)}\mathcal{L}(Q(U|X))=\min_{Q(u|x)}\Bigg[\alpha \sum_{x,u}P(x) Q(u|x)\log\frac{Q(u|x)}{P(u)}\\
&+\beta G(Q(U|X))
+\sum_{x,u,y}P(x,y)Q(u|x)\log\frac{P(y|x)}{P(y|u)}\Bigg] - I(X;Y)
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
&=\min_{Q(u|x)}\Bigg[\min_{S(Y|U)}\min_{R(U)}\big[\alpha \sum_{x,u}P(x) Q(u|x)\log\frac{Q(u|x)}{R(u)}\\
&+\beta G(Q(U|X))
+\sum_{x,u,y}P(x,y)Q(u|x)\log\frac{P(y|x)}{S(y|u)}\Big]\Bigg] - I(X;Y),
\end{aligned}$$ where the inner minimizations are over all probability distributions. Changing the order of three minimizations, we obtain $$\label{eq:finop}
\begin{aligned}
&\min_{S(Y|U)}\min_{R(U)}\min_{Q(u|x)}\alpha \sum_{x,u}P(x) Q(u|x)\log\frac{Q(u|x)}{R(u)}\\
&+\beta G(Q(U|X))
+\sum_{x,u,y}P(x,y)Q(u|x)\log\frac{P(y|x)}{S(y|u)} - I(X;Y).
\end{aligned}$$ Since $x\mapsto x\log x$ is a convex function, and summation of a convex function with a linear function remains convex, the first and the third terms of equation combined is a convex function of $Q(u|x),~ \forall u,x$. For any function $G(Q(U|X))$, there exist $\beta$ small enough such that the combination of the first three terms of equation remains convex with respect to each $Q(u|x),~ \forall u,x$.
We add one more term $\lambda(x)(\sum_{u}Q({u|x})-1), ~\forall x$ to the Lagrangian for the constraint that for each $x$, $Q({u|x})$ should sum up to 1. As a result, taking the derivative of this function with respect to $Q(u|x)~ \forall u,x$, and setting it equal to zero, the minimum of the function can be found. Below, the derivative of each term is taken separately:
$$L_1=\sum_{x',u'}P(x')Q(u'|x')\log\frac{Q(u'|x')}{R(u')}.$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial L_1}{\partial Q(u|x)}&=P(x)\log\frac{Q(u|x)}{R(u)}
+\sum_{x',u'}P(x')\times\delta_{uu'}\delta_{xx'}\\
&=P(x)\log\frac{Q(u|x)}{R(u)}+P(x).\end{aligned}$$
For the second term in $\mathcal{L}$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
L_2&=I(A;U|Y)\\
&=\sum_{a',u',y',x'} P(a',u',y',x')\log\frac{P(u'|a',y')}{P(u'|y')}.\end{aligned}$$ Due to the graphical model in Figure \[fig:GM\], we have $$P(a',u',y',x') = P(a')P(x'|a')Q(u'|x')P(y'|x'),$$
Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial P(a',u',y',x') }{\partial Q(u|x)}
= P(a')P(x'|a')\delta_{uu'}\delta_{xx'}P(y'|x').\end{aligned}$$
The derivative of $P(u|a,y)$ and $P(u|y)$ can be obtained similarly. Therefore, we have
$$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{\partial L_2}{\partial Q(u|x)}
=\sum_{a',y'} P(y',x)P(a'|x)\log\frac{P(a'|y',u)}{P(a'|y')}\\
&=-\sum_{y'}P(y',x)D(P(A|x)||\frac{\sum_{x''}Q(u|x'')P(x,y,A)}{\sum_{x''}Q(u|x'')P(x,y)})\\
&+\sum_{y'}P(y',x)D(P(A|x)||P(A|y))\end{aligned}$$
For the third term in $\mathcal{L}$ we have $$L_3=\sum_{u',y'}P(u',y')\log\frac{S(y'|u')}{P(y')}.$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial L_3}{\partial P(u|x)}=&-P(x)D(P(Y|x)||S(Y|u))\\
&+P(x)D(P(Y|x)||P(Y)).\end{aligned}$$ Summing up all terms of the derivative and setting it equal to zero, we get the desired result in and .
Using the calculated $Q(u|x), ~\forall u,x$, we can minimize over $R(U)$ and $S(Y|U)$. Again using [@cover2012elements Lemma 10.8.1], minimum is achieved in marginal distributions $P(Y|U)$ and $P(U)$, which can be found from $Q(U|X)$ according to Algorithm \[alg:itt\].
Regarding convergence, we note that the Lagrangian in equation could be written as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}&
= \alpha \mathbb{E}_{X}[D(P(U|x)||P(U))]\\
&+\beta \mathbb{E}_{A,Y}[D(P(U|a,y)||P(U|y))]\\
&+\mathbb{E}_{X,U}D(P(Y|x)||P(Y|u))\\
&-I(X;Y).\end{aligned}$$ Since the first three terms of $\mathcal{L}$ are linear combinations of KL-divergences, and hence non-negative, $\mathcal{L}$ is lower bounded by $-I(X;Y)$ which is a constant. In addition, in Algorithm \[alg:itt\], assuming small enough $\beta$, in each of three steps of the alternating algorithm, the value of $\mathcal{L}$ decreases. Therefore, there exists $\beta_\max$, such that for values of $\beta\le\beta_\max$, the algorithm converges to a stationary point of the objective function in .
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
This work was in part supported by MURI grant ARMY W911NF-15-1-0479, Navy N00014-16-1-2804 and NSF CNS 17-18952.
[^1]: Unfortunately, nothing is said in that work about choosing the number of prototypes.
[^2]: Throughout the paper, uppercase letters for the argument of a distribution indicate all the parameters of the distribution, e.g., $P(U|X) \equiv \{P(u|x), ~\forall u,x\}$.
|
---
author:
- 'R. Zhao-Geisler[^1]'
- 'A. Quirrenbach'
- 'R. Köhler'
- 'B. Lopez'
- 'C. Leinert'
date: 'Received 14 December 2010 / Accepted 17 March 2011'
title: 'The mid-infrared diameter of W Hydrae[^2]$^{,}$[^3]'
---
[Asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars are among the largest distributors of dust into the interstellar medium, and it is therefore important to understand the dust formation process and sequence in their strongly pulsating extended atmosphere. By monitoring the AGB star W Hya interferometrically over a few pulsations cycles, the upper atmospheric layers can be studied to obtain information on their chemical gas and dust composition and their intracycle and cycle-to-cycle behavior.]{} [Mid-infrared ($8-13$ $\mu$m) interferometric data of W Hya were obtained with MIDI/VLTI between April 2007 and September 2009, covering nearly three pulsation cycles. The spectrally dispersed visibility data of all 75 observations were analyzed by fitting a circular fully limb-darkened disk (FDD) model to all data and individual pulsation phases. Asymmetries were studied with an elliptical FDD.]{} [Modeling results in an apparent angular FDD diameter of W Hya of about (80 $\pm$ 1.2) mas (7.8 AU) between 8 and 10 $\mu$m, which corresponds to an about 1.9 times larger diameter than the photospheric one. The diameter gradually increases up to (105 $\pm$ 1.2) mas (10.3 AU) at 12 $\mu$m. In contrast, the FDD relative flux fraction decreases from (0.85 $\pm$ 0.02) to (0.77 $\pm$ 0.02), reflecting the increased flux contribution from a fully resolved surrounding silicate dust shell. The asymmetric character of the extended structure could be confirmed. An elliptical FDD yields a position angle of (11 $\pm$ 20)$^\circ$ and an axis ratio of (0.87 $\pm$ 0.07). A weak pulsation dependency is revealed with a diameter increase of (5.4 $\pm$ 1.8) mas between visual minimum and maximum, while detected cycle-to-cycle variations are smaller.]{} [W Hya’s diameter shows a behavior that is very similar to the Mira stars RR Sco and S Ori and can be described by an analogous model. The constant diameter part results from a partially resolved stellar disk, including a close molecular layer of H$_2$O, while the increase beyond 10 $\mu$m can most likely be attributed to the contribution of a spatially resolved nearby Al$_2$O$_3$ dust shell. Probably due to the low mass-loss rate, close Fe-free silicate dust could not be detected. The results suggest that the formation of amorphous Al$_2$O$_3$ occurs mainly at visual minimum. A possible close Al$_2$O$_3$ dust shell has now been revealed in a few objects calling for self-consistent dynamic atmospheric models including dust formation close to the star. The asymmetry might be explained by an enhanced dust concentration along an N-S axis.]{}
Introduction {#secIntro}
============
Asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars have high luminosities, a high mass-loss rate, and a relatively cool atmospheric temperature, and they represent a late stage of stellar evolution. Most of the AGB stars pulsate (as Miras, semi-regular variables or irregular variables) and have typical main-sequence progenitor masses of 0.8 to 10 M$_\odot$. A large fraction of the mass is concentrated in a tiny degenerate carbon-oxygen core, surrounded by a helium- and hydrogen-burning shell and an extended stellar envelope with a very extended convective zone. Photospheric diameters are typically a few AU. The star is embedded in a dusty circumstellar envelope (CSE) (cf. e.g. review book by Habing & Olofsson [@Habing_Olofsson_04]).
The M-type (O-rich) star is interferometrically observed in the thermal N-band to resolve the upper atmospheric layers over a few pulsations cycles. This gives the possibility of obtaining information on its chemical gas and dust composition and its behavior throughout and between pulsation cycles. This can lead to a better understanding of the complex dynamical atmospheric processes attributed to AGB stars. Since AGB stars are one of the most important distributors of dust into the interstellar medium, besides red super giant (RSG) stars and supernovae (SN), it is especially important to understand the dust formation process and sequence in their strongly pulsating extended atmosphere.
In addition, asymmetries (e.g. oblateness due to rotation or a companion, or non-symmetric brightness distributions due to stellar spots or large convection zones), which are not uncommon for AGB stars, can be investigated. Past asymmetry determinations of W Hya were not very conclusive, in the sense that position angles over a wide range were reported, ranging from about $70^\circ$ (Szymczak et al. [@Szymczak_et98]) in the radio to about $143^\circ$ (Lattanzi et al. [@Lattanzi97]) in the visual, while no departures from symmetry could be detected in the near-infrared (IR) within the measurement uncertainties (Ireland et al. [@Ireland04] and Monnier et al. [@Monnier04]).
W Hya is one of the best observed AGB stars in the southern hemisphere. In particular, many interferometric diameter measurements at visual and near-IR wavelengths have been carried out (e.g. Ireland et al. [@Ireland04] and Woodruff et al. [@Woodruff09], cf. Sect. \[secPhaseSubWave\]). Because of the very extended atmosphere, it is expected that different wavelengths probe different atmospheric layers in AGB stars (Baschek et al. [@Baschek_et91] and Scholz et al. [@Scholz01]). The visual and near-IR diameters of the star W Hya range from about 30 up to 70 mas, correlated to the absorption and emission bands of the most abundant and radiatively important molecular species, such as H$_2$O, OH, CO, TiO, SiO, CO$_2$ and SO$_2$, besides H$_2$ (Hofmann et al. [@Hofmann_et98] and Jacob et al. [@Jacob_et00]). Therefore it is difficult to measure a continuum diameter, while these opaque molecular layers can easily have radii twice the continuum radius (e.g. Mennesson et al. [@Mennesson_et02], Tej et al. [@Tej_et03] and Ohnaka [@Ohnaka04]) with temperatures of 1000 to 2000 K, i.e. below the temperature of the continuum-forming surface of the star, but higher than the temperature of the surrounding circumstellar dust envelope.
Dust grains with high sublimation temperatures are already present in the outer atmosphere and are the seed particles for further dust growth (e.g. Lorenz-Martins & Pompeia [@LorenzMartins_Pompeia00] and Verhoelst et al. [@Verhoelst_et09] and references therein). Radiative pressure leads then at larger radii to an acceleration of the dust and the gas (through frictional coupling), resulting in the characteristic high mass-loss rates of AGB stars (e.g. Woitke [@Woitke06] and Höfner [@Hoefner08]). Several attempts have been made to include different dust species, such as aluminum oxide (Al$_2$O$_3$), silicates (e.g. Mg$_2$SiO$_4$), spinel (MgAl$_2$O$_4$), and olivine (MgFeSiO$_4$), to model the spectral energy distribution and to explain the nearly two times larger mid-IR diameters by adding a dust shell to a dust-free atmospheric model (cf. e.g. for Mira stars Ohnaka et al. [@Ohnaka_et05] and Wittkowski et al. [@Wittkowski_et07], and for RSG stars Perrin et al. [@Perrin_et07] and Verhoelst et al. [@Verhoelst_et09]). The radiative importance of dust in an extended molecular shell depends on the local temperature, the time dependent growth rate, and the wavelength-dependent optical properties. The former can be very different for different pulsation phases and cycles.
Dynamical atmospheric and wind models for AGB stars were developed by Hofmann et al. ([@Hofmann_et98]), Woitke et al. ([@Woitke_et99], [@Woitke06]), Scholz et al. ([@Scholz01]), Höfner et al. ([@Hoefner_et03]), Ireland & Scholz [@Ireland_Scholz06], Höfner & Andersen ([@HoefnerAndersen_07]), Ireland et al. ([@Ireland_et08]), Nowotny et al. ([@Nowotny_et10]) and Lebzelter et al. ([@Lebzelter_et10]). The exact chemical composition, pulsation phase, and pulsation cycle behavior of AGB stars, e.g. the location of molecular and dust layers, is still very uncertain. Observations presented in this work can help to improve this situation and provide the opportunity to compare with theoretical model predictions.
W Hya is a large-amplitude, semi-regular variable (SRa, but sometimes also classified as Mira) with a pulsation period of about one year, and it is located in the P-L-diagram on sequence C (fundamental mode pulsator, Lebzelter et al. [@Lebzelter_et05]; sequence 1 in Riebel et al. [@Riebel_et10]). The visual magnitude varies strongly, while the amplitude in the N-band is rather small (cf. Sect. \[secObsSubLC\]). The radial velocity amplitude, derived from CO $\Delta\nu~=~3$ lines, is about 15 km$\,$s$^{-1}$ (Hinkle et al. [@Hinkle_et97], Lebzelter et al. [@Lebzelter_et05]). Distance estimates to W Hya range from 78 pc (Knapp et al. [@Knapp_et03], revised *Hipparcos* value) to 115 pc (Perryman et al. [@Perryman_et97], *Hipparcos* value). Throughout this paper an intermediate value of 98$^{+30}_{-18}$ pc from Vlemmings et al. ([@Vlemmings_et03]) will be assumed (Very Long Baseline Interferometry maser measurement). W Hya’s luminosity is about 5400 $L_{\odot}$ (Justtanont et al. [@Justtanont_et05]).
After a description of the observational method and data reduction in Sect. \[secObs\], the model is explained in Sect. \[secMod\], where the results will be interpreted by the presence of dust close to a molecular layer. Sect. \[secPhase\] investigates the pulsation dependence of the apparent diameter, as well as departures from symmetry. A summary is given in Sect. \[secConc\].
Observations and data reduction {#secObs}
===============================
Interferometric observations with MIDI/VLTI {#secObsSubInt}
-------------------------------------------
The data presented here were obtained with the mid-IR ($8-13$ $\mu$m) interferometer MIDI (Leinert et al. [@Leinert_et03], [@Leinert_et04]) at the Very Large Telescope Interferometer (VLTI) in service mode. W Hya is one of five stars monitored from P79 to P83 (April 2007 to September 2009) under the program IDs 079.D-0140, 080.D-0005, 081.D-0198, 082.D-0641, and 083.D-0294. An observation log is given in Table \[TableObsLog\], showing all 83 individual observations. Six different baseline configurations of two auxiliary telescopes (ATs) were used. This results in projected baselines from 13 to 71 meter and a wide range of position angles (PA, $\vartheta$; east of north). The uv-coverage of all used data can be seen in the right hand panel of Fig. \[FigUVall\].
[ccccccc|ccccccc]{} Date & AT$^{\mathrm{a}}$ & Disp$^{\mathrm{b}}$ & B$^{\mathrm{c}}$ ($\mathrm{m}$) & PA$^{\mathrm{d}}$ ($^\circ$) & Phase & QF$^{\mathrm{e}}$ & Date & AT$^{\mathrm{a}}$ & Disp$^{\mathrm{b}}$ & B$^{\mathrm{c}}$ ($\mathrm{m}$) & PA$^{\mathrm{d}}$ ($^\circ$) & Phase & QF$^{\mathrm{e}}$\
2007-04-12 & A & grism & 14.54 & 51.81 & 0.30 & used & 2008-04-03 & B & prism & 29.19 & 82.75 & 0.22 & used\
2007-04-13 & B & grism & 29.10 & 51.92 & 0.30 & used & 2008-04-28 & D & prism & 59.43 & 54.70 & 0.29 & used\
2007-04-17 & B & grism & 22.34 & 94.12 & 0.31 & used & 2008-04-28 & E & prism & 70.58 & 130.03& 0.29 & n. u.\
2007-04-22 & D & grism & 59.53 & 54.92 & 0.33 & used & 2008-04-28 & E & prism & 71.32 & 10.41 & 0.29 & n. u.\
2007-04-22 & D & grism & 59.53 & 54.92 & 0.33 & used & 2008-04-28 & D & prism & 45.23 & 93.72 & 0.29 & used\
2007-04-22 & D & grism & 42.06 & 96.19 & 0.33 & used & 2008-05-25 & D & prism & 61.21 & 58.90 & 0.36 & used\
2007-04-22 & D & grism & 38.56 & 99.06 & 0.33 & used & 2008-05-30 & D & prism & 30.02 & 107.46& 0.37 & used\
2007-04-24 & E & grism & 67.30 & 125.04& 0.33 & n. u. & 2008-07-03 & A & prism & 13.67 & 86.31 & 0.46 & used\
2007-04-25 & E & grism & 64.92 & 123.16& 0.34 & n. u. & 2008-07-03 & C & prism & 32.03 & 95.67 & 0.46 & used\
2007-04-25 & F & grism & 71.47 & 2.19 & 0.34 & used & 2008-07-06 & D & prism & 36.87 & 100.52 & 0.46 & used\
2007-06-18 & A & grism & 13.25 & 87.72 & 0.47 & used & 2009-01-16 & F & prism & 71.23 &$-12.23$& 0.96 & used\
2007-06-20 & C & grism & 46.98 & 62.82 & 0.48 & used & 2009-01-16 & D & prism & 60.22 & 56.51 & 0.96 & used\
2007-06-20 & C & grism & 43.73 & 82.84 & 0.48 & used & 2009-01-17 & E & prism & 65.19 & 123.34 & 0.97 & n. u.\
2007-07-02 & C & grism & 48.00 & 70.64 & 0.51 & used & 2009-01-20 & C & prism & 46.78 & 61.99 & 0.97 & used\
2007-07-02 & C & grism & 40.49 & 86.86 & 0.51 & n. u. & 2009-01-21 & B & prism & 25.33 & 32.67 & 0.98 & used\
2007-07-04 & B & grism & 31.55 & 75.51 & 0.52 & used & 2009-01-21 & B & prism & 28.19 & 47.79 & 0.98 & used\
2007-07-04 & B & grism & 24.39 & 90.99 & 0.52 & used & 2009-01-21 & B & prism & 29.88 & 55.45 & 0.98 & used\
2008-01-10 & B & prism & 30.08 & 56.39 & 0.01 & used & 2009-01-22 & C & prism & 43.10 & 50.26 & 0.98 & used\
2008-02-20 & D & grism & 59.95 & 55.89 & 0.11 & used & 2009-01-22 & C & prism & 44.68 & 55.03 & 0.98 & used\
2008-02-20 & D & prism & 62.76 & 63.21 & 0.11 & used & 2009-01-22 & A & prism & 45.94 & 59.00 & 0.98 & used\
2008-02-21 & D & prism & 63.89 & 68.30 & 0.11 & n. u. & 2009-01-25 & A & prism & 12.34 & 28.13 & 0.99 & used\
2008-02-22 & B\* & prism & 31.85 & 73.49 & 0.12 & used & 2009-01-25 & A & prism & 13.05 & 37.34 & 0.99 & used\
2008-02-22 & B\* & prism & 31.00 & 78.00 & 0.12 & used & 2009-01-25 & A & prism & 14.35 & 50.06 & 0.99 & used\
2008-03-02 & E & prism & 66.93 & 124.69& 0.14 & used & 2009-01-25 & A & prism & 15.78 & 64.41 & 0.99 & used\
2008-03-02 & F & prism & 71.45 & 4.51 & 0.14 & used & 2009-01-27 & C & prism & 41.69 & 45.93 & 0.99 & used\
2008-03-03 & D & prism & 63.91 & 72.10 & 0.14 & used & 2009-01-27 & C & prism & 43.52 & 51.53 & 0.99 & used\
2008-03-06 & D & grism & 61.71 & 78.46 & 0.15 & used & 2009-02-16 & D & prism & 63.97 & 69.21 & 0.04 & used\
2008-03-11 & A & grism & 12.33 & 28.02 & 0.16 & used & 2009-02-16 & D & prism & 63.24 & 75.18 & 0.04 & used\
2008-03-11 & A & prism & 13.98 & 46.70 & 0.16 & used & 2009-03-16 & D & prism & 62.93 & 76.01 & 0.12 & used\
2008-03-12 & A & grism & 15.23 & 79.71 & 0.17 & used & 2009-04-20 & B & prism & 20.28 & 97.36 & 0.21 & used\
2008-03-13 & B & grism & 30.54 & 79.42 & 0.17 & used & 2009-04-23 & C & prism & 45.26 & 80.46 & 0.21 & used\
2008-03-13 & B & prism & 31.94 & 68.34 & 0.17 & used & 2009-04-23 & C & prism & 36.25 & 91.34 & 0.21 & used\
2008-03-13 & B & prism & 29.95 & 81.01 & 0.17 & used & 2009-04-24 & B & prism & 27.75 & 85.53 & 0.22 & used\
2008-03-14 & A & prism & 15.86 & 65.67 & 0.17 & n. u. & 2009-05-02 & D & prism & 55.99 & 46.91 & 0.24 & used\
2008-03-14 & A & prism & 15.80 & 75.37 & 0.17 & used & 2009-05-03 & E & prism & 69.19 & 127.28& 0.24 & used\
2008-03-14 & A & prism & 15.26 & 79.55 & 0.17 & used & 2009-05-03 & F & prism & 71.42 & 7.00 & 0.24 & used\
2008-03-25 & C & prism & 47.86 & 67.68 & 0.20 & used & 2009-05-03 & D & prism & 52.46 & 38.03 & 0.24 & used\
2008-03-25 & C & prism & 47.38 & 75.34 & 0.20 & used & 2009-06-04 & C & prism & 45.75 & 58.37 & 0.32 & used\
2008-03-25 & C & prism & 41.85 & 85.29 & 0.20 & used & 2009-06-04 & C & prism & 46.29 & 60.19 & 0.32 & used\
2008-04-01 & B & prism & 28.32 & 48.37 & 0.22 & used & 2009-06-04 & A & prism & 12.40 & 90.40 & 0.32 & used\
2008-04-02 & C & prism & 44.91 & 81.06 & 0.22 & used & 2009-08-15 & A & prism & 11.73 & 92.45 & 0.51 & used\
2008-04-02 & A & prism & 12.96 & 88.65 & 0.22 & used & & & & & & &\
$^{\mathrm{a}}$ AT stations: A = E0$-$G0, B = G0$-$H0, B\* = A0$-$D0, C = E0$-$H0, D = D0$-$H0, E = D0$-$G1 and F = H0$-$G1; $^{\mathrm{b}}$ dispersive element; $^{\mathrm{c}}$ projected baseline length; $^{\mathrm{d}}$ position angle of the projected baseline on the sky; $^{\mathrm{e}}$ quality flag showing if that observation is used for the model fitting or not (n. u.), see Sect. \[secModSubFDD\] for reasons that a value had not been used
{width="0.59\linewidth"} {width="0.40\linewidth"}
Before or after each target observation the calibrator 2 Cen () was observed with the same setup to calibrate the visibility measurements. The calibrator star has a diameter of (13.25 $\pm$ 0.06) mas (model diameter from Verhoelst [@Verhoelst_05][^4]), a spectral type of M4.5 III, a 12 $\mu$m flux of (256 $\pm$ 26) Jy (IRAS[^5]), and an angular separation to the target of about 6$^\circ$. Observations were executed in `SCI-PHOT` mode, where the photometric and the interferometric spectra are recorded simultaneously. This has the advantage that the photometry and the fringe signal are observed under the same atmospheric conditions. Either the prism, with a spectral resolution of $R = \lambda/\Delta\lambda = 30$, or the grism, with a spectral resolution of 230, were used to obtain spectrally dispersed fringes.
MIDI Sci-Phot data reduction {#secObsSubRed}
----------------------------
The standard `MIA+EWS`[^6] (version 1.6) data reduction package with additional routines for processing `SCI-PHOT` data (Walter Jaffe, private communication) was used. In any observation in `SCI-PHOT` mode, all four read-out windows (channels) are illuminated simultaneously. The two central channels record the interferometric signals, while the two outer channels are dedicated to measuring photometric fluxes (cf. Fig. \[FigMidi\]). To measure these signals, the two telescope beams (one beam from each telescope) are separated by a beamsplitter. One of the separated beams of each telescope is sent directly to the photometric detector window, while the other two remaining beams (one from each telescope) are combined in the beam combiner to obtain two interferometric signals with opposite phases.
![MIDI setup in `SCI-PHOT` mode (adopted from Leinert et al. [@Leinert_et03]).[]{data-label="FigMidi"}](16310_fg03.ps){width="0.95\linewidth"}
To be able to calculate the instrumental visibility by dividing the interferometric fringe signal (correlated flux) by the photometric signal (uncorrelated flux), the exact light split ratios between these channels have to be known as functions of wavelength. This requires recording *additional photometry*. By closing the shutter of one telescope, the light from the other telescope illuminates one of the photometric channels and both interferometric channels. From these data, the light split ratio between photometric and interferometric channels for this telescope beam can be computed. This is repeated for the other telescope beam as well. In principle, this would only be necessary once per night or less often, but is done for every observation to check for consistency.
Accordingly, the first step in the reduction is the calculation of these ratios (or better the mapping behavior between interferometric and photometric channels). After unchopping the *additional photometry* data, a point spread function is fitted perpendicular to the wavelength direction as a function of wavelength to each of the three read-out windows to obtain the spectra. This step also includes the determination of the sky and instrumental background, remaining after the unchopping, and its removal. The spectra of all channels are then divided by each other to derive the respective split ratios. One of the largest error sources here is the determination of the correct background, since it can result in too high or too low fluxes in affected channels and can therefore lead to errors in the final visibility and photometric spectra. Typical final errors are on the order of 10% and 30%, respectively.
With the obtained light split ratios (mapping behavior), the `SCI-PHOT` data are reduced in the next step. After unchopping the `SCI-PHOT` data, the simultaneously recorded photometric spectra (in the photometric channels) are multiplied by the appropriate split ratios; i.e., each photometric spectrum is mapped to each interferometric channel to get an estimate of the uncorrelated (photometric) fluxes at the location of the interferometric channels. The average of the summed images of each channel gives the final raw photometry. To obtain the visibility, the interferometric fringe signal (correlated flux) in each interferometric channel is divided by the estimated geometric mean image of the mapped uncorrelated (photometric) spectra. Prior to the division, the fringes are coherently averaged after determining the group delay, similar to the `HIGH-SENS` reduction (cf. e.g. Ratzka [@Ratzka05]). Both visibility spectra are then averaged to get the final raw visibility. A more detailed description can be found in Zhao-Geisler ([@ZhGeisler10]).
These steps are taken separately for the target (W Hya) and the calibrator (2 Cen). With the known calibrator diameter the raw target visibility is calibrated with the calibrator’s transfer function, assuming a wavelength-independent uniform disk diameter. The raw photometry is calibrated by assuming that the spectrum of the calibrator looks close enough to the Rayleigh-Jeans part of a blackbody and by using the known 12 $\mu$m flux of the calibrator. The Rayleigh-Jeans assumption is not fully valid between 8 and 9 $\mu$m since 2 Cen shows a weak SiO absorption feature in its ISO spectrum.
After reducing and calibrating all data, results with unphysical visibilities (due to bad environmental conditions or failure of the reduction process) are rejected. Eight of the 83 observations were thus excluded and are flagged as “not used” in Table \[TableObsLog\]. Since several observations of W Hya were executed in some nights, more than one calibrator observation was available. For those nights, the calibrators nearest in time were used to calculate a median calibrated visibility with the standard deviation as a typical error.
Grism data were interpolated to the prism grid. The wavelength range between 8 and 12 $\mu$m was binned into 25 wavelength bins to allow a faster computation of the model fits. Within each wavelength bin a mean visibility and error were calculated. For the fits later on, we always checked that this approach does not mask any additional spectral features, with the result that in all cases the shapes of the wavelength-dependent parameters were not altered significantly. Measurements beyond 12 $\mu$m were not used because the recorded flux was too low, making the reduction inconsistent.
To avoid the problem of underestimating the error and to allocate an error to visibilities where only one calibrator observation exists, all available visibility errors within the same wavelength bin were averaged. The resulting mean error was then assigned to *all* visibilities within this wavelength bin. The final 75 visibility curves are shown in the left hand panel of Fig. \[FigUVall\]. The central wavelengths and assigned visibility errors of each bin are given in the first and second columns of Table \[TableResults\], respectively.
Assuming the same error for all measurements within a wavelength bin improves the model fits as well. In a fitting method based on a chi-square technique (cf. Sect. \[secModSubFDD\]), all visibility measurements are then represented with the same significance. In the case that each value has an individual uncertainty, values with higher errors are underrepresented, while values with low errors are overrepresented. Consequently, higher visibilities, with in general higher absolute errors, are not weighted accordingly, and the importance of lower visibilities, at generally higher spatial frequencies with lower absolute errors, is overestimated. Only equal weighting ensures that over the whole spatial frequency range a model fits all data well, assuming that all measurements are equally significant. This has the consequence that chi-square values are only useful in a relative sense. For this reason chi-square values are not given.
Light curves {#secObsSubLC}
------------
{width="0.95\linewidth"}
{width="0.95\linewidth"}
To assign a pulsation phase to the observations, visual data from the American Association of Variable Star Observers (AAVSO[^7]) and the All Sky Automated Survey (ASAS[^8]; Pojmanski et al. [@Pojmanski_et2005]) are used. After binning the AAVSO data into ten-day bins, a simple sinusoid was fitted to the AAVSO and ASAS data over a period of about 10 years ($2000-2010$). The fit gives a period of (388 $\pm$ 5) days, a mean visual magnitude of (7.6 $\pm$ 0.1) mag, a semi-amplitude of (1.4 $\pm$ 0.1) mag and a Julian Date of maximum brightness of (2452922 $\pm$ 5) days (defined as phase 0.0). These data, including the fit, are plotted in Fig. \[FigLight\_t\] versus time and in Fig. \[FigLight\_p\] versus visual light phase. The visual amplitude of the semi-regular variable W Hya is much lower than typical Mira variables.
In both plots, the times of the 75 used MIDI observations are included as tick marks above the light curve, color-coded by phase in Fig. \[FigLight\_t\] and color-coded by position angle in Fig. \[FigLight\_p\]. This allows recognizing different distributions of position angles throughout the pulsation cycle. It can be seen that the position angles are not sampled well over the pulsation period. At around maximum light, position angles cluster around 50$^\circ$, while around minimum light, position angles are mostly at around 90$^\circ$. Only for the intermediate phase is the position angle sampling more uniform. This will be important in Sect. \[secPhase\], where asymmetries, intracycle variations and cycle-to-cycle variations are investigated. The regions used for this study are already shaded in both figures. It is also notable that the whole pulsation cycle is not equally sampled because the pulsation period is around one year (also true for the AAVSO and ASAS sampling).
The MIDI photometry is shown in Fig. \[FigLight\_t\] directly below the tick marks with the magnitude scale given on the right and as flux values below the magnitude plot in Fig. \[FigLight\_p\]. Only the averaged fluxes between 11.5 and 12.5 $\mu$m are plotted in order to be comparable with observations made with other instruments (e.g. IRAS). Even though the MIDI fluxes are afflicted by fairly large errors, a clear phase dependence is detectable in the phase-folded plot. A sinusoidal fit gives a semi-amplitude of (510 $\pm$ 100) Jy, which is equivalent to a flux variation on the order of 20% between maximum and minimum light, with a mean mid-IR flux of (4.9 $\pm$ 0.2) kJy. The maximum occurs after the visual maximum at visual phase 0.15 $\pm$ 0.05.
This phase shift is consistent with previous studies of AGB stars (cf. e.g. Lattanzio & Wood [@Lattanzio_Wood_04], Smith et al. [@Smith_et06] and references therein, and Nowotny et al. [@Nowotny_et10]). The reasons for this are that most of the flux is emitted in the infrared and that the visual spectrum is strongly influenced by features of the temperature-sensitive TiO molecule (Nowotny et al. [@Nowotny_et10]). Similar flux variations have been reported for other AGB stars by Ohnaka (private communication; preliminary results for R Car, R Cnc and Z Pup) for MIDI AT observations, by Wittkowski et al. ([@Wittkowski_et07]) (O-rich Mira S Ori), and Ohnaka et al. ([@Ohnaka_et07]) (C-rich Mira V Oph) for MIDI Unit Telescope (UT) observations, and by Karovicova (private communication; preliminary result for RR Aql) for both AT and UT observations. Since the photometric accuracy of MIDI used with the ATs is very low, these values should be used with caution. For this reason all data are interpreted with respect to the visual light curve instead of the mid-IR light curve. It should also be kept in mind that folding consecutive cycles might not always be appropriate since the pulsation is not strictly regular. The irregularity can clearly be inferred from the plots.
Spectra {#secObsSubSpec}
-------
The median of all calibrated photometric MIDI spectra (scaled with the 12 $\mu$m flux of the calibrator as described above) is shown in the spectral energy distribution (SED) in Fig. \[FigSpec\]. The uncertainties are given by the standard deviation. Even if this averaging over all pulsation phases and cycles might be questionable, it is not important here, since the spectrum is not used for any modeling. In addition to fully scientifically verified spectra from ISO[^9] and IRAS, photometric data from HIPPARCOS, USNO-B1, 2MASS, and IRAS[^10], not corrected for reddening effects, are plotted as well. A blackbody with an effective temperature of 2300 K is overplotted as guidance. Due to the infrared excess, strong metallic oxide line, and molecule absorption at shorter wavelengths, and dust extinction, it is not expected that a blackbody curve fits the spectral data in an appropriate way.
The ISO SWS spectrum is mainly dominated by absorption bands of H$_2$O between $2.5-3.0$ $\mu$m (stretching mode) and $5.0-8.0$ $\mu$m (bending mode), and an SiO absorption band between 8 and 9 $\mu$m ($\nu$ = $1-0$). Distinct absorption lines of CO at around 2.4 $\mu$m, OH at $2.9-4.0$ $\mu$m, CO$_2$ at 4.25 $\mu$m and SO$_2$ at 7.4 $\mu$m can be weakly seen in the spectrum as well. Justtanont et al. ([@Justtanont_et04]) derived from temperature investigations that these absorptions originate in different molecular layers in the circumstellar shell. The OH, CO, and CO$_2$ absorption bands arise mainly from a hot (about 3000 K), dense region very close to the stellar photosphere, where H$_2$O is still photodissociated by shocks. The H$_2$O and a second CO$_2$ absorption band originate in a layer with a temperature of 1000 K, i.e. a molecular layer (molsphere[^11]) farther out. The SiO molecule absorption arises in the same region where the H$_2$O molecular shell exists and where SiO is still not condensed in dust grains. Dust emission can also be identified in the ISO spectra. The features between 10 and 20 $\mu$m are a combination of emission from amorphous silicates at around 10 $\mu$m, compact Al$_2$O$_3$ at around 11 $\mu$m, and MgFeO at around 19 $\mu$m. Justtanont et al. ([@Justtanont_et04]) have obtained a satisfactory SED fit to all three emission features. They derived a low[^12] total mass-loss rate of (3.5$-$8) $\times$ $10^{-8} M_{\odot}$yr$^{-1}$, and a lower limit to the dust mass-loss rate for silicates, Al$_2$O$_3$ and MgFeO of 1.5 $\times$ $10^{-10} M_{\odot}$yr$^{-1}$, 1.3 $\times$ $10^{-10} M_{\odot}$yr$^{-1}$ and 2.5 $\times$ $10^{-11} M_{\odot}$yr$^{-1}$ respectively. Hinkle et al. ([@Hinkle_et97]) and de Beck at al. ([@deBeck_et10]) obtained similar total mass-loss rates of 2 $\times$ $10^{-8} M_{\odot}$yr$^{-1}$ and 7.8 $\times$ $10^{-8} M_{\odot}$yr$^{-1}$, respectively. The derived low dust mass-loss rate and pulsation behavior is typical of a star at the beginning of the AGB phase and the transformation from a semi-regular variable to a Mira star (Hinkle et al. [@Hinkle_et97]). W Hya is classified in the dust emission scheme of Sloan and Price ([@SloanPrice_98]) as SE8 (classic narrow silicate emission type).
If the MIDI spectrum is compared with the ISO SWS spectrum, it is obvious that the silicate emission is not detected. This is shown in more detail in the inset of Fig. \[FigSpec\]. In the MIDI spectrum of W Hya, a weak emission of amorphous Al$_2$O$_3$ at around 11 $\mu$m is present, while no silicate feature at around 10 $\mu$m can be seen[^13]. This behavior can be attributed to instrumental characteristics. ISO has a much larger field of view (FOV) compared to MIDI. With a small FOV of about 1 to 2 arcsec[^14], the emission of the extended silicate dust shell is not detected in the MIDI spectrum.
However, this non-detection allows a lower limit to be derived for the inner boundary of the silicate dust shell. Assuming a conservative value of the FOV of 1 arcsec, the main emission of the silicate dust shell in W Hya originates in a region with an inner radius larger than 28 photospheric radii[^15] ($>$50 AU, $>$0.5 arcsec). This is consistent with knowing that the dust envelope is very extended, up to 40 arcsec (Hawkins [@Hawkins90]). The higher flux measured with MIDI compared to ISO can be attributed to the circumstance that the averaged spectrum is dominated by observations conducted around mid-IR maximum phases, while the ISO spectrum were obtained in a post visual minimum phase (phase 0.8, which is close to the mid-IR minimum; cf. Fig. \[FigLight\_p\]). Together with the calibration uncertainty of the averaged MIDI spectrum of larger than 10%, this apparent discrepancy can be understood.
Modeling the visibility data {#secMod}
============================
The most straight forward way of interpreting sparsely sampled interferometric data (visibilities) is by fitting the Fourier transform of an assumed brightness distribution of the object. Simple size estimations can be obtained by elementary models with only a few free parameters. As mentioned in the introduction, the definition of a diameter is difficult because of its strong wavelength dependence, as well as of the intracycle and possible long-term cycle-to-cycle variations (e.g. Haniff et al. [@Haniff_et95]) expected from models (e.g. Hofmann et al. [@Hofmann_et98]). On the other hand, the size and its wavelength-dependent shape can tell which layer of the atmosphere is actually observed and which chemical and physical mechanism are responsible for this appearance. The low surface gravity results in an extended atmosphere and temperature structure and in the formation of molecular layers around late-type stars. Therefore, no sharp transition between star and circumstellar environment exists and limb-darkening effects (center-to-limb variations) are very pronounced.
All 75 visibility measurements of W Hya are plotted in Fig. \[FigSymModel\] for one example wavelength bin (9.07 $\mu$m) as function of spatial frequency (projected baseline divided by wavelength). There is a considerable spread in the data, but this should be expected since the measurements were obtained at different pulsation phases, pulsation cycles and position angles. In addition, some uncertainties in the reduction process remain. The left hand panel shows the data color-coded by visual light phase, while the right hand panel shows the data color-coded by position angle. In both plots systematically displaced distributions are noticeable. In the left hand panel, observations at visual maximum (dark points) have lower visibilities than those at pre-minimum (red points), if measurements with similar spatial frequencies are compared. However, this trend is very weak. In comparison, the displacement of the two distributions with different position angles is more significant in the right hand panel. For a discussion of this see Sect. \[secPhase\].
After the first zero, the visibilities in the second lobe at around 24 arcsec$^{-1}$ remain low. This indicates that a uniform disk (UD), with a constant brightness distribution up to the edge of the disk, cannot be applied to the data. A UD gives a higher second lobe in Fourier space. On the other hand, a simple Gaussian is not appropriate either, since a second lobe is clearly detected. Only a model that takes an extended atmosphere into account, which results in limb-darkening, can fit the data properly. The simplest possibility with only a few free parameters and a low second lobe is a fully limb-darkened disk (FDD). To account for a flux contribution of the extended silicate dust shell, the visibility function is not forced to be 1 at zero spatial frequency. Due to the lack of measurements at very low spatial frequencies, the dimension of the silicate dust shell cannot be constrained interferometrically.
{width="0.95\linewidth"}
{width="0.49\linewidth"} {width="0.49\linewidth"}
Fully limb-darkened disk (FDD) {#secModSubFDD}
------------------------------
A fully limb-darkened disk model is fitted to the visibility measurements in order to get diameter estimates. The visibility and intensity functions of a circular FDD are given by $$\begin{aligned}
V \; (r)&=& \left|\,\epsilon\;\;\frac{3\sqrt{\pi}\;J_{3/2}(\pi\theta_{\mathrm{FDD}} r)}{\sqrt{2}\;(\pi\theta_{\mathrm{FDD}} r)^{3/2}}\,\right|\;\mbox{and}\\[4mm]
I \; (\rho) &=& \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\epsilon\;\;\frac{8}{\pi^2 \theta^2_{\mathrm{FDD}}}\sqrt{1-\left(\frac{2\rho}{\theta_{\mathrm{FDD}}}\right)^2} & \;\mbox{if} \;\rho \leq \frac{\theta}{2}\\[3mm]
0 & \;\mbox{otherwise,} \end{array} \right.
\end{aligned}$$ respectively, where $J_{3/2}$ is a Bessel function of the first kind of order 3/2, $\theta_{\mathrm{FDD}}$ the FDD diameter and $\epsilon$ the flux contribution of the FDD. The flux contribution $\epsilon$ can be less than 1 if a fully resolved component (FRC), e.g. a surrounding silicate dust shell, adds flux at the given wavelength, since the total visibility consists of both components: $$\begin{aligned}
V_{\mathrm{total}} &=& |\,\epsilon \; \mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{FDD}} + (1-\epsilon) \; \mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{FRC}}\,|
\end{aligned}$$ The complex visibility of a fully resolved component, $\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{FRC}}$, then does not contribute to the total visibility, but the flux fraction, $f_{\mathrm{FRC}}$, of that component still modifies $\epsilon$ via $\epsilon = f_{\mathrm{FDD}} / (f_{\mathrm{FDD}} + f_{\mathrm{FRC}})$. The radius $r$ in Fourier space is given by the spatial frequencies as $r = \sqrt{u^2+v^2}$. The spatial frequencies $u$ and $v$ are calculated from the projected baseline B, the position angle $\vartheta$, and the wavelength $\lambda$ via $u=B\sin{\vartheta}/\lambda$ and $v=B\cos{\vartheta}/\lambda$. The radial coordinate $\rho$ on the sky is defined by the angular coordinates $\alpha$ and $\beta$ (angular separation relative to the center of the object on the tangential sky plane) with $\rho = \sqrt{\alpha^2+\beta^2}$.
The elliptical FDD, used in Sect. \[secPhaseSubAsy\] to analyze asymmetries, is derived from the circular FDD by applying a rotation (with an orientation given by the position angle $\vartheta$) and a compression to one of the axes (which becomes the minor axis). The rotation can be obtained by changing the Fourier and sky reference frames via $$\begin{aligned}
u_{\vartheta} &=& u \cos\vartheta - v \sin\vartheta \\[1mm]
v_{\vartheta} &=& u \sin\vartheta + v \cos\vartheta
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{\vartheta} &=& \alpha \cos\vartheta - \beta \sin\vartheta \\[1mm]
\beta_{\vartheta} &=& \alpha \sin\vartheta + \beta \cos\vartheta \mathrm{,}
\end{aligned}$$ respectively.
Applying the compression factor of $\eta = \theta_{\mathrm{FDD,min}} / \theta_{\mathrm{FDD,maj}}$, with $\theta_{\mathrm{FDD,min}}$ the minor diameter and $\theta_{\mathrm{FDD,maj}}$ the major diameter in Fourier space, yields the new variables $$\begin{aligned}
r_{\vartheta,\eta} &=& \sqrt{u_{\vartheta}^2\eta^2+v_{\vartheta}^2} \;\;\;\; \mathrm{and}\\
\rho_{\vartheta,\eta} &=& \sqrt{\alpha_{\vartheta}^2/\eta^2+\beta_{\vartheta}^2} \mathrm{,}
\end{aligned}$$ respectively. The visibility and intensity functions then become $$\begin{aligned}
V \; (r_{\vartheta,\eta}) &=& \left|\,\epsilon\;\;\frac{3\sqrt{\pi}\;J_{3/2}(\pi\theta_{\mathrm{FDD,maj}} r_{\vartheta,\eta})}{\sqrt{2}\;(\pi\theta_{\mathrm{FDD,maj}} r_{\vartheta,\eta})^{3/2}} \,\right|\;\mbox{and}\\[4mm]
I \; (\rho_{\vartheta,\eta}) &=& \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\epsilon\;\;\frac{8}{\eta\pi^2\theta_{\mathrm{FDD,maj}}^2}\; \sqrt{1-\left(\frac{2\rho_{\vartheta,\eta}}{\theta_{\mathrm{FDD,maj}}}\right)^2} & \mbox{if} \;\; \delta \leq 1\\[3mm]
0 & \mbox{otherwise,} \end{array} \right.
\end{aligned}$$ respectively, with $$\begin{aligned}
\delta &=& \frac{4 \alpha^2_{\vartheta}}{\theta^2_{\mathrm{FDD,min}}} + \frac{4 \beta^2_{\vartheta}}{\theta^2_{\mathrm{FDD,maj}}} \,\mbox{.}
\end{aligned}$$
Best-model parameters are derived by performing the Levenberg-Marquardt least-squares minimization procedure programmed for the interactive data language IDL as `MPFIT` by C. B. Markwardt[^16]. To avoid the problem of running into local minima and to check for degeneracies, a global grid search was implemented. This is done in such a way that the least-squares minimization always operates only between two grid points in each parameter, while going through the whole parameter space. Formal 1$\,\sigma$ errors were computed by taking the difference between the best fit value and the value given at the lowest non-reduced chi-square plus one, knowing that this is only an approximation, since the chi-square values are not Gaussian distributed. To get a more appropriate parameter error, the visibility errors are scaled to a value yielding a reduced chi-square of one. Besides this, the final parameter error is always a multiple of the shortest grid distance. This approach leads to an adequate description of the data by an FDD and to reasonable error estimates.
Model fitting results {#secModSubModel}
---------------------
The left hand panel of Fig. \[FigSymModel\] shows the fit of a circular FDD and UD to all 75 visibility measurements for wavelength bin 6 (9.07 $\mu$m). Clearly, the second lobe is better fitted by an FDD. A comparison of the reduced chi-square values verified that a UD is not a good representation of the brightness distribution of W Hya. The best-fit parameters of the circular FDD are given in Table \[TableResults\] for all 25 wavelength bins. Formal errors are computed as mentioned in the previous section, while the listed mean visibility errors are derived as described in Sect. \[secObsSubRed\]. A residual analysis shows that for each wavelength bin on average about 60% of the measurements are inside the 3$\,\sigma$ range. This low value stems from using rather low uncertainties for the visibilities and this fit not accounting for the scatter of the data due to the influences of the pulsation phase and the asymmetry.
[cc|cc|cccc]{} & & &\
Wavelength & Visibility & $\theta_{\mathrm{FDD}}$ & Flux $\epsilon$ & $\theta_{\mathrm{FDD,maj}}$ & Axis Ratio $\eta$ & PA $\vartheta$ & Flux $\epsilon$\
($\mu\mathrm{m}$) & error$^{\mathrm{a}}$ & ($\mathrm{mas}$) & & ($\mathrm{mas}$) & & ($^\circ$) &\
$\;$ 8.12& 0.007& $\;$ 81.0 $\pm$ 1.0& 0.86 $\pm$ 0.02& $\;$ 92.5 $\pm$ 5.0& 0.87 $\pm$ 0.07 & $-1$ $\pm$ 4 & 0.89 $\pm$ 0.03\
$\;$ 8.33& 0.007& $\;$ 79.9 $\pm$ 1.2& 0.84 $\pm$ 0.01& $\;$ 88.4 $\pm$ 5.0& 0.89 $\pm$ 0.08 &$\;\,$6 $\pm$ 4 & 0.87 $\pm$ 0.03\
$\;$ 8.54& 0.006& $\;$ 80.8 $\pm$ 1.0& 0.83 $\pm$ 0.01& $\;$ 89.3 $\pm$ 5.0& 0.89 $\pm$ 0.07 & $-1$ $\pm$ 4 & 0.84 $\pm$ 0.03\
$\;$ 8.71& 0.006& $\;$ 80.9 $\pm$ 1.6& 0.86 $\pm$ 0.02& $\;$ 90.5 $\pm$ 5.0& 0.86 $\pm$ 0.07 & $-1$ $\pm$ 4 & 0.86 $\pm$ 0.03\
$\;$ 8.87& 0.006& $\;$ 79.6 $\pm$ 1.0& 0.86 $\pm$ 0.01& $\;$ 84.9 $\pm$ 5.0& 0.91 $\pm$ 0.08 & 14 $\pm$ 4 & 0.86 $\pm$ 0.03\
$\;$ 9.07& 0.006& $\;$ 79.2 $\pm$ 1.0& 0.85 $\pm$ 0.01& $\;$ 85.3 $\pm$ 5.0& 0.89 $\pm$ 0.08 & 15 $\pm$ 4 & 0.86 $\pm$ 0.03\
$\;$ 9.26& 0.006& $\;$ 78.0 $\pm$ 1.0& 0.83 $\pm$ 0.02& $\;$ 85.1 $\pm$ 5.0& 0.88 $\pm$ 0.08 & 18 $\pm$ 4 & 0.85 $\pm$ 0.03\
$\;$ 9.45& 0.006& $\;$ 77.9 $\pm$ 1.2& 0.81 $\pm$ 0.02& $\;$ 87.5 $\pm$ 5.0& 0.86 $\pm$ 0.08 & 13 $\pm$ 4 & 0.83 $\pm$ 0.03\
$\;$ 9.63& 0.006& $\;$ 79.6 $\pm$ 1.2& 0.80 $\pm$ 0.02& $\;$ 89.4 $\pm$ 5.0& 0.85 $\pm$ 0.07 & 14 $\pm$ 4 & 0.81 $\pm$ 0.03\
$\;$ 9.78& 0.006& $\;$ 79.8 $\pm$ 1.2& 0.79 $\pm$ 0.02& $\;$ 90.5 $\pm$ 5.0& 0.84 $\pm$ 0.07 & 14 $\pm$ 4 & 0.81 $\pm$ 0.03\
$\;$ 9.92& 0.006& $\;$ 79.0 $\pm$ 1.2& 0.78 $\pm$ 0.01& $\;$ 89.7 $\pm$ 5.0& 0.85 $\pm$ 0.07 &$\;\,$3 $\pm$ 4 & 0.78 $\pm$ 0.03\
10.09& 0.005& $\;$ 78.8 $\pm$ 1.0& 0.77 $\pm$ 0.01& $\;$ 89.7 $\pm$ 5.0& 0.85 $\pm$ 0.07 &$\;\,$3 $\pm$ 4 & 0.78 $\pm$ 0.03\
10.26& 0.005& $\;$ 80.4 $\pm$ 1.0& 0.76 $\pm$ 0.01& $\;$ 91.5 $\pm$ 5.0& 0.85 $\pm$ 0.07 &$\;\,$5 $\pm$ 4 & 0.77 $\pm$ 0.03\
10.42& 0.005& $\;$ 84.5 $\pm$ 1.4& 0.77 $\pm$ 0.01& $\;$ 93.7 $\pm$ 5.0& 0.86 $\pm$ 0.07 & 13 $\pm$ 4 & 0.77 $\pm$ 0.03\
10.58& 0.005& $\;$ 87.3 $\pm$ 1.4& 0.77 $\pm$ 0.02& $\;$ 98.1 $\pm$ 5.0& 0.84 $\pm$ 0.07 & 15 $\pm$ 4 & 0.78 $\pm$ 0.03\
10.71& 0.005& $\;$ 89.2 $\pm$ 1.4& 0.77 $\pm$ 0.01& $\;$ 99.6 $\pm$ 5.0& 0.85 $\pm$ 0.07 & 15 $\pm$ 4 & 0.78 $\pm$ 0.03\
10.84& 0.005& $\;$ 91.2 $\pm$ 1.2& 0.76 $\pm$ 0.01& 102.2 $\pm$ 5.0& 0.86 $\pm$ 0.06 & 11 $\pm$ 4 & 0.77 $\pm$ 0.03\
10.99& 0.004& $\;$ 94.8 $\pm$ 1.4& 0.76 $\pm$ 0.01& 104.5 $\pm$ 5.0& 0.86 $\pm$ 0.06 & 15 $\pm$ 4 & 0.76 $\pm$ 0.03\
11.14& 0.004& $\;$ 96.3 $\pm$ 1.2& 0.76 $\pm$ 0.01& 105.7 $\pm$ 5.0& 0.87 $\pm$ 0.06 & 14 $\pm$ 4 & 0.77 $\pm$ 0.03\
11.29& 0.004& $\;$ 97.8 $\pm$ 1.2& 0.77 $\pm$ 0.01& 106.8 $\pm$ 5.0& 0.88 $\pm$ 0.06 & 15 $\pm$ 4 & 0.77 $\pm$ 0.03\
11.43& 0.005& $\;$ 98.9 $\pm$ 1.4& 0.76 $\pm$ 0.01& 108.2 $\pm$ 5.0& 0.87 $\pm$ 0.06 & 15 $\pm$ 4 & 0.77 $\pm$ 0.03\
11.55& 0.005& 100.5 $\pm$ 1.4& 0.77 $\pm$ 0.01& 109.8 $\pm$ 5.0& 0.88 $\pm$ 0.06 & 14 $\pm$ 4 & 0.78 $\pm$ 0.03\
11.67& 0.005& 101.6 $\pm$ 1.4& 0.77 $\pm$ 0.01& 110.8 $\pm$ 5.0& 0.88 $\pm$ 0.06 & 15 $\pm$ 4 & 0.78 $\pm$ 0.03\
11.81& 0.004& 103.4 $\pm$ 1.4& 0.78 $\pm$ 0.02& 112.3 $\pm$ 5.0& 0.88 $\pm$ 0.06 & 16 $\pm$ 4 & 0.79 $\pm$ 0.03\
11.95& 0.004& 104.7 $\pm$ 1.2& 0.79 $\pm$ 0.01& 113.2 $\pm$ 5.0& 0.88 $\pm$ 0.06 & 19 $\pm$ 4 & 0.80 $\pm$ 0.03\
This is the mean visibility error used for the corresponding wavelength bin. See Sect. \[secObsSubRed\] for the definition of this value.
The left hand panel of Fig. \[Fig3D\] shows the fit to all 25 wavelength bins. Clearly, the first zero shifts to lower spatial frequencies with increasing wavelength, i.e. the FDD diameter, $\theta_{\mathrm{FDD}}$, increases with increasing wavelength. At the same time, the relative flux contribution, $\epsilon$, of the FDD decreases. This behavior is shown more exactly in the two parameter plots in Fig. \[FigPara\]. From these panels it can be derived that $\theta_{\mathrm{FDD}}$ actually stays constant at a value of about (80 $\pm$ 1.2) mas between 8 and 10 $\mu$m, while it gradually increases at wavelengths longer than 10 $\mu$m to reach (105 $\pm$ 1.2) mas at 12 $\mu$m. The diameter increase in the longer wavelength regime corresponds to a relative increase, $\theta_{FDD,12\mu\mathrm{m}}$/$\theta_{FDD,10\mu\mathrm{m}}$, of (31 $\pm$ 3)%. This apparent increase from 80 mas to 105 mas is equivalent to an increase from 7.1 AU to 9.5 AU at the distance of W Hya. The molecules and close dust species causing this shape are already indicated inside the plot, but will be discussed further in Sect. \[secModSubRes\]. In contrast, the relative flux decreases from (0.85 $\pm$ 0.02) to (0.77 $\pm$ 0.02), reflecting the increased flux contribution from the fully resolved colder surrounding silicate dust shell going to longer wavelengths. A fit to the unbinned grism data results in the same shapes and does not reveal any additional features.
{width="0.49\linewidth"} {width="0.49\linewidth"}
{width="0.49\linewidth"} {width="0.49\linewidth"}
Wavelength dependence of the diameter {#secPhaseSubWave}
-------------------------------------
Before interpreting the previously obtained FDD diameter behavior in the next section, it is set in relation to measurements at other wavelengths. Figure \[FigDia\] shows interferometric the diameter determinations reported by various authors from the visual to the mid-IR. They were obtained by fitting a Gaussian (green), a uniform disk (UD, red) or a fully limb-darkened disk (FDD, blue). A conversion between the models is not performed, since the various diameter determinations depend on the spatial frequency coverage[^17]. Information on visual light phases and position angles (if applicable) of these observations can be found in Table \[TableAuthor\]. In addition to the FDD diameter, derived in this study from the fit to the full data set, the diameter trends at visual maximum (upper curve) and visual minimum (lower curve) are plotted as well (cf. Sect. \[secPhaseSubLight\]).
The observed apparent diameter changes dramatically within the given wavelength range due to the strong wavelength-dependent opacities of the atmospheric constituents (cf. e.g. Baschek et al. [@Baschek_et91] and Scholz et al. [@Scholz01]). In the optical, the measured diameters are sensitive to TiO bands. The largest variations are around the strongest bands at 712 nm and 670 nm with apparent diameter enlargements of up to a factor of 2. It is notable that the diameters observed at around visual minimum by Ireland et al. ([@Ireland04]) are systematically larger compared to the diameters obtained at around visual maximum by Tuthill et al. ([@Tuthill99]). Ireland et al. ([@Ireland04]) conclude that significant dust production occurs near minimum, and suggest that the large increase in apparent diameter towards the blue is caused by light scattered by dust. Gaussian diameters between 0.7 and 1.0 $\mu$m were measured by Ireland et al. ([@Ireland04]) at two position angles ($120^{\circ}$ and $252^{\circ}$). Even though the diameters at both position angles are slightly different, the authors conclude that this is not significant.
In the near-IR, H$_2$O and CO in different layers are predominantly responsible for the wavelength dependence of the diameter. Most of the observations are conducted at J, H, and K bands (1.25, 1.65, and 2.2 $\mu$m, respectively). It can be inferred that also in the near-IR diameters vary by a factor of 2 and that there is a complex diameter dependence on pulsation cycle and pulsation phase (cf. e.g. Weiner et al. [@Weiner_et03]; Woodruff et al. [@Woodruff09]). The gap at around 2.7 $\mu$m in the curve of Woodruff et al. ([@Woodruff09]) comes from telluric contamination. A reasonable estimate for the true photospheric diameter of an AGB star can be obtained from uniform disk measurements at K-Band. The 2.2 $\mu$m diameter is approximately 1.2 times the true photospheric diameter (e.g. Millan-Gabet et al. [@Millan05]).
Wishnow et al. ([@Wishnow_et10]) assume a UD diameter of the stellar component in the mid-IR (11.15 $\mu$m) of about 50 mas for their model. However, this value was reported as not very accurate. Since the FDD diameters obtained with MIDI describe a region whose exact location depends on the flux contribution of all constituents (continuum photosphere, atmospheric molecular layers, and nearby dust shells; cf. Sect. \[secModSubRes\]) as function of wavelength and pulsation phase, and not only the photosphere of the star, both diameters are not comparable, and the apparent discrepancy can be explained. The average of all diameters at 2.2 $\mu$m of the authors given in Table \[TableAuthor\] is (42.8 $\pm$ 3.5) mas. This gives a ratio, $\theta_{\mathrm{FDD},10\mu\mathrm{m}}$/$\theta_{\mathrm{UD},2.2\mu\mathrm{m}}$, of 1.8 $\pm$ 0.2. The UD fit value should be used to compare similar models, and the ratio, $\theta_{\mathrm{UD},10\mu\mathrm{m}}$/$\theta_{\mathrm{UD},2.2\mu\mathrm{m}}$, becomes 1.6 $\pm$ 0.2. From the mean K-band diameter the photospheric diameter, $\theta_{\mathrm{phot}}$, can be estimated to about 36 mas (42.8 mas divided by 1.2, cf. previous paragraph). This value is assumed for $\theta_{\mathrm{phot}}$ throughout this paper and gives a mid-IR to photospheric diameter ratio, $\theta_{\mathrm{UD},10\mu\mathrm{m}}$/$\theta_{\mathrm{phot}}$, of 1.9 $\pm$ 0.2.
Maser observations of different molecules give additional diameter constraints. SiO and H$_2$O masers probe inner regions where the molecular spheres are present and dust formation takes place, while OH masers trace wind regions farther out. Ring diameters for SiO masers were determined by Miyoshi et al. ([@Miyoshi_et94]), Cotton et al. ([@Cotton_et04], [@Cotton_et08]), Reid & Menten ([@Reid_Menten07]), and Imai et al. ([@Imai_et10]). The average of their diameters is about (77 $\pm$ 11) mas, which gives a ratio, $\theta_{\mathrm{SiO}}$/$\theta_{\mathrm{FDD},10\mu\mathrm{m}}$, of 1.0 $\pm$ 0.1 ($\theta_{\mathrm{SiO}}$/$\theta_{\mathrm{UD},10\mu\mathrm{m}}$ = 0.9 $\pm$ 0.1). H$_2$O maser ring diameters for W Hya are on the order of 300 mas (Reid & Menten [@Reid_Menten90]), while OH maser ring diameters at 1665 and 1667 MHz were determined to about 700 and 1130 mas, respectively (Szymczak et al. [@Szymczak_et98], but see also Shintani et al. [@Shintani_et08]). In addition, thermal line emissions of HCN (Muller et al. [@Muller_et08] and Ziurys et al. [@Ziurys_et09]) and CO (e.g. Olofsson et al. [@Olofsson_et02] and Ziurys et al. [@Ziurys_et09]) were repeatedly detected as well.
{width="0.9\linewidth"}
[llccl]{} & Author & Model & Phase$^{\mathrm{a}}$ & Comments and position angles (PA)\
A:& Lattanzi et al. ([@Lattanzi97]) & UD & 0.64 & two perpendicular axes ($\eta$ $\approx$ 0.86, PA $\approx$ $143^{\circ}$, 583 nm)\
B:& Ireland et al. ([@Ireland04]) & Gaussian & 0.44 & upper curve for PA $120^{\circ}$ and lower curve for PA $252^{\circ}$ ($0.7-1.0$ $\mu$m)\
C:& Haniff et al. ([@Haniff_et95]) & UD & 0.04 & uniform disk diameter at 700 and 710 nm\
D:& Tuthill et al. ([@Tuthill99]) & Gaussian & 0.04 & elliptical Gaussian at 700 and 710 nm ($\eta$ $\approx$ 0.94, PA $\approx$ $93^{\circ}$)\
E:& Monnier et al. ([@Monnier04]) & UD & 0.50 & UD model was reported as a bad fit to the data (K band)\
F:& Woodruff et al. ([@Woodruff09]) & UD & $0.58-1.53$ & curves for phase 0.58 (middle), 0.79 (lower) and 1.53 (upper)\
G:& Woodruff et al. ([@Woodruff08]) & UD & $0.50-1.00$ & mean of multiple measurements in given phase range (J, H, K, & L band)\
H:& Millan-Gabet et al. ([@Millan05])& UD & 0.60 & UD diameter for H and K bands\
I:& Wishnow et al. ([@Wishnow_et10]) & UD & $0.1-1.1$ & assumed photospheric UD diameter at 11.15 $\mu$m, reported as not very accurate\
J:& this work & FDD & 0.00 & 0.50 & curves for full data set (middle), max (upper), and min (lower) light\
$^{\mathrm{a}}$ visual light phase (phases refer to the phases determined by the original authors)
Discussion and interpretation {#secModSubRes}
-----------------------------
Studying the interplay of the extended pulsating atmosphere with molecular spheres directly above and the dust formation and wind acceleration zone farther out is crucial for understanding the physical and chemical processes working in AGB stars. With the MIDI interferometer, the photosphere and molecular layers of W Hya are probed, sampling also the region where the first seeds for dust formation originate.
The spectrum in Fig. \[FigSpec\] shows that molecules, such as CO, H$_2$O, and SiO, are present in the upper atmosphere. In the N-band between 8 and 13 $\mu$m, strong pure-rotation lines of H$_2$O are expected. In addition, SiO exhibits fundamental bands between 8 and 10 $\mu$m (Decin [@Decin00]). Modeling by Justtanont et al. ([@Justtanont_et04]) also reveals at least three different dust species, namely amorphous silicate, Al$_2$O$_3$, and MgFeO, which are likely located at different distances from the star. In particular, amorphous Al$_2$O$_3$ provides significant opacity for wavelengths longwards of 10 $\mu$m (cf. e.g. Koike et al. [@Koike_et95], Begemann et al. [@Begemann_et97], Posch et al. [@Posch_et99], Egan & Sloan [@Egan_Sloan01], Woitke et al. [@Woitke06], Ireland & Scholz [@Ireland_Scholz06] and Robinson & Maldoni [@Robinson_Maldoni10]), and it can survive at high temperatures.
Quasi-static, warm, and dense molecular layers close to the star, at typically $2-3$ photospheric radii ($R_{\mathrm{phot}}$), are detected for O-rich (e.g. Mennesson et al. [@Mennesson_et02]; Perrin et al. [@Perrin_et04]; Ireland et al. [@Ireland_et04d]; Woodruff et al. [@Woodruff_et04] and Fedele et al. [@Fedele_et2005]) and C-rich (e.g. Hron et al. [@Hron_et98] and Ohnaka et al. [@Ohnaka_et07]) AGB stars, as well as for RSG stars (e.g. Perrin et al. [@Perrin_et07]). These layers were introduced earlier to explain spectroscopic observations (e.g. Hinkle & Barnes [@Hinkle_Barnes_79]; Tsuji et al. [@Tsuji_et97] and Yamamura et al. [@Yamamura_et99]).
In particular, the O-rich Miras RR Sco (Ohnaka et al. [@Ohnaka_et05]) and S Ori (Wittkowski et al. [@Wittkowski_et07]) show a diameter behavior very similar to that of W Hya throughout the N-band. Comparing the shape from the left hand panel of Fig. \[FigPara\] with Fig. 1e in Ohnaka et al. ([@Ohnaka_et05]) and Figs. $2-5$d in Wittkowski et al. ([@Wittkowski_et07]) leads to the idea that, in all three stars, the same constituents and mechanisms are responsible for this appearance.
The diameter ratio $\theta_{12\mu\mathrm{m}}$/$\theta_{10\mu\mathrm{m}}$ is approximately 1.3 for RR Sco, for S Ori between 1.3 and 1.5, and for W Hya approximately 1.3 (Sect. \[secModSubModel\]). Even the increase between the K-band diameter and the diameter at 10 $\mu$m is similar. The ratio $\theta_{\mathrm{UD},10 \mu\mathrm{m}}$/$\theta_{\mathrm{UD},2.2 \mu\mathrm{m}}$ is for RR Sco approximately 1.8, for S Ori between 1.6 and 2.2 and for W Hya approximately 1.6 (Sect. \[secPhaseSubWave\]).
Ohnaka et al. ([@Ohnaka_et05]) modeled RR Sco by adding a molecular layer of H$_2$O and SiO, and a dust layer, consisting of aluminum oxide and silicates, to a static star with a fixed temperature. This composition reproduced the N-band diameter behavior very reasonably, with an inner radius for the dust shell of 7.5 $R_{\mathrm{phot}}$, while the molecular layers were located at a radius of 2.3 $R_{\mathrm{phot}}$. The large dust shell radius might be due to the mix of 80% aluminum oxide (Al$_2$O$_3$) and 20% silicates and because the same density profile and inner condensation radius were used for both dust species.
Wittkowski et al. ([@Wittkowski_et07]) modeled S Ori with the dynamic atmospheric models of Ireland et al. ([@Ireland_et04b], [@Ireland_et04c]), where the molecular layers are naturally included and only the dust shell has to be added ad hoc. This assumes that the stellar atmosphere and dust shell are spatially separated. They allowed different density profiles and condensation radii for the aluminum oxide and silicate dust. The model without silicates fitted the data better. The inner boundary of the Al$_2$O$_3$ dust shell varied between 1.8 and 2.4 photospheric radii. At visual minimum, the dust shell was more compact with a larger optical depth, and it had a smaller radius, while at visual maximum the opposite was the case.
W Hya can be explained by a similar model. The overall larger diameter in the mid-IR is caused by a warm molecular layer of H$_2$O, and the gradual increase longward of 10 $\mu$m arises most likely from the presence of Al$_2$O$_3$ dust close to this layer. A nearby SiO molecular shell might be of some relevance for the diameter enlargement between 8 and 10 $\mu$m as well. The formation of Al$_2$O$_3$ dust at these short distances from the stellar surface would be consistent with the empirical results by Lorenz-Martins & Pompeia ([@LorenzMartins_Pompeia00]), as well as with recent theoretical calculations by Ireland & Scholz ([@Ireland_Scholz06]) and Woitke ([@Woitke06]).
Dust can only exist close to the star if the temperature is below the condensation temperature of the dust species. A rough estimate of the equivalent blackbody temperature from the total MIDI flux, the flux fraction $\epsilon$, and the diameter $\theta_{\mathrm{FDD}}$ gives a value of about (800 $\pm$ 100) K at the location of the FDD radius. This temperature is low enough that aluminum oxide dust can condensate (cf. e.g. Woitke [@Woitke_et99]). Since Al$_2$O$_3$ has only a moderate abundance and a low absorption efficiency at optical and near-IR wavelengths, i.e. near the flux maximum at around 1 $\mu$m, it cannot be responsible for initiating the mass loss (cf. e.g. Woitke [@Woitke06]). Al$_2$O$_3$ can exist close to the star without inducing mass loss.
Scattering off large Fe-free silicate grains may solve this problem, as these micron-sized silicates do not have a considerable absorption cross-section, but a high radiative scattering cross-section around the flux maximum at 1 $\mu$m (cf. H[ö]{}fner [@Hoefner08]). However, these grains are not detected with MIDI. If a large amount of Fe-free silicates existed *close* to the star, an emission feature in the MIDI spectrum at around 10 $\mu$m would be present (due to strong vibrational resonances), and it would also modify the apparent FDD diameter around this wavelength. Therefore, the wind acceleration mechanism proposed by H[ö]{}fner ([@Hoefner08]) cannot be directly verified. However, since the mass-loss rate of W Hya is very low (cf. e.g. Nowotny et al. [@Nowotny_et10]), this behavior is not surprising. This applies not only to W Hya, but also to RR Sco and S Ori. All three O-rich AGB stars have moderate to low mass-loss rates. The similar behavior of the apparent diameter throughout the N-band suggests that the appropriate mechanism for a moderate-to-low mass-loss rate is similar, since the conditions appear similar in the transition region (between the photosphere and the silicate dust shell) where the wind should be initiated, even if the mechanism cannot be clarified here. In general, another possibility of forming a wind in O-rich AGB stars is to accelerate small amounts of carbon grains (H[ö]{}fner & Anderson [@HoefnerAndersen_07]). Unfortunately, these carbon grains, formed in nonequilibrium environments, do not show any spectral features in the mid-infrared and would probably produce IR colors that are not consistent with the observations (H[ö]{}fner, private communication). In this context it might be interesting to know whether scattering on Al$_2$O$_3$ grains is important, even if they are probably not abundant enough. Also the role of large amounts of water vapor in molecular shells and the radiation pressure on water molecules may need more detailed calculations.
As described in the previous section, W Hya exhibits SiO maser emission at a distance of about 0.9 times the equivalent UD diameter. The SiO maser spots are therefore co-located with the close aluminum oxide dust shell. This is very similar to what was found for S Ori (Wittkowski et al. [@Wittkowski_et07]), and supports an explanation by a similar model.
From the analysis of the spectrum and the fact that the flux contribution of the star/layer is below one, it was concluded that a circumstellar silicate dust shell exists around W Hya with a lower limit to the condensation radius of about 28 times the photospheric radius. At these large radii, aluminum oxide dust grains are no longer detectable, since silicon and magnesium are much more abundant than aluminum, and they dominate the dust opacities. The low flux contribution of the silicate dust shell is consistent with a low mass-loss rate of W Hya.
With the previous results, the shape of the visibility curves in the left hand panel of Fig. \[FigUVall\] can be understood qualitatively. The visibility increase between 8 and 10 $\mu$m corresponds to the partially resolved stellar disk (including the close molecular layers) at an almost constant FDD diameter, while in the region between 10 and 12 $\mu$m, the flux contribution of the spatially resolved Al$_2$O$_3$ dust shell becomes more relevant. This leads longward of 10 $\mu$m to the nearly flat visibility curve and an increased FDD diameter (cf. Ohnaka et al. [@Ohnaka_et05] and Wittkowski et al. [@Wittkowski_et07]). In addition, extinction of the outer silicate dust shell becomes important. The comparison with RR Sco and S Ori suggests that the partially resolved molecular layers are optically thick and that the nearby Al$_2$O$_3$ dust shell is optically thin.
It is clear that quantitative modeling is needed to support the above findings, in particular, if the derived constituents of the close molecular and dust layers (H$_2$O, SiO?, Al$_2$O$_3$) can really provide sufficient opacities to explain the observed diameter dependence on wavelength, in particular if Al$_2$O$_3$ could cause the apparent diameter increase beyond 10 $\mu$m. To quantify the results, it will be necessary to apply dynamic atmospheric models of e.g. Ireland & Scholz ([@Ireland_Scholz06]). Even if Al$_2$O$_3$ dust has not been consistently included in these models so far, and has often to be added ad hoc[^18]. This will give more detailed insight into the physical processes at work there.
Asymmetry, intracycle variations, and cycle-to-cycle variations {#secPhase}
===============================================================
Since observations at similar pulsation phases were mostly conducted at similar position angles, the effects of different diameters, owing to asymmetry and pulsation, are unfortunately not easy to disentangle. At visual minimum, the position angles (PA) cluster at around 90$^\circ$ (green tick marks in Fig. \[FigLight\_p\]). At these position angles, the visibilities are higher than expected for a circular FDD, i.e., a smaller diameter is observed. At visual maximum, the PA is around 50$^\circ$ (red tick marks in Fig. \[FigLight\_p\]) with the result of getting lower visibilities as expected for a circular FDD, i.e., a larger diameter. This trend is more clearly shown in the right hand panel of Fig. \[Fig3D\], where the visibilities of the observations and the visibilities of a circular FDD are compared as a function of position angle. Obviously, the difference between both quantities changes its sign by going from 0$^\circ$ to 90$^\circ$.
The above behavior is notable if all 75 observations over all three pulsation cycles are included in the investigation. A careful analysis, as described below, reveals both effects in W Hya. The result will be that the diameter variation due to an elliptical asymmetry and due to the pulsation effect have the same order of magnitude.
The pulsation cycle is divided into four bins as shown in Fig. \[FigLight\_p\]. Bins 1, 2, and 3 consist of 23, 42, and 10 observations with phase ranges $0.875-0.125$, $0.125-0.375$, and $0.375-0.625$, respectively. There are no observations for bin 4 with a phase range of $0.625-0.875$. Bin 1 contains observations at visual maximum and bin 3 observations at visual minimum.
Elliptical asymmetry {#secPhaseSubAsy}
--------------------
{width="0.49\linewidth"} {width="0.49\linewidth"}
Studying asymmetric features requires a good angular uv-coverage at each projected baseline length obtained within a reasonable time. Since the dependence on the visual light phase introduces already additional complexity into the model, only a simple elliptical model can be applied in order to get an indication for a departure from symmetry.
For these reasons, an elliptical FDD is fitted to subsets of the full data set. Each subset contains data with similar spatial frequencies and a narrow visual light phase range at a certain pulsation cycle. For all these configurations the resulting fits show similar nonuniformity with comparable position angles and axis ratios. The fit was repeated for the full data set to obtain an overall departure from symmetry and to have a more reliable uncertainty estimation, since the subsets have a high scatter and can contain discordant values due to fewer data points. The similarity of the results for the subsets shows that the ellipticity is stable to first order over a few years, over a certain stellar extension, and not dependent on the pulsation phase. Therefore, the parameters obtained for the full data set are given in Table \[TableResults\].
Listed are the major diameters, $\theta_{\mathrm{FDD,maj}}$, the axis ratios, $\eta$, the position angles, $\vartheta$, and the relative fluxes, $\epsilon$. The mean $\vartheta$ and $\eta$ over the full wavelength range are (11.2 $\pm$ 6.2)$^\circ$ and (0.87 $\pm$ 0.07), respectively. Compared to the symmetric FDD, the fluxes are identical within the errors as expected, while the reduced chi square estimates gave lower values, thus indicating a slightly better model. The right hand panel of Fig. \[FigSymModel\] shows the fit of the elliptical FDD for wavelength bin 6 (9.07 $\mu$m). The visibility model curves for the minor and major axes are drawn together with the data points, showing that they fit the measurements at the corresponding angles.
However, the parameter errors are most probably underestimated because of the high number of free parameters in combination with not negligible uncertainties in the data. In particular, the PA estimation is not very well constrained, and the error might be more on the order of 15$^\circ$ to 20$^\circ$, if compared with all fitted subsets. Figure \[FigAsymModel\] shows the asymmetric appearance of W Hya. The left hand panel shows the fit of the elliptical FDD for a representative wavelength, and the right hand panel displays the corresponding appearance on the sky for this model and mid-IR wavelength. The investigation of the differential phases obtained with MIDI are unfortunately not conclusive, since they are smaller than the assumed errors, and no additional constrains can be inferred from them.
Position angle estimations in the literature are very contradictory and are summarized in Table \[TablePA\] and illustrated in Fig. \[FigGlobal\]. Lattanzi et al. ([@Lattanzi97])[^19] and Tuthill et al. ([@Tuthill99]) have found in the visual a PA of 143$^\circ$ and (94 $\pm$ 33)$^\circ$, respectively, while no asymmetries could be detected in the near IR within the measurement uncertainties (Ireland et al. [@Ireland04] and Monnier et al. [@Monnier04]). From the photospheric radio continuum, Reid & Menten ([@Reid_Menten07]) determine a PA of (83 $\pm$ 18)$^\circ$, whereas Szymczak et al. ([@Szymczak_et98]) find for the projected angle of the magnetic field on the plane of the sky, obtained from OH maser observations, a value of about $-20^\circ$ (the PA of the underlying OH maser distribution is 70$^\circ$), and a velocity discontinuity along the N$\rightarrow$S axis. The 215.2 GHz SO line, observed by Vlemmings et al. ([@Vlemmings_et11]), also shows an velocity gradient along an N$\rightarrow$S axis with an PA of the structure of (3 $\pm$ 10)$^\circ$. Muller et al. ([@Muller_et08]) detect in the HCN velocity an NW$\rightarrow$SE gradient. Interestingly, the outer dust envelope, observed by Marengo et al. ([@Marengo_et00]) at 18 $\mu$m, shows a very similar N$-$S elongation as determined in this work. Asymmetries in the SiO and H$_2$O maser spot distributions were, e.g., reported by Reid & Menten ([@Reid_Menten90],[@Reid_Menten07]) and Imai et al. ([@Imai_et10]).
{width="0.9\linewidth"}
[lclccc]{} Author & Ref$^{\mathrm{a}}$ & Obs Date & PA ($^\circ$) & Wavelength & Region$^{\mathrm{b}}$\
Lattanzi et al. ([@Lattanzi97]) & \[8\] & 1995 Dec 17 & 143$^{\mathrm{c}}$ & 583 nm & inner\
Tuthill et al. ([@Tuthill99]) & \[7\] & 1993 Jun & 94 $\pm$ 33 & 700 and 710 nm & inner\
Ireland et al. ([@Ireland04]) & $-$ & 2001 Feb 8/9 & $-^{\mathrm{d}}$ & $680-940$ nm & inner\
Monnier et al. ([@Monnier04]) & $-$ & 2000 Jan/Feb & $-^{\mathrm{d}}$ & 2.25 $\mu$m (K band) & inner\
this work & \[9\] & $2007-2009$ & 11 $\pm$ 20 & $8-12$ $\mu$m (N band) & inner\
Reid & Menten ([@Reid_Menten07]) & \[6\] & 2000 Oct/Nov & 83 $\pm$ 18 & 43 GHz (radio continuum) & inner\
& \[5\] & 2000 Oct/Nov & contours & 43 GHz (SiO maser) & inner\
Imai et al. ([@Imai_et10]) & \[10\] & 2009 Feb & spots & 43 GHz (SiO maser) & inner\
Reid & Menten ([@Reid_Menten90]) & \[4\] & 1990 Feb & contours & 22 GHz (H$_2$O maser) & intermediate\
Marengo et al. ([@Marengo_et00]) & $-^{\mathrm{e}}$ & 1999 Jun & N$-$S & $18$ $\mu$m (1.18”$\times$1.45” $FWHM$) & outer\
Szymczak et al. ([@Szymczak_et98])& \[1\] & 1996 Jan 15 & N$\rightarrow$S & 1667 MHz (OH maser), velocity gradient & outer\
& \[2\] & 1996 Jan 15 & $-20$ $\pm$ 20$^{\mathrm{f}}$ & 1667 MHz (OH maser), magnetic field & outer\
Muller et al. ([@Muller_et08]) & \[3\] & 2008 Apr 13/15& NW$\rightarrow$SE & 266 GHz (thermal HCN), velocity gradient & outer\
Vlemmings et al. ([@Vlemmings_et11])& $-^{\mathrm{e}}$ & 2008 Jul 20 & 3 $\pm$ 10 & 215 GHz (SO $5_5-4_4$) & outer\
$^{\mathrm{a}}$ numbering used in Fig. \[FigGlobal\]; $^{\mathrm{b}}$ probed regions: inner = $50-100$ mas, outer $\approx$ 1000 mas; $^{\mathrm{c}}$ the true major axis cannot be recovered since observations are at two perpendicular baselines; $^{\mathrm{d}}$ no departures from symmetry could be detected within the measurement uncertainties; $^{\mathrm{e}}$ not shown in Fig. \[FigGlobal\] since the whole structure does not fit into the illustration; $^{\mathrm{f}}$ the position angle of the major axis of the underlying OH maser distribution is 70$^\circ$
From Fig. \[FigGlobal\] it can be inferred that the reported velocity gradients and the magnetic field alignment are approximately in a direction perpendicular to an E-W axis where most of the maser spots are located. If the velocity gradients originate from a general rotation of the circumstellar environment and the maser spots trace the highest molecule concentrations, then this might suggest that molecular gas is primarily ejected along this E-W polar axis. This would be also consistent with the PA of the photospheric radio continuum. The dust emission traced by the observations at $18$ $\mu$m and the N-band are approximately elongated in a more perpendicular direction to this. This might suggest that the dust is more concentrated in an equatorial disk (or ring) located along an N-S axis. Therefore, one could conclude that the molecular gas and the dust are spatially separated, i.e., they have preferred ejection directions, and the different observational wavelengths probe this.
However, this is still very uncertain since not all PA determinations fit into this picture or deviate quite a lot from this, e.g., the PAs at optical wavelengths and the 215 GHz PA. Therefore, a strict connection between the outer structures and the close stellar regions also cannot really be established. One has to keep in mind that the concentration of maser spots along the E-W polar axis may only reflect that no velocity gradients exists along this axis and masers are traceable because of the inexistent Doppler shifts.
Other explanations are therefore still possible, in particular if time-dependent effects are important. The wide range of measured PAs at close photospheric radii might be related to a nonradial pulsation or due to clumpy dust formation. A temporally varying non-symmetric brightness distribution could also be caused by stellar spots or large convection zones. A deformation as a result of a close companion can most probably be excluded, since no evidence for such a scenario has been observed so far. However, from the data collected here, no significant temporal trends could be derived. In particular, the MIDI observations did not show any time variations of the asymmetry over about three years. This calls for more high-resolution observations and more detailed modeling. A connection to the highly elongated structures seen in planetary nebulae cannot be drawn, since W Hya is believed to be still in an early AGB phase.
Intracycle variations {#secPhaseSubLight}
---------------------
To estimate a light phase dependent angular diameter in the presence of a position angle dependence, the projected baseline values of the input data are transformed in a way such that the elliptical model transforms into a circular model. This means that the projected baselines are artificially shortened (around the major axis) or lengthened (around the minor axis), i.e. as function of position angle, so that an elliptical model fit to the data shows no departure from circular symmetry in the new coordinate system. The parameters derived from the elliptical FFD fit are used for this shearing. This transformation keeps the fitted absolute diameter values from being meaningful, so only differences with respect to a fit of a circular FDD to the full sheared data set are given.
The fit of a circular FDD to the sheared data of the intermediate phase bin (bin 2) gives on average a (1.2 $\pm$ 2.3) mas smaller diameter. The difference between maximum phase, with an on average (2.2 $\pm$ 2.3) mas larger diameter, and minimum phase, with an on average (3.2 $\pm$ 3.7) mas smaller diameter, is (5.4 $\pm$ 1.8) mas (cf. left hand panel of Table \[TableVar\]). This corresponds to a percentage change of (6 $\pm$ 2)%. The individual wavelength-dependent trends can be seen in the left hand panel of Figure \[FigPara\]. As can be inferred from the plot, the shapes for all individual phase bins are very similar, indicating again that the different constituents probed at different wavelengths behave similarly. The relative flux was fixed to the value obtained for the full data set (shown in the right hand panel of Fig. \[FigPara\]).
[ccccc]{} Phase & Phase & No of & Absolute$^{\mathrm{c}}$ FDD & Relative$^{\mathrm{c}}$ FDD\
Bin$^{\mathrm{a}}$ & Range & Obs. & Difference (mas) & Diameter\
1 & 0.875$-$0.125 & 23 & $+$(2.2 $\pm$ 2.3) & 1.02 $\pm$ 0.02\
2 & 0.125$-$0.375 & 42 & $-$(1.2 $\pm$ 2.3) & 0.99 $\pm$ 0.02\
3 & 0.375$-$0.625 & 10 & $-$(3.2 $\pm$ 3.7) & 0.96 $\pm$ 0.04\
4 & 0.625$-$0.875 & 0 & – & –\
[cccc]{} Cycle$^{\mathrm{b}}$ & No of & Absolute$^{\mathrm{c}}$ FDD & Relative$^{\mathrm{c}}$ FDD\
& Obs. & Difference (mas) & Diameter\
1 & 8 & $-$(2.9 $\pm$ 2.4) & 0.97 $\pm$ 0.02\
2 & 8 & $-$(3.1 $\pm$ 2.4) & 0.96 $\pm$ 0.02\
3 & 11 & $+$(1.5 $\pm$ 3.0) & 1.02 $\pm$ 0.03\
$^{\mathrm{a}}$ cf. Fig. \[FigLight\_p\]; $^{\mathrm{b}}$ cf. Fig. \[FigLight\_t\]; $^{\mathrm{c}}$ in respect to the full data set value
The diameter variation is relatively small compared to the findings by Wittkowski et al. ([@Wittkowski_et07]) for the Mira variable S Ori. A phase-dependent diameter of S Ori cannot be derived directly from their measurements, since observations at visual maximum and visual minimum were executed at different projected baselines. However, from the modeling results shown in their Fig. 12, it can be roughly estimated that the photospheric diameter changes by approximately (15 $\pm$ 5)% and show a similar behavior as function of visual phase. The smaller variation for W Hya can be expected since it has a smaller visual amplitude and is classified as an SRa/Mira variable, but it could also be related to the large phase-binning used in this study.
The observed smaller angular diameter at visual minimum and the larger angular diameter at visual maximum can be explained by the phase-dependent presence of water vapor (Matsuura et al. [@Matsuura_et02]) and aluminum oxide dust (Ireland & Scholz [@Ireland_Scholz06] and Wittkowski et al. [@Wittkowski_et07]). The star is hotter at visual maximum and H$_2$O and Al$_2$O$_3$ dust can only exist farther out. At visual minimum, dust forms closer to the stellar surface and in larger amounts (otherwise it would be not detectable with MIDI close to the star), and suggests that the mass-loss rate is higher in this phase or shortly after this phase.
While the observations made in this work show that possible Al$_2$O$_3$ dust exists closer to the star at visual minimum and farther out at visual maximum, it cannot be determined conclusively how this relates to the acceleration of the wind and the low mass-loss rate. Al$_2$O$_3$ can exist in the upper atmosphere without mass loss, and potentially relevant micrometer-sized Fe-free silicates were not detected with MIDI due to the low mass-loss rate and a therefore low abundance. Therefore, it is still possible that the wind formation and mass-loss mechanism is to a certain amount decoupled from the pulsation, even if it can be speculated that the relevant constituents for the wind acceleration are formed along with Al$_2$O$_3$.
Simultaneous observations, tracing the relevant constituents and providing kinematic information, are necessary (e.g., high-resolution radio and mm observations of molecules/masers), and a comparison with dynamic atmospheric models can only be of limited success as long as the dust formation is not included.
Cycle-to-cycle variations {#secPhaseSubCycle}
-------------------------
W Hya was observed over three consecutive pulsation cycles. For each cycle, data between phases 0.2 and 0.4 are used to search for cycle-to-cycle variations. These three ranges are shaded in Fig. \[FigLight\_t\]. The ranges contain 8, 8, and 11 observations, respectively, and have a sufficient spatial frequency coverage. A circular FDD is fitted to these observations (which are sheared as described in Sect. \[secPhaseSubLight\]), while the relative flux is fixed to the value obtained for the full data set. This compensates for fewer measurements and avoids the problem of being too dependent on fewer points at low spatial frequencies (i.e. $<$ 10 arcsec$^{-1}$).
Cycles 1 and 2 give similar diameters, with values on average of about (3.0 $\pm$ 2.4) mas below the diameter obtained for the full data set (cf. right hand panel of Table \[TableVar\]). The diameter for cycle 3 is marginally higher, being on average (1.5 $\pm$ 3.0) mas above the full data set value. This means that the maximal variation due to non-repeatability of the pulsation is on the order of (5 $\pm$ 4)%, and is thus lower than intracycle variations. However, regarding the uncertainties, this is only marginally significant. The wavelength-dependent shape of the diameter does not change notably between cycles.
This gives an order of magnitude estimate of how large pulsation instabilities in SR variables are, but also reflects the chaotic atmospheric behavior. These variations are smaller than might be expected. From models by e.g. H[ö]{}fner & Dorfi ([@HoefnerDorfi_97]), Hofmann et al. [@Hofmann_et98], Ireland et al. ([@Ireland_et04c]), Ireland & Scholz ([@Ireland_Scholz06]), and Nowotny et al. ([@Nowotny_et10]) for Mira variables, it can be derived that the location of mass shells and dust condensation radii can vary by up to 20% with a characteristic mean of 10%. However, it should be kept in mind that the movement of mass shells and dust condensation radii cannot be directly compared to changes in the atmospheric radius-density structure that is traced by interferometric observations. On the other hand, these marginal size changes are not surprising if compared with the relatively small intracycle variations and the fact that W Hya is an SR variable. Finally, this verifies that the folding of consecutive pulsation cycles in the previous diameter and intracycle analysis is an acceptable assumption.
Summary {#secConc}
=======
W Hya was monitored over about three years in the thermal IR ($8-12$ $\mu$m). These are the first high-resolution interferometric N-band observations of W Hya with MIDI. A photometric study reveals a clear phase dependency of the N-band flux with a flux variation on the order of 20% between maximum and minimum light. The mid-IR maximum occurs after the visual maximum at visual phase 0.15 $\pm$ 0.05.
The visibility data can be best fitted with a fully limb-darkened disk, which accounts to some extent for surrounding atmospheric layers. The resulting FDD diameter of W Hya is almost constant between 8 and 10 $\mu$m at a value of about (80 $\pm$ 1.2) mas (7.8 AU), while it gradually increases at wavelengths longer than 10 $\mu$m to reach (105 $\pm$ 1.2) mas (10.3 AU) at 12 $\mu$m. In contrast, the relative flux decreases from (0.85 $\pm$ 0.02) to (0.77 $\pm$ 0.02), reflecting the increased flux contribution from a fully resolved surrounding silicate dust shell. From field-of-view effects, it could be derived that the silicate dust shell has an inner radius larger than 28 photospheric radii ($>$50 AU, $>$0.5 arcsec).
The measured apparent mid-IR diameter at 10 $\mu$m is about 1.6 $\pm$ 0.2 times larger than the near K-band diameter ($\theta_{\mathrm{UD},10 \mu\mathrm{m}}$/$\theta_{\mathrm{UD},2.2 \mu\mathrm{m}}$), i.e. about 1.9 times the photospheric diameter. This is very similar to findings by Weiner et al. ([@Weiner_et03]), Perrin et al. ([@Perrin_et04]) and Tatebe et al. ([@Tatebe_et06]) for similar stars. In particular, the diameter behavior throughout the N-band is comparable with observations of the O-rich Mira stars RR Sco and S Ori by Ohnaka et al. ([@Ohnaka_et05]) and Wittkowski et al. ([@Wittkowski_et07]), respectively.
W Hya is therefore described by an analogous model. The constant diameter part results from a partially resolved stellar disk, including the close molecular layer of H$_2$O, while the increase beyond 10 $\mu$m can be most likely attributed to the contribution of a spatially resolved nearby amorphous Al$_2$O$_3$ dust shell. Probably owing to the low mass-loss rate, close Fe-free silicate dust, as proposed by H[ö]{}fner [@Hoefner08], could not be detected with MIDI.
Since observations at similar pulsation phases were mostly conducted at similar position angles, the effects of different diameters, owing to elliptical asymmetry and pulsation, are unfortunately not easy to disentangle. By only using certain pulsation phases and projected baselines an asymmetric character of the extended structure could be confirmed. An elliptical FDD, with a position angle of (11 $\pm$ 20)$^\circ$ and an axis ratio of (0.87 $\pm$ 0.07), fits the data. The asymmetry might be explained by an enhanced dust concentration along an N-S axis.
To estimate the dependence of the angular diameter as a function of visual light phase, the input data are sheared. The observed angular diameter is smaller at visual minimum and larger at visual maximum with a periodic change of (5.4 $\pm$ 1.8) mas between maximum and minimum, corresponding to about (6 $\pm$ 2)%. This is much less than reported for the high amplitude pulsating Mira star S Ori (Wittkowski et al. [@Wittkowski_et07]). The smaller observed angular diameter at visual minimum can be explained by the phase-dependent presence of water vapor and likely aluminum oxide dust and their temperature sensitivity. Since this variation only traces the location of constituents that are probably not relevant for the wind formation, no firm conclusions can be drawn concerning the mass-loss mechanism. One can only speculate that more dust forms at visual minimum and that the mechanism for a moderate-to-low mass-loss rate is similar for O-rich SR and Mira variables. The detected cycle-to-cycle variations are smaller than intracycle variations and on the order of (5 $\pm$ 4)%.
The observation of nearby molecular layers and a nearby dust shell, like in other AGB stars, confirms the emerging standard picture and supports the need for self-consistent dynamic atmospheric models with consistently included dust formation close to the star. Primarily, the close Al$_2$O$_3$ dust shell most likely detected in our observations, well below the distance at which the silicate dust shell is traced, has now been revealed in a few objects. It has also been shown that a good phase and uv-coverage over the whole pulsation cycle can be crucial, while interferometric observations in the N-band are an irreplaceable tool for resolving close stellar structures and for searching for atmospheric constituents. Future work will concentrate on improving the data reduction process further and on applying dynamical atmospheric models to the data.
We thank Michael Scholz and Mike Ireland for providing new theoretical models, Markus Wittkowski and Keiichi Ohnaka for fruitful discussion, and Henry Woodroff and Mike Ireland for making diameter data sets available. The first author would also like to thank the *International Max-Planck Research School* (IMPRS) for its financial support with a fellowship. We acknowledge with thanks the variable star observations from the AAVSO International Database contributed by observers worldwide and used in this research. This research has made use of the SIMBAD database, operated at the CDS, France, the ISO/IRAS database and NASA’s Astrophysical Data System. We would also thank the referee for his or her very valuable comments.
Baschek, B., Scholz, M., & Wehrse, R. 1991, , 246, 374
Bedding, T. R., Jacob, A. P., Scholz, M., & Wood, P. R. 2001, , 325, 1487
Begemann, B., Dorschner, J., Henning, T., Mutschke, H., Guertler, J., Koempe, C., & Nass, R. 1997, , 476, 199
Cotton, W. D., et al. 2004, , 414, 275
Cotton, W. D., Perrin, G., & Lopez, B. 2008, , 477, 853
de Beck, E., Decin, L., de Koter, A., Justtanont, K., Verhoelst, T., Kemper, F., & Menten, K. M. 2010, , 523, A18
Decin, L. 2000, Ph.D. Thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
Egan, M. P., & Sloan, G. C. 2001, , 558, 165
Fedele, D., Wittkowski, M., Paresce, F., Scholz, M., Wood, P. R., & Ciroi, S. 2005, , 431, 1019
Habing, H. J., & Olofsson, H. 2004, Springer, Asymptotic Giant Branch Stars
Haniff, C. A., Scholz, M., & Tuthill, P. G. 1995, , 276, 640
Hawkins, G. W. 1990, , 229, L5
Hinkle, K. H., & Barnes, T. G. 1979, , 227, 923
Hinkle, K. H., Lebzelter, T., & Scharlach, W. W. G. 1997, , 114, 2686
Hofmann, K.-H., Scholz, M., & Wood, P. R. 1998, , 339, 846
H[ö]{}fner, S., & Dorfi, E. A. 1997, , 319, 648
H[ö]{}fner, S., Gautschy-Loidl, R., Aringer, B., & J[ø]{}rgensen, U. G. 2003, , 399, 589
H[ö]{}fner, S., & Andersen, A. C. 2007, , 465, L39
H[ö]{}fner, S. 2008, , 491, L1
Hron, J., Loidl, R., H[ö]{}fner, S., Jorgensen, U. G., Aringer, B., & Kerschbaum, F. 1998, , 335, L69
Imai, H., Nakashima, J.-I., Deguchi, S., Yamauchi, A., Nakagawa, A., & Nagayama, T. 2010, , 62, 431
Ireland, M. J., Tuthill, P. G., Bedding, T. R., Robertson, J. G., & Jacob, A. P. 2004a, , 350, 365
Ireland, M. J., Scholz, M., & Wood, P. R. 2004b, , 352, 318
Ireland, M. J., Scholz, M., Tuthill, P. G., & Wood, P. R. 2004c, , 355, 444
Ireland, M., Tuthill, P., Robertson, G., Bedding, T., Jacob, A., Monnier, J., & Danchi, W. 2004d, IAU Colloq. 193: Variable Stars in the Local Group, 310, 327
Ireland, M. J., & Scholz, M. 2006, , 367, 1585
Ireland, M. J., Scholz, M., & Wood, P. R. 2008, , 391, 1994
Jacob, A. P., Bedding, T. R., Robertson, J. G., & Scholz, M. 2000, , 312, 733
Justtanont, K., de Jong, T., Tielens, A. G. G. M., Feuchtgruber, H., & Waters, L. B. F. M. 2004, , 417, 625
Justtanont, K., et al. 2005, , 439, 627
Knapp, G. R., Pourbaix, D., Platais, I., & Jorissen, A. 2003, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 340, 30993
Koike, C., Kaito, C., Yamamoto, T., Shibai, H., Kimura, S., & Suto, H. 1995, , 114, 203
Lattanzi, M. G., Munari, U., Whitelock, P. A., & Feast, M. W. 1997, , 485, 328
Lattanzio, J. C., & Wood, P. 2004, in Asymptotic Giant Branch Stars, ed. H. J. Habing, & H. Olofsson (Springer), chap. 2, 83
Lebzelter, T., Hinkle, K. H., Wood, P. R., Joyce, R. R., & Fekel, F. C. 2005, , 431, 623
Lebzelter, T., Nowotny, W., H[ö]{}fner, S., Lederer, M. T., Hinkle, K. H., & Aringer, B. 2010, , 517, A6
Leinert, C., et al. 2003, , 286, 73
Leinert, C., et al. 2004, , 423, 537
Lorenz-Martins, S., & Pompeia, L. 2000, , 315, 856
Marengo, M., Fazio, G. G., Hora, J. L., Hoffmann, W. F., Dayal, A., & Deutsch, L. K. 2000, Asymmetrical Planetary Nebulae II: From Origins to Microstructures, 199, 91
Matsuura, M., Yamamura, I., Cami, J., Onaka, T., & Murakami, H. 2002, , 383, 972
Maercker, M., et al. 2009, , 494, 243
Mennesson, B., et al. 2002, , 579, 446
Millan-Gabet, R., Pedretti, E., Monnier, J. D., Schloerb, F. P., Traub, W. A., Carleton, N. P., Lacasse, M. G., & Segransan, D. 2005, , 620, 961
Miyoshi, M., Matsumoto, K., Kameno, S., Takaba, H., & Lwata, T. 1994, , 371, 395
Monnier, J. D., et al. 2004, , 605, 436
Muller, S., Dinh-V-Trung, He, J.-H., & Lim, J. 2008, , 684, L33
Nowotny, W., H[ö]{}fner, S., & Aringer, B. 2010, , 514, A35
Olofsson, H., Gonz[á]{}lez Delgado, D., Kerschbaum, F., & Sch[ö]{}ier, F. L. 2002, , 391, 1053
Ohnaka, K. 2004, , 424, 1011
Ohnaka, K., et al. 2005, , 429, 1057
Ohnaka, K., Driebe, T., Weigelt, G., & Wittkowski, M. 2007, , 466, 1099
Perrin, G., et al. 2004, , 426, 279
Perrin, G., et al. 2007, , 474, 599
Perryman, M. A. C., et al. 1997, , 323, L49
Pojmanski, G., Pilecki, B., & Szczygiel, D. 2005, , 55, 275
Posch, T., Kerschbaum, F., Mutschke, H., Fabian, D., Dorschner, J., & Hron, J. 1999, , 352, 609
Ratzka, T. 2005, Ph.D. Thesis, University Heidelberg
Reid, M. J., & Menten, K. M. 1990, , 360, L51
Reid, M. J., & Menten, K. M. 2007, , 671, 2068
Riebel, D., Meixner, M., Fraser, O., Srinivasan, S., Cook, K., & Vijh, U. 2010, , 723, 1195
Robinson, G., & Maldoni, M. M. 2010, , 408, 1956
Scholz, M. 2001, , 321, 347
Shintani, M., et al. 2008, , 60, 1077
Sloan, G. C., & Price, S. D. 1998b, , 119, 141
Smith, B. J., Price, S. D., & Moffett, A. J. 2006, , 131, 612
Szymczak, M., Cohen, R. J., & Richards, A. M. S. 1998, , 297, 1151
Tatebe, K., Chandler, A. A., Hale, D. D. S., & Townes, C. H. 2006, , 652, 666
Tej, A., Lan[ç]{}on, A., & Scholz, M. 2003, , 401, 347
Tsuji, T., Ohnaka, K., Aoki, W., & Yamamura, I. 1997, , 320, L1
Tuthill, P. G., Haniff, C. A., & Baldwin, J. E. 1999, , 306, 353
Verhoelst, T. 2005, Ph.D. Thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
Verhoelst, T., van der Zypen, N., Hony, S., Decin, L., Cami, J., & Eriksson, K. 2009, , 498, 127
Vlemmings, W. H. T., van Langevelde, H. J., Diamond, P. J., Habing, H. J., & Schilizzi, R. T. 2003, , 407, 213
Vlemmings, W. H. T., Humphreys, E. M. L., & Franco-Hern[á]{}ndez, R. 2011, , 728, 149
Weiner, J., Hale, D. D. S., & Townes, C. H. 2003, , 589, 976
Weiner, J. 2004, , 611, L37
Wishnow, E. H., Townes, C. H., Walp, B., & Lockwood, S. 2010, , 712, L135
Wittkowski, M., Boboltz, D. A., Ohnaka, K., Driebe, T., & Scholz, M. 2007, , 470, 191
Woitke, P., Helling, C., Winters, J. M., & Jeong, K. S. 1999, , 348, L17
Woitke, P. 2006, , 452, 537
Woodruff, H. C., et al. 2004, , 421, 703
Woodruff, H. C., Tuthill, P. G., Monnier, J. D., Ireland, M. J., Bedding, T. R., Lacour, S., Danchi, W. C., & Scholz, M. 2008, , 673, 418
Woodruff, H. C., et al. 2009, , 691, 1328
Yamamura, I., de Jong, T., & Cami, J. 1999, , 348, L55
Zhao-Geisler, R. 2010, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Heidelberg
Ziurys, L. M., Tenenbaum, E. D., Pulliam, R. L., Woolf, N. J., & Milam, S. N. 2009, , 695, 1604
[^1]: Fellow of the International Max Planck Research School (IMPRS),
[^2]: Based on observations made with the Very Large Telescope Interferometer (VLTI) at the Paranal Observatory under program IDs 079.D-0140, 080.D-0005, 081.D-0198, 082.D-0641 and 083.D-0294.
[^3]: Color versions of the figures are available in electronic form via http://www.aanda.org
[^4]: http://www.ster.kuleuven.ac.be/$\sim$tijl/MIDI\_calibration/mcc.txt; see also ESO CalVin database: http://www.eso.org/observing/etc/
[^5]: http://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/Missions/iras.html
[^6]: http://www.strw.leidenuniv.nl/$\sim$koehler/MIDI
[^7]: http://www.aavso.org/
[^8]: http://www.astrouw.edu.pl/asas/
[^9]: http://iso.esac.esa.int/ida/
[^10]: all from http://vizier.u-strasbg.fr/viz-bin/VizieR
[^11]: The occurrence of molecular layers is the result of the capability of forming certain molecules at a specific distance from the star and their dilution when reaching larger distances. Such a shell exists for all atmospheric molecules, and only their total abundance and radiative properties determine whether such a molsphere can be detected or not.
[^12]: If compared with a typical AGB star.
[^13]: Fluctuations between 9.3 and 10 $\mu$m are caused by difficulties in the reduction caused by the telluric ozone feature, and flux measurements beyond 12 $\mu$m are probably not calibrated well.
[^14]: The exact value depends on the used AT baseline, the slit/mask position and other instrumental specifications.
[^15]: The value of the photospheric radius, $R_{\mathrm{phot}} = \theta_{\mathrm{phot}}$/2, is defined in Sect. \[secPhaseSubWave\]
[^16]: http://cow.physics.wisc.edu/$\sim$craigm/idl/idl.html
[^17]: Empirical conversion factors are approximately: FDD $\approx$ 1.15 UD $\approx$ 1.68 $FWHM$ (assuming a uniform spatial frequency coverage in the first lobe).
[^18]: Dynamic atmospheric models, including both the molecular layers and close dust formation, are in development (Scholz and Ireland, private communication).
[^19]: Since observations were obtained only on two perpendicular baselines, the true major axis cannot be recovered.
|
---
abstract: 'Universal grasping of a diverse range of previously unseen objects from heaps is a grand challenge in e-commerce order fulfillment, manufacturing, and home service robotics. Recently, deep learning based grasping approaches have demonstrated results that make them increasingly interesting for industrial deployments. This paper explores the problem from an automation systems point-of-view. We develop a robotics grasping system using Dex-Net, which is fully integrated at the controller level. Two neural networks are deployed on a novel industrial AI hardware acceleration module close to a PLC with a power footprint of less than 10 W for the overall system. The software is tightly integrated with the hardware allowing for fast and efficient data processing and real-time communication. The success rate of grasping an object form a bin is up to 95% with more than 350 picks per hour, if object and receptive bins are in close proximity. The system was presented at the Hannover Fair 2019 (world’s largest industrial trade fair) and other events, where it performed over 5,000 grasps per event.'
author:
- |
Eugen Solowjow$^{1}$, Ines Ugalde$^{1}$, Yash Shahapurkar$^{1}$, Juan Aparicio$^{1}$,\
Jeff Mahler$^{2,3}$, Vishal Satish$^{2}$, Ken Goldberg$^{2}$, Heiko Claussen$^{1}$[^1][^2][^3]
title: |
**Industrial Robot Grasping with Deep Learning\
using a Programmable Logic Controller (PLC)**
---
INTRODUCTION
============
Universal reliable robot grasping of a diverse range of objects is a challenging task. The challenges arise from imprecisions and uncertainties in sensing and actuation. A solution to universal grasping will enable automation of many industrial tasks that are mostly performed by humans today such as e-commerce order fulfillment, manufacturing and home service robotics. Recently, deep learning based approaches to universal grasping demonstrated progress in terms of accuracy, reliability and cycle times, showing promise for industrial deployment. However, designing a flexible automation system that has deep learning at its core is from an automation systems point of view a challenging undertaking, which received little attention from the robotics community so far.
Robot control systems in today’s industrial environments give robots the ability to follow predefined trajectories. These systems are considered mature and ten thousands of them have been deployed across factories in different industries. However, most robots in factories lack the ability to handle variability and uncertainty, which are key elements in universal grasping. On the other hand, robot control systems based on machine learning methods have not yet been widely adopted in factories. They are mainly situated in research environments where the focus is on algorithmic innovation.
[1.0]{} ![Industrial system for universal grasping at Hannover Fair 2019, Germany.[]{data-label="fig:system_at_hmi"}](figs/fig1_robot.PNG "fig:"){width="1.0\linewidth"}
With the increasing interest in deep learning based automation, the question arises how these algorithmic progresses can be adopted by industry and integrated into the existing automation landscape [@luo18; @johannink19]. Conventional automation typically assumes full predictability of the world the system deals with. This assumption does not hold true for universal grasping with its shear endless number of object constellations, which requires automating of the unpredictable. A paradigm shift is required from traditional automation systems to machine learning based automation systems.
In this paper we describe an industry-compatible robotic system for universal grasping enabled by deep learning. We study the problem from an automation systems point of view: “How to design a deep learning based automation system that is tightly integrated with current automation paradigms such as PLC control and can be deployed in an industrial production?” The resulting system was exhibited at Hannover Fair 2019 (world’s largest industrial trade fair), where it ran for five consecutive days and performed over 5,000 grasps, see Fig. \[fig:system\_at\_hmi\] Since its debut it has been replicated and has been shown at various other events.
PROBLEM DEFINITION AND REQUIREMENTS
===================================
The problem of universal grasping gives robots the ability to pick previously not encountered objects in arbitrary constellations. It can be defined by the constellation of the objects (e.g. singulated or heaps), the type of hardware (e.g. single or dual robot arms), as well as on the type of end-effector (e.g. vacuum gripper, two finger parallel jaw gripper, or custom gripper designs). Moreover, the task description can vary. For example, clearing a bin of objects requires a different approach than picking one desired object from a heap. The problem addressed in this paper is as follows. A bin of objects is presented to the system as shown in Fig. \[fig:sample\_bin\] A user selects through a Human Machine Interface (HMI) the objects to be picked from the bin and the amount of requested objects. The robot picks the requested objects from the bin and places them into another bin. The system informs the user, if any of the requested objects are not available.
[1.0]{} ![Sample objects for grasping in bin.[]{data-label="fig:sample_bin"}](figs/fig2a_problem_statement.png "fig:"){width="1.0\linewidth"}
RELATED WORK
============
Universal robotic grasping has been widely studied during the last decades, and, until today, it is still considered a challenging problem. Initiatives, like the Amazon Robotic Challenge aim at pushing the state of the bin picking research towards production [@c0; @c1; @c2]. The difficulty of universal grasping lies in the great variability of bin picking scenarios, such as heterogeneous, potentially unknown objects, which may be arbitrarily positioned in presence of occlusions, super-positions, hindered reachability, etc. Early approaches computed grasps on known 3D models of objects using analytic methods and planned grasps online by matching sensor data to known objects. However, these approaches proved susceptible to uncertainty in sensing and could not generalize well to novel objects. Recent learning-based approaches have leveraged deep neural networks trained on large amounts of data that can quickly generalize to novel objects. Empirical approaches to collecting this data have proven to be time-consuming and prone to mislabeled data. An alternative promising approach is to rapidly generate massive synthetic datasets using analytic metrics and domain randomization for robust sim-to-real transfer.
A large number of object recognition bin picking solutions follow a two-step approach: object detection and pose estimation followed by model-based grasp planning. Typically, Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) are employed in the object recognition task [@c1; @c2] to provide either bounding boxes or segmentations of objects of interest. Other approaches [@c3; @c4] build on this pipeline to integrate pose correction in the robot motion stage. A representative example of the two-step approach is presented in [@c2] where a 3D segmentation is obtained by projecting and merging individual RGB-D segmentations from multiple cameras positioned to capture the whole scene. Pose estimation is achieved by fitting given 3D models of the objects to the 3D segmented point cloud. A series of heuristics is then applied to calculate optimal grasping points. This sophisticated approach leads to a total perception time of 15-20 seconds on a workstation equipped with large-scale processors (such as an Intel E2-1241 CPU 3.5 GHz and an NVIDIA GTX 1080).
Previous work often assumed given 3D models of objects, and some even labeling of training data for the segmentation CNNs. These approaches may prove impractical for scalable applications which continuously deal with novel objects for which limited data is available, as typically seen in intralogistics and warehousing scenarios. As an alternative, object-agnostic data-driven grasping has been studied in [@c5; @c6; @Bohg_c7_0; @Kappler_c7_1; @Morrison_c7_2; @Mahler17_c7_3; @c7]. In [@c7] the authors present Dex-Net 4.0, where bin picking is formalized as a POMDP problem to enable simulate and learn from synthetic data (synthesizing depth images of over 5000 unique object heaps) robust grasping policies for parallel-jaw and suction grippers. Experiments on 50 novel objects using the high-end Photoneo Phoxi 3D camera suggest that Dex-Net 4.0 generalizes to new objects. Similar to other approaches, this system was deployed on a large-scale processing workstation (equipped with quad-core Intel i7-6700 and NVIDIA TITAN Xp).
Computer vision bin picking solutions can be found in industry as well, however there is reduced information as to what algorithms or principles are applied in the search for grasping points. iRVision [@c8] is FANUC’s visual detection system which uses 3D vision (structured light mapping and laser projection) to achieve some form of detection and pose estimation of workpieces in aid of different manufacturing processes, such as bin picking. Some algorithms used by the manufacturer are Geometric Pattern Matching and Blob Detection; it is then understood that substantial prior information about the objects is required.
MECHATRONIC SYSTEM DESIGN
=========================
[0.95]{} ![The screen (Human-Machine-Interface) displays a list of objects for the user to select. The PLC receives request from the HMI and consequently triggers the algorithm in the TM Neural Processing Unit (TM NPU). Once a grasp is found, the PLC actuates both robot and gripper to execute the grasp.[]{data-label="fig:system_design"}](figs/fig2_system_overview.png "fig:"){width="1.0\linewidth"}
The system design of the industrial bin picking solution is centered around an industrial Programmable Logic Controller (PLC), a Siemens S7-1516. PLCs are high-reliability automation controllers suitable for harsh environments that provide hard-realtime capabilities. Choosing the computational components at the controller level is in contrast to most other work, where typically PC workstations are used. The advantages are the highly embedded nature of the solution, the small power footprint and the seamless integration into the existing automation ecosystem. In Fig. \[fig:system\_design\] the PLC can be seen as the master of the system; it orchestrates the interactions among all the devices. A Human Machine Interface (HMI) touch panel was integrated with the PLC program to present an array of objects which the user can select to be picked. The HMI also allowed maintenance-mode control of the robotic elements and showed diagnostic information of all connected elements. An E-Stop push button was also integrated with the PLC; its activation halts the entire system. Both HMI and E-stop are connected using industrial standard communication PROFINET to the PLC. The mechanical components of our bin picking solution comprise the KUKA KR 3 Agilus 6-DOF robotic arm and the Robotiq 2F-85 parallel jaw gripper. The KUKA KR 3 and controller (KR C4 Compact) are connected via PROFINET to the PLC, where seamless control over the robot is enabled with the KUKA PLC mxAutomation package [@c9]. An Intel RealSense D435 RGB-D camera serves as the sensory input to the system. It is mounted on the robot wrist and connects via USB3. The D435 is widely available and offers a low price point.
The Technology Module Neural Processing Unit (TM NPU)[^4] in Fig. \[fig:system\_design\] is dedicated to Deep Learning and allows PLC-based automation systems to incorporate efficient Neural Network computations. The TM NPU is equipped with an Intel MyriadX SoC, which has two LEON CPUs and 16 SHAVE parallel processors capable of accelerating neural networks in hardware with a compute capacity of up to 4 TOPs. The TM NPU couples with the PLC using Siemens S7 backplane communication [@c10] by which they share information in real-time. The NPU algorithms is invoked by the PLC, upon HMI user requests. The TM NPU uses RGB-D inputs from the RealSense D435. The algorithm returns pixel coordinates for grasping as well as object identity. The PLC transforms the coordinates to the robot frame and commands the robot motion; at the same time, the identified object is highlighted in the HMI.
SOFTWARE DESIGN
===============
The challenges in designing the software arise from the required flexibility and the unpredictability of the grasping scenario as described in Sec. II. The system comprises of two main computational entities: A PLC and the TM NPU. The architecture of the control system has to reflect the use case flexibility by means of Deep Learning and at the same time to preserve the benefits of an industrial automation system, namely real-time properties, robustness, and safety.
The desired system behavior can be described with states, between which the system transitions based on events, and their relationships. We use a Deterministic Finite Automaton (DFA) to model the desired system behavior, which is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:automaton\] for one RGB-D camera frame. The automaton describes the actions and states for a successful grasp, but also actions for common failures such as “no object grasped”. The system maintains a list of user desired objects, which is provided through the HMI. The automaton is repeatedly traversed until the list has been either fulfilled or none of the requested objects can be detected in the bin.
[1.0]{} ![Simplified Deterministic Finite Automaton (DFA) for processing of one RGB-D frame.[]{data-label="fig:automaton"}](figs/fig4_automaton.PNG "fig:"){width="1.0\linewidth"}
SOFTWARE ARCHITECTURE AND MODULES
---------------------------------
Following the hybrid automaton of the previous subsection, we can derive the key software modules, which enable the system to react to events and cope with the flexibility of the usecase. Figure \[fig:software\_modules\] illustrates the main software modules and their relations. All software modules related to image processing including the grasp computation are implemented on the TM NPU, whereas robot control, the interfacing with the HMI and safety functions are implemented on the PLC. The TM NPU and PLC communicate through a backplane, while the PLC and the HMI communicate through Ethernet, which is a typical setup for this type of automation hardware.
{width="1.0\linewidth"}
In the remainder of this subsection we describe the key functionalities of the main software modules. All software modules that run on the TM NPU are implemented in C/C++ on top of the real-time operating system RTEMS[^5]. The RGB-D input to the TM NPU is an RGB-D camera (in this case an Intel RealSense D435), which provides streams of color and depth frames.
**Preprocessing and Conversion (color frame):** Camera interfaces provide frames in a variety of different encodings such as YCbCr422i. Depending on the encoding the color frames need to go through several basic image processing steps such as scaling, cropping, de-interleaving and conversion to BGR or RGB, which are the most common formats for neural network inputs. These image processing steps are efficiently implemented and parallelized on the SHAVE processors of the TM NPU MyriadX SoC.
**Object Detection (color frame):** The preprocessed color frames are fed into an object detection neural network. Popular neural networks are MobileNet-SSD, YOLO, and Faster RCNN. The output of an object detection algorithm are bounding boxes with corresponding labels and the classification score. The object detection neural network is described in the following Subsection.
**Preprocessing (depth frame):** Depth information is usually encoded as a single channel 2 byte stream. The preprocessing consists of scaling and cropping operations.
**Inpainting (depth frame):** Depth frames have often missing data when surfaces are too glossy, thin, bright, far or close from the camera. Depth inpainting fills these “holes”. With increasing popularity of commodity-grade depth cameras (e.g. Intel RealSense, Microsoft Kinect) inpainting algorithms received a lot of attention in recent years. We implemented a custom inpainting approach that is based on [@inpaint_c11].
**Object Selection and Bounding Box based Cropping:** The detected objects are compared with the user selected objects and a matching is determined. For all detected objects that are also part of the user list, a pairwise bounding box overlapping is computed. The object that overlaps least with other bounding boxes is chosen for grasping. This object is cropped out in the depth frame. Note this is a decisive step, which couples object detection with grasping and where the decision is made which object to grasp. Other methods can be used to choose the next best object or even a unified approach of detection and grasping can be deployed.
**Grasp Computation:** The grasp is computed in this deployment with an FC-GQ-CNN [@Satish19_c13]. The cropped depth image is fed into the network, which outputs a tensor representing the grasps and their quality score. The grasp neural network is covered in Subsection V. C.
**PLC and HMI:** The PLC contains the main state machine and orchestrates the overall process. It is programmed with ladder logic. The PLC receives the user specified object list from the HMI, tasks the NPU to compute grasps against the current active object list, executes the robot and gripper motions and reports back to the HMI to keep the user informed.
OBJECT DETECTION
----------------
The object detection algorithm inputs color images. It outputs bounding boxes for each object in the image, the class label associated with each bounding box and the confidence score associated with each bounding box and label. Since the advent of deep learning, neural network based object detection approaches have shown to be the most accurate algorithms. In recent years, MobileNet SSD (Single Shot Multibox Detection) has proven to be an efficient Convolution Neural Network architecture targeted towards mobile and embedded vision applications. The classification base network is thereby MobileNet, which is pretrained on ImageNet for set of discerning, discriminating filters. By performing depth wise separable convolutions, MobileNet allows a lesser number of tunable parameters which results in light weight deep neural networks. The SSD part of the object detection pipeline discretizes the output space of bounding boxes into a set of default boxes over different aspect ratios. At prediction time, the network generates scores for the presence of each object category in each default box and produces adjustments to the box to better match the object shape. MobileNet SSD has to be trained on a dataset that is recorded prior to deployment. The dataset contains images of the objects that the system is supposed to recognize for grasping at runtime. We use 200 training images for sufficient performance.
GRASP COMPUTATION
-----------------
Once an object is chosen, a robust grasp must be quickly planned in order to transport the object to the collection bin.
{width="1.0\linewidth"}
The system in this paper utilizes an extension of Dex-Net 4.0, the Fully Convolutional Grasp Quality Convolutional Neural Network (FC-GQ-CNN), which given an input point cloud rapidly evaluates millions of four degrees-of-freedom (3D position and planar orientation) grasps in a single forward pass of the network and chooses the highest quality one for execution. The network is trained on synthetic data using the methodology of Dex-Net 4.0 with a Robotiq 2F-85 parallel jaw gripper and an Intel RealSense D435 depth camera. In order to model the noise in the RealSense camera, the images are augmented with synthetic noise sampled from a Gaussian Process [@Mahler17_c7_3] to reflect the significant levels of noise compared to the Photoneo PhoXi S sensor that is used in Dex-Net 4.0. After training, the network was compiled for the MyriadX SoC and deployed on the TM NPU. While the neural network is not trained using any of the demo objects, it generalizes and is able to grasp them as noted by the performance in Section VI.
EVALUATION
==========
The robotic system was integrated into a custom robot cell of 1m$\times$1m footprint so that it can be shipped and deployed at exhibitions and fairs worldwide. The cell was equipped with two bins of size 45m$\times$25m$\times$8m from which the robot can pick and place objects. The object detector was trained for six different objects, which are shown in Fig. \[fig:res\_obj\_det\]. Note that while the object detector cannot recognize objects that it was not trained for, the FC-GQ-CNN is capable of grasping any previously unseen object. One of the requirements for the system was ease of use. The robot cell would be displayed at various exhibitions world-wide, where local personal (usually neither robotics nor Deep Learning experts) should be able to setup and run the demo within short time. We implemented an easy-to-use user and debugging interface so that within few minutes anyone can run the flexible grasping system.
Performance
-----------
The bin picking system was introduced at Hannover Fair 2019 in Germany. The system ran for five consecutive days, eight hours each day. It performed approximately 1500 grasps per day. The workflow usually consisted of packing the input bin with objects and then selecting desired objects on the HMI screen for the robot to pick. Figure \[fig:res\_sequence\] shows snapshots for a representative grasping task, where the robot was tasked to get the hammer, the dog, and the eggplant. The grasping accuracy of the system is in general dependant on the amount of objects in the bin. The denser the bin is packed, the more difficulties the system experiences to retrieve the objects of interest, in particular if the selected objects are not easily reachable. For lightly packed bins, where each object allows for a grasp as shown in Fig. \[fig:sample\_bin\], the success rate of grasping an object from the bin was ca. 90%-95%. A detailed analysis of failure modes is discussed in the subsequent subsection.
As expected, the system’s the computational times and power footprint are its strengths. The tight integration of HMI, PLC, TM NPU and robot control results in a total processing time of less than 1sec from sending the object request to the PLC until the start of the robot motion. During this time the computations detailed in Figs. \[fig:automaton\] and \[fig:software\_modules\] are performed, which includes execution of two deep neural networks. The inference times of MobileNet SSD and FC-GQ-CNN are 350ms and 70ms respectively. The system performs 200-250 picks per hour. However, the receptive bin is placed at the opposite side of the robot cell resulting in the maximum travel distance for the robot arm to drop off a picked object. If the bins are placed in close proximity the system achieves over 350 picks per hour. The combined power consumption of PLC and TM NPU is less than 10W.
Figure \[fig:res\_obj\_det\] illustrates the output of the object detection pipeline with MobileNet SSD.
![Object detection results with confidence levels computed with MobileNet SSD.[]{data-label="fig:res_obj_det"}](figs/res_obj_det.PNG){width="0.9\linewidth"}
While most objects are recognized reliably, note that some objects are not detected at all. In our case this is usually not a problem, because the objects that are not detected are usually covered objects lying at the bottom of the bin, which would not be grasped at this instance. Since object detection is repeated after every grasp, the covered objects will be “discovered” after the top objects are cleared. However, if the user selects the few objects that are the bottom of the bin, the system can miss them.
A representative grasp computation output can be seen in Fig. \[fig:res\_grasp\]. After a bounding box provided by the object detector has been selected in the color frame as seen in Subfig. \[fig:res\_grasp\_a\], the depth frame is aligned to the color frame. Next, the cropped and centered depth image is processed by the FC-GQ-CNN, which outputs grasp coordinates as shown in Subfig. \[fig:res\_grasp\_b\]. Only grasps within the bounding box are considered.
One of the advantages of deep learning based approaches is the capability to adapt to variations in the environment. This behaviour is demonstrated in Fig. \[fig:res\_hammer\].
[0.45]{} ![Sample grasp computation result, where toy animal was selected for grasping.[]{data-label="fig:res_grasp"}](figs/res_grasp_color.PNG "fig:"){width="1.0\linewidth"}
[0.45]{} ![Sample grasp computation result, where toy animal was selected for grasping.[]{data-label="fig:res_grasp"}](figs/res_grasp_depth.PNG "fig:"){width="1.0\linewidth"}
[0.45]{} ![On the fly adjustment of grasp computation by FC-GQ-CNN without explicit behaviour programming.[]{data-label="fig:res_hammer"}](figs/res_hammer_1.png "fig:"){width="1.0\linewidth"}
[0.45]{} ![On the fly adjustment of grasp computation by FC-GQ-CNN without explicit behaviour programming.[]{data-label="fig:res_hammer"}](figs/res_hammer_2.PNG "fig:"){width="1.0\linewidth"}
A hammer is presented to the system for grasping. The system generally picks the hammer by the handle as shown in Subfig. \[fig:res\_hammer\_a\]. If the handle is obstructed by obstacles, so that the system cannot grasp the hammer by the handle anymore, FC-GQ-CNN computes other grasp points in order to avoid collisions with the obstacles, see Subfig. \[fig:res\_hammer\_b\]. This logic is not explicitly programmed, but emerges from the synthetic training samples that the neural network used to “learn” grasping.
Failure Modes
-------------
During the Hannover Fair 2019 the system performed more than 5000 grasps. This gives us the opportunity to study common failure modes. The sources of grasping failures are due to sensor modalities, object detection output, grasp computation output or grasp execution. Two failure cases due to object detection and grasp computation are shown in Fig. \[fig:failure\_cases\]. In both subfigures the respective bounding box of the selected object and the grasp axis (in cyan) are shown. The depth frames of consumer-grade RGB-D cameras often have missing data. While inpainting algorithms can compensate for some of the missing information, they are also prone to create artifacts in the depth image. These artifacts can appear as a bulge part of the object. If such depth images are fed into the FC-GQ-CNN, grasps can be computed on these bulges. In Subfig. \[fig:failure\_inpaint\] the object is flat, but the depth image shows a bulge and FC-GQ-CNN computes a grasp there. A common failure mode in object detection, besides objects not being detected at all, is the wrong size or number of bounding boxes, when objects of the same class cluster together as seen in Subfig. \[fig:failure\_obj\_det\].
[0.45]{} ![Failure modes in object detection and grasp computation.[]{data-label="fig:failure_cases"}](figs/res_failure_inpaint.PNG "fig:"){width="1.0\linewidth"}
[0.45]{} ![Failure modes in object detection and grasp computation.[]{data-label="fig:failure_cases"}](figs/res_failure_detection_color.PNG "fig:"){width="1.0\linewidth"}
CONCLUSION
==========
In this paper we presented an industrial robotic system for universal grasping. The system uses deep learning and was implemented as a PLC-based automation system. We demonstrated the system during Hannover Fair 2019, where it ran for five consecutive days and performed more than 5,000 grasps. The tight integration of HMI, PLC, TM NPU and robot control allowed for fast data processing. The total computation time was less than 1sec from sending the object request to the PLC until the robot starts moving towards the object, which includes execution of two deep neural networks. The system performed 200-250 picks per hour, whereby the receptive bin was placed at the opposite side of the robot cell resulting in the maximum travel distance for the robot arm. For bins placed in close proximity the system achieved over 350 picks per hour. The combined power consumption of PLC and TM NPU was less than 10W. The system consisted of off-the-shelf automation components. One of the limitations of the presented system was due to depth sensing. Consumer grade RGB-D cameras, as the one used in the presented system, provide more noisy depth frames than industrial grade depth scanners. However, the latter are significantly more expensive rendering them often as uneconomic solutions.
In our future work, we will extend the functionality to other end-effectors such as vacuum grippers to give the system more flexibility. We will explore semantic segmentation instead of object detection, because it leads to exact shapes of the object instances as opposed to bounding boxes. The dataset creation for semantic segmentation will adopt the methodology presented in [@danielczuk17_c12].
[99]{}
J. Luo, E. Solowjow, C. Wen, J. Aparicio, A.M. Agogino, “Deep reinforcement learning for robotic assembly of mixed deformable and rigid objects” in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) pp. 2062-2069, 2018.
T. Johannink, S. Bahl, A. Nair, J. Luo, A. Kumar, M. Loskyll, J. Aparicio, E. Solowjow, S. Levine, “Residual reinforcement learning for robot control.” in IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) pp. 6023-6029, 2019.
C. Eppner, S. Höfer, R. Jonschkowski, R. Martín-Martín, A. Sieverling, V. Wall, and O. Brock, “Lessons from the amazon picking challenge: four aspects of building robotic systems.” in Robotics: Science and Systems, 2016.
C. Hernandez, M. Bharatheesha, W. Ko, H. Gaiser, J. Tan, K. van Deurzen, M. de Vries, B. Van Mil, et al., “Team delft’s robot winner of the amazon picking challenge 2016,” in Robot World Cup. Springer, pp. 613–624, 2016.
A. Zeng, K.-T. Yu, S. Song, D. Suo, E. Walker, A. Rodriguez, and J. Xiao, “Multi-view self-supervised deep learning for 6d pose estimation in the amazon picking challenge,” in IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) pp. 1386–1383, 2017.
M. Nieuwenhuisen, D. Droeschel, D. Holz, J. Stückler, A. Berner, J. Li,R. Klein, and S. Behnke, “Mobile bin picking with an anthropomorphic service robot,” in 2013 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation pp. 2327–2334, 2013.
M.-Y. Liu, O. Tuzel, A. Veeraraghavan, Y. Taguchi, T. K. Marks, and R. Chellappa, “Fast object localization and pose estimation in heavy clutter for robotic bin picking,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, 31(8), pp. 951–973, 2012.
Lenz, H. Lee, and A. Saxena, “Deep learning for detecting robotic grasps,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, 34(4), pp. 705–724, 2015.
L. Pinto, J. Davidson, and A. Gupta, “Supervision via competition: Robot adversaries for learning tasks,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 1601–1608, 2017.
J. Bohg, A. Morales, T. Asfour, and D. Kragic (2013). “Data-driven grasp synthesis—a survey”. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 30(2), pp. 289-309, 2013.
D. Kappler, J. Bohg, and S. Schaal, “Leveraging big data for grasp planning”. In IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 4304-4311, 2015.
D. Morrison, P. Corke, and J. Leitner, “Closing the loop for robotic grasping: A real-time, generative grasp synthesis approach.” In Robotics: Science and Systems, 2018.
J. Mahler et al. “Dex-Net 2.0: Deep Learning to Plan Robust Grasps with Synthetic Point Clouds and Analytic Grasp Metrics.”, In Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS), 2017.
J. Mahler, M. Matl, V. Satish, M. Danielczuk, B. DeRose, S. McKinley, and K. Goldberg, “Learning ambidextrous robot grasping policies,” Science Robotics, 4(26), 2019.
FANUC, “Vision Functions for robots”, https://www.fanuc.eu/pt/en/robots/accessories/robot-vision, Website and Product brochure, Accessed on 22 Feb. 2020.
KUKA, “KUKA.PLC mxAutomation”, www.kuka.com/en-us/products/robotics-systems/software/hub-technologies/kuka,-d-,plc-mxautomation, Website, Accessed on 24 Feb. 2020.
Siemens, “SIMATIC S7-1500/ET 200MP Automation System in a Nutshell”, siemens.com, Oct. 2016.
A. Telea, “An image inpainting technique based on the fast marching method”, in Journal of graphics tools 9(1), Taylor & Francis, pp. 23–34, 2004.
V. Satish, J. Mahler and K. Goldberg, “On-policy dataset synthesis for learning robot grasping policies using fully convolutional deep networks”, in IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 4(2), pp. 1357–1364, 2019.
M. Danielczuk, M. Matl, S. Gupta, A. Li, A. Lee, J. Mahler, K. Goldberg, “Segmenting unknown 3d objects from real depth images using mask r-cnn trained on synthetic data”, IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 7283–7290, 2019.
[^1]: $^{1}$Siemens [{eugen.solowjow, ines.ugalde, yash.shahapurkar, juan.aparicio, heiko.claussen}@siemens.com]{}
[^2]: $^{2}$AUTOLAB at University of California, Berkeley[{jmahler, vsatish, goldberg}@berkeley.edu]{}
[^3]: $^{3}$Ambidextrous Laboratories, Inc
[^4]: www.siemens.com/tm-npu
[^5]: www.rtems.org
|
---
abstract: 'Word embeddings have been widely adopted across several NLP applications. Most existing word embedding methods utilize *sequential context* of a word to learn its embedding. While there have been some attempts at utilizing *syntactic context* of a word, such methods result in an explosion of the vocabulary size. In this paper, we overcome this problem by proposing , a flexible Graph Convolution based method for learning word embeddings. utilizes the dependency context of a word without increasing the vocabulary size. Word embeddings learned by outperform existing methods on various intrinsic and extrinsic tasks and provide an advantage when used with ELMo. We also propose , an effective framework for incorporating diverse semantic knowledge for further enhancing learned word representations. We make the source code of both models available to encourage reproducible research.'
author:
- |
Shikhar Vashishth$^1$ Manik Bhandari$^{2*}$ Prateek Yadav$^3$[^1]\
**Piyush Rai**$^4$ **Chiranjib Bhattacharyya**$^1$ **Partha Talukdar**$^1$\
\
$^1$Indian Institute of Science, $^2$Carnegie Mellon University\
$^4$Microsoft Research, $^4$IIT Kanpur\
[{shikhar,chiru,ppt}@iisc.ac.in]{}, [[email protected]]{}\
\
[[email protected], [email protected]]{}\
bibliography:
- 'acl2019.bib'
title: |
Incorporating Syntactic and Semantic Information in\
Word Embeddings using Graph Convolutional Networks
---
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments. This work is supported in part by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (Government of India) and Google PhD Fellowship.
[^1]: Contributed equally to the work.
|
---
abstract: 'Nuclear stellar cluster (NSCs) are known to exist around massive black holes (MBHs) in galactic nuclei. They are thought to have formed through in-situ star formation following gas inflow to the nucleus of the galaxy and/or through the infall of multiple stellar clusters. Here we study the latter, and explore the composite structure of the NSC, and its relation to the various stellar populations originating from its progenitor infalling clusters. We use N-body simulations of clusters infall, and show that this scenario may produce observational signatures in the form of age segregation: the distribution of the stellar properties (e.g. stellar age and/or metallicity) in the NSCs reflect the infall history of the different clusters. The stellar populations of clusters infalling at different times (dynamical ages), are differentially segregated in the NSC, and are not fully mixed even after few Gyrs of evolution. Moreover, the radial properties of stellar populations in the progenitor cluster are mapped to their radial distribution in the final NSC, potentially leading to efficient mass segregation in NSCs, even those where relaxation times are longer than a Hubble time. Finally, the overall structures of the stellar populations present non-spherical configurations and show significant cluster to cluster population differences.'
author:
- 'Hagai B. Perets and Alessandra Mastrobuono-Battisti'
title: Age and mass segregation of multiple stellar populations in galactic nuclei and their observational signatures
---
Introduction
============
Nuclear stellar clusters (NSCs) hosting massive black holes (MBHs) are thought to exist in a significant fraction of all galactic nuclei. The build-up of such dense clusters is likely linked to the growth of the MBH, and the evolution of the galaxy and its nucleus, as suggested by statistical correlations between their properties (e.g. [@fer+00; @tre+02]). Two scenarios were suggested for the origin of nuclear clusters: (1) The cluster infall scenario, in which stellar clusters inspiral to the galactic nucleus, disrupted, and thereby build up the nuclear cluster ([bek+ @tre+75; @cap93; @bek+04; @aga+11; @ant+12; @ant+13; @gne+13] and references therein) the inspiraling clusters may also be the NSC of two galaxies in a merger scenario). (2) The nuclear star formation scenario, in which gas infalls into the nucleus and then transforms into stars through star formation processes ([@loo+82]; possibly in a disk like configuration, e.g. observations of the Milky Way NSC; [@lev+03; @lu+09; @bar+10]). Over time the in-situ star formation builds up the NSC. Naturally, both processes can work in concert, and both could be important for the formation and evolution of NSCs.
In this paper we explore the cluster infall scenario by means of N-body simulations, and neglect star formation processesand their effects, which are beyond the scope of this paper. Previous studies have dealt with the global structure and build-up of NSCs from inspiral of globular clusters (GCs). Here we focus on the multiple stellar populations in NSC and their mapping and relations to their original host GCs. We study the evolution of the multiple GC populations both during the evolution of the NSC and in its final form. In particular, we show that the cluster infall scenario introduces population segregation in NSCs, and provides signatures of the cluster infall history in the radial distribution of the stars in the NSC. In addition we suggest that the formation of NSCs from cluster infall can produce mass segregated NSCs, even in cases where two-body relaxation processes are too slow. We suggest that such variations in the kinematic properties of different stellar populations might be observable and serve as fossilized evidence for the evolution and build-up of galactic nuclei.
In the following we begin by a brief description of our cluster infall scenario (described in more details in Paper I). We then present the distribution of the stellar populations of the different infalling cluster in the fully formed NSC, and show the existence of the age-segregation and mass segregation phenomena. Finally, we discuss our results, discuss their implications and summarize.
Simulation of the cluster infall formation of a nuclear cluster
===============================================================
Our modeling of the cluster infall formation of an NSC follows the same methods, and make use of the same code as used in paper I [@ant+12], where detailed description of the initial conditions of GCs and the galaxy model of the background stellar population can be found. In brief, we used direct N-body simulations (using the $\phi$GRAPE code [@har+07]) of the consecutive infall and merging of a set of 12 single-mass globular clusters each starting from a galactocentric distance of $20$ pc. One simplification that we make is taking a constant time interval between cluster infalls, as done in previous works (e.g. Paper I). The total mass of these clusters sums to $\sim1.5\times10^{7}M_{\odot}$, which is roughly the observed mass of the Milky Way nuclear star cluster [@gen+10]. The mass of the GCs is comparable to currently observed Milky Way GCs [see @gne+97 for Milky-Way GC paramters], though a better comparison would be to young superclusters (or their leftover nuclei) that would have inspiarlled to the nucleus (e.g. [@kro98]), and are currently observed only in other galaxies (e.g. young super star-clusters such as R136 observed in the LMC). with a MBH of $4\times10^{6}$${\rm M_{\odot}}$ . After the first cluster had spiraled in to the center, we let the system reach a nearly steady state (as evaluated via Lagrange radii), and then added a second cluster. We iterated this procedure until all clusters accumulated and merged to form an NSC around the central MBH. We note a few differences from the original simulations discussed in paper I: (1) The scaling of the relaxation time used in paper I assumed a fully collisional simulation, where as in effect a softening radius of 0.01 pc is used; we now scale the relaxation times correctly, accounting for the lower cut-off of the Coloumb logarithm due to the softening radius used. The times used in paper I were therefore 2.9 times shorter than the now corrected estimates. (2) We now assume a random distribution of the initial inclinations and phases of the inspiraling clusters, rather than a the contrived model in paper I; the initial conditions are shown in Table \[tab:Initial-orbital-paramters\]. (3) The total scaled time of the simulation is 12 Gyrs, comparable to the age of the Galaxy; the time passed since the infall of the last cluster until the end of the simulation is shorter than the relaxation time of the NSC, but we have also followed the simulation up to the relaxation time of the NSC. We emphasize that the times used here are only an approximation, based on scaling arguments of the relaxation time, and should not be treated as an accurate time representation.
We have made two realizations of the infall scenario for the formation of the NSC. Both realizations show generally similar results, and we present results only from one of them (see Table \[tab:Initial-orbital-paramters\] for the relevant initial conditions). We briefly remark on some differences observed between the two realizations.
n $\Omega$ (deg) $i$ (deg) $R_{t}$(pc)
---- ---------------- ----------- -------------
1 82.4 60.7 1.29
2 327.7 178.7 1.29
3 76.2 139.5 1.29
4 290.6 171.3 1.34
5 335.4 24.6 1.48
6 300.6 18.2 1.54
7 343.9 173.9 1.55
8 47.9 128.9 1.6
9 272.0 2.3 1.78
10 41.3 139.0 1.80
11 300.9 153.5 1.85
12 318.2 120.2 1.86
: \[tab:Initial-orbital-paramters\]Initial orbital parameters of the infalling clusters (inclination i and longitude of ascending node $\Omega$), and their tidal disruption radius as found from the simulations.
Results
=======
In this study we explore the mapping between the properties of stellar populations in NSC, and their relation to the initial characteristics of the stellar populations in the progenitor clusters. We focus on two points in time during the NSC evolution; the first after the infall and initial relaxation of the last cluster, and the second, after more relaxation has occurred at an age comparable to a Hubble time. Our findings show that the dynamical history of the cluster infall is still reflected in the radial distribution of the stellar populations in the NSC, even Gyrs after the last infall.
We find that stars in the NSC originating from early-infall clusters are more segregated to the center of the NSC than their stellar counterparts from late-infall clusters. This is true both after the last infall and even later after a few Gyrs of evolution (See Fig. \[fig:Radial-distribution\]). In particular the cluster inner population (central hundred particles), show a clear segregation when comparing early and late infalls, with relatively little additional mixing over the last two Gyrs of evolution (See the evolution of the Lagrangian radii of these populations in the NSC in Fig. \[fig:Lagrange\]). Note that the age segregation is reversed between the inner regions of the NSC and the outer regions, due to the later (earlier) stripping of the early (late)-infalling clusters.
As can be seen in Fig. \[fig:Lagrange\], the infall of each new cluster affects the evolution of the stellar population of the previous infalling cluster, effectively “compressing” it into a more compact configuration around the MBH. The last infalling cluster did not experience such a later infall, and the distribution of its stars is significantly less segregated. Observing such a distinct population in a galactic nucleus could therefore provide an interesting clue on a relatively recent infall. The more robust results apply for the earlier 11 clusters, in which the age segregation signatures can be observed even long after their infall.
We also find that the 3D structure of the stellar populations of each of the GCs could significantly differ. In Fig. \[fig:triaxial\] we show the triaxiality parameter (see Paper I) for each of the GC populations as a function of the distance from the MBH. As can be seen, such structure could vary significantly even between consecutive infalling clusters.
![\[fig:Radial-distribution\]Radial distribution of the infalling clusters stellar populations. Top: the radial distribution following the last cluster infall (after the initial relaxation). Bottom: The same at 12 Gyrs. As can be seen in both cases the clusters populations show clear differences, with the earlier infalling clusters showing systematically more compact configuration in the central region ($<2$ pc), and then an opposite behavior outside. Insets show the large scale (20 pc) distribution; note linear scales in insets.](fig1a)
![\[fig:Radial-distribution\]Radial distribution of the infalling clusters stellar populations. Top: the radial distribution following the last cluster infall (after the initial relaxation). Bottom: The same at 12 Gyrs. As can be seen in both cases the clusters populations show clear differences, with the earlier infalling clusters showing systematically more compact configuration in the central region ($<2$ pc), and then an opposite behavior outside. Insets show the large scale (20 pc) distribution; note linear scales in insets.](fig1b)
![\[fig:Lagrange\] Evolution of the Lagrangian radii for the central hundred stars of each of the clusters.The initial Lagrange radius is 0.2 pc for each cluster. Once the cluster is disrupted (see star symbols), the Lagrange radius transitions from being relative to the location of the central density of the cluster to effectively become the distance from the MBH, hence the rise from 0.2 pc (no seen) to the tidal radius central density of each cluster. As can be clearly seen, the stellar population of the earlier falling clusters is progressively more centrally concentrated than the populations of later falling clusters. ](fig2)
We note that some bunching of the population of several consecutive clusters can be observed (e.g. GCs 1-4, then GCs 5-8, and then 9-11). This bunching relates to the specific initial conditions for each cluster (i.e. its inclination and orbital phase; i and $\Omega$), and different bunching is observed when different random initial conditions are used (not shown). However, this interesting phenomena do not affect the overall age and mass segregation processes discussed here, and are beyond the scope of this paper.
![\[fig:triaxial\]Triaxiality of the NSC stellar populations. The triaxiality parameter of the different cluster populations (smoothed for clarity with a 1 pc window) is shown as a function of distance from the MBH. As can be seen the different populations show distinctly different behavior, and significant triaxiality. In particular, some of the cluster show highly anisotropic properties; somewhat resembling thick-disk-like structures in some cases even Gyrs after their infall. ](fig3)
Discussion
==========
Age segregation
---------------
An additional aspect of NSC build-up from cluster infall is the mapping of the infalling clusters structure to the final configuration of the NSC. Typically stars at a distance $R_{c}$ (which contains $M(<R_{c})$ of the cluster mass) from the center of their infalling host cluster are stripped by the tidal forces due to the combined mass of the MBH and the stellar mass of the NSC, $M_{NSC}$ at the stripping radius, $R_{s}$, defined as the tidal radius for stars at that position:
$$R_{s}=\left(\frac{M_{BH}+M_{NSC}(<R_{s})}{M_{c}(<R_{c})}\right)^{1/3}R_{c}.\label{eq:Rt}$$
At early stages, the NSC mass is dominated by the MBH ($M_{BH}\gg M(<R$)) and the early falling clusters should have very similar tidal radii. At later stages the NSC is slowly built up from the infalling clusters, until it reaches a mass comparable and even larger than the MBH ($M_{NSC}\sim2-3\times M_{BH}$). We therefore expect stars from later clusters to be stripped earlier, at a stripping radius which is up to $2^{1/3}-3^{1/3}$ (1.26-1.44) larger than the corresponding stripping radius for stars from earlier GCs (i.e. initially at comparable distances from the GC center in both clusters). This expectation is consistent with our results in table 1 and Fig. \[fig:Lagrange\]; indeed the first infalling clusters show the same tidal radii, and the ratio between the tidal radii of the last and the first infalling clusters is $1.86/1.29\simeq3^{1/3}$. This phenomenon produces a dynamical age gradient, where **stars from earlier infalling clusters are stripped at later stages, and dominate inner regions of the NSC**. If earlier falling clusters are older (e.g. they formed earlier and therefore spiraled earlier to the nucleus) then such gradient would be translated into a stellar age gradient. Alternatively, if earlier falling clusters differ in metallicity/color than their later counterparts (e.g. later falling cluster arrive from larger distances where colors differ; e.g. [@bal+94] ), such gradient would be translated into a color/metallicity gradient in the NSC. The dynamical age segregation process may therefore give rise to potentially observable stellar age/metallicity gradients.
We do note an important complication with this simplified picture. In particular, more compact and massive GCs will be stripped later (see Eq. \[eq:Rt\]), and may therefore dispose their stars closer to the MBH, compared with the stars of the earlier, more dispersed clusters. Note, however, that less compact clusters are less likely to inspiral to the nucleus from large distances during a Hubble time (see [@ant+12]), and therefore we expect only the most dense massive clusters to contribute to the stellar population in the NSC. Moreover, given the shorter inspiral time of more massive clusters, these are likely to arrive earlier, on average, than their lighter counterparts, which would also contribute to their later stripping.
Mass segregation
----------------
Irrespective of the age segregation process discussed above, the mapping between the structure of the infalling GC and the structure of the stripped population of stars in the NSC suggested by Eq. \[eq:Rt\] could have an important role in building mass segregated NSCs. It is thought that massive clusters are likely to be mass segregated either primordially or from an early stage in their evolution [e.g. @bau+08; @all+09; @por+10 and references therein]; and in even in the absence of such early mass segregation, GCs may have sufficient time to segregate during their infall. Such mass segregation could potentially be mapped into a mass segregation of galactic nuclei stellar population. Indeed, the locations of stars initially outside the GC cores are strongly correlated with their positions in the galaxy nucleus at the end of the simulation (linear correlation coefficients, $R$, almost monotonically rise between the first infalling clusters, $R=0.48$ to the last infalling cluster, $R=0.18)$. Note, however, that we find such direct mapping of closer in stars do not hold for stars initially inside the GC cores. These stars would still be more centrally concentrated around the MBH at the end of the simulation than stars initially residing in the outer parts of the GCs (by a factor of 2-3), but among these core stars any direct correlation between their initial position in the GC and their final position in the galaxy nucleus is lost.
The infall scenario would therefore suggest that **NSCs are likely to be mass segregated even when the relaxation times in such NSCs are longer than a Hubble time** (true for most NSCs hosting MBHs with $M_{BH}>{\rm few}\times10^{7}$). More generally, NSCs could be more mass segregated than expected from typical relaxation processes (e.g. [@bah+77]; though strong mass segregation process may also contribute; [@ale+09]). As a side note, it is interesting to point out that clues for an extreme mass segregation are apparent in the stellar population of the Galactic NSC (see [@ale07] for a discussion).
Such dynamical-mapping age segregation could have an important role in leading to the concentration of massive stars, and in particular stellar black holes in the central region of nuclear cusps around MBHs. The built-up of a centrally concentrated dark cusp made of black holes is therefore an interesting potential outcome of the cluster infall scenario for NSC formation (see Antonini 2014, in prep. for a detailed discussion of these issues). We also note that in cases an infalling GC harbors an intermediate mass black hole ($10^{3}-10^{4}$${\rm M_{\odot}}$), it could bring stars much closer in to the NSC MBH, thereby producing an even more compact configuration (see Mastrobuono and Perets, in prep. for such a scenario).
Relaxation time vs. mixing time
-------------------------------
Following the cluster infall formation of NSC, they may continue to evolve through two-body relaxation processes. In theory, such later evolution may progressively erase some or all of the signatures of the cluster infall scenario discussed above given sufficient time for evolution. However, as shown above, we find that signatures of the infall scenario are observed even at the age of the universe. Moreover, even at later times, comparable to the relaxation time of the NSC after the last infall, the NSC still shows clear signatures of the dynamical-mapping age and mass segregation. This may appear counter intuitive, as one might expect any initial conditions in the cluster to be erased after a relaxation time. Relaxation time is defined as the time it takes a star to change its kinetic energy by the order of itself (e.g. [@bin+87]). However, in order for a star in the outer region of an NSC to be transported to the inner region of the NSC, it needs a much more significant change in energy, i.e. of the order of the energy of the star in the inner region, were the gravitational potential and velocities are much higher. As a first simplified approximation for the time it takes a stellar population at some distance $r_{out}$ from MBH to mix with another stellar population at an inner region, $r_{in},$ one can replace the velocity dispersion in relaxation time formula at the position $r_{out}$ with that in the position $r_{in}$ while keeping the number densities and the relative velocities between stars, the same i.e. the “mixing time” for the two populations would be defined by
$$t_{mix(r_{out},r_{in})}=\left(\frac{\sigma(r_{in})^{2}}{\sigma(r_{out})^{2}}\right)t_{r_{out}}\thickapprox\left(\frac{r_{out}}{r_{in}}\right)t_{r_{out}},$$ where $t_{r_{out}}$ is the relaxation time at $r_{out}$ and the last equality is obtained for regions where the MBH dominates the gravitational potential of the NSC (i.e. up to the MBH influence radius). A more accurate definition would account for the changing diffusion time as the stellar environment changes during the diffusive transport of a star from one environment to another; a full discussion of the mixing time is beyond this scope and will be discussed in details elsewhere. Irrespective of the accurate definition, it is clear that $t_{mix}>t_{r}$ ; stellar population segregation could therefore survive much longer than a relaxation time. One should note, however, that every infall of an additional cluster does not only bring new stars to the NSC, that would slowly change the two-body relaxation time, but can produce significant changes in the gravitational potential on dynamical timescales. Though this may not significantly affect the inner regions deep in the potential of the MBH+NSC, such changes may give rise to a more violent relaxation in the outer regions that can mix the stellar populations much more efficiently than two-body relaxation processes. One would therefore expect segregated populations to be more pronounced in the inner regions of NSCs, and around more massive MBHs.
Structure of the multiple stellar populations
---------------------------------------------
The particular final structure of the stellar population of each GC is complex, as can be seen in Fig. \[fig:triaxial\], and its detailed exploration is beyond the scope of this letter. Here we only note that the significant differences between these structures could provide an additional signature for the multi-cluster infall scenario, similar to the radial segregation discussed above. In particular infalling clusters can produce thick flattened structures with varied orientations, possibly related to “disky” like structures are observed in galactic nuclei and clusters (see [@mas+13] for discussion of the evolution of such disks).
Summary
=======
In this *letter* we explore the signatures and the implications of the cluster infall scenario on the structure of nuclear stellar clusters and their multiple stellar populations. We use N-body simulations to study the infall of 12 globular clusters into a galactic nucleus hosting a MBH of $4\times10^{6}$ ${\rm M}_{\odot}$, and we follow the evolution of the stellar populations from each cluster and their final distribution in the NSC. We find that the infall history is reflected in the final structure of the NSC, where stellar populations from earlier falling clusters are more concentrated in the central parts of the NSC compared to late ones. This dynamical age segregation process can potentially leave behind a signature in the form of an age and/or metallicity radial gradient in the NSC stellar population. The stellar population of each cluster forms a non-spherical complex structure, which behavior significantly differs from one cluster population to another. In addition, any primordial/early mass segregation in the infalling GCs is mapped into a mass segregated populations in the galactic nucleus; in particular even NSCs where relaxation time is longer than a Hubble time could show a mass segregated stellar population, which could not arise from two-body relaxation processes.
[26]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}
, M. & [Milosavljevi[ć]{}]{}, M. 2011, , 729, 35
, T. 2007, ArXiv:0708.0688
, T. & [Hopman]{}, C. 2009, , 697, 1861
, R. J., [Goodwin]{}, S. P., [Parker]{}, R. J., [de Grijs]{}, R., [Portegies Zwart]{}, S. F., & [Kouwenhoven]{}, M. B. N. 2009, , 700, L99
, F. 2013, , 763, 62
, F., [Capuzzo-Dolcetta]{}, R., [Mastrobuono-Battisti]{}, A., & [Merritt]{}, D. 2012, , 750, 111
, J. N. & [Wolf]{}, R. A. 1977, , 216, 883
, M. & [Peletier]{}, R. F. 1994, , 107, 135
, H., [Martins]{}, F., [Fritz]{}, T. K., [Genzel]{}, R., [Levin]{}, Y., [Perets]{}, H. B., [Paumard]{}, T., [Nayakshin]{}, S., [Gerhard]{}, O., [Alexander]{}, T., [Dodds-Eden]{}, K., [Eisenhauer]{}, F., [Gillessen]{}, S., [Mascetti]{}, L., [Ott]{}, T., [Perrin]{}, G., [Pfuhl]{}, O., [Reid]{}, M. J., [Rouan]{}, D., [Sternberg]{}, A., & [Trippe]{}, S. 2009, , 697, 1741
, H., [De Marchi]{}, G., & [Kroupa]{}, P. 2008, , 685, 247
, K., [Couch]{}, W. J., [Drinkwater]{}, M. J., & [Shioya]{}, Y. 2004, , 610, L13
, J. & [Tremaine]{}, S. 1987, Galactic Dynamics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press)
, R. 1993, , 415, 616
, L. & [Merritt]{}, D. 2000, , 539, L9
, R., [Eisenhauer]{}, F., & [Gillessen]{}, S. 2010, Reviews of Modern Physics, 82, 3121
, N. Y. & [Ostriker]{}, J. P. 1997, , 486, 581
, O. Y., [Ostriker]{}, J. P., & [Tremaine]{}, S. 2013, ArXiv:1308.0021
, S., [Gualandris]{}, A., [Merritt]{}, D., [Spurzem]{}, R., [Zwart]{}, S. P., & [Berczik]{}, P. 2007, New Astronomy, 12, 357
, P. 1998, , 300, 200
, Y. & [Beloborodov]{}, A. M. 2003, , 590, L33
, H. H., [Kruegel]{}, E., & [Tutukov]{}, A. 1982, , 105, 342
, J. R., [Ghez]{}, A. M., [Hornstein]{}, S. D., [Morris]{}, M. R., [Becklin]{}, E. E., & [Matthews]{}, K. 2009, , 690, 1463
, A. & [Perets]{}, H. B. 2013, , 779, 85
, S. F., [McMillan]{}, S. L. W., & [Gieles]{}, M. 2010, , 48, 431
, S. [et al.]{} 2002, , 574, 740
, S. D., [Ostriker]{}, J. P., & [Spitzer]{}, Jr., L. 1975, , 196, 407
|
---
abstract: 'We study the diffusion of a Brownian probe particle of size $R$ in a dilute dispersion of active Brownian particles (ABPs) of size $a$, characteristic swim speed $U_0$, reorientation time $\tau_R$, and mechanical energy $k_s T_s = \zeta_a U_0^2 \tau_R /6$, where $\zeta_a$ is the Stokes drag coefficient of a swimmer. The probe has a thermal diffusivity $D_P = k_B T/\zeta_P$, where $k_B T$ is the thermal energy of the solvent and $\zeta_P$ is the Stokes drag coefficient for the probe. When the swimmers are inactive, collisions between the probe and the swimmers sterically hinder the probe’s diffusive motion. In competition with this steric hindrance is an enhancement driven by the activity of the swimmers. The strength of swimming relative to thermal diffusion is set by $Pe_s = U_0 a /D_P$. The active contribution to the diffusivity scales as $Pe_s^2$ for weak swimming and $Pe_s$ for strong swimming, but the transition between these two regimes is nonmonotonic. When fluctuations in the probe motion decay on the time scale $\tau_R$, the active diffusivity scales as $k_s T_s /\zeta_P$: the probe moves as if it were immersed in a solvent with energy $k_s T_s$ rather than $k_B T$.'
author:
- 'Eric W. Burkholder, John F. Brady'
bibliography:
- 'library.bib'
title: Tracer diffusion in active suspensions
---
Diffusive and rheological properties of active suspensions are important for understanding many biological systems and processes, such as transport within cells. Active Brownian particles (ABPs), which move with a self-propulsive velocity $\bU_0$ and randomly reorient with a characteristic time scale $\tau_R$, provide a minimal model for active suspensions; even the precise mechanism of their autonomous motion need not be specified. The motion of these active particles, or “swimmers,” affects not only material properties (e.g. viscosity), but also the motion of passive constituents, such as nutrients or signaling proteins that may be important for cell survival.
In a passive suspension where particles lack the ability to self-propel, it is well known that “collisions” between a probe and the bath particles sterically hinder the long-time diffusive motion of a probe; the effective long-time diffusivity is less than the isolated Stokes-Einstein-Sutherland (SES) value [@Batchelor1976; @Zia2010]. By contrast, experiments have confirmed that colloidal tracers (both Brownian and non-Brownian) in active bacterial suspensions undergo enhanced diffusive motion at long times due to bath activity. This is observed not only in liquid cultures, but also in porous media and on agar surfaces [@Kim2004; @Wu2000; @Wu2011]. As a result, recent theoretical and experimental investigations have been motivated to understand the character of this enhanced diffusive motion and to provide models that describe this behavior [@Jepson2013; @Mino2011; @Mino2013; @Morozov2014; @Kasyap2014; @Lin2011; @Thiffeault2010]. For example, Kasyap et al. [@Kasyap2014] developed a mean-field hydrodynamic theory to describe the effects of binary interactions between point tracers and ellipsoidal bacterial swimmers. This theory predicts a net enhancement of tracer diffusivity arising from the fluid flow induced by the swimming bacteria, which was shown to be a nonmonotonic function of a Péclet number relating the strength of bacterial advection to the Brownian motion of the tracer. Experimental studies have also observed a nonmonotonicity in Péclet number when varying the size of the tracer particle [@Patteson2016]. Other theory and experiments propose that the enhancement to the diffusivity is linear in the “active flux" due to the swimmers’ autonomous motion [@Jepson2013; @Mino2011; @Mino2013; @Morozov2014].
Here we show that these same qualitative features are recovered without considering hydrodynamic interactions (HI)—the enhanced diffusivity of passive particles may be understood as a result of the activity of the bath particles and excluded volume interactions alone. This does not mean the HI are not important, only that their effect is quantitative, not qualitative. We use a Smoluchowski-level analysis to model the active suspension and compute the long-time diffusivity of a passive probe using generalized Taylor dispersion theory and expansions in orientational tensor harmonics [@Yan2015; @Zia2010; @Saintillan2015]. The derivation and complete expressions for the active diffusivity of the probe are given in the supplemental material [@SuppInfo2017]; here we focus on limiting behaviors. Additionally, we show that these excluded volume interactions have important implications for experimental measurements of activity-enhanced diffusion: steric hindrance to passive diffusion is in competition with active enhancement and both effects must be considered when designing and analyzing experiments.
Consider a passive Brownian particle of size $R$ moving through a bath comprised of a Newtonian solvent of viscosity $\eta$, and a dispersion of ABPs of size $a$, swim speed $U_0$, and reorientation time $\tau_R$. In the absence of the probe, the swimmers undergo both a thermal and an active random-walk, where the thermal walk is characterized by the SES diffusivity $D_a$, and the random walk due to their self-propulsion is characterized by a swim diffusivity $D^{swim} = U_0 ^2 \tau_R /6$. We define the mechanical activity of the bath as the Stokes drag times the swim diffusivity: $k_s T_s = \zeta_a D^{swim}$, just as $k_B T = \zeta_a D_a$ [@Takatori2014; @Takatori2014b]. The volume fraction of swimmers is $\phi = 4\pi a^3 n^\infty/3$, where $n^\infty$ is the uniform number density of swimmers far from the probe. The probe has a thermal diffusivity $D_P = k_B T/\zeta_P$, and the probe-swimmer pair has a relative thermal diffusivity $D^{rel} = D_a + D_P$. The competition between swimming and Brownian motion is governed by the swim Péclet number: $Pe_s = U_0 R_c /D^{rel} =U_0 R/D_a = U_0 a/D_P$, and $R_c = R + a$ is the center-to-center separation distance of the probe and swimmer upon contact.
In the absence of activity, the (passive) bath particles hinder the probe’s motion due to steric interactions [@Batchelor1976]. For dilute suspensions the active contribution to the diffusivity is $\langle \bm{D^{act}} \rangle \equiv \langle \bm{D^{eff}} \rangle -D_P \bm{I}(1-\phi_{act}),$ where $\langle \bm{D^{eff}} \rangle$ is the effective diffusivity of the probe and $\phi_{act} \equiv \phi (R_c/a)^2 /2$ measures the number of swimmers colliding with the probe (which can be much larger than the actual volume fraction $\phi$ for large probes). The diffusivity of a probe in a suspension of inactive swimmers is $D_P \bm{I} (1-\phi_{act})$. When the probe and ABP are the same size, $\phi_{act} = 2\phi$, and the steric reduction is $1 - 2\phi$, a well-known result in the absence of HI [@Batchelor1976]. Both the effective and active diffusivities are isotropic.
We can predict $D^{act}$ with simple scaling arguments. The kinematic definition of the diffusivity is $D^{act} = N (U^\prime)^2 \tau$, where $U^\prime$ is the magnitude of the probe’s velocity fluctuations due to collisions with the swimmers, $\tau$ is the time scale over which these fluctuations become decorrelated, and $N$ is the number of swimmers colliding with the probe. Upon collision a swimmer pushes the probe with its propulsive swim force ${\bF^{swim}} = \zeta_a {\bU_0}$, while the solvent resists this motion via the probe’s Stokes drag. Thus, the magnitude of velocity fluctuations is $U^\prime \sim \zeta_a U_0 / \zeta_P$. (When the probe is small compared to the swimmers, the velocity fluctuations scale with the swim speed, $U^\prime \sim U_0$.) On average the probe will experience $N \sim n^\infty R_c ^3$ collisions, where $R_c^3$ is the volume occupied by a swimmer-probe pair. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
D^{act} & \sim & n^\infty R_c^3 \left(\frac{\zeta_a}{\zeta_P}\right)^2 U_0 ^2 \, \tau, \quad R\gtrsim a, \nonumber\\*
& & n^\infty R_c^3 \, U_0^2 \, \tau , \quad R \ll a \, .
\label{eq:scaling}\end{aligned}$$ The time scale $\tau$ differs depending on the dominant physical process governing the decorrelation and can take one of three values: (1) the diffusive time $\tau_D = R_c^2/D^{rel}$, (2) the advective time $\tau_{adv} = R_c/U_0$ and (3) the reorientation time $\tau_R$.
\(1) When the decorrelation time $\tau = \tau_D \equiv R_c^2/D^{rel}$, the probe’s fluctuations are induced by the swimming bath particles, but the fluctuations are sufficiently weak ($Pe_s \ll 1$) that they decay on the time scale of Brownian diffusion. The scaling argument predicts $D^{act} \sim D_P Pe_s ^2 \phi_{act}$, and the detailed calculations give $$D^{act} = \frac{29}{54}D_P Pe_s^2 \phi_{act},
\label{eqn:pe2}$$ as one would expect for Taylor dispersion: the linear response diffusivity scales as $Pe_s ^2$ (or $U_0^2$). Kasyap et al. [@Kasyap2014] found that the hydrodynamically-driven diffusivity of a point tracer scales as $Pe_s^{3/2} \sqrt{U_0 \tau_R /a}$ when swimming is weak, which is also quadratic in $U_0$. We predict that $D^{act} \sim Pe_s^2$ for all $a/R$, but curiously we find no explicit dependence on $\tau_R$, although such a dependence is evident in Fig. \[fig:peclet\]; we address this in (3) below.
\(2) When swimming is strong compared to Brownian motion, the appropriate time scale is $\tau = \tau_{adv} = R_c/U_0$. The swimmers are bombarding the probe so rapidly that the resulting fluctuations become decorrelated on the time it takes for a swimmers to traverse the distance $R_c$. The scaling analysis (\[eq:scaling\]) predicts $D^{act} \sim D_P Pe_s \phi_{act} \sim U_0 a \phi_{act}$, and the detailed Smoluchowski approach gives: $$D^{act} = \frac{1}{3 \sqrt{3}} U_0 a \left(\frac{2+\sqrt{2 \tau_D/\tau_R}}{1+\sqrt{2 \tau_D/\tau_R}}\right)\phi_{act}.$$ The probe’s diffusivity is now linear in the swim speed $U_0$ (or linear in $Pe_s$), as expected from Taylor dispersion theory. Kasyap et al. [@Kasyap2014] find that $D^{act} \sim n^\infty a^3 U_0 a$ (because the tracers have no size in their analysis the only geometric length scale is the swimmer size $a$), but their result is independent of $\tau_R$. The transition from diffusive to advective behavior is shown in Fig. \[fig:peclet\].
In this limit the run length of a swimmer, $\ell \equiv U_0 \tau_R$, is large compared to the pair size $R_c$, and a swimmer collides with the probe before it is able to traverse its full run length. The swimmer pushes the probe with force $\zeta_a U_0$, but is only able to move it a distance of $O(a)$ on average. One might think that the swimmer should be able to push the probe the contact length $R_c$, but the no-flux boundary condition allows the swimmer to slide along the probe’s surface, and thus the average distance of a push is only $O(a)$. Just as in the diffusion-controlled regime, the result is insensitive to the swimmer-probe size ratio $a/R$. It manifests only in $\phi_{act}$, which simply becomes $\phi$ for point tracers. Finally, we note that the ratio of the other two time scales $\tau_D/\tau_R$ has no bearing on the scaling of the diffusivity in this limit—it can only change the result by a factor of two.
However, $\tau_D/\tau_R$ significantly affects the behavior in the diffusion-dominated regime and the location of the transition from the diffusive to advective behavior. When $\tau_D/\tau_R \ll 1$, reorientations are slow and the transition occurs for $Pe_s \sim O(1)$ as one would expect. However, as reorientations become faster ($\tau_D/\tau_R$ increases), the transition occurs at much higher values of $Pe_s$ (see Fig. \[fig:peclet\]). In the athermal limit of no translational diffusion ($\tau_D \rightarrow \infty$), the transition to strong swimming is governed by the reorienation Péclet number $Pe_R \equiv \tau_{adv} /\tau_R = R_c/\ell \sim O(1)$ rather than the swim Péclet number $Pe_s$.
\(3) When Brownian motion is weak compared to the swimmers’ reorientations, the decorrelation time is set by the reorientation time: $\tau = \tau_R$. The scaling arguments predict $D^{act} \sim (k_s T_s / \zeta_P) \phi_{act}$, or $D^{act} \sim D^{swim}\phi$ for small probes. The result of the Smoluchowski analysis is in agreement: $$D^{act} = \left(\frac{k_s T_s}{\zeta_P}\right)\frac{R}{R_c}\phi_{act}\, .$$ Note that there is no dependence on $k_B T$.
Suppose that the swimmers and probe are large enough so that Brownian motion is not important, but the swimmers’ reorientation time is relatively fast. The probe receives many small active kicks of size $k_s T_s$ from the swimmers, which are dissipated by the Stokes drag $\zeta_P$. Thus, the diffusivity looks like what one would expect from a stochastic “Brownian" process, where the energy is $k_s T_s$ rather than $k_B T$. In the limit when the probe is very small, $(k_s T_s /\zeta_P)(R/R_c) \rightarrow U_0 ^2 \tau_R /6$, $\phi_{act} \rightarrow \phi$, and the active diffusivity is simply the swim diffusivity times the volume fraction of swimmers: $D^{act} = D^{swim} \phi$. As a swimmer hops in one direction and equal volume for solvent is displaced in the opposite direction.
Because the probe receives many small kicks from the swimmers, its motion is governed by a Langevin equation $0 = -\zeta_P \bm{U} + \bm{F}^{swim},$ where $\bm U$ is the probe velocity and the swimmers exert a fluctuating force with zero mean $\langle \bm{F}^{swim} \rangle = \bm 0$ and autocorrelation $\langle \bm{F}^{swim}(t)\bm{F}^{swim}(t')\rangle = 2 k_s T_s \zeta_P \bm{I} \delta(t-t')$ for times long compared to $\tau_R$. The mean-squared displacement follows as $\langle (\Delta \bm{x}(t))^2\rangle = 2 (k_s T_s/\zeta_P) t \bm{I}$ for the diffusivity of a particle immersed in such an active medium.
In this “continuum limit" the probe acts as a thermometer that measures the swimmers’ activity $k_s T_s$. When $\ell/R_c \rightarrow 0$, active suspensions have a well-defined ‘temperature’ through their activity $k_s T_s$ [@Takatori2015] because the motion looks like a stochastic Brownian process. When $\ell/R_c \gg 1$, as is the case in the strong swimming regime, the definition of temperature breaks down because the swimmers no longer move the probe a distance $\ell$, they only push it a distance $a$ between reorientations. Thus, the swimmers do not “share" their activity fully with the probe; the appropriate shared quantity in this limit is $Pe_R$. Figure \[fig:continuum\] shows $D^{act}$ as a function of $\tau_D/\tau_R$ for various values of $D^{swim}/D^{rel} = (\tau_D/\tau_R)/\tau_{adv}^2 \sim k_s T_s/k_B T$. For $\tau_D/\tau_R \rightarrow \infty$ we recover the continuum-like scaling for any value of $k_s T_s /k_BT$. Though intuition might say that the diffusivity should be dominated by thermal kicks when $k_s T_s \ll k_B T$, it is important to remember that it is the solvent, not the bath particles, that give the probe thermal kicks. The swimmers can only give kicks of size $k_s T_s$. The finite size of the swimmers replaces a volume of solvent, thus reducing the number of thermal kicks the probe receives. The $O(\phi_{act})$ change in the probe diffusivity is actually [*negative*]{} when $k_s T_s < k_B T$ (see the inset of Fig. \[fig:nonmonotonic\]): steric hinderance exceeds active enhancement.
An interesting feature predicted by the detailed theory is a nonmontonic dependence of $D^{act}$ on both $\tau_D/\tau_R$ and $Pe_s$, as seen in Figs \[fig:continuum\] and \[fig:nonmonotonic\], respectively. As $Pe_s$ increases, thermal diffusion slows and swimming becomes more important, so we transition from a diffusive to advective behavior. This transition does not occur monotonically with $Pe_s$ because $Pe_R = \tau_{adv}/\tau_R$ also influences the dynamics. Imagine a scenario where $\tau_D$ and $\tau_R$ are fixed and $R\gg a$, but we adjust the swimmers’ speed (perhaps by altering the amount of available fuel). When the swimmers move slowly, Brownian motion dominates: $\overline{D^{act}} \equiv D^{act}/(U_0 a \phi_{act}) \sim Pe_s$. When the swim speed is large, advection dominates and $\overline{D^{act}}$ is constant. When $\tau_D \sim \tau_{adv}$, neither wins out and the reorientations are allowed to influence the dynamics. Finite Brownian motion keeps the swimmers close to the probe after a collision, and slow reorientation allows the swimmer to collide with the probe again rather than run off, thus the diffusivity is slightly higher than the advective scaling. When reorientations are too fast, this peak dissapears. This is corroborated by Fig. \[fig:continuum\], which reveals that $D^{act}$ is only nonmonotonic when $k_s T_s < k_B T$. The nonmontonicity still occurs when $\tau_D \sim \tau_R$, but Brownian motion is only strong enough to compete with activity if the thermal energy of the solvent exceeds the activity of the bath.
Kasyap et al. [@Kasyap2014] find the same phenomenon in their treatment. When the diffusion is hydrodynamic in origin and advection dominates, the tracer follows a straight trajectory along fluid streamlines. Weak Brownian motion allows the tracer to sample more trajectories, and the odd symmetry of the bacterium’s dipolar flow field results in an increased correlation in probe motion. When Brownian motion is strong, the probe’s motion decorrelates and the diffusivity decreases. Thus the diffusivity decreases nonmonotonically with increasing Brownian motion (i.e. as one moves from right to left in Fig. \[fig:nonmonotonic\]). Patteson et al. [@Patteson2016] see something similar in experiments by varying the probe size, which is equivalent to varying $Pe_s$ when all other parameters are fixed. They scale $D^{act}$ by $n^\infty L^3 U_0 L$, where $L$ is the total bacterium length. They find that this scaled diffusivity first increases with probe size as approximately $R^2$ and then decreases to a plateau. Our scaling analysis predicts that $\overline{D^{act}}$ is linear in probe size when diffusion dominates, and indepedent of probe size when advection dominates. In between, when the appropriate time scale is $\tau_R$, $\overline{D^{act}}$ scales as $1/R$, thus capturing the nonmonotonicity. The peak in $\overline{D^{act}}$ is predicted around $Pe_s \sim 5$ in our study and in [@Kasyap2014], but is found experimentally around $Pe_s \sim O(10^3)$; the source of such a large discrepancy is not known. Lastly, we note that the inset of Fig. \[fig:nonmonotonic\] shows that this nonmonotonicity is obscured by the steric hindrance, reinforcing the importance of considering excluded-volume interactions in active suspensions.
Another common model, used by Miño et al. [@Mino2011] to describe enhanced diffusion of tracers in bacterial suspensions, says that the active enhancement is proportional to the advective flux of the active particles: $D^{eff} = D_P + \beta J_a$, where $J_a = n^\infty U_0$ in our notation, similar to what we find for strong swimming. Lin et al. [@Lin2011] predict that $\beta$ scales as the body size to the fourth power for squirmers, but subsequent theoretical derivations indicate that $\beta^{1/4}$ also depends on the swimmer’s hydrodynamic dipole moment, particle size, system geometry, swimming efficiency, etc. As in [@Kasyap2014], these studies do not take the swimmers to be thermally active. Additionally, they argue that the size of the tracer particle does not affect $\beta$ [@Mino2011], and thus excluded-volume effects are generally neglected. This is valid when the tracer particles are always far enough away from the bacteria that the size effects in the Faxén expression for their velocity are negligible, which is consistent with theoretical models that assume the bacteria to be simple hydrodynamic dipoles (which is only true in the far field [@Drescher2010; @Drescher2011]).
For this $\beta$ model, our Smoluchowski theory predicts $\beta = (2 \pi / 9\sqrt{3})R_c^2 a^2[(2+\sqrt{2 \tau_D/\tau_R})/(1+\sqrt{2 \tau_D/\tau_R})]$. The ability of the swimmer to randomly reorient is not required for this enhancement to the diffusivity, as argued in [@Mino2013]. In contrast to some of these experimental studies, our result depends on the size of the tracer particle. In the system of Jepson et al. [@Jepson2013] the tracers are non-motile *E. Coli* in a suspension of motile *E. Coli* with equivalent spherical dimension $a = 1.4 \mu m$. From their experimental parameters, we predict $\beta = 3.22 a^4 - 6.45 a^4$. To match the experimentally found value of $\beta = 7.1 \mu m^4$, our theory predicts that the *E. Coli* would have an equivalent spherical dimension of $a = 1.02 - 1.22 \mu m$. As previously proposed, this advective flux model ignores the steric hinderance of the passive suspension, which should accounted for by $$D^{eff} = D_P(1-\phi_{act}) + \beta J_a\, .$$ The steric hinderance is especially important when swimming is weak (Fig. \[fig:nonmonotonic\]). Experimentally, one should measure the bare diffusivity of a tracer, and then the change in diffusivity among non-motile swimmers to recover the effective particle size $R_c$ from Batchelor’s theory [@Batchelor1976]. Knowing $R_c$, the average swim speed, reorienation time, and the bare particle diffusivities, one can calculate the active diffusivity from our theory, and then compare to experimental measurements.
We presented a micromechanical model for the effective diffusivity of a passive particle embedded in a suspension of ABPs. Using a generalized Taylor dispersion approach, and employing an expansion in orientational tensor harmonics, we found an exact analytical expression for the effective diffusivity of a Brownian probe for arbitrary particle sizes, swimmer activity, and time scales ([@SuppInfo2017]). Our theory agrees qualitatively with previous experimental and theoretical investigations of enhanced diffusion in active suspensions, and is able to explore regimes of parameter space not typically considered in most experiments. It highlights several key features of diffusion in active suspensions: (1) the diffusion of a tracer is nonomontonic in a Péclet number comparing swimming to thermal diffusion, (2) steric hindrance of tracer motion is in competition with the enhancement due to bath activity, and (3), when fluctuations of the tracer’s motion decorrelate on the same time scale as swimmers’ reorientations, the bath mimics a homogenous solvent with energy $k_s T_s$.
This work is funded by NSF grant no. CBET 1437570. We thank S.C. Takatori for helpful discussions.
|
---
abstract: 'We present [*HST*]{}/NICMOS observations of a sample of LIRGs. We show that active star formation appears to be occurring not only in the bright nuclei of these galaxies, but also in luminous super-star clusters and giant H[ii]{} regions with ages of up to $20-40\,$Myr. This population of bright clusters and H[ii]{} regions is unprecedented in normal galaxies and emphasizes the effects of the extreme star formation in LIRGs.'
author:
- 'Almudena Alonso-Herrero, George H. Rieke, Marcia J. Rieke'
- 'Nick Z. Scoville'
title: Massive star formation in Luminous Infrared Galaxies
---
\#1[[*\#1*]{}]{} \#1[[*\#1*]{}]{} =
\#1 1.25in .125in .25in
Introduction
============
Luminous and ultraluminous infrared galaxies (LIRGs and ULIRGs, with $L_{\rm IR} = 10^{11} - 10^{12}\,$L$_\odot$ and $L_{\rm IR} > 10^{12}\,$L$_\odot,$ respectively) have long been recognized as one of the best laboratories to study the process of violent star formation in the Local Universe. The dust-rich environments of LIRGs and ULIRGs are thought to be similar to the conditions in which star formation occurred at high redshift.
The [*Hubble Space Telescope*]{} (HST) is proving to be an invaluable tool for unveiling the star formation processes in galaxies over spatial scales previously unattainable – scales of a few tens of parsecs. Most remarkable is the discovery of the so-called super star clusters (SSC) in interacting/merging galaxies (e.g., the Antennae). Although there is no precise definition, SSCs are massive star clusters with luminosities a few orders of magnitude brighter than globular clusters (see a recent review by Whitmore 2000). It is now clear that this population of SSCs is not only inherent to interacting galaxies, but also to LIRGs (see e.g., Alonso-Herrero et al. 2000; 2001; 2002), ULIRGs (Scoville et al. 2000), groups of galaxies (Gallagher et al. 2001) and even isolated galaxies (e.g., Maoz et al. 2001).
One of the main difficulties in quantifying the age of SSCs in LIRGs and interacting galaxies is breaking the age-extinction degeneracy. This usually translates into only rough age estimates for SSCs – 5 and 900Myr, from photometric data (Whitmore 2000). H[ii]{} regions, on the other hand, will highlight the youngest regions of star formation, with ages of $< 5-10\,$Myr, as these are the lifetimes of the O and B stars required to ionize the gas. In this paper we analyze the physical properties of H[ii]{} regions and star clusters in a sample of LIRGs, as well as their relation and evolution to provide further insight into the nature of the off-nuclear star formation in LIRGs.
Sample and Observations
=======================
We have selected a sample of eight LIRGs with both [*HST*]{}/NICMOS narrow-band Pa$\alpha$ ($\lambda_{\rm rest} = 1.87\,\mu$m) images and broad-band $H$ ($1.6\,\mu$m) continuum images (Table 1) to identify H[ii]{} regions and star clusters, respectively.
------------ ------------------- ------- ------------------------ --------------------------------------- -------------------------------
[Galaxy]{} $\log L_{\rm IR}$ Dist [FOV of Pa$\alpha$ ]{} [$\log L({\rm H}\alpha)_{\rm tot}$]{} [$L_{\rm nuc}/L_{\rm tot}$]{}
(L$_\odot$) (Mpc) (kpc$\times$kpc) [(erg s$^{-1}$)]{}
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
NGC 6808 10.94 46 $11\times 11$ 41.38 $\simeq 0$
NGC 5653 11.01 47 $11\times 11$ 41.72 $\simeq 0$
Zw 049.057 11.22 52 $4.9\times 4.9$ 41.21 –
NGC 3256 11.48 37 $3.5\times 3.5$ 42.11 0.41
NGC 1614 11.62 64 $6.4\times 6.4$ 42.60 0.65
VV 114 11.62 80 $9.3\times 9.3$ 42.55$^*$ 0.37
IC 694 11.91 42 $3.8\times 3.8$ 41.95 0.58
NGC 3690 42 $3.8\times 3.8$ 42.16 0.18
NGC 6240 11.82 97 $9.2\times 9.2$ 43.19$^*$ $\simeq 1^*$
------------ ------------------- ------- ------------------------ --------------------------------------- -------------------------------
: Sample of LIRGs.
[Notes. — Column (1): Galaxy. The two components of Arp 299 are usually referred to as IC 694 and NGC 3690. Column (2): IR ($8-1000\,\mu$m) luminosity. Column (3): Distance. Columns (4) and (5): Area imaged in Pa$\alpha$ and H$\alpha$ luminosity over that area. Column (6): Ratio of the nuclear to total H$\alpha$ luminosity. $^*$ Uncertain because of the large correction needed to account for the total Pa$\alpha$ flux (see AAH02 for details).]{}
Super Star Clusters
===================
Much of the recent star formation in our sample of LIRGs appears to be occurring not only in the bright nuclei, but also in luminous clusters and H[ii]{} regions (e.g., Table 1, last column), similar to those found in other interacting and highly luminous IR galaxies (e.g., Scoville et al. 2000; AAH02). The absolute $H$-band magnitudes for clusters in LIRGs (not corrected for extinction) range up to approximately $M_H =-17\,$mag to $M_H =-18\,$mag (see histogram for the clusters of NGC 3256 in Fig. 1, left panel). The lower detection limit depends on the emission from the underlying galaxy and the degree of crowding. For instance the distribution of $H$-band luminosities of clusters detected in NGC 3256 appears to be complete down to $M_H\simeq -14\,$mag (Fig. 1).
The luminosities of the brightest IR clusters in LIRGs may exceed the limits found in more normal conditions. For example, the intermediate-age clusters in M100 (Ryder & Knapen 1999) have $M_H = -12\,$mag to $M_H = -15\,$mag assuming ($H-K \simeq 0.2$). Since the IR luminosities change only slowly with time after approximately 20 million years (see Fig. 2), we can compare directly to see that the luminosities of clusters in normal galaxies may be about $1.5-2\,$mag lower than for LIRGs. Even when compared to starburst galaxies, LIRGs appear to have an excess of luminous IR clusters, as illustrated in Fig. 1 (left panels). This figure compares the distribution of luminosities of clusters in the central region of the starburst galaxy NGC 1530 (at a distance similar to NGC 3256 and thus same spatial resolution) with those detected in NGC 3256.
Giant H[ii]{} Regions
=====================
In two previous studies we showed the presence of a population of bright H[ii]{} regions in two LIRGs, Arp 299 (AAH00) and NGC 1614 (AAH01). A significant fraction of these H[ii]{} regions displays H$\alpha$ luminosities in excess of that of 30 Doradus, the prototypical giant H[ii]{} region. The analysis of the sample of LIRGs in Table 1 has revealed that giant H[ii]{} regions are ubiquitous in LIRGs and are located not only in and near the nuclei of interacting galaxies, but also at the interface of interacting galaxies and along the spiral arms of isolated systems.
In Fig. 1 (right panels) we compare the H$\alpha$ luminosities (not corrected for extinction) of H[ii]{} regions in LIRGs with those in a small sample of normal galaxies observed with the same spatial resolution from Alonso-Herrero & Knapen (2001). Giant H[ii]{} regions (the luminosity of 30 Doradus is indicated with an arrow in Fig. 1) are more common in LIRGs than in normal galaxies. The measured sizes of giant H[ii]{} regions in LIRGs when compared to those of normal galaxies rule out the possibility that these giant H[ii]{} regions are just aggregations of “normal” H[ii]{} regions. A more plausible explanation for this population of luminous H[ii]{} regions in LIRGs is that regions of high gas pressure and density in LIRGs, ULIRGs, and interacting galaxies provide the necessary conditions for the formation of a large number of massive star (ionizing) clusters. Such extreme conditions are not likely to occur in normal galaxies.
Giant H[ii]{} Regions and their relation to SSC: the age sequence
=================================================================
Despite the large numbers of near-IR SSCs and H[ii]{} regions identified in LIRGs, there is only a small fraction of coincidences ($4-30\,$%) between H[ii]{} regions and star clusters. We can use evolutionary synthesis models to reproduce the observed relative fractions of young and intermediate H[ii]{} regions or clusters and old clusters in Arp 299 and NGC 3256. In Fig. 2 we show outputs of Starburst99 (Leitherer et al. 1999) for the time evolution of the absolute $H$-band magnitude and number of ionizing photons. We show two cluster masses and instantaneous star formation with a Salpeter IMF. For these assumptions and taking into account the detection limits for the complete distributions of $H$-band luminosities of clusters in NGC 3256 and Arp 299 we infer photometric masses for the detected clusters of between $\simeq 5 \times 10^4$ and $10^6\,{\rm M}_\odot$.
The fact that the peak of the $H$-band luminosity occurs after approximately 9Myr, whereas at the same time the number of ionizing photons has dropped by about 2 orders of magnitude from the maximum, provides an explanation for the limited number of coincidences. Within the present detection limits in Arp 299 and NGC 3256, we can detect both H[ii]{} region emission and a star cluster for the most massive clusters ($\simeq 10^6\,{\rm M}_\odot$) only during the first 7Myr (Fig. 2). The near-IR clusters with no detected H[ii]{} region emission will be older than approximately 7Myr. The H[ii]{} regions with no detected cluster counterpart are most likely younger than 5Myr, and have intermediate-mass ($5 \times 10^4-10^5\,{\rm M}_\odot$) ionizing clusters. If, as observed in obscured Galactic H[ii]{} regions, there are significant amounts of extinction during the first million years of the evolution of clusters and associated H[ii]{} regions, then the observed fractions of H[ii]{} regions and coincidences will be lower limits.
An estimate of the age distribution of the observed clusters can be inferred from the relative numbers of H[ii]{} regions and near-IR star clusters and the model predictions: The higher the fraction of near-IR clusters compared to that of H[ii]{} regions, the older the ages of the detected star clusters will be. The ages of the detected star clusters in Arp 299 and NGC 3256 range up to $20-40\,$Myr. Older clusters possibly created in this or previous episodes of star formation are likely to exist in these systems but cannot be identified with the present detection threshold. Another possibility to explain the apparent youth of the clusters in Arp 299 and NGC 3256 would be destruction of clusters. In that case, if the clusters have been created at a constant rate for the last 100Myr, then roughly 50% of the clusters are destroyed during that time to account for the observed fraction of clusters in these two systems. The data presented in this paper does not allow us to distinguish between these two possibilities.
From the present observations and modeling we find that a large fraction of the youngest clusters (that is, the ionizing clusters of the H[ii]{} regions with ages less than $5-6\,$Myr) will not be detected from near-IR continuum imaging alone, as only some 8%–16% of these H[ii]{} regions in our sample of LIRGs appear to have near-IR cluster counterparts. This suggests that studies of the young star clusters in galaxies performed using only near-IR continuum imaging may be missing a significant fraction of the youngest star-forming regions.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
AAH participation in this conference was made possible by a travel grant from the AAS. The AAS travel grant program is supported by the National Science Foundation.
Alonso-Herrero, A. et al. 2000, , 532, 845 (AAH00)
Alonso-Herrero, A. et al. 2001, , 546, 952 (AAH01)
Alonso-Herrero, A. & Knapen, J. H. 2001, , 122, 1350
Alonso-Herrero, A. et al. 2002, , 124, 166 (AAH02)
Gallagher, S. C. et al. 2001, , 122, 163
Kissler-Patig, M., Brodie, J. P., & Minniti, D. 2002, , 391, 441
Leitherer, C. et al. 1999, 1999, , 123, 3
Maoz, D. et al. 2001, , 121, 3048
Ryder, S. D. & Knapen, J. H. 1999, , 302, L7
Scoville, N. Z. et al. 2000, , 119, 991
Whitmore, B. 2000, in STScI Symposium Ser 14 (ed. M. Livio) (astro-ph/0012546)
Discussion {#discussion .unnumbered}
==========
[*J. M. Mas-Hesse:*]{} The peak in $H$-band emission predicted by evolutionary synthesis models at around 10Myr is due to the formation of Red Supergiants. Predictions for RSGs are very much model-dependent, since they are strongly affected by rotation, so that they have to be taken with care.\
[*A. Alonso-Herrero:*]{} Yes, I’m aware of this problem and obviously some of the results I’ve presented are model-dependent.\
[*G. Tenorio-Tagle:*]{} Can you please indicate the physical size of the SSCs.\
[*A. Alonso-Herrero:*]{} The sizes of the super star clusters are somewhat dependent on the spatial resolution (i.e., the distance of the galaxy). For the closest galaxies in our sample the typical diameters are of the order of $20-30\,$pc.\
|
---
abstract: 'In the wake of the vast population of smart device users worldwide, mobile health (mHealth) technologies are hopeful to generate positive and wide influence on people’s health. They are able to provide flexible, affordable and portable health guides to device users. Current online decision-making methods for mHealth assume that the users are completely heterogeneous. They share no information among users and learn a separate policy for each user. However, data for each user is very limited in size to support the separate online learning, leading to unstable policies that contain lots of variances. Besides, we find the truth that a user may be similar with some, but not all, users, and connected users tend to have similar behaviors. In this paper, we propose a network cohesion constrained (actor-critic) Reinforcement Learning (RL) method for mHealth. The goal is to explore how to share information among similar users to better convert the limited user information into sharper learned policies. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first online actor-critic RL for mHealth and first network cohesion constrained (actor-critic) RL method in all applications. The network cohesion is important to derive effective policies. We come up with a novel method to learn the network by using the warm start trajectory, which directly reflects the users’ property. The optimization of our model is difficult and very different from the general supervised learning due to the indirect observation of values. As a contribution, we propose two algorithms for the proposed online RLs. Apart from mHealth, the proposed methods can be easily applied or adapted to other health-related tasks. Extensive experiment results on the HeartSteps dataset demonstrates that in a variety of parameter settings, the proposed two methods obtain obvious improvements over the state-of-the-art methods.'
author:
- 'Feiyun Zhu$^{\star,\ddagger}$, Peng Liao$^{\ddagger}$, Xinliang Zhu$^{\star}$, Yaowen Yao$^{\star}$, Junzhou Huang$^{\star}$ [^1]'
bibliography:
- '4\_home\_fyzhu\_link2dropbox\_self\_Folder\_myWorksOnDropboxs\_bibFiles\_referenceBib2.bib'
- '5\_home\_fyzhu\_link2dropbox\_self\_Folder\_myWorksOnDropboxs\_bibFiles\_referenceBib.bib'
title: 'Cohesion-based Online Actor-Critic Reinforcement Learning for mHealth Intervention'
---
@path[[/home/fyzhu/link2dropbox/self\_Folder/myWorksOnDropboxs/201702\_SigKDD\_CohesionDiscovery4onlineGraphRL\_self/IEEE\_TPAMI//]{}]{}
Actor-Critic, Reinforcement Learning, Mobile Health (mHealth) Intervention, Cohesion
Introduction
============
With billions of smart device[^2] users globally, it is increasingly popular among the scientist community to make use of the state-of-the-art articial intelligence and mobile health technologies to leverage supercomputers and big data to facilicate the prediction of healthcare tasks [@huitian_2014_NIPS_ActCriticBandit4JITAI; @huitian_2016_PhdThesis_actCriticAlgorithm; @SusanMurphy_2016_CORR_BatchOffPolicyAvgRwd; @PengLiao_2015_Proposal_offPolicyRL; @yaoyao_2017_MICCAI; @xinliang_2017_CVPR_WSISA; @zhengxu_2017_ACMBCB]. In this paper, the goal of mobile health (mHealth) is to make use of various smart devices as great platforms to collect and analyze raw data (weather, location, social activity, stress, etc.). Based on that, the aim is to provide effective intervention that helps users to change to or adapt to healthy behaviors, such as reducing the alcohol abuse [@Gustafson_2014_JAMA_drinking; @Witkiewitz_2014_JAB_drinkingSmoking] and promoting physical activities [@Abby_2013_PlosONE_mobileIntervention]. The traditional adaptive treatment has restrictions on the time, location and frequency—patients have to visit the doctor’s office for treatments. Compared with them, mHealth is more affordable, portable and much more flexible in the sense that smart devices allow for the real-time collection and analysis of data as well as in-time delivery of interventions. Thus, mHealth technologies are widely used in lots of health-related tasks, such as physical activity [@Abby_2013_PlosONE_mobileIntervention], eating disorders [@Bauer_2012_JCCP_eatingDisorder], alcohol use [@Gustafson_2014_JAMA_drinking; @Witkiewitz_2014_JAB_drinkingSmoking], mental illness[@Depp_2010_JNMD_mentalIllness; @Ben_2013_APMHMHSRZZZZ_mentalIllness], obesity/weight management [@Patrick_2009_JMIR_weightManagement].
Formally, the mHealth intervention is modeled as a sequential decision making (SDM) problem. It aims to learn the optimal policy to determine when, where and how to deliver the intervention [@huitian_2014_NIPS_ActCriticBandit4JITAI; @PengLiao_2015_Proposal_offPolicyRL; @SusanMurphy_2016_CORR_BatchOffPolicyAvgRwd] to best serve users. This is a new research topic that lacks of methodological guidance. In 2014, Lei [@huitian_2014_NIPS_ActCriticBandit4JITAI] made a first attempt to formulate the mHealth intervention as an online actor-critic contextual bandit problem. Lei’s method served a good starting point for the mHealth study. However, this method did not consider the important delayed effect in the SDM—the current action may influence not only the immediate reward but also the next states and, through that, all the subsequent rewards [@Sutton_2012_Book_ReinforcementLearning; @YihongLi_2010_WWW_contextualBandit4newsArticleRecommend]. Dr. Murphy [@SusanMurphy_2016_CORR_BatchOffPolicyAvgRwd] proposed an average reward based RL to consider the delayed effect in the mHealth. However, those two methods rely on some ideal assumptions. They either assume that all the users are completely homogenous or completely heterogeneous. We find the truth lying between those extremes: a user might be similar with some, but not all, users. Their methods are easy to bring in too much bias or too much variance. Besides, [@SusanMurphy_2016_CORR_BatchOffPolicyAvgRwd] is in the batch learning setting, which is different from this paper’s focuses.
Recently, Dr. Cesa-Bianchi [@Bianchi_2013_NIPS_GangOfBandit] proposed a contextual bandit algorithm that considers the network information. It is for the recommendation system, which is very different from the mHealth task. Besides, there are three drawbacks making the method in [@Bianchi_2013_NIPS_GangOfBandit] impractical for the mHealth: (1) Cesa-Bianchi’s method focues on the bandit algorithm. It doesn’t consider the important delayed effect in mHealth. (2) They assume the network information is given beforehand from the social information. The given network may not be targeted for the mHealth study. There is lots of misleading network information for the mHealth study [@Bianchi_2013_NIPS_GangOfBandit; @Claudio_2014_ICML_olineClusteringBandits; @Alexandra_2016_AISTATS_GraphBandits]. (3) In their work, however, it is unable to control the amount of information shared among linked users, which is not flexible for the mHealth study [@fyzhu_2014_IJPRS_SSNMF; @haichangLi_2016_IJRS_LablePropagationHyperClassification].
In this paper, we propose a cohesion-based reinforcement learning for the mHealth and derive two algorithms. It is in an online, actor-critic setting. The aim is to explore how to share information across similar users in order to improve the performance. The main contributions of this paper are summarized as follows: (**1**) to the best of our knowledge, this is the first online (actor-critic) RL method for the mHealth. (**2**) Current evidence verifies the wide existence of networks among users [@Tianxi_2016_CORR_PredictModels4NetworkLinkedData; @fyzhu_2014_IJPRS_SSNMF; @haichangLi_2016_IJRS_LablePropagationHyperClassification]. We improve the online RL by considering the network cohesion among users. Such improvement makes it the first network constrained (actor-critic) RL method to the best of our knowledge. It is able to relieve the tough problem of current online decision-making methods for the mHealth by reducing variance at the cost of inducing bias. Current online RL learns a separate policy for each user. However, there are too few of samples to support the separate online learning, which leads to unsatisfactory interventions (policies) for the users. (**3**) Our method doesn’t require the given network cohesion. We propose a method to learn the network intentionally for the mHealth study. It makes use of the warm start trajectories in the online learning, which are expected to represent the users’ properties. (**4**) Compared with [@Bianchi_2013_NIPS_GangOfBandit], the proposed method has a tuning parameter, which allows us to control how much information we should share with similar users. It is worth mentioning that our method may not be limited to mHealth. It can be applied to other health-related tasks. Extensive experiment results on the HeartSteps dataset verifies that our method can achieve clear improvement over the Separate-RL.
Preliminaries
=============
Markov Decision Process (MDP)
-----------------------------
We assume the mHealth intervention is a Markov Decision Process (MDP) [@Geist_2013_TNNLS_RL_valueFunctionApproximation; @Grondman_2012_IEEEts_surveyOfActorCriticRL; @Pednault_2002_SIGKDD_CostSensitiveRL; @Michail_2003_JMLR_LSPI_LSTDQ] that consists of a 5-tuple $\left\{ \mtcalS,\mtcalA,\mtcalP,\mtcalR,\gamma\right\} $, where $\mtcalS$ is the state space and $\mtcalA$ is the action space. $\mtcalP\!\!:\!\mtcalS\!\times\!\mtcalA\!\times\!\mtcalS\!\mapsto\!\left[0,1\right]$ is the state transition model in which $\mtcalP\left(s,a,s'\right)$ indicates the probability of transiting from one state $s$ to another $s'$ after taking action $a$; $\mtcalR\left(s,a,s'\right)$ is the corresponding immediate reward for such transition where $\mtcalR\!:\mtcalS\times\mtcalA\times\mtcalS\mapsto\mtbbR$. For simplicity, the expected immediate reward $\mtcalR\left(s,a\right)=\mtexpect_{s'\sim\mtcalP}\left[\mtcalR\left(s,a,s'\right)\right]$ is assumed to be bounded over the state and action spaces. $\gamma\in[0,1)$ is the discount factor that reduces the influence of future rewards. To allow for the matrix operators, the state space $\mtcalS$ and action space $\mtcalA$ are assumed to be finite, though very large in mHealth.
The policy of an MDP is to choose actions for any state $s\in\mtcalS$ in the system [@Grondman_2012_IEEEts_surveyOfActorCriticRL; @Sutton_2012_Book_ReinforcementLearning]. There are two types of policies: (1) the deterministic policy $\pi:\mtcalS\mapsto\mtcalA$ selects an action directly for the state, and (2) the stochastic policy $\pi:s\in\mtcalS\mapsto\pi\left(\cdot\mid s\right)\in\mtcalP\left(\mtcalA\right)$ chooses the action for any state $s$ by providing $s$ with a probability distribution over all the possible actions [@Geist_2013_TNNLS_RL_valueFunctionApproximation]. In mHealth, the stochastic policy is preferred due to two reasons: (a) current evidence shows that some randomness in the action is likely to draw users’ interest, thus helpful to reduce the intervention burden/habituation [@Epstein_2009_AJCN_varietyInfluencesHab; @huitian_2014_NIPS_ActCriticBandit4JITAI; @SusanMurphy_2016_CORR_BatchOffPolicyAvgRwd]; (b) though some deterministic policy is theoretically optimal for the MDP, however, we do not know where it is for the large state space on the one hand and the MDP is a simplification for the complex behavioral process on the other; some variation may be helpful to explore the system and search for a desirable policy [@SusanMurphy_2016_CORR_BatchOffPolicyAvgRwd]. We consider the parameterized stochastic policy, $\pi_{\theta}\left(a\mid s\right)$, where $\theta\in\mtbbR^{m}$ is the unknown parameter. Such policy is interpretable in the sense that we could know the key features that contribute most to the policy by analyzing the estimated $\widehat{\theta}$, which is important to behavior scientists for the state (feature) design [@huitian_2014_NIPS_ActCriticBandit4JITAI; @SusanMurphy_2016_CORR_BatchOffPolicyAvgRwd].
In RL, value is a core concept that quantifies the quality of a policy $\pi$ [@Sutton_2012_Book_ReinforcementLearning]. There are two definitions of values: the state value and the state-action ($Q$-) value [@Abe_2004_SIGKDD_CrossChannelRL]. In mHealth, the $Q$-value is considered because the model (i.e. state transition and immediate reward) is assumed to be unknown, and $Q$-value allows for action selection without knowing the model while the state value requires the model for the action selection [@Michail_2003_JMLR_LSPI_LSTDQ]. Formally, the $Q$-value $Q^{\pi}\left(s,a\right)\in\mtbbR^{\left|\mtcalS\right|\times\left|\mtcalA\right|}$ measures the total amount of rewards an agent can obtain when starting from state $s$, first choosing action $a$ and then following the policy $\pi$. Specially, the discounted reward is one of the most commonly used value measures $$Q^{\pi}\left(s,a\right)=\mtexpect_{a_{i}\sim\pi,s_{i}\sim\mtcalP}\left\{ \sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\gamma^{i}r_{i}\mid s_{0}=s,a_{0}=a\right\} .\label{eq:Q_value}$$
The goal of RL is to learn an optimal policy $\pi^{*}$ that maximizes the $Q$-value for all the state-action pairs via interactions with the dynamic system [@Geist_2013_TNNLS_RL_valueFunctionApproximation]. The objective is ${\displaystyle \theta^{*}=\arg\max_{\theta}\widehat{J}\left(\theta\right)},$ where $$\widehat{J}\left(\theta\right)=\sum_{s\in\mtcalS}d_{\text{ref}}\left(s\right)\sum_{a\in\mtcalA}\pi_{\theta}\left(a\mid s\right)Q^{\pi_{\theta}}\left(s,a\right)\label{eq:actor-objective_thoery}$$ and $d_{\text{ref}}\left(s\right)$ is the reference distribution of states (e.g. the distribution of initial states); $Q^{\pi_{\theta}}$ is the value for the policy $\pi_{\theta}$. According to , we have to learn the $Q^{\pi_{\theta}}$ for all the state-action pairs to determine the objective and, after then, to improve the policy. Thus in this paper, we employ the actor-critic algorithm. It is an alternating updating algorithm between two steps untill convergence. At each iteration, the critic updating estimates the $Q$-value function (i.e. policy evaluation, cf. Section \[sub:BellmanEquation\_MC\_TD\] and \[sub:CriticUpdating\_LSTDQ\]) for the lastest policy; the actor updating (i.e. policy improvement, cf. Section \[sub:ActorUpdating\_fmincon\]) learns a better policy based on the newly estimated $Q$-value. Moreover, the actor-critic algorithm has great properties of quick convergence with low variance and learning continuous policies [@Grondman_2012_IEEEts_surveyOfActorCriticRL].
Bellman Equation and Q-value Estimation {#sub:BellmanEquation_MC_TD}
---------------------------------------
It is well known that due to the Markovian property, the $Q$-value satisfies the linear Bellman equation [@Abe_2010_SIGKDD_optimizingDebt] for any policy $\pi$: $$\begin{aligned}
Q^{\pi}\left(s,a\right)=\ & \mtcalR\left(s,a\right)+\gamma\sum_{s^{'}\in\mtcalS}\mtcalP\left(s,a,s'\right)\sum_{a^{'}\in\mtcalA}\pi\left(a'\mid s'\right)Q^{\pi}\left(s',a'\right).\end{aligned}$$ It has the matrix form as $$\mtbfq^{\pi}=\mtbfr+\gamma\mtbfP\Pi_{\pi}\mtbfq^{\pi},\label{eq:Q_linearBellmanEquation_detail}$$ where $\mtbfq^{\pi}$ and $\mtbfr$ are vectors both with $\left|\mtcalS\right|\left|\mtcalA\right|$ elements; $\mtbfP\in\mtbbR^{\left|\mtcalS\right|\left|\mtcalA\right|\times\left|\mtcalS\right|}$ is the stochastic state transition matrix, in which $P\left(\left(s,a\right),s'\right)=\mtcalP\left(s,a,s'\right)$; $\Pi_{\pi}\in\mtbbR^{\left|\mtcalS\right|\times\left|\mtcalS\right|\left|\mtcalA\right|}$ is the stochastic policy matrix, where $\Pi_{\pi}\left(s,\left(s,a\right)\right)=\pi\left(a\mid s\right)$ [@Michail_2003_JMLR_LSPI_LSTDQ]. Once both the reward and the state transition models are given [@AndrewNg_2009_ICML_RLsparity], it is easy to obtain the analytical solution as $\mtbfq^{\pi}=\left(\mtbfI-\gamma\mtbfP\Pi_{\pi}\right)^{-1}\mtbfr$.
However, there are two factors making it impossible to have the analytical solution for the $Q$-value estimation: (a) in mHealth, both reward $\mtbfr$ and state transition $\mtcalP$ (i.e. $\mtbfP$) models are unknown. (b) the state space in mHealth is usually very large or even infinite, which makes it impossible to directly learn the $Q$-value due to lack of observations for sharper learning and too high storage requirements, i.e. $O\left(\left|\mtcalS\right|\left|\mtcalA\right|\right)$ to only store the $Q$-value table. We resolve these problems via the parameterized function approximation, which assumes that $Q^{\pi}$ is in a low dimensional space: $Q^{\pi}\approx Q_{\mtbfw}=\mtbfw^{\intercal}\mtbfx\left(s,a\right)$, where $\mtbfw\in\mtbbR^{u}$ is the unknown variable and $\mtbfx\left(s,a\right)$ is a feature processing step that combines information in the state and action. We then learn the value $Q_{\mtbfw}$ from observations via a supervised learning paramdigm, which, however, is much more challenging than the general supervised learning since the $Q$-value is not directly observed [@Geist_2013_TNNLS_RL_valueFunctionApproximation]. As a direct solution, the Monte Carlo (MC) method draws very deep trajectories to obtain the observation of actual $Q$ value. Although MC can provide an unbiased estimation of $Q_{\mtbfw}$, it is not suitable for mHealth since MC can’t learn from the incomplete trajectory [@Sutton_2012_Book_ReinforcementLearning]. Such case requires massive sampling from users, which, however, is very labor-intensive and expensive in time. As a central idea of RL [@Sutton_2012_Book_ReinforcementLearning], the temporal-difference (TD) learning is able to make use of the Bellman equation and to learn the value from the incomplete trajectories. The learned result of TD has the property of low variance.
The critic updating: Least-Squares TD for $Q$-value (LSTD$Q$) Estimation {#sub:CriticUpdating_LSTDQ}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In mHealth, though the data for all users is abundant, the data for each user is limited in size. We employ the least-square TD for the Q-value (LSTD$Q$) estimation, due to its advantage of efficient use of samples over the pure temporal-difference algorithms [@Michail_2003_JMLR_LSPI_LSTDQ; @Sakuma_2008_ICML_PrivacyPreservingRL]. The goal of LSTD$Q$ is to learn a $Q_{\mtbfw}$ to approximately satisfy the Bellman equation , by minimizing the TD error [@AndrewNg_2009_ICML_RLsparity] as $$\mtbfw=\mhbfh=\min_{\mtbfh\in\mtbbR^{K}}\left\Vert \mebfX^{\intercal}\mtbfh-\left(\mebfr+\gamma\mtbfP\Pi_{\pi}\mebfX^{\intercal}\mtbfw\right)\right\Vert _{D}^{2},\label{eq:LSTDQ_distribution}$$ where $\mtbfw=\mhbfh$ is a fixed point problem and $\mhbfh$ is a function of $\mtbfw$; $\mebfX$ is a designed matrix consisting of all the state and action pairs in the MDP; $D$ describes the distributions over the state and action pairs.
Since the state transition $\mtbfP$ is unknown and $\mebfX$ is too large to form in mHealth, we can not directly solve . Instead, we have to make use of the trajectories collected from $N$ users, i.e. $\mtcalD=\left\{ \mtcalD_{n}\right\} _{n=1}^{N}$, where $\mtcalD_{n}=\left\{ \mtcalU_{i}=\left(s_{i},a_{i,}r_{i},s_{i}'\right)\mid i=0,\cdots,t\right\} $ summarizes all the $t+1$ tuples for the $n$-th user and $\mtcalU_{i}$ is the $i$-th tuple in $\mtcalD_{n}$.
Current online contextual bandit (i.e. a special RL with $\gamma=0$) methods for mHealth assume that all users are completely heterogeneous. They share no information and run a separate algorithm for each user [@huitian_2014_NIPS_ActCriticBandit4JITAI]. Following this idea, we extend [@huitian_2014_NIPS_ActCriticBandit4JITAI] to the separate RL setting. The objective for the $n$-th user is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\mtbfw_{n} & =\mhbfh_{n}=\arg\min_{\mtbfh_{n}}\sum_{\mtcalU_{i}\in\mtcalD_{n}}\left\Vert \mtbfx{}_{i}^{\intercal}\mtbfh_{n}-\left(r_{i}+\gamma\mtbfy{}_{i}^{\intercal}\mtbfw_{n}\right)\right\Vert _{2}^{2}\end{aligned}$$ $\mtfor\ n\in\left\{ 1,\cdots,N\right\} $, where $\mtbfx_{i}=\mtbfx\left(s_{i},a_{i}\right)$ is the value feature at time $i$ and $\mtbfy{}_{i}=\sum_{a'\in\mtcalA}\mathbf{x}\left(s_{i}',a'\right)\pi_{\theta}\left(a'\mid s_{i}'\right)$ is the value feature at the next time point. For the sake of easy derivation, we define the following matrices to store the actual observations $$\begin{aligned}
\mtbfX_{n} & =\left[\mathbf{x}\left(s_{1},a_{1}\right),\mathbf{x}\left(s_{2},a_{2}\right)\cdots,\mathbf{x}\left(s_{t},a_{t}\right)\right]\in\mathbb{R}^{u\times t}\nonumber \\
\mtbfY_{n} & =\left[\mtbfy\left(s_{1}';\theta_{n}\right),\cdots,\mtbfy\left(s_{t}';\theta_{n}\right)\right]\in\mathbb{R}^{u\times t}\label{eq:featureConstruction_4_value}\\
\mtbfr_{n} & =\left[r_{1},r_{2},\cdots,r_{t}\right]^{\intercal}\in\mathbb{R}^{t},\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where $u$ is the length of the sample feature for the $Q$-value approximation, $t$ is the current time point in the online RL learning procedure (i.e. the current trajectory length), $\mtbfy\left(s_{i}';\theta_{n}\right)=\sum_{a^{'}\in\mtcalA}\mathbf{x}\left(s_{i}',a'\right)\pi_{\theta_{n}}\left(a'\mid s_{i}'\right)$, and $\pi_{\theta_{n}}\left(a\mid s\right)$ is the policy for the $n$-th user. Let $\mtbfR=\left[\mtbfr_{1},\cdots,\mtbfr_{N}\right]\in\mtbbR^{t\times N}$ store the reward of all $N$ users at all the $t$ time points. To prevent the overfitting when $t$ is small at the beginning of online RL learning, the $\ell_{2}$ norm based constraint is considered in the objective as follows $$\mtbfw_{n}=\mhbfh_{n}=\arg\min_{\mtbfh_{n}}\left\Vert \mtbfX_{n}^{\intercal}\mtbfh_{n}-\left(\mtbfr_{n}+\gamma\mtbfY_{n}^{\intercal}\mtbfw_{n}\right)\right\Vert _{2}^{2}+\zeta_{c}\left\Vert \mtbfh_{n}\right\Vert _{2}^{2}$$ $\mtfor\ n\in\left\{ 1,\cdots,N\right\} $. The LSTD$Q$ provides a closed-form solution $$\mhbfw_{\theta_{n}}=\left[\mtbfX_{n}\left(\mtbfX_{n}-\gamma\mtbfY_{n}\right)^{\intercal}+\zeta\mtbfI\right]^{-1}\mtbfX_{n}\mtbfr_{n},\label{eq:LSTDQ_4_wn}$$ for $\left\{ n\right\} _{n=1}^{N}$, where $\mhbfw_{\theta_{n}}$ is a function of the policy parameter $\theta_{n}$.
The actor updating for policy improvement \[sub:ActorUpdating\_fmincon\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In mHealth, the reference distribution of states $d_{\text{ref}}\left(s\right)$ is unknown and hard to estimate due to the lack of samples. We set $d_{\text{ref}}\left(s\right)$ as the empirical distribution of states. Accordingly, the observations in the trajectory, i.e. $\mtcalD_{n}$, are used to form the objective for the actor updating $\widehat{\theta}_{n}={\displaystyle \arg\max_{\theta_{n}}\widehat{J}\left(\theta_{n}\right)}$, where $$\widehat{J}\left(\theta_{n}\right)=\frac{1}{\left|\mtcalD_{n}\right|}\sum_{s_{i}\in\mtcalD_{n}}\sum_{a\in\mtcalA}Q\left(s_{i},a;\mhbfw_{\theta_{n}}\right)\pi_{\theta_{n}}\!\left(a|s_{i}\right)-\frac{\zeta_{a}}{2}\left\Vert \theta_{n}\right\Vert _{2}^{2}\label{eq:Actor_objective_trajectory}$$ $\mtfor\ n\in\left\{ 1,\cdots,N\right\} $. Here $\left\Vert \theta_{n}\right\Vert _{2}^{2}$ is the constraint to make a well-posed problem and $\zeta_{a}$ is the tuning parameter that controls the strength of the smooth penalization [@huitian_2014_NIPS_ActCriticBandit4JITAI]. We use $\widehat{J}\left(\theta_{n}\right)$ rather than $J\left(\theta_{n}\right)$ in to indicate that the objective function for the actor updating is defined based on the $Q$-value estimation.
Since the critic updating results in a closed-form solution , we could substitute the expression into the objective for the actor updating . Such case, however, leads to a very complex optimization problem. In the case of large feature space, one can recursively update $\mhbfw_{\theta}$ and $\widehat{\theta}_{n}$ to reduce the computational cost.
Network Cohesion based online Actor-Critic RL
=============================================
It is a famous phenomenon observed in lots of social behavior studies [@Haynie_2001_AJOS_NetworkStructure; @Fujimoto_2012_SocialScience_NetworkInfluence] that people are widely connected in a network and linked users tend to have similar behaviors. Advances in social media help a lot to record the relational information among users, which ensures the availability of network information for health-related studies. Besides, individuals are widely connected due to the similar features, such as age, gender, race, religion, education level, work, income, other socioeconomic status, medical records and genetics features etc [@Tianxi_2016_CORR_PredictModels4NetworkLinkedData]. However, for simple study, current online methods for the mHealth simply assume that users are completely different; they share no information among users and learn a separate RL for each user by only using his or her data. Such assumption works well in the ideal condition where the sample drawn from each user is large in size to support the separate online learning. However, though the data for all users is abundant, the data for each user is limited in size. For example at the beginning of online learning, there are $t=5$ tuples, which is hardly enough to support a separate learning and likely to result in unstable policies. From the perspective of optimization, the problem of lack of samples badly affects the actor-critic updating not only at the beginning of online learning but also along the whole learning process. This is because the actor-critic objective functions are non-convex and nonlinear; the bad solution at the beginning of online learning would bias the optimization to sub-optimal directions. Besides, the policy achieved at the early stage of online learning is of bad user experience, which is likely for the users to be inactive with or even to abandon the mHealth.
Different from current methods, we consider the phenomenon that a user is similar to some (but not all) users, and similar users behave similar but not completely identical to each other. To this end, we propose a cohesion-based online RL method for the mHealth study. We aim to understand how to share information across similar users in order to improve the performance.
Construct the network cohesion by using the warm start trajectory (WST) {#sub:ConstructCohesionNetwork}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
We assume there is an undirected network cohesion connecting similar users, i.e. $\mtcalG=\left(\mtcalV,\mtcalE\right)$, where $\mtcalV=\left\{ 1,2,\cdots,N\right\} $ is the set of nodes (representing users) and $\mtcalE\subset\mtcalV\times\mtcalV$ is the edge set. Altough advanced social medias, like Facebook, Twitter and Linkedin, could provide us ith various network information, they are not designed for the mHealth. There is noisy and misleading relational information in the network for mHealth WS[@Bianchi_2013_NIPS_GangOfBandit; @guangliangCheng_2016_JStars_robustHyperClassification; @Alexandra_2016_AISTATS_GraphBandits; @Claudio_2014_ICML_olineClusteringBandits; @guangliangCheng_2016_TGRSL; @fyzhu_2014_TIP_DgS_NMF; @guangliangCheng_2014_ICIP; @fyzhu_2014_AAAI_ARSS; @guangliangCheng_2015_ICIP; @yingWang_2015_TIP_RobustUnmixing; @xiaoping_2017_ICASSP; @guangliangCheng_2016_neurocomputing; @fyzhu_2014_JSTSP_RRLbS]. Thus, we want to learn the network cohesion intentionally for the mHealth by measuring the similarities between the related behaviors of users.
In RL, the MDP provides a mathematical tool to describe the property of users in a specific mHealth study[^3]. By measuring the similarities among the users’ MDPs , we could learn the network cohesion targeted to that mHealth study. However, the MDP models are unknown to the RL problem. Instead, the warm start trajectories (WSTs) of all the $N$ users are available, which provide the observation of users. Thus, we use the WSTs for the graph learning, i.e. $\mtcalD^{\left(0\right)}=\left\{ \mtcalD_{n}^{\left(0\right)}\mid n=1,\cdots,N\right\} $, where $\mtcalD_{n}^{\left(0\right)}=\left\{ \left(s_{i,n},a_{i,n,}r_{i,n}\right)\right\} _{i=1}^{T_{0}}$ is the WST for the $n$-th user. Since an MDP consists of the state transistion and immediate reward model, the feature for the cohesion network learning is constructed by stacking the states and rewards in the WST as follows $$\mtbfv_{n}=\left[s_{1,n}^{\intercal},r_{1,n},\cdots,s_{T_{0},n}^{\intercal},r_{T_{0},n}\right]^{\intercal}\in\mtbbR^{pT_{0}+T_{0}},\label{eq:feature_4_GraphLearning}$$ for $n\in\left\{ 1,\cdots,N\right\} $. Note that the action or policy is not part of an MDP. To reduce the influence of random actions in the WST, we get rid of the temporal order by sorting all the elements in $\mtbfv_{n}$ . Then the benchmark method, i.e. $K$-nearest neighbor ($K$NN), is used to learn the neighboring information among users $$c_{ij}=\begin{cases}
1, & \mtif\ \mtbfv_{i}\in\mtcalN\left(\mtbfv_{j}\right)\ \text{or}\ \mtbfv_{j}\in\mtcalN\left(\mtbfv_{i}\right)\\
0, & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases},\label{eq:KNN_4_GraphLearning}$$ where $\mtbfv_{i}\in\mtcalN\left(\mtbfv_{j}\right)$ indicates that $i$-th node is the $K$NN of the $j$-th node [@Luxburg_2007_SC_SpectralClustering]; is an undirected Graph. The value of $K$ controls how widely the users are connected. A large $K$ indicates a wide connection among users and vice versa.
Model of cohesion based Actor-Critic RL \[sub:Objective\_4\_GraphRL\]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The underlying assumption throughout this paper is that if two users are connected, their values and policies are constrained to be similar, e.g. $\left\Vert \mtbfw_{i}-\mtbfw_{j}\right\Vert $ and $\left\Vert \theta_{i}-\theta_{j}\right\Vert $ are small if $i\leftrightarrow j$ [@fyzhu_2014_JSTSP_RRLbS; @fyzhu_2015_PhDthesis]. With the network cohesion $\mtbfC=\left(c_{ij}\right)_{N\times N}$, the objective function for the critic updating is formed as follows [ $$\begin{aligned}
\mtbfW=\mhbfH & =\arg\min_{\mtbfH}\sum_{n=1}^{N}\sum_{\mtcalU_{i}\in\mtcalD_{n}}\left\Vert \mtbfx{}_{i}^{\intercal}\mtbfh_{n}-\left(r_{i}+\gamma\mtbfy{}_{i}^{\intercal}\mtbfw_{n}\right)\right\Vert _{2}^{2}\label{eq:CriticUpdat_Graph_theory}\\
\mtsubTo & \sum_{i,j=1}^{N}c_{ij}d\left(\mtbfh_{i},\mtbfh_{j}\right)\leq\delta_{1}\ \text{and}\ \sum_{i,j=1}^{N}c_{ij}d\left(\mtbfw_{i},\mtbfw_{j}\right)\leq\delta_{2},\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ ]{}where $\mtbfH\!=\left[\mtbfh_{1},\cdots,\mtbfh_{N}\right]\in\mtbbR^{u\times N}$ and $\mtbfW=\left[\mtbfw_{1},\cdots,\mtbfw_{N}\right]\in\mtbbR^{u\times N}$ are designed matrices that consist of all the $N$ users’ variables (each column summarizes the unknown varibile of one user); $d\left(\mtbfh_{i},\mtbfh_{j}\right)$ is a distance measure between two vectors; usually we set $d\left(\cdot,\cdot\right)$ as the Euler distance. With the matrix notations in Section \[sub:CriticUpdating\_LSTDQ\], we turn into the following two-level nested optimization problems $$\begin{aligned}
\mhbfH\!=\arg\min_{\mtbfH} & \Bigg(\sum_{n=1}^{N}\left\Vert \mtbfX_{n}^{\intercal}\mtbfh_{n}-\left(\mtbfr_{n}+\gamma\mtbfY_{n}^{\intercal}\mtbfw_{n}\right)\right\Vert _{2}^{2}+\label{eq:criticUpdating_projection}\\
& \quad\mu_{1}\sum_{i,j=1}^{N}c_{ij}\left\Vert \mtbfh_{i}-\mtbfh_{j}\right\Vert _{2}^{2}+\zeta_{1}\sum_{n=1}^{N}\left\Vert \mtbfh_{n}\right\Vert _{2}^{2}\Bigg),\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mhbfW\!=\arg\min_{\mtbfW} & \Bigg(\sum_{n=1}^{N}\left\Vert \Phi_{n}\mtbfw_{n}-\Phi_{n}\mhbfh_{n}\right\Vert _{2}^{2}+\label{eq:criticUpdating_fixedPoint}\\
& \quad\mu_{2}\!\sum_{i,j=1}^{N}c_{ij}\left\Vert \mtbfw_{i}-\mtbfw_{j}\right\Vert _{2}^{2}+\zeta_{2}\sum_{n=1}^{N}\left\Vert \mtbfw_{n}\right\Vert _{2}^{2}\Bigg),\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where $\Phi_{n}$ is a designed matrix to facilitate the optimization of . The 1st level projects the Bellman image onto a linear space (we refer as the projection step); the 2nd level deals with the fixed point problem (i.e. the fixed-point step) [@Mohammad_2011_RARL_RegularizedLSTD_L1L2].
The objective for the actor updating is defined as follows $$\left\{ \widehat{\theta}_{1},\cdots,\widehat{\theta}_{n},\cdots,\widehat{\theta}_{N}\right\} =\arg\max_{\left\{ \theta_{n}\right\} _{n=1}^{N}}\widehat{J}\left(\theta_{1},\cdots,\theta_{N}\right),\label{eq:objective_actorUpdate}$$ where $\Theta=\left[\theta_{1},\cdots,\theta_{N}\right]$, $Q\left(s_{i},a;\widehat{\mathbf{w}}_{\theta_{n}}\right)=\mathbf{x}\left(s_{i},a\right)^{T}\widehat{\mathbf{w}}_{\theta_{n}}$ is the estimated value for the $n$-th policy $\pi_{\theta_{n}}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{J}\left(\Theta\right)\!= & \sum_{n=1}^{N}\left(\frac{1}{\left|\mtcalD_{n}\right|}\sum_{\mtcalU_{i}\in\mtcalD_{n}}\sum_{a\in\mtcalA}Q\left(s_{i},a;\mathbf{\mhbfw}_{\theta_{n}}\right)\pi_{\theta_{n}}\!\left(a|s_{i}\right)\right)\nonumber \\
& \ -\frac{\mu_{3}}{2}\sum_{i,j=1}^{N}c_{ij}\left\Vert \theta_{i}-\theta_{j}\right\Vert _{2}^{2}-\frac{\zeta_{3}}{2}\sum_{n=1}^{N}\left\Vert \theta_{n}\right\Vert _{2}^{2}.\label{eq:actorUpdating_GraphRL}\end{aligned}$$ Although we are able to obtain a closed-form solution for the critic updating , to reduce the computational costs, we substitute the solution in value for $\left\{ \mhbfw_{n}\right\} _{n=1}^{N}$ rather than the closed-form expression of $\left\{ \mhbfw_{\theta_{n}}\right\} _{n=1}^{N}$ into the actor updating. The actor updating algorithm performs the maximization of over $\Theta$, which is computed via the Sequential Quadratic Programming (SQP) algorithm. We use the implementation of SQP with finite-difference approximation to the gradient in the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">fmincon</span> function of Matlab.
In the objectives , and , $\mu_{1}$, $\mu_{2}$ and $\mu_{3}$ are the tuning parmaters to control the strength of the network cohesion constraints. It is an advantage of our methods over the network based bandit [@Bianchi_2013_NIPS_GangOfBandit]. When $\mu_{1},\mu_{2},\mu_{3}\rightarrow\infty$, the connected users are enforced to have identical values and policies. When $\mu_{1},\mu_{2},\mu_{3}=0$, there is no network cohesion constraint. In such case, our method is equivalent to the separate online RL method. Compared with the Separate-RL, the model complexity of our methods is reduced since their parameter domain is constrained via the network cohesion regularization. Such case ensures our methods to work well when the sample size is small. However, the optimization of our method is much more complex than that of the separate-RL. The updating rules of all the users are independent with each other in the separate-RL; while in our method, the optimization of all the users is all coupled together. In the following section, two actor-critic RL algorithms are proposed to deal the objectives and .
**Input**: $T,T_{0},\mu_{\left\{ 1,2,3\right\} },\zeta_{\left\{ 1,2,3\right\} },nAlg$ (i.e. the algorithm index).
Initialize the states $\left(s_{t,n}\right)_{p\times N}$, where $t=0$, and the policy parameters $\Theta=\left[\theta_{1},\cdots,\theta_{N}\right]\in\mtbbR^{m\times N}$ for $N$ users.
At time point $t,$ observe context $s_{t,n}$ for the $n$-th user.
Draw an action $a_{t,n}$ according to the policy $\pi_{\widehat{\theta}_{n}}(a|s_{t,n}).$
Observe an immediate reward $r_{t,n}$.
Construct the network cohesion via ,$\ $.
Data preparation and feature construction for the critic update and the actor update.
Critic update to learn $\mhbfW_{t}$ (value parameter) via .
Critic update to learn $\mhbfW_{t}$ (value parameter) via .
Actor update to learn $\widehat{\Theta}_{t}$ (policy paramter) via .
**Output**: the policy for $N$ users, i.e. $\pi_{\widehat{\theta}_{n}}\left(a\mid s\right)$, for $\left\{ n\right\} _{n=1}^{N}$.
Algorithm\#1 for the Critic update
==================================
Updating Rules for the Projection Step \[sub:UpdatingRule4ProjectionStep\]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We first discuss how to minimize the objective for the projection step. The objective is $$J\!=\!\sum_{n=1}^{N}\!\left\Vert \mtbfX_{n}^{\intercal}\mtbfh_{n}\!-\!\left(\mtbfr_{n}\!+\!\gamma\mtbfY_{n}^{\intercal}\mtbfw_{n}\right)\right\Vert _{2}^{2}+\mu_{1}\mttrace\left(\mtbfH\mtbfL\mtbfH^{\intercal}\right)\!+\!\zeta_{1}\left\Vert \mtbfH\right\Vert _{F}^{2},\label{eq:critic_obj_Graph}$$ where $\left\Vert \cdot\right\Vert _{F}^{2}$ is the Frobenius norm of a matrix, $${\displaystyle \mttrace\left(\mtbfH\mtbfL\mtbfH^{\intercal}\right)=\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{j=1}^{N}c_{ij}\left\Vert \mtbfh_{i}-\mtbfh_{j}\right\Vert _{2}^{2}}\label{eq:Deviation_Graph_Constraint}$$ and $\mtbfL=\mtbfD-\mtbfC\in\mtbbR^{N\times N}$ is a graph laplacian; $\mtbfD$ is a diagonal matrix whose elements are column (or row, as $\mtbfC$ is a symmetric matrix) sums of $\mtbfC$, i.e. $d_{ii}=\sum_{i}c_{ij}$. The partial derivative of $J_{1}$, i.e. the 1st term in , with respect to $\mtbfh_{n}$ is $$\frac{\partial J_{1}}{\partial\mtbfh_{n}}=2\mtbfX_{n}\mtbfX_{n}^{\intercal}\mtbfh_{n}-2\mtbfX_{n}\mtbfr_{n}-2\gamma\mtbfX_{n}\mtbfY_{n}^{\intercal}\mtbfw_{n}.$$ Summarizing the partial derivatives with respect to all the variables in $\mtbfH=\left(\mtbfh_{1},\cdots,\mtbfh_{N}\right)\in\mtbbR^{K\times N}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial J_{1}}{\partial\mtvec\left(\mtbfH\right)}=\ & 2\left(\sum_{n=1}^{N}\mtbfE_{n}\otimes\left(\mtbfX_{n}\mtbfX_{n}^{\intercal}\right)\right)\mtvec\left(\mtbfH\right)\nonumber \\
& -2\left(\sum_{n=1}^{N}\mtbfE_{n}\otimes\mtbfX_{n}\right)\mtvec\left(\mtbfR\right)\nonumber \\
& -2\gamma\left(\sum_{n=1}^{N}\mtbfE_{n}\otimes\left(\mtbfX_{n}\mtbfY_{n}^{\intercal}\right)\right)\mtvec\left(\mtbfW\right)\end{aligned}$$ where $\mtvec\left(\mtbfH\right)\!=\!\left[\mtbfh_{1}^{\intercal},\cdots,\mtbfh_{N}^{\intercal}\right]^{\intercal}\!\in\!\mtbbR^{uN}$ is the vectorization process for a matrix; $\mtbfE_{n}=\mtdiag\left(0,\cdots,1,\cdots,0\right)\in\mtbbR^{N\times N}$ is a diagonal matrix with the $n$-th diagonal element equal to 1, all the other equal to zero; $\otimes$ indicates the Kronecker product between two matrices resulting in a block matrix. Let $\mtbfF_{1}=\sum_{n}\mtbfE_{n}\otimes\left(\mtbfX_{n}\mtbfX_{n}^{\intercal}\right)$, $\mtbfF_{2}=\sum_{n}\mtbfE_{n}\otimes\mtbfX_{n}$ and $\mtbfF_{3}=\sum_{n}\mtbfE_{n}\otimes\left(\mtbfX_{n}\mtbfY_{n}^{\intercal}\right)$. We have a simpler formulation for the $\partial J_{1}/\partial\mtvec\left(\mtbfH\right)$ as follows $$\frac{\partial J_{1}}{\partial\mtvec\left(\mtbfH\right)}=2\mtbfF_{1}\mtvec\left(\mtbfH\right)-2\left[\mtbfF_{2}\mtvec\left(\mtbfR\right)+\gamma\mtbfF_{3}\mtvec\left(\mtbfW\right)\right].$$ The partial derivatives of the 2nd term in , i.e. $J_{2}=\mu_{1}\mttrace\left(\mtbfH\mtbfL\mtbfH^{\intercal}\right)+\zeta_{1}\left\Vert \mtbfH\right\Vert _{F}^{2}$, with respect to $\mtbfH$ is $$\frac{\partial J_{2}}{\partial\mtbfH}=2\mu_{1}\mtbfH\mtbfL+2\zeta_{1}\mtbfH.$$ According to the Encapsulating Sum [@Petersen_2012_MatrixCookbook], we have $$\frac{\partial J_{2}}{\partial\mtvec\left(\mtbfH\right)}=2\left[\left(\mu_{1}\mtbfL^{\intercal}+\zeta_{1}\mtbfI_{N}\right)\otimes\mtbfI_{u}\right]\mtvec\left(\mtbfH\right)\label{eq:gradient_with_Graph_constraint}$$ where $\mtbfI_{N}\in\mtbbR^{N\times N}$ and $\mtbfI_{u}\in\mtbbR^{u\times u}$ are identical matrices. Setting the gradient of $J$ in with respect to $\mtvec\left(\mtbfH\right)$ to zero gives the closed-form solution for the projection step as follows $$\mtvec\left(\mhbfH\right)=\left[\mtbfF_{1}+\mtbfL_{\otimes}\left(\mu_{1},\zeta_{1}\right)\right]^{-1}\left[\mtbfF_{2}\mtvec\left(\mtbfR\right)+\gamma\mtbfF_{3}\mtvec\left(\mtbfW\right)\right],\label{eq:closedFormSolution_4_projectionStep}$$ where $\mtbfL_{\otimes}\left(\mu_{1},\zeta_{1}\right)=\left(\mu_{1}\mtbfL^{\intercal}+\zeta_{1}\mtbfI_{N}\right)\otimes\mtbfI_{u}\in\mtbbR^{uN\times uN}$.
Updating Rules for the Fixed Point step
----------------------------------------
Considering the 1st term in the fixed point step gives
$$\begin{aligned}
O_{1} & =\sum_{n}\left\Vert \Phi_{n}\mtbfw_{n}-\Phi_{n}\mhbfh_{n}\right\Vert _{2}^{2}=\left\Vert \Phi_{\otimes}\mtvec\left(\mtbfW\right)-\Phi_{\otimes}\mtvec\left(\mhbfH\right)\right\Vert _{2}^{2}\end{aligned}$$
where $\Phi_{\otimes}=\left(\sum_{n=1}^{N}\mtbfE_{n}\otimes\Phi_{n}\right)$. To facilitate the optimization, we design $\left\{ \Phi_{n}\right\} _{n=1}^{N}$ to let $\Phi_{\otimes}=\mtbfF_{1}+\mtbfL_{\otimes}\left(\mu_{1},\zeta_{1}\right)$, which leads to $$\begin{aligned}
O_{1} & =\left\Vert \Phi_{\otimes}\mtvec\left(\mtbfW\right)-\Phi_{\otimes}\mtvec\left(\mhbfH\right)\right\Vert _{2}^{2}\\
& =\left\Vert \Phi_{\otimes}\mtvec\left(\mtbfW\right)-\left[\mtbfF_{2}\mtvec\left(\mtbfR\right)+\gamma\mtbfF_{3}\mtvec\left(\mtbfW\right)\right]\right\Vert \\
& =\left\Vert \left(\Phi_{\otimes}-\gamma\mtbfF_{3}\right)\mtvec\left(\mtbfW\right)-\mtbfF_{2}\mtvec\left(\mtbfR\right)\right\Vert _{2}^{2},\end{aligned}$$ and finally results in an easy solution for the critic updating (cf. Theorem \[thm:B\_sysmmetirc\_positive\_definite\]). Letting $\mtbfP=\Phi_{\otimes}-\gamma\mtbfF_{3}$, we have $$O_{1}=\left\Vert \mtbfP\mtvec\left(\mtbfW\right)-\mtbfF_{2}\mtvec\left(\mtbfR\right)\right\Vert _{2}^{2}.$$ The partial derivative of $O_{1}$ with respect to $\mtvec\left(\mtbfW\right)$ is $$\frac{\partial O_{1}}{\partial\mtvec\left(\mtbfW\right)}=2\mtbfP^{\intercal}\mtbfP\mtvec\left(\mtbfW\right)-2\mtbfP^{\intercal}\mtbfF_{2}\mtvec\left(\mtbfR\right).$$ Considering the partial derivative of the cohesion constraint and the Frobenius norm based smooth constraint with respect to $\mtvec\left(\mtbfH\right)$, and setting the overll partial derivative to zero, i.e. $\partial O/\partial\mtvec\left(\mtbfW\right)=\mtbfzero$, we can obtain the following closed-form solution $$\mtvec\left(\mtbfW^{*}\right)=\left[\mtbfP^{\intercal}\mtbfP+\mtbfL_{\otimes}\left(\mu_{2},\zeta_{2}\right)\right]^{-1}\mtbfP^{\intercal}\mtbfF_{2}\mtvec\left(\mtbfR\right),\label{eq:CriticUpdatingRule_=00003D0000231_GraphRL}$$ where $\mtbfL_{\otimes}\left(\mu_{2},\zeta_{2}\right)=\left(\mu_{2}\mtbfL^{\intercal}+\zeta_{2}\mtbfI_{N}\right)\otimes\mtbfI_{u}$.
\[thm:B\_sysmmetirc\_positive\_definite\] $\mtbfB=\mtbfP^{\intercal}\mtbfP+\mtbfL_{\otimes}\left(\mu_{2},\zeta_{2}\right)$ is a symmetric and positive definite matrix, which leads to an easy critic updating rule in .
\[lem:KroneckerProduct\_eigenvalues\] Suppose that $\mtbfA\in\mtbbR^{n\times n}$ and $\mtbfB\in\mtbbR^{m\times m}$ are square matrices. Let $\lambda_{1},\cdots,\lambda_{n}$ be the eigenvalues of $\mtbfA$ and $\nu_{1},\cdots,\nu_{m}$ be those of $\mtbfB$. Then the eigenvalues of $\mtbfA\otimes\mtbfB$ [@Langville_2004_JCAM_KroneckerProduct], where $\otimes$ is the Kronecker Product, are $$\lambda_{i}\nu_{j},\qquad\mtfor\ i\in\left\{ 1,\cdots,n\right\} ,\ j\in\left\{ 1,\cdots,m\right\} .$$
-------- ----------------- ---------------- --------------------- ----------------- ---------------- ---------------------
Separate-RL Cohesion-RL\#1 Cohesion-RL\#2 Separate-RL Cohesion-RL\#1 Cohesion-RL\#2
$0$ 1238.4$\pm$81.6 **1394.4$\pm$68.5** 1239.5$\pm$83.9 **1397.4$\pm$68.6**
$0.2$ 1272.9$\pm$83.7 **1428.1$\pm$64.1** 1279.5$\pm$83.4 **1429.2$\pm$64.3**
$0.4$ 1286.7$\pm$85.3 **1472.4$\pm$58.7** 1316.4$\pm$77.5 **1472.4$\pm$59.0**
$0.6$ 1346.3$\pm$75.9 **1505.1$\pm$55.4** 1388.5$\pm$70.8 **1515.3$\pm$55.9**
$0.8$ 1373.9$\pm$66.2 **1556.7$\pm$54.0** 1440.7$\pm$63.5 **1570.0$\pm$54.0**
$0.95$ **1556.5$\pm$49.6** 1315.2$\pm$68.6 **1577.8$\pm$51.3**
Avg. 1297.2 **1485.5** 1330.0 **1493.7**
-------- ----------------- ---------------- --------------------- ----------------- ---------------- ---------------------
-------- ----------------- ---------------- --------------------- ----------------- ----------------- ---------------------
Separate-RL Cohesion-RL\#1 Cohesion-RL\#2 Separate-RL Cohesion-RL\#1 Cohesion-RL\#2
$0$ 1194.0$\pm$86.8 **1396.7$\pm$68.5** 1358.9$\pm$63.6 **1399.1$\pm$68.0**
$0.2$ 1183.8$\pm$87.8 **1427.4$\pm$64.5** 1408.0$\pm$57.8 **1430.2$\pm$63.6**
$0.4$ 1200.4$\pm$81.1 **1469.2$\pm$58.2** 1423.7$\pm$63.9 **1471.3$\pm$59.3**
$0.6$ 1254.1$\pm$75.7 **1515.2$\pm$55.0** 1463.6$\pm$58.1 **1516.8$\pm$56.1**
$0.8$ 1291.8$\pm$76.8 **1562.3$\pm$53.8** 1519.8$\pm$53.9 **1552.9$\pm$54.0**
$0.95$ **1568.5$\pm$51.0** 1434.4$\pm$53.3 **1574.6$\pm$50.0**
Avg. 1228.2 **1489.9** 1438.7 **1490.8**
-------- ----------------- ---------------- --------------------- ----------------- ----------------- ---------------------
*The value of $\gamma$ specifies different RL methods: (a) $\gamma=0$ means the contextual bandit [@huitian_2014_NIPS_ActCriticBandit4JITAI]; (b) $0<\gamma<1$ is the discounted reward RL, which is first compared in the online actor-critic setting for mHealth. In each comparision, the* ***bold value*** *is the best, and the* ** *is the 2nd best.*
Algorithm\#2 for the Critic update
==================================
In this section, we provide another updating rule for the critic update (i.e. policy improvement). Note that to prevent the overfitting when the sample size is very small, the conventional LSTD$Q$ usually employs the $\ell_{2}$ constraint on the variable $\mtbfH$ in the projection step. They do not put the $\ell_{2}$ constraint on the fixed-point variable $\mtbfW$ [@Mohammad_2011_RARL_RegularizedLSTD_L1L2; @AndrewNg_2009_ICML_RLsparity]. Following this idea, we have a simpler objective function for the critic update as $$\begin{aligned}
\mtbfw_{n} & =\mhbfh_{n}=\arg\min_{\mtbfh_{n}}\sum_{\mtcalU_{i}\in\mtcalD_{n}}\left\Vert \mtbfx{}_{i}^{\intercal}\mtbfh_{n}-\left(r_{i}+\gamma\mtbfy{}_{i}^{\intercal}\mtbfw_{n}\right)\right\Vert _{2}^{2},\\
& \mtfor\ n\in\left\{ 1,\cdots,N\right\} \ \text{and}\ \mtsubTo\ \sum_{i,j=1}^{N}c_{ij}d\left(\mtbfh_{i},\mtbfh_{j}\right)\leq\delta_{1}.\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ According to the derivation in Section \[sub:UpdatingRule4ProjectionStep\] that considers the Frobenius norm based smooth constraint, the updating rule for the projection step is . In the fixed-point step, the objective is simply $\mtbfw_{n}=\mhbfh_{n}$ (i.e. a fixed-point problem), which leads to $$\mtvec\left(\mtbfW\right)=\mtvec\left(\mhbfH\right).$$ Thus, we have the closed-form solution for $\mtvec\left(\mtbfW\right)$ as follows $$\mtvec\left(\mhbfW\right)=\left[\mtbfF_{1}-\gamma\mtbfF_{3}+\mtbfL_{\otimes}\left(\mu_{1},\zeta_{1}\right)\right]^{-1}\mtbfF_{2}\mtvec\left(\mtbfR\right).\label{eq:CriticUpdatingRule_=00003D0000232_GraphRL}$$ It is simpler than the 1st updating rule for the critic update .
Experiment Results {#sec:Evaluation}
==================
We verify the proposed methods on the HeartSteps dataset. It has two choices for an action, i.e. $\left\{ 0,1\right\} ,$ where $a=1$ means sending the positive intervention, while $a=0$ indicates no intervention [@SusanMurphy_2016_CORR_BatchOffPolicyAvgRwd]. Specifically, the stochastic policy is assumed to be in the form $\pi_{\theta}\left(a\mid s\right)\!=\!\frac{\exp\left[-\theta^{\intercal}\phi\left(s,a\right)\right]}{\sum_{a'}\exp\left[-\theta^{\intercal}\phi\left(s,a'\right)\right]}$, where $\theta\in\mtbbR^{m}$ is the unknown parameter and $\phi\left(\cdot,\cdot\right)$ is a feature process that combines the information in actions and states, i.e. $\phi\left(s,a\right)=\left[as^{\intercal},a\right]^{\intercal}\in\mtbbR^{m}$.
The HeartSteps Dataset
----------------------
To verify the performance of our method, we use a dataset from a mobile health study, called HeartSteps [@Walter_2015_Significance_RandomTrialForFitbitGeneration], to approximate the generative model. This is a 42-day mHealth intervention that aims to increase the users’ steps they take each day by providing positive treatments (i.e. interventions), which are adapted to users’ ongoing status, such as suggesting users to take a walk after long sitting [@Walter_2015_Significance_RandomTrialForFitbitGeneration], or to do some exercises after work.
A trajectory of $T$ tuples $\mtcalD=\left\{ \left(s_{i},a_{i,}r_{i}\right)\mid i=1,\cdots,T\right\} $ are generated for each user [@SusanMurphy_2016_CORR_BatchOffPolicyAvgRwd; @huitian_2014_NIPS_ActCriticBandit4JITAI]. The initial state is drawn from the Gaussian distribution $S{}_{0}\sim\mtcalN_{p}\left\lbrace 0,\Sigma\right\rbrace $, where $\Sigma$ is a $p\times p$ covariance matrix with pre-defined elements. The action $a_{t}$ for $0\leq t\leq T_{0}$ is drawn from the random policy, with a probability of $0.5$ to provide interventions, i.e. $\mu\left(1\mid s\right)=0.5$ for all states $s$. Such process is called drawing warm start trajectory (WST) via the micro-randomized trials [@PengLiao_2015_Proposal_offPolicyRL; @Walter_2015_Significance_RandomTrialForFitbitGeneration], and $T_{0}$ is the length of the WST. When $t\geq T_{0}$, we start the actor-critic updating, and the action is drawn from the learned policy, i.e. $a_{t}\sim\pi_{\widehat{\theta}_{t}}\left(\cdot\mid s_{t}\right)$. When $t\geq1$, the state and immediate reward are generated as follows $$\begin{aligned}
S_{t,1}=\ & \beta_{1}S_{t-1,1}+\xi_{t,1},\nonumber \\
S_{t,2}=\ & \beta_{2}S_{t-1,2}+\beta_{3}A_{t-1}+\xi_{t,2},\label{eq:Dat=00003D0000231_stateTrans_cmp3}\\
S_{t,3}=\ & \beta_{4}S_{t-1,3}+\beta_{5}S_{t-1,3}A_{t-1}+\beta_{6}A_{t-1}+\xi_{t,3},\nonumber \\
S_{t,j}=\ & \beta_{7}S_{t-1,j}+\xi_{t,j},\qquad\mtfor\ j=4,\ldots,p\nonumber \\
R_{t}=\ & \beta_{14}\times[\beta_{8}+A_{t}\times(\beta_{9}+\beta_{10}S_{t,1}+\beta_{11}S_{t,2})\label{eq:Dat=00003D0000231_ImmediateRwd_cmp3}\\
& +\beta_{12}S_{t,1}-\beta_{13}S_{t,3}+\varrho_{t}],\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where $\bm{\beta}\!=\!\left\{ \beta_{i}\right\} _{i=1}^{14}$ is the main parameter for the MDP and $-\beta_{13}S_{t,3}$ is the treatment fatigue; $\left\{ \xi_{t,i}\right\} _{i=1}^{p}\sim\mtcalN\left(0,\sigma_{s}^{2}\right)$ is the noise in the state and $\varrho_{t}\sim\mtcalN\left(0,\sigma_{r}^{2}\right)$ is the noise in the reward model .
As it is known to us, the individuals are generally more or less different from each other, and each individual is similar to a part, but not all, of the individuals. In the mHealth and RL study, an individual is abstracted as an MDP, which is determined by the value of $\bm{\beta}$, cf. and . To achieve a more practical dataset compared with [@SusanMurphy_2016_CORR_BatchOffPolicyAvgRwd; @PengLiao_2015_Proposal_offPolicyRL; @huitian_2014_NIPS_ActCriticBandit4JITAI], we come up with a method to generate $N$ users (i.e. $\bm{\beta}$s) that satisfy the above requirements in two steps: (a) manually design $V$ basic $\bm{\beta}$s, i.e. $\left\{ \bm{\beta}_{v}^{\text{basic}}\mid v=1,\cdots,V\right\} $, that are very different from each other; (b) a set of $N_{v}$ different individuals (i.e. $\bm{\beta}$s) are generated for each $\bm{\beta}_{v}^{\text{basic}}$ via the following process $\bm{\beta}_{i}=\bm{\beta}_{v}^{\text{basic}}+\bm{\delta}_{i},\ \text{for}\ i\in\left\{ 1,2,\cdots,N_{v}\right\} $, where $\bm{\delta}_{i}\sim\mtcalN\left(0,\sigma_{b}\mtbfI_{14}\right)$ is the noise in the MDPs and $\mtbfI_{14}\in\mtbbR^{14\times14}$ is an identity matrix. After such processing, the individuals are all different from the others. The value of $\sigma_{b}$ specifies how different the individuals are. In the experiments, the number of groups is set as $V=3$ (each group has $N_{v}=15$ people, leading to $N=45$ users involved in the experiment). The $\bm{\beta}^{\text{basic}}$’s for the $V$ groups are set as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\bm{\beta}_{1}^{\text{basic}}= & [0.40,0.25,0.35,0.65,0.10,0.50,0.22,\\
& 2.00,0.15,0.20,0.32,0.10,0.45,800]\\
\bm{\beta}_{2}^{\text{basic}}= & [0.35,0.30,0.30,0.60,0.05,0.65,0.28,\\
& 2.60,0.35,0.45,0.45,0.15,0.50,650]\\
\bm{\beta}_{3}^{\text{basic}}= & [0.20,0.50,0.20,0.62,0.06,0.52,0.27,\\
& 3.00,0.15,0.15,0.50,0.16,0.70,450].\end{aligned}$$
{width="0.94\linewidth"}
{width="0.94\linewidth"}
\[sub:ComparedMethods\_ParameterSetting\]Compared Methods and Parameter Settings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are three online actor-critic RL methods for the comparison: (a) Separate-RL, which is an extension of the online actor-critic contextual bandit in [@huitian_2014_NIPS_ActCriticBandit4JITAI] to the online actor-critic reinforcement learning. It learns a separate RL policy for each user by only using his or her data. (b) Cohesion-RL\#1 is the first version of our method. (c) Cohesion-RL\#2 is the second version of our method (cf. Algorithm \[alg:2\_actor\_critic\_algorithms\_4\_GraphRL\] for detail). Specially, Cohesion-RL\#1 and Cohesion-RL\#2 share the same actor updating. The difference between them is the different critic updating rules that they employ.
The noises in the MDP are set as $\sigma_{s}\!=\!0.5$, $\sigma_{r}\!=\!1$ and $\sigma_{\beta}\!=\!0.05$. The state has dimension $p=3$ and the policy feature has $m\!=\!4$ elements. We set the $\ell_{2}$ constraint in the Separate-RL as $\zeta_{a}=\zeta_{c}=0.1$. When the cohesion constraint in our methods are too small ($10^{-4}$, say), we need the $\ell_{2}$ constraint for the actor-critic updating to avoid the overfitting, with the parameters as $\zeta_{1}=\zeta_{2}=\zeta_{3}=0.1$. Otherwise, we set $\zeta_{1}=\zeta_{2}=\zeta_{3}\rightarrow0$. The feature processing for the value estimation is $\mtbfx\left(s,a\right)=\left[1,s^{\intercal},a,s^{\intercal}a\right]^{\intercal}\in\mtbbR^{u},$ where $u=2p+2$, for all the compared methods. The feature for the policy is processed as $\phi\left(s,a\right)=\left[as^{\intercal},a\right]^{\intercal}\in\mtbbR^{m}$ where $m=p+1$. We set $K=8$ for the $K$-NN based network cohesion learning. If there is no special setting, the following three paremeters are set as: (a) the trajectory length in mHealth is $T=80$, which indicates that the online RL learning ends at $t=80$; (b) the length of warm start trajectory is set as $T_{0}=10$; (c) to reduce the number of parameters in the algorithm, the parameters for the cohesion constraint in our methods are set as $\mu_{1}=0.1$, $\mu_{3}=\mu_{1}$ and $\mu_{2}=0.01\mu_{1}$.
Evaluation Metrics
------------------
We use the expectation of long run average reward (ElrAR) $\mathbb{E}\left[\eta^{\pi_{\widehat{\Theta}}}\right]$ to quantify the quality of the estimated policy $\pi_{\widehat{\Theta}}$ on a set of $N$=45 individuals. Here $\pi_{\widehat{\Theta}}$ summarizes the policies for all the $45$ users, in which $\pi_{\widehat{\theta}_{n}}$ is the $n$-th user’s policy. Intuitively, ElrAR measures how much average reward in the long run we could totally get by using the learned policy $\pi_{\widehat{\Theta}}$ on the testing users (i.e. MDPs), for example measuring how much alcohol users have in a fixed time period in the alcohol use study [@Gustafson_2014_JAMA_drinking; @Witkiewitz_2014_JAB_drinkingSmoking]. Specifically in the HeartSteps, ElrAR measures the average steps that users take per day over a long time; a larger ElrAR corresponds to a better performance. The average reward for the $n$-th user, i.e. $\eta^{\pi_{\widehat{\theta}_{n}}}$, is calculated by averaging the rewards over the last $4,000$ elements in a trajectory of $5,000$ tuples under the policy $\pi_{\widehat{\theta}_{n}}$, i.e. $\eta^{\pi_{\widehat{\theta}_{n}}}=\frac{1}{T-i}\sum_{j=i}^{T}\mtcalR\left(s_{j,n},a_{j,n}\sim\pi_{\widehat{\theta}_{n}}\right)$, where $T=5000$ and $i=1000$. Then ElrAR $\mathbb{E}\left[\eta^{\pi_{\widehat{\Theta}}}\right]$ is approximated by averaging over the $45$ $\eta^{\pi_{\widehat{\theta}_{n}}}$’s, i.e. $\mathbb{E}\left[\eta^{\pi_{\widehat{\Theta}}}\right]\approx\frac{1}{N}\sum_{n=1}^{N}\eta^{\pi_{\widehat{\theta}_{n}}}$.
Comparisons in three experiment settings
-----------------------------------------
The following experiments are carried out to verify different aspects of the three online actor-critic RL algorithms:
(**S1**) In this part, the trajectory length of all users ranges as $T\!\in\left\{ 50,80,110,150\right\} $. The experiment results are showed in Table \[tab:\_ExpSetting\_S1\] and Fig. \[fig:\_ExpSetting\_S2\]. There are two sub-tables in Table \[tab:\_ExpSetting\_S1\]; each sub-table displays the ElrAR of three RL methods (i.e. Separate-RL, Cohesion-RL\#1 and Cohesion-RL\#2 respectively) under six $\gamma$ settings; the last row shows the average ElrAR over the results of all the six $\gamma$s. In Fig. \[fig:\_ExpSetting\_S2\], there are three sub-figures; each sub-figure illustrates the results of three methods under one $\gamma$ setting. As we shall see that the performance of three methods generally increases as $T$ rises. The performance of our RL methods, i.e. Cohesion-RL\#1 and Cohesion-RL\#2, have an obvious advantage over the Separate-RL under all the parameters settings in (**S1**). Besides, the advantage of our methods over Separate-RL slowly decreases as $T$ rises. Compared with Separate-RL, our methods averagely improve $156.0$ steps and $188.3$ steps when $T=50$, and averagely improve $136.3$ steps and $163.7$ steps when $T=150$.
(**S2**) In this part, the length of warm start trajectory ranges as $T_{0}=\left\{ 5,10,15,20\right\} $, which indicates that the RL methods wait longer and longer before starting the online learning. The experiment results are summarized in Table \[tab:\_ExpSetting\_S2\] and Fig. \[fig:\_ExpSetting\_S2\]. As we shall see that as $T_{0}$ rises across this range, the performance of Separate-RL increases dramatically and Cohesion-RL\#1 rises gradually, while Cohesion-RL\#2 remains stable. Thus, the average advantage of our method over Separate-RL decreases dramatically as $T_{0}$ rises, i.e., from $224.07$ steps and $261.67$ steps when $T_{0}=5$ to $33.26$ steps and $52.09$ steps when $T_{0}=20$. Such case suggests that our methods work perfectly when the WST is very short. In this case, the mining of network cohesion is necessary for the online RL learning. In general, however, our methods still outperform Separate-RL significantly.
(**S3**) The parameter of the Network-Cohesion constraint $\mu_{1}$ for the projection step ranges from $0.001$ to $10$. To reduce the number of parameters in our algorithm, we simply set $\mu_{2}=0.01\mu_{1}$ (i.e. the cohesion constraint for the fixed-point step) and $\mu_{3}=\mu_{1}$ (i.e. the cohesion constraint for the actor updating). The experiment results are illustrated in Fig. \[fig:\_ExpSetting\_S3\], where there are three sub-figures. Each sub-figure shows the results of three online RLs vs. five $\mu_{1}$ settings under one $\gamma$. As we shall see that as $\mu_{1}$ rises across this range, our method always obtains superior performance compared with Separate-RL. Specially, Cohesion-RL\#2 is very stable and always better than Cohesion-RL\#1. Such case indicates that it is reliable to follow the idea on how to introduce the $\ell_{2}$ constraint in LSTD$Q$. In Fig. \[fig:\_ExpSetting\_S3\], since Separate-RL does not have the Network-Cohesion constraint, its result keeps unchanged.
Consider (**S1**) and (**S2**) for the Separate-RL, we find: (a) the lack of samples at the beginning of the online learning may bias the optimization direction, which badly influence the performance even when the trajectory is very long; (b) Compared with $T$, the increase of $T_{0}$ has a more important influence on the performance. In (**S1**), where $T_{0}=10$ is fixed and $T$ ranges from $T=50$ to $T=150$, the performance of Separate-RL increases $32.74$ steps. In (**S2**), where $T=80$ is fixed and $T_{0}$ rises from $T_{0}=5$ to $T_{0}=20$, Separate-RL achieve an improvement of $210.51$ steps, which is much significant than the rise caused by the rising $T$.
{width="0.94\linewidth"}
Conclusions and Discuss \[sec:Conclusions\]
===========================================
This paper presents a first attempt to employ the online actor-critic reinforcement learning for the mHealth. Following the current methods that learn a separate policy for each user, the Separate-RL can not achieve satisfactory results. This is due to that data for each user is very limited in size to support the separate learning, leading to unstable policies that contain lots of variances. After considering the universal phenomenon that users are generally connected in a network and linked users tend to have similar behaviors, we propose a network cohesion constrained actor-critic reinforcement learning for mHealth. It is able to share the information among similar users to convert the limited user information into sharper learned policies. Extensive experiment results demonstrate that our methods outperform the Separate-RL significantly. We find it easy to apply the proposed methods to other health-related tasks.
Appendix: the proof of Theorem \[thm:B\_sysmmetirc\_positive\_definite\] {#appendix-the-proof-of-theoremthmb_sysmmetirc_positive_definite .unnumbered}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Considering $\mtbfL_{\otimes}\left(\mu_{2},\zeta_{2}\right)=\left(\mu_{2}\mtbfL^{\intercal}+\zeta_{2}\mtbfI_{N}\right)\otimes\mtbfI_{u}$ gives the equation $\mtbfB=\mtbfP^{\intercal}\mtbfP+\mu_{2}\mtbfL^{\intercal}\otimes\mtbfI_{u}+\zeta_{2}\mtbfI_{uN}$. The first term $\mtbfB_{1}=\mtbfP^{\intercal}\mtbfP$ is obviously positive semi-definite as $\forall\mtbfx$, we have $\mtbfx^{\intercal}\mtbfP^{\intercal}\mtbfP\mtbfx=\left\Vert \mtbfP\mtbfx\right\Vert _{2}^{2}\geq0$. The graph laplacian $\mtbfL$ is positive semi-definite, which indicates that its eigenvalues are non-negative, i.e. $\lambda_{1},\cdots,\lambda_{N}\geq0$. The eigenvalues of $\mtbfI_{u}$ are $\mu_{1}=\cdots=\mu_{u}=1$. According to Lemma \[lem:KroneckerProduct\_eigenvalues\], we have the conclusion that the eigenvalues of $\mtbfL^{\intercal}\otimes\mtbfI_{u}$ are non-negative, which indicates that it is a positive semi-definite matrix. The last term in $\mtbfB$ is an identical matrix, which is surely positive definite. The sum of two positive semi-definite matrices and a positive definite matrix results in a positive definite matrix.
Since for any matrices $\mtbfA\in\mtbbR^{l\times k}$ and $\mtbfD\in\mtbbR^{m\times n}$, the Kronecker product has the property $\left(\mtbfA\otimes\mtbfD\right)^{\intercal}=\left(\mtbfA^{\intercal}\otimes\mtbfD^{\intercal}\right)$ [@Langville_2004_JCAM_KroneckerProduct]. Besides, the graph laplacian $\mtbfL$ is symmetric. We have $$\mtbfB^{\intercal}=\left(\mtbfP^{\intercal}\mtbfP+\mu_{2}\mtbfL^{\intercal}\otimes\mtbfI_{u}+\zeta_{2}\mtbfI_{uN}\right)^{\intercal}=\mtbfB.$$
[^1]: $\star$ Feiyun Zhu, Xinliang Zhu, Yaowen Yao and Junzhou Huang are with the Department of CSE in the University of Texas at Arlington. $\ddagger$ Feiyun Zhu and Peng Liao are with the Department of Statistics in the University of Michigan.
[^2]: i.e. smartphones and wearable devices, such as Fitbit Fuelband and Jawbone etc.
[^3]: The MDPs of one user on two diverse mHealth studies should be very different; for example, the MDP in the HeartSteps study [@Walter_2015_Significance_RandomTrialForFitbitGeneration] for one user should be different from that in the alcohol control [@Gustafson_2014_JAMA_drinking; @Witkiewitz_2014_JAB_drinkingSmoking] study.
|
---
abstract: |
During the last decade bike sharing systems have emerged as a public transport mode in urban short trips in more than 500 major cities around the world. For the mobility service mode, many challenges from its operations are not well addressed yet, for example, how to develop the bike sharing systems to be able to effectively satisfy the fluctuating demands both for bikes and for vacant lockers. To this end, it is a key to give performance analysis of the bike sharing systems. This paper first describes a large-scale bike sharing system. Then the bike sharing system is abstracted as a closed queueing network with multi-class customers, where the virtual customers and the virtual nodes are set up, and the service rates as well as the relative arrival rates are established. Finally, this paper gives a product-form solution to the steady state joint probabilities of queue lengths, and gives performance analysis of the bike sharing system. Therefore, this paper provides a unified framework for analyzing closed queueing networks in the study of bike sharing systems. We hope the methodology and results of this paper can be applicable in the study of more general bike sharing systems.
0.5cm
**Keywords:** Bike sharing system; closed queueing network; product-form solution; problematic station.
author:
- |
Quan-Lin Li, Rui-Na Fan and Jing-Yu Ma\
School of Economics and Management Sciences\
Yanshan University, Qinhuangdao 066004, P.R. China
date: 'Published in [**Information Technologies and Mathematical Modelling**]{}, Springer, 2016'
title: 'A Unified Framework for Analyzing Closed Queueing Networks in Bike Sharing Systems[^1]'
---
Introduction
============
During the last decade the bike sharing systems are fast increasing as a public transport mode in urban short trips, and have been launched in more than 500 major cities around the world. Also, the bike sharing systems offer a low cost and environmental protection mobility service through sharing one-way use. Now, the bike sharing systems are regarded as an effective way to jointly solve traffic congestion, parking difficulties, traffic noise, air pollution and so forth. DeMaio [@DeM:2009] reviewed the history, impacts, models of provision and future of the bike sharing systems. Larsen [@Lar:2013] reported that over 500 major cities host advanced bike sharing systems with a combined fleet of more than half a million bikes up to April 2013. A synthesis of the literature for the bike sharing systems was given by Fishman et al. [@Fis:2013] and Labadi et al. [@Lab:2015]. At the same time, for some countries or cities developing the bike sharing systems, readers may refer to, such as, Europe, the Americas and Asia by Shaheen et al. [@Sha:2010], the European OBIS Project by Janett and Hendrik [@Jan:2011], the France by Faye [@Fay:2008], China by Tang et al. [@Tang:2011], London by Lathia et al. [@Lat:2012], Montreal by Morency et al. [@Mor:2011], and a number of famous cities by Shu et al. [@Shu:2013].
In operations of the bike sharing systems, a crucial question is the ability not only to meet the fluctuating demand for renting bikes at each station but also to provide enough vacant lockers to allow the renters to return the bikes at their destinations. Since the number of bikes packed in each station is always randomly dynamically changed, this causes an unpredictable imbalance, such as, some stations contain more bikes but the others are seriously short of available bikes. Such a randomly dynamic unbalance of bikes distributed among the stations often leads to occurrence of the problematic stations (i.e., full or empty stations). Notice that the problematic stations reflect a common challenge faced by the bike sharing systems in practice due to the stochastic and time-inhomogeneous nature of both the customer arrivals and the bike returns, thus the probability of problematic stations has been regarded as a main factor to measure the satisfaction of customers and even to estimate the quality of service. Obviously, how to effectively reduce the probability of problematic stations becomes a key way to improve the satisfaction of customers and further to promote the quality of system service. Therefore, it is a major task to develop effective methods for computing the probability of problematic stations in the study of bike sharing systems.
Queueing theory and Markov processes are very useful for computing the probability of problematic stations, and more generally, analyzing performance measures of the bike sharing systems. However, available works on such a research line are still fewer up to now. We would like to refer readers to four classes of recent literature as follows. **(a) Simple queues:** Leurent [@Leu:2012] used the $M/M/1/C$ queue to study a vehicle-sharing system in which each station contains an additional waiting room which helps those customers arriving at a problematic station, and analyzed performance measures of this system in terms of a geometric distribution. Schuijbroek et al. [@Sch:2013] evaluated the service level by means of the transient distribution of the $M/M/1/C$ queue, and the service level is used to establish some optimal models to discuss the inventory rebalancing and vehicle routing. Raviv et al [@Rav:2013] and Raviv and Kolka [@Rav:2013a] employed the transient distribution of a time-inhomogeneous $M\left(
t\right) /M\left( t\right) /1/C$ queue to compute the expected number of bike shortages at each station. **(b) The mean-field theory:** Fricker et al. [@Fri:2012] considered a space inhomogeneous bike sharing system with different clusters, and expressed the minimal proportion of problematic stations within each cluster. For a space homogeneous bike sharing system, Fricker and Gast [@Fri:2014] used the $M/M/1/K$ queue to provide a more detailed analysis for some simple mean-field models (including the *power of two choices*), derived a closed-form solution to the minimal proportion of problematic stations, and compared the incentives and redistribution mechanisms. Fricker and Tibi [@Fri:2015] studied the central limit and local limit theorems for the independent (perhaps non identically distributed) random variables which effectively support analysis of a generalized Jackson network with product-form solution; and used these obtained results to evaluate performance measures of the space inhomogeneous bike sharing systems, where its asymptotics gives a complete picture for equilibrium state analysis of the locally space homogeneous bike sharing systems. Li et al. [@Li:2016] provided a mean-field queueing method to study a large-scale bike sharing system through using a combination of, such as, the virtual time-inhomogeneous queue, the mean-field equations, the martingale limit, the nonlinear birth-death process, numerical computation of the fixed point, and numerical analysis for the steady state probability of the problematic stations. **(c) Queueing networks:** Savin et al. [@Sav:2005] used a loss network as well as admission control to discuss capacity allocation of a rental model with two classes of customers, and studied the revenue management and fleet sizing decision in the rental system. Adelman [@Ade:2007] applied a closed queueing network to set up an internal pricing mechanism for managing a fleet of service units, and also used a nonlinear flow model to discuss the price-based policy for the vehicle redistribution. George and Xia [@Geo:2011] provided a queueing network method in the study of vehicle rental systems, and determined the optimal number of parking spaces for each rental location. **(d) Markov decision processes:** Stochastic optimization and Markov decision processes are applied to analysis of the bike sharing systems. From a dynamic price mechanism, Waserhole and Jost [@Was:2012] used the closed queuing networks to propose a Markov decision model of a bike sharing system. To overcome the curse of dimensionality in the Markov decision process with a high dimension, they established a fluid approximation that computes a static policy and gave an upper bound on the potential optimization. Such a fluid approximation for the Markov decision processes of the bike sharing systems was further developed in Waserhole and Jost [@Was:2013] [@Was:2014] and Waserhole et al. [@Was:2013a].
The main purposes of this paper are to provide a unified framework for analyzing closed queueing networks in the study of bike sharing systems. This framework of closed queueing networks is interesting, difficult and challenging from three crucial features: (a) Stations and roads have very different physical attributes, but all of them are abstracted as indistinguishable nodes in the closed queueing networks; (b) the service discipline of the stations is First Come First Service (abbreviated as FCFS), while the service discipline of the roads is Processor Sharing (abbreviated as PS); and (c) the virtual customers (i.e., bikes) in the stations are of a single class, while the virtual customers (i.e., bikes) in the roads are of two classes, and their classes may change on the roads according to the first bike-return or the at least two successive bike-returns due to the full stations, respectively. For such a closed queueing network, this paper provides a detailed analysis both for establishing a product-form solution to the steady state joint probabilities of queue lengths, and for computing the steady state probability of problematic stations, more generally, for analyzing performance measures of the bike sharing system. The main contributions of this paper are twofold. The first contribution is to describe a large-scale bike sharing system and to provide a unified framework for analyzing closed queueing networks through establishing some basic factors: The service rates from stations or roads; and the routing matrix as well as the relative arrival rates to stations or roads. Notice that the basic factors play a key role in the study of closed queueing networks. The second contribution of this paper is to provide a product-form solution to the steady state joint probabilities of queue lengths in the closed queueing network, and give performance analysis of the bike sharing system in terms of the steady state joint probabilities.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we describe a large-scale bike sharing system with $N$ different stations and with at most $N\left( N-1\right) $ different roads. In Section 3, we provide a unified framework for analyzing closed queueing networks in the study of bike sharing systems, and also compute the service rates, the routing matrix, and the relative arrival rates. In Section 4, we give a product-form solution to the steady state joint probabilities of queue lengths in the closed queueing network, and analyze performance measures of the bike sharing system by means of the steady state joint probabilities. Some concluding remarks are given in Section 5.
Model Description
=================
In this section, we describe a large-scale bike sharing system with $N$ different stations and with at most $N\left( N-1\right) $ different roads due to the riding-bike directed connection between any two stations. To analyze such a bike sharing system, we provide a unified framework for analyzing closed queueing networks in the study of bike sharing systems.
In a large-scale bike sharing system, a customer arrives at a station, rents a bike, and uses it for a while; then she returns the bike to a destination station, and immediately leaves this system. Obviously, for any customer renting and using a bike, her first return-bike time is different from those return-bike times that she has successively returned the bike for at least two times due to arriving at the full stations. At the same time, it is easy to understand that for any customer, her first road selection as well as her first riding-bike speed are different from those of having successively returned her bike for at least two times. Also, it is noted that the customer must return her bike to a station, then she can immediately leave the bike sharing system.
Now, we describe the bike sharing system, including operation mechanism, system parameters and mathematical notation, as follows:
**(1) Stations and roads:** There are $N$ different stations and at most $N\left( N-1\right) $ different roads, where the $N\left( N-1\right) $ roads are observed from the fact that there must exist a directed road from a station to another station. In addition, we assume that at the initial time $t=0$, every station has $C$ bikes and $K$ parking places, where $1\leq
C<K<\infty$; and $NC\geq K$, which makes that some of the $NC$ bikes can result in at least a full station.
**(2) Customer arrival process:** The arrivals of the outside customers at the $i$th station are a Poisson process with arrival rate $\lambda_{i}>0$ for $1\leq i\leq N$.
**(3) The first riding-bike time:** Once an outside customer arrives at the $i$th station, she immediately goes to rent a bike. If there is no bike in the $i$th station (i.e., the $i$th station is empty), then the customer directly leaves this bike sharing system. If there is at least one bike in the $i$th station, then the customer rents a bike, and then goes to Road $i\rightarrow j$. We assume that for $j\neq i$ with $1\leq i,j\leq N$, the customer at the $i$th station rides the bike into Road $i\rightarrow j$ with probability $p_{i,j}$ for $\sum_{j\neq i}^{N}p_{i,j}=1$; and her riding-bike time from the $i$th station to the $j$th station (i.e., riding on Road $i\rightarrow j$) is an exponential random variable with riding-bike rate $\mu_{i,j}>0$, where the expected riding-bike time is $1/\mu_{i,j}$.
**(4) The bike return times:**
– When the customer completes her short trip on the above Road $i\rightarrow j$ (see Assumption (3)), she needs to return her bike to the $j$th station. If there is at least one available parking position (i.e., a vacant docker), then the customer directly returns her bike to the $j$th station, and immediately leaves this bike sharing system.
– If no parking position is available at the $j$th station, then she has to ride the bike to another station $l_{1}$ with probability $\alpha_{j,l_{1}}$ for $l_{1}\neq j$ for $\sum_{l_{1}\neq j}^{N}\alpha_{j,l_{1}}=1$; and her riding-bike time from the $j$th station to the $l_{1}$th station (i.e., riding on Road $j\rightarrow l_{1}$) is an exponential random variable with riding-bike rate $\xi_{j,l_{1}}>0$. If there is at least one available parking position, then the customer directly returns her bike to the $l_{1}$th station, and immediately leaves this bike sharing system.
– If no parking position is available at the $l_{1}$th station, then she has to ride the bike to another station $l_{2}$ with probability $\alpha_{l_{1},l_{2}}$ for $l_{2}\neq l_{1}$ for $\sum
_{l_{2}\neq l_{1}}^{N}\alpha_{l_{1},l_{2}}=1$; and her riding-bike time from the $l_{1}$th station to the $l_{2}$th station (i.e., riding on Road $l_{1}\rightarrow l_{2}$) is an exponential random variable with riding-bike rate $\xi_{l_{1},l_{2}}>0$. If there is at least one available parking position, then the customer directly returns her bike to the $l_{2}$th station, and immediately leaves this bike sharing system.
– We assume that this bike has not been returned at any station yet through $k$ consecutive return processes. In this case, the customer has to try her ($k+1$)st lucky return. Notice that the customer goes to the $l_{k}$th station from the $l_{k-1}$th full station with probability $\alpha_{l_{k-1},l_{k}}$ for $l_{k}\neq l_{k-1}$ for $\sum_{l_{k}\neq l_{k-1}}^{N}\alpha_{l_{k-1},l_{k}}=1$; and her riding-bike time from the $l_{k-1}$th station to the $l_{k}$th station (i.e., riding on Road $l_{k-1}\rightarrow l_{k}$) is an exponential random variable with riding-bike rate $\xi_{l_{k-1},l_{k}}>0$. If there is at least one available parking position, then the customer directly returns her bike to the $l_{k}$th station, and immediately leaves this bike sharing system; otherwise she has to continuously try another station again.
We further assume that the returning-bike process is persistent in the sense that the customer must find a station with an empty position to return her bike, because the bike is the public property so that no one can make it her own.
It is seen from the above description that the parameters: $p_{i,j}$ and $\mu_{i,j}$ for $j\neq i$ and $1\leq i,j\leq N$, of the first return, may be different from the parameters: $\alpha_{i,j}$ and $\xi_{i,j}$ for $j\neq i$ and $1\leq i,j\leq N$, of the $k$th return for $k\geq2$. Notice that such an assumption with respect to these different parameters is actually reasonable because the customer possibly has more things (for example, tourism, shopping, visiting friends and so on) in the first return process, but she become to have only one return task during the $k$ successive return processes for $k\geq2$.
**(5) The departure discipline:** The customer departure has two different cases: (a) An outside customer directly leaves the bike sharing system if she arrives at an empty station; or (b) if one customer rents and uses a bike, and she finally returns the bike to a station, then the customer completes her trip, and immediately leaves the bike sharing system.
We assume that the customer arrival and riding-bike processes are independent, and also all the above random variables are independent of each other. For such a bike sharing system, Figure 1 provides some physical interpretation.
![The physical structure of the bike sharing system[]{data-label="figure:fig-1"}](fig-1.eps){width="9cm"}
A Closed Queueing Network
=========================
In this section, we first provide a closed queueing network to express the bike sharing system, as seen in Figure 1. Then we determine the service rates, the routing matrix, and the relative arrival rates of the closed queueing network. Notice that there are two classes of customers in the $N\left(
N-1\right) $ roads.
In the bike sharing system described in the above section, there are $NC$ bikes, $N$ stations and $N\left( N-1\right) $ roads. Now, we abstract the bike sharing system as a closed queueing network as follows:
**(1) Virtual nodes:**
: Although the stations and roads have different physical attributes such as functions, and geographical topologies, the stations and roads are all regarded as the same nodes in the closed queueing network.
**(2) Virtual customers:**
: The bikes at the stations or roads are described as follows:
The virtual customers are abstracted by the bikes, which are either parked in the stations or ridden on the roads. Notice that the total number of bikes in the bike sharing system is fixed as $NC$ due to the fact that bikes can neither enter nor leave this system, thus the bike sharing system can be regarded as a closed queueing network.
From Assumption (2) in Section 2, it is seen that there are only one class of customers in the nodes abstracted from the stations. From Assumptions (3) and (4) in Section 2, we understand that there are two different classes of customers in the nodes abstracted from the roads, where the first class of customers are the bikes ridden on the roads for the first time; while the second class of customers are the bikes which are successively ridden on the at least two different roads due to the full station.
(3) Service disciplines:
: The First Come First Service (or FCFS) is used in the nodes abstracted from the stations; while a new processor sharing (or PS) is used in the nodes abstracted from the roads.
In the above closed queueing network, let $Q_{i}\left( t\right) $ be the number of bikes parked in $i$th station at time $t\geq0$ for $1\leq i\leq N$, and $R_{k,l}^{\left( r\right) }\left( t\right) $ the number of bikes of class $r$ ridden on Road $k\rightarrow l$ at time $t$ for $r=1,2$, and $k\neq
l$ with $1\leq k,l\leq N$. We write$$\mathbf{X}\left( t\right) =\left( \mathbf{L}_{1}\left( t\right)
,\mathbf{L}_{2}\left( t\right) ,\ldots,\mathbf{L}_{N-1}\left( t\right)
,\mathbf{L}_{N}\left( t\right) \right) ,$$ where for $1\leq i\leq N$$$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{L}_{i}\left( t\right) = & \left( Q_{i}\left( t\right)
;R_{i,1}^{\left( 1\right) }\left( t\right) ,R_{i,1}^{\left( 2\right)
}\left( t\right) ;R_{i,2}^{\left( 1\right) }\left( t\right)
,R_{i,2}^{\left( 2\right) }\left( t\right) ;\ldots;R_{i,i-1}^{\left(
1\right) }\left( t\right) ,R_{i,i-1}^{\left( 2\right) }\left( t\right)
;\right. \\
& \left. R_{i,i+1}^{\left( 1\right) }\left( t\right) ,R_{i,i+1}^{\left(
2\right) }\left( t\right) ;R_{i,i+2}^{\left( 1\right) }\left( t\right)
,R_{i,i+2}^{\left( 2\right) }\left( t\right) ;\ldots;R_{i,N}^{\left(
1\right) }\left( t\right) ,R_{i,N}^{\left( 2\right) }\left( t\right)
\right) .\end{aligned}$$ Obviously, $\left\{ \mathbf{X}\left( t\right) :t\geq0\right\} $ is a Markov process of size $N\left( 2N-1\right) $ due to the exponential and Poisson assumptions of this bike sharing system.
Now, we describe the state space of the Markov process $\left\{
\mathbf{X}\left( t\right) :t\geq0\right\} $. It is seen from Section 2 that$$0\leq Q_{i}\left( t\right) \leq K,\text{ \ }1\leq i\leq N,\label{Cequ-1}$$$$0\leq R_{k,l}^{\left( r\right) }\left( t\right) \leq NC,\text{
\ \ \ \ }r=1,2,\text{ }k\neq l,\text{ }1\leq k,l\leq N,\label{Cequ-2}$$ and$$\sum_{i=1}^{N}Q_{i}\left( t\right) +\sum_{k=1}^{N}\sum_{l\neq k}^{N}R_{k,l}^{\left( 1\right) }\left( t\right) +\sum_{k=1}^{N}\sum_{l\neq
k}^{N}R_{k,l}^{\left( 2\right) }\left( t\right) =NC.\label{Cequ-3}$$ From (\[Cequ-1\]) to (\[Cequ-3\]), it is seen the state space of Markov process $\left\{ \mathbf{X}\left( t\right) :t\geq0\right\} $ of size $N\left( 2N-1\right) $ is given by$$\begin{aligned}
\Omega= & \left\{ \overrightarrow{n}:0\leq n_{i}\leq K,0\leq m_{k,l}^{\left( 1\right) },m_{k,l}^{\left( 2\right) }\leq NC,\right. \\
& \left. \sum\limits_{i=1}^{N}n_{i}+\sum_{k=1}^{N}\sum_{l\neq k}^{N}m_{k,l}^{\left( 1\right) }+\sum_{k=1}^{N}\sum_{l\neq k}^{N}m_{k,l}^{\left(
2\right) }=NC\right\} ,\end{aligned}$$ where$$\overrightarrow{n}=\left( \mathbf{n}_{1},\mathbf{n}_{2},\ldots,\mathbf{n}_{N-1},\mathbf{n}_{N}\right) ,$$ and for $1\leq i\leq N$$$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{n}_{i}= & \left( n_{i};m_{i,1}^{\left( 1\right) },m_{i,1}^{\left(
2\right) };m_{i,2}^{\left( 1\right) },m_{i,2}^{\left( 2\right) };\ldots;m_{i,i-1}^{\left( 1\right) },m_{i,i-1}^{\left( 2\right) };\right.
\\
& \left. m_{i,i+1}^{\left( 1\right) },m_{i,i+1}^{\left( 2\right)
};m_{i,i+2}^{\left( 1\right) },m_{i,i+2}^{\left( 2\right) };\ldots
;m_{i,N}^{\left( 1\right) },m_{i,N}^{\left( 2\right) }\right) .\end{aligned}$$ Notice that $m_{k,l}=m_{k,l}^{\left( 1\right) }+m_{k,l}^{\left( 2\right)
}$ is the total number of bikes being ridden on Road $k\rightarrow l$ for $k\neq l$ with $1\leq k,l\leq N$, and also the state space $\Omega$ contains $\left( K+1\right) ^{N}\left( NC+1\right) ^{2N\left( N-1\right) }$ elements.
To compute the steady state joint probabilities of $N\left( 2N-1\right) $ queue lengths in the bike sharing system, it is seen from Chapter 7 in Bolch et al. [@Bol:2006] that we need to determine the service rate, the routing matrix and the relative arrival rate for each node in the closed queueing network.
**(a) The service rates**
From Figure 2, it is seen that the service rates of the closed queueing network are given from two different cases as follows:
![The queueing processes in the closed queueing network[]{data-label="figure:fig-2"}](fig-2.eps){width="9cm"}
*Case one: The node is one of the* $N$ *stations*
The departure process of bikes from the $i$th station, renting at the $i$th station and immediately ridden on one of the $N-1$ roads (such as, Road $i\rightarrow l$ for $l\neq i$ with $1\leq l\leq N$), is Poisson with service rate$$b_{i}=\lambda_{i}\mathbf{1}_{\left\{ 1\leq n_{i}\leq K\right\} }\sum_{l\neq
i}^{N}p_{i,l}=\lambda_{i}\mathbf{1}_{\left\{ 1\leq n_{i}\leq K\right\}
}\label{Cequ-5}$$ by means of the condition: $\sum_{l\neq i}^{N}p_{i,l}=1$.
*Case two: The node is one of the* $N\left( N-1\right) $ *roads*
In this case, two different processor sharing queueing processes of Road $i\rightarrow l$ (with two classes of different customers) are explained in Figure 2. Now, we describe the service rates with respect to the two classes of different customers as follows:
The departure process of bikes from Road $i\rightarrow l$, rented from Station $i$ and being ridden on Road $i\rightarrow l$ for the first time, is Poisson with service rate$$b_{i,l}^{\left( 1\right) }=m_{i,l}^{\left( 1\right) }\mu_{i,l}.
\label{Cequ-6}$$
The departure process of bikes from Road $i\rightarrow l$, having successively been ridden on the roads for at least two times but now on Road $i\rightarrow l$, is Poisson with service rate$$b_{i,l}^{\left( 2\right) }=m_{i,l}^{\left( 2\right) }\xi_{i,l}.
\label{Cequ-7}$$
**(b) The routing matrix and the relative arrival rates**
Now, we compute the relative arrival rate of each node in the closed queueing network. Differently from the service rates analyzed above, it is more complicated to determine the relative arrival rates by means of the routing matrix.
Based on Chapter 7 in Bolch et al. [@Bol:2006], we denote by $e_{i}\left(
n_{i}\right) $ and $e_{i,l}^{\left( r\right) }\left( m_{i,l}^{\left(
r\right) }\right) $ the relative arrival rates of the $i$th station with $n_{i}$ parking bikes, and of Road $i\rightarrow l$ with $m_{i,l}^{\left(
r\right) }$ riding bikes of class $r$, respectively. We write$$\mathbb{E}=\left\{ \overrightarrow{e}\left( \overrightarrow{n}\right)
:\overrightarrow{n}\in\Omega\right\} ,$$ where$$\overrightarrow{e}\left( \overrightarrow{n}\right) =\left( \mathbf{e}_{1}\left( \overrightarrow{n}\right) ,\mathbf{e}_{2}\left( \overrightarrow
{n}\right) ,\ldots,\mathbf{e}_{N-1}\left( \overrightarrow{n}\right)
,\mathbf{e}_{N}\left( \overrightarrow{n}\right) \right) ,$$ and for $1\leq i\leq N$$$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{e}_{i}\left( \overrightarrow{n}\right) = & \left( e_{i}\left(
n_{i}\right) ;e_{i,1}^{\left( 1\right) }\left( m_{i,1}^{\left( 1\right)
}\right) ,e_{i,1}^{\left( 2\right) }\left( m_{i,1}^{\left( 2\right)
}\right) ;\ldots;e_{i,i-1}^{\left( 1\right) }\left( m_{i,i-1}^{\left(
1\right) }\right) ,e_{i,i-1}^{\left( 2\right) }\left( m_{i,i-1}^{\left(
2\right) }\right) ;\right. \\
& \left. e_{i,i+1}^{\left( 1\right) }\left( m_{i,i+1}^{\left( 1\right)
}\right) ,e_{i,i+1}^{\left( 2\right) }\left( m_{i,i+1}^{\left( 2\right)
}\right) ;\ldots;e_{i,N}^{\left( 1\right) }\left( m_{i,N}^{\left(
1\right) }\right) ,e_{i,N}^{\left( 2\right) }\left( m_{i,N}^{\left(
2\right) }\right) \right) .\end{aligned}$$
Now, we introduce two useful notations: $\overrightarrow{g}_{i}$ and $\overrightarrow{g}_{i,l}^{\left( r\right) }$ as follows:
$\overrightarrow{g}_{i}:$
: A unit row vector of size $N\left( 2N-1\right) $, which is given by a method of replacing elements from $\overrightarrow{n}$ to $\overrightarrow{g}_{i}$, that is, corresponding to the row vector $\overrightarrow{n}$, the element $n_{i}$ is replaced by one, while all other elements of the vector $\overrightarrow
{n}$ are replaced by zeros.
$\overrightarrow{g}_{i,l}^{\left( r\right) }:$
: A unit row vector of size $N\left( 2N-1\right) $, which is given by a method of replacing elements from $\overrightarrow{n}$ to $\overrightarrow{g}_{i,l}^{\left( r\right) }$, that is, corresponding to the row vector $\overrightarrow{n}$, the element $m_{i,l}^{\left( r\right) }$ is replaced by one, while all other elements of the vector $\overrightarrow{n}$ are replaced by zeros.
To compute the vector $\overrightarrow{e}\left( \overrightarrow{n}\right) $, we first need to give the routing matrix $\mathbf{P}$ of the closed queueing network as follows:$$\mathbf{P}=\left( P_{\overrightarrow{n},\overrightarrow{n}^{\prime}}\right)
_{\overrightarrow{n},\overrightarrow{n}^{\prime}\in\Omega},$$ where the routing matrix $\mathbf{P}$ is of order $\left( K+1\right) ^{N}\left( NC+1\right) ^{2N\left( N-1\right) }$, and the element $P_{\overrightarrow{n},\overrightarrow{n}^{\prime}}$ is computed from the following three cases:
*Case one: From a station to a road*
For $1\leq i,l\leq N$ with $l\neq i$, we observe a transition route from the $i$th station to Road $i\rightarrow l$. If a rented bike leaves the $i$th station and enters Road $i\rightarrow l$, then $1\leq n_{i}\leq K$, and there is a two-element change: $\left( n_{i},m_{i,l}^{\left( 1\right) }\right)
\rightarrow\left( n_{i}-1,m_{i,l}^{\left( 1\right) }+1\right) $. Thus we obtain that for $1\leq n_{i}\leq K$$$P_{\overrightarrow{n},\overrightarrow{n}^{\prime}}=P_{\overrightarrow
{n},\overrightarrow{n}-\overrightarrow{g}_{i}+\overrightarrow{g}_{i,l}^{\left( 1\right) }}=p_{i,l}$$ by means of Assumption (3) of Section 2. There are $NK\left( N-1\right) $ such elements with $P_{\overrightarrow{n},\overrightarrow{n}^{\prime}}=P_{\overrightarrow{n},\overrightarrow{n}-\overrightarrow{g}_{i}+\overrightarrow{g}_{i,l}^{\left( 1\right) }}=p_{i,l}$ in the closed queueing network.
*Case two: From a road to a station*
For $r=1,2$ and $1\leq k,i,l\leq N$ with $i\neq k$ and $l\neq i$, we observe a transition route from Road $k\rightarrow i$ to the $i$th station. If a riding bike of class $r$ leaves Road $k\rightarrow i$, then either it enters the $i$th station if $0\leq n_{i}\leq K-1$; or it goes to Road $i\rightarrow l$ if $n_{i}=K$.
In the former case (the riding bike of class $r$ enters the $i$th station if $0\leq n_{i}\leq K-1$), we obtain that for $0\leq n_{i}\leq K-1$, there is a two-element change: $\left( m_{k,i}^{\left( r\right) },n_{i}\right)
\rightarrow\left( m_{k,i}^{\left( r\right) }-1,n_{i}+1\right) $, hence this gives that for $0\leq n_{i}\leq K-1$$$P_{\overrightarrow{n},\overrightarrow{n}^{\prime}}=P_{\overrightarrow
{n},\overrightarrow{n}-\overrightarrow{g}_{k,i}^{\left( r\right)
}+\overrightarrow{g}_{i}}=1,$$ since the end of Road $k\rightarrow i$ is only the $i$th station. There are $2N^{2}\left( N-1\right) CK$ such elements with $P_{\overrightarrow
{n},\overrightarrow{n}^{\prime}}=P_{\overrightarrow{n},\overrightarrow
{n}-\overrightarrow{g}_{k,i}^{\left( r\right) }+\overrightarrow{g}_{i}}=1$ in the closed queueing network.
*Case three: From a road to another road*
In the latter case (the riding bike of class $r$ goes to Road $i\rightarrow l$ if $n_{i}=K$), we get that there is a two-element change: $\left(
m_{k,i}^{\left( r\right) },m_{i,l}^{\left( 2\right) }\right)
\rightarrow\left( m_{k,i}^{\left( r\right) }-1,m_{i,l}^{\left( 2\right)
}+1\right) $. Thus we obtain that for $n_{i}=K$$$P_{\overrightarrow{n},\overrightarrow{n}^{\prime}}=P_{\overrightarrow
{n},\overrightarrow{n}-\overrightarrow{g}_{k,i}^{\left( r\right)
}+\overrightarrow{g}_{i,l}^{\left( 2\right) }}=\alpha_{i,l}$$ by means of Assumption (4) of Section 2. There are $2N^{3}\left( N-1\right)
^{2}C^{2}$ such elements with $P_{\overrightarrow{n},\overrightarrow
{n}^{\prime}}=P_{\overrightarrow{n},\overrightarrow{n}-\overrightarrow
{g}_{k,i}^{\left( r\right) }+\overrightarrow{g}_{i,l}^{\left( 2\right) }}=\alpha_{i,l}$ in the closed queueing network.
In summary, the above analysis gives$$P_{\overrightarrow{n},\overrightarrow{n}^{\prime}}=\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{lll}P_{\overrightarrow{n},\overrightarrow{n}-\overrightarrow{g}_{i}+\overrightarrow{g}_{i,l}^{\left( 1\right) }}=p_{i,l}, & \text{if }1\leq
n_{i}\leq K, & \text{(station }\rightarrow\text{ road)}\\
P_{\overrightarrow{n},\overrightarrow{n}-\overrightarrow{g}_{k,i}^{\left(
r\right) }+\overrightarrow{g}_{i}}=1, & \text{if }0\leq n_{i}\leq K-1, &
\text{(road }\rightarrow\text{ station)}\\
P_{\overrightarrow{n},\overrightarrow{n}-\overrightarrow{g}_{k,i}^{\left(
r\right) }+\overrightarrow{g}_{i,l}^{\left( 2\right) }}=\alpha_{i,l}, &
\text{if }n_{i}=K, & \text{(road }\rightarrow\text{ road, a full station)}\\
0, & \text{otherwise.} &
\end{array}
\right.$$ At the same time, the minimal number of zero elements in the routing matrix $\mathbf{P}$ is given by$$\left[ \left( K+1\right) ^{N}\left( NC+1\right) ^{2N\left( N-1\right)
}\right] ^{2}-NK\left( N-1\right) -2N^{2}\left( N-1\right) CK-2N^{3}\left( N-1\right) ^{2}C^{2}$$ This also shows that there exist more zero elements in the routing matrix $\mathbf{P}$.
We write a row vector$$\overrightarrow{\Re}=\left( \overrightarrow{e}\left( \overrightarrow
{n}\right) :\overrightarrow{e}\left( \overrightarrow{n}\right)
\in\mathbb{E}\right) ,$$ where $$\mathbb{E}=\left\{ \overrightarrow{e}\left( \overrightarrow{n}\right)
:\overrightarrow{n}\in\Omega\right\} .$$
The routing matrix $\mathbf{P}$ is irreducible and stochastic (i.e., $\mathbf{P1}=\mathbf{1}$, where $\mathbf{1}$ is a column vector of ones), and there exists a unique positive solution to the following system of linear equations$$\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{c}\overrightarrow{\Re}=\overrightarrow{\Re}\text{ }\mathbf{P},\\
\left( \overrightarrow{\Re}\right) _{1}=1,
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $\left( \overrightarrow{\Re}\right) _{1}$ is the first element of the row vector $\overrightarrow{\Re}$.
**Proof:** The outline of this proof is described as follows. It is well-known that the routing structure of the closed queueing network indicates that the routing matrix $\mathbf{P}$ is stochastic, and the accessibility of each station or road of the bike sharing system shows that the routing matrix $\mathbf{P}$ is irreducible. Thus the routing matrix $\mathbf{P}$ is not only irreducible but also stochastic. Notice that the size of the routing matrix $\mathbf{P}$ is $\left( K+1\right) ^{N}\left( NC+1\right) ^{2N\left( N-1\right) }$, it follows from Theorem 1.1 (a) and (b) of Chapter 1 in Seneta [@Sen:1981] that the left eigenvector $\overrightarrow{\Re}$ of the irreducible stochastic matrix $\mathbf{P}$ corresponding to the maximal eigenvalue $1$ is more than $0$, that is, $\overrightarrow{\Re}>0$, and $\overrightarrow{\Re}$ is unique for $\left( \overrightarrow{\Re}\right)
_{1}=1$. This completes this proof.
A Product-Form Solution and Performance Analysis
================================================
In this section, we first provide a product-form solution to the steady state joint probabilities of $N\left( 2N-1\right) $ queue lengths in the closed queueing network. Then we analyze performance measures of the bike sharing system by means of the steady state joint probabilities.
Notice that $$\mathbf{X}\left( t\right) =\left( \mathbf{L}_{1}\left( t\right)
,\mathbf{L}_{2}\left( t\right) ,\ldots,\mathbf{L}_{N-1}\left( t\right)
,\mathbf{L}_{N}\left( t\right) \right) ,$$ where for $1\leq i\leq N$$$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{L}_{i}\left( t\right) = & \left( Q_{i}\left( t\right)
;R_{i,1}^{\left( 1\right) }\left( t\right) ,R_{i,1}^{\left( 2\right)
}\left( t\right) ;R_{i,2}^{\left( 1\right) }\left( t\right)
,R_{i,2}^{\left( 2\right) }\left( t\right) ;\ldots;R_{i,i-1}^{\left(
1\right) }\left( t\right) ,R_{i,i-1}^{\left( 2\right) }\left( t\right)
;\right. \\
& \left. R_{i,i+1}^{\left( 1\right) }\left( t\right) ,R_{i,i+1}^{\left(
2\right) }\left( t\right) ;R_{i,i+2}^{\left( 1\right) }\left( t\right)
,R_{i,i+2}^{\left( 2\right) }\left( t\right) ;\ldots;R_{i,N}^{\left(
1\right) }\left( t\right) ,R_{i,N}^{\left( 2\right) }\left( t\right)
\right) .\end{aligned}$$ At the same time, $\left\{ \mathbf{X}\left( t\right) :t\geq0\right\} $ is an irreducible continuous-time Markov process on state space $\Omega$ which contains $\left( K+1\right) ^{N}\left( NC+1\right) ^{2N\left( N-1\right) }$ states. Therefore, the Markov process $\left\{ \mathbf{X}\left( t\right) :t\geq0\right\} $ is irreducible and positive recurrent. In this case, we set $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{\pi}\left( \overrightarrow{n}\right) = & \lim_{t\rightarrow+\infty
}P\left\{ Q_{i}\left( t\right) =n_{i},1\leq i\leq N;\text{ }R_{k,l}^{\left( 1\right) }\left( t\right) =m_{k,l}^{\left( 1\right) },R_{k,l}^{\left( 2\right) }\left( t\right) =m_{k,l}^{\left( 2\right)
},\right. \\
& \left. 1\leq k,l\leq N\text{ with }k\neq l,\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N}n_{i}+\sum_{r=1,2}\sum\limits_{k=1}^{N}\sum\limits_{l\neq k}^{N}m_{k,l}^{\left(
r\right) }=NC\right\} .\end{aligned}$$
**(a) A product-form solution to the steady state joint probabilities**
The following theorem provides a product-form solution to the steady state joint probability $\mathbf{\pi}\left( \overrightarrow{n}\right) $ for $\overrightarrow{n}\in\Omega$; while its proof is easy by means of Chapter 7 in Bolch et al. [@Bol:2006] and is omitted here.
For the closed queueing network of the bike sharing system, the steady state joint probability $\mathbf{\pi}\left( \overrightarrow{n}\right) $ is given by $$\mathbf{\pi}\left( \overrightarrow{n}\right) =\frac{1}{\mathbf{G}}\prod_{i=1}^{N}F\left( n_{i}\right) \prod_{k=1}^{N}\prod_{l\neq k}^{N}m_{k,l}!H^{\left( 1\right) }\left( m_{k,l}^{\left( 1\right) }\right)
H^{\left( 2\right) }\left( m_{k,l}^{\left( 2\right) }\right) ,$$ where $\overrightarrow{n}\in\Omega$, $m_{k,l}=m_{k,l}^{\left( 1\right)
}+m_{k,l}^{\left( 2\right) }$,$$F\left( n_{i}\right) =\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}\left[ \frac{e_{i}\left( n_{i}\right) }{\lambda_{i}}\right] ^{n_{i}}, &
1\leq n_{i}\leq K,\\
1, & n_{i}=0,
\end{array}
\right. \text{ }$$$$H^{\left( 1\right) }\left( m_{k,l}^{\left( 1\right) }\right) =\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}\frac{1}{m_{k,l}^{\left( 1\right) }!}\left[ \frac{e_{k,l}^{\left(
1\right) }\left( m_{k,l}^{\left( 1\right) }\right) }{m_{k,l}^{\left(
1\right) }\mu_{k,l}}\right] ^{m_{k,l}^{\left( 1\right) }}, & 1\leq
m_{k,l}^{\left( 1\right) }\leq NC,\\
1, & m_{k,l}^{\left( 1\right) }=0,
\end{array}
\right. ,$$$$H^{\left( 2\right) }\left( m_{k,l}^{\left( 2\right) }\right) =\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}\frac{1}{m_{k,l}^{\left( 2\right) }!}\left[ \frac{e_{k,l}^{\left(
2\right) }\left( m_{k,l}^{\left( 2\right) }\right) }{m_{k,l}^{\left(
2\right) }\xi_{k,l}}\right] ^{m_{k,l}^{\left( 2\right) }}, & 1\leq
m_{k,l}^{\left( 2\right) }\leq NC,\\
1, & m_{k,l}^{\left( 2\right) }=0,
\end{array}
\right.$$ and $\mathbf{G}$ is a normalization constant, given by $$\mathbf{G}=\sum_{\overrightarrow{n}\in\Omega}\prod_{i=1}^{N}F\left(
n_{i}\right) \prod_{k=1}^{N}\prod_{l\neq k}^{N}m_{k,l}!H^{\left( 1\right)
}\left( m_{k,l}^{\left( 1\right) }\right) H^{\left( 2\right) }\left(
m_{k,l}^{\left( 2\right) }\right) .$$
**(b) Performance analysis**
Now, we consider three key performance measures of the bike sharing system in terms of the steady state joint probability $\mathbf{\pi}\left(
\overrightarrow{n}\right) $ for $\overrightarrow{n}\in\Omega$.
*(1) The steady state probability of problematic stations*
In the study of bike sharing systems, it is a key task to compute the steady state probability of problematic stations. To this end, our aim is to care for the $i$th station with respect to its full or empty cases. Thus the steady state probability $\Im$ of problematic stations is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Im & =P\left\{ n_{i}=0\text{ or }n_{i}=K\right\} =P\left\{ n_{i}=0\right\} +P\left\{ n_{i}=K\right\} \\
& =\sum\limits_{\overrightarrow{n}\in\Omega\text{ \& }n_{i}=0}\mathbf{\pi
}\left( \overrightarrow{n}\right) +\sum\limits_{\overrightarrow{n}\in
\Omega\text{ \& }n_{i}=K}\mathbf{\pi}\left( \overrightarrow{n}\right) .\end{aligned}$$
*(2) The means of steady state queue lengths*
The steady state mean of the number of bikes parked *at* the $i$th station is given by$$\mathbf{Q}_{i}=\sum\limits_{\overrightarrow{n}\in\Omega\text{ \& }1\leq
n_{i}\leq K}n_{i}\mathbf{\pi}\left( \overrightarrow{n}\right) ,\text{
\ }1\leq i\leq N,$$ and the steady state mean of the number of bikes ridden on the $N\left( N-1\right) $ roads is given by$$\mathbf{Q}_{0}=NC-\sum_{i=1}^{N}\left[ \sum\limits_{\overrightarrow{n}\in\Omega\text{ \& }1\leq n_{i}\leq K}n_{i}\mathbf{\pi}\left( \overrightarrow
{n}\right) \right] ,$$ or$$\mathbf{Q}_{0}=\sum_{r=1,2}\sum_{k=1}^{N}\sum_{l\neq k}^{N}\sum
_{\overrightarrow{n}\in\Omega\text{ \& }1\leq m_{k,l}^{\left( r\right) }\leq
NC}^{N}m_{k,l}^{\left( r\right) }\mathbf{\pi}\left( \overrightarrow
{n}\right) .$$
Concluding Remarks
==================
In this paper, we provide a unified framework for analyzing closed queueing networks in the study of bike sharing systems, and show that this framework of closed queueing networks is interesting, difficult and challenging. We describe and analyze a closed queueing network corresponding to a large-scale bike sharing system, and specifically, we provide a product-form solution to the steady state joint probabilities of $N\left( 2N-1\right) $ queue lengths, which leads to be able to calculate the steady state probability of problematic stations, and more generally, to analyze performance measures of this bike sharing system. We hope the methodology and results of this paper can be applicable in the study of more general bike sharing systems by means of the closed queueing networks. Along these lines, there are a number of interesting directions for potential future research, for example:
- Developing effective algorithms for computing the routing matrix, the relative arrival rates, and the steady state joint probabilities of queue lengths;
- analyzing bike sharing systems with Markovian arrival processes (MAPs) of customers to rent bikes, and phase type (PH) riding-bike times on the roads;
- considering heterogeneity of bike sharing systems under an irreducible graph with stations, roads and their connections;
- discussing repositioning bikes by trucks in bike sharing systems with information technologies; and
- applying periodic MAPs, periodic PH distributions, or periodic Markov processes to studying time-inhomogeneous bike sharing systems.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
Q.L. Li was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under grant No. 71271187 and No. 71471160, and the Fostering Plan of Innovation Team and Leading Talent in Hebei Universities under grant No. LJRC027.
[9]{} Adelman, D.: Price-directed control of a closed logistics queueing network. Operations Research, **55**(6), 1022–1038 (2007)
Bolch, G., Greiner, S., de Meer, H., Trivedi, K.S.: Queueing Networks and Markov Chains: Modeling and Performance Evaluation with Computer Science Applications. John Wiley & Sons (2006).
DeMaio, P.: Bike-sharing: history, impacts, models of provision, and future. Journal of Public Transportation, **12**(4), 41–56 (2009)
Faye, V.: French Network of Bike: Cities and Bikesharing Systems in France. le Club des Villes Cyclables, Paris (2008)
Fishman, E., Washington, S., Haworth, N.: Bike share: a synthesis of the literature. Transport Reviews, **33**(2), 148–165 (2013)
Fricker, C., Gast, N.: Incentives and redistribution in homogeneous bike-sharing systems with stations of finite capacity. EURO Journal on Transportation and Logistics, Published online June 7, 2014, pp. 1–31 (2014)
Fricker, C., Gast, N., Mohamed, A.: Mean field analysis for inhomogeneous bikesharing systems. In: DMTCS Proceedings, vol. 1, 365–376 (2012)
Fricker, C., Tibi, D.: Equivalence of ensembles for large vehicle-sharing models. arXiv Preprint: arXiv:1507.07792, pp. 1–28 (2015)
George, D.K., Xia, C.H.: Fleet-sizing and service availability for a vehicle rental system via closed queueing networks. European Journal of Operational Research, **211**(1), 198–207 (2011)
Janett, B., Hendrik, M.: Optimising Bike-Sharing in European Cities: A Handbook. OBIS Project (2011)
Labadi, K., Benarbia, T., Barbot, J.P., Hamaci, S., Omari, A.: Stochastic Petri net modeling, simulation and analysis of public bicycle sharing systems. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, **12**(4), 1380–1395 (2015)
Larsen, J.: Bike-sharing programs hit the streets in over 500 cities worldwide. Earth Policy Institute, 25 (2013)
Lathia, N., Ahmed, S., Capra, L.: Measuring the impact of opening the London shared bicycle scheme to casual users. Transportation Research Part C, **22**(1), 88–102 (2012)
Leurent, F.: Modelling a vehicle-sharing station as a dual waiting system: stochastic framework and stationary analysis. HAL Id: hal-00757228, pp. 1–19 (2012)
Li, Q.L., Chen, C., Fan, R.N., Xu, L., Ma, J.Y.: Queueing analysis of a large-scale bike sharing system through mean-field theory. arXiv Preprint: arXiv:1603.09560, pp. 1–50 (2016)
Morency, C., Trépanier, M., Godefroy, F.: Insight into the Montreal bikesharing system. In: TRB-Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington, USA (2011)
Raviv, T., Kolka, O.: Optimal inventory management of a bikesharing station. IIE Transactions, **45**(10), 1077–1093 (2013)
Raviv, T., Tzur, M., Forma, I.A.: Static repositioning in a bike-sharing system: models and solution approaches. EURO Journal on Transportation and Logistics, **2**(3), 187–229 (2013)
Savin, S., Cohen, M., Gans, N., Katala, Z.: Capacity management in rental businesses with two customer bases. Operations Research, **53**(4), 617–631 (2005)
Schuijbroek, J., Hampshire, R., van Hoeve, W.J.: Inventory rebalancing and vehicle routing in bike-sharing systems. Technical Report 2013-2, Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University, pp. 1–27 (2013)
Seneta, E.: Non-negative Matrices and Markov Chains. Springer-Verlag (1981)
Shaheen, S., Guzman, S., Zhang, H.: Bikesharing in Europe, the Americas, and Asia: past, present, and future. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2143, 159–167 (2010)
Shu, J., Chou, M.C., Liu, Q., Teo, C.P., Wang, I.L.: Models for effective deployment and redistribution of bicycles within public bicycle-sharing systems. Operations Research, **61**(6), 1346–1359 (2013)
Tang, Y., Pan, H., Shen, Q.: Bike-sharing systems in Beijing, Shanghai, and Hangzhou and their impact on travel behavior. In: The 90th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. (2011)
Waserhole, A., Jost, V.: Vehicle sharing system pricing regulation: transit optimization of intractable queuing network. HAL Id: hal-00751744, pp. 1–20 (2012)
Waserhole, A., Jost, V.: Vehicle sharing system pricing regulation: A fluid approximation. HAL Id: hal-00727041, pp. 1–35 (2013)
Waserhole, A., Jost, V.: Pricing in vehicle sharing systems: Optimization in queuing networks with product forms. EURO Journal on Transportation and Logistics, Published online: November 4, 2014, pp. 1–28 (2014)
Waserhole, A., Jost, V., Brauner, N.: Pricing techniques for self regulation in vehicle sharing systems. Electronic Notes in Discrete Mathematics, vol. 41, 149–156 (2013)
[^1]: [Interpretation:]{} After this paper was published, we find an interesting work by Rick Zhang and Marco Pavone “R. Zhang and M. Pavone (2014). A queueing network approach to the analysis and control of mobility-on-demand systems. Published Online: arXiv:1409.6775, Pages 1-9."
|
---
abstract: 'Cache-aided content delivery is studied in a multi-server system with $P$ servers and $K$ users, each equipped with a local cache memory. In the delivery phase, each user connects randomly to any $\rho$ out of $P$ servers. Thanks to the availability of multiple servers, which model small-cell base stations (SBSs), demands can be satisfied with reduced storage capacity at each server and reduced delivery rate per server; however, this also leads to reduced multicasting opportunities compared to the single-server scenario. A joint storage and proactive caching scheme is proposed, which exploits coded storage across the servers, uncoded cache placement at the users, and coded delivery. The delivery *latency* is studied for both *successive* and *parallel* transmissions from the servers. It is shown that, with successive transmissions the achievable average delivery latency is comparable to the one achieved in the single-server scenario, while the gap between the two depends on $\rho$, the available redundancy across the servers, and can be reduced by increasing the storage capacity at the SBSs. The optimality of the proposed scheme with uncoded cache placement and MDS-coded server storage is also proved for successive transmissions.'
author:
- '\'
title: |
Coded Caching in a Multi-Server System\
with Random Topology
---
Coded caching, distributed storage, partial connectivity, multi-server caching, femtocaching.
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Coded caching and distributed storage have received significant attention in recent years to exploit the available memory space and processing power of individual network nodes to increase the throughput and efficiency of data availability. With proactive caching, part of the data can be pushed to nodes’ local cache memories during off-peak hours, called the *placement phase*, to reduce the burden on the network during peak traffic periods, called the *delivery phase* [@maddah] - [@comb1]. A different type of coded caching also improves the delivery performance in the so-called “femtocaching” scenario [@femtocaching], where multiple cache-equipped small-cell base stations (SBSs) collaboratively deliver contents to users. Coding for distributed storage systems has been extensively studied in the literature (see, for example, [@dimakis_networkcodes]), and in the femtocaching scenario, ideal maximum distance separable (MDS) codes allow users to recover contents by collecting parity bits from only a subset of SBSs they connect to [@femtocaching].
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Examples of different network topologies for $P=3$ and $K=4$ with $\rho=2$.[]{data-label="fig:f1"}](fig2b.PNG "fig:"){width="22.00000%"} \[fig:f11\]
$(a)$ $\rho=2$, $q_1=2, q_2=4, q_3=2$.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Examples of different network topologies for $P=3$ and $K=4$ with $\rho=2$.[]{data-label="fig:f1"}](fig2c_2.PNG "fig:"){width="24.00000%"} \[fig:f12\]
$(b)$ $\rho=2$, $q_1=4, q_2=4, q_3=0$ (best topology (for successive transmissions), worst topology (for parallel transmissions)).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Examples of different network topologies for $P=3$ and $K=4$ with $\rho=2$.[]{data-label="fig:f1"}](fig2c1.PNG "fig:"){width="22.00000%"}\[fig:f13\] ![Examples of different network topologies for $P=3$ and $K=4$ with $\rho=2$.[]{data-label="fig:f1"}](fig2c2.PNG "fig:"){width="22.00000%"}\[fig:f1\]
$(c)$ $\rho=2, q_1=3, q_2=3, q_3=2$ (worst topology (for successive transmissions), best topology (for parallel transmissions))
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this work, we combine distributed storage at the SBSs, similar to the “femtocaching” framework [@femtocaching], with cache storage at the users, and consider coded delivery over error-free shared broadcast links [@nmital]. We consider a library of $N$ files stored across $P$ SBSs, each equipped with a limited-capacity storage space (see Fig. \[fig:f1\]). Unlike the existing literature, we consider a random connectivity model: during the delivery phase, each user connects only to a random subset of $\rho$ SBSs, where $\rho \leq P$. This may be due to physical variations in the channel, or due to resource constraints. Most importantly, the connections that form the network topology are not known in advance during the placement phase; therefore, the cache placement cannot be designed for a particular network topology. Storing the files across multiple SBSs, and allowing users to connect randomly to a subset of them results in a loss in multicasting opportunities for the servers, indicating a trade-off between the coded caching gain and the flexibility provided by distributed storage across the servers, which, to the best of our knowledge, has not been studied before.
On the other hand, the presence of multiple servers may improve the latency if user requests can be satisfied in parallel. Accordingly, two scenarios are discussed depending on the delivery protocol. If the servers transmit *successively*, i.e., time-division transmission, the total latency is the sum of the latencies on each link in delivering all the requests. If the servers operate in parallel, then the latency is given by the link with the maximum latency. We propose a practical coded storage and delivery scheme that exploits MDS coded storage across servers simultaneously with coded caching and delivery to users. In the successive transmission scenario, we show that the cost of the flexibility of distributed storage is a scaling of the latency by a constant. We also characterize the average worst-case latency (over all user-server associations) of the proposed scheme by assuming that the users connect to a uniformly random subset of the servers; and show that it is relatively close to the best-case performance, which is the single-server centralized delivery latency derived in[@maddah], achieved when all the users connect to the same set of servers, maximizing the multicasting opportunities. We observe that, as the server storage capacities increase, the average delivery latency vs. user cache memory trade-off improves, approaching the single-server performance. We give an analytical expression to compute the average delivery latency for different server storage capacities, which is shown to give a fairly accurate estimate of the expected delivery latency when the number of servers is large. We then consider the delivery latency when the servers can transmit in parallel. We characterize the achievable average worst case delivery latency of the proposed coded storage and delivery scheme as a function of the server storage capacity for different $\rho$ values.
In a related work [@Vaneet], the authors study coded caching schemes presented in [@maddah] and [@chao] when parity servers are available. The authors consider special scenarios with one and two parity servers. They propose a scheme that stripes the files into blocks, and codes them across the servers with a systematic MDS code, and they also propose a scheme for the scenario in which files are stored as whole units in the servers, without striping. In our work, we do not specify servers as parity servers, and instead propose a scheme that generalizes to the use of any type of MDS code and any number of storage servers. We study the impact of the topology on the sum and maximum delivery rates, and the trade-off between the server storage capacity and the average of these rates.
In [@shariatpanahi], the authors consider multiple servers, each having access to all the files in the library, serving the users through an intermediate network of relays. They consider the so-called *linear network* model, in which the network topology is fixed but unknown at the relay nodes. The authors study the delivery latency considering parallel transmissions from the servers, and show that there is a gain from using multiple servers when the relay nodes employ simple random linear network coding. Note that, our model considers both limited storage servers and random network topology over the delivery network, which is unknown during the placement phase, but known during the delivery phase. Compared to the linear network model, our model corresponds to an identity network transfer matrix, in which the scheme of [@shariatpanahi] does not provide any gains, since it is not optimized for the realization of the topology.
Another line of related works study caching in combination networks [@comb1],[@comb3], which consider a single server serving cache-equipped users through multiple relay nodes. The server is connected to these relays through unicast links, which in turn serve a distinct subset of a fixed number of users through unicast links. A combination network with cache-enabled relay nodes is considered in [@comb3]. In our paper, we relax the symmetry of a standard combination network and the assumption of a fixed and known network topology, which would be unrealistic in many practical scenarios, to a certain degree by allowing each user to connect to a random fixed number of servers, thus breaking the symmetry from the servers’ perspective while maintaining the symmetry from the end-users’ perspective.\
***Notations***. For two integers $i<j$, we denote the set $\{i,i+1,\ldots, j \}$ by $[i:j]$, while the set $[1:j]$ is denoted by $[j]$. Sets are denoted with the calligraphic font, and $|\mathcal{A}|$ denotes the cardinality of set $\mathcal{A}$. For $\mathcal{A} =\{a_1,a_2,\ldots,a_p\}$, we define $X_{\mathcal{A}} \triangleq (X_{a_1}, \ldots, X_{a_p})$. $\mathbbm{1}_{E}$ denotes the indicator function of the event $E$, i.e., its value is $1$ when the event $E$ happens. $\lfloor x \rfloor$ denotes the largest integer less than or equal to $x$. $\lceil x \rceil$ denotes the smallest integer greater than or equal to $x$.
Problem Setting {#sec:app:1}
===============
We consider the system model illustrated in Fig. \[fig:f1\] with $P$ servers, denoted by $\mathrm{S}_1, \mathrm{S}_2, \ldots, \mathrm{S}_P$, serving $K$ users, denoted by $\mathrm{U}_1,\mathrm{U}_2, \ldots, \mathrm{U}_K$. There is a library of $N$ files $W_1, W_2, \ldots, W_N$, each of length $F$ bits uniformly distributed over $[2^{F}]$. Each user has access to a local cache memory of capacity $M_UF$ bits, $0 \leq M_U \leq N$, while each server has a storage memory of capacity $M_SF$ bits. The caching scheme consists of two phases: placement phase and delivery phase. We consider a centralized placement scenario as in [@maddah], which is carried out centrally with the knowledge of the servers and the users participating in the delivery phase. However, neither the user demands, nor the network topology is known in advance during the placement phase. In the delivery phase, we assume that each user randomly connects to $\rho$ servers out of $P$ with a uniform distribution over all $\rho-$subsets, where $\rho \leq P$, and requests a single file from the library. We define $\alpha\triangleq \frac{\rho}{P}$ as the *connectivity* of the network, where $0 \leq \alpha \leq 1$. For $j \in [K]$, let $\mathcal{Z}_j$ denote the set of servers $\mathrm{U}_j$ connects to, where $|\mathcal{Z}_j|=\rho$, and $d_j \in [N]$ denotes the index of the file it requests. For example, in Fig. \[fig:f1\](a), $\mathcal{Z}_1=\{ \mathrm{S}_1, \mathrm{S}_2 \}$, $\mathcal{Z}_2=\{ \mathrm{S}_1, \mathrm{S}_2 \}$, $\mathcal{Z}_3=\{ \mathrm{S}_2, \mathrm{S}_3 \}$ and $\mathcal{Z}_4=\{ \mathrm{S}_2, \mathrm{S}_3 \}$. Let the demand vector be denoted by $\mathbf{d}\triangleq(d_1, d_2,..., d_K)$. The topology of the network, i.e., which users are connected to which servers, and the demands of the users are revealed to the servers at the beginning of the delivery phase.
The complete library must be stored at the servers in a coded manner to provide redundancy, since each user connects only to a random subset of the servers. Since any user should be able to reconstruct any requested file from its own cache memory and the servers it is connected to, the total cache capacity of a user and any $\rho$ servers must be sufficient to recover the whole library; that is, we must have $M_U+\rho M_S\geq N$.
Let $\mathcal{K}_p$ denote the set of users served by $\mathrm{S}_p$, for $p\in [P]$, and define the random variable $Q_p \triangleq \left| \mathcal{K}_p \right|$, which denotes the number of users served by $\mathrm{S}_p$. We shall denote a particular realization of $Q_p$ as $q_p$ and define $\mathbf{q}\triangleq ( q_1, \ldots , q_p )$, where we have $\sum_{p=1}^{P} q_p = K\rho$. For example, in Fig. \[fig:f1\](a), we have $\mathcal{K}_1=\{ \mathrm{U}_1,\mathrm{U}_2 \}, \mathcal{K}_2=\{ \mathrm{U}_1, \mathrm{U}_2, \mathrm{U}_3, \mathrm{U}_4\}, \mathcal{K}_3=\{ \mathrm{U}_3, \mathrm{U}_4 \}$, and $\mathbf{q}=(2,4,2)$. In the delivery phase, server $\mathrm{S}_p$ transmits message $X_p$ of size $R_p F$ bits to the users connected to it, i.e., the users in set $\mathcal{K}_{p}$, over the corresponding shared link. We assume that each server is allocated a separate orthogonal delivery channel, and the message it transmits is received by all the users connected to this server. The message $X_{p}$ is a function of the demand vector $\mathbf{d}$, the network topology, the storage contents of server $\mathrm{S}_p$, and the cache contents of the users in $\mathcal{K}_p$. User $U_k$ receives the messages $X_{\mathcal{Z}_k} \triangleq \{ X_p : p \in \mathcal{Z}_k \}$, and reconstructs its requested file $W_{d_k}$ using these messages and its local cache contents.
Formal Problem Statement
------------------------
We now provide the formal definition of the caching problem. Let $\{W_n\}_{n=1}^{N}$ be $N$ independent random variables each uniformly distributed over $[2^F]$ for some $F \in \mathbb{N}$. Each $W_n$ represents a file of size $F$ bits. Let $R_p, p\in [P],$ be the number of bits, normalized by the size of a file, transmitted by server $p\in [P]$ during the delivery phase. A $(M_S,M_U,R_1,\ldots,R_P)$ storage and caching scheme consists of $P$ server storage functions, $K$ caching functions, $P{P\choose \rho}^K$ encoding functions, and $K{P\choose \rho}^K$ decoding functions.
The caching function $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_k : [2^F]^N \rightarrow [2^{\lfloor FM_U\rfloor}],\quad k \in [K],\end{aligned}$$ maps the library $\{ W_n \}_{n=1}^{N}$ into the cache contents, of user $U_k$ during the placement phase: $$\begin{aligned}
V_k \triangleq \phi_k (W_1,\ldots, W_N)\end{aligned}$$ The server storage function $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{p}: [2^F]^N \rightarrow [2^{\lfloor FM_S\rfloor}], \quad p\in [P]\end{aligned}$$ maps the library $\{W_n\}_{n=1}^{N}$ into the storage of server $S_p$: $$\begin{aligned}
Y_p \triangleq \sigma_p (W_1,\ldots,W_N).\end{aligned}$$ We define a separate encoding function for each server depending on the network topology. Hence, the encoding function for server $S_p, p\in [P],$ $$\begin{aligned}
\psi^{p}_{\{\mathcal{K}_p\}_{p=1}^{P}}: [N]^K \times [2^{\lfloor FM_S\rfloor}] \rightarrow [2^{\lfloor FR_p\rfloor}]\end{aligned}$$ maps the demand vector and the memory contents of server $S_p$ to message $X_p, $ i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
X_{p} \triangleq \psi^{p}_{\{\mathcal{K}_p\}_{p=1}^{P}}(\mathbf{d},Y_p),\end{aligned}$$ which is delivered to the users in $\mathcal{K}_p$ during the delivery phase. Finally, we define a separate decoding function for each user depending on the network topology. Hence, the decoding function for user $U_k, k\in [K],$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\mu^k_{\left(\{\mathcal{Z}_k\}_{k=1}^{K}\right)} :[N]^K \times [2^{\lfloor FR_{\pi^k(1)} \rfloor}] \times \cdots \times [2^{\lfloor FR_{\pi^k(\rho)} \rfloor}] \times [2^{\lfloor FM_U \rfloor}] \rightarrow [2^{\lfloor F \rfloor}],\end{aligned}$$ where $\pi^k(1),\ldots, \pi^k(\rho)$ denote the $\rho$ servers in set $\mathcal{Z}_k$, maps the demand vector $\mathbf{d}$, the received signals $X_{\mathcal{Z}_k}$ from the servers in $\mathcal{Z}_k$, and the local cache content $V_k$ to the estimate $\hat{W}_{d_k},$ i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{W}_{d_k} \triangleq \mu^k_{\left(\{\mathcal{Z}_k\}_{k=1}^{K}\right)} (\mathbf{d},X_{\mathcal{Z}_k},V_k)\end{aligned}$$ The probability of error for this scheme, for a fixed topology, is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\max_{\mathbf{d}\in [N]^K} \max_{k\in [K]} \mathrm{Pr}(\hat{W}_{d_k} \neq W_{d_k}).\end{aligned}$$ We remark here that the storage and caching functions $\sigma_p$ and $\phi_k$ do not depend on the network topology, while the encoding and decoding functions do.
The tuple $(M_S,M_U,R_1,\ldots,R_P)$ is said to be achievable if for every $\epsilon >0$ and large enough file size $F$ there exists a $(M_S,M_U,R_1,\ldots,R_P)$ caching scheme with probability of error less than $\epsilon$.
Our goal is to minimize the delivery latency, which is the time by which all the user requests can be satisfied. Among other parameters, delivery latency also depends on the operation of the SBSs. If each SBS transmits over an orthogonal frequency band, the requests can be delivered in parallel, and the delivery latency is given by $T_{pd}=\max_{p} R_p$. If, instead, the servers transmit successively in a time-division manner, which is suitable for user devices that are simple and not capable of multihoming on multiple frequencies, the normalized delivery latency will be given by $T_{sd}=\sum_{p=1}^{P} R_p$. Our goal will be to find the average worst-case delivery latency, where the worst case refers to the fact that all the users can correctly decode their requested files, independent of the combination of files requested by them, and the averaging is over all possible network topologies. Assuming that $N\geq K$ (i.e., the number of files is larger than the number of users), it is not difficult to see that all the users requesting a different file corresponds to the worst-case scenario. We would also like to remark that, under uniform file popularity, the probability of experiencing this worst-case demand distribution increases significantly with $N$, and approaches $1$ for $N$ values that one expects to experience in practice.
Coded Distributed Storage and Caching Scheme
============================================
We first note that our system model brings together aspects of distributed storage and proactive caching/coded delivery. To see this, consider the system without any user caches, i.e., $M_U=0$, which is equivalent to a distributed storage system with unreliable servers, where random $P-\rho$ out of $P$ servers are inactive. It is known that MDS codes provide much higher reliability and efficiency compared to replication in this scenario [@dimakis_networkcodes]. On the other hand, when the servers are reliable, i.e., $\rho = P$, our system is equivalent to the one in [@maddah], and coded delivery provides significant reductions in the delivery latency. Accordingly, our proposed scheme brings together benefits from coded storage and coded delivery. To illustrate the main ingredients of the proposed scheme we assume $M_S=\frac{N}{\rho}$ in this section, and extend to other server capacities in later sections.
Server Storage Placement {#sec:serverstorage}
-------------------------
We first describe how the files are stored across the SBS servers in order to guarantee that each user request can be satisfied from any $\rho$ servers a user may connect to (see Fig. \[fig:seg\]). We define $t \triangleq \frac{KM_U}{N}$, and assume initially that $t$ is an integer, i.e., $t\in [0:M_U]$. The solution for non-integer $t$ values will be obtained through memory-sharing [@maddah]. Each file is divided into $K\choose t$ equal-size non-overlapping segments. We enumerate them according to distinct $t$-element subsets of $[K]$, where $W_{j, \mathcal{A}}$ denotes the segment of $W_j$ that corresponds to subset $\mathcal{A}$. We have $W_j = \bigcup_{\mathcal{A} \subset [K]: |\mathcal{A}| = t} W_{j, \mathcal{A}}$, $j \in [N]$.
Each segment is further divided into $\rho$ equal-size non-overlapping sub-segments denoted by $W_{j,\mathcal{A}}^l$, $l\in[\rho]$. The $\rho$ sub-segments of each segment are coded together using a $(P,\rho)$ linear MDS code with generator matrix $G$, giving as output $P$ coded subsegments for segment $W_{j,\mathcal{A}}$, denoted by $C_{j,\mathcal{A}}^{l}, l\in [P]$. $C_{j,\mathcal{A}}^{l}$ is a linear combination of the subsegments of the segment corresponding to subset $\mathcal{A}$, of file $W_j$. $C_{j,\mathcal{A}}^{l}$ will be stored in server $\mathrm{S}_l$, $\forall l \in [P],j\in [N]$, and $\mathcal{A}\subset [K], \vert \mathcal{A} \vert=t$. Since each sub-segment is of length $\frac{F}{\rho{K\choose t}}$, every linear combination $C_{j,\mathcal{A}}^{l}$ is of the same length; and hence, server storage capacity constraint of $M_S F=\frac{NF}{\rho}$ is met with equality.
We assume that each user knows the generator matrix of the MDS code to be able to reconstruct any coded subsegment $C_{j,\mathcal{A}}^{l}$ from the uncoded segment $W_{j,\mathcal{A}}$.
User Cache Placement
--------------------
Using the placement scheme proposed in [@maddah] for user caches, each segment of a file, $W_{j,\mathcal{A}}$, is placed into the caches of all the users $\mathrm{U}_k$ for which $k\in \mathcal{A}$, i.e., each user caches ${K-1 \choose t-1}$ segments of each file, or $\frac{{K-1 \choose t-1}}{{K \choose t}}NF = \frac{t}{K}N = M_U F$ bits, meeting the user cache capacity constraint.
Delivery Phase {#sec:delivery}
---------------
We first make the following observation about the above placement scheme: in the worst-case demand scenario, consider any $t+1$ users. Any $t$ out of these $t+1$ users share in their caches one segment of the file requested by the remaining user. Enumerate these subsets of $t+1$ users as $\mathcal{H}_i$, $i\in \left[{K\choose t+1}\right]$. Consider server $\mathrm{S}_p$, $p \in [P]$, and one of the $q_p$ users connected to it, say $U_k$. Then, for any subset $\mathcal{H}_i$, that includes $k$, i.e., $k \in \mathcal{H}_i$, the segment $W_{d_k,\mathcal{H}_i \setminus \{k\}}$ is needed by user $\mathrm{U}_k$, but is not available in its cache because $k \notin \mathcal{H}_i \setminus \{k\}$, while it is available in the caches of the users in $\mathcal{K}_p \bigcap \mathcal{H}_i \setminus \{k \}$. The MDS coded subsegment of $W_{d_k, \mathcal{H}_i \backslash \{k\}} $ stored by $\mathrm{S}_p$ is $C_{d_k, \mathcal{H}_i \backslash \{k\}}^{p}$, and since the users know the generator matrix $G$, each user which has $W_{d_k, \mathcal{H}_i \backslash \{k\}} $ in its cache can reconstruct $C_{d_k, \mathcal{H}_i \backslash \{k\}}^{p} $ as well. Then, for each $\mathcal{H}_i$ that includes at least one user from $\mathcal{K}_p$, $\mathrm{S}_p$ transmits $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Tx}
X_p(\mathcal{H}_i) = \bigoplus_{k \in \mathcal{K}_p \bigcap \mathcal{H}_i \setminus \{k\}} C_{d_k,\mathcal{H}_i \backslash \{k\}}^{p} ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\bigoplus$ denotes the bitwise XOR operation. Then, $\Bigl| \left\{i \in \left[{K\choose t+1}\right]: k \in \mathcal{H}_i \right\} \Bigr| = {K-1 \choose t} $ is the number of messages transmitted by server $\mathrm{S}_p$ that contain the coded version of a segment requested by $\mathrm{U}_k$, and is also equal to the number of segments of $W_{d_k}$ not present in the cache of user $\mathrm{U}_k$. Overall, the message transmitted by $S_p$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Tx_all}
X_p = \bigcup_{i \in \left[{K\choose t+1}\right]: \mathcal{K}_p \bigcap \mathcal{H}_i\neq \phi} X_p( \mathcal{H}_i).\end{aligned}$$ From the transmitted message $X_p(\mathcal{H}_i)$ in for each set $\mathcal{H}_i$, user $\mathrm{U}_k$ can decode the MDS coded version $C_{d_k,\mathcal{H}_i \backslash \{ k\}}^{p}$ of its requested segment $W_{d_k, \mathcal{H}_i \backslash \{k\}}$. With the transmissions from all the servers, $\mathrm{U}_k$ receives $\rho$ coded versions of each missing segment from the $\rho$ servers it is connected to. Since each segment is coded with a $(P,\rho)$ MDS code, the user is able to decode each missing segment of its request.
Note that each transmitted message $X_p(\mathcal{H}_i)$ by a server is of length $\left. F \right/ \rho {K\choose t}$ bits. The number of messages transmitted by $\mathrm{S}_p$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\left| \left\{ i\in \left[{K\choose t+1}\right]: \mathcal{K}_p \bigcap \mathcal{H}_i \neq \phi \right\} \right|&= {K\choose t+1}-\left| \left\{ i\in \left[{K\choose t+1}\right]: \mathcal{K}_p \bigcap \mathcal{H}_i = \phi \right\} \right|\\
&={K\choose t+1}-{K-q_p\choose t+1}.\end{aligned}$$ That is, server $\mathrm{S}_p$ transmits a total of $R_p=\sfrac{F} {\rho {K\choose t}}\left[{K\choose t+1}-{K-q_p\choose t+1}\right]$ bits.
The delivery latency performance of this proposed coded storage and delivery scheme with both successive and parallel SBS transmissions will be studied in the following two sections.
Due to the symmetry in the network across servers and users, the delivery latency of this scheme depends only on the $\mathbf{q}$ vector, not the particular network topology, i.e., what matters is the number of users served by each server, not the identity of the users. More specifically, all permutations of a $\mathbf{q}$ vector, and the associated users, result in the same latency. Hence, we define the “type" of a network topology as a vector of dimension $K+1$, $\mathbf{g}$, where $g_i$ denotes the number of servers serving $i$ users, for $i=0,1,\ldots, K$. We have $0\leq g_i \leq P$, $\sum_{i=0}^{K} g_i = P$ and $\sum_{i=0}^{K} ig_i=K\rho$.
Successive SBS Transmissions {#s:Successive}
============================
In this section we assume that the SBSs share the same communication resources, and hence, transmit successively to avoid interference. When the SBSs transmit successively in time, the normalized delivery latency is given by $$\begin{aligned}
T_{sd} \triangleq \sum_{p=1}^P R_p &= \frac{1}{\rho {K\choose t}} \sum_{p=1}^{P} \left[{K\choose t+1}-{K-q_p\choose t+1} \right] \\
&=\frac{1}{\alpha} \frac{(K-t)}{(t+1)} - \frac{1}{\rho {K\choose t}} \sum_{p=1}^{P} {K-q_p \choose t+1} \label{eq:sumrate1} \\
&= \frac{1}{\alpha} \frac{(K-t)}{(t+1)} - \frac{1}{\rho {K\choose t}} \sum_{i=0}^{K} g_i {K-i \choose t+1}.\label{eq:sumrate}\end{aligned}$$
To characterize the “best” and “worst” network topologies that lead to the minimum and maximum delivery latency, respectively, we present the following lemma without proof.
\[convexity\] For $n_1, n_2 , r \in \mathcal{Z}^{+}$ satisfying $r \leq n_1$ and $n_1 + 2 \leq n_2$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{n_1 \choose r} + {n_2 \choose r} \geq {n_1+1 \choose r} + {n_2-1 \choose r}.\end{aligned}$$
The lemma above indicates the “convex” nature of the binomial coefficients in ; that is, the points $(r, {r \choose r})$, $(r+1, {r+1 \choose r})$, …, $(n_1+n_2-r, {n_1+n_2-r \choose r})$ form a convex region. From Lemma \[convexity\], it can be deduced that the second summation term in takes its minimum when $\max_{p}(q_p) \leq \min_{p}(q_p) + 1$, $p\in [P]$, i.e., the values of $q_p$ are as close to each other as possible. This corresponds to the class of topologies with the highest delivery latency (see Fig. \[fig:f1\](c) for an example). The topology that requires the minimum delivery latency of $T_{sd} =\frac{K-t}{t+1}$ is when $q_p$ is either $0$ or $K$ for each server, or equivalently, when all the users are connected to the same $\rho$ servers (see Fig. \[fig:f1\](b) for an example).
Next we study the average worst-case normalized delivery latency, where the average is taken over all possible network topologies. As we have seen above, the delivery latency depends on the topology, and for a given topology, the “worst-case” delivery latency refers to the worst-case demand combination when each user requests a different file. Note that, in the worst case, due to the symmetry in the network and the proposed caching and delivery scheme, the latency depends only on the type of the network topology. We further assume that the probability of having any network of the same type is the same.
\[lemma\_prob\] Let $w_i$ be the probability of exactly $i$ users being served by a server; that is, $w_i=Pr\{ q_p=i \}, p\in [P]$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}[g_i] = w_i P.\end{aligned}$$
The number of servers serving exactly $i$ users, $g_i$, can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
g_i=\sum_{p=1}^{P} \mathbbm{1}_{\{q_p=i\}}.\end{aligned}$$ Taking expectation on both sides, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}[g_i] &= \sum_{p=1}^{P} \mathrm{Pr}\{ q_p=i \}\\
&=w_i P.\end{aligned}$$
The following theorem presents the average normalized worst-case delivery latency of the proposed scheme under successive transmissions, which follows by taking the expectation of both sides of Eq. and Lemma \[lemma\_prob\].
The average worst-case normalized delivery latency of the proposed scheme over all topologies under random user-server association is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}[T_{sd}]=\frac{1}{\alpha} \frac{(K-t)}{(t+1)} - \frac{1}{\alpha {K\choose t}}\sum_{i=0}^{K} w_i {K-i\choose t+1} .\label{eq:avgrate}\end{aligned}$$
Since we have assumed uniform random connectivity, we have $w_i=\sfrac{{K\choose i}{P-1 \choose \rho -1}^{i} {P-1 \choose \rho}^{K-i}}{{P\choose \rho}^K}={K\choose i} \alpha^{i} (1-\alpha)^{K-i}$. The average worst-case latency is given in the following corollary.
The average worst-case normalized delivery latency with successive transmissions under uniformly random user-server association is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}[T_{sd}]= \frac{K-t}{t+1} \left[ \frac{1-(1-\alpha)^{t+1}}{\alpha} \right].\end{aligned}$$
By plugging in $w_i={K\choose i} \alpha^{i} (1-\alpha)^{K-i}$ in Eq. , we obtain the above simplified expression.
Redundancy in Server Storage Capacity {#sec:incservercache}
-------------------------------------
In the analysis above, we have set the server storage capacity to $M_S=\frac{N}{\rho}$. On the other hand, for a given user cache capacity $M_U$, the minimum server storage capacity that would allow the reconstruction of any demand combination is given by $M_S=\frac{N-M_U}{\rho}$. In this case, we cache the same $\frac{M_U}{N}$ fraction of the library in all the user caches during the placement phase, and deliver the remaining fraction of the demands from the servers, which is identical to the scheme in [@comb3] when the user and its connected servers have just enough space to store the entire library. The worst-case delivery latency in this case is given by $T_{sd}=K\left( 1-\frac{M_U}{N}\right)= K-t$.\
Next, we consider the case when there is redundancy in server memories; that is, $\frac{N}{\rho}< M_S \leq N$. Assume that $M_S=\frac{N}{\rho - z}$ for some integer $ z\in [\rho -1]$. Define $ \hat{\alpha}\triangleq \frac{\rho-z}{P} $. Since $\alpha$ is defined as the connectivity of the network, $\alpha-\hat{\alpha}$ is the storage redundancy. For non-integer values of $z$, the solution can be obtained by memory-sharing.
![An example $7 \times 5$ incidence matrix ($P=7, K=5$) with $\rho = 4$.[]{data-label="fig:conn_matrix"}](conn_matrix.PNG)
In this case, a $(P,\rho-z)$ MDS code is used for server storage placement, allowing each user to reconstruct any requested file by connecting to $\rho -z$ servers. The user cache placement is done as in the previous section. In the delivery phase, each user randomly connects to $\rho$ servers. We now have a degree of freedom thanks to the additional storage space available at each server. Each user can obtain a segment from any $\rho -z$ of the $\rho$ servers it is connected to by receiving one coded subsegment from each of them. The choice of the servers that deliver the coded subsegments to the users is made such that the multicasting opportunities across the network are maximized. We construct an incidence matrix $A$ of dimensions $P \times K$ such that $a_{ij}=1$ if $S_i$ is connected to $U_j$, $a_{ij}=0$ otherwise. Consider the $(t+1)-$element subset $\mathcal{H}_i$, and the file segments $W_{d_k,\mathcal{H}_i\backslash \{ k\}}, \forall k\in \mathcal{H}_i$. Consider the columns of $A$ corresponding to the users in $\mathcal{H}_i$ and the matrix $Q$ formed by them. Define the minimum cover of $\mathcal{H}_i$ as the smallest $l$ for which a $l\times (t+1)$ submatrix of $Q$ has at least $\rho-z$ non-zero values in each column. The servers corresponding to the $l$ rows of this submatrix have to transmit one coded message each to satisfy the requests for the missing segments corresponding to $\mathcal{H}_i$. Therefore, the total number of transmissions required to deliver the segments $W_{d_k,\mathcal{H}_i\backslash \{ k\}}, k\in \mathcal{H}_i$, is equal to the minimum cover of $\mathcal{H}_i$.\
As an example, consider the incidence matrix as shown in Fig. \[fig:conn\_matrix\], which corresponds to a system with $P=7$ servers and $K=5$ users, where each user connects to $\rho=4$ servers. Assume that the server storage capacity is $M_S=\frac{N}{\rho-2}$ and $t=1$. In this setting, coded subsegments of requested files can be delivered to $t+1=2$ users through multicasting, and it is sufficient for each user to receive coded segments from $\rho-2=2$ servers. Then, for the user set $\mathcal{H}_i=\{1,2\}$, we consider the submatrix corresponding to the columns $1$ and $2$ and rows $1$ and $2$ (marked by the blue dashed lines in Fig. \[fig:conn\_matrix\]), which is the smallest submatrix satisfying the condition that each column has at least $\rho-z=2$ $1$s. Hence, the minimum cover for $\mathcal{H}_i=\{ 1,2 \}$ is equal to the number of rows of this submatrix, that is, $2$. For $\mathcal{H}_i=\{3,4\}$ (marked by the red dashed lines in Fig. \[fig:conn\_matrix\]), the minimum cover is $3$. Thus, from , for segments $W_{d_k,\{3,4\} \backslash \{ k\}}, k\in \{3,4\}$, $S_3$ transmits the message $X_3(\{3,4\}) = \bigoplus_{k \in \{3,4\}} C_{d_k,\{3,4\} \backslash \{k\}}^{3}$, $S_4$ transmits $X_4(\{3,4\})=C_{d_3,\{4\}}^{4}$, and $S_5$ transmits $X_5(\{3,4\})=C_{d_4,\{3\}}^{5}$. The total number of transmissions is $3$. We can go through all the $(t+1)-$ element subsets of the users and identify for each of them the minimum cover. We note that in the successive transmission scenario, the total latency does not depend on the server transmitting each subsegment, since the contribution to the total latency is the same. In the above example servers $S_1$ and $S_6$ could also deliver the two coded subsegments to users $U_1$ and $U_2$. The selection of the servers matters in the case of parallel transmissions.
Performance analysis {#performance_analysis}
--------------------
In this section, we derive an analytical expression for the expected delivery latency in the asymptotic regime, i.e., when $P \rightarrow \infty$, while $\alpha$ and $\hat{\alpha}$ are fixed. Consider a particular subset $\mathcal{H}$ of $t+1$ users. Define $\beta_i$ as the fraction of servers serving $i$ users in $\mathcal{H}$, $i=0,1,\ldots,t+1$. Thus, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{beta_def}
\beta_i = \frac{1}{P}\sum_{p=1}^{P} \mathbbm{1}_{\{ \vert \mathcal{H} \cap \mathcal{K}_p\vert = i\}}.\end{aligned}$$ Taking expectation on both sides of Eq. , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}[\beta_i]&=\frac{1}{P} \sum_{p=1}^{P} \mathbb{E}[\mathbbm{1}_{\{ \vert \mathcal{H} \cap \mathcal{K}_p\vert = i\}}] \\
&= \frac{1}{P} \sum_{p=1}^{P} \mathrm{Pr}( \vert \mathcal{H} \cap \mathcal{K}_p\vert = i)\\
&= \mathrm{Pr}( \vert \mathcal{H} \cap \mathcal{K}_p\vert = i) \label{exp_beta_1}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
= {t+1 \choose i} \alpha^i (1-\alpha)^{(t+1-i)}, \label{exp_beta}\end{aligned}$$ where follows due to the symmetry across all the servers. By the law of large numbers, $\beta_i \rightarrow \mathbb{E}[\beta_i]$ for all $i\in [K]$, as $P \rightarrow \infty$. Also, the topology becomes symmetric across all users as $P \rightarrow \infty$, i.e., almost all user subsets of the same size are served by the same number of servers.
![The ordering of servers to count the minimum cover. The dashed line indicates the point at which enough servers have been counted to deliver $\hat{\alpha}$ coded subsegments to all users in $\mathcal{H}$.[]{data-label="fig:server_ord"}](server_ordering.png)
We group the servers serving the same number of users and arrange them in the order as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:server\_ord\], where the first $P\beta_{t+1}$ servers serve $t+1$ users in $\mathcal{H}$, the next $P\beta_{t}$ servers serve exactly $t$ users in $\mathcal{H}$, and so on. To compute the minimum cover $l$, i.e., the minimum number of servers that are needed to deliver $\hat{\alpha}$ coded subsegments to each user in $\mathcal{H}$, we start counting from the left, until each user in $\mathcal{H}$ collects $\hat{\alpha}$ coded subsegments. For some $u\in [0:t]$, we count till the $(u+1)$-th set of servers which serve $t+1-u$ users in $\mathcal{H}$, as in Fig. \[fig:server\_ord\]. When counting the set of servers serving $t+1-u$ users, note that, according to our scheme, the $t+1-u$ users can each extract one coded subsegment from a message transmitted by a server in that set. Therefore, $\lceil \frac{t+1}{t+1-u} \rceil$ servers are required to serve one coded subsegment each to the $t+1$ users in $\mathcal{H}$. Define $\delta$ as the number of coded subsegments required by a single user in $\mathcal{H}$ from the set of servers serving $t+1-u$ users. Therefore, for $P\rightarrow \infty$, the minimum cover can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{min_cover}
l\approx P \sum_{j=0}^{u-1} \beta_{t+1-j} + \delta \left\lceil \frac{t+1}{t+1-u} \right\rceil \end{aligned}$$ for some $u\in [0:t]$, where follows thanks to the symmetry across users. Note that the above analysis is asymptotic, and does not hold in general for a finite $P$. Since a message transmitted by a server serving $i$ users in $\mathcal{H}$ delivers $i$ coded subsegments in total to the $i$ users, the total number of coded subsegments delivered by the $l$ servers that form the minimum cover for the users in $\mathcal{H}$ must be at least $(t+1)\hat{\alpha}$; that is, $$\begin{aligned}
P\sum_{j=0}^{u-1}(t+1-j)\beta_{t+1-j} + \delta^{'} \left\lceil \frac{t+1}{t+1-u} \right\rceil \geq (t+1)P\hat{\alpha}, \label{total_segments}\end{aligned}$$ where $\delta^{'}\triangleq (t+1-u)\delta$. The value of $u$ is determined by solving for $$\begin{aligned}
0 \leq (t+1)P\hat{\alpha}-P\sum_{j=0}^{u-1}(t+1-j)\beta_{t+1-j} \leq (t+1-u)\beta_{t+1-u} .\label{determine_u}\end{aligned}$$ From Eq. and the asymptotic convergence of $\beta_i$ to its expectation, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j=0}^{u-1} (t+1-j) \beta_{t+1-j}\overset{P\rightarrow \infty}{\rightarrow}& \sum_{j=0}^{u-1} {t+1\choose t+1-j} (t+1-j)\alpha^{(t+1-j)} (1-\alpha)^{j}\\
=& \alpha^{t+1}(t+1)\sum_{j=0}^{u-1} {t\choose s} \left( \frac{\alpha}{1-\alpha} \right)^{-j} \label{solving_u}\end{aligned}$$ We substitute into to solve for $u$. Having first determined $u$ from Eq. , and then $\delta$ from , we can find the minimum cover $l$ from Eq. for $P\rightarrow \infty$. The delivery latency can thus be estimated as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{closedform_redundant}
\mathbb{E}[T_{sd}]= \frac{1}{(\rho-z)}\left( \frac{K-t}{t+1}\right)l,\end{aligned}$$ where the factor $\frac{1}{(\rho-z)}\left( \frac{K-t}{t+1}\right)$ is obtained by multiplying the normalized size of each coded subsegment, given by $\frac{1}{(\rho-z){K\choose t}}$, with the number of $(t+1)-$user subsets, given by ${K\choose t+1}$. It will be seen in Section \[s:Discussion\] that Eq. provides a fairly accurate estimate of the expected delivery latency when the number of servers $P$ is large.
Lower Bound
===========
In this section, we derive a tight lower bound on the minimum expected delivery latency with uncoded cache placement, coded distributed storage in the servers, and successive transmissions, which shows the optimality of the caching and delivery scheme proposed in Section \[s:Successive\] in certain regimes. Following [@optimality_1], we will first represent the problem as a set of index coding problems.\
In the index coding problem [@index_coding], a sender wishes to communicate an independent message $M_j, j \in [B]$, uniformly distributed over $[2^{nr_j}]$, to the $j^{th}$ user among $B$ users by broadcasting a message $X^n$ of length $n$. Each user $j$ knows a subset of the messages targeting these $B$ users, indicated by $\mathcal{B}_j, \mathcal{B}_j \subset \{M_1,\ldots,M_B \}$, referred to as side information. A rate tuple $(r_1, \ldots,r_B)$ is achievable, for large enough $n$, if every user can restore its desired message with high probability based on $X^n$ and its side information. The index coding problem can be represented as a directed graph $G$ with $B$ nodes, where node $i$ represents message $M_i$, and a directed edge connects node $i$ to node $j$ if user $j$ knows message $M_i$ as side information.
For our problem setting, where we have the file library $\{W_i \}_{i=1}^N$, each file $W_i, i\in [N]$, of size $F$ bits is divided into $2^{K}$ non-overlapping segments denoted by $W_{i,\mathcal{A}}$, $\mathcal{A}\in 2^{[K]}$, where $2^{[K]}$ indicates the power set $\{ \phi , \{1 \}, \{2 \}, \{ 3 \}, \{ 1,2 \}$ $, \ldots ,[K] \}$. The segment $W_{i,\mathcal{A}}$ denotes the part of file $W_i$ cached exclusively by users in set $\mathcal{A}$. This is the most general representation of an uncoded caching scheme at the users. For each demand vector $\mathbf{d}$ with distinct requests, corresponding to the worst case scenario, we consider an index coding problem with $K2^{K-1}$ independent messages, each of which represents a segment requested by a particular user and cached by a different subset of the remaining users.
We generate a directed graph with $K2^{K-1}$ nodes corresponding to these messages, such that, for $i \neq j$ and $\mathcal{A}_i \subset [K]\setminus \{ i \}$ and $\mathcal{A}_j \subset [K]\setminus \{ j \}$, there is a directed edge from node $W_{d_i,\mathcal{A}_i}$ to $W_{d_j,\mathcal{A}_j}$, $i\neq j$, if user $U_j$ caches the segment $W_{d_i, \mathcal{A}_i}$; that is, if $j \in \mathcal{A}_i$. In the single server centralized setting, we get a lower bound using the index coding bound [@optimality_2]. Multi-server index coding has been studied as the distributed index coding problem in [@distr_index_coding],[@cooperative_index_coding]. In the distributed index coding problem, the servers are considered to store a subset of the messages in uncoded form, and each user is connected to all the servers, whereas in our problem each user can connect to $\rho$ out of $P$ servers randomly. Therefore, for the user to be able to retrieve any requested file from the servers it connects to, the files must be stored using a distributed storage scheme in the servers. Therefore, we analyse the case where the files are stored using erasure codes in the servers. In that, we encode the segment $W_{d_i,\mathcal{A}}$ into $P$ distinct coded subsegments, denoted by $(C_{d_i,\mathcal{A}}^1,\ldots,C_{d_i,\mathcal{A}}^P) \in \prod_{p\in [P]}\left[ 2^{n_pr_{d_i,\mathcal{A}}^p} \right]$, where $n_p=FR_p$ is the length of message in bits transmitted by server $S_p$, such that any $\rho$ coded subsegments can be used to reconstruct the original segment. $r_{d_i,\mathcal{A}}^p$ is the rate at which server $S_p$ transmits the coded subsegment $C_{d_i,\mathcal{A}}^p$ corresponding to user $U_i's$ request, and we have $\sum_{j=1}^{\rho} n_{\pi(j)} r_{d_i,\mathcal{A}}^{\pi(j)} \geq \vert W_{d_i,\mathcal{A}} \vert$ as a necessary condition to ensure that the segment $\vert W_{d_i,\mathcal{A}} \vert$ can be reconstructed by receiving any $\rho$ distinct coded subsegments, where $\pi(j),j\in [\rho]$, are the $\rho$ servers in set $\mathcal{Z}_i$. Recall that $\mathcal{Z}_i$ is the set of $\rho$ servers that serve user $U_i$. Also note that we do not code across files, but encode each file separately.
For the multi-server scenario, we consider $P$ index coding problems, each represented as a distinct directed graph $G_p, p\in [P]$. Each node in $G_p$ corresponds to a distinct coded subsegment $C_{d_i,\mathcal{A}}^{p}$, which is requested by user $U_i$ and available in server $S_p$. By distinct coded subsegments we mean that $H(W_{d_i,\mathcal{A}}\vert C^p_{d_i,\mathcal{A}},C^q_{d_i,\mathcal{A}}) < H(W_{d_i,\mathcal{A}}\vert C^p_{d_i,\mathcal{A}})$ for all $p,q \in [P], p\neq q$. $G_p$ has the same structure as $G$, with the subsegments requested by users not served by server $S_p$ removed. Let the set of nodes in the index coding problem represented by graph $G_p$ be denoted by $\mathcal{I}_p$.
We have the following multi-server index coding bound applying the result in [@optimality_2] separately on each of the $P$ index coding problems.
\[multiple server bound\] If the rate tuple $\{r_{1,\mathcal{A}}^1,\ldots, r_{K,\mathcal{A}}^1,\ldots, r_{1,\mathcal{A}}^p,\ldots, r_{K,\mathcal{A}}^p,\ldots, r_{1,\mathcal{A}}^{P},\ldots,r_{K,\mathcal{A}}^{P}\}_{\mathcal{A}\subseteq [K]}$ is achievable for the multi-server index coding problem represented by the set of directed graphs $G_p,p=1,\ldots,P$, under the constraint $\sum_{j=1}^{\rho} n_{\pi(j)} r_{d_i,\mathcal{A}}^{\pi(j)} \geq \vert W_{d_i,\mathcal{A}} \vert$, and inter-file coding is not allowed, then $r_{j,\mathcal{A}}^p=0$ if server $S_p$ does not serve user $U_j$, and $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{p=1}^P \sum_{\mathcal{J}_p} r_{j,\mathcal{A}}^p \leq 1\end{aligned}$$ for all $\mathcal{J}_p\subseteq \mathcal{I}_p $ where the subgraph of $G_p$ over $\mathcal{J}_p$ does not contain a directed cycle.
Theorem \[multiple server bound\] holds when the nodes in the $P$ index coding problems correspond to distinct coded subsegments, that is, there are no repeating nodes in any two index coding problems. Distributed storage schemes which concatenate repetition codes with other storage codes may not satisfy the bound in Theorem \[multiple server bound\] (for example, see [@FR_codes]). References [@distr_index_coding] and [@cooperative_index_coding] may indicate how to compute the capacity under such distributed storage schemes, but they are outside the scope of this paper.
There are non-MDS distributed storage codes, called regenerating codes, that utilize increased storage capacity on the servers to reduce the repair bandwidth [@dimakis_networkcodes]. Theorem \[multiple server bound\] holds for them unless some repetition code is used, because the problem can still be represented as $P$ independent index coding problems. For example, Theorem \[multiple server bound\] holds if a product matrix code [@product_matrix] is used for distributed storage. However, a sub-optimal delivery latency is achieved, because each server stores a larger number of packets that have to be transmitted to the connected users for successful file reconstruction.
To identify the acyclic sets $\mathcal{J}_p$ in the subgraph $G_p$, consider the permutations $\mathbf{u}=(u_1, \ldots, u_K)$ of $[K]$. To determine the tightest bound, we may only consider the largest such sets without a directed cycle. For a given $\mathbf{u}$, the largest set of nodes not containing a directed cycle is $$\begin{aligned}
\left\{ C^p_{d_{u_i},\mathcal{A}_i} : \mathcal{A}_i \subseteq [1:K]\setminus \{ u_1, \ldots, u_i \},i=1,\ldots, K\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ Each permutation $\mathbf{u}$ gives a unique acyclic set of nodes of the graph. The subsegment $C^p_{d_i,\phi}$ is not cached in any user, so there is no outgoing edge from $C^p_{d_i,\phi}$ to any other nodes in any sub-index coding problem. Therefore $C^p_{d_i,\phi}$ is always in the set $\mathcal{J}_p$.
Consider first $M_S=\frac{N}{\rho}$. In that case, $\sum_{j=1}^{\rho} n_{\pi(j)} r_{d_i,\mathcal{A}}^{\pi(j)} = \sum_{j=1}^{\rho} \vert C_{d_i,\mathcal{A}}^{\pi(j)} \vert = \vert W_{d_i,\mathcal{A}} \vert$. Following Theorem \[multiple server bound\], in order to recover all the desired segments for each user, the deliver latency, $T_{sd}$ must satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
FT_{sd} &\geq \sum_{p=1}^{P}\left(\sum_{ \mathcal{A}\subseteq [1:K]\setminus \{u_1\}} \lvert C^{p}_{d_{u_1},\mathcal{A}} \rvert + \cdots + \sum_{\mathclap{\mathcal{A}\subseteq [1:K]\setminus (\{u^i\}\cap \mathcal{K}_p) } } \lvert C^{p}_{d_{u_i},\mathcal{A}} \rvert + \cdots + \sum_{\mathclap{ \mathcal{A}\subseteq [1:K]\setminus (\{u^K\} \cap \mathcal{K}_p) }} \lvert C^{p}_{d_{u_K},\mathcal{A}} \rvert \right) \label{eq:bound} \\
& \ \ \ \ \text{s.t.}\ \ \ \ \sum_{p\in \mathcal{Z}_j} \lvert C^{p}_{d_{u_j},\mathcal{A}} \rvert = \lvert W_{d_{u_j},\mathcal{A}} \rvert \quad \quad j\in [K],\label{eq:constraint}\end{aligned}$$ for every permutation $\mathbf{u}$, and for every network topology.
We have $\lvert C^{p}_{d,\mathcal{A}} \rvert = \frac{\lvert W_{d,\mathcal{A}} \rvert}{\rho}$ for $M_S=\frac{N}{\rho}$, due to $(P,\rho)$ MDS coded storage. In Eq. , in the summation for a fixed value of $p$, the number of terms with $\vert \mathcal{A} \vert =i$ is $ {K\choose i+1}-{K-q_p\choose i+1}$. Thus we have $$\begin{aligned}
FT_{sd} \geq & \sum_{p=1}^{P} \sum_{i=0}^{K-1} \frac{\left( {K\choose i+1}-{K-q_p\choose i+1}\right)}{{K\choose i}} x^{p}_i \\
= & \sum_{p=1}^{P} \sum_{i=0}^{K-1} \frac{\left( {K\choose i+1}-{K-q_p\choose i+1}\right)}{\rho {K\choose i}} x_i\\
= & \sum_{i=0}^{K-1} \left[ \sum_{p=1}^{P} \frac{\left( {K\choose i+1}-{K-q_p\choose i+1}\right)}{\rho {K\choose i}}\right] x_i \label{lower_bound}\\
\text{while} \ \ & x_0 + x_1 + \cdots + x_K \geq F , \label{constraint1}\\
\text{and} \ \ & x_1 + 2x_2 + \cdots + Kx_K \leq \frac{KM_U}{N}F \label{constraint2}\end{aligned}$$ where $x_i\triangleq \sum_{\mathcal{A} \subset [K]: \lvert \mathcal{A} \rvert = i} \lvert W_{j,\mathcal{A}} \rvert = {K \choose i} \lvert W_{j,\mathcal{A}} \rvert = \rho {K \choose i} \lvert C^p_{j,\mathcal{A}} \rvert$ is the total normalized size of all segments of file $j$ cached by $i$ users; or equivalently, $x_i^p \triangleq {K \choose i} \vert C_{j,\mathcal{A}}^p \vert = \frac{1}{\rho} x_i $ is the total normalized size of all subsegments of file $j$ cached by $i$ users and stored in server $S_p$. We minimize the lower bound in Eq. over all segment sizes $x_i$, which is a linear program with two linear constraints and , where the former follows from the sum of all fractions of the files being one, while the latter follows from the user cache memory constraint. The solution of a linear program lies on one of the corner points of the feasible region. The feasible region defined by the constraints has only one corner point characterized by $$\begin{aligned}
x_i=\left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
F & i=t, t=\frac{KM_U}{N} \\
0 & \text{otherwise}
\end{array}
\right. .\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, Eq. simplifies to $$\begin{aligned}
T_{sd} \geq \sum_{p=1}^{P} \frac{\left( {K\choose t+1}-{K-q_p\choose t+1}\right)}{\rho{K\choose t}},\end{aligned}$$ which is achieved by our delivery scheme. This proves the optimality of the delivery scheme for successive transmission proposed in Section \[s:Successive\] under the assumption of MDS coded storage at the servers and uncoded caching at the users.
Redundancy in server storage
----------------------------
When there is redundant server storage capacity, i.e., server storage capacity is $M_S=\frac{N}{\rho-z}$, consider the constraint $\sum_{j=1}^{\rho} n_{\pi(j)} r_{d_i,\mathcal{A}}^{\pi(j)} \geq \vert W_{d_i,\mathcal{A}} \vert$ in Theorem \[multiple server bound\]. Since the bound in Theorem \[multiple server bound\] is a linear program of the rates of transmission of the coded subsegments from the servers, the optimal solution lies on one of the corner points of the feasible region defined by the constraint. The corner points for $M_S=\frac{N}{\rho-z}, z\in [\rho-2]$, are those where $ n_{\pi(j)} r_{d_i,\mathcal{A}}^{\pi(j)}=\frac{ \vert W_{d_i,\mathcal{A}} \vert}{\rho-z}$ for all $j\in \mathcal{R}, \mathcal{R}\subset \mathcal{Z}_i, \vert \mathcal{R} \vert = \rho - z$, and equal to $0$ for all $j \in \mathcal{Z}_i \setminus \mathcal{R}$. The optimal solution should lie on the corner point which chooses $\mathcal{R}$ such that the servers in $\mathcal{R}$ have the most multicasting opportunities, and can thus deliver $\rho-z$ coded subsegments of the requested segments to the users in the minimum number of transmissions. This is equivalent to finding the minimum cover for each multicast group as described in Section \[sec:incservercache\].
When fractional repetition (FR) codes are used for server storage [@fr_codes], the minimum cover scheme may not be optimal. However, since FR codes have a maximum code rate of $\frac{1}{2}$, we cannot have distributed storage schemes where $M_S \leq \frac{2N}{P}$. Thus the minimum cover scheme is optimal for server storage capacities $M_S \leq \frac{2N}{P}$. We illustrate with a toy example that the bound in Theorem \[multiple server bound\] does not hold when FR codes are used.
\[toy\_ex\] Consider the simple scenario with $P=2$ servers, $K=3$ users illustrated in Fig. \[fig:toy\], where we assume each server can store all the $N=3$ files, i.e., $M_S=3$, and each user has cache capacity $M_U=1$. Let the cache contents of $U_1, U_2, U_3$ be $W_2, W_3, W_1$, respectively, and the demand vector $\mathbf{d}=\{ W_1, W_2, W_3\}$. In this example, the demands can be satisfied by $S_1$ transmitting $W_1 \oplus W_2$, and $S_2$ transmitting $W_1 \oplus W_3$, that is, the delivery latency of $T_{sd}=2$ is achievable. However, Theorem \[multiple server bound\] gives the bound on delivery latency as $T_{sd}\geq 3$. $U_2$ receives its requested file $W_2$ with added interference of $W_1$ from $S_1$, which it cannot remove using its cache contents. However, $U_2$ adds the messages from $S_1$ and $S_2$ to align the interference on $W_2$ with $W_3$, which it can remove by using its cache contents, thus doing a sort of interference alignment. In contrast, if MDS coded storage were used, the interference alignment type of scheme would not be possible due to distinct coded subsegments transmitted by both servers.
![Toy example with $P=2, K=N=M_S=3, M_U=1$[]{data-label="fig:toy"}](toy_ex.png)
The polymatroidal capacity region for multi-server index coding has been characterized in [@distr_index_coding] for full user-server connectivity and uncoded server storage. Characterizing the capacity region for partial user-server connectivity, and constructing an optimal joint server storage and caching scheme for FR coded distributed storage is an interesting open problem for future work.
Parallel SBS Transmissions {#s:parallel}
==========================
When SBSs can deliver in parallel without interfering with each other, the normalized delivery latency is dictated by the SBS that has to deliver the maximum number of bits: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:link_load}
T_{pd} \triangleq \max_{q_p} \frac{1}{\rho {K\choose t}} \left[{K\choose t+1}-{K-q_p\choose t+1} \right].\end{aligned}$$
The “best” and “worst” network topologies in the parallel transmission scenario are different from those in the successive transmission scenario. The most balanced topology, i.e., the one with the minimum value of the maximum $q_p$ has the “best” (lowest) delivery latency, contrary to the successive transmission scenario, in which this would be the “worst” topology. The corresponding delivery latency can be obtained by substituting $q_p=\lceil \frac{K\rho}{P} \rceil$ in . The topology with the maximum possible $q_p$, i.e., any topology with at least one server connected to all $K$ users, is the “worst” topology since it has the highest delivery latency.
Redundant server storage capacity
---------------------------------
The minimum server storage capacity that would allow the reconstruction of any demand combination is given by $M_S=\frac{N-M_U}{\rho}$. In this case, we cache the same $\frac{M_U}{N}$ fraction of the library in all the user caches during the placement phase, and deliver the remaining fraction of the demands from the servers without multicasting. The worst-case delivery latency in this case is $T_{pd}=\frac{K}{\rho}\left(1-\frac{M_U}{N} \right)$.
Next, we consider the case when there is redundancy in server memories; that is, $\frac{N}{\rho}< M_S \leq N$. Assume that $M_S=\frac{N}{\rho - z}$ for some integer $ z\in [\rho -1]$. For non-integer values of $z$, the solution can be obtained by memory-sharing. Notice that, as for successive transmissions, users can select the servers from which to receive coded subsegments. A greedy server allocation algorithm is used. The algorithm assigns the multicast messages to the servers trying to keep the number of messages delivered by each server as evenly distributed as possible. At any point in time, if a server has delivered a higher number of messages than all the other servers, even if a better multicasting opportunity is available to this server, that server is not assigned a multicast message in order to balance the number of messages delivered by each server in a greedy manner. Instead, the server with the next best multicasting opportunity and a smaller count of transmissions is assigned to transmit a particular coded subsegment to a multicast group. Compare this with the algorithm for successive transmission, where a multicast message is always assigned to the server with the maximum multicasting opportunity. It is easy to see that the delivery latency achieved depends on the order in which the algorithm assigns multicast messages to the servers. Thus the proposed algorithm is suboptimal. Numerical results illustrating the performance of the proposed delivery algorithm will be presented in the next section.
Results and Discussions {#s:Discussion}
=======================
![Average normalized delivery latency vs. user cache capacity $M_U$, for $P=7, N=K=5, \rho=4$, and for server storage capacities of $M_S=\frac{5}{4}, \frac{5}{3}, \frac{5}{2}, 5$. []{data-label="fig:f3"}](plot1.pdf){width="5.2cm" height="4.7cm"}
In Fig. \[fig:f3\] we plot the achievable trade-off between the user cache capacity and the normalized delivery latency, $T_{sd}$, for the best and worst topologies, and the average normalized delivery latency over all topologies, for successive transmission. The trade-off curves are plotted for different server storage capacities. We observe that the gap between the worst and the best topologies can be significant. From and we can deduce that, for successive transmission the worst topology delivery latency; and hence, the average delivery latency of the proposed scheme are both within a multiplicative factor of $\frac{1}{\alpha}$ of the best topology delivery latency. We observe from Fig. \[fig:f3\] that the delivery latency decreases significantly, particularly for low $M_U$ values, as the redundancy in server storage increases.
![Average normalized delivery latency vs. server storage capacity $M_S$, for $P=7, N=K=5, M_U=1$ for successive SBS transmissions. []{data-label="fig:f4"}](plot2.pdf){width="5.2cm" height="4.7cm"}
In Fig. \[fig:f4\] the average delivery latency for successive transmission is plotted as a function of the server storage capacity for server storage capacities $M_S\in [\frac{N-M_U}{\rho}, N]$. The figure is obtained by performing Monte Carlo simulations with uniform random realizations of the topology and averaging the delivery latency over them. We observe from Fig. \[fig:f4\] that the average delivery latency decreases rapidly for an initial increase in the server storage capacity, which is more significant for high $\rho$ values. This is because, thanks to MDS-coded storage at the servers, the number of available multicasting opportunities increases with the redundancy across servers. Fig. \[fig:f4\] highlights the fact that, for successive delivery and sufficient network connectivity, increasing the server storage beyond a certain value has little or no impact on the delivery latency.
In Fig. \[fig:f7\], it is shown that Eq. in Section \[performance\_analysis\] gives a fairly accurate estimate of the expected delivery latency for successive transmissions with redundant server storage capacity, especially for small server storage capacities. The theoretical estimate diverges a little from the expected rate for large server storage capacity, before again converging where the delivery latency saturates at the minimum. Also, comparing the plot for $\rho=9, P=21$ in Fig. \[fig:f7\] with the plot for $\rho=3, P=7$ in Fig. \[fig:f4\], where the connectivity $\alpha$ is the same, we observe that the average delivery latency decreases faster for $\rho=9, P=21$; that is, for larger values of $P$.
![Comparing the simulation with the theoretical, Average normalized delivery latency vs. server storage capacity, for $P=21, N=K=5, M_U=1$ for successive SBS transmissions. []{data-label="fig:f7"}](plot_asymp.pdf){width="5.5cm" height="5.0cm"}
![Average normalized delivery latency vs. server storage capacity $M_S$, for $P=7, N=K=5, M_U=1$ for parallel transmissions. []{data-label="fig:f5"}](parallel_tx.pdf){width="4.7cm" height="4.2cm"}
![Average normalized delivery latency vs. server storage capacity $M_S$, for $P=7, N=K=5, M_U=1$ for parallel transmissions. []{data-label="fig:f5"}](plot_4.pdf){width="4.7cm" height="4.2cm"}
The average delivery latency for parallel transmissions is plotted with respect to the user cache capacity in Fig. \[fig:f6\], using . We observe as before that increasing the server storage capacity gives significant gains in the average delivery latency, especially for low values of $M_U$. Unlike the case for successive transmissions, the average delivery latency for $M_U=0$ also reduces as the server storage capacity is increased.
The average delivery latency for parallel transmissions is plotted with respect to the server storage capacity, $M_S$, in Fig. \[fig:f5\]. Unlike the delivery latency for successive transmissions, we can see that the delivery latency does not saturate, and keeps decreasing until all the files are stored at each of the servers. We also observe as before that the increase in network connectivity $\alpha$ helps reduce the delivery latency significantly, especially for low server storage capacity $M_S$.
Conclusions and future work
===========================
We have studied a multi-server coded caching and delivery network, in which cache-equipped users connect randomly to a subset of the available servers, each with its own limited storage capacity. While this allows each server to have only a limited amount of storage capacity, it requires coded storage across servers to account for the random topology. We proposed a joint coded storage, caching and delivery scheme that jointly applies MDS-coded storage at the servers, and uncoded caching and coded delivery to the users. The achievable delivery latency of this scheme for both successive and parallel transmissions from the SBSs are presented, with increasing user cache memory as well as increasing server storage capacity, and their averages over random network topologies are plotted. The analysis shows that when the server storage capacity is increased, the delivery latency can be reduced significantly, for both successive transmissions as well as parallel transmissions. However, it is also observed that for sufficient network connectivity, increasing server storage beyond a certain value provides little benefit. Increasing server storage has a more significant impact when there is low connectivity, and when user cache capacities are small.
An interesting open problem for future work is finding a lower bound and an optimal scheme when FR codes are used for distributed storage. A toy example \[toy\_ex\] is given in this paper which illustrates the potential benefits of such codes. The toy example also presents an asymmetry in the user connections to the servers, where users 1 and 3 connect to one server each, while user 2 connects to 2 servers. An interesting problem is constructing a general scheme for heterogeneous network topologies and extracting gains from such topologies as demonstrated in the toy example. Another question relates to gains from heterogeneous distributed storage. For instance, if there is knowledge of user dynamics and non-uniform probabilities of the user-server connections, can a heterogeneous distributed storage scheme be designed to extract higher average gains? An extreme case of this scenario would mimic the combination network model where the user-server connections are completely fixed and known, which achieves higher gains. Such open problems present ripe material for future research.
[15]{} M. A. Maddah-Ali and U. Niesen, “Fundamental Limits of Caching," in IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 60, no. 5, pp. 2856-2867, May 2014 N. Mital, D. G[ü]{}nd[ü]{}z and C. Ling, “Coded caching in a multi-server system with random topology," 2018 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC), Barcelona, 2018, pp. 1-6. M. M. Amiri, Q. Yang and D. G[ü]{}nd[ü]{}z, “Decentralized Caching and Coded Delivery With Distinct Cache Capacities," in IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 65, no. 11, pp. 4657-4669, Nov. 2017. K. Shanmugam, N. Golrezaei, A. G. Dimakis, A. F. Molisch and G. Caire, “FemtoCaching: Wireless Content Delivery Through Distributed Caching Helpers," in IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 59, no. 12, pp. 8402-8413, Dec. 2013. M. M. Amiri and D. G[ü]{}nd[ü]{}z, “Fundamental Limits of Coded Caching: Improved Delivery Rate-Cache Capacity Tradeoff," in IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 806-815, Feb. 2017. M. Gregori, J. G[ó]{}mez-Vilardeb[ó]{}, J. Matamoros and D. G[ü]{}nd[ü]{}z, “Wireless Content Caching for Small Cell and D2D Networks," in IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 1222-1234, May 2016. J. G[ó]{}mez-Vilardeb[ó]{}, “Fundamental Limits of Caching: Improved Rate-Memory Tradeoff With Coded Prefetching," in IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 66, no. 10, pp. 4488-4497, Oct. 2018. C. Tian and J. Chen, “Caching and Delivery via Interference Elimination," in IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 64, no. 3, pp. 1548-1560, March 2018. T. Luo, V. Aggarwal, and B. Peleato, “Coded caching with Distributed Storage", *ArXiv*:1611.06591v1 \[cs.IT\] Nov 2016. S. P. Shariatpanahi, S. A. Motahari and B. H. Khalaj, “Multi-Server Coded Caching," in IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 62, no. 12, pp. 7253-7271, Dec. 2016. M. Ji, A. M. Tulino, J. Llorca and G. Caire, “Caching in combination networks," 2015 49th Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers, Pacific Grove, CA, 2015, pp. 1269-1273. A. G. Dimakis, P. B. Godfrey, Y. Wu, M. J. Wainwright and K. Ramchandran, “Network Coding for Distributed Storage Systems," in IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 56, no. 9, pp. 4539-4551, Sept. 2010. A. A. Zewail and A. Yener, “Coded caching for combination networks with cache-aided relays," 2017 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), Aachen, 2017, pp. 2433-2437. K. Wan, D. Tuninetti and P. Piantanida, “On the optimality of uncoded cache placement," 2016 IEEE Information Theory Workshop (ITW), Cambridge, 2016, pp. 161-165. F. Arbabjolfaei, B. Bandemer, Y. Kim, E. Şaşoğlu and L. Wang, “On the capacity region for index coding," 2013 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory, Istanbul, 2013, pp. 962-966. Z. Bar-Yossef, Y. Birk, T. S. Jayram and T. Kol, “Index Coding with Side Information,” 2006 47th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS’06), Berkeley, CA, 2006, pp. 197-206. P. Sadeghi, F. Arbabjolfaei and Y. Kim, “Distributed index coding," 2016 IEEE Information Theory Workshop (ITW), Cambridge, 2016, pp. 330-334. M. Li, L. Ong and S. J. Johnson, “Cooperative Multi-Sender Index Coding," in IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 1725-1739, March 2019. O. Olmez and A. Ramamoorthy, “Fractional Repetition Codes With Flexible Repair From Combinatorial Designs," in IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 1565-1591, April 2016. K. V. Rashmi, N. B. Shah and P. V. Kumar, “Optimal Exact-Regenerating Codes for Distributed Storage at the MSR and MBR Points via a Product-Matrix Construction,” in IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 57, no. 8, pp. 5227-5239, Aug. 2011. O. Olmez and A. Ramamoorthy, “Constructions of fractional repetition codes from combinatorial designs,” 2013 Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers, Pacific Grove, CA, 2013, pp. 647-651.
|
---
abstract: 'We calculate the spin relaxation rates in a parabolic InSb quantum dots due to the spin interaction with acoustical phonons. We considered the deformation potential mechanism as the dominant electron-phonon coupling in the Pavlov-Firsov spin-phonon Hamiltonian. By studying suitable choices of magnetic field and lateral dot size, we determine regions where the spin relaxation rates can be practically suppressed. We analyze the behavior of the spin relaxation rates as a function of an external magnetic field and mean quantum dot radius. Effects of the spin admixture due to Dresselhaus contribution to spin-orbit interaction are also discussed.'
address:
- '$^1$ Instituto de Física, Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, 38400-902 Uberlândia MG, Brazil'
- '$^2$ Departamento de Física, Universidad de Buenos Aires, C1428EHA Buenos Aires, Argentina'
- '$^3$ Departamento de Física, Universidade Federal de São Carlos, 13565-905 São Carlos SP, Brazil'
author:
- 'A. M. Alcalde$^1$, C. L. Romano$^2$, L. Sanz$^1$ and G. E. Marques$^3$'
title: 'Phonon modulation of the spin-orbit interaction as a spin relaxation mechanism in InSb quantum dots'
---
Introduction
============
The ability to manipulate and control processes that involve transitions between spin states is, at the moment, of extreme importance due to the recent applications in polarized spin electronics and quantum computation. Spin dephasing is the most critical aspect that should be considered in the elaboration of proposals of quantum computation based in single spin states as qubits in quantum dots (QDs) [@Imamoglu99]. While for bulk and for 2D systems the spin relaxation processes has been studied in some detail, the problem for QD’s still require deeper and further discussions. Several processes that can induce spin relaxation in semiconductors have been identified and were studied. At the moment remains in discussion which, between these processes, is dominant in zero-dimensional systems. Some experimental results have shown good agreement with the theoretical predictions for 2D systems [@Lau01] but, in general, the identification of the processes through direct comparison with the experimental results may become a formidable task. This problem is more critical for QDs, since few experimental results exist and the theoretical discussion of the spin relaxation mechanisms is still an open subject. Extensive theoretical works in QD systems have studied the main phonon mediated spin-flip mechanisms, including admixture processes due to spin-orbit coupling [@Khaetskii01] and phonon coupling due to interface motion (ripple mechanism) [@Woods02]. Spin relaxation rates strongly dependent on the dot size, magnetic field strength, and temperature, as reported by several authors [@Khaetskii01; @Falko05]. It was shown that the quantum confinement produces, in general, a strong reduction of the QD relaxation rates.
In this work, we calculate the spin-flip transition rates, considering the phonon modulation by the spin-orbit interaction. For this purpose will use the spin-phonon interaction Hamiltonian proposed by Pavlov and Firsov [@Pavlov66; @Pavlov67]. In this model, the Hamiltonian describing the transitions with spin reversal, due to the scattering of electrons by phonons, can be written in a general form, $H_{ph}=V_\mathrm{ph} + \beta[\sigma \times \nabla V_\mathrm{ph}]\cdot (\mathbf{p}+e/c \mathbf{A})$, where $V_\mathrm{ph}$ is the phonon operator, $\sigma$ is the spin operator, $\mathbf{p}$ is the linear momentum operator and $\mathbf{A}$ is the vectorial potential related with the external magnetic field $\mathbf{B}$. This model has the advantage of being easily adapted to the study of other interaction mechanisms with phonons.
Theory
======
Based on the effective mass theory applied to the problem of the interaction of an electron with lattice vibrations, including the spin-orbit interaction and in presence of an external magnetic field, Pavlov and Firsov [@Pavlov66; @Pavlov67] have obtained the spin-phonon Hamiltonian that describes the transitions with spin reversal of the conduction band electrons due to scattering with longitudinal lattice vibrations as $$\begin{aligned}
H_{ph}&=& d(q)\left( \frac{\hbar}{\rho_M V v q}\right)^{1/2}
\left\{ e^{i \mathbf{q \cdot r}} b_\mathbf{q}
\left[\begin{array}{cc}
0 &\mathbf{\hat{n}}^-\times \mathbf{\hat{e}_q} \\
\mathbf{\hat{n}}^+\times \mathbf{\hat{e}_q} & 0
\end{array}
\right] %\right.\nonumber \\
%&&\left.
\left( \frac{\mathbf{p}}{\hbar} + \frac{e\mathbf{A}}{\hbar c} + \mathbf{q} \right)
+ \mathrm{h.c}\right\},
\label{spinphonon}\end{aligned}$$ where, $b_\mathbf{q} (b_\mathbf{q}^\dagger)$ are annihilation (creation) phonon operators, the magnetic vector potential $\mathbf{A}$ is obtained in the symmetric gauge considering an external magnetic field $\mathbf{B}$ oriented along the $z$ axis. $\mathbf{\hat{n}}^\pm= \mathbf{\hat{x}} \pm \mathbf{\hat{y}}$, where $\mathbf{\hat{x}}$, $\mathbf{\hat{y}}$ are unitary vectors along the $x$ and $y$ axis. $\mathbf{\hat{e}_q}$ is a unit vectors in the direction of the phonon polarization, $\mathbf{q}$ is the phonon wave vector, $\mathbf{p}$ is the momentum operator, $v$ is the average sound velocity, $\rho_M$ is the mass density, $V$ is the system volume and $d(q)$ is a coupling constant that depends on the electron-phonon coupling mechanism. Detailed expressions for the parameter $d(q)$ can be found in Ref. [@Pavlov67].
It has been assumed that the confinement along the $z$ axis is much stronger than the lateral confinement. Thus, the lateral motion is decoupled from the one along $z$ and the envelope functions separate $\psi(\mathbf{r})=f(x,y)\phi(z)$. The $z$-dependent part of $\psi(\mathbf{r})$ is an eigenfunction of a symmetric quantum well of width $L$. In lens-shaped quasi-two dimensional self assembled QDs, the bound states of both electrons and valence-band holes can be understood by assuming a lateral spatial confinement modeled by a parabolic potential with rotational symmetry in the $x-y$ plane [@Hawrylak99], $V(\rho)=\frac{1}{2}m\omega_0^2\rho^2$, where $\hbar\omega_0$ is the characteristic confinement energy, and $\rho$ is the radial coordinate. By using the one-band effective mass approximation and considering an external magnetic field $B$ applied normal to plane of the QD, the electron lateral wave function can be written as $$f_{n,l,\sigma}= C_{n,l}\frac{\rho^{|l|}}{a^{|l|+1}} e^{-\frac{\rho^2}{2a^2}} e^{il\varphi}
L_n^{|l|}\left(\rho^2 / a^2 \right) \chi(\sigma),
\label{funciondeonda}$$ where $C_{n,l}=\sqrt{n!/[{\pi(n + |l|)!}] }$, $L_n^{|l|}$ is the Laguerre polynomial, $n$ ($l$) is the principal (azimuthal) quantum number, and $\chi(\sigma)$ is the spin wave function for the spin variable $\sigma$. The corresponding eigenenergies are $E_{n,l,\sigma }=(2n+|l|+1)\hbar \Omega
+(l/2)\hbar \omega _{c}+(\sigma /2)g\mu _{B}B,$ where $\Omega =(\omega
_{0}^{2}+\omega _{c}^{2}/4)^{1/2}$, $\mu _{B}$ is the Bohr magneton, $%
a=(\hbar /m\Omega )^{1/2}$ is the effective length and $\omega _{c}=eB/m$. In our model, we also consider the effects of the Dresselhaus contribution that provides additional admixture between spin states. For 2D systems, the linear Dresselhaus Hamiltonian can be written as $$H_D=\frac{\beta}{\hbar}\left(\sigma_xp_x -\sigma_yp_y\right),$$ where $p_i = -i\hbar \nabla_i + (e/c)A_i$ and $\beta$ is the Dresselhaus coupling parameter for this confinement. If the confinement potential in the $z$-direction is considered highly symmetrical, then $\nabla V_z \sim 0$ and the Rashba contribution can be safely ignored.
The spin relaxation rates ($W$) between the electronic states: $(n,l,\uparrow (\downarrow)) \rightarrow (n^\prime, l^\prime, \uparrow (\downarrow))$, with emission of one acoustic phonon, are calculated from the Fermi golden rule. In the Hamiltonian (\[spinphonon\]), we only consider the deformation potential (DP) electron-phonon coupling, this is due to the large $g$-factor in narrow gap InSb ($|g| \sim 51$), the dominant electron-phonon coupling for spin relaxation is the DP mechanism [@Alcalde04]. The piezoelectric (PE) coupling governs the spin relaxation processes in wide or intermediate gap semiconductors. In the transition matrix elements calculation, we not only consider the linear term $i \mathbf{q}\cdot \mathbf{r}$ in the expansion of $\exp(i\mathbf{q} \cdot \mathbf{r})$ [@Khaetskii01], but the integral representation of Bessel function is used in the evaluation of electron-phonon overlap integrals. The linear approximation of $\exp(i\mathbf{q} \cdot \mathbf{r})$ may be valid for spin inversion transitions in the spin polarized ground-states of GaAs based QDs where, due to the small value of the electron $g$-factor, only long wavelength phonons are involved.
Results and discussion
======================
The calculations were performed for a parabolic InSb QD at $T\sim 0$ K. The material parameters for the InSb system are listed in Ref. [@Destefani04a]. We only have considered electron transitions between ground state electron Zeeman levels $(0,0,\uparrow) \rightarrow (0,0,\downarrow)$ and $(0,1,\downarrow) \rightarrow (0,1,\uparrow)$. The temperature dependence for one-phonon emission rate is determined from $W=W_{0}(n_{B}+1)$, where $%
n_{B}$ is the Bose-Einstein distribution function and $W_{0}$ is the rate at $T=0$ K. In the temperature regime $T \leq $10 K, we obtain $n_{B}+1\approx
1 $ and $W\approx W_{0}$. For temperatures larger than few Kelvin degrees, two-phonon processes should be considered as the dominant spin relaxation mechanism. These types of processes have not been considered in the present calculation.
![Spin relaxation rates, $W$, for a parabolic InSb QD considering the DP coupling mechanism. Panel a) shows $W$ as a function of the magnetic field $B$, for two different electronic transitions and several lateral dot radius $r_0$ = 50, 75, 100, 125, 150, 175, and 200 Å(same $r_0$ ordering for both transitions). b) Contour plot of the spin relaxation rate as a function of $B$ and $r_0$.[]{data-label="rates"}](figura2a.eps "fig:"){width="18pc"} ![Spin relaxation rates, $W$, for a parabolic InSb QD considering the DP coupling mechanism. Panel a) shows $W$ as a function of the magnetic field $B$, for two different electronic transitions and several lateral dot radius $r_0$ = 50, 75, 100, 125, 150, 175, and 200 Å(same $r_0$ ordering for both transitions). b) Contour plot of the spin relaxation rate as a function of $B$ and $r_0$.[]{data-label="rates"}](figura2b.eps "fig:"){width="18pc"}
In the Figs. \[rates\]a) and \[rates\]b) we show the spin relaxation rates due to DP electron-phonon mechanism, as a function of the external magnetic field $B$ and considering some typical values for the effective lateral QD size, $r_0=\sqrt{\hbar/m\omega_0}$. Some interesting facts about these results should be pointed out: i) The rates show a strong dependence with the magnetic field. This fact can be explained from the dependence of the rates with the transition energy $\Delta E$. In general, we obtain that $W \sim [g^\ast \mu_B B]^n=(\Delta E)^n$, $n$ being an integer number that depends on the electron-phonon coupling process and $g^\ast$ the effective $g$-factor. As can be seen in Fig. \[rates\] a), when the magnetic field increases, the rates also increase until reaching a maximum near $B \sim 0.5$ T. The position of this maximum it is defined from the transition energy conservation: $E_{n l \sigma^\prime}-E_{n^\prime l^\prime \sigma^\prime}=\hbar v q$. ii) The oscillatory behavior of the rates, observed for $B>0.7$T are mainly produced by the Dresselhaus spin admixture, which modifies the effective Landè $g^\ast$-factor. As is showed in Fig. \[rates\] a), the $g^\ast$-factor effects are particulary important for the ground-state Zeeman transition. For small magnetic fields, $g^\ast \rightarrow g_\mathrm{bulk}$ and we may neglect the spin admixture effects. Therefore, the spin relaxation shows no oscillations and becomes almost independent of $r_0$. This small QD size dependence is in agreement with the experimental observations of Gupta and Kikkawa [@Gupta99]. iii) The rates dependence with the lateral QD size $r_0$, are related to the interplay effects between the spatial and magnetic confinements. This competing effects are contained in the electron-phonon overlap integral, $I \propto \int f^\ast_{n^\prime,l^\prime,\sigma^\prime}(\rho) \exp(i\mathbf{q}\cdot\mathbf{r}) f_{n,l,\sigma}(\rho) d\mathbf{r}$. For large fields, the magnetic confinement causes a gradual decrease in the overlap integral as the $r_0$ increases. For small magnetic fields, the spatial confinement is dominant. Thus, when $r_0$ diminishes the wave functions become more localized and the overlap integral should increase. This effects explain the behavior of the spin transition $(0,1,\downarrow) \rightarrow (0,1,\uparrow)$ showed in Fig. \[rates\] a) (red lines). The Zeeman ground-state rates (black lines) are strongly dependent on $\Delta E$ and, for small $B$, the rates are weakly dependent on $I$. iv) The same rates calculated for GaAs (not showed here), are in general, one order of magnitude smaller than InSb rates. As we expected, the relaxation via PE coupling is more efficient than via the DP phonon processes.
In Fig. \[rates\] b) we have plotted the spin relaxation rates for the ground-state Zeeman transition as a function of $r_0$ and $B$. We clearly identify a region of strong spin coherence, defined by $B > 1$ T and $r_0 > 100$ Å. In this regime, the relaxation times are in the ns order and this is an important feature for spin qubit engineering. In the $B < 0.1 $T regime, the relaxation times are approximately of few $\mu$s. This spin frozen region are not robust against the temperature and will disappear whenever the thermal energy is larger than the spin transition energy.
This work has been supported by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG) and by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq).
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[10]{}
A. Imamoğlu, D. D. Awschalom, G. Burkard, D. P. [DiVincenzo]{}, D. Loss, M. Sherwin, and A. Small. Quantum information processing using quantum dot spins and cavity [QED]{}. , 83:4204–4207, 1999.
W H Lau, J T Olesberg, and M E Flateé. Electron-spin decoherence in bulk and quantum-well zinc-blende semiconductors. , 64:161301, 2001.
A V Khaetskii and Y V Nazarov. Spin-flip transitions between [Zeeman]{} sublevels in semiconductor quantum dots. , 64:125316, 2001.
L. M. Woods, T. L. Reinecke, and Y. Lyanda-Geller. Spin relaxation in quantum dots. , 66:161318(R), 2002.
Vladimir I Falko, B. L. Altshuler, and O. Tsyplyatyev. Anisotropy of spin splitting and spin relaxation in lateral quantum dots. , 95:076603, 2005.
S T Pavlov and Yu A. Firsov. Spin-reversal interaction of electrons with optical phonons in semiconductors. , 7:2131–2140, 1966.
S T Pavlov and Yu A Firsov. The spin-phonon interaction of electrons and the oscillations of the longitudinal magnetoresistance in semiconductors. , 9:1394–1402, 1967.
P. Hawrylak. Excitonic artificial atoms: Engineering optical properties of quantum dots. , 60:5597–5608, 1999.
A. M. Alcalde, Qu Fanyao, and G. E. Marques. Electron-phonon induced spin relaxation in [InAs]{} quantum dots. , 20:228, 2004.
C. F. Destefani, Sergio E. Ulloa, and G. E. Marques. Spin-orbit coupling and intrinsic spin mixing in quantum dots. , 69:125302, 2004.
J A Gupta, D D Awschalom, X Peng, and P Alivisatos. Spin coherence in semiconductor quantum dots. , 59(16):R10421–R10424, 1999.
|
---
abstract: 'The late-time tail behaviors of massive scalar fields are examined analytically in the background of a black hole with a global monopole. It is found that the presence of a solid deficit angle in the background metric makes the massive scalar fields decay faster in the intermediate times. However, the asymptotically late-time tail is not affected and it has the same decay rate of $t^{-5/6}$ as in the Schwarzschild and nearly extreme Reissner-Nordström backgrounds.'
address: |
Institute of Physics, Hunan Normal University,\
Changsha, Hunan 410081, China
author:
- Hongwei Yu
title: |
**Decay of massive scalar hair in the background\
of a black hole with a global mononpole**
---
introduction
============
Ever since Wheeler put forward the no-hair theorem [@W], which states that the external field of a black hole relaxes to a Kerr-Newman type characterized solely by the black-hole’s mass, charge and angular momentum, there have been a lot of investigations concerning the dynamical mechanism by which perturbations fields outside a black hole are radiated away. The massless scalar, gravitational and electromagnetic external perturbations were first studied by Price [@Price] in the Schwarzschild background and an inverse power-law tail, $t^{2l+3}$, has been found to dominate the late-time behavior of these perturbations for a fixed position, if there is no initial static field. Here $l$ is the multiple moment of the wave mode and $t$ is the Schwarzschild time coordinate. The late-time behaviors of these massless neutral perturbations along the null infinity and along the future event horizon were further examined by Gundlach et al [@GPP1; @GPP2]. Recently the late-time tail has also been considered in the case of a rotating black hole by Barack and Ori [@BaO].
Although these works are mainly concerned with massless fields, the evolution of massive scalar fields is also important and it has attracted a lot of attention recently. Behaviors qualitatively different from those of massless fields have been found. For instance, It has been shown in Ref.[@HandP] that an oscillatory power-law tail of the form $ \sim t^{-l-{3\over
2}}\sin (\mu t)$ for massive scalar fields develops at the intermediate late-time characterized by $ \mu M\ll 1$ in Reissner-Nordström background. Here $\mu $ is the mass of the scalar field and $M$ is that of the black hole. Note that the massive scalar fields decay slower than massless ones. It should be pointed out, however, that this intermediate tail is not the final pattern that dominates at very late times [@HandP]. In fact, a transition from the intermediate behavior to an oscillatory tail with the decay rate of $t^{-5/6}$ has been demonstrated to occur at asymptotically late times both in the Schwarzschild and nearly extreme Reissner-Nordström backgrounds [@KandT; @KandT1].
In this paper, we will examine both the intermediate and asymptotic late time behaviors for massive scalar fields at a fixed radius in the background of a black hole with a global monopole. A global monopole is one of the topological defects that may have been formed during phase transitions in the evolution of the early universe and a black hole with a global monopole is the result of an interesting process in which a black hole swallows a global monopole [@BV]. An unusual property of the black-hole-global-monopole system is that it possesses a solid deficit angle, which makes it quite different topologically from that of a Schwarzschild black hole alone. The physical properties of the black-hole-global-monopole system have been studied extensively in recent years. These include, but are not limited to, the gravitational [@BV; @HL] and the vacuum polarization effects [@ML; @MBK], the particle creation in the formation of the system [@L], the black hole thermodynamics [@HY1], and more recently the energy spectra of non-relativistic quantum system in the background[@MB].
Our purpose here is to see what effects the solid deficit angle in the background metric due to the presence of a global monopole will have on the late-time evolution of massive scalar fields. In Sec. II we describe the physical system and formulate the problem in terms of the black-hole Green’s function using the spectral decomposition method [@Leaver]. In Sec. III, we examine both the intermediate and asymptotic late-time behaviors of massive scalar fields. We conclude in Sec. IV with a brief summary and some discussions.
description of the system and Green’s function formalism
=========================================================
We examine the time evolution of a massive scalar field in the background of a black hole with a global monopole. The metric is described by $$ds^2= -\biggl( 1-8\pi G\eta_0^2- {2Gm\over r}
\biggr)\;dt^2+\biggl( 1-8\pi G\eta_0^2- {2Gm\over r}
\biggr)^{-1}\;dr^2+ r^2d\Omega^2 \;, \label{eq:metric1}$$ where $ m $ is the mass of the black hole and $\eta_0$ is the symmetry breaking scale when the monopole is formed [@BV] . Introducing the coordinate transformation $$t\longrightarrow(1-8\pi G\eta_0^2)^{\frac12}t, \qquad
r\longrightarrow (1-8\pi G\eta_0^2)^{\frac{-1}2}r$$ and new parameters $$M=(1-8\pi G\eta_0^2)^{-3/2}m, \qquad
b=1-8\pi G\eta_0^2$$ then we can rewrite metric Eq. (\[eq:metric1\]) as $$ds^2=-\left(1-\frac{2GM}r\right)dt^2+\left(1-\frac{2GM}r\right)^{-1}dr^2
+r^2 b(d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta d\phi^2)\label{eq:metric2}$$ This metric is, apart from the deficit solid angle $\Delta=4\pi
b=32\pi G\eta_0^2$, very similar to the Schwarzschild metric and we will use this form thereafter. The equation of motion for a minimally coupled scalar field with mass $\mu$ is $$\label{eq:K-G}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{-g}}\frac{\partial}{\partial
x^{\mu}}\bigg(\sqrt{-g}g^{\mu\nu}\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial
x^{\nu}}\biggr) -\mu^2\phi=0\;.$$ $\phi$ can be separated in the given metric as $$\label{eq:harmonics}
\phi =\sum _{l,m}\frac{\psi ^l(r)}{r}Y_{lm}(\theta ,\varphi),$$ hereafter we omit the index $l$ of $\psi ^l$ for simplicity. Using the tortoise coordinate $r_{\ast} $ defined by $$\label{eq:tortoise}
dr_{\ast}=\frac{dr}{1-\frac{2M}{r}}\>,$$ we obtain a wave equation for each multiple moment: $$\psi _{,tt}-\psi _{,r_{\ast}r_{\ast}}+V\psi =0,$$ where the effective potential $V$ is $$V=\left(1-\frac{2M}{r}\right)
\left[\frac{l(l+1)b^{-1}}{r^2}+\frac{2M}{r^3} +\mu^2\right].$$ Define the retarded Green’s function $G(r_{\ast},r_{\ast}';t)$ by $$\label{eq:retarded}
\left[\frac{\partial ^2}{\partial t^2}
-\frac{\partial ^2}{\partial r_{\ast}^2} +V
\right]G(r_{\ast},r_{\ast}';t) = \delta (t)\delta
(r_{\ast}-r_{\ast}')\;,$$ for $t>0$. The causality condition gives the initial condition that $G(r_{\ast},r_{\ast}';t)=0$ for $t\le 0$. Then the time evolution of the massive scalar field is given by $$\psi (r_{\ast},t)=\int \left[G(r_{\ast},r_{\ast}';t)\psi _t(r',0)
+ G_t(r_{\ast},r_{\ast}';t)\psi (r_{\ast}',0) \right] dr_{\ast}'$$ In order to find $G(r_{\ast},r_{\ast}';t)$ we use the Fourier transform $$\label{eq:fourier}
\tilde{G}(r_{\ast},r'_{\ast};\omega)
=\int _{0^{-}}^{+\infty} G(r_{\ast},r'_{\ast};t)e^{i\omega t}dt.$$ The Fourier transform is analytic in the upper half $\omega$ plane, and the corresponding inversion formula is $$\label{eq:inverse}
G(r_{\ast},r_{\ast}';t)= -\frac{1}{2\pi}\int _{-\infty +ic}^{\infty +ic}
\tilde{G}(r_{\ast},r'_{\ast};\omega) e^{\scriptscriptstyle
-i\omega t}d\omega$$ where $c$ is some positive constant.
Let $\tilde\psi_1(r_{\ast},\omega)$ and $\tilde\psi_2(r_{\ast},\omega)$ be two linearly independent solutions to the homogenous equation $$\label{eq:homo}
\left(\frac{d^2}{dr_{\ast}^2}+\omega ^2 -V\right)
\tilde{\psi}_i =0 \quad i=1,2.$$ The Green’s function can be constructed as follows $$\label{eq:Green}
\tilde{G}(r_{\ast},r'_{\ast};\omega )= -\frac{1}{W(\omega)}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l@{\quad,\quad}l}
\tilde{\psi} _1(r'_{\ast},\omega) \tilde{\psi
}_2(r_{\ast},\omega)&
\qquad r'_{\ast} >r _{\ast},\\
\tilde{\psi} _1(r_{\ast},\omega) \tilde{\psi }_2(r'_{\ast},\omega)
&\qquad r'_{\ast}< r_{\ast} .
\end{array}
\right.$$ Here $W(\omega)$ is the Wronskian defined as $$W(\omega )=\tilde{\psi}_1\tilde{\psi}_{2,r_{\ast}}
-\tilde{\psi}_{1,r_{\ast}}\tilde{\psi}_2.$$ To calculate $ G(r_{\ast},r_{\ast}';t)$ using Eq. (\[eq:inverse\]), one needs to close the contour of integration into the lower half of the complex frequency plane. It has been argued that the asymptotic tail is associated with the existence of a branch cut (in $\tilde\psi_2$) placed along the interval $-m \le \omega \le m$ [@Leaver; @HandP]. This tail arises from the integral of $\tilde{G}(r_{\ast},r'_{\ast};\omega
)$ around the branch cut (denoted by $G^C$) which gives rise to an oscillatory inverse power-law behavior of the field. Therefore our goal is to evaluate $G^C (r_{\ast},r'_{\ast};\omega )$.
Evolution of massive scalar fields
==================================
Now let us assume that both the observer and the initial data are situated far away from the black-hole such that $r \gg M$. We expand the wave-equation (\[eq:homo\]) in $M/r$ to obtain (neglecting terms of order $O[({{M} \over r})^{2}]$ and higher) $$\label{eq:field}
\left[ {{d^2} \over {dr^2}} +w^{2}-\mu^{2} +{{4Mw^{2}-2M\mu^{2}} \over r} -
{{l(l+1)b^{-1}} \over {r^{2}}} \right ] \xi =0\ ,$$ where $\xi=(1-{2M\over r})^{1/2} \tilde \psi$. This equation can be solved in terms of Whittaker’s functions. The two basic solutions needed to construct the Green’s function are (for $|w|
\leq m$) $$\label{sol1}
\tilde \psi_1 =M_{\kappa,\rho}(2\varpi r)\ ,$$ and $$\label{sol2}
\tilde \psi_2 =W_{\kappa,\rho}(2\varpi r)\ ,$$ where $$\varpi=\sqrt{\mu^2-\omega^2},\quad\quad \kappa={3\over
2}{M\mu^2\over \varpi}-2M\varpi, \quad\quad \rho=\sqrt {
l(l+1)b^{-1}+{1\over 4}}.$$ Let us note that these solutions can also be written in terms of two standard confluent hypergeometric functions, $ M(a,b,z)$ and $U(a,b,z)$, as follows, $$\tilde \psi_1 =M_{\kappa,\rho}(2\varpi r)=e^{-\varpi r}(2\varpi
r)^{{1\over 2}+\rho}\;M(\rho+{1\over2}-\kappa,\;1+2\rho,\; 2\varpi
r)\ ,$$ and $$\tilde \psi_2 =W_{\kappa,\rho}(2\varpi r)=e^{-\varpi r}(2\varpi
r)^{{1\over 2}+\rho}\;U(\rho+{1\over2}-\kappa,\;1+2\rho,\;
2\varpi r) \ ,$$
Using Eq. (\[eq:inverse\]), one finds that the branch cut contribution to the Green’s function is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:GC}
G^C(r'_{\ast},r_{\ast};t)&=&{1 \over {2\pi}} \int_{-\mu}^{\mu}
\left[{\tilde \psi_1(r_{\ast}',\varpi e^{\pi i}) {\tilde
\psi_2(r_{\ast},\varpi e^{\pi i})} \over {W(\varpi e^{\pi i})}} -
{\tilde \psi_1(r_{\ast}',\varpi ){\tilde \psi_2(r_{\ast},\varpi
)} \over
{W(\varpi )}} \right] e^{-iwt} dw\nonumber\\
&=&{1 \over {2\pi}} \int_{-\mu}^{\mu} f(\varpi)e^{-iwt} dw\;.\end{aligned}$$ For simplicity we assume that the initial data has a considerable support only for $r$-values which are smaller than the observer’s location. This, of course, does not change the late-time behavior. Let us note that when $t$ is large, the term $e^{-iwt}$ oscillates rapidly. This leads to a mutual cancellation between the positive and the negative parts of the integrand, so that the effective contribution to the integral arises from $|w|$=$O(\mu-{1 \over
t})$ or equivalently $\varpi = O(\sqrt {{\mu \over t}})$ [@HandP].
Using the following relations $$\begin{aligned}
W_{\kappa,\;\rho}(2\varpi r)&=&{\Gamma(-2\rho)\over
\Gamma({1\over2}-\rho-\kappa)}\;M_{\kappa,\;\rho}(2\varpi r)
\nonumber\\&&+{\Gamma(2\rho)\over
\Gamma({1\over2}+\rho-\kappa)}\; M_{\kappa,\;-\rho}(2\varpi r)\;,\end{aligned}$$ and $$M_{\kappa,\; \rho}(e^{\pi i}2\varpi r)=e^{({1\over2}+\rho)\pi
i}M_{-\kappa, \;\rho}(2\varpi r)\;,$$ we find, with the help of 13.1.20 of Ref. [@Abramo], that $$W(\varpi e^{\pi i})=-W(\varpi)={\Gamma(2\rho)\over
\Gamma({1\over2}+\rho-\kappa)}\;4\rho\varpi\;,$$ and consequently, $$\begin{aligned}
f(\varpi)&=&{1\over4\rho\varpi}\;\left[ M_{\kappa,\;\rho}(2\varpi
r'_{\ast})M_{\kappa,\;-\rho}(2\varpi
r_{\ast})-M_{-\kappa,\;\rho}(2\varpi
r'_{\ast})M_{-\kappa,\;-\rho}(2\varpi
r_{\ast})\right]\nonumber\\&&+ {1\over4\rho\varpi}
{\Gamma(-2\rho)\Gamma({1\over2}+\rho-\kappa)\over
\Gamma(2\rho)\Gamma({1\over2}-\rho-\kappa)}\biggl[
M_{\kappa,\;\rho}(2\varpi r'_{\ast})M_{\kappa,\;\rho}(2\varpi
r_{\ast}) \nonumber\\&& \quad +e^{(2\rho+1)\pi
i}\;M_{-\kappa,\;\rho}(2\varpi
r'_{\ast})M_{-\kappa,\;\rho}(2\varpi r_{\ast})\biggr]\;.\end{aligned}$$
Intermediate late-time Tails
----------------------------
First we discuss the intermediate asymptotic behavior of the massive scalar field. That is the tail in the range $$\begin{aligned}
M \ll r\ll t \ll \frac{M}{(\mu M)^2}\;.\end{aligned}$$ In this time scale, the frequency range $\varpi = O(\sqrt {{\mu
\over t}})$ , which gives the dominant contribution to the integral, implies $$\label{eq:inter} \kappa\ll 1\;.$$ Notice that $\kappa$ originates from the $1/r$ term in the massive scalar field equation. It describes the effect of backscattering off the spacetime curvature. If the relation Eq. (\[eq:inter\]) is satisfied, the backscattering off the curvature from asymptotically far regions (which dominates the tails of massless fields) is negligible. However, it is worthwhile to point out that the intermediate time tail here will be different from that in the case without a global monopole because of the nontrivial topology in the background metric , i.e. , the presence of the solid deficit angle since $b\neq 1$. So, we have in this case, $$f(\varpi)\approx {(1+e^{(2\rho+1)\pi i})\over4\rho\varpi}
{\Gamma(-2\rho)\Gamma({1\over2}+\rho)\over
\Gamma(2\rho)\Gamma({1\over2}-\rho)} M_{0,\;\rho}(2\varpi
r'_{\ast})M_{0,\;\rho}(2\varpi r_{\ast})\;.$$ Since $\varpi r\ll 1$, the above equation can be further approximated, by using $ M(a,b,z)\approx 1$ as $z\rightarrow 0$, to give $$f(\varpi)\approx {(1+e^{(2\rho+1)\pi
i})\Gamma(-2\rho)\Gamma({1\over2}+\rho)\over4\rho
\Gamma(2\rho)\Gamma({1\over2}-\rho)2^{-2\rho-1}}
(r'_{\ast}r_{\ast})^{{1\over 2}+\rho}\varpi ^{2\rho}\;.$$ Substituting the above result into Eq. (\[eq:GC\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
G^C(r'_{\ast},r_{\ast};t)&=& {(1+e^{(2\rho+1)\pi
i})\Gamma(-2\rho)\Gamma({1\over2}+\rho)\over 8\pi\rho
\Gamma(2\rho)\Gamma({1\over2}-\rho)2^{-2\rho-1}}
(r'_{\ast}r_{\ast})^{{1\over
2}+\rho}\;\int_{-\mu}^{\mu}\;\varpi ^{2\rho}\;e^{-iwt}\nonumber\\
&=& {(1+e^{(2\rho+1)\pi
i})\Gamma(-2\rho)\Gamma({1\over2}+\rho)\Gamma(\rho+1)\mu^{\rho+{1\over2}}\over
\sqrt{\pi}\rho
\Gamma(2\rho)\Gamma({1\over2}-\rho)2^{-3\rho-{3\over2}}}
(r'_{\ast}r_{\ast})^{{1\over
2}+\rho}\;t^{-\rho-{1\over2}}J_{\rho+{1\over2}}(\mu t)\;,\end{aligned}$$ where $J_{\rho+{1\over2}}$ is the Bessel function. In the limit $t\gg \mu^{-1}$, it becomes $$\label{eq:intermediate}
G^C(r'_{\ast},r_{\ast};t)={(1+e^{(2\rho+1)\pi
i})\Gamma(-2\rho)\Gamma({1\over2}+\rho)\Gamma(\rho+1)\mu^{\rho}\over
\pi\rho \Gamma(2\rho)\Gamma({1\over2}-\rho)2^{-3\rho-2}}
(r'_{\ast}r_{\ast})^{{1\over 2}+\rho}\;t^{-\rho-1}\cos(\mu
t-(\rho+1)\pi/2)\;,$$ which clearly exhibits an oscillatory inverse power-law behavior. Let’s note that in general $ b< 1$ and recall that $$\rho=\sqrt { l(l+1)b^{-1}+{1\over 4}}\nonumber\;,$$ then a comparison of the result here with Eq. (32) of Ref. [@HandP] tells us that in the intermediate times the power-law tail depends not only on the multiple number of the wave mode but also on the the parameter ($b$) characterizing the space-time metric, and the massive scalar field decays faster in the black hole background with a global monopole than in that without it. So, although the intermediate tail is not affected significantly by the curvature, it is by the topology of the background metric.
asymptotic late-time tails
--------------------------
In the above calculation, we have used the approximation of $\kappa\ll 1$, which only holds when $ \mu t \ll 1/\mu^2M^2 $. Therefore, the power-law tail found in the last section is not the final one, and a change to a different pattern of decay is expected when $\kappa$ is not negligibly small. In this section, we examine the asymptotic tail behavior at very late times such that $$\mu t \gg {1\over \mu^2M^2}.$$ Now we have $$\kappa \simeq {3M\mu^2\over 2\varpi}\gg 1\;.$$ So the backscattering off the curvature will be important in this case. Using Eq. (13.5.13) of Ref.[@Abramo], we have, in the limit $\kappa\gg1$, that $$M_{\pm\kappa,\;\pm \rho}(2\varpi r)\approx \Gamma(1\pm
2\rho)(2\varpi r)^{1\over 2}(\pm \kappa )^{\mp\rho} J_{\pm
2\rho}(\sqrt{\pm \alpha r})\;\,$$ where $\alpha=8\kappa\varpi\approx 12M\mu^2$. Consequently, we have $$\begin{aligned}
f(\varpi)&\approx
&{\Gamma(1+2\rho)\Gamma(1-2\rho)r_{\ast}'r_{\ast}\over2\rho}\;\left[J_{
2\rho}(\sqrt{\alpha r_{\ast}'\;})J_{ -2\rho}(\sqrt{\alpha
r_{\ast}})-I_{ 2\rho}(\sqrt{\alpha r_{\ast}'\;})I_{
-2\rho}(\sqrt{\alpha r_{\ast}})\right] \nonumber\\&&+
{1\over2\rho}
{\Gamma(1+2\rho)^2\Gamma(-2\rho)\Gamma({1\over2}+\rho-\kappa)r_{\ast}'r_{\ast}\over
\Gamma(2\rho)\Gamma({1\over2}-\rho-\kappa)}\;\kappa^{-2\rho}\;\biggl[J_{
2\rho}(\sqrt{\alpha r_{\ast}'\;})J_{ 2\rho}(\sqrt{\alpha
r_{\ast}}) \nonumber\\&& \quad +I_{ 2\rho}(\sqrt{\alpha
r_{\ast}'\;})I_{ 2\rho}(\sqrt{\alpha r_{\ast}})\biggr]\;,\end{aligned}$$ where $ I_{ \pm 2\rho}$ is the modified Bessel functions. Clearly, the late time tail arising from the first term will be $\sim
t^{-1}$. Now let us try to figure out what behavior the second term gives rise to. For this purpose, we define $$\begin{aligned}
A&=&{1\over2\rho}
{\Gamma(1+2\rho)^2\Gamma(-2\rho)r_{\ast}'r_{\ast}\over
\Gamma(2\rho)}\;\biggl[J_{ 2\rho}(\sqrt{\alpha r_{\ast}'\;})J_{
2\rho}(\sqrt{\alpha r_{\ast}})+I_{ 2\rho}(\sqrt{\alpha
r_{\ast}'\;})I_{ 2\rho}(\sqrt{\alpha r_{\ast}})\biggr]\;,\end{aligned}$$ then the contribution from the second term to the Green’s function can be written as $${A \over 2\pi}\;\int_{-\mu}^{\mu}\;
{\Gamma({1\over2}+\rho-\kappa)\over
\Gamma({1\over2}-\rho-\kappa)}\;\kappa^{-2\rho}\;e^{-iwt}\;,$$ which can be approximated, in the limit $\kappa\gg1$, by using $$\Gamma(z)\Gamma(-z)=-{\pi\over z \sin\pi z}\;,$$ and Eq. (6.1.39) in Ref.[@Abramo], as follows $$\label{eq:Integral}
{A \over 2\pi}\;\int_{-\mu}^{\mu}\;
\;e^{i(2\pi\kappa-wt)}\;e^{i\phi}\;dw\;.$$ Here the phase $\phi $ is defined by $$e^{i\phi}={ 1+(-1)^{2\rho}\;e^{-i2\pi\kappa} \over
1+(-1)^{2\rho}\;e^{i2\pi\kappa}}\;.$$ The integral Eq. (\[eq:Integral\]) is very similar to that of Eq. (61) in Ref.[@KandT] and it can be evaluated by method of the saddle-point integration as in such. Hence the asymptotic late time tail arising from the second term is $ \sim t^{-{5 \over 6}}
$, and it dominates over the tail from the first term. So, we have $$G^C(r'_{\ast},r_{\ast};t)\sim t^{-{5 \over 6}}\;.$$
Summary
=======
We have studied analytically both the intermediate and asymptotically late-time evolution of massive scalar fields in the background of a black hole with a global monopole. We find that if $\mu M\ll 1$ the intermediate tails given by Eq. (\[eq:intermediate\]) dominates at the intermediate late-time $\mu M\ll \mu t\ll 1/(\mu M)^2$ at a fixed radius. Because of the presence of the solid deficit angle in the background metric, the decay is faster than those in the Schwarzschild and Reissner-Nordström backgrounds [@HandP; @KandT; @KandT1]. Therefore, in the intermediate late-times, the oscillatory power-law tail depends not only on the multiple number of the wave mode but also on the the parameter ($b$) characterizing the space-time metric. Hence although the intermediate late-time tail is not affected significantly by the curvature, it is by the topology of the background metric. However, the intermediate late-time tail is not the final pattern and a transition to an oscillatory tail with the decay rate of $t^{-5/6}$ is to occur when $\mu t\gg 1/(\mu M)^2$. The origin of the tail may be attributed to the resonance backscattering off the space-time curvature. It is interesting to note that this tail behavior is independent of the field mass, the multiple moment of the wave mode and the space-time parameter $b$ and it is same as that in the black hole backgrounds without global monopoles studied in [@KandT; @KandT1]. It should be pointed out, however, that this late time tail begins to dominate only when $\mu t\gg 1/(\mu M)^2$ i.e. $\kappa\gg 1$. So, the tail of massive scalar fields will still be dependent on the multiple moment of the wave mode and the topology of the space-time during the transitional intermediate times when this condition is not satisfied. Our result seems to suggest that the oscillatory $t^{-5/6}$ tail may be a quite general feature for the late-time decay of massive scalar fields in any static black hole backgrounds.
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation of China under Grant 10075019.
R. Ruffini and J. A. Wheeler, Phys. Today [**24**]{}, 30 (1971), C. W. Misner, K. S. Thone, and J. A. Wheeler, [*Gravitation*]{} (Freeman, San Francisco, 1973). R. H. Price, Phys. Rev. D [**5**]{}, 2419 (1972). C. Gundlach, R. H. Price, and J. Pullin, Phys. Rev. D [**49**]{}, 883 (1994). C. Gundlach, R. H. Price, and J. Pullin, Phys. Rev. D [**49**]{}, 890 (1994). S. Hod, Phys. Rev. D [**58**]{}, 104022 (1998); L. Barack and A. Ori, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 4388 (1999); S. Hod, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 10 (2000). S. Hod and T. Piran, Phys. Rev. D [**58**]{}, 044018 (1998). H. Koyama and A. Tomimatsu, Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 064032 (2001). H. Koyama and A. Tomimatsu, Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{}, 044014 (2001). M. Barriola and A. Vilenkin, Phys.Rev.Lett. [**63**]{}, 341 (1989). D. Harari and C. Lousto, Phys. Rev. D [**42**]{}, 2626 (1990). F. D. Mazzitelli and C. Lousto, Phys. Rev. D [**43**]{}, 468 (1991). E. R. Bezerra de Mello, V. B. Bezerra, and N. R. Khusnutdinov, Phys. Rev. D [**60**]{}, 063506 (1999). C. Lousto, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**6**]{}, 3613, (1991). Hongwei Yu, Nucl. Phys. B [**430**]{}, 427, (1994). G. A. Marques and and V. B. Bezerra, gr-qc/0111019. E. W. Leaver, Phys. Rev. D [**34**]{}, 384 (1986). edited by M. Abramowitz and I.A. Stegun (Dover, New York, 1970).
|
---
author:
- |
George F. Viamontes[^1]\
[*Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology Laboratories, Cherry Hill, NJ 08002*]{}\
\
Igor L. Markov and John P. Hayes[^2]\
[*Department of EECS, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2121*]{}
title: Checking Equivalence of Quantum Circuits and States
---
Introduction
============
Quantum computing (QC) is a recently discovered alternative to conventional computer technology that offers not only miniaturization, but massive performance speed-ups for certain tasks [@Hey99; @Shor1997; @Grover1997] and new levels of protection in secure communications [@BB84; @B92]. Information is stored in particle states and processed using quantum-mechanical operations referred to as quantum gates. The analogue of the classical bit, qubit, has two basic states denoted $\ket{0}$ and $\ket{1}$, but can also exist in a superposition of these two states $\ket{\phi} = \alpha \ket{0} + \beta \ket{1}$, where $|\alpha|^2+ |\beta|^2=1$. A composite system consisting of $n$ such qubits requires $2^n$ parameters (amplitudes) indexed by $n$-bit binary numbers $\ket{\Phi}=\Sigma_{i=1}^{2^n} \alpha_i \ket{i}$, where $\Sigma |\alpha_i|^2=1$. Quantum gates transform such states by applying unitary matrices to them. Measurement of a quantum state produces classical bits with probabilities dependent on $\alpha_i$. Combining several gates, as in Figure \[fig:margolus\], yields [*quantum circuits*]{} [@NielsenC2000] that compactly describe more sophisticated transformations that play the role of quantum algorithms.
Based on the success of CAD for classical logic circuits, new algorithms have been proposed for synthesis and simulation of quantum circuits [@BarencoEtAl1995; @ShendeEtAl2006; @Song2003; @Gottesman1998; @AaronsonG2004; @ViamontesEtAl2005; @Vidal2003]. In particular, the DAC 2007 paper [@MaslovFM07], describes what amounts to placement and physical synthesis for quantum circuits — “adapting the circuit to particulars of the physical environment which restricts/complicates the establishment of certain direct interactions between qubits.” Another example is given in [@ShendeEtAl2006 Section 6].[^3] Traditionally, such transformations must be verified by equivalence-checking, but the quantum context is more difficult because qubits and quantum gates may differ by global and relative phase (defined below), yet be equivalent upon measurement [@NielsenC2000]. To this end, our work is the first to develop techniques for quantum phase-equivalence checking.
Two quantum states $\ket{\psi}$ and $\ket{\varphi}$ are equivalent up to [*global phase*]{} if $\ket{\varphi} = e^{i \theta} \ket{\psi}$, where $\theta \in \mathbb{R}$. The phase $e^{i \theta}$ will not be observed upon measurement of either state [@NielsenC2000]. By contrast, two states are equal up to [*relative phase*]{} if a unitary diagonal matrix can transform one into the other:
$$\label{eq:relative_phase}
\ket{\varphi} = \mathrm{diag}(e^{i \theta _0}, e^{i \theta_1}, \ldots, e^{i \theta _{N - 1}}) \ket{\psi}.$$
The probability amplitudes of the state $U \ket{\psi}$ will in general differ by more than relative phase from those of $U \ket{\varphi}$, but the measurement outcomes may be equivalent. One can consider a hierarchy in which exact equivalence implies global-phase equivalence, which implies relative-phase equivalence, which in turn implies measurement outcome equivalence. The equivalence checking problem is also extensible to quantum operators with applications to quantum-circuit synthesis and verification, which involves computer-aided generation of minimal quantum circuits with correct functionality. Extended notions of equivalence create several design opportunities. For example, the well-known three-qubit Toffoli gate can be implemented with fewer controlled-NOT (CNOT) and $1$-qubit gates up to relative phase [@BarencoEtAl1995; @Song2003] as shown in Figure \[fig:margolus\]. The relative-phase differences can be canceled out if every pair of these gates in the circuit is strategically placed [@Song2003]. Since circuit minimization is being pursued for a number of key quantum arithmetic circuits with many Toffoli gates, such as modular exponentiation [@VanMeter2005; @Cuccaro2004; @ShendeEtAl2005; @ShendeEtAl2006], this optimization could reduce the number of gates even further.
$$\Qcircuit @C=.7em @R=.1em @!R {
& \qw & \qw & \qw & \ctrl{2} & \qw & \qw & \qw & \qw \\
& \qw & \ctrl{1} & \qw & \qw & \qw & \ctrl{1} & \qw & \qw \\
& \gate{R_y(\frac{\pi}{4})} & \targ & \gate{R_y(\frac{\pi}{4})} & \targ & \gate{R_y(\frac{- \pi}{4})} & \targ & \gate{R_y(\frac{- \pi}{4})} & \qw
}$$
The inner product and matrix product may be used to determine such equivalences, but in this work, we present new decision-diagram (DD) algorithms to accomplish the task more efficiently. In particular, we make use of the quantum information decision diagram (QuIDD) [@ViamontesEtAl2003; @ViamontesEtAl2005], a datastructure with unique properties that are exploited to solve this problem asymptotically faster in practical cases.
Empirical results confirm the algorithms’ effectiveness and show that the improvements are more significant for the operators than for the states. Interestingly, solving the equivalence problems for the benchmarks considered requires significantly less time than creating the DD representations, which indicates that such problems can be reasonably solved in practice using quantum-circuit CAD tools.
The structure of this work is as follows. Section \[sec:background\] provides a review of the QuIDD datastructure. Section \[sec:global\_phase\] describes both linear-algebraic and QuIDD algorithms for checking global-phase equivalence of states and operators. Section \[sec:relative\_phase\] covers relative-phase equivalence checking algorithms. Sections \[sec:global\_phase\] and \[sec:relative\_phase\] also contain empirical studies comparing the algorithms’ performance on various benchmarks. Lastly, conclusions and a summary of computational complexity results for all algorithms are provided in Section \[sec:conclusions\].
Background {#sec:background}
==========
The QuIDD is a variant of the reduced ordered binary decision diagram (ROBDD or BDD) datastructure [@Bryant86] applied to quantum circuit simulation [@ViamontesEtAl2003; @ViamontesEtAl2005]. Like other DD variants, it has all of the key properties of BDDs as well as a few other application-specific attributes (see Figure \[fig:quidds\] for examples).
It is a directed acyclic graph with internal nodes whose edges represent assignments to binary variables
The leaf or terminal nodes contain complex values
Each path from the root to a terminal node is a functional mapping of row and column indices to complex-valued matrix elements ($f : \{0, 1\}^n \to \mathbb{C}$)
Nodes are unique and shared, meaning that any nodes $v$ and $v'$ with isomorphic subgraphs do not exist
Variables whose values do not affect the function output for a particular path (not in the [*support*]{}) are absent
Binary row ($R_i$) and column ($C_i$) index variables have evaluation order $R_0 \prec C_0 \prec \ldots R_{n - 1} \prec C_{n -
1}$
[c|cc]{}
------------------------------------------------------------
\[0pt\][$\mspace{-5mu}\begin{array}{rl}
R_0 R_1 & \\
\begin{array}{c}
0\ 0 \\
0\ 1 \\
1\ 0 \\
1\ 1
\end{array} &
\mspace{-25mu}\left[\begin{array}{c}
0.707107 \\
-0.707107 \\
0.707107 \\
-0.707107
\end{array}\right]
\end{array}$]{}
\[0pt\][$\updownarrow$]{}
\[0pt\][{width="3.7cm"}]{}
------------------------------------------------------------
& {width="3.5cm"} & \[0pt\][$\mspace{-15mu}\leftrightarrow \mspace{-10mu} \begin{array}{rc}
& C_0 C_1 \\
R_0 R_1 & \mspace{-25mu} 00 \mspace{9mu} 01 \mspace{9mu} 10 \mspace{9mu} 11 \\
\begin{array}{c}
0\ 0 \\
0\ 1 \\
1\ 0 \\
1\ 1
\end{array} &
\mspace{-25mu}\left[\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0
\end{array}\right]
\end{array}$]{}\
(a) &\
The algorithms which manipulate DDs are just as important as the properties of the DDs. In particular, the $\mathbf{Apply}$ algorithm (see Figure \[fig:apply\]) performs recursive traversals on DD operands to build new DDs using any desired unary or binary function [@Bryant86]. Although originally intended for digital logic operations, $\mathbf{Apply}$ has been extended to linear-algebraic operations such as matrix addition and multiplication [@Bahar97; @Clarke96], as well as quantum-mechanical operations such as measurement and partial trace [@ViamontesEtAl2003; @ViamontesEtAl2005]. The runtime and memory complexity of $\mathbf{Apply}$ is $O(|A||B|)$, where $|A|$ and $|B|$ are the sizes in number of internal and terminal nodes of the DDs $A$ and $B$, respectively [@Bryant86].[^4] Thus, the complexity of DD-based algorithms is tied to the compression achieved by the datastructure. These complexity bounds are important for analyzing many of the algorithms presented in this work.
[c]{}
Another important aspect of $\mathbf{Apply}$ is that it utilizes a cache of internal nodes and binary operators ($Table\_Lookup$ and $Table\_Insert$) to ensure that the new DD being created obeys the DD uniqueness properties. Maintaining these properties makes many DDs such as QuIDDs canonical, meaning that two different DDs do not implement the same function. Thus, exact equivalence checking is trivial with canonical DDs and may be performed in $O(1)$ time by comparing the root nodes, a technique which has been long exploited in the classical domain [@tsunami]. Quantum state and operator equivalence is less trivial as we show.
Checking Equivalence up to Global Phase {#sec:global_phase}
=======================================
This section describes algorithms that check global-phase equivalence of two quantum states or operators. The first two algorithms are known QuIDD-based linear-algebraic operations, while the remaining algorithms are the new ones that exploit DD properties explicitly. The section concludes with experiments comparing all algorithms.
Inner Product Check {#sec:inner_product}
-------------------
Since the quantum-circuit formalism models an arbitrary quantum state $\ket{\psi}$ as a unit vector, then the inner product ${\langle \psi ~|~ \psi \rangle} = 1$. In the case of a global-phase difference between two states $\ket{\psi}$ and $\ket{\varphi}$, the inner product is the global-phase factor, ${\langle \varphi ~|~ \psi \rangle} = e^{i \theta}
{\langle \psi ~|~ \psi \rangle} = e^{i \theta}$. Since $|e^{i \theta}| = 1$ for any $\theta$, checking if the complex modulus of the inner product is $1$ suffices to check global-phase equivalence for states.
Although the inner product may be computed using explicit arrays, a QuIDD-based implementation is easily derived. The complex-conjugate transpose and matrix product with QuIDD operands have been previously defined [@ViamontesEtAl2003]. Thus, the algorithm computes the complex-conjugate transpose of $A$ and multiplies the result with $B$. The complexity of this algorithm is given by the following lemma.
\[lemma:inner\_prod\] Consider state QuIDDs $A$ and $B$ with sizes $|A|$ and $|B|$, respectively, in nodes. Computing the global-phase difference via the inner product uses $O(|A||B|)$ time and memory.
[**Proof.**]{} Computing the complex-conjugate transpose of $A$ requires $O(|A|)$ time and memory since it is a unary call to $\mathbf{Apply}$ [@ViamontesEtAl2003]. Matrix multiplication of two ADDs of sizes $|A|$ and $|B|$ requires $O((|A||B|)^2)$ time and memory [@Bahar97]. However, this bound is loose for an inner product because only a single dot product must be performed. In this case, the ADD matrix multiplication algorithm reduces to a single call of $C =
\mathbf{Apply}(A, B, *)$ followed by $D = \mathbf{Apply}(C, +)$ [@Bahar97]. $D$ is a single terminal node containing the global-phase factor if $|value(D)| = 1$. $\mathbf{Apply}(A, B, *)$ and $\mathbf{Apply}(C, +)$ are computed in $O(|A||B|)$ time and memory [@Bryant86], while $|value(D)|$ is computed in $O(1)$ time and memory. $\Box$
Matrix Product {#sec:matrix_product}
--------------
The matrix product of two operators can be used for global-phase equivalence checking. In particular, since all quantum operators are unitary, the adjoint of each operator is its inverse. Thus, if two operators $U$ and $V$ differ by a global phase, then $U V^{\dagger} =
e^{i \theta} I$.
With QuIDDs for $U$ and $V$, computing $V^{\dagger}$ requires $O(|V|)$ time and memory [@ViamontesEtAl2003]. Computing $W = U
V^{\dagger}$ requires $O((|U||V|)^2)$ time and memory [@Bahar97]. To check if $W = e^{i \theta} I$, any terminal value $t$ is chosen from $W$, and scalar division is performed as $W' =
\mathbf{Apply}(W, t, /)$, which takes $O((|U||V|)^2)$ time and memory. Canonicity ensures that checking if $W' = I$ requires only $O(1)$ time and memory. If $W' = I$, then $t$ is the global-phase factor.
Node-Count Check {#sec:node_count_check}
----------------
The previous algorithms merely translate linear-algebraic operations to QuIDDs, but exploiting the following QuIDD property leads to faster checks.
\[lemma:scalar\_iso\] The QuIDD $A' = \mathbf{Apply}(A, c, *)$, where $c \in \mathbb{C}$ and $c \ne 0$, is isomorphic to $A$, hence $|A'| = |A|$.
[**Proof.**]{} In creating $A'$, $\mathbf{Apply}$ expands all of the internal nodes of $A$ since $c$ is a scalar, and the new terminals are the terminals of $A$ multiplied by $c$. All terminal values $t_i$ of $A$ are unique by definition of a QuIDD [@ViamontesEtAl2003]. Thus, $c t_i \ne c t_j$ for all $i, j$ such that $i \ne j$. As a result, the number of terminals in $A'$ is the same as in $A$. $\Box$
Lemma \[lemma:scalar\_iso\] states that two QuIDD states or operators that differ by a non-zero scalar, such as a global-phase factor, have the same number of nodes. Thus, equal node counts in QuIDDs are a necessary but not sufficient condition for global-phase equivalence. To see why it is not sufficient, consider two state vectors $\ket{\psi}$ and $\ket{\varphi}$ with elements $w_j$ and $v_k$, respectively, where $j, k = 0, 1, \ldots N - 1$. If some $w_j =
v_k = 0$ such that $j \ne k$, then $\ket{\varphi} \ne e^{i \theta}
\ket{\psi}$. The QuIDD representations of these states can in general have the same node counts. Despite this drawback, the node-count check requires only $O(1)$ time since $\mathbf{Apply}$ is easily augmented to recursively sum the number of nodes as a QuIDD is created.
Recursive Check {#sec:global_rec}
---------------
Lemma \[lemma:scalar\_iso\] implies that a QuIDD-based algorithm can implement a sufficient condition for global-phase equivalence by accounting for terminal value differences. The pseudo code for such an algorithm ($\mathbf{GPRC}$) is presented in Figure \[fig:global\_rec\].
[c]{}
$\mathbf{GPRC}$ returns $\mathbf{true}$ if two QuIDDs $A$ and $B$ differ by global phase and $\mathbf{false}$ otherwise. $gp$ and $have\_gp$ are global variables containing the global-phase factor and a flag signifying whether or not a terminal node has been reached, respectively. $gp$ is defined only if $\mathbf{true}$ is returned.
The first conditional block of $\mathbf{GPRC}$ deals with terminal values. The potential global-phase factor $ngp$ is computed after handling division by $0$. If $|ngp| \ne 1$ or if $ngp \ne gp$ when $gp$ has been set,then the two QuIDDs do not differ by a global phase. Next, the condition specified by Lemma \[lemma:scalar\_iso\] is addressed. If the node of $A$ depends on a different row or column variable than the node of $B$, then $A$ and $B$ are not isomorphic and thus cannot differ by global phase. Finally, $\mathbf{GPRC}$ is called recursively, and the results of these calls are combined via the logical $AND$ operation.
Early termination occurs when isomorphism is violated or more than one phase difference is computed. In the worst case, both QuIDDs are isomorphic and all nodes are visisted, but the last terminal visited in each QuIDD will not be equal up to global phase. Thus, the overall runtime and memory complexity of $\mathbf{GPRC}$ for states or operators is $O(|A| + |B|)$. Also, the node-count check can be run before $\mathbf{GPRC}$ to quickly eliminate many nonequivalences.
Empirical Results for Global-Phase\
Equivalence Algorithms {#sec:gp_results}
-----------------------------------
$$\Qcircuit @C=1em @R=.4em @!R {
& \lstick{\ket{0}} & \gate{H} & \gate{H} & \multigate{6}{CPS} & \gate{H} & \ctrl{1} & \qw & \qw & \qw \\
& \lstick{\ket{0}} & \gate{H} & \gate{H} & \ghost{CPS} & \gate{H} & \ctrl{1} & \qw & \qw & \qw \\
& \lstick{\ket{0}} & \gate{H} & \gate{H} & \ghost{CPS} & \gate{H} & \ctrl{1} & \qw & \qw & \qw \\
& & & & & & & & & \\
& & \vdots & \vdots & & \vdots & \vdots & & & \\
& & & & & & & & & \\
& \lstick{\ket{1}} & \gate{H} & \qw & \ghost{CPS} & \qw & \targ \qwx[-1] & \qw & \gate{H} & \qw
\gategroup{1}{4}{7}{7}{.7em}{--}
}$$
The first benchmark considered is a single iteration of Grover’s quantum search algorithm [@Grover1997], which is depicted in Figure \[fig:grover\_iter\]. The oracle searches for the last item in the database [@ViamontesEtAl2003]. One iteration is sufficient to test the effectiveness of the algorithms since the state vector QuIDD remains isomorphic across all iterations [@ViamontesEtAl2003].
[cc]{} {width="6cm"} & {width="6cm"}\
(a) & (b)\
Figure \[fig:grover\_state\_gp\]a shows the runtime results for the inner product and $\mathbf{GPRC}$ algorithms (no results are given for the node-count check algorithm since it runs in $O(1)$ time). The results confirm the asymptotic complexity differences between the algorithms. The number of nodes in the QuIDD state vector after a Grover iteration is $O(n)$ [@ViamontesEtAl2003], which is confirmed in Figure \[fig:grover\_state\_gp\]b. As a result, the runtime complexity of the inner product should be $O(n^2)$, which is confirmed by a regression plot within $1\%$ error. By contrast, the runtime complexity of the $\mathbf{GPRC}$ algorithm should be $O(n)$, which is also confirmed by another regression plot within $1\%$ error.
Figure \[fig:grover\_op\_gp\]a shows runtime results for the matrix product and $\mathbf{GPRC}$ algorithms checking the Grover operator. Like the state vector, it has been shown that the QuIDD for this operator grows in size as $O(n)$ [@ViamontesEtAl2003], which is confirmed in Figure \[fig:grover\_op\_gp\]b. Therefore, the runtime of the matrix product should be quadratic in $n$ but linear in $n$ for $\mathbf{GPRC}$. Regression plots verify these complexities within $0.3\%$ error.
[cc]{} {width="6cm"} & {width="6cm"}\
(a) & (b)\
The next benchmark compares states in Shor’s integer factorization algorithm [@Shor1997]. Specifically, we consider states created by the modular exponentiation sub-circuit that represent all possible combinations of $x$ and $f(x, N) = a^x mod N$, where $N$ is the integer to be factored [@Shor1997] (see Figure \[fig:shor\_state\]). Each of the $O(2^n)$ paths to a non-$0$ terminal represents a binary value for $x$ and $f(x, N)$. Thus, this benchmark tests performance with exponentially-growing QuIDDs.
[@r@@l@]{}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[0pt\][${\scriptstyle x}\left[\begin{array}{l}\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \end{array}\right.$]{}
\[0pt\][${\scriptstyle 7^x mod 15}\left[\begin{array}{l}\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \end{array}\right.$]{}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
& {width="6cm"}
Tables \[tab:shor\_states\]a-d show the results of the inner product and $\mathbf{GPRC}$ for this benchmark. Each $N$ is an integer whose two non-trivial factors are prime.[^5] $a$ is set to $N -
2$ since it may be chosen randomly from the range $[2 . . N - 2]$. In the case of Table \[tab:shor\_states\]a, states $\ket{\psi}$ and $\ket{\varphi}$ are equal up to global phase. The node counts for both states are equal as predicted by Lemma \[lemma:scalar\_iso\]. Interestingly, both algorithms exhibit nearly the same performance. Tables \[tab:shor\_states\]b, \[tab:shor\_states\]c and \[tab:shor\_states\]d contain results for the cases in which Hadamard gates are applied to the first, middle, and last qubits, respectively, of $\ket{\varphi}$. The results show that early termination in $\mathbf{GPRC}$ can enhance performance by factors of roughly 1.5x to 10x.
[cc]{}
-------- -------------- ---------- -------------------- ----------------------- --------------- -------------
No. of Creation No. of No. of Inner Product GPRC
Qubits \[0pt\][N]{} Time (s) Nodes $\ket{\psi}$ Nodes $\ket{\varphi}$ Runtime (s) Runtime (s)
$12$ $4031$ $11.9$ $9391$ $9391$ $0.30$ $0.26$
$13$ $6973$ $24.8$ $10680$ $10680$ $0.34$ $0.28$
$14$ $12127$ $55.1$ $18236$ $18236$ $0.54$ $0.46$
$15$ $19093$ $128.3$ $12766$ $12766$ $0.41$ $0.32$
$16$ $50501$ $934.1$ $51326$ $51326$ $1.7$ $1.6$
$17$ $69707$ $1969$ $26417$ $26417$ $0.87$ $0.78$
$18$ $163507$ $12788$ $458064$ $458064$ $19.6$ $19.6$
$19$ $387929$ $93547$ $182579$ $182579$ $6.62$ $6.02$
-------- -------------- ---------- -------------------- ----------------------- --------------- -------------
&
----------------------- --------------- -------------
No. of Inner Product GPRC
Nodes $\ket{\varphi}$ Runtime (s) Runtime (s)
$10969$ $0.27$ $0.036$
$11649$ $0.31$ $0.036$
$19978$ $0.54$ $0.06$
$13446$ $0.41$ $0.036$
$55447$ $1.53$ $0.2$
$27797$ $0.78$ $0.084$
$521725$ $19.0$ $9.18$
$194964$ $6.44$ $4.40$
----------------------- --------------- -------------
\
(a) & (b)\
-------- -------------- ---------- -------------------- ----------------------- --------------- -------------
No. of Creation No. of No. of Inner Product GPRC
Qubits \[0pt\][N]{} Time (s) Nodes $\ket{\psi}$ Nodes $\ket{\varphi}$ Runtime (s) Runtime (s)
$12$ $4031$ $11.9$ $9391$ $11773$ $0.27$ $0.076$
$13$ $6973$ $24.8$ $10680$ $16431$ $0.43$ $0.14$
$14$ $12127$ $55.1$ $18236$ $29584$ $0.65$ $0.22$
$15$ $19093$ $128.3$ $12766$ $19207$ $0.56$ $0.20$
$16$ $50501$ $934.1$ $51326$ $71062$ $1.76$ $0.84$
$17$ $69707$ $1969$ $26417$ $46942$ $1.24$ $0.55$
$18$ $163507$ $12788$ $458064$ $653048$ $31.7$ $26.1$
$19$ $387929$ $93547$ $182579$ $312626$ $9.33$ $6.44$
-------- -------------- ---------- -------------------- ----------------------- --------------- -------------
&
----------------------- --------------- -------------
No. of Inner Product GPRC
Nodes $\ket{\varphi}$ Runtime (s) Runtime (s)
$14092$ $0.21$ $0.088$
$16431$ $0.27$ $0.084$
$29584$ $0.53$ $0.13$
$19207$ $0.50$ $0.084$
$74919$ $1.51$ $0.66$
$46942$ $1.13$ $0.25$
$629533$ $29.6$ $23.7$
$312626$ $13.0$ $8.62$
----------------------- --------------- -------------
\
(c) & (d)\
In almost every case, both algorithms represent far less than $1\%$ of the total runtime. Thus, checking for global-phase equivalence among QuIDD states appears to be an easily achievable task once the representations are created. An interesting side note is that some modular exponentiation QuIDD states with more qubits can have more exploitable structure than those with fewer qubits. For instance, the $N=387929$ ($19$ qubits) QuIDD has fewer than half the nodes of the $N
= 163507$ ($18$ qubits) QuIDD.
Table \[tab:qft\_gp\] contains results for the matrix product and $\mathbf{GPRC}$ algorithm checking the inverse Quantum Fourier Transform (QFT) operator. The inverse QFT is a key operator in Shor’s algorithm [@Shor1997], and it has been previously shown that its $n$-qubit QuIDD representation grows as $O(2^{2n})$ [@ViamontesEtAl2003]. In this case, the asymptotic differences in the matrix product and $\mathbf{GPRC}$ are very noticeable. Also, the memory usage indicates that the matrix product may need asymptotically more intermediate memory despite operating on QuIDDs with the same number of nodes as $\mathbf{GPRC}$.
-------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
No. of
Qubits Time (s) Mem (MB) Time (s) Mem (MB)
5 2.53 1.41 0.064 0.25
6 22.55 6.90 0.24 0.66
7 271.62 46.14 0.98 2.03
8 3637.14 306.69 4.97 7.02
9 22717 1800.42 17.19 26.48
10 — $>2GB$ 75.38 102.4
11 — $>2GB$ 401.34 403.9
-------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Checking Equivalence up to Relative Phase {#sec:relative_phase}
=========================================
The relative-phase checking problem can also be solved in many ways. The first three algorithms are adapted from linear algebra to QuIDDs, while the last two exploit DD properties directly, offering asymptotic improvements.
Modulus and Inner Product {#sec:mod_inner_product}
-------------------------
Consider two state vectors $\ket{\psi}$ and $\ket{\varphi}$ that are equal up to relative phase and have complex-valued elements $w_j$ and $v_k$, respectively, where $j, k = 0, 1, \ldots, N - 1$. Computing $\ket{\varphi '} = \Sigma_{i = 0}^{N - 1} |v_j| \ket{j}$ and $\ket{\psi '} = \Sigma_{k = 0}^{N - 1} |w_k| \ket{k} = \Sigma_{k =
0}^{N - 1} |e^{i \theta_k} v_k| \ket{k}$ sets each phase factor to a $1$, allowing the inner product to be applied as in Subsection \[sec:inner\_product\]. The complex modulus operations are computed as $C = \mathbf{Apply}(A, |\cdot|)$ and $D = \mathbf{Apply}(B,
|\cdot|)$ with runtime and memory complexity $O(|A| + |B|)$, which is dominated by the $O(|A||B|)$ inner product complexity.
Modulus and Matrix Product {#sec:mod_matrix_product}
--------------------------
For operator equivalence up to relative phase, two cases are considered, namely the diagonal relative-phase matrix appearing on the left or right side of one of the operators. Consider two operators $U$ and $V$ with elements $u_{j, k}$ and $v_{j, k}$, respectively, where $j, k = 0, \ldots N - 1$. The two cases in which the relative-phase factors appear on either side of $V$ are described as $u_{j, k} = e^{i
\theta _j} v_{j, k}$ (left side) and $u_{j, k} = e^{i \theta _k} v_{j,
k}$ (right side). In either case the the matrix product check discussed in Subsection \[sec:matrix\_product\] may be extended by computing the complex modulus without increasing the overall complexity. Note that neither this algorithm nor the modulus and inner product algorithm calculate the relative-phase factors.
Element-wise Division {#sec:elem_wise_div}
---------------------
Given the states discussed in Subsection \[sec:mod\_inner\_product\], $w_k = e^{i \theta_k} v_k$, the operation $w_k / v_j$ for each $j = k$ is a relative-phase factor, $e^{i \theta _k}$. The condition $|w_k /
v_j| = 1$ is used to check if each division yields a relative phase. If this condition is satisfied for all divisions, the states are equal up to relative phase.
The QuIDD implementation for states is simply $C = \mathbf{Apply}(A,
B, /)$, where $\mathbf{Apply}$ is augmented to avoid division by $0$ and instead return $1$ when two terminal values being compared equal $0$ and return $0$ otherwise. $\mathbf{Apply}$ can be further augmented to terminate early when $|w_j / v_i| \ne 1$. $C$ is a QuIDD vector containing the relative-phase factors. If $C$ contains a terminal value of $0$, then $A$ and $B$ do not differ by relative phase. Since a call to $\mathbf{Apply}$ implements this algorithm, the runtime and memory complexity are $O(|A||B|)$.
Element-wise division for operators is more complicated. For QuIDD operators $U$ and $V$, $W = \mathbf{Apply}(U, V, /)$ is a QuIDD matrix with the relative-phase factor $e^{i \theta _j}$ along row $j$ in the case of phases appearing on the left side and along column $j$ in the case of phases appearing on the right side. In the first case, all rows of $W$ are identical, meaning that the support of $W$ does not contain any row variables. Similarly, in the second case the support of $W$ does not contain any column variables. A complication arises when $0$ values appear in either operator. In such cases, the support of $W$ may contain both variable types, but the operators may in fact be equal up to relative phase. Figure \[fig:rp\_div\] presents an algorithm based on $\mathbf{Apply}$ which accounts for these special cases by using a sentinel value of $2$ to mark valid $0$ entries that do not affect relative-phase equivalence.[^6] These entries are recursively ignored by skipping either row or column variables with sentinel children ($S$ specifies row or column variables), which effectively fills copies of neighboring row or column phase values in their place in $W$. The algorithm must be run twice, once for each variable type. The size of $W$ is $O(|U||V|)$ since it is created with a variant of $\mathbf{Apply}$.
[c]{}
Non-0 Terminal Merge {#sec:non_zero}
--------------------
A necessary condition for relative-phase equivalence is that zero-valued elements of each state vector appear in the same locations, as expressed by the following lemma.
\[lemma:zero\_loc\] A necessary but not sufficient condition for two states $\ket{\varphi} = \Sigma_{j = 0}^{N - 1} v_j \ket{j}$ and $\ket{\psi}
= \Sigma_{k = 0}^{N - 1} w_k \ket{k}$ to be equal up to relative phase is that $\forall v_j = w_k = 0$, $j = k$.
[**Proof.**]{} If $\ket{\psi} = \ket{\varphi}$ up to relative phase, $\ket{\psi} = \Sigma_{k = 0}^{N - 1} e^{i \theta_k} v_k
\ket{k}$. Since $e^{i \theta _k} \ne 0$ for any $\theta$, if any $w_k
= 0$, then $v_j = 0$ must also be true where $j = k$. A counter-example proving insufficiency is $\ket{\psi} = (0, 1/\sqrt{3},
1/\sqrt{3}, 1/\sqrt{3})^T$ and $\ket{\varphi} = (0, 1/2, 1/\sqrt{2},
1/2)^T$. $\Box$
QuIDD canonicity may now be exploited. Let $A$ and $B$ be the QuIDD representations of the states $\ket{\psi}$ and $\ket{\varphi}$, respectively. First compute $C = \mathbf{Apply}(A, \lceil | \cdot |
\rceil)$ and $D = \mathbf{Apply}(B, \lceil | \cdot | \rceil)$, which converts every non-zero terminal value of $A$ and $B$ into a $1$. Since $C$ and $D$ have only two terminal values, $0$ and $1$, checking if $C = D$ satisfies Lemma \[lemma:zero\_loc\]. Canonicity ensures this check requires $O(1)$ time and memory. The overall runtime and memory complexity of this algorithm is $O(|A| + |B|)$ due to the unary $\mathbf{Apply}$ operations. This algorithm also applies to operators since Lemma \[lemma:zero\_loc\] also applies to $u_{j,
k} = e^{i \theta _j} v_{j, k}$ (phases on the left) and $u_{j, k} =
e^{i \theta _k} v_{j, k}$ (phases on the right) for operators $U$ and $V$.
Modulus and DD Compare {#sec:mod_dd_compare}
----------------------
A variant of the algorithm presented in Subsection \[sec:mod\_inner\_product\], which also exploits canonicity, provides an asymptotic improvement for checking a necessary and sufficient condition of relative-phase equivalence of states and operators. As in Subsection \[sec:mod\_inner\_product\], compute $C = \mathbf{Apply}(A,
|\cdot|)$ and $D = \mathbf{Apply}(B, |\cdot|)$. If $A$ and $B$ are equal up to relative phase, then $C = D$ since each phase factor becomes a $1$. This check requires $O(1)$ time and memory due to canonicity. Thus, the runtime and memory complexity is dominated by the unary $\mathbf{Apply}$ operations, giving $O(|A| + |B|)$.
Empirical Results for Relative-Phase\
Equivalence Algorithms {#sec:rp_results}
-------------------------------------
The first benchmark for the relative-phase equivalence checking algorithms creates a remote EPR pair, which is an EPR pair between the first and last qubits, via nearest-neighbor interactions [@Berman2002]. The circuit is shown in Figure \[fig:remote\_epr\]. Specifically, it transforms the initial state $\ket{00 \ldots 0}$ into $(1/\sqrt{2})(\ket{00 \ldots 0} + \ket{10
\ldots 1})$. The circuit size is varied, and the final state is compared to the state $(e^{0.345i}/\sqrt{2})\ket{00 \ldots 0} +
(e^{0.457i}/\sqrt{2})\ket{10 \ldots 1}$.
$$\Qcircuit @C=1em @R=.01em @!R {
& \lstick{\ket{0}} & \gate{H} & \ctrl{1} & \qw & \qw & \qw & \qw & \qw & \qw \\
& \lstick{\ket{0}} & \qw & \targ & \ctrl{1} & \targ & \qw & \qw & \qw & \qw \\
& \lstick{\ket{0}} & \qw & \qw & \targ & \ctrl{-1} & \qw & \qw & \qw & \qw \\
& & & & & \vdots & & & & \\
& \lstick{\ket{0}} & \qw & \qw & \qw & \qw & \qw & \ctrl{1} & \targ & \qw \\
& \lstick{\ket{0}} & \qw & \qw & \qw & \qw & \qw & \targ & \ctrl{-1} & \qw
}$$
The results in Figure \[fig:teleport\_state\_rp\]a show that all algorithms run quickly. The inner product is the slowest, yet it runs in approximately 0.2 seconds at $1000$ qubits, a small fraction of the 7.6 seconds required to create the QuIDD state vectors. Regressions of the runtime and memory data reveal linear complexity for all algorithms to within $1\%$ error. This is not unexpected since the QuIDD representations of the states grow linearly with the number of qubits (see Figure \[fig:teleport\_state\_rp\]b), and the complex modulus reduces the number of different terminals prior to computing the inner product. These results illustrate that in practice, the inner product and element-wise division algorithms can perform better than their worst-case complexity. Element-wise division should be preferred when QuIDD states are compact since unlike the other algorithms, it computes the relative-phase factors.
----------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------
{width="6cm"} {width="6cm"}
(a) (b)
----------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------
$$\Qcircuit @C=1em @R=.0005em @!R {
& & \ctrl{1} & \qw & \qw & \qw & \qw & \qw & \ctrl{1} & \qw & \\
& & & & & & & & & & \\
& & \vdots & & & & & & \vdots & & \\
& & & & & & & & & & \\
& & \qw & \ctrl{2} & \qw & \qw & \qw & \ctrl{2} & \qw & \qw & \\
& & \qw & \qw & \ctrl{1} & \qw & \ctrl{1} & \qw & \qw & \qw & \\
& \lstick{\ket{0}} & \targ \qwx[-3] & \targ & \targ & \gate{e^{-i \Delta t Z}} & \targ & \targ & \targ \qwx[-3] & \qw & \rstick{\ket{0}}
}$$
The Hamiltonian simulation circuit shown in Figure \[fig:ham\_ckt\] is taken from [@NielsenC2000 Figure 4.19, p. 210]. When its one-qubit gate (boxed) varies with $\Delta t$, it produces a variety of diagonal operators, all of which are equivalent up to relative phase. Empirical results for such equivalence checking are shown in Figure \[fig:hamiltonian\_rp\]. As before, the matrix product and element-wise division algorithms perform better than their worst-case bounds, indicating that element-wise division is the best choice for compact QuIDDs.
[cc]{} {width="6cm"} & {width="6cm"}\
(a) & (b)\
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
Although DD properties like canonicity enable exact equivalence checking in $O(1)$ time, we have shown that such properties may be exploited to develop efficient algorithms for the difficult problem of equivalence checking up to global and relative phase. In particular, the global-phase recursive check and element-wise division algorithms efficiently determine equivalence of states and operators up to global and relative phase, and compute the phases. In practice, they outperform QuIDD matrix and inner products, which do not compute relative-phase factors. Other QuIDD algorithms presented in this work, such as the node-count check, non-$0$ terminal merge, and modulus and DD compare, exploit other DD properties to provide even faster checks but only satisfy necessary equivalence conditions. Thus, they should be used to aid the more robust algorithms. A summary of the theoretical results is provided in Table \[tab:all\_methods\].
---------------------- ------------------------- -------------------- ------------------------ ------------------------------ ---------------------------------
$O(\cdot)$ time $O(\cdot)$ time
Algorithm \[0pt\][Phase]{} \[0pt\][Finds]{} \[0pt\][Necessary &]{} complexity: complexity:
\[0pt\][type]{} \[0pt\][phases?]{} \[0pt\][sufficient?]{} best-case worst-case
Inner
Product \[0pt\][Global]{} \[0pt\][Yes]{} \[0pt\][N. & S.]{} \[0pt\][$|A||B|$]{} \[0pt\][$|A||B|$]{}
Matrix
Product \[0pt\][Global]{} \[0pt\][Yes]{} \[0pt\][N. & S.]{} \[0pt\][$(|A||B|)^2$]{} \[0pt\][$(|A||B|)^2$]{}
Node-Count Global No N. only $1$ $1$
[**Recursive**]{}
[**Check**]{} \[0pt\][**Global**]{} \[0pt\][**Yes**]{} \[0pt\][**N. & S.**]{} \[0pt\][$\mathbf{1}$]{} \[0pt\][$\mathbf{|A| + |B|}$]{}
Modulus and
Inner Product \[0pt\][Relative]{} \[0pt\][No]{} \[0pt\][N. & S.]{} \[0pt\][$|A||B|$]{} \[0pt\][$|A||B|$]{}
[**Element-wise**]{}
[**Division**]{} \[0pt\][**Relative**]{} \[0pt\][**Yes**]{} \[0pt\][**N. & S.**]{} \[0pt\][$\mathbf{|A||B|}$]{} \[0pt\][$\mathbf{|A||B|}$]{}
Non-$0$
Terminal Merge \[0pt\][Relative]{} \[0pt\][No]{} \[0pt\][N. only]{} \[0pt\][$|A| + |B|$]{} \[0pt\][$|A| + |B|$]{}
Modulus and
DD Compare \[0pt\][Relative]{} \[0pt\][No]{} \[0pt\][N. & S.]{} \[0pt\][$|A| + |B|$]{} \[0pt\][$|A| + |B|$]{}
---------------------- ------------------------- -------------------- ------------------------ ------------------------------ ---------------------------------
The algorithms presented here enable QuIDDs and other DD datastructures to be used in synthesis and verification of quantum circuits. A fair amount of work has been done on optimal synthesis for small quantum circuits as well as heuristics for larger circuits via circuit transformations [@PrasadEtAl2007; @ShendeEtAl2006]. Equivalence checking in particular plays a key role in some of these techniques since it is often necessary to verify the correctness of the transformations. Future work will determine how these equivalence checking algorithms may be used as primitives to enhance such heuristics.
[**Acknowledgements.** ]{} This work was funded by the Air Force Research Laboratory. The views and conclusions contained herein are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing official policies or endorsements of employers and funding agencies.
S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman, “Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits”, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{}, [**70**]{}, 052328, 2004.
R. I. Bahar et al., “Algebraic decision diagrams and their applications,” [*Journal of Formal Methods in System Design*]{}, [**10**]{} (2/3), 1997.
A. Barenco et al., “Elementary gates for quantum computation,” [*Phys. Rev. A*]{}, [**52**]{}, 3457-3467, 1995.
C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, “Quantum cryptography: public key distribution and coin tossing”, [*In Proc. of IEEE Intl. Conf. on Computers, Systems, and Signal Processing*]{}, pp. 175-179, 1984.
C.H. Bennett, “Quantum cryptography using any two nonorthogonal states”, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**68**]{}, 3121, 1992.
G. P. Berman, G. V. López, and V. I. Tsifrinovich, “Teleportation in a nuclear spin quantum computer,” [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**66**]{}, 042312, 2002.
R. Bryant, “Graph-based algorithms for Boolean function manipulation,” [*IEEE Trans. on Computers*]{}, [**C35**]{}, pp. 677-691, 1986.
E. Clarke et al., “Multi-terminal binary decision diagrams and hybrid decision diagrams,” in T. Sasao and M. Fujita, eds, [*Representations of Discrete Functions*]{}, pp. 93-108, Kluwer, 1996.
S. A. Cuccaro, T. G. Draper, S. A. Kutin, and D. P. Moulton, “A new quantum ripple-carry addition circuit,” [quant-ph/0410184]{}, 2004.
D. Gottesman, “The Heisenberg representation of quantum computers,” [*Plenary speech at the 1998 International Conference on Group Theoretic Methods in Physics*]{}, [quant-ph/9807006]{}, 1998.
L. Grover, “Quantum mechanics helps in searching for a needle in a haystack,” [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**79**]{}, 325, 1997.
A. J. G. Hey, ed., [*Feynman and Computation: Exploring the Limits of Computers*]{}, Perseus Books, 1999.
D. Maslov, S. M. Falconer, M. Mosca, “Quantum Circuit Placement: Optimizing Qubit-to-qubit Interactions through Mapping Quantum Circuits into a Physical Experiment,” [*to appear in DAC 2007*]{}, [quant-ph/0703256]{}.
M. A. Nielsen, I. L. Chuang, [*Quantum Computation and Quantum Information*]{}, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000.
A. K. Prasad, V. V. Shende, K. N. Patel, I. L. Markov, and J. P. Hayes, “Algorithms and data structures for simplifying reversible circuits”, to appear in [*ACM J. of Emerging Technologies in Computing*]{}, 2007.
V. V. Shende, Personal communication, September 2006.
V. V. Shende, S. S. Bullock, I. L. Markov, “Synthesis of quantum logic circuits,” [*IEEE Trans. on CAD*]{} [**25**]{}, pp. 1000-1010, 2006.
V. V. Shende and I. L. Markov, “Quantum circuits for incompletely specified two-qubit operators,” [*Quantum Information and Computation*]{} [**5**]{} (1), pp. 49-57, 2005.
P. W. Shor, “Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer,” [*SIAM J. of Computing*]{}, [**26**]{}, p. 1484, 1997.
G. Song and A. Klappenecker, “Optimal realizations of simplified Toffoli gates,” [**4**]{}, pp. 361-372, 2004.
R. T. Stanion, D. Bhattacharya, and C. Sechen, “An efficient method for generating exhaustive test sets,” [*IEEE Trans. on CAD*]{} [**14**]{}, pp. 1516-1525, 1995.
R. Van Meter and K. M. Itoh, “Fast quantum modular exponentiation,” [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**71**]{}, 052320, 2005.
G. F. Viamontes, I. L. Markov, J. P. Hayes, “Graph-based simulation of quantum computation in the density matrix representation,” [*Quantum Information and Computation*]{} [**5**]{} (2), pp. 113-130, 2005.
G. F. Viamontes, I. L. Markov, and J. P. Hayes, “Improving gate-level simulation of quantum circuits,” [*Quantum Information Processing*]{} [**2**]{}, pp. 347-380, 2003.
G. Vidal, “Efficient classical simulation of slightly entangled quantum computations,” [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**91**]{}, 147902, 2003.
J. Yepez, “A quantum lattice-gas model for computational fluid dynamics,” [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} [**63**]{}, 046702, 2001.
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: {imarkov, jhayes}@eecs.umich.edu
[^3]: For example, in a spin chain architecture the qubits are laid out in a line, and all CNOT gates must act only on adjacent (nearest-neighbor) qubits. The work in [@ShendeEtAl2006] shows that such a restriction can be accomodated by restructuring an existing circuit in such a way that worst-case circuit sizes grow by no more than nine times.
[^4]: The runtime and memory complexity of the unary version acting on one DD $A$ is $O(|A|)$ [@Bryant86].
[^5]: Such integers are likely to be the ones input to Shor’s algorithm since they are the foundation of modern public key cryptography [@Shor1997].
[^6]: Any sentinel value larger than $1$ may be used since such values do not appear in the context of quantum circuits.
|
---
abstract: 'For a probability measure with compact and non-polar support in the complex plane we relate dynamical properties of the associated sequence of orthogonal polynomials $\{P_n\}$ to properties of the support. More precisely we relate the Julia set of $P_n$ to the outer boundary of the support, the filled Julia set to the polynomial convex hull $K$ of the support, and the Green’s function associated with $P_n$ to the Green’s function for the complement of $K$.'
author:
- 'Jacob Stordal Christiansen, Christian Henriksen, Henrik Laurberg Pedersen and Carsten Lunde Petersen'
title: 'Julia Sets of Orthogonal Polynomials [^1] '
---
[*2010 Mathematics Subject Classification: Primary: 42C05, Secondary: 37F10, 31A15*]{}
[*Keywords: Orthogonal Polynomials, Julia set, Green’s function*]{}
Introduction and main results {#intro}
=============================
In this paper, we study orthonormal polynomials $\{P_n(z)\}\equiv \{P_n(\mu; z)\}$ given by a Borel probability measure $\mu$ on ${\mathbb C}$ with compact and non-polar support $S(\mu)$. We relate the non-escaping set for $P_n$, the locus of non-normality (the boundary of the non-escaping set) for $P_n$, and an associated Green’s function to the support of the measure, getting a fairly complete picture of the limiting behavior of these objects as $n \to \infty$.
We build on the classical monograph [@StahlandTotik] by Stahl and Totik, where the authors relate potential and measure theoretic properties of, e.g., the asymptotic zero distribution for the sequence of orthonormal polynomials defined by $\mu$ to the potential and measure theoretic properties of the support of $\mu$. We shall also use [@Randsford] as a reference to the basic concepts of potential theory in the complex plane.
Recall that $\{P_n(z)\}$ is the unique orthonormal sequence in $L^2(\mu)$ with $$\label{normalpol}
P_n(z)
= {\gamma}_n z^n + \textrm{~lower order terms}, $$ where ${\gamma}_n>0$.
Let ${\mathcal B}$ denote the set of Borel probability measures on ${\mathbb C}$ with compact, non-polar support. Furthermore, let ${\mathcal B}_+\subset{\mathcal B}$ be defined as $${\mathcal B}_+ := \{\mu\in{\mathcal B}\,|\, \limsup_{n\to\infty}\,{\gamma}_n^{1/n} < \infty \},
$$ where ${\gamma}_n$ is given in .
For $\mu \in {\mathcal B}$ we denote by ${\Omega}$ the unbounded connected component of ${\mathbb C}{\setminus}S(\mu)$ and define $$K={\mathbb C}{\setminus}{\Omega},\quad J=\partial K.$$ The set $K$ is the *filled* $S(\mu)$ and $J= \partial{\Omega}\subset S(\mu)$ is the outer boundary of $S(\mu)$. We shall also say that $S(\mu)$ is *full* if ${\mathbb C}{\setminus}S(\mu)$ has no bounded connected components.
Furthermore, we define the exceptional subset $E\subset S(\mu)$ by $$E = \{ z \in J \,|\, z \textrm{ is \emph{not} a Dirichlet regular boundary point}\}.$$ This set is an $F_{\sigma}$ polar subset, see [@Randsford Theorem 4.2.5]. We let ${g_{\Omega}}: {\mathbb C}\to [0,\infty)$ be the Green’s function for ${\Omega}$ with pole at infinity (in short, just the Green’s function for ${\Omega}$). This is the unique non-negative subharmonic function which is harmonic and positive on ${\Omega}$, zero precisely on $K{\setminus}E$, (see [@Randsford Theorem 4.4.9]) and which satisfies $$g_{\Omega}(z) = \log|z| + O(1) \;\mbox{ at infinity}.$$ Finally, we denote by ${\omega}_J$ the equilibrium measure on $J$, which equals harmonic measure on ${\Omega}$ from $\infty$ and which is the distributional Laplacian ${\Delta}g_{\Omega}$ of the Green’s function $g_{\Omega}$.
We shall also use (see [@StahlandTotik Section 1.2]) the extended notion of the Green’s function $g_B: {\mathbb C}\to [0,\infty)$ for an arbitrary connected Borel set $B\subset{\mathbb C}$ with bounded complement $L$ of positive logarithmic capacity, $\operatorname{Cap}(L)>0$. This is the unique non-negative subharmonic function which is harmonic and positive on the interior of $B$, satisfies $$g_B(z) = \log|z| - \log\operatorname{Cap}(L) + o(1)\; \textrm{ at infinity},$$ and equals zero qu.e. on ${\mathbb C}{\setminus}B$. Here, qu.e. is short for quasi everywhere meaning except on a polar set ([@Randsford] uses n.e., nearly everywhere).
Furthermore, for $\mu\in{\mathcal B}$ we denote by $g_\mu: {\mathbb C}\to [0,\infty)$ [the minimal carrier Green’s function for]{} $\mu$ (see [@StahlandTotik Definition 1.1.1 and Lemma 1.2.4]), $$g_\mu(z) = \log|z| - \log c_\mu + o(1)\; \textrm{ at infinity},$$ where $c_\mu$ is the minimal carrier capacity. Moreover, we denote by $E_\mu$ the exceptional set for $g_\mu$ defined by $$E_\mu = \{ z\in S(\mu) \,|\, g_\mu(z) > 0 \}.$$ The following fundamental result concerning the distribution of zeros of the orthogonal polymonials was originally obtained by Fejér in [@Fejer]; see also [@StahlandTotik Lemma 1.1.3].
\[thm:fejer\] If $\mu\in{\mathcal B}$, then all zeros of the orthonormal polynomials $P_n$ are contained in the convex hull $\operatorname{Co}(S(\mu))$. Moreover, for any compact subset $V\subset{\Omega}$ the number of zeros of $P_n$ in $V$ is bounded as $n\to\infty$.
Our main result, Theorem \[THMlimsupliminf\], concerns measures in the class ${\mathcal B}_+$ and it is proved in Section \[sec:3\]. The first part of the theorem should be compared with [@StahlandTotik Theorem 1.1.4], while the second part does not have an immediate counterpart in the classical theory of orthogonal polynomials. We remark that ${\mathcal B}_+$ is a large subclass of ${\mathcal B}$ since only measures in ${\mathcal B}$ with zero carrier capacity are left out.
Before stating our main result, some more notation is needed. We denote by ${\Omega}_n$ the attracted basin of $\infty$ for $P_n$, by $K_n = {\mathbb C}{\setminus}{\Omega}_n$ the filled Julia set, and by $J_n =\partial K_n = \partial{\Omega}_n$ the Julia set. Theorem \[THMlimsupliminf\] is motivated by the following questions: What is the relation between $K$ and limits of $K_n$ and, similarly, what is the relation between $J$ and limits of $J_n$? Inspired by [@Douady], we answer these questions in terms of limits involving the Hausdorff distance on the space of compact subsets of ${\mathbb C}$ (see the beginning of Section \[sec:3\] for details and the notions of $\liminf$ and $\limsup$ of sequences of compact sets).
\[THMlimsupliminf\] Let $\mu\in{\mathcal B}_+$. Then the following assertions hold.
1. We have$$\limsup_{n\to\infty} K_n \subseteq \operatorname{Co}(K).$$ Moreover, for any ${\epsilon}>0$ and with $V_{\epsilon}:= \{z\in {\mathbb C}\,|\, g_{\Omega}(z) \geq {\epsilon}\}$, $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\operatorname{Cap}(V_{\epsilon}\cap K_n) = 0.$$
2. We have $$\overline{J{\setminus}E_\mu} \subseteq \liminf_{n\to\infty} J_n.$$
The figure below illustrates Theorem \[THMlimsupliminf\] in the case where $\mu$ is the equilibrium measure for the boundary of the boomerang-shaped white set $K$ in the top left image. The black fractal sets in the other images are the Julia sets $J_{10}$, $J_{15}$, and $J_{20}$ (which in these cases appear to be equal to the filled Julia sets). The Green’s functions are visualised by colouring alternating intervals of level sets blue and red. We remark that equilibrium measures belong to a special class of measures, the so-called [*regular measures*]{} to be discussed in Sections \[sec:4\] and \[sec:5\].
--------------------------------------- -------------------------------------
{width="56mm"} {width="56mm"}
{width="56mm"} {width="56mm"}
--------------------------------------- -------------------------------------
Polynomial dynamics and technical preparations {#sec:2}
==============================================
For any polynomial $P$ of degree $d>1$, there clearly exists $R>0$ such that $|P(z)| \geq 2|z|$ for all $z$ with $|z|>R$. Thus the orbit, $\{z_n\}$, of such $z$ under iteration by $P$ converges to $\infty$. The basin of attraction for $\infty$ for $P$, denoted ${\Omega}_P$, may therefore be written as $$\label{basinofinfty}
{\Omega}_P = \{z\in{\mathbb C}\,|\, P^k(z) \underset{k\to\infty}\longrightarrow \infty \}
= \bigcup_{k\geq 0} P^{-k}({\mathbb C}{\setminus}\overline{{\mathbb D}(0,R)}).$$ Here $P^k = \overset{k \textrm{ times}}{\overbrace{P\circ P \circ \ldots \circ P}}$, whereas $P^{-k}$ denotes inverse image and ${\mathbb D}(0,R)$ is the open ball of radius $R$ centered at $0$. It follows immediately that ${\Omega}_P$ is open and completely invariant, that is, $P^{-1}({\Omega}_P) = {\Omega}_P = P({\Omega}_P)$. Denote by $K_P = {\mathbb C}{\setminus}{\Omega}_P\subseteq\overline{{\mathbb D}(0,R)}$ the filled Julia set for $P$ and by $J_P = \partial{\Omega}_P = \partial K_P$ the Julia set for $P$. Then $K_P$ and $J_P$ are compact and also completely invariant. Clearly, any periodic point (i.e., a solution of the equation $P^k(z) = z$ for some $k\in{\mathbb N}$) belongs to $K_P$, so that $K_P$ is non-empty. It follows from that the filled Julia set $K_P$ can also be described as the nested intersection $$\label{filledJuliaset}
K_P = \bigcap_{k\geq 0} P^{-k}(\overline{{\mathbb D}(0,R)}).$$ To ease notation we denote the Green’s function for ${\Omega}_P$ with pole at infinity by $g_P$ (and not by $g_{{\Omega}_P}$). It follows from that $g_P$ satisfies $$g_P(z) = \lim_{k\to\infty} \frac{1}{d^k}\log^+(|P^k(z)|/R) = \lim_{k\to\infty} \frac{1}{d^k}\log^+|P^k(z)|.$$ Here and elsewhere, $\log^+$ is the positive part of $\log$. Thus $g_P$ vanishes precisely on $K_P$ and hence ([@Randsford Theorem 4.4.9]) every point in $J_P$ is a Dirichlet regular boundary point of ${\Omega}_P$. Moreover, denoting the leading coefficient of $P$ by $\gamma$, $$g_P(P(z)) = d\cdot g_P(z)
\quad\textrm{and}\quad
\operatorname{Cap}(K_P) = \frac{1}{|{\gamma}|^{\frac{1}{d-1}}}.$$ When $P=P_n$, we thus have in our notation $$\label{capacityformula}
\frac{1}{{\gamma}_n^{\frac{1}{n-1}}} = \operatorname{Cap}(K_n).$$ As $$\label{infsup}
\liminf_{n\to\infty} {\gamma}_n^{\frac{1}{n-1}} = \liminf_{n\to\infty} {\gamma}_n^{\frac{1}{n}}
\quad\textrm{and}\quad
\limsup_{n\to\infty} {\gamma}_n^{\frac{1}{n-1}} = \limsup_{n\to\infty} {\gamma}_n^{\frac{1}{n}},$$ we immediately obtain, by combining with [@StahlandTotik Cor. 1.1.7, formula (1.13)],
For $\mu\in{\mathcal B}$ we have $$\label{capacitybounds}
c_\mu \leq \liminf_{n\to\infty}\;\operatorname{Cap}(K_n) \leq
\limsup_{n\to\infty}\; \operatorname{Cap}(K_n) \leq \operatorname{Cap}(K),$$ where $c_\mu$ is the minimal carrier capacity.
The examples in [@StahlandTotik Section 1.5] show that all the inequalities in can be strict. However, in this paper we only need $\liminf_{n\to\infty}\;\operatorname{Cap}(K_n)>0$, which is implied for $\mu\in{\mathcal B}_+$.
Furthermore, we have
Let $\mu\in{\mathcal B}$ and choose $R>0$ so that $K\subset {\mathbb D}(0,R)$. Then there exists $N$ such that for all $n\geq N$: $$K_n \subset P_n^{-1}(\overline{{\mathbb D}(0,R)}) \subset {\mathbb D}(0,R).$$
[*Proof.*]{} By [@StahlandTotik Theorem 1.1.4], we have $$\liminf_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{n}\log|P_n(z)| \geq g_{\Omega}(z)$$ locally uniformly on ${\mathbb C}{\setminus}\operatorname{Co}(K)$. Taking $R$ such that $K\subset {\mathbb D}(0,R)$ then $\partial {\mathbb D}(0,R)$ is a compact set disjoint from $K$ on which $g_{\Omega}$ is continuous, and hence ${\epsilon}= \inf\{g_{\Omega}(z) \,|\, |z| = R \} > 0$. By the above inequality and compactness of $\partial{\mathbb D}(0,R)$, there exists $N$ such that $$\forall\; n \geq N \; \forall\; z\in \partial {\mathbb D}(0,R) :\quad \frac{1}{n}\log|P_n(z)| \geq {\epsilon}/2.
$$ By increasing $N$ if necessary, we can suppose $\log(R) < N{\epsilon}/2$. Then since the zeros of $P_n$ are contained in $\operatorname{Co}(K) \subset {\mathbb D}(0,R)$ (by Theorem \[thm:fejer\]), the minimal modulus principle implies $$\forall\; n \geq N :\quad P_n({\mathbb C}{\setminus}{\mathbb D}(0,R)) \subset {\mathbb C}{\setminus}\overline{{\mathbb D}(0,R)}.
$$ Thus, by , $$\forall\; n \geq N :\quad K_n\subset P_n^{-1}(\overline{{\mathbb D}(0,R)}) \subset {\mathbb D}(0,R)
$$ and this completes the proof. $\square$
\[THMlogPnvsgn\] Let $\mu\in{\mathcal B}_+$. Then there exists $N\in{\mathbb N}$ and $M>0$ such that $$\label{logPnvsgnformula}
\forall\; n\geq N:\quad \Bigl\Vert \,g_n(z) - \frac{1}{n}\log^+|P_n(z)|\, \Bigr\Vert_\infty \leq \frac{M}{n}.$$
Proposition \[THMlogPnvsgn\] plays a key role in the proofs of our main results. It links the Green’s functions $g_n$ for ${\Omega}_n$ to the potentials $\frac{1}{n}\log|P_n(z)|$ or rather to the Green’s functions $\frac{1}{n}\log^+|P_n(z)|$ of the set $\{z \,|\, |P_n(z)| > 1\}$. The literature on orthogonal polynomials, and [@StahlandTotik] in particular, does not seem to study the latter Green’s function in connection with orthogonal polynomials, though this restriction of $\frac{1}{n}\log|P_n(z)|$ is quite natural. For instance, the equilibrium measure ${\Delta}(\frac{1}{n}\log^+|P_n(z)|)$ on $\{z \,|\, |P_n(z)| = 1\}$ is the balayage in $\{z \,|\, |P_n(z)| < 1\}$ of the purely atomic measure ${\Delta}(\frac{1}{n}\log|P_n(z)|)$ with an atom of weight $\frac{1}{n}$ at each root of $P_n$ (counting multiplicities).
[*Proof of Proposition \[THMlogPnvsgn\].*]{} By –, we have $${\mathcal B}_+ = \{\mu\in{\mathcal B}\,|\, \displaystyle{\liminf_{n\to\infty}}\,\operatorname{Cap}(K_n) >0 \}.$$ Hence $c:=\displaystyle{\liminf_{n\to\infty}\; \operatorname{Cap}(K_n)} > 0$ and we can choose $R' >1$ such that $K\subset{\mathbb D}(0,R')$. Further, let $R = 2R'$, $c' = c/2$ and choose $N$ so that $$\forall\; n \geq N :\quad K_n\subset P_n^{-1}(\overline{{\mathbb D}(0,R')}) \subset{\mathbb D}(0,R')
\quad\textrm{and}\quad R'\geq \operatorname{Cap}(K_n) > c'.
$$ The Green’s functions $g_n$ can be written as $$g_n(z) = \log|z| - \log\operatorname{Cap}(K_n) + \int \log|1-w/z| \,d{\omega}_n(w),$$ where ${\omega}_n$ is harmonic measure from $\infty$. Writing $$M' = \max\{\log R', -\log c'\} + \log 2 \; \mbox{ and } \; M = 3M',$$ we find $$\forall\; n\geq N \; \forall\; z, |z| \geq R: \quad \bigl| g_n(z) - \log|z| \bigr|
< M'.
\quad$$ For each $n$, denote by $A_n$ the set $\{z \,|\, |P_n(z)| < R\}$. Then for each $n\geq N$ and all $z\in{\mathbb C}{\setminus}A_n$, we have $|P_n(z)| \geq R$ so that $\log^+|P_n(z)| = \log|P_n(z)|$ and $$\left|g_n(z) - \frac{1}{n}\log^+|P_n(z)| \right| =
\left|\frac{1}{n}g_n(P_n(z)) - \frac{1}{n}\log|P_n(z)| \right| \leq \frac{M'}{n}.$$ Moreover, for all $z\in\partial A_n$, $$\begin{aligned}
0 < g_n(z) &= \frac{1}{n}\log|P_n(z)| + \biggl(g_n(z) - \frac{1}{n}\log|P_n(z)|\biggr) \\
&< \biggl|\frac{1}{n}\log|P_n(z)| \biggr| + \left|g_n(z) - \frac{1}{n}\log|P_n(z)| \right|
< \frac{2M'}{n}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, by the maximum principle for subharmonic functions, $g_n(z) < {2M'}/{n}$ on all of $A_n$. Since $$0 \leq \frac{1}{n}\log^+|P_n(z)| \leq \frac{M'}{n}$$ on $A_n$ by construction, we have $$\left| g_n(z) - \frac{1}{n}\log^+|P_n(z)| \right| < \frac{3M'}{n} = \frac{M}{n}$$ on $A_n$ and thus on all of ${\mathbb C}$. $\square$
\(i) If $\liminf_{k\to\infty}\; \operatorname{Cap}(K_{n_k})>0$ for some subsequence $\{n_k\}$, then the proof shows that holds when $n$ is replaced by $n_k$. (ii) By , the hypothesis in the proposition is satisfied if the minimal carrier capacity is strictly positive. However, according to [@StahlandTotik Example 1.5.4], there are measures $\mu\in{\mathcal B}$ for which $0 = c_\mu < \lim_{n\to\infty}\; \operatorname{Cap}(K_{n})$.
Combining Proposition \[THMlogPnvsgn\] with [@StahlandTotik Theorem 1.1.4], we can now prove the following proposition.
\[prop:oldthmB\] For all $\mu\in{\mathcal B}_+$ we have $$\label{newSandTupperbound}
\limsup_{n\to\infty}g_n(z) \leq g_\mu(z)$$ locally uniformly in ${\mathbb C}$ and $$\label{newSandTlowerbound}
\liminf_{n\to\infty}g_n(z) \geq g_{\Omega}(z)$$ locally uniformly in ${\mathbb C}\setminus \operatorname{Co}(K)$. In $\operatorname{Co}(K)\cap{\Omega}$, the lower bound holds true only in capacity, that is, for every compact set $V\subseteq{\Omega}$ and every ${\epsilon}>0$, we have $$\label{newSandTlowerboundincapacity}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\operatorname{Cap}(\{z\in V \,|\, g_n(z) < g_{\Omega}(z) -{\epsilon}\}) = 0.$$
\(i) As with [@StahlandTotik (1.6)], the bound holds for every $\mu\in{\mathcal B}$. (ii) For a sequence of real valued functions $h_n$ on an open set $U$ and $h: U\to \mathbb R$, the relation $$\limsup_{n\to\infty} h_n(z) \leq h(z) \ \text{locally uniformly in\ } U
$$means that for every $z\in U$ and every sequence $\{z_n\}\subset U$ converging to $z$, we have $\limsup_{n\to\infty} h_n(z_n) \leq h(z)$. Similar statements hold for $\liminf$ and $\lim$.
[*Proof of Proposition \[prop:oldthmB\].*]{} If $c_\mu = 0$, then $g_\mu\equiv\infty$ and trivially holds. The relations and are straightforward translations of the relations (1.6) and (1.7) from [@StahlandTotik Theorem 1.1.4] by using Proposition \[THMlogPnvsgn\] and noting that for any ${\epsilon}>0$, $$\frac{1}{n}\log|P_n(z)| \leq g_\mu(z)+{\epsilon}\; \implies \; \frac{1}{n}\log^+|P_n(z)| \leq g_\mu(z)+{\epsilon}.$$ This implication holds by definition of $\log^+$, since $g_\mu(z) \geq 0$. For , let ${\epsilon}>0$ be given and choose according to Proposition \[THMlogPnvsgn\] an $N$ such that $$\forall n\geq N \; \forall z\in \mathbb C: \quad
\left|g_n(z) - \frac{1}{n}\log^+|P_n(z)| \right| < {\epsilon}/2.$$ Then for $n\geq N$, we have $$g_n(z)+{\epsilon}\geq \frac{1}{n}\log^+|P_n(z)| +{\epsilon}/2 \geq \frac{1}{n}\log|P_n(z)| + {\epsilon}/2$$ so that $g_n(z) < g_{\Omega}(z) - {\epsilon}$ implies $\frac{1}{n}\log|P_n(z)| < g_{\Omega}(z) - {\epsilon}/2$. Hence, $$|P_n(z)|^{\frac{1}{n}} \leq e^{g_{\Omega}(z) - {\epsilon}/2} = e^{g_{\Omega}(z)} -(1 - e^{-{\epsilon}/2})e^{g_{\Omega}(z)}
\leq e^{g_{\Omega}(z)} -(1 - e^{-{\epsilon}/2}),$$ recalling that $g_{\Omega}(z)\geq 0$. Thus, with ${\epsilon}' := (1 - e^{-{\epsilon}/2}) > 0$ and $V\subset {\Omega}$ a compact subset, we have $$\{z\in V \,|\, g_n(z) < g_{\Omega}(z) - {\epsilon}\} \subseteq
\{z \in V \,|\, |P_n(z)|^{\frac{1}{n}} < e^{g_{\Omega}(z)} - {\epsilon}' \}$$ and applies. $\square$
Relating the sequences $K_n$, $J_n$ to $K$ and $J$ {#NearlyHaussdorfconv}
==================================================
\[sec:3\] This section contains the proof of Theorem \[THMlimsupliminf\]. We shall equip the space of non-empty compact subsets of ${\mathbb C}$ with the Hausdorff distance, which is the natural choice in dynamical systems (see, e.g., [@Douady]). We begin by briefly recalling the main definitions and then characterize $\liminf$ and $\limsup$ in this setup.
Let ${\mathcal K}$ denote the set of non-empty compact subsets of ${\mathbb C}$. For $L, M \in {\mathcal K}$, we define the Hausdorff semi-distance from $L$ to $M$ by $${\ensuremath{{\operatorname{d_H}}}}(L, M) := \sup\{{\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}}}(z, M) \,|\, z\in L\}
= \sup_{z\in L}\;\inf_{w\in M}\; |z-w|$$ and the Hausdorff distance between the two sets as $${\ensuremath{{\operatorname{D_H}}}}(L, M) := \max\{{\ensuremath{{\operatorname{d_H}}}}(L, M), {\ensuremath{{\operatorname{d_H}}}}(M, L)\}.$$ The Hausdorff distance is a metric on the space ${\mathcal K}$ of compact subsets. When $\{K_n\}\subset{\mathcal K}$ is a bounded sequence of compact sets (i.e., a sequence for which there exists $R>0$ such that $K_n\subset{\mathbb D}(0,R)$ for all $n$), we define the symbols $$\begin{aligned}
\liminf_{n\to\infty} K_n &:= \{ z\in{\mathbb C}\,|\,
\exists \, \{z_n\},\, K_n\ni z_n \underset{n\to\infty}\longrightarrow z\},\\ \limsup_{n\to\infty} K_n &:= \{ z\in{\mathbb C}\,|\, \exists \, \{n_k\}, \, n_k\nearrow \infty
\textrm{ and }
\exists \, \{z_{n_k}\}, \, K_{n_k}\ni z_{n_k} \underset{k\to\infty}\longrightarrow z\}.\end{aligned}$$ Clearly, $\liminf_{n\to\infty} K_n\subseteq \limsup_{n\to\infty} K_n$ and by Lemma \[liminfandlimsupcompact\], the sets $$I= \displaystyle{\liminf_{n\to\infty} K_n, \quad S=\limsup_{n\to\infty} K_n}$$ are compact. The set $I$ may be empty whereas $S$ is always non-empty. Moreover, to illustrate that $({\mathcal K}, {\ensuremath{{\operatorname{D_H}}}})$ is a nice metric space, let us remark that it can be shown that $I$ is either empty or it is the largest compact set for which $$\displaystyle{\lim_{n\to\infty}}{\ensuremath{{\operatorname{d_H}}}}(I,K_n) = 0.$$ Likewise, $S$ is the smallest compact set for which $$\displaystyle{\lim_{n\to\infty}}{\ensuremath{{\operatorname{d_H}}}}(K_n,S) = 0.$$ Thus, $I = S$ if and only the sequence $\{K_n\}$ is convergent to the common value $I = S$. If the sequence $\{K_n\}$ is Cauchy, then the equality $I = S$ easily follows and this shows that ${\mathcal K}$ is a complete metric space. Also, the above statements serve to explain the names $\liminf$ and $\limsup$.
\[liminfandlimsupcompact\] Let $\{K_n\}$ be a bounded sequence from ${\mathcal K}$. The complements of $I= \displaystyle{\liminf_{n\to\infty}}\, K_n$ and $S = \displaystyle{\limsup_{n\to\infty}}\, K_n$ are open and characterized by $$\label{eq:lemma-liminf}
z_0\in{\mathbb C}{\setminus}I \; \Longleftrightarrow \; \exists\;{\delta}_0>0\;
\exists\, \{n_k\},\, n_k\nearrow \infty\textrm{ s.t. }\; \forall\; k: \,
{\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}}}(z_0, K_{n_k}) > {\delta}_0$$ and $$\label{eq:lemma-limsup}
z_0\in {\mathbb C}{\setminus}S \; \Longleftrightarrow \; \exists\;{\delta}_0>0\; \exists\; N\textrm{ s.t. }\;
\forall n\geq N: \, {\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}}}(z_0, K_n) > {\delta}_0.$$ As a consequence, both $I$ and $S$ are compact.
[*Proof.*]{} The implication “$\Leftarrow$” in is trivial. For the reverse implication, let $z_0\in{\mathbb C}$ and suppose the right hand side is false. Then $$\forall {\delta}>0\;\exists\; N\textrm{ s.t. }\;\forall\;n\geq N : \, {\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}}}(z_0, K_n) \leq {\delta}.$$For each $n$, let $z_n\in K_n$ be a point with $|z_n-z_0| = {\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}}}(z_0, K_n)$. Then $K_n\ni z_n\to z_0$ which shows that $z_0\in I$.
The implication “$\Leftarrow$” in is also trivial. For the reverse implication, take an arbitrary $z_0\in{\mathbb C}$ and assume the right hand side is false. Then for any ${\delta}>0$ there are infinitely many values of $n$ for which ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}}}(z_0, K_n) \leq {\delta}$. Thus we may construct an increasing sequence $\{n_k\}$ of integers such that ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}}}(z_0, K_{n_k}) \leq 1/k$, say. Take as above, for each $k$, a point $z_k\in K_{n_k}$ with $|z_k - z_0| = {\ensuremath{\operatorname{d}}}(z_0, K_{n_k}) \leq 1/k$. Hence $z_0\in S$.
Openness of ${\mathbb C}{\setminus}I$ and of ${\mathbb C}{\setminus}S$ follow from the relations and . Thus $I$ and $S$ are both closed, and also bounded. $\square$
After these preliminaries we are ready to prove Theorem \[THMlimsupliminf\].
[*Proof of Theorem \[THMlimsupliminf\](i).*]{} Since $z\in K_n$ if and only if $g_n(z) = 0$ and since $g_{\Omega}(z)>0$ on ${\Omega}= {\mathbb C}{\setminus}K$, the inclusion $$\limsup_{n\to\infty} K_n \subseteq \operatorname{Co}(K)$$ follows immediately from and Lemma \[liminfandlimsupcompact\]. Next, choose $R>0$ so large that $K_n \subset {\mathbb D}(0,R)$ for all $n\geq 2$. For given ${\epsilon}>0$ we obtain from that $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\operatorname{Cap}(\{z\in V_{\epsilon}\cap\overline{{\mathbb D}(0,R)} \,|\,
g_n(z) < g_{\Omega}(z) - {\epsilon}/2\}) = 0,$$ where $V_{{\epsilon}}=\{z\in {\mathbb C}\, | \, g_{{\Omega}}(z)\geq {\epsilon}\}$. Since $g_n(z) = 0$ on $K_n$, we deduce that $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\operatorname{Cap}(V_{\epsilon}\cap K_n) = 0$$ and the proof is complete. $\square$
[*Proof of Theorem \[THMlimsupliminf\](ii).*]{} Since the right hand side of the relation is closed, it suffices to prove that $J{\setminus}E_\mu \subseteq \displaystyle{\liminf_{n\to\infty}}\; J_n$. Suppose to the contrary that there exists $z_0\in J{\setminus}E_\mu$ which does *not* belong to $\displaystyle{\liminf_{n\to\infty}}\; J_n$. Then $g_\mu(z_0) = 0$ and according to Lemma \[liminfandlimsupcompact\], $$\label{Jdedisjoint}
\exists\;{\delta}>0 \;
\exists \, \{n_k\}, \, n_k\nearrow \infty \, \textrm{ s.t. } \; \forall\; k : \,
{\mathbb D}(z_0, {\delta})\cap J_{n_k} = \emptyset.$$ Since $z_0\in J$, there exists $w_0\in{\mathbb D}(z_0, {\delta}/4)\cap{\Omega}$. Choose $r \leq {\delta}/4$ such that $\overline{{\mathbb D}(w_0, r)}\subset{\Omega}$. Let $2{\epsilon}= g_{\Omega}(w_0)>0$ and define $$L := \{ w \in \overline{{\mathbb D}(w_0, r)}\; |\; g_{\Omega}(w) \geq 2{\epsilon}\}.$$ Let $L_0$ denote the connected component of $L$ containing $w_0$. Since $g_{\Omega}$ is subharmonic, it has no local maxima. It follows that $L_0\subset{\Omega}\cap\overline{{\mathbb D}(z_0, {\delta}/2)}$ is a non-trivial compact continuum and hence $\operatorname{Cap}(L_0)>0$. Thus, by there exists $N$ such that $$\forall\;k\geq N : \; \operatorname{Cap}(\{z\in L_0| g_{n_k}(z) \leq g_{\Omega}(z) -{\epsilon}\}) < \operatorname{Cap}(L_0).$$ Since $g_{\Omega}(z)\geq 2{\epsilon}$ on $L_0$, it follows that $$\forall\;k\geq N \; \exists\; z_k\in L_0 \, \textrm{ s.t. } g_{n_k}(z_k) \geq {\epsilon}.$$ Combining with , we find that ${\mathbb D}(z_0,{\delta})\subset{\Omega}_{n_k}$ for $k\geq N$. By applying Harnacks inequality, we obtain $$g_{n_k}(z_0) \geq g_{n_k}(z_k)\frac{1-1/2}{1+1/2} \geq {\epsilon}/3 >0.$$ On the other hand, by , $$\limsup_{k\to\infty} g_{n_k}(z_0) \leq g_\mu(z_0) = 0,$$ which is a contradiction. $\square$
Results for $n$-th root regular measures {#sec:4}
========================================
In this section, we specialize the general results of the previous sections to the important class of regular measures. According to Stahl and Totik, a measure $\mu\in {\mathcal B}$ is $n$th-root regular, in short $\mu\in{\ensuremath{{\mathrm{Reg}}}}$, if $$\label{regdef}
\lim_{n\to\infty} {\textstyle\frac{1}{n}}\log|P_n(z)| = g_{\Omega}(z)$$ locally uniformly for $z\in{\mathbb C}{\setminus}\operatorname{Co}(K)$. In particular, we see that ${\ensuremath{{\mathrm{Reg}}}}\subset{\mathcal B}_+$. Note that is equivalent to [@StahlandTotik Theorem 3.2.1, formula (2.1)] $$\label{SandTregbound}
\limsup_{n\to\infty}|P_n(z)|^{1/n} \leq e^{g_{\Omega}(z)}$$ locally uniformly in ${\mathbb C}$.
A prime example of $\mu\in{\ensuremath{{\mathrm{Reg}}}}$ is the equilibrium measure for the boundary $J$ of a full compact non-polar subset $K$ or, equivalently, the harmonic measure on ${\mathbb C}{\setminus}K$ viewed from infinity. This follows immediately from Erd[ö]{}s-Tur[á]{}n’s theorem, see [@StahlandTotik Theorem 4.1.1].
Combining – with Proposition \[THMlogPnvsgn\], we have as an immediate corollary
\[cor eq\] The following statements are equivalent:
(i) $\mu\in{\ensuremath{{\mathrm{Reg}}}}$,
(ii) $\displaystyle{\lim_{n\to\infty} g_n(z) = g_{\Omega}(z)}$ locally uniformly for $z\in{\mathbb C}{\setminus}\operatorname{Co}(K)$,
(iii) $\displaystyle{\limsup_{n\to\infty} g_n(z) \leq g_{\Omega}(z)}$ locally uniformly on ${\mathbb C}$,
(iv) $\mu\in{\mathcal B}_+$ and $\displaystyle{\lim_{n\to\infty} g_n(z) = 0}$ qu. e. on $J$.
Proceeding as in the proof of Theorem \[THMlimsupliminf\](ii), but using Corollary \[cor eq\](iii) instead of , we obtain a stronger result (compare also with Theorem \[THMlimsupliminf\](i)).
\[RegJalmostinliminfofJn\] Suppose $\mu\in{\ensuremath{{\mathrm{Reg}}}}$. Then $$\overline{J{\setminus}E} \subseteq \liminf_{n\to\infty} J_n,$$ where $E$ denotes the ($F_\sigma$ and polar) exceptional set for the Green’s function $g_{\Omega}$. In particular, if $J$ is Dirichlet regular, then $$\label{eq:special-case}
J\subseteq \liminf_{n\to\infty} J_n.$$
In the convex case we note the following proposition.
\[convex\] If $\mu\in{\ensuremath{{\mathrm{Reg}}}}$ and $K = \operatorname{Co}(K)$, then $$J \subseteq \liminf_{n\to\infty} K_n \subseteq
\limsup _{n\to\infty} K_n \subseteq K.$$
[*Proof.*]{} For a compact convex set $K$, every boundary point is Dirichlet regular. Moreover, $J_n\subset K_n$ so that the first inclusion follows from . The latter follows from Theorem \[THMlimsupliminf\](i). $\square$
For any compact convex subset $K$ and any ${\epsilon}>0$, there exists a polynomial $P_n$ (of high degree $n$) with $$D(\partial K, K_n) < {\epsilon}\; \textrm{ and } \; D(K_n, K) < {\epsilon}.$$
It has recently been shown that a general compact connected subset $K\subset{\mathbb C}$ can be approximated arbitrarily well in the Hausdorff topology by (filled) Julia sets of polynomials, see Lindsay [@Lindsay] and Bishop–Pilgrim [@BishopandPilgrim]. Theorem \[THMlimsupliminf\](i), Corollary \[RegJalmostinliminfofJn\], and Proposition \[convex\] of this paper deal with approximation of general compact sets $K\subset{\mathbb C}$ by the (filled) Julia sets of orthogonal polynomials for probability measures supported on $\partial K$. These results can be viewed as a complement to the results of [@Lindsay; @BishopandPilgrim] in the connected case and an extension in the general case. At the same time, our results are statements about the dynamical behaviour of orthogonal polynomials.
We cannot expect that $$\limsup_{n\to\infty} K_n \subseteq K$$ for general non-convex sets $K$. To see this, suppose $K\subset {\mathbb C}$ is any full compact subset of ${\mathbb C}$ with $K = -K$ (i.e., $z\mapsto -z$ is an involution of $K$) and let ${\omega}$ denote the equilibrium measure on $J = \partial K$. Then the corresponding orthonormal polynomials $P_n$ are even for $n$ even and odd for $n$ odd. In particular, $0$ is a fixed point of each $P_{2n+1}$, $n\geq 0$, and so $0\in K_{2n+1}$. This implies that $0 \in \limsup_{n\to\infty} K_n$. However, we may choose $K$ as above with $0\notin K$. Note that $K$ cannot be connected in this case.
The orthogonal polynomials for the measure of maximal entropy of a polynomial {#sec:5}
=============================================================================
Our main results apply to measures $\mu\in{\mathcal B}_+$ or $\mu\in{\ensuremath{{\mathrm{Reg}}}}$. A natural way of generating non-trivial examples of such measures is to take a monic polynomial $Q$ of degree $d\geq 2$ and construct the unique balanced invariant measure ${\omega}$ for $Q$ (see, e.g., [@Brolin]). This measure is known to coincide with the (unique) measure of maximal entropy for $Q$ (see [@Lyubich]) and is in fact the equilibrium measure of $J_Q$, the Julia set of $Q$. Note that, with $K_Q$ the filled Julia set of $Q$, we have $$\operatorname{Cap}(J_Q)=\operatorname{Cap}(K_Q)=1.$$
The orthogonal polynomials associated with $\omega$ (as above) were studied in a series of papers of Barnsley et al. One of their basic results reads:
\[BanGerHar\] Let $Q(z) = z^d + az^{d-1} + \cdots$ be a polynomial of degree $\geq 2$ and let ${\omega}$ denote the unique measure of maximal entropy for $Q$. Then the monic orthogonal polynomials $\{p_n\}$ with respect to ${\omega}$ satisfy
1. $p_1(z) = z + a/d$,
2. $\forall k\in{\mathbb N}$ : $p_{kd}(z) = p_k(Q(z))$,
3. $\forall k\in{\mathbb N}$ : $p_{d^k}(z) = p_1(Q^k(z)) = Q^k(z) + a/d$.
The last part of this theorem in particular shows that if $Q$ is centered (i.e., $a=0$), then the iterates of $Q$ fit neatly into the sequence of monic orthogonal polynomials. To be specific, $$Q^k=p_{d^k} \; \mbox{ for all $k\geq 0$}.$$ A natural question in this context is: Are the remaining orthogonal polynomials dynamically related to $Q$? As a corollary of Theorem \[THMlimsupliminf\] we obtain the following answer to this question:
In the setting of Theorem \[BanGerHar\], let $J_n$ and $K_n$ be the Julia set, resp. filled Julia set, of the orthonormal polynomial $P_n={\gamma}_np_n$. Then $$J_Q \subseteq \liminf_{n\to\infty} J_n \subseteq \limsup_{n\to\infty} K_n \subseteq \operatorname{Co}(K_Q).$$ Moreover, for any ${\epsilon}>0$ and $V_{\epsilon}:= \{z\in {\mathbb C}\,|\, g_{\Omega}(z) \geq {\epsilon}\}$, $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\operatorname{Cap}(V_{\epsilon}\cap K_n) = 0.$$
[*Proof.*]{} Since ${\omega}\in{\ensuremath{{\mathrm{Reg}}}}$ and $J_Q$ is Dirichlet regular, this follows from Corollary \[RegJalmostinliminfofJn\] and Theorem \[THMlimsupliminf\]. $\square$
\[references\] C. J. Bishop and K. M. Pilgrim, *Dynamical dessins are dense*. Rev. Mat. Iberoam. 31 (2015), no. 3, 1033–1040.
H. Brolin, *Invariant sets under iteration of rational functions*. Arkiv för Math. Band 6 nr 6 (1965), [103–144]{}.
M. F. Barnsley, J. S. Geronimo, and A. N. Harrington, *Orthogonal polynomials associated with invariant measures on Julia sets.* Bulletin of the AMS (new series) Vol [**7**]{} No 2 1982, [381–384]{}.
M. F. Barnsley, J. S. Geronimo, and A. N. Harrington, *Geometry, electrostatic measure and orthogonal polynomials on Julia sets for polynomials.* Ergod. Th. & Dynam. Sys. [**3**]{} (1983), [509–520]{}.
A. Douady, *Does a Julia set depend continuously on the polynomial?* Complex dynamical systems (Cincinnati, OH, 1994) Proc. Sympos. Appl. Math., vol. 49, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1994, 91–138. L. Fej[é]{}r, *[Ü]{}ber die Lage der Nullstellen von Polynomen, die aus Minimumforderungen gewisser Art entspringen*. Math. Ann. [**85**]{} (1922), 41–48.
K. A. Lindsay, *Shapes of polynomial Julia sets*. Ergod. Th. & Dynam. Sys. [**35**]{} (2014), 1913–1924.
M. Lyubich, *Entropy properties of rational endomorphisms of the Riemann sphere.* Ergod. Th. & Dynam. Sys. [**3**]{} (1983), pp. [351–385]{}.
H. Stahl and V. Totik, *General Orthogonal Polynomials*. Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, Cambridge University Press, 1992.
T. Ransford, *Potential Theory in the Complex Plane*. London Mathematical Society Student Texts 28, Cambridge Uinversity Press 1995.
Jacob Stordal Christiansen, Lund University, Centre for Mathematical Sciences, Box 118, 22100 Lund, Sweden\
`[email protected]`
Christian Henriksen, DTU Compute, Technical University of Denmark, Build. 303B, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark\
`[email protected]` Henrik Laurberg Pedersen, Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 5, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark\
`[email protected]` Carsten Lunde Petersen, Department of Science and Environment, Roskilde University, 4000 Roskilde, Denmark\
`[email protected]`
[^1]: The authors would like to thank the Danish Council for Independent Research $|$ Natural Sciences for support via the grant DFF – 4181-00502. The last author would also like to thank the Institute of Mathematical Sciences of Stony Brook University for support and hosting during the writings of the paper.
|
---
abstract: |
Let $p$ be an odd prime and $r\geq 1$. Suppose that $\alpha$ is a $p$-adic integer with $\alpha\equiv2a\pmod p$ for some $1\leq a<(p+r)/(2r+1)$. We confirm a conjecture of Sun and prove that $${}_{2r+1}F_{2r}\bigg[\begin{matrix}\alpha&\alpha&\ldots&\alpha\\
&1&\ldots&1\end{matrix}\bigg|\,1\bigg]_{p-1}\equiv0\pmod{p^2},$$ where the truncated hypergeometric series $${}_{q+1}F_{q}\bigg[\begin{matrix}x_0&x_1&\ldots&x_{q}\\
&y_1&\ldots&y_q\end{matrix}\bigg|\,z\bigg]_{n}:=\sum_{k=0}^n\frac{(x_0)_k(x_1)_k\cdots(x_q)_k}{(y_1)_k\cdot (y_q)_k}\cdot\frac{z^k}{k!}.$$
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, People’s Republic of China'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, People’s Republic of China'
author:
- 'Guo-Shuai Mao'
- Hao Pan
title: On the divisibility of some truncated hypergeometric series
---
Introduction
============
For an odd prime $p$, let $\Z_p$ denote the ring of all $p$-adic integers. In [@SunZW12 Theorem 1.3 (i)], Sun proved that if $x\in\Z_p$ and $x\equiv -2a\pmod p$ for some $1\leq a\leq (p-1)/3$, then $$\label{Sunr3}
\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}(-1)^k\binom{x}{k}^3\equiv 0\pmod{p^3}.$$ Motivated by (\[Sunr3\]), Sun conjectured [@SunZW12 Conjecture 4.4] that for any integer $r\geq 2$ and odd prime $p$, if $x\in\Z_p$ and $x\equiv -2a\pmod p$ for some $1\leq a\leq (p+1)/(2r+1)$, then $$\label{SunConj}
\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}(-1)^k\binom{x}{k}^{2r+1}\equiv 0\pmod{p^2}.$$
Define the truncated hypergeometric series $${}_{r+1}F_{r}\bigg[\begin{matrix}x_0&x_1&\ldots&x_{r}\\
&y_1&\ldots&y_r\end{matrix}\bigg|\,z\bigg]_{n}=\sum_{k=0}^n\frac{(x_0)_k(x_1)_k\cdots(x_r)_k}{(y_1)_k\cdot (y_r)_k}\cdot\frac{z^k}{k!},$$ where $$(x)_k=\begin{cases}
x(x+1)\cdots(x+k-1),&\text{if }k\geq 1,\\
1,&\text{if }k=0.
\end{cases}$$ In fact, the truncated hypergeometric series is just the sum of the first finite terms of the original hypergeometric series. In the recent years, the arithmetic properties of the truncated hypergeometric series have been widely investigated (cf. [@AhOn00; @DFLST16; @He17; @Liu17; @LoRa16; @Mo04; @Mo05; @OsSc09; @OsStZu; @SunZH13; @SunZW13; @Ta12]). Note that $$\binom{x}{k}=(-1)^k\cdot\frac{(-x)_k}{(1)_k}
.$$ Clearly the left side of (\[SunConj\]) coincides with $${}_{2r+1}F_{2r}\bigg[\begin{matrix}-x&-x&\ldots&-x\\
&1&\ldots&1\end{matrix}\bigg|\,1\bigg]_{p-1}.$$
In this short note, we shall give an affirmative answer to Sun’s conjecture.
\[main\] Let $p$ be an odd prime and $r\geq 1$. Suppose that $\alpha\in\Z_p$ and $\alpha\equiv 2a\pmod p$ for some $1\leq a<(p+r)/(2r+1)$. Then $$\label{SunTH}
{}_{2r+1}F_{2r}\bigg[\begin{matrix}\alpha&\alpha&\ldots&\alpha\\
&1&\ldots&1\end{matrix}\bigg|\,1\bigg]_{p-1}\equiv 0\pmod{p^2}.$$
Notice that the permitted range of $\alpha$ in Theorem \[main\] is a little larger than the one conjectured by Sun.
Furthermore, we mention that Theorem \[main\] (or just (\[Sunr3\])) also implies another conjecture of Sun. In [@SunZW11 Remark 1.2], Sun conjectured that for any prime $p$ with $p\equiv1\pmod{4}$, $$\label{SunConjCat}
\sum_{k=0}^{\frac{1}2(p-1)}\frac{C_k^{3}}{64^{k}}\equiv8\pmod{p^2},$$ where $$C_k:=\frac1{k+1}\binom{2k}{k}$$ is the $k$-th Catalan number. It is easy to check that $$\frac{C_k}{4^k}=\frac{1}{k+1}\cdot\frac{(\frac12)_k}{(1)_k}=-2\cdot\frac{(-\frac12)_{k+1}}{(1)_{k+1}}.$$ We also have $C_k\equiv 0\pmod{p}$ for each $(p+1)/2\leq k\leq p-2$. So (\[SunConjCat\]) is actually equivalent to $$\label{3F212}
\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\frac{(-\frac12)_k^3}{(1)_k^3}\equiv 0\pmod{p^2}.$$ When $p\equiv 1\pmod{4}$, $$-\frac12\equiv\frac{p-1}{2}=2\cdot\frac{p-1}{4}\pmod{p}.$$ Thus since $(p-1)/4<(p+1)/3$, (\[3F212\]) immediately follows from Theorem \[main\] by setting $\alpha=-1/2$ and $r=1$.
Our proof of Theorem \[main\], which will be given in the subsequent section, follows a similar way in [@MP]. We shall construct a polynomial $\psi(x)\in\Z_p[x]$ with $\psi(p)=0$ such that $${}_{2r+1}F_{2r}\bigg[\begin{matrix}\alpha&\alpha&\ldots&\alpha\\
&1&\ldots&1\end{matrix}\bigg|\,1\bigg]_{p-1}=\psi(sp)$$ for some $s\in\Z_p$. Then the proof of (\[SunTH\]) can be easily reduced to show that $\psi'(0)$ is divisible by $p$.
Proof of Theorem \[main\]
=========================
First, let us introduce several auxiliary lemmas.
\[KM\] Let $m_1,\ldots,m_r$ be non-negative integers and $a$ be a positive integer. If $a>m_1+\ldots+m_r$, then $$\label{KMe}
{}_{r+1}F_{r}\bigg[\begin{matrix}-a&1+m_1&\ldots&1+m_r\\
&1&\ldots&1\end{matrix}\bigg|\,1\bigg]=0.$$
This is a consequence of the Karlsson-Minton formula [@Ka71 (12)].
\[r1Frm1\] Suppose that $m$ is a positive odd integer and $r\geq 0$ is even. Then $$\label{r1Frm1e}
{}_{r+1}F_{r}\bigg[\begin{matrix}-m&-m&\ldots&-m\\
&1&\ldots&1\end{matrix}\bigg|\,1\bigg]=0.$$
We have $${}_{r+1}F_{r}\bigg[\begin{matrix}-m&-m&\ldots&-m\\
&1&\ldots&1\end{matrix}\bigg|\,1\bigg]=\sum_{k=0}^m\frac{(-m)_k^{r+1}}{(1)_k^{r+1}}=
\sum_{k=0}^m(-1)^k\binom{m}{k}^{r+1}.$$ Then (\[r1Frm1e\]) follows from the fact $$\sum_{k=0}^m(-1)^k\binom{m}{k}^{r+1}=\sum_{k=0}^m(-1)^{m-k}\binom{m}{m-k}^{r+1}=
-\sum_{k=0}^m(-1)^{k}\binom{m}{k}^{r+1}.$$
Define the $n$-th harmonic number $$H_n:=\sum_{k=1}^n\frac1k.$$ In particular, we set $H_0=0$.
\[2a2r1HkH2ak1\] Suppose that $p$ is an odd prime and $0\leq a<p/2$ is an integer. Then for any $r\geq 0$, $$\sum_{k=0}^{p-2a}\frac{(2a)_k^{2r+1}}{(1)_k^{2r+1}}\cdot H_k\equiv
-\sum_{k=0}^{p-2a}\frac{(2a)_k^{2r+1}}{(1)_k^{2r+1}}\cdot H_{2a+k-1}\pmod{p}.$$
Clearly $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=0}^{p-2a}\frac{(2a)_k^{2r+1}}{(1)_k^{2r+1}}\cdot H_k\equiv&
\sum_{k=0}^{p-2a}\frac{(2a-p)_k^{2r+1}}{(1)_k^{2r+1}}\cdot H_k
=\sum_{k=0}^{p-2a}(-1)^kH_k\binom{p-2a}k^{2r+1}\\
=&\sum_{k=0}^{p-2a}(-1)^{p-2a-k}H_{p-2a-k}\binom{p-2a}{p-2a-k}^{2r+1}\\
\equiv&-\sum_{k=0}^{p-2a}(-1)^{k}H_{2a+k-1}\binom{p-2a}{k}^{2r+1}\pmod{p},\end{aligned}$$ where in the last step we use the well-known fact $$H_{k}\equiv H_{p-1-k}\pmod{p}$$ for any $0\leq k\leq p-1$.
Now we are ready to prove Theorem \[main\]. Let $$\psi(x)={}_{2r+1}F_{2r}\bigg[\begin{matrix}2a-x&2a-x&\ldots&2a-x\\
&1&\ldots&1\end{matrix}\bigg|\,1\bigg]_{p-1}.$$ Then by Lemma \[r1Frm1\], $$\psi(p)={}_{2r+1}F_{2r}\bigg[\begin{matrix}2a-p&2a-p&\ldots&2a-p\\
&1&\ldots&1\end{matrix}\bigg|\,1\bigg]=0.$$ Furthermore, for any integers $s_0,s_1,\ldots,s_r,t_1,\ldots,t_r$, evidently we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2r1F2rstp}
&{}_{2r+1}F_{2r}\bigg[\begin{matrix}2a-s_0p&2a-s_1p&\ldots&2a-s_rp\\
&1+t_1p&\ldots&1+t_rp\end{matrix}\bigg|\,1\bigg]_{p-1}\notag\\
\equiv&
{}_{2r+1}F_{2r}\bigg[\begin{matrix}2a-p&2a-p&\ldots&2a-p\\
&1&\ldots&1\end{matrix}\bigg|\,1\bigg]_{p-1}=0\pmod{p}.\end{aligned}$$
Let $s=(2a-\alpha)/p$. By the Taylor expansion of $\psi(x)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{}_{2r+1}F_{2r}\bigg[\begin{matrix}\alpha&\alpha&\ldots&\alpha\\
&1&\ldots&1\end{matrix}\bigg|\,1\bigg]_{p-1}=\psi(sp)\equiv&\psi(p)+(s-1)p\cdot\psi'(p)\\
\equiv&(s-1)p\cdot\psi'(0)\pmod{p^2}.\end{aligned}$$ It suffices to show that $\psi'(0)$ is divisible by $p$. Let$$\phi(x)={}_{2r+1}F_{2r}\bigg[\begin{matrix}2a-x&2a&\ldots&2a\\
&1&\ldots&1\end{matrix}\bigg|\,1\bigg]_{p-1}.$$ Then $$\label{psi2r1phi}
\psi'(x)=(2r+1)\phi'(x).$$ If $2r+1\equiv 0\pmod{p}$, clearly $\psi'(0)\equiv 0\pmod{p}$. So we may assume that $2r+1$ is not divisible by $p$. Below we only need to prove that $$\phi'(0)\equiv0\pmod{p}.$$
Our strategy is to compute $\phi'(0)$ modulo $p$ in two different ways. One way is simple. Clearly $$\label{difffactoral}
\frac{d((m-x)_k)}{dx}\bigg|_{x=0}=-(m)_k\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}\frac1{m+i}=(m)_k(H_{m-1}-H_{m+k-1})$$ for any positive integer $m$. So we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{phi0p}
\phi'(0)=&\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\frac{(2a)_k^{2r}}{(1)_k^{2r+1}}\cdot\frac{d((2a-x)_k)}{dx}\bigg|_{x=0}\notag\\
=&\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\frac{(2a)_k^{2r+1}}{(1)_k^{2r+1}}\cdot(H_{2a-1}-H_{2a+k-1})\notag\\
\equiv&-\sum_{k=0}^{p-2a}\frac{(2a)_k^{2r+1}}{(1)_k^{2r+1}}\cdot H_{2a+k-1}\pmod p,\end{aligned}$$ by noting that $p$ divides $(2a)_k$ for $2a+1\leq k\leq p-1$.
However, the other way is a little complicated. According to Lemma \[KM\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{phi2psum}
\phi(2p)=&{}_{2r+1}F_{2r}\bigg[\begin{matrix}2a-2p&2a&\ldots&2a\\
&1&\ldots&1\end{matrix}\bigg|\,1\bigg]_{p-1}\notag\\
=&{}_{2r+1}F_{2r}\bigg[\begin{matrix}2a-2p&2a&\ldots&2a\\
&1&\ldots&1\end{matrix}\bigg|\,1\bigg]-\sum_{k=0}^{p-2a}\frac{(2a-2p)_{p+k}(2a)_{p+k}^{2r}}{(1)_{p+k}^{2r+1}}\notag\\
=&-\sum_{k=0}^{p-2a}\frac{(2a-2p)_{p+k}(2a)_{p+k}^{2r}}{(1)_{p+k}^{2r+1}},\end{aligned}$$ since $
2p-2a>2r(2a-1)
$ now. It is easy to check that $$\frac{(2a-2p)_p(2a)_p^{2r}}{(1)_p^{2r+1}}\equiv-1\pmod{p}.$$ Then we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2a2p2a1pk}
\sum_{k=0}^{p-2a}\frac{(2a-2p)_{p+k}(2a)_{p+k}^{2r}}{(1)_{p+k}^{2r+1}}=&
\frac{(2a-2p)_p(2a)_p^{2r}}{(1)_p^{2r+1}}\sum_{k=0}^{p-2a}\frac{(2a-p)_{k}(2a+p)_{k}^{2r}}{(1+p)_{k}^{2r+1}}\notag\\
\equiv&-\sum_{k=0}^{p-2a}\frac{(2a-p)_{k}(2a+p)_{k}^{2r}}{(1+p)_{k}^{2r+1}}
\pmod{p^2},\end{aligned}$$ since $p$ divides the last sum by (\[2r1F2rstp\]).
While in view of (\[difffactoral\]), for any $t\in\Z_p$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
(2a-tp)_k-(2a)_k\equiv&tp\cdot \frac{d((2a-x)_k)}{dx}\bigg|_{x=0}\\
\equiv&
tp\cdot (2a)_k(H_{2a-1}-H_{2a+k-1})\pmod{p^2}.\end{aligned}$$ It follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2ap2ap1p2a1}
&\sum_{k=0}^{p-2a}\frac{(2a-p)_{k}(2a+p)_{k}^{2r}}{(1+p)_{k}^{2r+1}}-\sum_{k=0}^{p-2a}\frac{(2a)_{k}^{2r+1}}{(1)_{k}^{2r+1}}\notag\\
\equiv&p\sum_{k=0}^{p-2k}\frac{(2a)_{k}^{2r+1}}{(1)_{k}^{2r+1}}\cdot
\big((1-2r)\cdot (H_{2a-1}-H_{2a+k-1})-(2r+1)H_k\big)\notag\\
\equiv&p\sum_{k=0}^{p-2k}\frac{(2a)_{k}^{2r+1}}{(1)_{k}^{2r+1}}\cdot
\big((2r-1)H_{2a+k-1}-(2r+1)H_k\big)
\pmod{p^2},\end{aligned}$$ where (\[2r1F2rstp\]) is applied again in the last step.
Finally, combining (\[2ap2ap1p2a1\]) with (\[phi2psum\]) and (\[2a2p2a1pk\]), and applying Lemma \[2a2r1HkH2ak1\], we obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{phi0p2r}
\phi'(0)\equiv&\frac{\phi(2p)-\phi(0)}{2p}\notag\\
\equiv&\frac12\sum_{k=0}^{p-2k}\frac{(2a)_{k}^{2r+1}}{(1)_{k}^{2r+1}}\cdot
\big((2r-1)H_{2a+k-1}-(2r+1)H_k\big)\notag\\
\equiv&2r\sum_{k=0}^{p-2k}\frac{(2a)_{k}^{2r+1}}{(1)_{k}^{2r+1}}\cdot
H_{2a+k-1}\pmod{p}.\end{aligned}$$ Recall that $2r+1$ has been assumed to be co-prime to $p$. Hence by (\[phi0p\]) and (\[phi0p2r\]), we must have $$\phi'(0)\equiv 0\pmod{p}.$$ All are done.
In view of (\[psi2r1phi\]), we always have $\psi'(0)\equiv0\pmod{p}$ whenever $p$ divides $2r+1$. So if $\alpha\in\Z_p$ and $\alpha\equiv 2a\pmod{p}$ for some $1\leq a\leq (p-1)/2$, then $${}_{np}F_{np-1}\bigg[\begin{matrix}\alpha&\alpha&\ldots&\alpha\\
&1&\ldots&1\end{matrix}\bigg|\,1\bigg]_{p-1}\equiv 0\pmod{p^2}$$ for any odd $n\geq 1$.
Suppose that $r\geq 1$ is not divisible by $(p-1)/2$. Let $r_*\geq 1$ be the least positive residue of $r$ modulo $(p-1)/2$. Then by the Fermat little theorem, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dx}\bigg(\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\frac{(2a-x)_k(2a)_k^{2r}}{(1)_k^{2r+1}}\bigg)\bigg|_{x=0}
\equiv\frac{d}{dx}\bigg(\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\frac{(2a-x)_k(2a)_k^{2r_*}}{(1)_k^{2r_*+1}}\bigg)\bigg|_{x=0}\pmod{p}.\end{aligned}$$ It follows that for any $p$-adic integer $\alpha$ with $\alpha\equiv2a\pmod{p}$ for some $1\leq a<(p+r_*)/(2r_*+1)$, $${}_{2r+1}F_{2r}\bigg[\begin{matrix}\alpha&\alpha&\ldots&\alpha\\
&1&\ldots&1\end{matrix}\bigg|\,1\bigg]_{p-1}\equiv 0\pmod{p^2}$$
. The authors are grateful to Professor Zhi-Wei Sun for his very helpful comments on this paper.
[ST10]{}
S. Ahlgren and K. Ono, [*A Gaussian hypergeometric series evaluation and Apéry number congruences*]{}, J. Reine Angew. Math. 518 (2000), 187–212.
A. Deines, J. G. Fuselier, L. Long, H. Swisher and F.-T. Tu, [*Hypergeometric series, truncated hypergeometric series, and Gaussian hypergeometric functions*]{}, Directions in number theory, 125–159, Assoc. Women Math. Ser., 3, Springer, 2016.
B. He, [*Supercongruences and truncated hypergeometric series*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 145 (2017), 501-508.
P. W. Karlsson, [*Hypergeometric functions with integral parameter differences*]{}, J. Math. Phys. [**12**]{} (1971), 270-271.
J.-C. Liu, [*Congruences for truncated hypergeometric series $_2F_1$*]{}, Bull. Aust. Math. Soc. [**96**]{} (2017), 14-23.
L. Long and R. Ramakrishna, [*Some supercongruences occurring in truncated hypergeometric series*]{}, Adv. Math. 290 (2016), 773-808.
G.-S. Mao and H. Pan, [*$p$-adic analogues of hypergeometric identities*]{}, preprint, arXiv:1703.01215.
E. Mortenson, [*Supercongruences between truncated ${}\sb 2F\sb 1$ hypergeometric functions and their Gaussian analogs*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 355 (2003), 987-1007.
E. Mortenson, [*Supercongruences for truncated ${}_{n+1}F_n$ hypergeometric series with applications to certain weight three newforms*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 133 (2005), 321-330.
R. Osburn and C. Schneider, [*Gaussian hypergeometric series and supercongruences*]{}, Math. Comp. [**78**]{} (2009), 275-292.
R. Osburn, A. Straub and W. Zudilin, [*A modular supercongruence for $_6F_5$: an Apéry-like story*]{}, preprint, arXiv:1701.04098 .
Z.-H. Sun, [*Congruences concerning Legendre polynomials II*]{}, J. Number Theory [**133**]{} (2013), 1950-1976.
Z.-W. Sun, [*On congruences related to central binomal coefficients*]{}, J. Number Theory [**131**]{} (2011), 2219-2238.
Z.-W. Sun, [*On sums of Apéry polynomials and related congruences*]{}, J. Number Theory [**132**]{} (2012), 2673-2690.
Z.-W. Sun, [*Supecongruences involving products of two binomial coefficients*]{}, Finite Fields Appl. [**22**]{} (2013), 24-44.
R. Tauraso, [*Supercongruences for a truncated hypergeometric series*]{}, Integers [**12**]{} (2012), Paper No. A45, 12 pp.
|
---
abstract: 'Leveraging grant-free radio access for enabling low-power wide-area (LPWA) Internet of Things (IoT) connectivity has attracted lots of attention in recent years. Regarding lack of research on LPWA IoT networks, this work is devoted to reliability modeling, battery-lifetime analysis, and operation-control of such networks. We derive the interplay amongst density of the access points, communication bandwidth, volume of traffic from heterogeneous sources, and quality of service (QoS) in communications. The presented analytical framework comprises modeling of interference from heterogeneous sources with correlated deployment locations and time-frequency asynchronous radio-resource usage patterns. The derived expressions represent the operation regions and rates in which, energy and cost resources of devices and the access network, respectively, could be traded to achieve a given level of QoS in communications. For example, our expressions indicate the expected increase in QoS by increasing number of transmitted replicas, transmit power, density of the access points, and communication bandwidth. Our results further shed light on scalability of such networks and figure out the bounds up to which, scaling resources can compensate the increase in traffic volume and QoS demand. Finally, we present an energy-optimized operation control policy for IoT devices. The simulation results confirm tightness of the derived analytical expressions, and indicate usefulness of them in planning and operation control of IoT networks.'
author:
- |
Amin Azari and Cicek Cavdar\
KTH Royal Institue of Technology, Email: {aazari, cavdar}@kth.se
bibliography:
- 'bibs.bib'
title: 'Performance Evaluation and Optimization of LPWA IoT Networks: A Stochastic Geometry Approach'
---
5G, Coexistence, Grant-free, Reliability and durability, LPWA IoT.
Introduction
============
Providing connectivity for massive Internet-of-Things (IoT) devices is a key driver of 5G [@5g_iot]. Until now, several solutions have been proposed for enabling large-scale IoT connectivity, including evolutionary and revolutionary solutions [@mag_all]. Evolutionary solutions aim at enhancing connectivity procedure of existing LTE networks, e.g. access reservation and scheduling improvement [@isl; @nL]. On the other hand, revolutionary solutions aim at providing scalable low-power IoT connectivity by redesigning the access network. In 3GPP LTE Rel. 13, narrowband IoT (NB-IoT) has been announced as a revolutionary solution which handles communications over a 200 KHz bandwidth [@ciot]. This narrow bandwidth brings high link budget, and offers extended coverage [@ciot]. To provide autonomous low-latency access to radio resources, grant-free radio access is a study item in 3GPP IoT working groups, and it is expected to be included in future 3GPP standards [@gf31]. Thanks to the simplified connectivity procedure, and removing the need for pairing and fine synchronization, grant-free radio access has attracted lots of interests in recent years for providing low-power ultra-durable IoT connectivity, especially when more than 10 years lifetime is required. SigFox and LoRa are two dominant grant-free radio access solutions over the public ISM-band, which is used for industrial, scientific, and medical purposes [@mag_all]. While energy consumptions of LoRa and SigFox solutions are extremely low, and their provided link budget is enough to penetrate to most indoor areas, e.g. LoRa signal can be decoded when it is 20 dB less than the noise level, reliability of their communications in coexistence scenarios is questionable [@int2; @mey]. [@int2] presents experimental measurements in such coexistence scenarios, where multiple IoT technologies are sharing a set of radio resources, and confirms significant impact of interference on IoT communications. Regarding the growing interest in grant-free radio access for IoT communications in public and proprietary cellular networks [@gf31; @mag_all], it is required to investigate the reliability, battery lifetime, and scalability of such networks in serving multi-type IoT devices.
Literature Study
----------------
Non-orthogonal radio access has attracted lots of attentions in recent years as a complementary radio access scheme for future generations of wireless networks [@noma; @jsacS]. In literature, non-orthogonal access has been mainly employed in order to increase the network throughput [@reem], reliability [@url], battery lifetime [@gf], and reduce access delay [@reem] in serving non-IoT traffic. In [@miao2016MAC], grant-free access to uplink radio resources of cellular networks has been analyzed for intra-group communications of IoT devices. In [@gf], a novel receiver for grant-free radio access IoT networks has been designed, which benefits from oscillator imperfection of cheap IoT devices for contention resolution. In [@2d], outage probability in grant-free access has been studied by assuming a constant received power from all contending devices, which is not the case in practice regarding the limited transmit-power of IoT devices, as well as lack of channel state information at the device-side for power control. The success probability in grant-free radio access has been also analyzed in [@sic; @mey] by assuming a Poisson point process (PPP) distribution of IoT devices.
One sees the research on grant-free radio access has been mainly focused on success probability analysis in homogeneous scenarios, and there is lack of research on performance analysis of large-scale IoT networks with multi-type IoT devices with heterogeneous communications characteristics. Furthermore, when it comes to the distribution of devices in wide-area IoT networks, PPP has been mainly used. However, this assumption may lead to inaccurate results [@math; @pcp] due to the cell ranges that can go up to tens of kilometers [@mag_all] and hot-spots. In hot-spots, e.g. buildings and shopping centers, a high density of IoT devices exist; while outside them, a low density of devices exists. Then, a Poisson cluster process (PCP), which takes the correlation between locations of devices into account, suits well for the distribution process of devices in LPWA IoT networks [@math; @pcp].
Contributions
-------------
Here, we address an important problem, not tackled previously: network design in coexistence scenarios with grant-free radio access. Enabling IoT connectivity requires deployment of access points (APs) and allocation of frequency resources, which increase the network costs. On the other hand, the experienced delay, consumed energy, and success of IoT applications have strong couplings with reliability of data transfer, which is a function of provisioned network resources. This tradeoff is investigated in this work. The main contributions of this work include:
- Provide a rigorous analytical model of reliability for heterogeneous LPWA IoT networks in terms of provisioned resources, e.g. density of the APs, and characteristics of traffic, e.g. activity factor of each traffic type.
- Provide an analytical model of battery lifetime for IoT devices in terms of device’s parameters, e.g. battery capacity, and network parameters, e.g. reliability of communications.
- Analyze the tradeoffs among network cost, battery lifetime, and reliability of communications. Present the operation regions in which tuning a communication parameter, e.g. number of replica transmissions, increases both reliability and battery lifetime, offers a tradeoff between them, and decreases both of them.
- Propose a reliability-constrained lifetime-optimized operation control policy for IoT devices.
- Analyze scalability of the network. Figuring out the bounds up to which, scaling network’s and devices’ resources can compensate the increase in traffic volume and QoS demand.
The remainder of paper has been organized as follows. System model and problem description are presented in the next section. Modeling of KPIs is presented in section III. Section IV presents the optimized operation control strategies. Simulation results are presented in section V. Concluding remarks are given in section VI.
System Model and Problem Description
====================================
System Model {#sys}
------------
A set of IoT devices, denoted by $\Phi$, have been distributed according to different spatial PCPs in a wide service area. $\Phi$ comprises of $K$ subsets, $\Phi_k$ for $k\in \mathcal K \buildrel \Delta \over = \{1,\cdots, K\}$, where each subset refers to a specific type of IoT service. Traffic from different subsets differ in the way they use the time-frequency resources, i.e. in frequency of packet generation $1/T_k$, signal bandwidth $w_k$, packet transmission time $\tau_k$, number of replicas[^1] transmitted per packet $n_k$, and transmit power $P_k$. Subscript $k$ refers to the type of IoT devices. For PCP of type-$k$ IoT traffic, the $(\lambda_k, \upsilon_k, \text{f}({\bf x}))$ tuple characterizes the distribution process in which, $\lambda_k$ is the density of the parent points and $\upsilon_k$ is the average number of daughter points per parent point[^2], as defined in [@pcp]. Also, $\text{f}({\bf x})$ is an isotropic function representing scattering density of the daughter points around a parent point, e.g. a normal distribution: $$\label{nor}\text{f}({\bf x})={\exp(-||{\bf x}-{\bf x}_0||^2/(2\sigma^2))}/{\sqrt{2\pi\sigma^2}},$$ where $\sigma$ is the variance of distribution and ${\bf x}_0$ is the location of parent point. A frequency spectrum of $W$ is shared for communications, on which the power spectral density of noise is denoted by $\mathcal N$. We aim at collecting data from a subset of $\mathcal K$, denoted by $\phi$, where $|\phi|\le |\mathcal K|$. Devices in $\phi$ may also share a set of semi-orthogonal codes denoted by $\varpi $ with cardinality $|\varpi|$, which reduces the interference from other devices reusing the same radio resource with a different code by factor of $\mathcal Q$. Examples of such codes are semi-orthogonal spreading codes in LoRa technology [@mag_all].
Analytical Modeling of KPIs
===========================
Modeling of Reliability
-----------------------
In the grant-free radio access system, transmitting devices are asynchronous in time and frequency domains, and hence, the received packets at the receiver could have partial overlaps in time-frequency. To model reliability in communications, we first derive analytical models for interference in subsection \[siI\], and for probability of success in subsection \[su1\]. These models are then employed in deriving reliability of communications in subsection \[rels\].
### Interference Analysis {#siI}
We assume a type-$i$ device has been located at point $\bf z$ in a 2D plane, and its respective AP has been located at the origin. In order to derive probability of success in data transmission from the device to the AP, we need to characterize the received interfere at the AP. A common practice in interference analysis is to determine its moments, which is possible by finding its generating function, i.e. the Laplace functional [@adhoc; @math]. Towards this end, let us introduce three stationary and isotropic processes: i) $ \Psi^{(1)} =\cup_{k\in \mathcal K} \Psi_k^{(1)}$, where $\Psi_{k}^{(1)}$ represents the PCP containing locations of type-$k$ transmitting nodes which are reusing radio resources with a similar code to the code[^3] of transmitter of interest; ii) $ \Psi^{(2)} =\cup_{k\in \mathcal K} \Psi_k^{(2)}$, where $ \Psi_{k}^{(2)}$ represents the PCP containing locations of type-$k$ transmitting nodes which are reusing radio resources with a different code (or no code, in case $k\notin \phi$) than the transmitter of interest; and iii) $\Psi=\cup_{j\in\{1,2\}} \Psi_k^{(j)}$. For an AP located at the origin, the Laplace functional of the received interference at the receiver is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal L_{I_{\Psi}}(s)&=\mathbb E\big[\exp(-s I_{\Psi})\big]\label{base}\\
&=\mathbb E\big[ \prod\nolimits_{j\in \{1,2\}} \prod\nolimits_{k\in \mathcal K} \prod\nolimits_{{\bf x}\in \Psi_k^{(j)}}\mathcal L_h({sQ_j P_k \text{g}({\bf x})})\big],\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ where $ Q_j P_k \text{g}({\bf x})$ is the average received power due to a type-$k$ transmitter at point ${\bf x}$, $Q_1=1$, $Q_2=\mathcal Q$, and $\mathcal Q$ is the rate of rejection of interference between two devices with different multiple access codes, as defined in section \[sys\]. Also, $h$ is the power fading coefficient associated with the channel between the device and the AP, and $\mathcal L_{h}\big(s Q_j P_k \text{g}({\bf x})\big)$ is the Laplace functional of the received power. We consider the following general path-loss model $ \text{g}({\bf x}) = 1/(\alpha_1 + \alpha_2||{\bf x}||^\delta),$ where $\delta$ is the pathloss exponent, and $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ are control parameters. When $h$ follows Nakagami-$m$ fading, with the shaping and spread parameters of $m\in \mathbb Z^i$ and $\Omega>0$ respectively, the probability density function (PDF) of the power fading coefficient is given by: $$\text{p}_h(q)= \frac{1}{{\Gamma(m)}}(\frac{m}{\Omega})^m q^{m-1}\exp\big({-\frac{mq}{\Omega}}\big),\label{nm}$$ where $\Gamma$ is the Gamma function. Then, using Laplace table, $\mathcal L_{h}\big(sQ_j P_k \text{g}({\bf x})\big)$ is derived as: $$\label{laph}L_h(s Q_j P_k \text{g}({\bf x}))={\big(1+{\Omega}s P_k \text{g}({\bf x})/m\big)^{-m}}.$$ By inserting in and considering the fact that the received interferences from different devices are independent, we have: $$\mathcal L_{I_{\Psi}}(s)= \prod\nolimits_{j,k}\mathbb E_{{\bf x},{\bf y}}\bigg[ \prod\nolimits_{{\bf y}\in \Theta_{k}}\big( \prod\nolimits_{{\bf x}\in \theta_{\bf y}^{(j)}}u({\bf x},{\bf y})\big)\bigg],\nonumber$$ where $k\in\mathcal K$, $j\in\{1,2\}$, the set of parent points of type-$k$ is denoted by $\Theta_{k}$, and transmitting nodes which are daughter points of $y$ as $\theta_{\bf y}^{(j)}$. Also, $\mathbb E_x$ represents expectation over $x$, and $$u({\bf x},{\bf y})={\big(1 {+}{\Omega}s Q_j P_k \text{g}({\bf x} {-}{\bf y})/{m}\big)^{-m}}.$$ The received interference over the packet of interest can be decomposed into two parts: i) interference from transmitters belonging to the cluster of transmitter, i.e. daughter points of the same parent point; and ii) other transmitters. Let us denote the Laplace functional of interference from the former and latter transmitters as $\mathcal L_{I_{\Psi}}^{\dag}(s)$ and $\mathcal L_{I_{\Psi}}^{\ddag}(s)$ respectively. Then, we have: $$\label{taj}\mathcal L_{I_{\Psi}}(s)=\mathcal L_{I_{\Psi}}^{\ddag}(s)\mathcal L_{I_{\Psi}}^{\dag}(s).$$ Using equation (18) in [@math], and by conditioning on $\Theta_{k}$ and $\theta_{\bf y}^{(j)}$, one has: $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathcal L_{I_{\Psi}}^{\ddag}(s)\label{li}\\
& = \prod\nolimits_{j,k}\mathbb E_{y}\bigg[ \prod\limits_{{\bf y}\in \Theta_{k}}\big\{\exp\big(\text{-}\hat \upsilon_{k,j} \int\nolimits_{\mathbb R^2} [1\text{-}{u({\bf x},{\bf y})}]\text{f}({\bf x})d {\bf x}\big)\big\} \bigg]\nonumber,\\
& =\exp\big( \text{-} {\textstyle \sum\limits_{j,k}}\lambda_k \int\limits_{\mathbb R^2}\big\{1\text{-}\exp\big(\text{-}\hat\upsilon_{k,j} \int\limits_{\mathbb R^2}[1\text{-} {u({\bf x},{\bf y})}]\text{f}({\bf x})d {\bf x} \big)\big\}d {\bf y}\big).\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ Also, in the average numbers of interfering type-$k$ devices in each cluster for $j\in\{1,2\}$ are denoted as $\hat \upsilon_{k,1}=\upsilon_k\frac{n_k\tau_k}{T_k} \frac{w_k}{W}\frac{1}{|\varpi| }$ and $\hat \upsilon_{k,2}=\upsilon_k\frac{n_k\tau_k}{T_k} \frac{w_k}{W}\frac{|\varpi| -1}{|\varpi| }$ for $k\in\phi$. In these two expressions, the first fraction represents the percentage of time in which device is active, i.e. the time activity factor, the second fraction represents the ratio of bandwidth that device occupies in each transmission, i.e. the frequency activity-factor, and the third fraction represents the code-domain activity factor, i.e. the probability that two devices select the same code, i.e. $\frac{1}{|\varpi| }$, or different codes $\frac{|\varpi| -1}{|\varpi| }$. Then, for $k\notin \phi$, in which devices don’t share semi-orthogonal codes for communications, it is clear that $\hat \upsilon_{k,1}=0$, and $\hat \upsilon_{k,2}=\upsilon_k\frac{n_k\tau_k}{T_k} \frac{w_k}{W}$. Following the same procedure used for deriving $\mathcal L_{I_\Psi}^{\ddag}(s)$, one can derive $\mathcal L_{I_\Psi}^{\dag}(s)$ as: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal L_{I_\Psi}^{\dag}(s)\text{=}&\prod\nolimits_{j\in\{1,2\}}\mathbb E_y \big[\mathbb E_x [ \prod\nolimits_{{\bf x}\in \theta_{\bf y}^{(j)}}u({\bf x},{\bf y}) ]\big]\label{lik}\\
\text{=}& \int\nolimits_{\mathbb R^2}\exp\big(\text{-}{\textstyle\sum_j}\hat \upsilon_{i,j} \int\nolimits_{\mathbb R^2} \big(1\text{-}{u({\bf x},{\bf y})}\big)\text{f}({\bf x})d {\bf x}\bigg)\text{f}({\bf y}) d {\bf y}\nonumber.\end{aligned}$$
### Probability of Success in Transmission {#su1}
Let $N$ denote the additive noise at the receiver. Using the interference model, probability of success in packet transmission of a type-$i$ device, located at $\bf z$, to the AP, located at the origin, is: $$\begin{aligned}
\text{p}_{\text{s}}(i,{\bf z})&=\text{Pr}({ P_ih \text{g}({\bf z})}\ge[{N+I_{\Psi}}] \gamma_{\text{th}})\label{suc}\\
&\buildrel (\text{a}) \over = \sum\limits_{\nu=0}^{m\text{-}1}\frac{1}{{\nu}!}\int\nolimits_{0}^{\infty}\exp({-}\frac{\gamma_{\text{th}}m q}{\Omega P_i \text{g}({\bf z})}) q^{\nu} d \text{Pr}(I_\Psi\text{+}N\ge q)\nonumber\\
&\buildrel (\text{b}) \over = \sum\nolimits_{{\nu}=0}^{m\text{-}1}\frac{(-1)^{\nu}}{{\nu}!}[\mathcal L_{I_{\Psi}}(s)\mathcal L_{N}(s)]^{({\nu})} \big|_{s=\frac{\gamma_{\text{th}}m}{\Omega P_i \text{g}({\bf z})}}, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $[F(s)]^{({\nu})}=\frac{\partial^{\nu}}{\partial s^{\nu}}F(s)$, (a) follows from [@adhoc Appendix C] and equation in which $\text{p}_h(q)$ has been defined, and finally (b) follows from [@alm Lemma 3.1] and the fact that $\mathcal L (t^n \text{f}(t))=(-1)^n\frac{\partial^n}{\partial s^n}F(s)$. Furthermore, $L_{I_{\Psi}}$ has been characterized in and , and $\mathcal L_N(s)$ is the Laplace transform of noise. In order to get insights on how coexisting services affect each other, in the following we focus on $m=1$, i.e. the Rayleigh fading, and present a closed-form approximation of the success probability. In section \[simsec\], we will evaluate tightness of this expression.
\[t1\] For $m=1$, success probability in packet transmission can be approximated as: $$\begin{aligned}
&\text{p}_{\text{s}}(i,{\bf z})\approx \text{P}_{{\text{\tiny N} }} \big[\exp\big(-\sum\limits_{j\in\{1,2\}} \sum\limits_{k\in\mathcal K}\lambda_k\hat \upsilon_{k,j} \text{H}({\bf z},1, \frac{Q_j P_k\gamma_{\text{th}}}{\Omega P_i})\big)\big]\nonumber\\
&\hspace{1cm}\times\exp\big(-\sum\nolimits_{j\in\{1,2\}}{\hat\upsilon_{i,j}} \text{H}({\bf z},\text{f}^*({\bf x}), \frac{Q_j\gamma_{\text{th}}}{\Omega })\big),\label{ps}\end{aligned}$$ where $\text{f}^*(\cdot)=\text{conv}\big(\text{f}(\cdot),\text{f}(\cdot)\big)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\text{H}\big({\bf z},\text{f}^*({\bf x}), \xi)&=\int\nolimits_{x\in\mathbb R^2}\frac{\text{g}({\bf x})}{\text{g}({\bf x})+\text{g}({\bf z})/\xi}\text{f}^*({\bf x})d {\bf x}\label{hf},\\
\text{P}_{{\text{\tiny N} }}&=\exp\big(-\mathcal N\gamma_{\text{th}}/[\Omega P_i \text{g}({\bf z})] \big)\label{pn},
\end{aligned}$$ and $\mathcal N$ is the noise power.
The proof is given in theorem 3.2 of the extended version [@opd].
$\text{H}({\bf z},\text{f}^*({\bf x}),\xi)$ and $\text{H}({\bf z},1,\xi)$ could be derived in closed-form for most well-known pathloss and distribution functions, as follows.
For $\text{g}({\bf x})=\alpha||{\bf x}||^{-\delta}$, $$\label{hfd} \text{H}({\bf z},1,\xi)= ||{\bf z}||^2 \xi^{\frac{2}{\delta}} 2\pi^{2} \text{csc}({2\pi/\delta})/\delta.$$
By change of coordinates, ${\bf x}\to (r,\theta)$, we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\text{H}\big({\bf z},1, \xi)&=\int\nolimits_{x\in\mathbb R^2}\frac{\alpha{||\bf x||}^{-\delta}}{\alpha{||\bf x||}^{-\delta}+\alpha{||\bf z||}^{-\delta}/\xi} d {\bf x},\nonumber\\
&=2\pi\int\nolimits_{0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{1+(r/||{\bf z}||)^\delta/\xi} { r d r}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Solving this integral by using [@seri Eq. 3.352], is derived. [ <1.5em - 1.5em plus0em minus0.5em height0.75em width0.5em depth0.25em]{}
\[cne\] For $\text{g}({\bf x})=\alpha||{\bf x}||^{-4}$, and $\text{f}({\bf x})$ given in , $$\begin{aligned}
\text{H}({\bf z},\text{f}^*({\bf x}),\xi)=& \frac{||{\bf z}||^2 }{4 \sigma^2\sqrt\xi }\bigg[\text{ci}(\frac{ ||{\bf z}||^2 }{4\sigma^2\sqrt{\xi}} )\sin(\frac{||{\bf z}||^2 }{4\sigma^2\sqrt{\xi}} )-\nonumber\\
&\hspace{1.7cm}\text{si}(\frac{||{\bf z}||^2 }{4\sigma^2\sqrt{\xi}} )\cos( \frac{||{\bf z}||^2 }{4\sigma^2\sqrt{\xi}} )\bigg],\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\text{si}(\cdot)$ and $\text{ci}(\cdot)$ are well-known sine and cosine integrals, as follows: $$\text{si}(x)=-\int\nolimits_{x}^{\infty}\frac{\text{sin} (t)}{t}dt,\hspace{2mm} \text{ci}(x)=-\int\nolimits_{x}^{\infty}\frac{\text{cos}(t)}{t}dt.$$
The proof is given in corollary 3.4 of the extended version [@opd].
\[r1\] Analysis of $\text{H}\big({\bf z},\text{f}^*({\bf x}), \xi)$ shows that it can be well approximated by $1$ for $\frac{\sqrt\xi||{\bf z}||^2 }{4 \sigma^2 }\gg1$. For theorem \[t1\] in which $\xi=Q_j\gamma_{\text {th}}/{\Omega}$, $ \text{H}\big({\bf z},\text{f}^*({\bf x}), \xi)\approx 0$ for $j=1$ because $Q_1=\mathcal Q\approx 0$; and $\text{H}\big({\bf z},\text{f}^*({\bf x}), \xi)\approx 1$ for $j=2$ when $z\gg z_0 \buildrel \Delta \over =\frac{2\sigma \sqrt[4]\Omega}{\sqrt[4]{\gamma_{\text{th}}}}$ because $Q_2=1$.
From theorem \[t1\], one sees that probability of success, $\text{p}_{\text s}(i,{\bf z})$, is a function of $||\bf z||$ rather than phase of $\bf z$. Then, hereafter we use $\text{p}(i,z)$ to denote probability of success for communication distance of $z$.
Until now, we have derived the probability of success for a given communication distance to an AP. In the following, we investigate success probability where multiple APs might be able to decode a packet, i.e. the coverage areas of neighboring APs are overlapping. Regarding the fact that theorem \[t1\] provides probability of success as a function of communication distance, given the distribution process of APs, the expected communication distance to the neighboring APs, and hence, probability of success in data transmission could be derived. In PPP deployment of APs with density $\lambda_{\text{a}}$, the PDF of distance from a random point to the $\ell$th nearest AP, denoted by $d_{\ell}$ is given by [@dis]: $$\text{P}_{d_{\ell}}(r)=\exp(-\lambda_{\text a}\pi r^2) {2(\lambda_{\text a}\pi r^2)^{\ell}}/[{r({\ell}-1)!}].$$ Then, one can derive the average probability of success in packet transmission from a random point for type-$i$ as: $$\text{P}_\text{s}(i)= 1-\prod\nolimits_{{\ell}=1}^{\ell_{\max}} \int\nolimits_{0}^{\infty} \big(1-\text{p}_\text{s}(i,r)\big) ~ \text{P}_{d_{\ell}}(r) dr.\label{cov}$$
\[t3\] For $\text{f}(x)$ given in , and $\text{g}({\bf z})=\alpha||{\bf z}||^{-4}$, we have: $$\text{P}_\text{s}(i)\approx 1-\prod\nolimits_{{\ell}=1}^{\ell_{\max}} \big[1-\frac{X_0}{\sqrt{{X_1}^{\ell-1}}} \exp(\frac{{X_2}^2}{4{X_1}^2} ) \mathcal G(X_3,\ell)\big],$$ $$\begin{aligned}
&\text{where } X_0=\frac{(\lambda_{\text a}\pi)^\ell}{(\ell-1)!}\exp\big(-{\hat\upsilon_{i,2}} \big), X_1=\frac{ \mathcal N\gamma_{\text{th}}}{\Omega P_i \alpha},\nonumber\\
& X_2=\sum\limits_{j,k} \lambda_k\hat \upsilon_{k,j}
(\frac{\gamma_{\text{th}}Q_j P_k}{\Omega P_i})^{0.5} \frac{\pi^{2}}{2} \text{csc}(\frac{\pi}{2})+\lambda_{\text a}\pi, X_3=\frac{X_2}{2\sqrt{X_1}}.\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ Also, $\mathcal G(X_3,\ell)=\int\nolimits_{\frac{{X_2}^2}{2X_1}}^{\infty} (z\text{-}X_3)^{(\ell-1)}\exp(-z^2)dz,$ and could be derived for any $\ell$ in the form of error function, e.g. for $\ell_{\max}=2$: $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathcal G(X_3,1)=-(\sqrt{\pi}(\text{erf}(X_3) - 1))/2,\nonumber\\
&\mathcal G(X_3,2)=\exp(-X_3^2)/2 + (X_3 \sqrt{\pi}(\text{erf}(X_3) - 1))/2.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
The proof is given in theorem 3.5 of the extended version [@opd].
### Reliability of IoT Communication {#rels}
Now, we have the required tools to investigate reliability of IoT communications. Once a type-$i$ device has a packet to transmit, it transmits $n_k$ replicas of the packet, and listens for ACK from the AP(s). If No ACK is received in a bounded listening window, device retransmits the packet, and this procedure could be repeated up to $B_{i}-1$ times, where the bound may come from the fair use of the shared medium [@int2; @mag_all] or expiration of data. If data transmission is unsuccessful in $B_i$ attempts, we call it an outage event. The probability of outage for type $i$ in such setting could be derived as: $$\label{rel}\text{P}_{\text o}(i)=\big[1-\text{P}_{\text s}(i) \big]^{n_iB_i},$$ where $\text{P}_{\text s}(i)$ has been derived in theorem \[t3\].
Battery Lifetime Performance (Durability) {#bl}
-----------------------------------------
Packet generation at each device for most reporting IoT applications can be seen as a Poisson process [@3g]. Then, one can model energy consumption of a device as a semi-regenerative process where the regeneration point has been located at the end of each successful data transmission epoch [@nL]. For a given device of type-$i$, let us denote the stored energy in batteries as $E_{0}$, static energy consumption per reporting period for data acquisition from environment and processing as $E_{\text{st}}$, circuit power consumption in transmission mode as $P_{c}$, and inverse of power amplifier efficiency as $\eta$. Then, the expected battery lifetime is [@nL]: $$\mathbb L(i)= \frac{E_{0}}{{E_{\text{st}}+\hat \beta_i E_\text{c}+ \hat\beta_in_i (\eta P_{i}+ P_{\text c}) \tau_i}}T_i,\label{lif}$$ where $E_\text{c}$ represents the average energy consumption in listening after each trial for ACK reception, and $\hat \beta_i$ represents the average number of trials and is derived as: $$\label{beta}\hat \beta_i=\sum\nolimits_{j=1}^{B_i}j\big[1\text{-}[1\text{-}\text{P}_{\text{s}}(i )]^{n_i}\big]\big[1\text{-}\text{P}_{\text s}(i )\big]^{n_i[j-1]},$$ where $\text{P}_{\text s}(i)$ have been derived in theorem \[t3\].
Optimized Operation Control
===========================
From the battery lifetime analysis in , one sees that battery lifetime of devices may decrease in $n_i$ and $P_i$ because of the potential increase in the energy consumption per reporting period. Furthermore, when reliability of communication is lower than a threshold, increase in $n_i$ and $ {P}_i$ may decrease the need for listening to the channel for ACK arrival and retransmissions, and hence, increasing $n_i$ and $ {P}_i$ may increase the battery lifetime. Taking this into account, one sees there should be an operation point beyond which, increase in $ {P}_i$ and/or $n_i$ offers a tradeoff between reliability and lifetime, and before it, increase in $ {P}_i$ and/or $n_i$ increases both reliability and durability of communications. This observation will be evaluated using simulation results in the next section. Here, we aim at finding the optimized operation point of the network with respect to the battery lifetime. Using the battery lifetime definition in , one may define the optimization problem for deriving the optimized operating point of type $i$ IoT devices as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname*{maximize}_{n_i, P_i } & \hspace{3mm}\mathbb L(i); \label{op2}\\
&\text{s.t.:} ~\text{P}_{\text o}(i)\le \text{P}_{\text o}^{\text{req}}(i), n_i\le n_{max}, P_i\le P_{\max}, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
where $\text{P}_{\text o}^{\text{req}}(i)$ is the maximum tolerated outage probability for type $i$ IoT devices. The reliability constraint in could be rewritten as the minimum required success probability in communications as follows: $$\label{con}1-\sqrt[n_iB_i]{\text{P}_{\text o}^{\text{req}}}(i)\le \text{P}_{\text s}(i).$$ Furthermore, by using the $\text{P}_{\text s}(i)$ expression in theorem \[t3\], we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\text{P}_{\text s}(i)&= \int\nolimits_{0}^{\infty} X_0 \exp(\text{-}X_5r^{2})2rdr\nonumber\\
&=\frac{0.5\sqrt{\pi}{\lambda_{\text a}\pi}\exp\big(-{\hat\upsilon_{i,2}} \big)}{\sum_{k}\lambda_{k}\hat \upsilon_{k,2}
(\frac{P_k\gamma_{\text{th}}}{P_i\Omega })^{0.5} \frac{\pi^{2}}{2} \text{csc}(\frac{\pi}{2})\text{+}\lambda_{\text a}\pi\text{+}\frac{ \mathcal N\gamma_{\text{th}}}{\Omega P_i \alpha}},\label{den}\end{aligned}$$ in which, $\ell_{\max}=1$, $\delta=2$, and $\mathcal Q\approx1$ have been assumed for brevity of expressions. Also, $X_5$ is an auxiliary variable equal to the denominator of . The expression in could be rewritten as: $$\text{P}_{\text{s}}(i)=\frac{D_0}{\frac{1}{\sqrt{P_i}}D_1+\lambda_{\text a}\pi+\frac{ \mathcal N\gamma_{\text{th}}}{P_i\Omega \alpha}},\label{rpi}$$ where the auxiliary variables $D_0$ and $D_1$ are defined as: $$\begin{aligned}
D_0&=0.5\sqrt{\pi}{\lambda_{\text a}\pi}\exp\big(-{\hat\upsilon_{i,2}} \big),\nonumber\\
D_1&=\sum\nolimits_{k}\lambda_{k}\hat \upsilon_{k,2}
(\frac{P_k\gamma_{\text{th}}}{\Omega })^{0.5} \frac{\pi^{2}}{2} \text{csc}(\frac{\pi}{2}).\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ Satisfying with equality, we have: $$\sqrt[n_iB_i]{\text{P}_{\text o}^{\text{req}}}(i)=1- \frac{D_0}{\frac{1}{\sqrt{P_i}}D_1+\lambda_{\text a}\pi+\frac{ \mathcal N\gamma_{\text{th}}}{P_i\Omega \alpha}}.$$ By simplifying the expression, $n_i$ is derived as a function of $B_i$ as follows: $${n_i}=\left \lceil {\log(\sqrt[B_i]{\text{P}_{\text o}^{\text{req}}})}\bigg/{\log(1- \frac{D_0}{\frac{1}{\sqrt{P_i}}D_1+\lambda_{\text a}\pi+\frac{ \mathcal N\gamma_{\text{th}}}{P_i\Omega \alpha}})}\right \rceil.\label{rni}$$ Also, the constraint on $n_i$ is translated to a constraint on $P_i$ as: $$P_i\ge P_{\min} \buildrel \Delta \over =\big(\frac{-{D_1}\text{+}\sqrt{{D_1}^2\text{-}4\frac{\mathcal N\gamma_{\text{th}}}{\Omega \pi}(\lambda_{\text a}\pi\text{-}\frac{D_0}{1\text{-}\sqrt[n_{\max}B_i]{\text{P}_{\text o}^{\text{req}}}})}}{2(\lambda_{\text a}\pi\text{-}\frac{D_0}{1-\sqrt[n_{\max}B_i]{\text{P}_{\text o}^{\text {req}}}})}\bigg)^2.$$ Then, the optimization problem in reduces to a simple search over $ P_{\min} \le \mathcal{P}_i\le P_{\max} $ for minimization of : $$\label{ecprp}
{\hat \beta_i E_\text{c}+ \hat \beta_in_i (\eta P_{i}+ P_{\text c}) \tau_i},$$ in which $n_i$ has been found as a function of $P_i$ in , $\hat \beta_i$ has been found as a function of $\text{P}_{\text s} (i)$ and $n_i$ in , and $\text{P}_{\text s} (i)$ has been found as a function of $P_i$ in . This operation control optimization problem is investigated numerically in the next section (Fig. \[oo\]).
[*Parameters* ]{} [*Value*]{}
--------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Service area $20\times 20 \text{ Km}^2$
Pathloss $133+38.3\log (\frac{x}{1000})$
Thermal noise power $-174$ dBm/Hz
Distribution of devices PCP$\big(\lambda_i\times$1e-6,$200$, Eq. with $\sigma$=100)
Packet arrival of each device Poisson distributed with average reporting period ($T_i$) of 300 s
Packet transmission time ($\tau_i$) 100 ms
Signal BW 10 KHz
$E_0,P_{\text c} , E_{\text{st}}=0.5 E_{\text c}$ 1000 J, 10 mW, 0.1 J
$P_{\text r}$, $P_{\text a}$ 0.5 W, 1.5 W
$\gamma_{\text{th}}$, $|\varpi|$, $\eta$ 1,1,0.5
$P_i, n_i,\lambda_{a}, W$ Default: 21 dBm, 1, 5.5[e]{}-8, 100 KHz
$\ell_{\max},\mathcal Q$ 1, 0
: Simulation Parameters []{data-label="sim"}
Performance Evaluation {#simsec}
======================
In order to investigate usefulness of our findings in IoT-network planning and operation control, here we implement a MATLAB simulator for a heterogeneous IoT network. In our simulator, 2 types of IoT devices have been considered, that differ in the distribution processes describing locations of their respective nodes, and communications’ parameters such as transmit power. Motivations for this setup are the coexistence of IoT technologies over the public ISM spectrum, e.g. SigFox and LoRa [@int2], and the coexistence of different IoT services over cellular networks, which are sharing a set of uplink resources, as described in [@gf31]. For type $i$, the distribution process of locations is characterized by PCP$(\lambda_i,\upsilon_i,f(x))$, where $\lambda_i$ is the density of cluster points (in Km$^{-2}$), $\upsilon_i=200$ is the average number of nodes in each cluster, and distribution of cluster nodes around the cluster center, i.e. $f(x)$, is modeled by a normal distribution with standard deviation of 100 meters. The reliability constraint is described as $\text{p}_{\text s}(i,d_{\text{eg}})$, where $d_{\text{eg}}=\sqrt{{1}/{(\pi\lambda_{\text a})}}$ is equivalent to the cell-edge communication distance in the case of grid deployment of APs. The packet arrival at each node follows a PPP with rate $\frac{1}{T_i}$. The default values of other parameters can be found in Table \[sim\].
First, we investigate tightness of the derived analytical expressions. By considering an IoT network comprising of two IoT types with different distributions and transmit powers, Fig. \[val\] represents probability of success in packet transmission for type-1 as a function of distance from the AP. One sees that the analytical model matches well with the simulation results. We have further depicted the contributions of noise, interferences from the same and other clusters of type-1 devices, as well as interference from type-2 devices. Regarding the fact that transmit power of type-2 devices is 4 dB higher than type-1 devices in this figure, it is clear that interference from type-2 traffic (plus-marked curve) is the most limiting factor.
![Validation of analytical and simulation results. Device distribution: $K$=$2$, $\lambda_1$=0.19, $ \lambda_2$=3.8, $\upsilon_1$=1200, $\upsilon_2$=30, $P_1$=21 dBm, and $P_2$=25 dBm. []{data-label="val"}](Figs/Sim/fig_cov.eps){width="3.5in"}
[0.5]{} ![Optimized operation control ($K=2, \lambda_2$=2.4, $\lambda_1$=2.4 in Sc1 and $\lambda_1$=1.2 in Sc2). In circle-marked curves, $n_1=1$ and $P_1$ is varying. In plus-marked curves, $P_1=126$ mW and $n_1$ is varying. []{data-label="oo"}](Figs/Sim/opt_oper2.eps "fig:"){width="3.5in"}
\
[0.5]{}
Fig. \[oo\] represents the interplay among success probability, battery lifetime, $n_i$, and $P_i$. The $x$-axis in Fig. \[oo2\] and Fig. \[oo1\] represents $P_1$ for circle-marked curves, and $n_1$ for cross-marked curves. In these figures, Sc1 and Sc2 differ in density of type-2 devices, which is 2.4 in Sc1, and 1.2 in Sc2. One observes in Fig. \[oo2\] that battery lifetime is a quasi-concave function of both $P_i$ and $n_i$. Furthermore, in Sc1, where density of nodes is higher than Sc2, battery lifetime decreases significantly by increase in the number of replica transmissions. In both scenarios, we see that the energy-optimized operation strategy for type-1 devices is to send 2 replicas per data packet to maximize their battery lifetimes. Fig. \[oo1\] represents the success probability for type-1 and type-2 traffic as a function of $n_1$ and $P_1$. One sees that success probability for type-1 increases to a point beyond which, the resulting interference from extra transmitted packets starts deteriorating the performance. On the other hand, increase in the transmit power for type-1 devices, increases the success probability for this type and severely decreases the performance of type-2 devices. It is also worthy to note that in Fig. \[oo1\], success probability increases in $n_1$ till $n_1=4$, however, from the battery lifetime analysis in Fig. \[oo2\], it is evident that battery lifetime decreases in $n_1$ for $n_1\ge 3$. To conclude, we see that increase in the number of replica transmissions, i.e. $n_1$, increases both battery lifetime and reliability for $n_1\in\{1,2\}$, offers a tradeoff between battery lifetime and reliability for $n_1\in\{3,4\}$, and decreases both reliability and battery lifetime for $n\ge 5$. These results confirm importance of the derived results in this work, as they shed light to the operation point after which, it is not feasible to trade battery lifetime in hope of reliability.
Scalability analysis has been presented in Fig. \[scc\]. The analytical model of reliability has been found in as a function of: i) transmit power, ii) number of replica transmissions, iii) density of APs, and iv) bandwidth of communications. Fig. \[scc\] represents the rate at which, the amount of provisioned resources at the network-side, or energy resources at the device-side, could be scaled to comply with the increase in the level of required reliability. It is clear that transmit power of devices could be increased up to a certain level in order to combat noise. However, beyond a certain point, increase in the transmit power cannot increase the success probability because it cannot compensate the impact of interference. On the other hand, one sees that increase in the number of replicas per packet could be leveraged to increase reliability of communications. However, there is a saturation point in scenarios with higher densities of nodes, where increasing number of replicas increases traffic load significantly, and may even reduce reliability of communications. Example of such event was observed in Fig. \[oo1\] for $n_1\ge5$. Finally, the rate of increase in reliability of communications by increasing the number of APs, which reduces the communications’ distance, and increasing the bandwidth, which decreases the collision probability, could be observed in Fig. \[scc\].
![Scalability analysis versus required reliability ($K=1$, $\lambda_1$=3.2). []{data-label="scc"}](Figs/Sim/scal_vs_cov.eps){width="3.5in"}
Conclusion
==========
A tractable analytical model of reliability in large-scale heterogeneous IoT networks has been presented as a function of IoT traffic intensity and access network’s resources. This model has been employed to analyze the impacts of resource provisioning at the network-side and operation control at the device-side on reliability and battery lifetime of IoT devices. The derived expressions illustrate the rate of increase in reliability and battery lifetime achieved by increasing the bandwidth of communications and number of APs. Our analyses indicated that depending on the operating point, increasing transmit power and number of replica transmissions may increase both reliability and battery lifetime, offer a tradeoff between them, or decrease both of them. Then, we developed a lifetime-optimal operation control policy for IoT devices. The simulation results confirmed existence of such an optimal operation point before which, battery lifetime and reliability are increasing in transmit power and number of replica transmissions; while beyond that point, there is a tradeoff between them. Finally, we have presented the scalability analysis to figure out the bounds up to which, increasing the provisioned resources at the network-side, or increasing energy consumption of IoT devices per packet transfer, can compensate the impact of increase in number of devices or their required QoS. The tightness and tractability of the derived expressions promote use of them in IoT-network planning and operation control.
[^1]: Practical motivations for modeling such replicas can be found in state of the art IoT technologies like NB-IoT and SigFox in which, coverage extension and resilience to interference are achieved by repetitions of transmitted packets [@ciot; @mag_all]. When it is not the case, $n_k=1$ can be used.
[^2]: In PCP deployment, we have clusters of devices, where each cluster models a hot-spot. $\lambda_k$ represents density of such clusters of devices, i.e. the parent points. $\upsilon_k$ represents the average number of devices in each cluster, i.e. the daughter points. Finally, $\text{f}(x)$ represents how devices are distributed in each cluster.
[^3]: Note: as mentioned in the system model, devices in $\phi$ share a set of semi-orthogonal codes for partial interference management.
|
---
abstract: 'In traditional Ergodic Optimization, one seeks to maximize Birkhoff averages. The most useful tool in this area is the celebrated Mañé Lemma, in its various forms. In this paper, we prove a non-commutative Mañé Lemma, suited to the problem of maximization of Lyapunov exponents of linear cocycles or, more generally, vector bundle automorphisms. More precisely, we provide conditions that ensure the existence of an extremal norm, that is, a Finsler norm with respect to which no vector can be expanded in a single iterate by a factor bigger than the maximal asymptotic expansion rate. These conditions are essentially irreducibility and sufficiently strong fiber-bunching. Therefore we extend the classic concept of Barabanov norm, which is used in the study of the joint spectral radius. We obtain several consequences, including sufficient conditions for the existence of Lyapunov maximizing sets.'
author:
- Jairo Bochi
- Eduardo Garibaldi
date: 'October 4, 2019'
title: 'Extremal Norms for Fiber-Bunched Cocycles'
---
[ oldtitletitle title[oldtitle]{}]{}
[ @oldtitletitle title[@oldtitle]{}]{}
Introduction
============
Extremal norms {#ss.intro_extremal}
--------------
Let ${\mathbb{E}}$ be a $d$-dimensional real vector bundle over a compact metric space $X$, with projection map $\pi$. Let $T \colon X \to X$ be a homeomorphism. We say that $\Phi$ is an *automorphism of ${\mathbb{E}}$ covering $T$* if the diagram $$\begin{tikzcd}
{\mathbb{E}}\arrow[r,"\Phi"] \arrow[d,swap,"\pi"] & {\mathbb{E}}\arrow[d,"\pi"] \\
X \arrow[r,swap,"T"] & X
\end{tikzcd}$$ commutes and moreover the restriction of $\Phi$ to each fiber ${\mathbb{E}}_x \coloneqq \pi^{-1}(x)$ is a linear isomorphism $\Phi_x$ onto the fiber ${\mathbb{E}}_{Tx}$. The set of such automorphisms is denoted ${\mathrm{Aut}}({\mathbb{E}},T)$. The simplest situation is when the vector bundle is trivial, say ${\mathbb{E}}= X \times {\mathbb{R}}^d$. Then $\Phi$ takes the form $$\label{e.cocycle}
\Phi(x,u) = (T(x),F(x)u) \, ,$$ for some continuous map $F \colon X \to {\mathit{GL}}(d,{\mathbb{R}})$. The pair $(T,F)$ is called a *(linear) cocycle*.
A *Finsler norm*[^1] on ${\mathbb{E}}$ is a continuous map $\| \mathord{\cdot} \| \colon {\mathbb{E}}\to {\mathbb{R}}$ whose restriction to each fiber ${\mathbb{E}}_x$ is a norm. If $L$ is a linear map from a fiber ${\mathbb{E}}_x$ to another fiber ${\mathbb{E}}_y$, then we define the operator norm: $$\label{e.def_operator_norm}
\|L\|_{y \gets x} \coloneqq \sup_{\substack{u \in {\mathbb{E}}_x \\ u\neq 0}} \frac{\|L(u)\|}{\|u\|} \, .$$ When no confusion is likely to arise we denote this simply by $\|L\|$.
Fix an automorphism $\Phi$ covering $T$ and a Finsler norm $\| \mathord{\cdot} \|$. Given $x \in X$, the limit $$\chi_1(\Phi, x) \coloneqq \lim_{n \to +\infty} \frac{1}{n} \log \|\Phi^n_x\|
= \lim_{n \to +\infty} \frac{1}{n} \log \| \Phi_{T^{n-1}x} \circ \cdots \circ \Phi_{Tx} \circ \Phi_x\| \, ,$$ if it exists, is called the *(first) Lyapunov exponent* of $\Phi$ at the point $x$. The Lyapunov exponent is obviously independent of the choice of the Finsler norm. If $\mu$ is a $T$-invariant Borel probability measure for $T$, then the Lyapunov exponent $\chi_1(\Phi, x)$ exists for $\mu$-almost every $x\in X$; this is a well-known consequence of Kingman’s subadditive ergodic theorem; see e.g. [@Krengel]. Let us denote $\chi_1(\Phi, \mu) \coloneqq \int \chi_1(\Phi,\mathord{\cdot}) \, d\mu$. If the measure $\mu$ is ergodic then $\chi_1(\Phi, x) = \chi_1(\Phi,\mu)$ for $\mu$-almost every $x\in X$.
In this paper we are interested in the *maximal Lyapunov exponent*, defined as: $$\label{e.def_beta}
\beta(\Phi) \coloneqq \sup_{\mu \in {\mathcal{M}}_T} \chi_1(\Phi, \mu) \, ,$$ where ${\mathcal{M}}_T$ denotes the set of all $T$-invariant Borel probability measures. The supremum is always attained by an ergodic measure – this follows from upper semicontinuity of $\chi_1(\Phi, \mathord{\cdot})$ with respect to the weak-star topology, and the fact that ${\mathcal{M}}_T$ is a compact convex set whose extreme points are exactly the ergodic measures. Let us mention that the maximal Lyapunov exponent can also be characterized in more elementary terms as follows: $$\label{e.beta_other}
\beta(\Phi) = \operatorname*{linf}_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{n} \sup_{x \in X} \log \| \Phi^n_x \|
= \sup_{x \in X} \limsup_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{n} \log \| \Phi^n_x \| \, .$$ (We use “$\operatorname*{linf}$” to denote a limit that is also an infimum.) These equalities follow from general results on “subadditive ergodic optimization”: see [@Morris_Mather Appendix A].
A trivial upper bound for the maximal Lyapunov exponent, which depends on the chosen Finsler norm, is given by: $$\label{e.starting_point}
\beta(\Phi) \le \log \sup_{x \in X} \| \Phi_x \| \, .$$ If equality holds then $\| \mathord{\cdot} \|$ is called an *extremal norm* for $\Phi$. More precisely, the norm is so “tight” that there is *no* vector $u \neq 0$ in ${\mathbb{E}}$ whose expansion factor $\|\Phi(u)\| / \|u\|$ exceeds the maximum asymptotic expansion rate $e^{\beta(\Phi)}$. In particular, if $\beta(\Phi) \le 0$ then the extremal norm is a (non-strict) Lyapunov function for $\Phi$.
Extremal norms first appeared in the 1960 paper [@RS] by Rota and Strang, who considered the particular setting of one-step cocycles (details are given below), but apparently were not considered in our level of generality before.
The existence of an extremal norm is far from automatic[^2], and has strong consequences. In this paper we construct extremal norms for a large and natural class of vector bundle automorphisms.
Previous results {#ss.known}
----------------
Consider the case of a $1$-dimensional vector bundle ${\mathbb{E}}$, with an arbitrary Finsler norm $\| \mathord{\cdot} \|$. Given $\Phi \in {\mathrm{Aut}}({\mathbb{E}},T)$, there exists a unique continuous function $f \colon X \to {\mathbb{R}}$ such that $$\label{e.operator}
u \in {\mathbb{E}}_x \quad \Rightarrow \quad \|\Phi(u)\|_{Tx} = e^{f(x)} \| u\|_x \, .$$ Note that in this case the maximal Lyapunov exponent $\beta(\Phi)$ equals: $$\label{e.beta_f}
\beta (f) \coloneqq \sup_{\mu \in {\mathcal{M}}_T} \int f \, d\mu \, .$$ Any other Finsler norm ${\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {\cdot}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}}$ is of the form: $${\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}}_x = e^{h(x)} \| u\|_x \, ,$$ for some continuous function $h \colon X \to {\mathbb{R}}$. Then ${\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {\cdot}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}}$ is a extremal norm if and only if $h$ satisfies the “cohomological inequality”: $$f + h \circ T - h \le \beta(f) \, .$$ Such a function $h$ is called a *subaction* for $(T,f)$. Existence of subactions can fail dramatically: see e.g. [@Bousch_Jenkinson [§]{}3] and [@Garibaldi_book Appendix]. However, if the dynamics $T$ is in some sense hyperbolic (e.g., a shift) and the function $f$ is regular enough (e.g., Hölder) then subactions $h$ do exist. Results of this type are sometimes called *Mañé lemmas*; see [@CG; @Sav; @CLT; @Bousch_Walters; @Bousch_amphi] for various versions and approaches, and see [@Bochi_ICM Prop. 2.1] for a negative result. Important applications include [@Bousch_Mairesse; @Contreras]. The study of invariant measures that attain that supremum in is called *ergodic optimization*; we refer the reader to [@Jenkinson_survey; @Jenkinson_survey_new; @Garibaldi_book] for much more information. For a discussion of ergodic optimization in a more general context, including optimization of Lyapunov exponents, see [@Bochi_ICM].
When $\dim {\mathbb{E}}> 1$, commutativity is lost and much less is known. The most studied situation is the following one. Let $T \colon X \to X$ be the full shift on $N$ symbols, defined on the space $X \coloneqq \{0,1,\dots,N-1\}^{\mathbb{Z}}$. Given a $N$-tuple $(A_0,\dots,A_{N-1})$ of invertible $d \times d$ matrices, let $F \colon X \to {\mathit{GL}}(d,{\mathbb{R}})$ be given by $F(x) = A_{x_0}$. We say that $(T,F)$ is a *one-step cocycle*. Let $\Phi$ the associated automorphism . In that case, the quantity $e^{\beta(\Phi)}$ is known as the *joint spectral radius* of the set $\{A_0,\dots,A_{N-1}\}$.[^3] It was introduced by Rota and Strang [@RS].
If, for example, $N=1$ and $A_0 = \left( \begin{smallmatrix} 1 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 \end{smallmatrix} \right)$, then no extremal norm exists. However, if the set $\{A_0,\dots,A_{N-1}\}$ is *irreducible*, in the sense that there is no common invariant non-trivial subspace, then extremal norms ${\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {\cdot}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}}$ do exist, and can be taken so that ${\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}}_x$ is independent of $x \in X$. Actually, Barabanov [@Barabanov] proved that there exists a norm ${\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {\cdot}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}}$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^d$ with the following stronger property: $$\label{e.Barabanov}
\forall u \in {\mathbb{R}}^d, \quad
\max_{i \in \{0,\dots,N-1\}} {\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {A_i u}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}} = e^{\beta(\Phi)} {\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}} \, .$$ For more information on the joint spectral radius and Barabanov norms, see [@Wirth; @Jungers]. Further applications of extremal norms were obtained by Morris [@Morris_rapidly; @Morris_Mather].
Still in the setting of one-step cocycles, a modification of the concept of Barabanov norm was used in [@BR; @BM] to study Lyapunov-maximizing and also Lyapunov-minimizing measures.
Extremal norms for certain locally constant cocycles over sofic shifts have been studied in the papers [@PEDJ; @CGP].
The main purpose of this paper is to establish existence of extremal norms in a far more general setting.
The main result
---------------
We now describe the hypotheses on the automorphism $\Phi$ and the underlying dynamics $T$ from which we will prove the existence of extremal norms. We first describe them informally, leaving the precise definitions for later sections. First, we assume that $T \colon X \to X$ is a transitive *hyperbolic homeomorphism* of a compact metric space $X$. Hyperbolicity means that $T$ has local stable and unstable sets with uniform exponential bounds, which satisfy a local product property. Examples include subshifts of finite type and Anosov diffeomorphisms.
Second, we assume that the vector bundle ${\mathbb{E}}$ has a Hölder structure, and that the automorphism $\Phi$ respects this structure. In the case of trivial vector bundles, this means that the matrix function $F$ in formula is Hölder continuous.
Third, we assume that the automorphism $\Phi$ is *fiber-bunched*. In crude terms, this means that the non-conformality of the linear maps $\Phi_x$ is small when compared to the hyperbolicity rates of $T$. The precise condition involves the Hölder exponent of the automorphism, so that more regular automorphisms are allowed to be less conformal. In the case that $T$ and $\Phi$ are differentiable, fiber-bunching means that the projectivization of $\Phi$ is a *partially hyperbolic* diffeomorphism.
Actually, for $d \ge 3$ we need to assume a stronger form of fiber-bunching.
Our last assumption is *irreducibility*, meaning that $\Phi$ admits no nontrivial regular subbundle, where regular means as regular as the automorphism itself. We remark that this condition is satisfied for typical fiber-bunched automorphisms: it holds on an open and dense subset of infinite codimension.
The main result of this paper is that *under the conditions above, extremal norms exist*. See \[c.extremal\] for a precise statement.
In the case where the base dynamics $T$ is a subshift of finite type, we are able to improve our main result and obtain an extremal norm with a further property akin to the Barabanov property: see \[ss.Barabanov\].
Classical Barabanov norms are usually non-Riemannian (that is, they do not come from inner products), and it is easy to produce examples[^4]. On the other hand, in our setting, there is more flexibility as the norm is allowed to depend on the basepoint. So one could wonder if the Finsler extremal norms in our main result could be taken Riemannian. Unfortunately, that is not the case: we construct an explicit example in \[ss.Riemann\].
Consequences
------------
As a consequence of our result on the existence of extremal norms, we can show that the maximal Lyapunov exponent is a locally Lipschitz function on the space of strongly bunched irreducible automorphisms (see \[p.Wirth\] for a more precise statement), thus extending a result of Wirth [@Wirth].
We are also able to obtain several general properties of strongly bunched automorphisms $\Phi$ (not necessarily irreducible):
- Their growth obeys certain uniform bounds: see \[t.polynomial\].
- They obey the *subordination principle*: if $\mu$ and $\nu$ are invariant probability measures such that $\nu$ is Lyapunov maximizing in the sense that $\chi_1(\Phi,\nu) = \beta(\Phi)$, and $\operatorname{supp}\mu \subseteq \operatorname{supp}\nu$, then $\mu$ is Lyapunov maximizing as well: see \[t.subordination\]. This property is far from being tautological, even in the commutative setting; in fact it was introduced in this setting by Bousch [@Bousch_Walters].
- The maximal Lyapunov exponent $\beta(\Phi)$ can be approximated by Lyapunov exponents of measures supported on periodic orbits, and moreover the quality of this approximation is superpolynomial with respect to the period: see \[t.super\_pol\]. This extends a result of Morris [@Morris_rapidly], who gave a quantitative version of the celebrated theorem of Berger–Wang [@BWang].
We also introduce *Mather sets* in our context; these sets are the habitat of Lyapunov maximizing measures. We prove an important structural result on the existence of *dominated splittings* on the Mather sets, namely \[t.dom\], which is an essential ingredient in the proof of the aforementioned \[t.super\_pol\].
Organization of the paper
-------------------------
In \[s.setting\] we introduce the setting for our results, providing the definitions and properties of fiber-bunched automorphisms and related concepts. In \[s.subbundles\] we study irreducibility and related concepts.
In \[s.bounded\] we provide sufficient conditions for *relative product boundedness*, an intermediate property which is required for the existence of extremal norms.
The construction of extremal norms is given in \[s.norms\], together with the construction of Barabanov-like norms for shifts and an application to the regularity of $\beta (\mathord{\cdot})$.
In \[s.Mather\] we introduce Mather sets in a very general setting and, under the assumption of existence of an extremal norm, establish fine properties about them.
In \[s.app\] we collect several applications of our results.
\[s.technical\] contains the proofs of several subsidiary results, therefore making the paper self-contained.
In \[s.examples\] we exhibit some “pathological” examples, including an example that fits in the setting of our main results, but where no Riemannian extremal norm exists.
The fiber-bunched setting {#s.setting}
=========================
In this , we fix the basic setting for our theorems. Namely, we define and state the basic properties of Hölder vector bundles, intrinsically hyperbolic homeomorphisms, fiber-bunching, holonomies, and irreducibility. Our approach is influenced by [@BGV; @Viana; @KalSad], and we tried to make it as general as possible. We also obtain some new regularity results that are essential for the main theorems of the paper. However, to make the presentation more fluid, we postpone most proofs to \[s.technical\].
The Hölder exponent {#ss.theta}
-------------------
From now on, assume that $(X,{\mathrm{d}})$ is a compact metric space. We also fix $\theta > 0$ such that the algebra of $\theta$-Hölder functions on $X$ is *normal*, that is, given any two disjoint compact subsets of $X$, there exists a $\theta$-Hölder function that takes values in the interval $[0,1]$ and equals $0$ on one set and $1$ on the other. This assumption is automatically satisfied if $\theta \le 1$. If $X$ is a Cantor set, then the assumption holds for any $\theta>0$. Normality implies the existence of $\theta$-Hölder partitions of unity: see e.g. [@Katz p. 221].
Hölder vector bundles
---------------------
Let ${\mathbb{E}}$ be a $d$-dimensional vector bundle over $X$. We recall the definition and fix the terminology. ${\mathbb{E}}$ is a topological space endowed with a continuous map ${\pi \colon {\mathbb{E}}\to X}$ (called the *projection*), a cover of $X$ by open sets $U_i$ (called *coordinate neighborhoods*), and a family of homeomorphisms (called *coordinate maps*) $$\psi_i \colon U_i \times {\mathbb{R}}^d \to \pi^{-1}(U_i) \quad
\text{such that $\pi( \psi_i(x, u) ) = x$ for all $(x,u) \in U_i \times {\mathbb{R}}^d$,}$$ which is required to have the following compatibility property: whenever $x \in U_i \cap U_j$, the map $$g_{j \gets i}(x) \coloneqq \big[ \psi_j(x, \mathord{\cdot})\big]^{-1} \circ \psi_i(x, \mathord{\cdot}) \colon {\mathbb{R}}^d \to {\mathbb{R}}^d$$ is linear. Therefore we obtain a family of continuous maps: $$\label{e.g}
g_{j \gets i} \colon U_i \cap U_j \to {\mathit{GL}}(d,{\mathbb{R}}),$$ which are called *coordinate transformations*. Moreover, each *fiber* ${\mathbb{E}}_x \coloneqq \pi^{-1}(x)$ has a unique structure of $d$-dimensional vector space such that the maps $$\label{e.h_i}
h_i(x) \coloneqq \psi_i(x, \mathord{\cdot}) \colon {\mathbb{R}}^d \to {\mathbb{E}}_x$$ become isomorphisms. Since $X$ is assumed to be compact, we will from now on assume that the cover $\{U_i\}$ is finite.
We say that ${\mathbb{E}}$ is a *$\theta$-Hölder vector bundle* if the coordinate transformations are locally $\theta$-Hölder. By compactness, we can reduce the coordinate neighborhoods so that the coordinate transformations become (uniformly) $\theta$-Hölder.
As mentioned in \[ss.intro\_extremal\], a *Finsler norm* is a continuous function $\| \mathord{\cdot} \|$ on ${\mathbb{E}}$ that restricts to a norm $\| \mathord{\cdot} \|_x$ on each fiber ${\mathbb{E}}_x$. A Finsler norm $\| \mathord{\cdot} \|$ is called *Riemannian* if each $\| \mathord{\cdot} \|_x$ is induced by an inner product $\langle \mathord{\cdot}, \mathord{\cdot} \rangle_x$. A Finsler norm $\| \mathord{\cdot} \|$ is called *$\theta$-Hölder* if for every $u \in {\mathbb{R}}^d$ and every coordinate neighborhood, the function $x \in U_i \mapsto \| h_i(x) u \| $ is $\theta$-Hölder. Every $\theta$-Hölder vector bundle ${\mathbb{E}}$ admits a $\theta$-Hölder Riemannian norm; the proof is straightforward using a $\theta$-Hölder partition of unity.
We will also need a way of “transporting” vectors from one fiber to another:
\[p.transport\] Let ${\mathbb{E}}$ be a $\theta$-Hölder vector bundle. There exists a family of linear maps $I_{y \gets x} \colon {\mathbb{E}}_x \to {\mathbb{E}}_y$ with the following properties:
1. For every point $x \in X$, the linear map $I_{x \gets x}$ equals the identity.
2. For every pair of indices $i$, $j$, the matrix-valued map $$(x,y) \in U_i \times U_j \mapsto [h_j(y)]^{-1} \circ I_{y \gets x} \circ h_i(x)$$ is $\theta$-Hölder.
See \[ss.basic\] for the proof of \[p.transport\]. The next propositions, also proved in \[ss.basic\], give additional quantitative properties of the transport maps that will be useful in subsequent calculations. Recall that we agree to denote a norm and its induced operator norm by the same symbol, as in .
\[p.transport\_groupoid\] Let ${\mathbb{E}}$ be a $\theta$-Hölder vector bundle, endowed with a Finsler norm. Let $\{I_{y\gets x}\}$ be the family of transport maps provided by \[p.transport\]. Then there is $C>0$ such that for all points $x$, $y$, $z \in X$, $$\| I_{y \gets z} \circ I_{z \gets x} - I_{y \gets x} \| \le C \max\{ {\mathrm{d}}(x,z)^\theta, {\mathrm{d}}(y,z)^\theta \} \, ,$$
\[p.norm\_Holder\] Let ${\mathbb{E}}$ be a $\theta$-Hölder vector bundle, endowed with a Finsler norm $\| \mathord{\cdot}\|$. Let $\{I_{y\gets x}\}$ be the family of transport maps provided by \[p.transport\]. Then the Finsler norm $\|\mathord{\cdot}\|$ is $\theta$-Hölder if and only if there exists $C>0$ such that for all points $x$, $y \in X$, $$\big| \|I_{y \gets x}\| - 1 \big| \le C {\mathrm{d}}(x,y) ^\theta \, .$$
theta-Hölder bundle automorphisms {#ss.auto}
---------------------------------
Assume that ${\mathbb{E}}$ is a $\theta$-Hölder vector bundle over the compact metric space $X$. Fix a $\theta$-Hölder Riemannian norm on ${\mathbb{E}}$.
A map $\Phi \colon {\mathbb{E}}\to {\mathbb{E}}$ is called an *endomorphism* of ${\mathbb{E}}$ if there exists a continuous map $T \colon X \to X$ such that $\pi \circ \Phi = T \circ \pi$ (we say that $\Phi$ *covers* $T$) and for each $x \in X$, the restriction of $\Phi$ to the fiber ${\mathbb{E}}_x$ is a linear map $\Phi_x$ to the fiber ${\mathbb{E}}_{Tx}$. If $T$ is a homeomorphism and each $\Phi_x$ is a isomorphism then we say that $\Phi$ is an *automorphism*.
We say that the endomorphism $\Phi$ covering $T$ is *$\theta$-Hölder* if $T$ is Lipschitz and the maps $$x \in U_i \cap T^{-1}(U_j) \mapsto [h_j(Tx)]^{-1} \circ \Phi_x \circ h_i(x) \in {\mathit{GL}}(d,{\mathbb{R}})$$ are $\theta$-Hölder.[^5] As an immediate consequence, the function $x \in X \mapsto \|\Phi_x\|$ is $\theta$-Hölder.
We can characterize $\theta$-Hölder automorphisms in terms of the transport maps from \[p.transport\]:
\[p.endo\_Holder\] An endomorphism $\Phi \colon {\mathbb{E}}\to {\mathbb{E}}$ covering a Lipschitz map $T$ is $\theta$-Hölder if and only if there exists $K>0$ such that for all $x$, $y \in X$, we have $$\big\| I_{Ty \gets Tx} \circ \Phi_x - \Phi_y \circ I_{y \gets x} \big\| \le K {\mathrm{d}}(x,y)^\theta \, .$$
A proof is provided in \[ss.basic\].
Next, we want to topologize the set of $\theta$-Hölder automorphisms.
Let ${\mathrm{End}}^\theta({\mathbb{E}},T)$ denote the vector space of $\theta$-Hölder endomorphisms $\Phi \colon {\mathbb{E}}\to {\mathbb{E}}$ covering $T$. Define the *$C^0$ norm*: $$\label{e.C0_norm}
\|\Phi\|_0 \coloneqq \sup_{x \in X} \|\Phi_x\| \, .$$ The stronger *$\theta$-Hölder norm* makes ${\mathrm{End}}^\theta({\mathbb{E}},T)$ a Banach space: $$\label{e.Holder_norm}
\|\Phi\|_\theta \coloneqq \max \left\{ \|\Phi\|_0 , \ \sup_{x \neq y} \frac{\|I_{Ty \gets Tx} \circ \Phi_x - \Phi_y \circ I_{y \gets x}\|}{{\mathrm{d}}(x,y)^\theta} \right\} \, .$$ The set ${\mathrm{Aut}}^\theta({\mathbb{E}},T)$ of $\theta$-Hölder automorphisms is a $C^0$-open subset of ${\mathrm{End}}^\theta({\mathbb{E}},T)$. Given $K\ge 1$, let: $$\label{e.bounded_set}
{\mathrm{Aut}}^\theta_K({\mathbb{E}},T) \coloneqq \big\{ \Phi \in {\mathrm{Aut}}^\theta({\mathbb{E}},T) {\;\mathord{;}\;}\|\Phi\|_\theta \le K, \ \|\Phi^{-1}\|_\theta \le K \big\} \, .$$
Hyperbolic homeomorphisms {#ss.hyp_homeo}
-------------------------
The concept of hyperbolicity in differentiable dynamical systems was introduced by Anosov [@Anosov] and Smale [@Smale]. Even without recourse to a differentiable structure, it is possible to define hyperbolicity (and to prove interesting theorems); this has been done in various ways: [@Bowen; @Ruelle; @AY; @Akin; @AH]. In this paper, we will use a minor variation of the definition of hyperbolic homeomorphism given by Sakai [@Sakai] (see \[r.hyperb\] below).
Recall that $X$ is a compact metric space. Let $T \colon X \to X$ be a homeomorphism. Given $x \in X$ and ${\varepsilon}>0$, we define the following sets:
- *local unstable set* $W^{\mathrm{u}}_{\varepsilon}(x) \coloneqq \big\{ y \in X {\;\mathord{;}\;}{\mathrm{d}}(T^{-n} y, T^{-n} x) \le {\varepsilon}\text{ for all } n\ge 0\big\}$;
- *local stable set* $W^{\mathrm{s}}_{\varepsilon}(x) \coloneqq \big\{ y \in X {\;\mathord{;}\;}{\mathrm{d}}(T^n y, T^n x) \le {\varepsilon}\text{ for all } n\ge 0\big\}$.
We say that $T$ is a *hyperbolic homeomorphism* if the following axioms hold:
1. \[i.biLip\] $T$ is bi-Lipschitz, i.e., both $T$ and $T^{-1}$ are Lipschitz;
2. \[i.lambdas\] there exist a constant ${\varepsilon}_0 > 0$ and a pair of continuous positive functions $\lambda_{\mathrm{u}}$, $\lambda_{\mathrm{s}}$ (called the *hyperbolicity exponents*) such that: $$\begin{aligned}
{4}
\label{e.lambda_u}
x &\in X, &\ x', x'' &\in W^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}_0}(x) &\quad &\Rightarrow &\quad
{\mathrm{d}}(T^{-1} x', T^{-1} x'') &\le e^{-\lambda_{\mathrm{u}}(x)} \, {\mathrm{d}}(x',x'') \, , \\
\label{e.lambda_s}
y &\in X, &\ y', y'' &\in W^{\mathrm{s}}_{{\varepsilon}_0}(y) &\quad &\Rightarrow &\quad
{\mathrm{d}}(T y', T y'') &\le e^{-\lambda_{\mathrm{s}}(y)} \, {\mathrm{d}}(y', y'') \, ;\end{aligned}$$
3. \[i.bracket\] there exists a constant ${\varepsilon}_1 \in (0,{\varepsilon}_0)$ such that for any pair of points $x$, $y \in X$ with ${\mathrm{d}}(x,y) \le 2{\varepsilon}_1$, the intersection $W^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}_0}(x) \cap W^{\mathrm{s}}_{{\varepsilon}_0}(y)$ contains exactly one point, denoted by $[x,y]$ and called *the bracket of $x$ and $y$*, which depends continuously on $x$ and $y$;
4. \[i.bounded\_angles\] there exists a constant $C>0$ such that: $$\label{e.bounded_angles}
x, y \in X, \ {\mathrm{d}}(x,y) \le 2{\varepsilon}_1 \ \Rightarrow \
\max \big\{ {\mathrm{d}}([x,y],x) , {\mathrm{d}}([x,y],y) \big\} \le C {\mathrm{d}}(x,y) \, .$$
\[r.hyperb\] Sakai [@Sakai] uses the terminology *$\mathcal{L}$-hyperbolic homeomorphism*, while Ruelle [@Ruelle] uses *Smale spaces*. Modulo a change of metric, both definitions are equivalent to ours, and also to expansivity plus the shadowing property: see [@Sakai] and references cited there.
Let us also define other sets associated with $T$:
- *unstable set* $W^{\mathrm{u}}(x) \coloneqq \left\{ y \in X {\;\mathord{;}\;}{\mathrm{d}}(T^{-n} y, T^{-n} x) \to 0 \text{ as } n \to +\infty \right\}$;
- *stable set* $W^{\mathrm{s}}(x) \coloneqq \left\{ y \in X {\;\mathord{;}\;}{\mathrm{d}}(T^{n} y, T^{n} x) \to 0 \text{ as } n \to +\infty \right\}$;
If $T$ is a hyperbolic homeomorphism then, as an immediate consequence of part (\[i.lambdas\]) of the definition, for every ${\varepsilon}\in (0,{\varepsilon}_0]$ we have the following set relations: $$\label{e.longW}
W^{\mathrm{u}}(x) = \bigcup_{n\ge 0} T^n(W^{\mathrm{u}}_{\varepsilon}(T^{-n} x)) \, , \qquad
W^{\mathrm{s}}(x) = \bigcup_{n\ge 0} T^{-n}(W^{\mathrm{s}}_{\varepsilon}(T^n x)) \, .$$
The transverse regularity of the unstable and stable sets is a classical subject, and fine results about hyperbolicity rely on it: see [@KH Chapter 19]. Nevertheless, we could not find a reference for the following property for hyperbolic homeomorphisms:
\[p.regularity\_base\] Let $T$ be a hyperbolic homeomorphism. There exist constants $0 < \kappa_{\mathrm{s}}\le 1$ and $C>0$ such that if $x$, $x'$, $y$, $y' \in X$ satisfy (see \[f.rectangle\]): $$\label{e.rectangle}
x' \in W^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}_0}(x), \
y' \in W^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}_0}(y), \
y \in W^{\mathrm{s}}_{{\varepsilon}_0}(x), \
y' \in W^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}_0}(x'),$$ then: $${\mathrm{d}}(y,y') \le C \, {\mathrm{d}}(x, x')^{\kappa_{\mathrm{s}}} \, .$$
(-1,0)–(2,0) node\[right\][$W^{\mathrm{u}}$]{}; (-1,5)–(2,5) node\[right\][$W^{\mathrm{u}}$]{}; (0,-1)–(0,6.5) node\[midway,left\][$W^{\mathrm{s}}$]{}; (1,-1)–(1,6.5) node\[midway,right\][$W^{\mathrm{s}}$]{}; (0,0) circle\[radius=2pt\] node\[below left\][$x$]{}; (1,0) circle\[radius=2pt\] node\[below right\][$x'$]{}; (0,5) circle\[radius=2pt\] node\[above left\][$y$]{}; (1,5) circle\[radius=2pt\] node\[above right\][$y'$]{};
The proof, which includes an estimate for the constant $\kappa_{\mathrm{s}}$, is given in \[s.technical\]. If $T$ is the restriction of a $C^2$ diffeomorphism to a basic hyperbolic basic set then a better estimate for $\kappa_{\mathrm{s}}$ is given in [@SS]. Even better regularity estimates can be obtained under various types of extra assumptions: see [@PintoRand] and references therein.
Fiber-bunched automorphisms and their holonomies
------------------------------------------------
We now discuss the notion of *fiber-bunching*. It was introduced in a setting very similar to ours by Bonatti, Gómez-Mont, and Viana [@BGV], though related concepts can be traced back to Brin and Pesin [@BrinP] and Hirsch, Pugh, and Shub [@HPS]. Earlier papers [@BGV; @BV] use a different terminology (“dominated cocycles”), but subsequently the term “fiber-bunched cocycles” prevailed: [@AV_Portugalia; @AV_Inventiones; @KalSad].
If $L$ is a linear isomorphism between inner product spaces, we define its *bolicity*[^6] as $$\label{e.def_bol}
\operatorname{bol}(L) \coloneqq \|L\| \, \|L^{-1}\| \, ,$$ which measures the lack of conformality of $L$ (see \[p.Lip\_bol\]).
Let ${\mathbb{E}}$ be a $\theta$-Hölder $d$-dimensional vector bundle over $X$. Assume that $T$ is a hyperbolic homeomorphism, and that $\Phi$ is a $\theta$-Hölder automorphism of ${\mathbb{E}}$ covering $T$. We say that ${\mathbb{E}}$ is *fiber-bunched* if there exists a Riemannian norm (sometimes called an *adapted norm*) such that for all $x \in X$, $$\label{e.def_fiber_bunched}
\log \operatorname{bol}(\Phi_x)
< \min \left\{ \theta \lambda_{\mathrm{u}}(x), \theta \lambda_{\mathrm{s}}(x)\right\} \, ,$$ where $\lambda_{\mathrm{u}}$, $\lambda_{\mathrm{s}}$ are the hyperbolicity rates of $T$. By perturbing the adapted norm if necessary, we can assume it is also $\theta$-Hölder.
Consider the subset of fiber-bunched automorphisms in the space ${\mathrm{Aut}}^\theta({\mathbb{E}},T)$ of $\theta$-Hölder automorphisms; then this set is open with respect to the $C^0$ norm , and therefore also open with respect to the stronger $\theta$-Hölder norm .
Sometimes we need stronger bunching: we say that it is *$(\eta_{\mathrm{u}},\eta_{\mathrm{s}})$-bunched* for certain constants $\eta_{\mathrm{u}}$, $\eta_s \in (0,\theta]$ if, for some adapted norm, and all $x\in X$, $$\label{e.def_strongly_bunched}
\log \operatorname{bol}(\Phi_x)
< \min \left\{ \eta_{\mathrm{u}}\lambda_{\mathrm{u}}(x), \eta_{\mathrm{s}}\lambda_{\mathrm{s}}(x)\right\} \, .$$
\[r.pointwise\_vs\_absolute\] We have used the *pointwise* definition of fiber-bunching; the more stringent notion of *absolute* fiber-bunching requires the same condition with *constant* hyperbolicity exponents $\lambda_{\mathrm{u}}$, $\lambda_{\mathrm{s}}$. Furthermore, our definition of fiber-bunching is *immediate* in the sense that it manifests itself in a single iterate; one can also define a notion of *eventual* fiber-bunching.
The most basic and fruitful consequence of fiber-bunching is the existence of certain unstable and stable holonomy maps. Like the transport maps from \[p.transport\], unstable and stable holonomy maps provide a way of linearly transporting vectors from a fiber ${\mathbb{E}}_x$ to another fiber ${\mathbb{E}}_y$ (as long as the points $x$, $y$ belong to the same unstable or stable set), but with several extra properties:
\[p.holonomies\] Let $\Phi \in {\mathrm{Aut}}^\theta_K({\mathbb{E}},T)$ be a fiber-bunched automorphism. For each $\star \in \{{\mathrm{u}},{\mathrm{s}}\}$, there exist a unique family of linear maps $H^\star_{y \gets x} \colon {\mathbb{E}}_x \to {\mathbb{E}}_y$, defined whenever $y \in W^\star(x)$, such that the following properties hold:
1. \[i.groupoid\_1\] $H^\star_{x \gets x} = {\mathrm{id}}$.
2. \[i.groupoid\_2\] $H^\star_{z \gets y} \circ H^\star_{y \gets x} = H^\star_{z \gets x}$.
3. \[i.equivariance\] $\Phi_y \circ H^\star_{y \gets x} = H^\star_{Ty \gets Tx} \circ \Phi_x$.
4. \[i.holonomy\_Holder\] There exists a constant $C>0$ such that: $$\label{e.holonomy_Holder}
y \in W^\star_{{\varepsilon}_0}(x) \quad \Rightarrow \quad
\| H^\star_{y \gets x} - I_{y \gets x} \| \le C {\mathrm{d}}(x,y)^\theta \, .$$
5. \[i.holonomy\_cont\] The following map is continuous: $$\label{e.joint_holonomy}
\begin{aligned}
\big\{ (u,y) \in {\mathbb{E}}\times X {\;\mathord{;}\;}y \in W^\star_{{\varepsilon}_0}(\pi(u)) \big\} &\to {\mathbb{E}}\\
(u,y) &\mapsto H^\star_{y \gets \pi(u)} (u)
\end{aligned}$$
Furthermore, the constant $C$ in works for all automorphisms in a $C^0$-neighborhood of $\Phi$ in ${\mathrm{Aut}}^\theta_K({\mathbb{E}},T)$, and the the right-hand side in depends continuously on the automorphism in that neighborhood.
The maps $H^{\mathrm{u}}$ and $H^{\mathrm{s}}$ are called *unstable* and *stable* holonomies, respectively. Properties (\[i.groupoid\_1\]) and (\[i.groupoid\_2\]) are called *groupoid properties*, and property (\[i.equivariance\]) is called *equivariance*.
The stable holonomies are actually defined by the following formula: $$H^{\mathrm{s}}_{y \gets x} \coloneqq \lim_{n \to + \infty} (\Phi_y^n)^{-1} \circ I_{T^n y \gets T^n x} \circ \Phi_x^n \, ,$$ and unstable holonomies are defined likewise, taking $n \to -\infty$ instead. The proof of \[p.holonomies\] consists essentially in proving uniform convergence in these formulas, and it turns out that fiber-bunching is the precise condition for this to work. Except for minor adjustments, the argument is the same as in [@BGV [§]{}1.4], [@KalSad [§]{}4.1], but for completeness and convenience of the reader we present the proof in \[ss.holonomies\].
Fiber-bunched automorphisms satisfy a non-commutative version of Walters’ condition [@Bousch_Walters], namely: $$\forall {\varepsilon}>0 \ \exists \delta> 0 \ \text{such that } \sup_{i \in \ldbrack 0,n \rdbrack} {\mathrm{d}}(T^i x, T^i y) < \delta \ \Rightarrow \ \big\| \Phi_y^n \circ I_{y \gets x} - I_{T^n y \gets T^n x} \circ \Phi_x^n \big\| < {\varepsilon}\, .$$ Indeed, consider $z \coloneqq [x,y]$ and note the following identity: $$\Phi_y^n = H^{\mathrm{s}}_{T^n x \gets T^n z} \circ H^{\mathrm{u}}_{T^n z \gets T^n x} \circ \Phi^n_x \circ H^{\mathrm{u}}_{x \gets z} \circ H^{\mathrm{s}}_{z \gets y} \, .$$ Then, using the continuity of the bracket and the regularity of the holonomies, it is straightforward to obtain the non-commutative Walters’ condition.
We use the holonomies to define certain subsets of ${\mathbb{E}}$. For ${\varepsilon}>0$, $u \in {\mathbb{E}}$, and $x = \pi(u)$, let: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}_{\varepsilon}(u) &\coloneqq \big\{ H^{\mathrm{u}}_{y \gets x}(u) {\;\mathord{;}\;}y \in W^{\mathrm{u}}_{\varepsilon}(x) \big\} \, , \\
{\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}(u) &\coloneqq \big\{ H^{\mathrm{u}}_{y \gets x}(u) {\;\mathord{;}\;}y \in W^{\mathrm{u}}(x) \big\}
= \bigcup_{n\ge 0} \Phi^n({\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}_0}(\Phi^{-n}(u)))\, ,\end{aligned}$$ Analogously we define ${\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{s}}_{\varepsilon}(u)$ and ${\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{s}}(u)$. The sets ${\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}$ (resp. ${\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{s}}$) form a $\Phi$-invariant partition of ${\mathbb{E}}$ and project by $\pi$ onto the sets $W^{\mathrm{u}}$ (resp. $W^{\mathrm{s}}$).
Part (\[i.holonomy\_Holder\]) of \[p.holonomies\] basically says that the “leaves” ${\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}$, ${\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{s}}$ are Hölder-continuous. We will need the transverse regularity of the holonomies:
\[p.regularity\_above\] Let $\Phi \in {\mathrm{Aut}}^\theta_K({\mathbb{E}},T)$ be a fiber-bunched automorphism. There exist $\theta_{\mathrm{s}}\in (0,\theta \kappa_{\mathrm{s}}]$ and $C>0$ such that if $x$, $x'$, $y$, $y' \in X$ satisfy conditions as in \[f.rectangle\] then: $$\left\| H^{\mathrm{u}}_{y' \gets y} \circ H^{\mathrm{s}}_{y \gets x} - H^{\mathrm{s}}_{y' \gets x'} \circ H^{\mathrm{u}}_{x'\gets x} \right\|
\le C {\mathrm{d}}(x,x')^{\theta_{\mathrm{s}}} \, .$$ Furthermore, the same constants $\theta_{\mathrm{s}}$ and $C$ work for every automorphism in a $C^0$-neighborhood of $\Phi$ in ${\mathrm{Aut}}^\theta_K({\mathbb{E}},T)$.
We were not able to find such a statement in the literature, so we provide a proof in \[ss.regularity\].
Invariant subbundles {#s.subbundles}
====================
Subbundles and rigidity {#ss.rigidity}
-----------------------
Let $E$ be an inner product space of dimension $d$, and let $p \in \ldbrack 1, d \rdbrack$. We denote by ${\mathcal{G}}_p(E)$ the *$p$-th Grassmannian* of $E$, i.e., the set of all $p$-dimensional subspaces of $E$. There are many metrics on this set that are “natural” in the sense that they are preserved by the action of orthogonal linear maps: see [@QZL]. As shown in \[ss.Grass\], we can find one such metric ${\mathrm{d}}$ with the useful properties stated in the following :
\[p.Lip\_bol\] If $L \colon E \to F$ is a linear isomorphism between $d$-dimensional inner product spaces and $p<d$, then the induced map ${\mathcal{G}}_p(E) \to {\mathcal{G}}_p(F)$ is Lipschitz with a constant equal to the bolicity of $L$ .
\[p.close\_id\] If $L \colon E \to E$ is a linear isomorphism of a inner product space such that $\|L-{\mathrm{id}}\| \le \delta$ then the induced map on ${\mathcal{G}}_p(E)$ is $O(\delta)$-close to the identity, provided $\delta$ is sufficiently small.
\[p.span\_Lip\] The map that associates a $p$-tuple of linearly independent vectors to its span is locally Lipschitz.
In particular, the metric ${\mathrm{d}}$ induces the usual topology on the Grassmannian.
Now consider a $\theta$-Hölder $d$-dimensional vector bundle ${\mathbb{E}}$ over $X$. For each $p \in \ldbrack 1 , d-1 \rdbrack$, let ${\mathcal{G}}_p({\mathbb{E}})$ denote the fiber bundle whose fiber over $x\in X$ is ${\mathcal{G}}_p({\mathbb{E}}_x)$. As just explained, the fixed Riemannian norm on ${\mathbb{E}}$ induces a distance on each fiber of this bundle.
Let ${\mathbb{F}}$ be a continuous $p$-dimensional subbundle of ${\mathbb{E}}$. We say that ${\mathbb{F}}$ is *$\eta$-Hölder*, for some $\eta \in (0,\theta]$, if there exists $C>0$ such that for all sufficiently close points $x$, $y \in X$ we have: $$\label{e.Holder_subbundle}
{\mathrm{d}}\big( {\mathbb{F}}_y, I_{y \gets x} ({\mathbb{F}}_x) \big) \le C \, {\mathrm{d}}(x,y)^{\eta} \, ,$$ where the ${\mathrm{d}}$ in the left hand side is the distance in ${\mathcal{G}}_p({\mathbb{E}}_y)$. (Recall that $I_{y \gets x}$ is an isomorphism when $x$ and $y$ are close enough.)
Let $\Phi$ be a fiber-bunched automorphism of ${\mathbb{E}}$. We say that a subbundle ${\mathbb{F}}\subseteq {\mathbb{E}}$ is *$\Phi$-invariant* if for all $x \in X$, we have $$\Phi_x ({\mathbb{F}}_x) = {\mathbb{F}}_{Tx} \, .$$ We say that ${\mathbb{F}}$ is *$H^{\mathrm{u}}$-invariant* (or *${\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}$-saturated*) if for all $x \in X$ and all $y \in W^{\mathrm{u}}(x)$, we have $$H_{y \gets x}^{\mathrm{u}}({\mathbb{F}}_x) = {\mathbb{F}}_y \, .$$ We say that ${\mathbb{F}}$ is *$\eta$-Hölder along unstable sets*, for some $\eta \in (0,\theta]$, if there exists $C>0$ and ${\varepsilon}>0$ such that the estimate holds whenever $y \in W^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}}(x)$. Equivalently, there exists $C \ge 0$ such that for all $x \in X$ and all $y \in W^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}_0}(x)$, we have: $$\label{e.Holder_section}
{\mathrm{d}}\big( {\mathbb{F}}_y, H^{\mathrm{u}}_{y \gets x} ({\mathbb{F}}_x) \big) \le C \, {\mathrm{d}}(x,y)^{\eta} \, ;$$ to see the equivalence, use $\theta$-Hölderness of the holonomy and \[p.close\_id\]. $H^{\mathrm{s}}$-invariance and $\eta$-Hölderness along stable sets are defined analogously.
\[p.rigidity\] Let $\eta \in (0,\theta]$. Suppose that $\Phi$ is $(\eta,\theta)$-bunched. Let ${\mathbb{F}}\subseteq {\mathbb{E}}$ be a continuous $\Phi$-invariant subbundle. If ${\mathbb{F}}$ is $\eta$-Hölder along unstable sets then ${\mathbb{F}}$ is $H^{\mathrm{u}}$-invariant, and in particular ${\mathbb{F}}$ is actually $\theta$-Hölder along unstable sets.
Since $\Phi$ is $(\eta,\theta)$-bunched, there is a constant $r \in (0,1)$ such that $\operatorname{bol}(\Phi_x) < r e^{\eta \lambda_{\mathrm{u}}(x)}$ for every $x \in X$. Now fix $x \in X$ and $y \in W^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}_0}(x)$. For each $n \ge 0$, let $x_n \coloneqq T^{-n} x$ and $y_n \coloneqq T^{-n} y$. Then: $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
{\mathrm{d}}\big ({\mathbb{F}}_y, \, H^{\mathrm{u}}_{y \gets x} ({\mathbb{F}}_x) \big)
&= {\mathrm{d}}\big (\Phi^n_{y_n}({\mathbb{F}}_{y_n}), \, \Phi^n_{y_n} (H^{\mathrm{u}}_{y_n \gets x_n} ({\mathbb{F}}_{x_n}) \big) &\quad&\text{(by $\Phi$-invariance of ${\mathbb{F}}$)}\\
&\le \operatorname{bol}(\Phi^n_{y_n}) \, {\mathrm{d}}\big ({\mathbb{F}}_{y_n}, \, H^{\mathrm{u}}_{y_n \gets x_n} ({\mathbb{F}}_{x_n}) \big) &\quad&\text{(by \cref{p.Lip_bol})}\\
&\le C \, \operatorname{bol}(\Phi^n_{y_n}) \, {\mathrm{d}}(x_n,y_n)^{\eta}
&\quad&\text{(by $\eta$-H\"olderness of ${\mathbb{F}}$).}\end{aligned}$$ On one hand, by submultiplicativity of bolicity, $\operatorname{bol}(\Phi^n_{y_n}) \le \operatorname{bol}(\Phi_{y_1}) \cdots \operatorname{bol}(\Phi_{y_n})$. On the other hand, using recursively, $$\begin{gathered}
{\mathrm{d}}(x_n,y_n) = {\mathrm{d}}(T^{-1} x_{n-1}, T^{-1} y_{n-1}) \le e^{-\lambda_{\mathrm{u}}(y_{n-1})} {\mathrm{d}}(x_{n-1}, y_{n-1}) \le \cdots \\ \le e^{-\lambda_{\mathrm{u}}(y_0) - \cdots -\lambda_{\mathrm{u}}(y_{n-1})} {\mathrm{d}}(x,y) \, .\end{gathered}$$ Combining these estimates, we have: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{d}}\big ({\mathbb{F}}_y, \, H^{\mathrm{u}}_{y \gets x} ({\mathbb{F}}_x) \big)
&\le C \, \left[ \prod_{j=1}^{n} \operatorname{bol}(\Phi_{y_j})\right] \left[ \prod_{j=0}^{n-1} e^{-\eta \lambda_{\mathrm{u}}(y_j)} \right] {\mathrm{d}}(x,y)^{\eta} \\
&\le C B^2 r^{n-2} \, {\mathrm{d}}(x,y)^{\eta} \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $B \ge 1$ is the maximal bolicity. As $n \to \infty$, the right hand side tends to zero. So ${\mathbb{F}}_y = H^{\mathrm{u}}_{y \gets x} ({\mathbb{F}}_x)$, proving that the subbundle ${\mathbb{F}}$ is $H^{\mathrm{u}}$-invariant. Since holds with $C=0$, the subbundle ${\mathbb{F}}$ is $\theta$-Hölder along unstable sets.
\[c.irred\] Let $\Phi$ be a fiber-bunched automorphism of ${\mathbb{E}}$. Let ${\mathbb{F}}\subseteq {\mathbb{E}}$ be a $\Phi$-invariant continuous subbundle. Then the following conditions are equivalent:
1. \[i.irred1\] ${\mathbb{F}}$ is a $\theta$-Hölder subbundle;
2. \[i.irred2\] ${\mathbb{F}}$ is both $H^{\mathrm{u}}$- and $H^{\mathrm{s}}$-invariant.
If condition (\[i.irred1\]) holds then ${\mathbb{F}}$ is $\theta$-Hölder along unstable sets, and so \[p.rigidity\] (with $\eta = \theta$) guarantees that ${\mathbb{F}}$ is $H^{\mathrm{u}}$-invariant. By symmetry, ${\mathbb{F}}$ is also $H^{\mathrm{s}}$-invariant. That is, condition (\[i.irred2\]) holds. Conversely, assume that condition (\[i.irred2\]) holds, and consider a pair $x$, $y$ of nearby points. Then the bracket $z \coloneqq [x,y]$ is well-defined, and by property , it is $O({\mathrm{d}}(x,y))$-close to either $x$ or $y$. By hypothesis, ${\mathbb{F}}_y = H^{\mathrm{s}}_{y\gets z} \circ H^{\mathrm{u}}_{z \gets x} ({\mathbb{F}}_x)$. Using \[p.transport\_groupoid\] and $\theta$-Hölderness of the holonomies , we see that $\|I_{y \gets x} - H^{\mathrm{s}}_{y\gets z} \circ H^{\mathrm{u}}_{z \gets x}\| = O({\mathrm{d}}(x,y)^\theta)$. It follows from \[p.close\_id\] that ${\mathrm{d}}( {\mathbb{F}}_y, I_{y \gets x} ({\mathbb{F}}_x)) = O({\mathrm{d}}(x,y)^\theta)$, i.e., condition (\[i.irred1\]) holds.
Irreducibility
--------------
The *trivial* subbundles of ${\mathbb{E}}$ are the zero section and ${\mathbb{E}}$ itself. A fiber-bunched automorphism $\Phi$ is called *reducible* if it has a nontrivial $\Phi$-invariant subbundle ${\mathbb{F}}$ satisfying either of the equivalent conditions of \[c.irred\], and *irreducible* otherwise.
While the existence of continuous $\Phi$-invariant subbundles is common, the existence of $\theta$-Hölder ones is not. For example, if the automorphism admits a dominated splitting[^7], then the subbundles that form the splitting are $\Phi$-invariant, continuous, and actually Hölder, but usually with smaller Hölder exponent. Actually, the dominating bundle is $H^{\mathrm{u}}$-invariant and so $\theta$-Hölder along unstable sets, but usually not so well behaved along stable sets.
A precise formulation of the fact that reducibility is uncommon among fiber-bunched automorphisms is provided by \[p.irred\_typical\].
The strong bunching hypothesis
------------------------------
If $d=2$ then ordinary fiber-bunching suffices for our main results, while if $d\ge 3$ we need $\Phi$ to be not only fiber-bunched, but $(\eta_0,\theta)$-bunched, where $\eta_0$ is given by the following:
\[l.needed\_strength\] There exists $\eta_0 \in (0,\theta]$ that depends only on the hyperbolic homeomorphism $T$ (or, more precisely, on its hyperbolicity exponents) and on the Hölder exponent $\theta$ such that if $\Phi$ is a $(\eta_0,\theta)$-bunched automorphism then the associated regularity exponent $\theta_{\mathrm{s}}$ from \[p.regularity\_above\] satisfies: $$\theta_{\mathrm{s}}\ge \eta_0 \, .$$
For the proof (and an explicit value for $\eta_0$), see \[ss.regularity\].
Let us say that a $\theta$-Hölder automorphism $\Phi \colon {\mathbb{E}}\to {\mathbb{E}}$ covering $T$ is *strongly bunched* if:
- the vector bundle ${\mathbb{E}}$ has fibers of dimension $d \le 2$, and $\Phi$ is fiber-bunched; **or**
- $\Phi$ is a $(\eta_0,\theta)$-bunched automorphism.
The precise point of our proofs where we need strong bunching is for the validity of \[t.irr\_to\_span\], explained in the next .
Spannability {#ss.span}
------------
The following concept of *spannability* will play an important role in this paper; it is vaguely similar to the concept of accessibility in partially hyperbolic dynamics (see e.g. [@Pesin_book [§]{}8.1]).
Let us say that a fiber-bunched automorphism $\Phi$ is *spannable* if for all $x$, $y \in X$, and all nonzero $u \in {\mathbb{E}}_x$, there exist:
- points $x_1, \dots, x_d \in W^{\mathrm{u}}(x)$;
- integers $n_1, \dots, n_d \ge 0$ such that the points $y_i \coloneqq T^{n_i} x_i$ all belong to $W^{\mathrm{s}}(y)$;
with the property that the vectors $v_1, \dots, v_d \in {\mathbb{E}}_y$ defined by $$\label{e.spanners}
v_i \coloneqq H^{\mathrm{s}}_{y \gets y_i} \circ \Phi^{n_i}_{x_i} \circ H^{\mathrm{u}}_{x_i \gets x} (u)$$ form a basis for ${\mathbb{E}}_y$.
It is clear that every spannable automorphism is irreducible. The following important result provides a converse under extra assumptions:
\[t.irr\_to\_span\] Let $T$ be a transitive hyperbolic homeomorphism. Let $\Phi$ be a strongly bunched irreducible automorphism covering $T$. Then $\Phi$ is spannable.
In particular (see \[p.irred\_typical\]), typical strongly bunched automorphisms are spannable (provided $T$ is transitive).
It would be interesting to know whether or not strong bunching is really necessary for the validity of \[t.irr\_to\_span\]; see \[r.Clark\] below for a possible approach to this question.
In order to prove the , we need the following easy property of the unstable and stable sets for the base dynamics:
\[l.transitive\] For every $x \in X$, the sets $\bigcup_{n \ge 0} W^{\mathrm{u}}(T^n x)$ and $\bigcup_{n \ge 0} W^{\mathrm{s}}(T^{-n} x)$ are dense in $X$.
Let $D$ be the set of points whose forward orbits are dense. Since $T$ is transitive, $D$ is itself dense. Moreover, $D$ is $W^{\mathrm{s}}$-saturated (i.e., it is a union of stable sets). By definition of hyperbolic homeomorphism, local stable and unstable sets whose basepoints are sufficiently close always intersect. It follows that $D$ intersects all unstable sets. This implies that for every $x \in X$, the set $\bigcup_{n \ge 0} W^{\mathrm{u}}(T^n x)$ is dense. Applying this to $T^{-1}$ we obtain that $\bigcup_{n \ge 0} W^{\mathrm{s}}(T^{-n} x)$ is also dense.
Fix a point $x \in X$ and a nonzero vector $u \in {\mathbb{E}}_x$. Let $\Lambda \coloneqq \bigcup_{n \ge 0} W^{\mathrm{u}}(T^n x)$, which by \[l.transitive\] is a dense subset of $X$. Define the following subsets of the vector bundle ${\mathbb{E}}$: $$\mathbb{U} \coloneqq \bigcup_{n \ge 0} {\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}(\Phi^n (u)) \, ,
\qquad
\mathbb{S} \coloneqq \bigcup_{v \in \mathbb{U}} {\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{s}}(v) \, ,
\qquad
{\mathbb{F}}\coloneqq \mathrm{span}(\mathbb{S}) \, ,$$ where the latter equation means that for each $y \in X$, the fiber ${\mathbb{F}}_y \coloneqq {\mathbb{E}}_y \cap {\mathbb{F}}$ is the vector space spanned by $\mathbb{S}_y \coloneqq {\mathbb{E}}_y \cap \mathbb{S}$. In order to prove the , we need to show that ${\mathbb{F}}= {\mathbb{E}}$. Clearly,
- $\mathbb{U}$ projects onto $\Lambda$, and is both forward-$\Phi$-invariant (i.e., $\Phi(\mathbb{U}) \subseteq \mathbb{U}$) and ${\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}$-saturated (i.e., it is a union of ${\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}$ sets);
- $\mathbb{S}$ projects onto $X$, and is both forward-$\Phi$-invariant and ${\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{s}}$-saturated; therefore ${\mathbb{F}}$ has the same properties.
We claim that the function $y \in X \mapsto \dim {\mathbb{F}}_y$ has the following properties:
1. \[i.dim1\] it is non-decreasing along orbits of $T$ (i.e., $\dim {\mathbb{F}}_{Ty} \ge \dim {\mathbb{F}}_y$);
2. \[i.dim2\] it is constant along $W^{\mathrm{s}}$ sets;
3. \[i.dim3\] it is lower semicontinuous.
Indeed, properties (\[i.dim1\]) and (\[i.dim2\]) follow from the facts that ${\mathbb{F}}$ is forward-invariant and ${\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{s}}$-saturated, respectively. In order to check property (\[i.dim3\]), fix an arbitrary point $y \in X$ and let $p \coloneqq \dim {\mathbb{F}}_y$. Then there exist points $x_1, \dots, x_p \in W^{\mathrm{u}}(x)$ and integers $n_1, \dots, n_p \ge 0$ such that the points $y_i \coloneqq T^{n_i} x_i$ all belong to $W^{\mathrm{s}}(y)$, and the vectors $v_i$ given by formula span ${\mathbb{F}}_y$. If $y'$ is sufficiently close to $y$, then for each $i$ we can find $y_i' \in W^{\mathrm{u}}(y_i)\cap W^{\mathrm{s}}(y')$ such that the holonomies $H^{\mathrm{u}}_{y_i' \gets y_i}$ and $H^{\mathrm{s}}_{y' \gets y_i'}$ are respectively close to the identity and $H^{\mathrm{s}}_{y \gets y_i}$. Then each vector $v_i' \coloneqq H^{\mathrm{s}}_{y' \gets y'_i} \circ H^{\mathrm{u}}_{y'_i \gets y_i} \circ H^{\mathrm{s}}_{y_i \gets y} (v_i)$ is close to $v_i$, and so the span of $\{v_1', \dots, v_p'\}$ has dimension $p$. Since each $v_i'$ belongs to ${\mathbb{F}}_{y'}$, we conclude that $\dim {\mathbb{F}}_{y'} \ge p$, therefore proving the semicontinuity property (\[i.dim3\]).
Let $C$ be the set of points $y \in X$ where $\dim {\mathbb{F}}_y$ attains its minimum. By the properties (\[i.dim1\]), (\[i.dim2\]), and (\[i.dim3\]) that we have just proved, the set $C$ is nonempty, backwards-invariant (i.e., $T^{-1}(C) \subseteq C$), $W^{\mathrm{s}}$-saturated, and closed. It follows from \[l.transitive\] that $C=X$. In other words, ${\mathbb{F}}$ has constant dimension, say $p$. So ${\mathbb{F}}$ is not only forward-$\Phi$-invariant, but $\Phi$-invariant.
Let $\theta_{\mathrm{s}}$ be given by \[p.regularity\_above\]. We claim that ${\mathbb{F}}$ is $\theta_{\mathrm{s}}$-Hölder along unstable sets, in the sense defined in \[ss.rigidity\]. By compactness, it suffices to prove this claim on a neighborhood of each point $y \in X$. Take points $x_1, \dots, x_p \in W^{\mathrm{u}}(x)$ and integers $n_1, \dots, n_p \ge 0$ such that the points $y_i \coloneqq T^{n_i} x_i$ all belong to $W^{\mathrm{s}}(y)$, and the vectors $v_i$ given by formula span ${\mathbb{F}}_y$. Take $k \ge 0$ large enough so that the points $T^k y_i$ all belong to $W^{\mathrm{s}}_{{\varepsilon}_1}(T^k y)$, where ${\varepsilon}_1$ is constant from condition (\[i.bracket\]) in the definition of hyperbolic homeomorphism. If we prove that ${\mathbb{F}}$ is $\theta_{\mathrm{s}}$-Hölder along unstable sets on a neighborhood of $T^k y$ then, by invariance, it will follow that ${\mathbb{F}}$ is $\theta_{\mathrm{s}}$-Hölder along unstable sets on a neighborhood of $y$. So let us assume that $k=0$, for simplicity of notation. Let $y' \in W^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}_1}(y)$ be close to $y$. Then the brackets $y'_i \coloneqq [y_i, y']$ are well-defined; see \[f.spanning\]. We need to compare the following two subspaces of ${\mathbb{E}}_{y'}$: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{F}}_{y'} &= \mathrm{span} \big\{ H^{\mathrm{s}}_{y' \gets y'_i} \circ \underbrace{H^{\mathrm{u}}_{y'_i \gets y_i} \circ H^{\mathrm{s}}_{y_i \gets y}}_{{\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{
\node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=1pt] (char) {\footnotesize{1}};}}} (v_i) \big\}_{i=1}^p \, , \\
H^{\mathrm{u}}_{y' \gets y} ({\mathbb{F}}_y) &= \mathrm{span} \big\{H^{\mathrm{s}}_{y' \gets y'_i} \circ \underbrace{H^{\mathrm{s}}_{y'_i \gets y'} \circ H^{\mathrm{u}}_{y' \gets y}}_{{\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{
\node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=1pt] (char) {\footnotesize{2}};}}} (v_i) \big\}_{i=1}^p \, .\end{aligned}$$ By \[p.regularity\_above\], $\|{\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{
\node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=1pt] (char) {\footnotesize{1}};}} - {\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{
\node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=1pt] (char) {\footnotesize{2}};}}\| = O({\mathrm{d}}(y,y')^{\theta_{\mathrm{s}}})$; moreover $\| H^{\mathrm{s}}_{y' \gets y'_i}\| = O(1)$. So, by \[p.span\_Lip\], we conclude that ${\mathrm{d}}\big( {\mathbb{F}}_{y'} , H^{\mathrm{u}}_{y' \gets y} ({\mathbb{F}}_y) \big) = O({\mathrm{d}}(y,y')^{\theta_{\mathrm{s}}})$. This concludes the proof that ${\mathbb{F}}$ is $\theta_{\mathrm{s}}$-Hölder along unstable sets. A fortiori, ${\mathbb{F}}$ is continuous (since it is invariant under stable holonomies).
(-7,0) node\[left\][$W^{\mathrm{u}}$]{}–(-3,0); (-6,0) circle\[radius=2pt\] node\[below\][$x_1$]{}; (-5,0) circle\[radius=2pt\] node\[below\][$x$]{}; (-4,0) circle\[radius=2pt\] node\[below\][$x_2$]{}; (-6,.5) arc(180:90:4.5) node\[midway, left\][$T^{n_1}$]{}; (-4,.5) arc(180:90:2.5) node\[midway, left\][$T^{n_2}$]{}; (-1,0)–(2.5,0) node\[right\][$W^{\mathrm{u}}$]{}; (-1,3)–(2.5,3); (-1,5)–(2.5,5); (0,-1)–(0,6.5) node\[above\][$W^{\mathrm{s}}$]{}; (1,-1)–(1,6.5); (0,0) circle\[radius=2pt\] node\[below left\][$y$]{}; (1,0) circle\[radius=2pt\] node\[below right\][$y'$]{}; (0,3) circle\[radius=2pt\] node\[above left\][$y_2$]{}; (1,3) circle\[radius=2pt\] node\[above right\][$y_2'$]{}; (0,5) circle\[radius=2pt\] node\[above left\][$y_1$]{}; (1,5) circle\[radius=2pt\] node\[above right\][$y_1'$]{};
The proof ends differently according to the dimension of ${\mathbb{E}}$. If $d=1$ then ${\mathbb{F}}= {\mathbb{E}}$ and we are done.
Next, consider the case $d=2$. Assume for a contradiction that ${\mathbb{F}}\neq {\mathbb{E}}$, i.e., that ${\mathbb{F}}$ has $1$-dimensional fibers. For each $y \in \Lambda$, the set $\mathbb{U}_y$ contains a nonzero vector and therefore spans ${\mathbb{F}}_y$. Since $\Lambda$ is dense in $X$ and ${\mathbb{F}}$ is continuous, we conclude that ${\mathbb{F}}$ is the closure of $\mathrm{span}(\mathbb{U})$. In particular, ${\mathbb{F}}$ is ${\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}$-saturated. Recalling that ${\mathbb{F}}$ is also ${\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{s}}$-saturated, we contradict irreducibility. This concludes the proof in the case $d=2$.
Now consider the case $d\ge 3$. Then, by definition of strong bunching, $\Phi$ is $(\eta_0,\theta)$-bunched. Recall from \[l.needed\_strength\] that $\eta_0 \le \theta_{\mathrm{s}}$. So \[p.rigidity\] (rigidity) applies and the regularity of the subbundle is upgraded: it is actually $\theta$-Hölder along unstable sets. Irreducibility implies that ${\mathbb{F}}= {\mathbb{E}}$, thus concluding the proof.
We will use an apparently stronger, but equivalent form of spannability. Recall that ${\varepsilon}_1>0$ is one of the constants that appear in the definition of hyperbolic homeomorphism (\[ss.hyp\_homeo\]).
\[p.unif\_span\] Suppose $\Phi$ is a spannable automorphism. Then there exist constants $\bar{n} \ge 0$ and $C_0 > 0$ with the following properties: For all points $x$, $y \in X$, and all unit vectors $u \in {\mathbb{E}}_x$, there exist:
- points $x_1, \dots, x_d \in W^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}_1}(x)$;
- integers $n_1, \dots, n_d \in \ldbrack 0, \bar{n} \rdbrack$ such that the points $y_i \coloneqq T^{n_i} x_i$ all belong to $W^{\mathrm{s}}_{{\varepsilon}_1}(y)$;
with the property that the vectors $v_1, \dots, v_d \in {\mathbb{E}}_y$ defined by form a basis for ${\mathbb{E}}_y$; moreover, if $L \colon {\mathbb{E}}_y \to {\mathbb{E}}_y$ is a linear map that sends this basis to an orthonormal basis then $\|L\| < C_0$.
If $u \in {\mathbb{E}}$ is a nonzero vector, let $[u]$ denote its class in the projective bundle $\hat{{\mathbb{E}}} \coloneqq {\mathcal{G}}_1({\mathbb{E}})$. Let $\Phi$ be a spannable automorphism. Given $([u], y) \in \hat{{\mathbb{E}}} \times X$, consider $x = \pi(u)$ and let $x_i$, $n_i$, $y_i$, and $v_i$, where $i \in \ldbrack 1,d \rdbrack$, be as in the definition of spannability. Note that if $([\tilde u], \tilde y)$ belongs to a sufficiently small neighborhood of $([u],y)$ then we can find the corresponding data $(\tilde x_i, \tilde n_i, \tilde y_i, [\tilde v_i])$ close to $(x_i, n_i, y_i, [v_i])$ (so $\tilde n_i = n_i$) and actually depending continuously on $([\tilde u], \tilde y)$. Since the space $\hat{{\mathbb{E}}} \times X$ is compact, we can cover it by finitely many such neighborhoods $U_j$. We can also assume that the sets $U_j$ are compact.
Fix any set $U_j$ and an element $([u],y) \in U_j$. Let $x = \pi(u)$ and let $(x_i, n_i, y_i, [v_i])$, $i \in \ldbrack 1,d \rdbrack$ be the corresponding spannability data. For each $k \ge 0$, the pair $([\Phi^{-k}(u)], T^k y) \in \hat{{\mathbb{E}}} \times X$ has $(T^{-k} x_i, n_i+2k, T^k y_i, [\Phi^k(v_i)])$, $i \in \ldbrack 1,d \rdbrack$ as valid spannability data. By , if $k$ is large enough then $$T^{-k} x_i \in W^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}_1}(T^{-k} x) \quad\text{and}\quad T^k y_i \in W^{\mathrm{s}}_{{\varepsilon}_1}(T^k y) \quad \text{for each $i \in \ldbrack 1,d \rdbrack$.}$$ By continuity of the spannability data on the compact set $U_j$, this conclusion holds provided $k$ is bigger than some $k_j$. There are finitely many indices $j$ to consider, so let us fix a definitive $k$ bigger than all $k_j$’s. The compact sets $V_j \coloneqq \{([\Phi^{-k}(u)], T^k y) {\;\mathord{;}\;}([u],y) \in U_j\}$ also cover the space $\hat{{\mathbb{E}}} \times X$. They provide the spannability data with the required uniformity properties. This proves the .
\[c.open\_span\] Given a spannable automorphism $\Phi \in {\mathrm{Aut}}^\theta_K({\mathbb{E}},T)$, we can choose $\bar{n} \ge 0$ and $C_0 > 0$ such that the the statement of \[p.unif\_span\] holds for all automorphisms in a $C^0$-neighborhood of $\Phi$ in the space ${\mathrm{Aut}}^\theta_K({\mathbb{E}},T)$.
In particular, spannable automorphisms form a $C^0$-open subset of ${\mathrm{Aut}}^\theta_K({\mathbb{E}},T)$.
By part (\[i.holonomy\_cont\]) of \[p.holonomies\], holonomies depend continuously on the fiber-bunched automorphism $\Phi$, with respect to the $C^0$-norm. So, in the situation of \[p.unif\_span\], if we make a $C^0$-perturbation of $\Phi$ (among $\theta$-Hölder automorphisms) then the vectors $v_1$, …, $v_d$ change little and therefore stay linearly independent.
Let us say that a automorphism is *topologically irreducible* if it admits no *continuous* proper invariant subbundle. As the proof of \[t.irr\_to\_span\] shows, if a fiber-bunched automorphism over a transitive hyperbolic homeomorphism is topologically irreducible then it is spannable.
\[r.Clark\] As Clark Butler has pointed out to us, if a fiber-bunched automorphism satisfies the *pinching-and-twisting* condition from [@BV Def. 1.3], [@AV_Portugalia Def. 1.2] then it is spannable. In other words, one can remove the strong bunching hypothesis from \[t.irr\_to\_span\], provided one replaces irreducibility with the (strictly stronger) pinching-and-twisting condition.
Let us sketch the proof. Let $\mathbb{U} \subseteq {\mathbb{F}}$ be as in proof of \[t.irr\_to\_span\]. Let $\mathbb{V}$ be the closure of the span of $\bigcup_{n\ge 0} \Phi^{-n}(\mathbb{U})$; then $\mathbb{V}$ is $\Phi$-invariant, ${\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}$-saturated, projects down on $X$, and is contained in ${\mathbb{F}}$. Let $\mu$ be the $T$-invariant probability measure on $X$ with maximal entropy (other choices are possible). Let ${\mathbb{P}}\Phi$ be the projectivization of the automorphism $\Phi$. Then ${\mathbb{P}}\Phi$ admits an *invariant $\mathrm{u}$-state*, that is, an invariant measure $\hat m$ that projects on $\mu$ and whose disintegration w.r.t. to this projection is $\mu$-a.e. invariant under unstable holonomies: see [@AV_Portugalia § 4.1]. By adapting the construction, we can ensure that the invariant $\mathrm{u}$-state $\hat m$ gives full weight to ${\mathbb{P}}\mathbb{V}$, and in particular to ${\mathbb{P}}{\mathbb{F}}$, which is a continuous ${\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{s}}$-saturated invariant subbundle of ${\mathbb{P}}{\mathbb{E}}$. Under the pinching-and-twisting assumption, [@BV Prop. 5.1] or [@AV_Portugalia Prop. 5.1] say that such a situation is impossible unless ${\mathbb{F}}= {\mathbb{E}}$. (Actually in these papers $T$ is a shift, but the proofs can be adapted to the general situation, or we can use a Markov partition.) Therefore $\Phi$ is spannable.
It is not clear how to relax the pinching-and-twisting hypothesis in the arguments from [@BV; @AV_Portugalia]. Therefore we still lack an optimal criterion for spannability.
Bounding the growth {#s.bounded}
===================
Relative product boundedness {#ss.RPB}
----------------------------
A vector bundle automorphism $\Phi$ is called *product bounded* if $$\sup_{n \ge 0} \, \sup_{x\in X} \|\Phi^n_x\| < \infty$$ for some and hence any Finsler norm on ${\mathbb{E}}$. This condition evidently implies that $\beta(\Phi)\le 0$, i.e. the maximal Lyapunov exponent is nonpositive. On the other hand, we say that $\Phi$ is *relatively product bounded* if $e^{-\beta(\Phi)} \Phi$ is product bounded, that is, $$\sup_{n \ge 0} e^{-\beta(\Phi) n} \sup_{x\in X} \|(\Phi^n)_x\| < \infty \, .$$ Of course, if $\Phi$ has an extremal norm then it is relatively product bounded. The converse is true in the $1$-step case, as noted by Rota and Strang [@RS]. But the converse is not true in general[^8]; in fact it may fail even in dimension $1$, as shown by Morris [@Morris_sufficient Proposition 2]. In Morris’ example, the dynamics is uniformly hyperbolic (actually a full shift), but the function is not Hölder.
In this paper, we need to prove relative product boundedness as an essential preliminary step in the construction of extremal norms. We will show the following:
\[p.bounded\] Every spannable automorphism is relatively product bounded.
The proof, which will occupy \[ss.local\_RPB,ss.bounded\_proof\], is roughly as follows: first, we find pieces of ${\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}$ sets of uniform size that stay relatively product bounded for a long time (\[l.anti\_claim\]), then we use a compactness argument to find small pieces of ${\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}$ sets that stay relatively product bounded forever (\[l.input\]), and finally we use spannability to spread this property to the whole bundle (\[l.key\]).
Let us close this with some remarks about product boundedness and relative product boundedness.
It was shown by Blondel and Tsitsiklis [@BT] that the product boundedness of a pair of rational matrices is algorithmically undecidable.
A result of Coronel, Navas, and Ponce [@CNP] states if $T$ is a *minimal* homeomorphism (i.e. all its orbits are dense) and $\Phi$ and $\Phi^{-1}$ are both product bounded then there exists an *invariant* Riemannian norm.
It is easy to give examples of regular (e.g. Hölder) automorphisms that are not relatively product bounded: any cocycle constant equal to $\left( \begin{smallmatrix} 1 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 \end{smallmatrix} \right)$ will do. Here is a more interesting example:
\[ex.Herman\] Let the base dynamics $T$ be an irrational rotation of the circle ${\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}$, and consider the matrix-valued map $F(x) \coloneqq \left( \begin{smallmatrix} 2 & 0 \\ 0 & 1/2 \end{smallmatrix} \right) R_{2\pi x}$, where $R_\theta$ denotes the rotation matrix by angle $\theta$. As shown by Herman [@Herman p. 471–473], the ${\mathit{SL}}(2,{\mathbb{R}})$-cocycle $(T,F)$ has a positive Lyapunov exponent, but it is not uniformly hyperbolic. Therefore it cannot be relatively product bounded, because otherwise it would contradict a result of Morris [@Morris_rapidly Theorem 2.1].
Existence of local unstable sets with relatively bounded orbits {#ss.local_RPB}
---------------------------------------------------------------
Let $\Phi$ be a fiber-bunched automorphism in the set ${\mathrm{Aut}}^\theta_K({\mathbb{E}},T)$. By the definition of this set, $$\label{e.bound_Phi}
\|\Phi^{\pm 1}_x\| \le K \quad \text{for all } x \in X.$$ By equicontinuity of local holonomies, there exists a constant $C_1 > 1$ such that: $$\label{e.bound_H}
\|H^\star_{y \gets x}\| < C_1
\quad \text{for all } x \in X, \ \star \in \{{\mathrm{u}},{\mathrm{s}}\}, \ y \in W^\star_{{\varepsilon}_0}(x).$$ Moreover, by \[p.holonomies\], it is possible to choose a constant $C_1$ that works for all automorphisms in a $C^0$-neighborhood of $\Phi$ in ${\mathrm{Aut}}^\theta_K({\mathbb{E}},T)$.
Let ${\mathbb{E}}^\times$ denote the complement of the zero section in ${\mathbb{E}}$. Recall that ${\varepsilon}_0$ comes from the definition of hyperbolic homeomorphism.
\[l.anti\_claim\] Let $\Phi$ be a fiber-bunched automorphism. Then there exists ${\varepsilon}_2 \in (0,{\varepsilon}_0)$, depending only on $T$, such that for every integer $m > 0$ there exists $u \in {\mathbb{E}}^\times$ with the following property: $$\sup_{n \in \ldbrack 1, m \rdbrack} \, \sup_{v \in {\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}_2} (u)} e^{-\beta(\Phi) n} \| \Phi^n (v) \| \le 2 \|u\| \, .$$
Multiplying $\Phi$ by a nonzero constant, we can assume that $\beta(\Phi) = 0$. Let $\lambda_{\mathrm{u}}$ be the hyperbolicity exponent of $T$ along unstable sets, and let $$\label{e.hyp_rate}
a \coloneqq \sup_{x \in X} e^{-\lambda_{\mathrm{u}}(x)} < 1 \, .$$ Hyperbolicity implies: $$\label{e.W_contraction}
\forall x \in X , \ \forall {\varepsilon}\in (0, {\varepsilon}_0], \quad
T^{-1}(W^{\mathrm{u}}_{\varepsilon}(x)) \subseteq W^{\mathrm{u}}_{a{\varepsilon}}(T^{-1} x) \, .$$ Let ${\varepsilon}_2 \coloneqq (1-a){\varepsilon}_0$. In order to show that the conclusion of the holds for this ${\varepsilon}_2$, let us assume for a contradiction that there exists an integer $m > 0$ such that: $$\label{e.old_claim}
\forall u \in {\mathbb{E}}^\times \
\exists n=n(u) \in \ldbrack 1, m \rdbrack \
\exists v=v(u) \in {\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}_2} (u) \text{ s.t.\ }
\| \Phi^n (v) \| > 2 \|u\| \, .$$
We recursively define sequences $(u_k)$, $(v_k)$ in ${\mathbb{E}}^\times$ and $(n_k)$ in $\ldbrack 1, m \rdbrack$ as follows: We choose $u_0 \in {\mathbb{E}}^\times$ arbitrarily. Assuming $u_k$ was already defined, we let $n_k \coloneqq n(u_k)$ and $v_k \coloneqq v(u_k)$ be given by , and let $u_{k+1} \coloneqq \Phi^{n_k}(v_k)$. Note that for each $k\ge 0$ we have $\|u_{k+1}\| > 2 \|u_k\|$ and so $\| u_k \| \ge 2^k \|u_0\|$.
Now let $\ell_k \coloneqq n_0 + n_1 + \cdots + n_{k-1}$ (so $\ell_0 \coloneqq 0$), and $w_k \coloneqq \Phi^{-\ell_k}(v_k)$. We claim that each $w_k$ belongs to ${\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}_0} (u_0)$; indeed: $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
v_k &\in {\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}_2}(u_k) &&\Rightarrow \\
\Phi^{-n_{k-1}}(v_k) &\in {\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}_{a {\varepsilon}_2}(v_{k-1}) \subseteq {\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}_{(1+a) {\varepsilon}_2}(u_{k-1}) &&\Rightarrow \\
\Phi^{-n_{k-2}-n_{k-1}}(v_k) &\in {\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}_{(a+a^2) {\varepsilon}_2}(v_{k-2}) \subseteq {\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}_{(1 + a+a^2) {\varepsilon}_2}(u_{k-2}) &&\Rightarrow \\
&\ \vdots \\
w_k = \Phi^{-n_{0} - \cdots -n_{k-1}}(v_k) &\in {\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}_{(a+\cdots+a^k) {\varepsilon}_2}(v_0) \subseteq {\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}_{(1 + a + \cdots + a^k) {\varepsilon}_2}(u_0) \, ,\end{aligned}$$ proving the claim. In particular, by we obtain $\|w_k\| \le C_1 \|u_0\|$. Since $v_k \in {\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}_2}(u_k)$, using again we have $\|u_k\| \le C_1 \|v_k\|$. Therefore: $$\frac{\|\Phi^{\ell_k} (w_k)\|}{\|w_k\|}
= \frac{\|v_k\|}{\|w_k\|}
\ge \frac{C_1^{-1} \|u_k\|}{C_1 \|u_0\|}
\ge C_1^{-2} 2^k
\, .$$ Since $\ell_k \le mk$, using we obtain $$\beta(\Phi) = \lim_{k \to \infty} \sup_{x\in X} \frac{ \log \|\Phi^{\ell_k}_x \|}{\ell_k}
\ge \limsup_{k \to \infty} \frac{ \log (\|\Phi^{\ell_k} w_k \|/\|w_k\|)}{\ell_k} \ge \frac{\log 2}{m} > 0 \, .$$ This contradiction concludes the proof.
The next supersedes the previous one:
\[l.input\] Let $\Phi \in {\mathrm{Aut}}^\theta_K({\mathbb{E}},T)$ be a fiber-bunched automorphism. Then there exist a constant $C_2>1$ and a vector $u_* \in {\mathbb{E}}^\times$ such that $$\sup_{n \ge 0} \, \sup_{v \in {\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}_1}(u_*)} e^{-\beta(\Phi) n} \| \Phi^n (v) \| \le C_2 \|u_*\| \, .$$ Moreover, the same constant $C_2$ works for all automorphisms in a $C^0$-neighborhood of $\Phi$ in ${\mathrm{Aut}}^\theta_K({\mathbb{E}},T)$.
Again, multiplying $\Phi$ by a nonzero constant (and increasing $K$ if necessary), we can assume that $\beta(\Phi) = 0$.
Let ${\varepsilon}_2$ be given by \[l.anti\_claim\]. By the continuity of the bracket, there exists ${\varepsilon}_3 \in (0,{\varepsilon}_1)$ such that: $$z_1,z_2 \in X, \ {\mathrm{d}}(z_1,z_2) < 2{\varepsilon}_3 \quad \Rightarrow \quad {\mathrm{d}}([z_1,z_2], z_i) \le {\varepsilon}_2 \, .$$
For each integer $m \ge 1$, \[l.input\] provides $u_m \in {\mathbb{E}}^\times$, say with $\|u_m\|=1$, such that for every $n \in \ldbrack 1, m \rdbrack$ and every $v \in {\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}_2}(u_m)$ we have $\| \Phi^n(v) \| \le 2$. Passing to a subsequence if necessary, we assume that $(u_m)$ converges to some $\bar{u}$, which has $\|\bar{u}\|=1$. Let $x_m \coloneqq \pi(u_m)$ and $\bar{x} \coloneqq \pi(\bar{u})$.
We claim that $$\label{e.almost_there}
\sup_{n \ge 0} \, \sup_{\bar{v} \in {\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}_3}(\bar{u})} \| \Phi^n (\bar{v}) \| \le 2C_1 \, .$$ Indeed, given $\bar{v} \in {\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}_3}(\bar{u})$ and $n \ge 0$, consider $\bar{y} \coloneqq \pi(\bar{v})$. Since $x_m \to \bar{x}$, for every sufficiently large $m \ge n$ we have ${\mathrm{d}}(x_m,\bar{y}) < 2{\varepsilon}_3$, and in particular $y_m \coloneqq [x_m,\bar{y}]$ is well-defined and belongs to $W^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}_2}(x_m)$. Let $v_m \coloneqq H^{\mathrm{u}}_{y_m \gets x_m}(u_m)$ and $w_m \coloneqq H^{\mathrm{s}}_{\bar{y} \gets y_m}(v_m)$ (see \[f.input\]).
(0,0)–(8,0) node\[right\][$W^{\mathrm{u}}$]{}; (2,0) circle\[radius=2pt\] node\[above left\][$x_m$]{}; (6,0) circle\[radius=2pt\] node\[above left\][$y_m$]{}; plot \[smooth, tension=1\] coordinates [ (0,4.3) (2,4) (4,3.8) (6,4) (8,3.65)]{} node\[right\][${\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}$]{}; (2,0)–(2,4); (2,4) circle\[radius=2pt\] node\[below left\][$u_m$]{}; (6,4) circle\[radius=2pt\] node\[above left\][$v_m$]{}; (6,0)–(6,4);
(1,1)–(9,1) node\[right\][$W^{\mathrm{u}}$]{}; (3.25,1) circle\[radius=2pt\] node\[below right\][$\bar{x}$]{}; (7,1) circle\[radius=2pt\] node\[below right\][$\bar y$]{}; plot \[smooth, tension=1\] coordinates [ (1,5.4) (3.25,5) (5,4.8) (7,4.9) (9,4.75)]{} node\[right\][${\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}$]{}; (3.25,1)–(3.25,5); (3.25,5) circle\[radius=2pt\] node\[below left\][$\bar{u}$]{};
(1.5,-.5)–(3.5,1.5); (1.75,-.5)–(3.75,1.5) node\[right\][$W^{\mathrm{s}}$]{}; (5.5,-.5)–(7.5,1.5) node\[right\][$W^{\mathrm{s}}$]{}; plot \[smooth, tension=1\] coordinates [ (5.5,3.4) (6,4) (7,5.5) (7.5,6.1)]{} node\[right\][${\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{s}}$]{};
(7,4.9) circle\[radius=2pt\] node\[below right\][$\bar{v}$]{}; (7,5.5) circle\[radius=2pt\] node\[right\][$w_m$]{}; (7,1)–(7,5.5);
Then: $$\|\Phi^n(w_m) \|
= \left\| H^{\mathrm{s}}_{T^m \bar{y} \gets T^m y_m} (\Phi^n(v_m)) \right\|
\le C_1 \left\| \Phi^n(v_m) \right\|
\le 2C_1 \, .$$ As $m \to \infty$ (recall that $n$ is fixed), we have $y_m \to [\bar{x},\bar{y}] = \bar{y}$ and so: $$w_m = H^{\mathrm{s}}_{\bar{y} \gets y_m} \circ H^{\mathrm{u}}_{y_m \gets x_m}(u_m) \to H^{\mathrm{u}}_{\bar{y} \gets \bar{x}}(\bar{u}) = \bar{v} \, ,$$ by continuity of holonomies. It follows that $\|\Phi^n(\bar{v}) \| \le 2 C_1$, completing the proof of the claim .
Fix a constant $\ell > 0$ depending only on $T$ such that $W^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}_1}(T^\ell \bar{x}) \subseteq T^\ell(W^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}_3}(\bar{x}))$. Let $u_* \coloneqq \Phi^\ell(\bar{u})$. Then $$\sup_{n \ge 0} \, \sup_{v \in {\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}_1}(u_*)} \| \Phi^n (v) \| \le
\sup_{n \ge 0} \, \sup_{\bar{v} \in {\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}_3}(\bar{u})} \| \Phi^{n+\ell} (\bar{v}) \| \le 2C_1 \, ,$$ by . On the other hand, recalling , we have $\|u_*\| \ge K^{-\ell} \|u\| = K^{-\ell}$. So the vector $u_*$ has the desired property with $C_2 \coloneqq 2 K^\ell C_1$, completing the proof of the .
Proof of relative product boundedness {#ss.bounded_proof}
-------------------------------------
The next lemma uses spannability to spread local product boundedness from a local unstable set to the whole space:
\[l.key\] Let $\Phi \in {\mathrm{Aut}}^\theta_K({\mathbb{E}},T)$ be a spannable automorphism. There exists $C_3 > 1$ with the following properties. Suppose $u \in {\mathbb{E}}$ is a nonzero vector such the following quantity is finite: $$r \coloneqq \frac{1}{\|u\|}
\limsup_{n \to \infty} e^{-n \beta(\Phi)}\sup_{v \in {\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}_1}(u)} \|\Phi^n(v)\| \, .$$ Then $$\limsup_{n \to \infty} e^{-n \beta(\Phi)} \sup_{y \in X} \|\Phi^n_y \| \le C_3 r \, .$$ Furthermore, the same constant $C_3$ works for all automorphisms in a $C^0$-neighborhood of $\Phi$ in ${\mathrm{Aut}}^\theta_K({\mathbb{E}},T)$.
Note that the hypothesis of \[l.key\] is non-void by \[l.input\], and that its conclusion implies that $\Phi$ is relatively product bounded. So \[l.key\] implies \[p.bounded\]. However, the more technical statement of \[l.key\] is necessary for the construction of an extremal norm in the next section.
It is sufficient to consider $\beta(\Phi)=0$. Let $\bar{n}$ and $C_0$ be the uniform spannability constants provided by \[p.unif\_span\]. Fix a nonzero vector $u$ for which the associated quantity $r$ is finite, and without loss of generality, let us assume that $\|u\| = 1$. Let $r'>r$ be arbitrary. Then there exists $n_*$ such that $$\sup_{n \ge n_*} \sup_{v \in {\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}_1}(u)} \|\Phi^n(v)\| \le r' \, .$$ Consider arbitrary $y \in X$ and $w \in {\mathbb{E}}_y$. Apply \[p.unif\_span\] to the points $x \coloneqq \pi(u)$ and $y$ and the vector $u$, obtaining points $x_1, \dots, x_d \in W^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}_1}(x)$ and times $n_1, \dots, n_d \in \ldbrack 0, \bar{n} \rdbrack$ such that each point $y_i \coloneqq T^{n_i} x_i$ belongs to $W^{\mathrm{s}}_{{\varepsilon}_1}(y)$ and the vectors $v_i$ defined by form a basis for ${\mathbb{E}}_y$. Moreover, if we express $w$ as a linear combination $a_1 v_1 + \dots + a_d v_d$, then the also yields that $(\sum_i a_i^2)^{1/2} \le C_0 \|w\|$. So each $|a_i| \le C_0\|w\|$. For each $i$ and $n \ge n_*$, we have $$\Phi^n(v_i) = \underbrace{H^{\mathrm{s}}_{T^n y \gets T^n y_i}}_{{\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{
\node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=1pt] (char) {\footnotesize{1}};}}} \circ \underbrace{\Phi^{n_i+n}_{x_i} \circ H^{\mathrm{u}}_{x_i \gets x} (u)}_{{\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{
\node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=1pt] (char) {\footnotesize{2}};}}} \, .$$ We have $\| {\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{
\node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=1pt] (char) {\footnotesize{1}};}} \| \le C_1$ by , and $\| {\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{
\node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=1pt] (char) {\footnotesize{2}};}} \| \le r'$ by definition. Combining these estimates, we obtain: $$\|\Phi^n(w) \| \le d C_0 C_1 r' \|w\| \, ,$$ that is, $\|\Phi^n_y\| \le C_3 r'$, where $C_3 \coloneqq d C_0 C_1$. So $\limsup_{n \to \infty} \sup_{y \in X} \|\Phi^n_y \|$ is bounded by $C_3 r'$, and actually by $C_3 r$, since $r'>r$ is arbitrary. This proves the desired inequality.
Now consider a $C^0$-perturbation of $\Phi$ in the set ${\mathrm{Aut}}^\theta_K({\mathbb{E}},T)$. By \[c.open\_span\], this perturbation is also spannable, and we can use the same constants $\bar{n}$ and $C_0$. So the argument above applies verbatim for the perturbed automorphism.
Application: polynomial bounds {#ss.polynomial}
------------------------------
Let us give an application of what we have proved so far, namely that under the hypothesis of strong fiber-bunching, relative product boundedness fails at most by a polynomial factor. The reader anxious to see extremal norms may skip this .
\[t.polynomial\] Let $T$ be a transitive hyperbolic homeomorphism. Let $\Phi \colon {\mathbb{E}}\to {\mathbb{E}}$ be strongly bunched automorphism covering $T$. Then there exists an integer $d' \in \ldbrack 0, d-1 \rdbrack$ and $C>0$ such that $$\|\Phi_x^n\| \le C n^{d'} e^{n \beta(\Phi)} \quad \text{for all $x\in X$ and $n \ge 0$.}$$
For related results, see [@KalSad Theorem 3.10], [@Jungers §3.5–3.6].
Before proving this , let us fix some terminology. Suppose ${\mathbb{E}}$ is a $\theta$-Hölder vector bundle over $X$, with a fixed $\theta$-Hölder Riemannian norm, and that ${\mathbb{F}}\subseteq {\mathbb{E}}$ is a $\theta$-Hölder subbundle. Let ${\mathbb{F}}^\perp \subseteq {\mathbb{E}}$ be the orthogonal complement subbundle, which is also $\theta$-Hölder. Then the orthogonal projections $$\label{e.projections}
P \colon {\mathbb{E}}\to {\mathbb{F}}\quad \text{and} \quad Q \colon {\mathbb{E}}\to {\mathbb{F}}^\perp$$ are $\theta$-Hölder endomorphisms covering ${\mathrm{id}}_X$. Now suppose $\Phi \colon {\mathbb{E}}\to {\mathbb{E}}$ is $\theta$-Hölder automorphism covering $T$ and that ${\mathbb{F}}$ is $\Phi$-invariant. Then there are two induced $\theta$-Hölder automorphisms, both covering $T$, namely the obvious *restricted automorphism* $\Phi|_{\mathbb{F}}\colon {\mathbb{F}}\to {\mathbb{F}}$, and the *quotient automorphism* $\nicefrac{\Phi}{{\mathbb{F}}} \colon {\mathbb{F}}^\perp \to {\mathbb{F}}^\perp$ defined by $\nicefrac{\Phi}{{\mathbb{F}}} \coloneqq (Q \circ \Phi )|_{{\mathbb{F}}^\perp}$. If the automorphism $\Phi$ is fiber-bunched (or strongly bunched) then so are $\Phi|_{\mathbb{F}}$ and $\nicefrac{\Phi}{{\mathbb{F}}}$.
Let $\Phi \colon {\mathbb{E}}\to {\mathbb{E}}$ be a strongly bunched automorphism. If $\Phi$ is irreducible then by \[t.irr\_to\_span\] it is spannable, and by \[p.bounded\] it is relatively product bounded, hence our claim holds with $d'=0$. In particular, the holds when $d=1$. Now suppose $\Phi$ is reducible, that is, there exists a $\theta$-Hölder $\Phi$-invariant nontrivial subbundle ${\mathbb{F}}\subset {\mathbb{E}}$. By induction on dimension, we can assume that the holds for the restricted automorphism $\Phi|_{{\mathbb{F}}}$ and the quotient automorphism $\nicefrac{\Phi}{{\mathbb{F}}}$, that is, there are nonnegative integers $d_1 < \dim {\mathbb{F}}$ and $d_2 < d - \dim {\mathbb{F}}$ such that: $$\label{e.trouxa1}
\| (\Phi|_{\mathbb{F}})_x^n \| = O \left(n^{d_1} e^{n \beta(\Phi|_{\mathbb{F}})} \right)
\quad \text{and} \quad
\| (\nicefrac{\Phi}{{\mathbb{F}}})_x^n \| = O \left(n^{d_2} e^{n \beta(\nicefrac{\Phi}{{\mathbb{F}}})} \right) \, .$$ Note that, by the definitions of the automorphisms $\Phi|_{\mathbb{F}}$ and $\nicefrac{\Phi}{{\mathbb{F}}}$, $$\max \big\{ \| (\Phi|_{\mathbb{F}})_x^n \| , \ \| (\nicefrac{\Phi}{{\mathbb{F}}})_x^n \| \big\} \le \| \Phi_x^n \|
\quad \text{for all $x\in X$ and $n \ge 0$,}$$ and therefore $$\label{e.trouxa2}
\max \big\{ \beta(\Phi|_{\mathbb{F}}) , \ \beta(\nicefrac{\Phi}{{\mathbb{F}}}) \big\} \le \beta(\Phi) \, .$$ Letting $P$ and $Q$ be the orthogonal projections , note the identity: $$\Phi_x = (\Phi|_{\mathbb{F}})_x \circ P_x + P_{Tx} \circ \Phi_x \circ Q_x + (\nicefrac{\Phi}{{\mathbb{F}}})_x \circ Q_x \, .$$ More generally, for every $n \ge 1$, we have: $$\label{e.trouxa3}
\Phi^n_x = (\Phi|_{\mathbb{F}})^n_x \circ P_x +
\left[ \sum_{j=0}^{n-1} (\Phi|_{\mathbb{F}})^{n-j-1}_{T^{j+1}x} \circ P_{T^{j+1} x} \circ \Phi_{T^j x} \circ (\nicefrac{\Phi}{{\mathbb{F}}})^j_x \circ Q_x \right] +
(\nicefrac{\Phi}{{\mathbb{F}}})^n_x \circ Q_x \, ,$$ which can be checked by induction. Using the bounds , it follows that: $$\| \Phi_x^n \| = O \left(n^{d_1+d_2+1} \, e^{n \max \{ \beta(\Phi|_{\mathbb{F}}) , \beta(\nicefrac{\Phi}{{\mathbb{F}}})\} }\right) \, .$$ Noting that $d_1 + d_2 + 1 < d$ and recalling , we obtain the desired polynomial bound.
Incidentally, note that implies that is an equality, that is: $$\label{e.split_beta}
\beta(\Phi) = \max \big\{ \beta(\Phi|_{\mathbb{F}}) , \ \beta(\nicefrac{\Phi}{{\mathbb{F}}}) \big\} \, .$$ Actually, a more general fact holds: for any $T$-invariant ergodic probability measure $\mu$, $$\label{e.split_chi}
\chi_1(\Phi, \mu) = \max \big\{ \chi_1(\Phi|_{{\mathbb{F}}}, \mu) , \chi_1(\nicefrac{\Phi}{{\mathbb{F}}}, \mu) \big\} \, .$$ We will use this fact in \[ss.subordination\]. We were not able to find a precise reference for it, but it follows easily from the identity together with an estimate such as [@B_Oseledets Lemma 12].
Construction of extremal norms {#s.norms}
==============================
Extremal norms for spannable automorphisms {#ss.extremal_norms}
------------------------------------------
In this we state and prove the central result of this paper, \[t.extremal\] below. Let us present a simple consequence first:
\[c.extremal\] Let $T$ be a transitive hyperbolic homeomorphism. Let $\Phi$ be a strongly bunched irreducible automorphism covering $T$. Then $\Phi$ admits an extremal norm.
Here is the full statement of our result on extremal norms. Let $\theta_{\mathrm{u}}$ be the exponent provided by applying \[p.regularity\_above\] to $\Phi^{-1}$.
\[t.extremal\] Every spannable automorphism $\Phi \in {\mathrm{Aut}}^\theta_K({\mathbb{E}},T)$ admits an extremal norm ${\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {\mathord{\cdot}}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}}$, which has the following additional properties:
1. \[i.norm\_eccentricity\] there exists $C_4 > 1$ such that for every $u \in {\mathbb{E}}$, $$\label{e.eccentricity}
C_4^{-1} \|u\| \le {\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}} \le C_4 \|u\| \, ;$$
2. \[i.norm\_Holder\] ${\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {\mathord{\cdot}}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}}$ is $\theta_{\mathrm{u}}$-Hölder, that is, there is a constant $C_5>0$ such that for all $x$, $x'\in X$, $$\label{e.norm_Holder}
\big| {\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {I_{x' \gets x}}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}} - 1 \big| \le C_5 {\mathrm{d}}(x,x')^{\theta_{\mathrm{u}}} \, .$$
3. \[i.norm\_u\_Holder\] ${\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {\mathord{\cdot}}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}}$ is $\bar\theta$-Hölder along unstable sets with $\bar\theta \coloneqq \max\{\theta,1\}$, that is, there is a constant $C_6>0$ such that for all $x \in X$ and $x' \in W^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}_0}(x)$, $$\label{e.norm_u_Holder}
\big| {\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {H^{\mathrm{u}}_{x' \gets x}}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}} - 1 \big| \le C_6 {\mathrm{d}}(x,x')^{\bar\theta} \, ;$$
Furthermore, for every sufficiently $C^0$-small perturbation of the automorphism $\Phi$ in the set ${\mathrm{Aut}}^\theta_K({\mathbb{E}},T)$, we can find an extremal norm that satisfies the properties above with the same constants $\theta_{\mathrm{u}}$, $C_4$, $C_5$, $C_6$.
Combining the above with \[t.irr\_to\_span\] we immediately obtain \[c.extremal\].
Note that part (\[i.norm\_Holder\]) of the statement of \[t.extremal\] is compatible with the characterization of Hölderness of a norm given by \[p.norm\_Holder\]. In summary, our extremal norm is Hölder, but perhaps with a smaller Hölder exponent than the original $\Phi$.[^9] Nevertheless, part (\[i.norm\_u\_Holder\]) says that the norm is more regular along unstable sets: there is no loss of exponent, and if $\theta<1$ there is a gain.
Concerning the final part of the statement of \[t.extremal\], recall from \[c.open\_span\] that the set of spannable automorphisms is a $C^0$-open subset of the set ${\mathrm{Aut}}^\theta_K({\mathbb{E}},T)$. So the also says that our extremal norms vary in a bounded way if the automorphism is perturbed; this is useful to certain applications (see \[ss.Wirth\]).
Before commencing the actual proof, let us establish an auxiliary fact:
\[l.bump\] Let $0<a<1$. Let $\bar\theta \coloneqq \max\{\theta,1\}$. Then there exists a $\bar{\theta}$-Hölder function $\zeta \colon X \times X \to [0,1]$ such that: $$\begin{aligned}
{3}
\zeta(x,y) &= 1 &\quad &\text{if} &\quad {\mathrm{d}}(x,y) &\le a{\varepsilon}_1 \, ; \\
\zeta(x,y) &= 0 &\quad &\text{if} &\quad {\mathrm{d}}(x,y) &\ge {\varepsilon}_1 \, .\end{aligned}$$
If $\theta \le 1$, let $f \colon [0,+\infty) \to [0,1]$ be a non-increasing smooth function such that $f(a{\varepsilon}_1)=1$ and $f({\varepsilon}_1)=0$. Then the function $\zeta(x,y) \coloneqq f({\mathrm{d}}(x,y))$ meets our requirements.
If $\theta > 1$ then the existence of $\zeta$ is an immediate consequence of the fact that the algebra of $\theta$-Hölder functions on $X \times X$ is normal (\[l.square\]).
As in , let $a \coloneqq \exp(-\min \lambda_{\mathrm{u}}) \in (0,1)$. Let $\zeta$ be given by \[l.bump\]. For each $u \in {\mathbb{E}}$, let $$\label{e.formula_extremal}
{\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}} \coloneqq \limsup_{n \to \infty} e^{-\beta(\Phi) n} \sup_{v \in {\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}_1}(u)} \zeta(\pi(u),\pi(v)) \, \| \Phi^n (v) \| \, .$$ We will check that formula defines an extremal norm with the additional properties stated in \[t.extremal\]. To simplify writing, we assume from now on that $\beta(\Phi) = 0$.
Since $0 \le \zeta \le 1$ and $\Phi$ is relatively product bounded (thanks to \[p.bounded\]), the quantity is always finite, and therefore defines a seminorm on each fiber of ${\mathbb{E}}$.
Take arbitrary nonzero $u \in {\mathbb{E}}$. Since $\zeta(x,y) = 1$ whenever $y \in W^{\mathrm{u}}_{a {\varepsilon}_1}(x)$, we have: $$\limsup_{n \to \infty} \sup_{v \in {\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}_{a{\varepsilon}_1}(u)} \| \Phi^n (v) \| \le {\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}} \, .$$ Recalling the hyperbolicity property , we have ${\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}_{a {\varepsilon}_1}(u) \supseteq \Phi^{-1}\big({\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}_1}(\Phi(u))\big)$, and so: $$\label{e.nice1}
\limsup_{n \to \infty} \sup_{v \in {\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}_1}(\Phi(u))} \| \Phi^n (v) \| \le {\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}} \, .$$ So, letting $\tilde u \coloneqq \Phi(u)$, we have: $$\frac{1}{\|\tilde u\|}
\limsup_{n \to \infty} \sup_{v \in {\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}_1}(\tilde u)} \| \Phi^n (v) \| \le \frac{{\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}}}{\|\tilde u\|} \le K \frac{{\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}}}{\|u\|} \, ,$$ using the bound . This allows us to apply \[l.key\] to $\tilde u$ and conclude that, for some constant $C_3>1$ that only depends on $\Phi$, $$\label{e.nice2}
\limsup_{n \to \infty} \sup_{y \in X} \|\Phi^n_y \| \le C_3 K \frac{{\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}}}{\|u\|} \, , \quad\text{for all } u \in {\mathbb{E}}^\times \, .$$ The left-hand side is at least $1$; indeed by , for every $n>0$ there exists $y \in X$ such that $\|\Phi^n_y \| \ge e^{n\beta(\Phi)} = 1$. Therefore: $$\label{e.comparison_below}
{\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}} \ge K^{-1} C_3^{-1} \|u\| \, , \quad\text{for all } u \in {\mathbb{E}}\, .$$ In particular, the seminorm ${\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {\mathord{\cdot}}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}}$ is actually a norm.
Since $0 \le \zeta \le 1$ and $\zeta(x,y) = 0$ whenever $y \in W^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}_1}(x)$, inequality implies: $${\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {\Phi(u)}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}} \le {\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}}\, , \quad\text{for all } u \in {\mathbb{E}}\, ,$$ that is, ${\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {\mathord{\cdot}}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}}$ is an extremal norm.
Now consider the vector $u_* \in {\mathbb{E}}^\times$ given by \[l.input\]. It satisfies ${\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {u_*}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}} \le C_2 \|u_*\|$, where $C_2>1$ is a constant depending only on $\Phi$. Applying to this vector we obtain: $$\limsup_{n \to \infty} \sup_{y \in X} \|\Phi^n_y \| \le K C_2 C_3 \, .$$ Therefore, for all $u \in {\mathbb{E}}$, $${\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}} \le \limsup_{n \to \infty} \sup_{v \in {\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}_1}(u)} \| \Phi^n (v) \|
\le K C_2 C_3 \sup_{v \in {\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}_1}(u)} \| v \|
\le K C_1 C_2 C_3 \|u\| \, ,$$ where $C_1 > 1$ is the constant from . So, letting $C_4 \coloneq K C_1 C_2 C_3$ and recalling the lower bound , we obtain : the extremal norm is uniformly comparable to the original norm by a factor $C_4$ that works not only for $\Phi$ but also for its $C^0$ perturbations in ${\mathrm{Aut}}^\theta_K({\mathbb{E}},T)$.
Before proving regularity properties of the extremal norm, let us establish a few auxiliary facts. For all $u \in {\mathbb{E}}$, $v \in {\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}_1}(u)$, and $n\ge 0$, using , extremality, and , we obtain: $$\label{e.nice3}
\| \Phi^n (v) \| \le C_4 {\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {\Phi^n(v)}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}} \le C_4 {\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {v}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}} \le C_4^2 \| v\| \le C_1 C_4^2 \|u\| \le C_1 C_4^3 {\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}} \, .$$ Fix a constant $b<1$ sufficiently close to $1$ so that: $${\mathrm{d}}(x,y) \ge b{\varepsilon}_1 \quad \Rightarrow \quad
\zeta(x,y) < \tfrac{1}{2} C_1^{-1} C_4^{-3} \, .$$ Then: $$v \in {\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}_1}(u) {\smallsetminus}{\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}_{b{\varepsilon}_1}(u) \quad \Rightarrow \quad
\zeta(\pi(u),\pi(v)) \| \Phi^n (v) \| \le \tfrac{1}{2}{\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}} \, .$$ So vectors $v$ outside ${\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}_{b{\varepsilon}_1}(u)$ do not contribute in formula , which therefore can be rewritten as: $$\label{e.cutoff}
{\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}} \coloneqq \limsup_{n \to \infty} \sup_{v \in {\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}_{b{\varepsilon}_1}(u)} \zeta(\pi(u),\pi(v)) \, \| \Phi^n (v) \| \, .$$
We will prove property (\[i.norm\_u\_Holder\]) first, and use it later in the proof of property (\[i.norm\_Holder\]). In order to simplify writing, let us use the $O$ notation to denote constants that depend only on $\Phi$ and can be taken uniform on a $C^0$-neighborhood of $\Phi$ in ${\mathrm{Aut}}^\theta_K({\mathbb{E}},T)$. In order to prove property (\[i.norm\_u\_Holder\]), we need to show: $$x \in X, \ x' \in W^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}_0}(x), \ u \in {\mathbb{E}}_x, \ \|u\| = 1 \quad \Rightarrow \quad
\big| {\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {H^{\mathrm{u}}_{x' \gets x}(u)}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}} - {\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}} \big| = O \big( {\mathrm{d}}(x,x')^{\bar \theta} \big)\, .$$ It is sufficient to consider $x'$ very close to $x$, so assume ${\mathrm{d}}(x',x)\le (1-b){\varepsilon}_1$. Fix a unit vector $u \in {\mathbb{E}}_x$ and let $u' \coloneqq H^{\mathrm{u}}_{x' \gets x}(u)$. For all $v \in {\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}_1}(u)$, and $n\ge 0$, using and the fact that $\zeta$ is $\bar\theta$-Hölder, we estimate: $$\Big| \zeta(x', \pi(v)) \|\Phi^n(v)\| - \zeta(x,\pi(v)) \|\Phi^n(v)\| \Big| = O \big( {\mathrm{d}}(x,x')^{\bar \theta} \big)\, .$$ Noting that ${\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}_{b{\varepsilon}_1}(u') \subseteq {\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}_1}(u)$, we have: $$\sup_{v \in {\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}_{b{\varepsilon}_1}(u')} \zeta(x', \pi(v)) \|\Phi^n(v)\| \le
\sup_{v \in {\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}_{ {\varepsilon}_1}(u )} \zeta(x, \pi(v)) \|\Phi^n(v)\| + O \big( {\mathrm{d}}(x,x')^{\bar\theta} \big) {\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}} \, .$$ Using and , we obtain: $${\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {u'}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}} \le {\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}} + O \big( {\mathrm{d}}(x,x')^{\bar \theta} \big)\, .$$ On the other hand, using ${\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}_{b{\varepsilon}_1}(u) \subseteq {\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}_1}(u')$, a similar argument shows that: $${\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}} \le {\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {u'}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}} + O \big( {\mathrm{d}}(x,x')^{\bar \theta} \big)\, .$$ This completes the proof of property (\[i.norm\_u\_Holder\]).
We are left to check $\theta_{\mathrm{u}}$-Hölderness of the norm, that is, property (\[i.norm\_Holder\]). In fact, it is sufficient to prove $\theta_{\mathrm{u}}$-Hölderness along stable sets, that is: $$\label{e.last_thing}
x \in X, \ x' \in W^{\mathrm{s}}_{{\varepsilon}_0}(x), \ u \in {\mathbb{E}}_x, \ \|u\|=1 \ \Rightarrow \
\big| {\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {H^{\mathrm{s}}_{x' \gets x}(u) }
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}} - {\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}} \big| = O \big( {\mathrm{d}}(x,x')^{\theta_{\mathrm{u}}} \big)\, .$$ Since we have already proven $\bar\theta$-Hölderness of the norm along unstable sets, and $\theta_{\mathrm{u}}\le \bar\theta$, property (\[i.norm\_Holder\]) will follow from : just mimic the proof of (\[i.irred2\]) $\Rightarrow$ (\[i.irred1\]) in \[c.irred\].
In order to prove , it is sufficient to consider $x'$ very close to $x$. Fix a unit vector $u \in {\mathbb{E}}_x$ and let $u' \coloneqq H^{\mathrm{s}}_{x' \gets x}(u)$. Consider arbitrary $v \in {\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}_1}(u)$, and write $y \coloneqq \pi(v)$. Since ${\mathrm{d}}(x',y) \le {\varepsilon}_1 + {\mathrm{d}}(x,x') < 2{\varepsilon}_1$, the bracket $[x',y] \eqcolon y'$ is well-defined. Let also $w \coloneqq H^{\mathrm{s}}_{y' \gets y}(v)$, and $v' \coloneqq H^{\mathrm{u}}_{y' \gets x'}(u')$: see \[f.coffee\].
(0,0)–(8,0) node\[right\][$W^{\mathrm{u}}$]{}; (2,0) circle\[radius=2pt\] node\[above left\][$x$]{}; (6,0) circle\[radius=2pt\] node\[above left\][$y$]{}; plot \[smooth, tension=1\] coordinates [ (0,4.3) (2,4) (4,3.8) (6,4) (8,3.65)]{} node\[right\][${\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}$]{}; (2,0)–(2,4); (2,4) circle\[radius=2pt\] node\[above\][$u$]{}; (6,4) circle\[radius=2pt\] node\[above left\][$v$]{}; (6,0)–(6,4);
(1,1)–(9,1) node\[right\][$W^{\mathrm{u}}$]{}; (3,1) circle\[radius=2pt\] node\[below right\][$x'$]{}; (7,1) circle\[radius=2pt\] node\[below right\][$y'$]{}; plot \[smooth, tension=1\] coordinates [ (1,5.4) (3.25,5) (5,4.8) (7,4.9) (9,4.75)]{} node\[right\][${\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}$]{}; (3,1)–(3,5); (3,5) circle\[radius=2pt\] node\[above\][$u'$]{};
(1.5,-.5)–(3.5,1.5) node\[right\][$W^{\mathrm{s}}$]{}; plot \[smooth, tension=1\] coordinates [ (1.5,3.7) (2,4) (3,5) (3.5,5.4)]{} node\[right\][${\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{s}}$]{}; (5.5,-.5)–(7.5,1.5) node\[right\][$W^{\mathrm{s}}$]{}; plot \[smooth, tension=1\] coordinates [ (5.5,3.4) (6,4) (7,5.5) (7.5,6.1)]{} node\[right\][${\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{s}}$]{};
(7,4.9) circle\[radius=2pt\] node\[below right\][$v'$]{}; (7,5.5) circle\[radius=2pt\] node\[right\][$w$]{}; (7,1)–(7,5.5);
Then for each $n \ge 0$ we estimate: $$\begin{gathered}
\big| \zeta(x,y) \|\Phi^n (v)\| - \zeta(x',y') \|\Phi^n (v')\| \big| \le
{\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{
\node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=1pt] (char) {\footnotesize{1}};}} + {\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{
\node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=1pt] (char) {\footnotesize{2}};}} + {\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{
\node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=1pt] (char) {\footnotesize{3}};}} \, ,
\qquad \text{where}
\\
\begin{aligned}
{\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{
\node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=1pt] (char) {\footnotesize{1}};}} &\coloneqq | \zeta(x,y) - \zeta(x',y')| \, \|\Phi^n (v)\| \, , \\
{\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{
\node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=1pt] (char) {\footnotesize{2}};}} &\coloneqq \big| \|\Phi^n (v)\| - \|\Phi^n (w)\| \big| \, , \\
{\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{
\node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=1pt] (char) {\footnotesize{3}};}} &\coloneqq \| \Phi^n(w - v') \| \, .
\end{aligned}\end{gathered}$$
In order to estimate ${\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{
\node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=1pt] (char) {\footnotesize{1}};}}$, recall that by , $\|\Phi^n(v)\| = O(1)$. On the other hand, by Hölder-continuity of $\zeta$, $$| \zeta(x,y) - \zeta(x',y')| = O \big(\max\big\{{\mathrm{d}}(x,x')^{\bar \theta} , {\mathrm{d}}(y,y')^{\bar \theta} \big\} \big)\, .$$ Using \[p.regularity\_base\] for $T^{-1}$, we have ${\mathrm{d}}(y,y') = O({\mathrm{d}}(x,x')^{\kappa_{\mathrm{u}}})$, where the exponent $\kappa_{\mathrm{u}}$ is at most $1$. So: $$| \zeta(x,y) - \zeta(x',y')| = O({\mathrm{d}}(x,x')^{\kappa_{\mathrm{u}}\bar\theta} ) \, .$$ Note that $\kappa_{\mathrm{u}}\bar{\theta} \ge \kappa_{\mathrm{u}}\theta \ge \theta_{\mathrm{u}}$, so the weaker estimate ${\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{
\node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=1pt] (char) {\footnotesize{1}};}} = O({\mathrm{d}}(x,x')^{\theta_{\mathrm{u}}})$ holds.
The next term is estimated as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
{\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{
\node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=1pt] (char) {\footnotesize{2}};}}
&= \left| \| H^s_{T^n y' \gets T^n y} \Phi^n (v) \| - \| \Phi^n (v) \| \right | \\
&\le \left| \| H^s_{T^n y' \gets T^n y} - I_{T^n y' \gets T^n y}\| + \|I_{T^n y' \gets T^n y} \| - 1 \right| \|\Phi^n(v)\| \, . \end{aligned}$$ Since ${\mathrm{d}}(T^n y', T^n y) = o(1)$ (i.e., it tends to $0$ as $n \to \infty$), using regularity of holonomies and of the transport maps (\[p.norm\_Holder\]) together with product boundedness , we conclude that ${\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{
\node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=1pt] (char) {\footnotesize{2}};}} = o(1)$.
In order to estimate the last term, we use \[p.regularity\_above\] applied to $ T^{-1} $: $${\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{
\node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=1pt] (char) {\footnotesize{3}};}} = O(\| v' - w \|)
= O\big( \| H^{\mathrm{u}}_{y'\gets x'} \circ H^{\mathrm{s}}_{x' \gets x} - H^{\mathrm{s}}_{y' \gets y} \circ H^{\mathrm{u}}_{y \gets x} \| \big)
= O\big( {\mathrm{d}}(x,x')^{\theta_{\mathrm{u}}} \big) \, ,$$
Summing the three estimates, $$\label{e.3parts}
\big| \zeta(x,y) \|\Phi^n (v)\| - \zeta(x',y') \|\Phi^n (v')\| \big| =
O \big( {\mathrm{d}}(x,x')^{\theta_{\mathrm{u}}} \big) + o(1) \, .$$
As in the proof of the previous property (\[i.norm\_u\_Holder\]), we need to use the cutoff property to conclude. If we are careful enough to take ${\mathrm{d}}(x,x')$ sufficiently small then ${\mathrm{d}}(y,y') = O({\mathrm{d}}(x,x')^{\kappa_{\mathrm{u}}})$ is also small and therefore the following two implications are correct: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{d}}(x,y) \le b {\varepsilon}_1 \ &\Rightarrow \ {\mathrm{d}}(x',y') \le {\varepsilon}_1 \, , \\
{\mathrm{d}}(x',y') \le b {\varepsilon}_1 \ &\Rightarrow \ {\mathrm{d}}(x,y) \le {\varepsilon}_1 \, .\end{aligned}$$ That is, $$\begin{aligned}
v \in {\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}_{b {\varepsilon}_1}(u) \ &\Rightarrow \ v' \in {\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}_1}(u') \, , \\
v' \in {\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}_{b {\varepsilon}_1}(u') \ &\Rightarrow \ v \in {\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}_1}(u) \, .\end{aligned}$$ Then, using , , and , we obtain: $$\big| {\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}} - {\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {u'}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}} \big| = O \big( {\mathrm{d}}(x,x')^{\theta_{\mathrm{u}}} \big) \, ,$$ proving and the .
Application: Lipschitz continuity of the maximal Lyapunov exponent {#ss.Wirth}
------------------------------------------------------------------
As a simple application of \[t.extremal\], let us establish a local regularity result for the maximal Lyapunov exponent. A similar property for the joint spectral radius (under the assumption of irreducibility) was established by Wirth [@Wirth Corol. 4.2], also using extremal norms; see also [@Kozyakin] for a more precise result.
Let ${\mathcal{S}}_K$ denote the set of spannable automorphisms in ${\mathrm{Aut}}^\theta_K({\mathbb{E}},T)$, which by \[c.open\_span\] is relatively $C^0$-open.
\[p.Wirth\] The maximal Lyapunov exponent $\beta(\mathord{\cdot})$ is a locally Lipschitz function on the set ${\mathcal{S}}_K$, with respect to the $C^0$-norm .
Let $\Phi \in {\mathcal{S}}_K$. Let ${\mathcal{U}}\subset {\mathcal{S}}_K$ be a $C^0$-neighborhood of $\Phi$ where \[t.extremal\] applies with uniform constants. Take any two automorphisms $\Phi_1$ and $\Phi_2$ in ${\mathcal{U}}$, and let ${\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {\mathord{\cdot}}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}}_1$ and ${\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {\mathord{\cdot}}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}}_2$ be the corresponding extremal norms provided by \[t.extremal\]. Then, using the bound , we obtain: $$\begin{gathered}
e^{\beta(\Phi_2)} \le \sup_x {\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {\Phi_{2x}}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}}_1
\le \sup_x {\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {\Phi_{1x}}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}}_1 + \sup_x {\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {\Phi_{1x} - \Phi_{2x}}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}}_1 \\
\le e^{\beta(\Phi_1)} + C_4 \sup_x \| \Phi_{1x} - \Phi_{2x} \|
= e^{\beta(\Phi_1)} + C_4 \|\Phi_1 - \Phi_2\|_0 \, ,\end{gathered}$$ where $\| \mathord{\cdot} \|_0$ is the $C^0$-norm . By symmetry, we obtain $|e^{\beta(\Phi_1)} - e^{\beta(\Phi_1)}| \le C_4 \|\Phi_1 - \Phi_2\|_0$. This shows that the function $e^{\beta(\mathord{\cdot})}$ is Lipschitz on the neighborhood ${\mathcal{U}}$, with respect to the $C^0$-norm. Since the function $\beta(\mathord{\cdot})$ is uniformly bounded on ${\mathcal{U}}$ (and in the whole set ${\mathrm{Aut}}^\theta_K({\mathbb{E}},T)$, in fact), it is Lipschitz as well.
\[r.regularity\_beta\] For reducible automorphisms, it is clear that $\beta$ is not locally Lipschitz: see e.g. [@Wirth p. 27]. Nevertheless, $\beta$ is continuous on the whole space of $\theta$-Hölder automorphisms: indeed, upper semicontinuity is automatic from , while lower semicontinuity follows by a theorem of Kalinin [@Kalinin Theorem 1.4] that allows one to approximate $\beta$ by the Lyapunov exponents of periodic orbits. Let us also remark that if $T$ is no longer hyperbolic, then $\beta$ becomes discontinuous with respect to the $C^0$ topology. For example, the cocycle from \[ex.Herman\] can be $C^0$-perturbed so that $\beta$ drops to $0$, as it follows e.g. from the the result of [@AB].
Barabanov-like norms for linear cocycles over shifts {#ss.Barabanov}
----------------------------------------------------
Let us consider subshifts of finite type, that is, $X$ is the set of two-sided sequences $(x_n)_{n\in {\mathbb{Z}}}$ in an alphabet $\{0,1,\dots, N-1\}$ whose neighboring pairs are those allowed by a fixed 0-1 matrix, and $T \colon X \to X$ is the (left) shift map. As usual, we consider on $X$ the (ultra)metric $$\label{e.ultrametric}
{\mathrm{d}}(x,y) \coloneqq e^{-\lambda k}\, \quad \text{where } k = \min \{|n| {\;\mathord{;}\;}x_n \neq y_n \},$$ and $\lambda>0$ is a fixed parameter. Then $T$ is a hyperbolic homeomorphism. Indeed letting ${\varepsilon}_0 \coloneqq e^{-\lambda}$, the corresponding local unstable and stable sets at $x=(x_n) \in X$ are: $$\begin{aligned}
W_\mathrm{loc}^{\mathrm{u}}(x) &\coloneqq W_{{\varepsilon}_0}^{\mathrm{u}}(x) = \big\{ (y_n) \in X {\;\mathord{;}\;}y_n = x_n \text{ for all } n\le 0\big\} \, , \\
W_\mathrm{loc}^{\mathrm{s}}(x) &\coloneqq W_{{\varepsilon}_0}^{\mathrm{s}}(x) = \big\{ (y_n) \in X {\;\mathord{;}\;}y_n = x_n \text{ for all } n\ge 0\big\} \, .\end{aligned}$$ and so hyperbolicity property (\[i.lambdas\]) holds with $\lambda_{\mathrm{u}}= \lambda_{\mathrm{s}}= \lambda$, property (\[i.bracket\]) holds with $2{\varepsilon}_1 = {\varepsilon}_0$, and property (\[i.bounded\_angles\]) holds with $C=1$. Also note that \[p.regularity\_base\] holds with $\kappa_{\mathrm{s}}= 1 = C$.
We will consider $\theta$-Hölder automorphisms covering the subshift $T \colon X \to X$. Since $X$ is a Cantor set, every $\theta$-Hölder vector bundle is trivial, i.e., $\theta$-Hölder isomorphic to the product bundle. So we are actually dealing with $\theta$-Hölder linear cocycles; nevertheless, we will keep using the vector bundle terminology.
\[ex.one-step\] As mentioned in \[ss.known\], the *one-step cocycle* determined by a $N$-tuple of matrices $(A_0,\dots,A_{N-1}) \in {\mathit{GL}}(d,{\mathbb{R}})^N$ is the pair $(T,F)$ where $T$ is the full shift on $N$ symbols and $F \colon X \to {\mathit{GL}}(d,{\mathbb{R}})$ is given by $F(x) \coloneqq A_{x_0}$. Let $\Phi$ the associated automorphism . Then $e^{\beta(\Phi)}$ is joint spectral radius of the set $\{A_0,\dots,A_{N-1}\}$. Since $F$ is locally constant, it is $\theta$-Hölder for any $\theta \in (0,+\infty)$. Choosing $\theta$ large enough, the automorphism $\Phi$ becomes fiber-bunched. (Alternatively, we can take $\theta=1$, say, and then take the parameter $\lambda$ large enough.) The holonomies are locally trivial: $$\label{e.trivial_holonomies}
\star \in \{{\mathrm{u}}, {\mathrm{s}}\}, \
y \in W^\star_\mathrm{loc}(x) \quad \Rightarrow \quad H^\star_{y \gets x} = {\mathrm{id}}\, .$$
A useful generalization of one-step cocycles are the *sofic cocycles* from [@BPS § 5.1]; the same concept appears in [@PEDJ] under the terminology *constrained switching systems*.
Let us present an improved version of \[t.extremal\] for subshifts of finite type. We obtain an extremal norm with an additional Barabanov-like property: given any vector $u \in {\mathbb{E}}$, there always exists a vector in its local unstable set ${\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}_\mathrm{loc}(u) \coloneqq {\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}_0}(u)$ whose expansion factor in a single iterate equals the maximum asymptotic expansion rate $ e^{\beta(\Phi)} $. Furthermore, the norm is invariant under local unstable holonomies. Therefore, for the case of one-step cocycles, we reobtain the Barabanov property .
\[t.Barabanov\] Let $ T $ be a two-sided subshift of finite type. Let $ {\mathbb{E}}$ be a $d$-dimensional $\theta$-Hölder vector bundle. Let $ \Phi $ be a spannable automorphism of $ {\mathbb{E}}$ covering $ T $. Then $$\label{e.formula_Barabanov}
{\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}} \coloneqq \limsup_{n \to \infty} e^{-\beta(\Phi) n} \sup_{v \in {\mathbb{W}}^{{\mathrm{u}}}_{\mathrm{loc}}(u)} \| \Phi^n (v) \|$$ is a well-defined *Barabanov norm* on $ {\mathbb{E}}$, namely, an extremal norm satisfying, for all $ u \in {\mathbb{E}}$,
1. \[i.Barabanov\_invariance\] *local $H^{{\mathrm{u}}}$-invariance:* $ {\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}} = {\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {v}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}}$ for all $ v \in {\mathbb{W}}^{{\mathrm{u}}}_{\mathrm{loc}}(u) $;
2. \[i.Barabanov\_calibration\] *calibration:* there exists $ v \in {\mathbb{W}}^{{\mathrm{u}}}_{\mathrm{loc}}(u) $ such that $ {\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {\Phi(v)}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}} = e^{\beta(\Phi)} {\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {v}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}}$.
Furthermore, ${\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {\mathord{\cdot}}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}}$ satisfies the other properties stated in \[t.extremal\].
Let us comment on the hypotheses. Given $\theta>0$, \[l.needed\_strength\] holds with the value $\eta_0 = \theta/3$; indeed, this follows from formula , recalling that $\lambda_{\mathrm{u}}= \lambda_{\mathrm{s}}= \lambda$, and noting that we can also take $\Lambda_{\mathrm{u}}= \lambda$ in . Therefore $\theta$-Hölder automorphism $\Phi \colon {\mathbb{E}}\to {\mathbb{E}}$ covering $T$ is strongly bunched if $\Phi$ is fiber-bunched and the fibers of ${\mathbb{E}}$ have dimension $d \le 2$, or $\Phi$ is a $(\theta/3,\theta)$-bunched. In that case, it follows from \[t.irr\_to\_span\] that $\Phi$ is spannable, provided it is irreducible and $T$ is transitive.
Since $X$ is a Cantor set, we can simplify the construction in \[t.extremal\] and dispense with the bump function $\zeta$ from \[l.bump\]. Ultimately, we can replace the definition of the extremal norm by the simpler formula . Note that in the latter formula we maximize over ${\mathbb{W}}^{{\mathrm{u}}}_{\mathrm{loc}}(u) \coloneqq {\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}_0}(u)$ instead of ${\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}_1}(u) = {\mathbb{W}}^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}_0/2}(u)$; this is possible because the metric on $X$ is an ultrametric. It is straightforward to check that the proof in \[t.extremal\] applies, with simplifications. It is immediate from its definition that the norm satisfies local $H^{{\mathrm{u}}}$-invariance, that is property (\[i.Barabanov\_invariance\]), which of course subsumes property (\[i.norm\_u\_Holder\]) from \[t.extremal\].
We only left to check the calibration property (\[i.Barabanov\_calibration\]). Given $ u \in {\mathbb{E}}$, by definition, there exist sequences $n_i \nearrow \infty$ and $ v_i \in {\mathbb{W}}^{{\mathrm{u}}}_\mathrm{loc}(u) $ such that $${\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}} = \lim_{i\to\infty} e^{-\beta(\Phi) n_i} \| \Phi^{n_i}v_i \| \, .$$ Denote $ y_i = \pi(v_i) $. By compactness, we may suppose that $ y_i \to y \in W^{{\mathrm{u}}}_{\mathrm{loc}}(x) $ and $ v_i \to v \in {\mathbb{W}}^{{\mathrm{u}}}_\mathrm{loc}(u) $. For $ i $ large enough, $y'_i \coloneqq T(y_i) \in W^{{\mathrm{u}}}_{\mathrm{loc}}(T(y))$. We can assume that this property is true for all $i$. Let $ v'_i \coloneqq \Phi(v_i) $. Thus, we have: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {\Phi(v)}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}}
&= \limsup_{n\to \infty} e^{- \beta(\Phi) n} \sup_{v' \in {\mathbb{W}}^{{\mathrm{u}}}_{\mathrm{loc}}(\Phi(v))} \| \Phi^n v' \| \\
&\ge \limsup_{i \to \infty} e^{-(n_i-1) \beta(\Phi) } \| \Phi^{n_i-1}v'_i \| \\
&= \lim_{i \to \infty} e^{-(n_i-1) \beta(\Phi) } \| \Phi^{n_i}v_i \| \, = \, e^{\beta(\Phi)} {\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}} \, = \, e^{\beta(\Phi)} {\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {v}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}} \, .\end{aligned}$$ By extremality, the inequality is actually an equality. This proves calibration.
Mather sets {#s.Mather}
===========
In traditional ergodic optimization, that is, the optimization of Birkhoff averages (see [@Jenkinson_survey; @Jenkinson_survey_new; @Garibaldi_book]), a *maximizing set* is a closed subset such that an invariant probability is maximizing if and only if its support lies on this subset. The existence of such sets is guaranteed in any context where a Mañé Lemma holds. The *Mather set* is the smallest maximizing set: it is defined as the union of the supports of all maximizing measures. The nomenclature is borrowed from Lagrangian dynamics, where the concept of minimizing measures proved to be a useful generalization of the notion of action minimizing orbits: see [@Mat]. There are other canonical maximizing sets, such as the Aubry set: see e.g. [@Garibaldi_book]. Some of these concepts have been already considered in the optimization of the top Lyapunov exponent: see [@Morris_Mather; @GG].
In this , we are going to study some notions of Mather sets for continuous vector bundle automorphisms, not necessarily with any Hölder or hyperbolicity structures. Our approach was profoundly influenced by some works of Morris [@Morris_rapidly; @Morris_Mather].
Throughout the , we assume that $X$ is a compact metric space, $T \colon X \to X$ is a homeomorphism, ${\mathbb{E}}$ is a $d$-dimensional vector bundle over $X$, and $\Phi$ is an automorphism covering $T$.
The first Mather set {#ss.first_Mather}
--------------------
By a *Lyapunov maximizing measure* we mean any $T$-invariant probability $\mu$ whose upper Lyapunov exponent $ \chi_1(\Phi, \mu)$ equals $\beta(\Phi) $. Following Morris [@Morris_Mather], we define the *(first) Mather set* $M(\Phi) \subseteq X$ as the union of the supports of all Lyapunov maximizing measures.
\[p.Mather\_support\] The Mather set $M(\Phi)$ is the support of some Lyapunov maximizing measure and, a fortiori, it is a nonempty, compact, and $T$-invariant set.
The argument is quite standard, but we add it for completeness. For simplicity, write $M = M(\Phi)$. As explained at the introduction, at least one Lyapunov maximizing measure exists, so $M \neq {\varnothing}$. Given a countable basis $\{B_j\}_{j\in{\mathbb{N}}}$ for the topology of $X$, consider the subset of indices $ J \coloneqq \{ j \in {\mathbb{N}}{\;\mathord{;}\;}B_j \cap M \neq {\varnothing}\} $. For each $ j \in J $, we assign a Lyapunov maximizing measure $\mu_j$ such that $B_j \cap \operatorname{supp}\mu_j \neq {\varnothing}$, which means $\mu_j(B_j)>0$. Define then $ \mu\coloneqq\sum_{j \in J} \alpha_j \mu_j$, where $ \alpha_j>0$ and $ \sum_{j \in J} \alpha_j = 1 $. As a convex combination of Lyapunov maximizing measures, $ \mu$ is also Lyapunov maximizing. Now consider an arbitrary $k \in {\mathbb{N}}$ such that $B_k \cap \operatorname{supp}\mu = {\varnothing}$. Then for all $ j \in J $ we have $B_k \cap \operatorname{supp}\mu_j = {\varnothing}$ and therefore $\mu_j(B_k)=0$. This implies that $k\not\in J$, and so $B_k \cap M = {\varnothing}$. We have shown that $ X {\smallsetminus}\operatorname{supp}\mu \subseteq X {\smallsetminus}M$, which yields $M(\Phi) = \operatorname{supp}\mu$.
\[p.Mather\_calibration\] If $\Phi$ admits an extremal norm $ {\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {\cdot}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}}$ then $${\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {\Phi_x^n}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}} = e^{n \beta(\Phi)}, \qquad \forall \, x \in M(\Phi) \, , \forall \, n \ge 1 \, ,$$ and, in particular, every $T$-invariant probability measure whose support is contained in $M(\Phi)$ is Lyapunov-maximizing.
By extremality, $$f_n(x) \coloneqq \frac{1}{n}\log {\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {\Phi_x^n}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}} \le \beta(\Phi), \qquad \forall \, x \in X, \forall \, n \ge 1.$$ On the other hand, if $\mu$ is the Lyapunov maximizing measure with $\operatorname{supp}\mu = M(\Phi)$ constructed in \[p.Mather\_support\] then, by Kingman’s subadditive theorem, $ \inf_n \frac{1}{n} \int f_n \, d\mu = \beta(\Phi) $. It follows that $\frac{1}{n} \int f_n \, d\mu = \beta(\Phi)$ for each $n \ge 1$. Since the functions $f_n$ are continuous, they must be identically equal to $\beta(\Phi)$ over $\operatorname{supp}\mu = M(\Phi)$, as we wanted to show.
Mather sets of higher index {#ss.other_Mathers}
---------------------------
Up to here we have only considered the first Lyapunov exponent $\chi_1$, but now we will need to consider the full Lyapunov spectrum. Let us recall the definitions and main properties, referring to [@Arnold] for details.
If $\mu$ is a $T$-invariant probability measure then the *Lyapunov exponents* of the automorphism $\Phi$ with respect to $\mu$ are the numbers $$\label{e.Lyapunov_spectrum}
\chi_1(\Phi,\mu) \ge \chi_2(\Phi,\mu) \ge \cdots \ge \chi_d(\Phi,\mu)$$ uniquely defined by the following equations: for every $p \in \ldbrack 1,d \rdbrack$, $$\label{e.Lyapunov_wedge}
\sum_{i=1}^p \chi_i(\Phi,\mu) =
\chi_1({\mathsf{\Lambda}}^p \Phi, \mu) \, ,
$$ where the automorphism ${\mathsf{\Lambda}}^p \Phi \colon {\mathsf{\Lambda}}^p {\mathbb{E}}\to {\mathsf{\Lambda}}^p {\mathbb{E}}$ is the $p$-fold exterior power of the automorphism ${\Phi \colon {\mathbb{E}}\to {\mathbb{E}}}$.
Suppose $\mu$ is ergodic, and that $\lambda$ is a Lyapunov exponent with respect to $\mu$ of *multiplicity* $k$, in the sense that it appears $k$ times in the list . Then Oseledets’ theorem says that for $\mu$-a.e. $x\in X$, there exists a $k$-dimensional subspace $\mathbb{O}_x(\lambda)$ of the fiber ${\mathbb{E}}_x$, called a *Oseledets space*, such that: $$u \in \mathbb{O}_x(\lambda) {\smallsetminus}\{0\} \quad \text{if and only if} \quad
\lim_{n \to \pm \infty} \frac{1}{n} \log \|\Phi^n(u)\| = \lambda \, .$$ Moreover, Oseledets spaces form a splitting of ${\mathbb{E}}_x$, depend measurably on the point $x$, and are $\Phi$-equivariant.
We now consider other Mather sets that take multiplicity into account. Define a chain of sets $$\label{e.chain_Mathers}
M(\Phi) = M_1(\Phi) \supseteq M_2(\Phi) \supseteq \cdots \supseteq M_d(\Phi)$$ as follows: the *$p$-th Mather set* $M_p(\Phi)$ is the union of the supports of all $T$-invariant probabilities $ \mu $ whose $p$ first Lyapunov exponents are all maximal, that is, $$\chi_1(\Phi,\mu) = \chi_2(\Phi,\mu) = \cdots = \chi_p(\Phi,\mu) = \beta(\Phi) \, .$$ Repeating the argument of the proof of \[p.Mather\_support\], we see that if the set $M_p(\Phi)$ is nonempty then there exists a measure $\mu$ with $p$ maximal Lyapunov exponents and whose support is exactly $M_p(\Phi)$; in particular, $M_p(\Phi)$ is compact and $T$-invariant.
The following properties follow immediately from the definition of Mather sets and relations and :
\[p.Mathers\] For any $p \in \ldbrack 1,d \rdbrack$, we have: $$\beta({\mathsf{\Lambda}}^p \Phi) \le p \beta(\Phi)
\quad \text{and} \quad
M_p(\Phi)\subseteq M_1({\mathsf{\Lambda}}^p \Phi) \, .$$ Furthermore, these two relations become equalities if and only if $M_p(\Phi) \neq {\varnothing}$.
Let us extend the chain of sets . Let $M_{d+1}(\Phi) \coloneqq {\varnothing}$ and let $M_0(\Phi)$ be defined as the union of the supports of all $T$-invariant probability measures (which is also the support of one of them). So $M_0(\Phi)$ only depends on $T$, and is in fact the classical *minimal center of attraction* of $T$: see [@Sigmund], [@Akin p. 164].
Dominated splittings over the Mather sets {#ss.Mather_dom}
-----------------------------------------
We want to provide more information about the action of $\Phi$ on the fibers above the Mather sets, assuming the existence of a extremal norm. We will use the notion of dominated splitting, which is very useful in Differentiable Dynamics (see [@BDV_book]). It appears in the celebrated book [@HPS] as *relative pseudo hyperbolicity*. It also appears in ODE and Control Theory under the terminology *exponentially separated splitting* (see [@CK_book]), and is intimately related to the concept of Anosov representations in Geometric Group Theory (see [@BPS]).
Let $Y \subseteq X$ be a nonempty $T$-invariant compact set, and let ${\mathbb{E}}_Y \coloneqq \pi^{-1}(Y)$ be the restricted vector bundle. (Recall that $\pi \colon {\mathbb{E}}\to X$ denotes the bundle projection.) Let $\| \mathord{\cdot} \|$ be a Finsler norm on ${\mathbb{E}}$. Suppose that the bundle ${\mathbb{E}}_Y$ splits as a direct sum ${\mathbb{F}}\oplus {\mathbb{G}}$ of two (continuous) subbundles whose fibers ${\mathbb{F}}_x$, ${\mathbb{G}}_x$ have constant dimensions, and are equivariant in the sense that $\Phi_x({\mathbb{F}}_x) = {\mathbb{F}}_{Tx}$, $\Phi_x({\mathbb{G}}_x) = {\mathbb{G}}_{Tx}$. We say that ${\mathbb{F}}\oplus {\mathbb{G}}$ is a *dominated splitting* with *dominating* bundle ${\mathbb{F}}$ and *dominated* bundle ${\mathbb{G}}$ if there are positive constants $c$ and $\tau$ such that for each point $x \in Y$, if $u \in {\mathbb{F}}_x$, $v \in {\mathbb{G}}_x$ are unit vectors then $$\label{e.def_DS}
\| \Phi_x^n(v) \| \le c e^{-\tau n} \| \Phi_x^n(u) \| \quad \text{for all } n \ge 0.$$
An equivalent definition is to say that there exists an *adapted norm* $\| \mathord{\cdot} \|$ for which relation holds with $c=1$ (and therefore only needs to be checked for $n=1$): see [@Gourmelon]. Dominated splittings are unique given the dimensions: see [@CroPo Prop. 2.2]. Continuity of the subbundles actually follows from the uniform estimates and therefore could be removed from the definition: see [@CroPo Prop. 2.5]. Actually, if $\Phi$ is Hölder then the bundles of a dominated splitting are always Hölder (with a smaller exponent): see [@CroPo Thrm. 4.11]. Domination can be characterized in terms of existence of invariant cone fields: see [@CroPo Thrm. 2.6]. This implies strong robustness properties: see [@CroPo Corol. 2.8].
We will use another criterion for the existence of dominated splittings, expressed in terms of singular values. Recall that if $L \colon E \to F$ is a linear map between $d$-dimensional inner product spaces, then the *singular values* $\sigma_1 (L) \ge \cdots \ge \sigma_d (L)$ are the eigenvalues of the symmetric operator $(L^* L)^{1/2}$. So $\sigma_1(L)$ coincides with the Euclidean operator norm $\|L\|$. Endowing the exterior power spaces with the induced inner products, the exterior powers of $L$ have norm: $$\label{e.singular_wedge}
\| {\mathsf{\Lambda}}^p L \| = \sigma_1(L) \sigma_2(L) \cdots \sigma_p(L) \, ;$$ see e.g. [@Arnold p. 120]. Another useful characterization of the singular values is: $$\label{e.maxmin}
\sigma_p(L) = \max_{V \in {\mathcal{G}}_p(E)} \min_{u \in V} \frac{\|L u\|}{\|u\|} \, ;$$ see e.g. [@Stewart p. 68].
A theorem from [@BG] says that the domination is equivalent to a uniform exponential gap between singular values of the powers of $\Phi$ (computed with respect to a Riemannian norm fixed a priori). More precisely:
\[t.BG\] The bundle ${\mathbb{E}}_Y$ admits a dominated splitting with a dominating bundle of dimension $p$ if and only if there exist positive constants $c$ and $\tau$ such that $$\sigma_{p+1}(\Phi_x^n) \le c e^{-\tau n} \sigma_p(\Phi_x^n) \quad \text{for all $x \in Y$ and $n \ge 0$.}$$
We now come back to the Mather sets:
\[t.dom\] Suppose $\Phi$ admits an extremal norm ${\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {\cdot}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}}$. Let $p \in \ldbrack 1, d \rdbrack$. Suppose $Y$ is a nonempty compact $T$-invariant set contained in $M_p(\Phi) {\smallsetminus}M_{p+1}(\Phi)$. Then the restricted bundle ${\mathbb{E}}_Y$ admits a dominated splitting ${\mathbb{F}}\oplus {\mathbb{G}}$ where the dominating bundle ${\mathbb{F}}$ has fibers of dimension $p$ and is calibrated in the sense that ${\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {\Phi(u)}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}} = e^{\beta(\Phi)} {\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}}$ for every $u \in {\mathbb{F}}$.
In particular, if exactly one of the sets $M_p(\Phi) {\smallsetminus}M_{p+1}(\Phi)$ is nonempty then we obtain a dominated splitting over the whole Mather set $M(\Phi)$.
Related results were previously obtained by Morris: [@Morris_rapidly Theorem 2.1] produces a dominated splitting under the weaker assumption of relative product boundedness, but with the strong hypothesis that the set $Y$ is minimal (i.e., all orbits in $Y$ are dense). Assuming existence of an extremal norm, Morris also proves the calibration property of the dominating bundle in his Theorem 2.2.
For a complement to \[t.dom\], see \[p.Riem\_weak\] in \[ss.Riemann\].
Proof of the domination theorem
-------------------------------
Consider the set of vectors whose bi-infinite orbits under $\Phi$ are *calibrated* with respect to the extremal norm ${\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {\mathord{\cdot}}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}}$: $$\label{e.calibrated}
{\mathbb{K}}\coloneqq \big\{ u \in {\mathbb{E}}{\;\mathord{;}\;}{\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {\Phi^n(u)}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}} = e^{n \beta(\Phi)}{\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}} \text{ for all } n \in {\mathbb{Z}}\big\}.$$ This is a closed, $\Phi$-invariant subset of ${\mathbb{E}}$. Denote its fibers by ${\mathbb{K}}_x \coloneqq {\mathbb{E}}_x \cap {\mathbb{K}}$.
\[p.Oseledets\] There exists a $T$-invariant Borel set $R \subseteq M(\Phi)$ such that:
- $\mu ( M(\Phi) {\smallsetminus}R ) = 0$ for every $T$-invariant probability measure $\mu$;
- for all $x \in R$, the Oseledets space corresponding to the Lyapunov exponent $\beta(\Phi)$ exists and coincides with ${\mathbb{K}}_x$.
Without loss of generality, assume that $\beta(\Phi)=0$. Let $R_0 \subseteq X$ be the Borel set of points that satisfy the conclusions of Oseledets theorem. For each $x \in R_0 \cap M(\Phi)$, the Oseledets space $\mathbb{O}_x = \mathbb{O}_x(0) \subseteq {\mathbb{E}}_x$ is well-defined and has positive dimension, say $p(x)$. Calibrated vectors have zero Lyapunov exponent, so ${\mathbb{K}}_x \subseteq \mathbb{O}_x$. Consider the unit balls on these Oseledets spaces, i.e., ${\mathcal{B}}_x \coloneqq \{ u \in \mathbb{O}_x {\;\mathord{;}\;}{\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}} \le 1\}$. Then $\Phi_x({\mathcal{B}}_{x}) \subseteq {\mathcal{B}}_{Tx}$, and therefore the following function is non-positive: $$\psi(x) \coloneqq \log \frac{\operatorname{vol}(\Phi_x({\mathcal{B}}_{x}))}{\operatorname{vol}({\mathcal{B}}_{Tx})} \, .$$ Here $\operatorname{vol}$ means $p(x)$-dimensional volume with respect to a fixed Riemannian norm on the bundle ${\mathbb{E}}$; of course, the choice of this metric does not affect the function $\psi$. Then $\psi$ is cohomologous to the function $\tilde \psi(x) \coloneqq \log \det \Phi(x)|_{\mathbb{O}_x}$, where $\det$ denotes the signless determinant induced by the Riemannian metric (see [@Arnold p. 213]); indeed $\psi = \tilde \psi + {\varphi}- {\varphi}\circ T$ where ${\varphi}(x) \coloneqq \log \operatorname{vol}({\mathcal{B}}_{x})$. All these functions are Borel measurable and bounded. Let $\mu$ be any $T$-invariant probability measure supported on $M(\Phi)$, that is, any Lyapunov maximizing measure. As a consequence of Oseledets theorem, we have $\int \tilde\psi \, d\mu = 0$ (see [@Arnold p. 214]). Since $\psi$ is cohomologous to $\tilde \psi$, its integral is zero as well. But $\psi \le 0$, so $\psi = 0$ $\mu$-a.e. Let $R_1 \coloneqq \{ x \in R_0 \cap M(\Phi) {\;\mathord{;}\;}\psi(x)=0 \}$ and $R \coloneqq \bigcap_{n \in {\mathbb{Z}}} T^{-n}(R_1)$; then $\mu (R) = 1$. Noting that $\psi(x) = 0$ if and only if $\Phi(x)|_{\mathbb{O}_x}$ preserves ${\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {\mathord{\cdot}}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}}$, we see that if $x \in R$ then $\mathbb{O}_x \subseteq {\mathbb{K}}_x$. As remarked before, the reverse inclusion is automatic, so $\mathbb{O}_x = {\mathbb{K}}_x$ for every $x \in R$. Since set $R$ has full measure with respect to any Lyapunov maximizing measure, the set $M(\Phi) {\smallsetminus}R$ has zero measure with respect to any $T$-invariant probability measure, as we wanted to show.
\[c.dimension\] Suppose $\Phi$ admits an extremal norm $ {\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {\cdot}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}}$. For each $p \in \ldbrack 1, d \rdbrack$ and $x \in M_p(\Phi)$, the set ${\mathbb{K}}_x$ contains a vector space of dimension $p$.
Let $\mu$ be a measure whose $p$ first Lyapunov exponents equal $\beta(\Phi)$ and whose support equals $M_p(\Phi)$. Given $x \in M_p(\Phi)$, take a sequence of neighborhoods $U_i$ converging to $x$. Since $\mu(U_i)>0$, by \[p.Oseledets\] we can find $x_i \in U_i$ such that the Oseledets space corresponding to the Lyapunov exponent $\beta(\Phi)$ exists and coincides with ${\mathbb{K}}_{x_i}$. Moreover, these spaces have dimensions at least $p$. Passing to subsequences, we can assume that these dimensions are constant equal to some $q \ge p$, and that ${\mathbb{K}}_{x_i}$ converges to some $q$-dimensional space $V$. As ${\mathbb{K}}$ is a closed subset of ${\mathbb{E}}$, we conclude that $V \subseteq {\mathbb{K}}_x$, completing the proof.
\[r.exceptional\_fibers\] It is not necessarily the case that ${\mathbb{K}}_x$ is a subspace: see \[ex.non\_space\] in \[ss.examples\_calibrated\]. On the other hand, if ${\mathbb{K}}_x$ is a subspace, then by \[c.dimension\] its dimension is at least the number $p$ such that $x \in M_p(\Phi) {\smallsetminus}M_{p+1}(\Phi)$. However, it is not necessarily true that $\dim {\mathbb{K}}_x = p$: see \[ex.bad\_dim\] in \[ss.examples\_calibrated\].
As usual, it is sufficient to consider $\beta(\Phi) = 0$.
In the case $p=d$, we have $Y \subseteq M_d(\Phi)$ and so by \[c.dimension\] the extremal norm is preserved along the bundle ${\mathbb{E}}_Y$. So the trivial splitting ${\mathbb{E}}_Y \oplus 0$ has the required properties. So let us suppose that $p<d$.
Fix a Riemannian norm $\| \mathord{\cdot} \|$ on ${\mathbb{E}}$. For each $x \in Y$, by \[c.dimension\] the fiber ${\mathbb{E}}_x$ contains a $p$-dimensional subspace formed by vectors $u$ such that for every $n \ge 0$, we have ${\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {\Phi^n(u)}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}} = {\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}}$ and therefore $c_1^{-1} \|u\| \le \| \Phi^n(u) \| \le c_1 \|u\|$, for some constant $c_1 \ge 1$. Recalling the maxmin characterization of singular values , we conclude that: $$\label{e.almost_calibration}
c_1^{-1} \le \sigma_p(\Phi^n_x) \le \cdots \le \sigma_1(\Phi^n_x) \le c_1 \quad \text{for all $x \in Y$ and $n \ge 0$.}$$ On the other hand, note that the set $M_{p+1} (\Phi|_{{\mathbb{E}}_Y})$ is contained in $Y \cap M_{p+1}(\Phi)$ and therefore is empty. So \[p.Mathers\] yields $$\beta \left( {\mathsf{\Lambda}}^{p+1} (\Phi|_{{\mathbb{E}}_Y}) \right) < (p+1) \beta(\Phi|_{{\mathbb{E}}_Y}) = 0 \, .$$ Recalling that $\beta(\mathord{\cdot})$ can also be characterized by , we conclude that there exist positive constants $c_2$ and $\tau$ such that for all $x \in Y$ and $n \ge 0$, $$\| {\mathsf{\Lambda}}^{p+1} \Phi^n_x \| \le c_2 e^{-\tau n} \, .$$ So, using and , we have: $$\sigma_{p+1} (\Phi^n_x) = \frac{\| {\mathsf{\Lambda}}^{p+1} \Phi^n_x \|}{\| {\mathsf{\Lambda}}^p \Phi^n_x \|} \le c_1^p c_2 e^{-\tau n}$$ and $\sigma_p (\Phi^n_x) \ge c_1^{-1}$. So we have a uniform exponential gap between the $p$-th and $p+1$-th singular values. By \[t.BG\], the bundle ${\mathbb{E}}_Y$ admits a dominated splitting ${\mathbb{F}}\oplus {\mathbb{G}}$ with a dominating bundle ${\mathbb{F}}$ of dimension $p$.
To conclude, we need to check that $\Phi$ preserves the extremal norm along the bundle ${\mathbb{F}}$. We will actually show that, in terms of notation , ${\mathbb{K}}_x = {\mathbb{F}}_x$ for every $x \in Y$. Since $\Phi$ is product bounded, domination implies that vectors in ${\mathbb{G}}$ are uniformly contracted in the future, and therefore uniformly expanded in the past. Furthermore, any vector in $u \in {\mathbb{E}}_x {\smallsetminus}{\mathbb{F}}_x$ is uniformly expanded in the past, since we can write $u = v + w$ with $v \in {\mathbb{F}}_x$, $w \in {\mathbb{G}}_x {\smallsetminus}\{0\}$ and then $${\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {\Phi^{-n}(u)}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}} \ge {\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {\Phi^{-n}(w)}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}} \left( 1 - \frac{{\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {\Phi^{-n}(v)}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}}}{{\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {\Phi^{-n}(w)}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}}} \right) \to \infty \quad \text{as $n \to +\infty$ . }$$ In particular, vectors in ${\mathbb{E}}_x {\smallsetminus}{\mathbb{F}}_x$ cannot be calibrated; that is, ${\mathbb{K}}_x \subseteq {\mathbb{F}}_x$. This inclusion cannot be strict, thanks to \[c.dimension\]. So ${\mathbb{K}}_x = {\mathbb{F}}_x$, as claimed.
Further applications of extremal norms and Mather sets {#s.app}
======================================================
Subordination {#ss.subordination}
-------------
By definition, the Mather set $M(\Phi)$ contains the support of every Lyapunov maximizing measure. Let us see that the converse holds under the hypothesis of strong fiber-bunching, regardless of reducibility:
\[t.subordination\] Let $T$ be a transitive hyperbolic homeomorphism. Let $\Phi$ be strongly bunched automorphism covering $T$. Then every $T$-invariant probability measure whose support is contained in the Mather set $M(\Phi)$ is Lyapunov maximizing.
Let $\Phi \colon {\mathbb{E}}\to {\mathbb{E}}$ be a strongly bunched automorphism and let $\nu$ be a $T$-invariant probability measure whose support is contained in $M(\Phi)$; we want to prove that $\chi_1(\Phi, \nu) = \beta(\Phi)$. By ergodic decomposition, it is sufficient to consider the case of ergodic $\nu$.
If $\Phi$ is irreducible (which is certainly the case if $d=1$) then $\Phi$ is spannable by \[t.irr\_to\_span\], and so $\Phi$ admits an extremal norm by \[t.extremal\]. Then \[p.Mather\_calibration\] yields the desired conclusion.
From now on, assume that $\Phi$ is reducible, that is, there exists a $\theta$-Hölder $\Phi$-invariant nontrivial subbundle ${\mathbb{F}}\subset {\mathbb{E}}$. By induction on dimension, we can assume that the holds for the restricted automorphism $\Phi|_{{\mathbb{F}}}$ and the quotient automorphism $\nicefrac{\Phi}{{\mathbb{F}}}$. Recall from that $\beta(\Phi) = \max\{ \beta(\Phi|_{{\mathbb{F}}}) , \beta(\nicefrac{\Phi}{{\mathbb{F}}}) \}$.
As a first case, suppose that $\beta(\Phi) = \beta(\Phi|_{{\mathbb{F}}}) > \beta(\nicefrac{\Phi}{{\mathbb{F}}})$. Then it follows from that an ergodic measure $\mu$ is Lyapunov maximizing for $\Phi$ if and only if it is Lyapunov maximizing for $\Phi|_{{\mathbb{F}}}$. Therefore the Mather sets coincide: $M(\Phi) = M(\Phi|_{{\mathbb{F}}})$. The measure $\nu$ fixed at the beginning is supported on this set; so, by the induction hypothesis, it is Lyapunov maximizing for $\Phi|_{{\mathbb{F}}}$, that is, it is Lyapunov maximizing for $\Phi$, as we wanted to show.
The second case where $\beta(\Phi) = \beta(\nicefrac{\Phi}{{\mathbb{F}}}) > \beta(\Phi|_{{\mathbb{F}}})$ is entirely analogous.
In the last case, we have $\beta(\Phi) = \beta(\Phi|_{{\mathbb{F}}}) = \beta(\nicefrac{\Phi}{{\mathbb{F}}})$. Then it follows from that an ergodic measure $\mu$ is Lyapunov maximizing for $\Phi$ if and only if it is Lyapunov maximizing for $\Phi|_{{\mathbb{F}}}$ or for $\nicefrac{\Phi}{{\mathbb{F}}}$. Therefore $M(\Phi) = M(\Phi|_{{\mathbb{F}}}) \cup M(\nicefrac{\Phi}{{\mathbb{F}}})$. So the measure $\nu$ fixed at the beginning has a support contained in the union of the two closed $T$-invariant sets $M(\Phi|_{{\mathbb{F}}})$ and $M(\nicefrac{\Phi}{{\mathbb{F}}})$. By ergodicity, this support must be contained in one of the two sets. By the induction hypothesis, $\nu$ is Lyapunov maximizing for $\Phi|_{{\mathbb{F}}}$ or for $\nicefrac{\Phi}{{\mathbb{F}}}$. In either case, it is Lyapunov maximizing for $\Phi$, as we wanted to show.
Lyapunov almost-maximizing periodic orbits of low period
--------------------------------------------------------
Let $\Phi$ be a $\theta$-Hölder automorphism covering a hyperbolic homeomorphism. For each integer $n \ge 1$, let $$\beta_n(\Phi) \coloneqq \max \big\{\chi_1(\Phi, \mu) {\;\mathord{;}\;}\text{$\mu$ is supported on a periodic orbit of period $\le n$} \big\} \, .$$ This is a bounded non-decreasing sequence, and so it is convergent. Actually, the limit is: $$\label{e.BergerWang}
\lim_{n \to \infty} \beta_n(\Phi) = \beta(\Phi) \, .$$ Indeed, this follows from a much more general result of Kalinin [@Kalinin Theorem 1.4] on the approximation of Lyapunov exponents using measures supported on periodic orbits. In the case of one-step cocycles, formula is known as the *Berger–Wang theorem*, and it was first proved in [@BWang]. For other extensions of Berger–Wang theorem, see [@Oregon; @BreuF].
It is quite possible that the limit is attained for some finite $n$ (and indeed this is expected to be the typical situation). On the other hand, in the worst-case scenario, what can we say about the speed of the approximation in formula ? A result of Morris [@Morris_rapidly] says that for one-step cocycles, this speed is always superpolynomial. Here we show that the same is true for strongly bunched automorphisms:
\[t.super\_pol\] If $\Phi$ is a strongly bunched automorphism then for every $\tau>0$, $$\beta(\Phi) - \beta_n(\Phi) = O(n^{-\tau}) \, .$$
The first result of superpolynomial approximation was actually obtained in the context of ergodic optimization of Birkhoff averages by Bressaud and Quas [@BQuas], who also showed that this type of bound is essentially sharp. The key ingredient is a quantitative version of Anosov Closing Lemma, also due to Bressaud and Quas [@BQuas], which we state as follows:
\[t.BQ\] Let $T \colon X \to X$ be a hyperbolic homeomorphism. Let $Y \subseteq X$ be a nonempty compact $T$-invariant set. Then for every $\tau>0$ and every sufficiently large $n$, there exists a periodic orbit of period at most $n$ entirely contained in the $n^{-\tau}$-neighborhood of $Y$.
This result is proved in [@BQuas] for the one-sided full shift; as remarked in that paper, one can use standard techniques to reduce to that case. Alternatively, one can prove \[t.BQ\] directly, and we do so in \[ss.BQ\].
Recall from that if $\Phi$ is reducible then we can replace it by either a restricted or a quotient automorphism with the same maximal Lyapunov exponent. Repeating this procedure a finite number of times, we eventually find a irreducible automorphism with the same maximal Lyapunov exponent; this induced automorphism will also be strongly bunched. So, without loss of generality, we assume that $\Phi$ is irreducible. By \[t.irr\_to\_span\], $\Phi$ is spannable, and by \[t.extremal\], $\Phi$ admits a Hölder extremal norm ${\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {\mathord{\cdot}}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}}$. Let $p \in \ldbrack 1, d \rdbrack$ be maximal such that the $p$-th Mather set $M_p(\Phi) \eqcolon Y$ is nonempty. By \[t.dom\], the restricted bundle ${\mathbb{E}}_Y$ admits a dominated splitting ${\mathbb{F}}\oplus {\mathbb{G}}$ where the dominating bundle ${\mathbb{F}}$ has fibers of dimension $p$ and is calibrated in the sense that for every $x \in Y$ and $u \in {\mathbb{F}}_x$, we have ${\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {\Phi(u)}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}} = e^{\beta(\Phi)} {\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}}$.
By robustness of dominated splittings [@CroPo Corol. 2.8], there exists a closed neighborhood $U$ of $Y$ such that if $Z \coloneqq \bigcap_{k \in {\mathbb{Z}}} T^{-k}(U) \supseteq Y$ is the maximal invariant set in this neighborhood, then the restricted bundle ${\mathbb{E}}_Z$ over the compact invariant set admits a dominated splitting ${\mathbb{F}}\oplus {\mathbb{G}}$, extending the previously found dominated splitting on ${\mathbb{E}}_Y$. Recall that the bundles of a dominated splitting are Hölder-continuous [@CroPo Thrm. 4.11]. Furthermore, the extremal norm is also Hölder-continuous. It follows that there exist $\rho>0$ and $C_0>0$ such that for every $x \in Z$ and every $u \in {\mathbb{F}}_x$, $$e^{\beta(\Phi) - C_0 {\mathrm{d}}(x,Y)^\rho} {\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}} \le
{\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {\Phi(u)}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}} \le e^{\beta(\Phi)} {\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}} \, .$$
Fix $\tau>0$. Let $C$ be given by \[t.BQ\]; so for all sufficiently large $n$, there exists a periodic orbit of period at most $n$ supported on the $C n^{-\tau}$-neighborhood of $Y$, and so contained in $Z$. Let $\nu_n$ be the invariant probability measure supported on that orbit. The bound obtained before implies: $$\chi_1(\Phi,\nu) \ge \beta(\Phi) - C_0 (C n^{-\tau})^\rho \, .$$ So $\beta(\Phi) - \beta_n(\Phi) = O(n^{-\rho \tau})$. Since $\tau>0$ is arbitrary, the is proved.
Appendix: Proof of some technical results {#s.technical}
=========================================
Basic constructions on theta-Hölder bundles {#ss.basic}
-------------------------------------------
Recall our assumption from \[ss.theta\] that the algebra of $\theta$-Hölder functions on $X$ is normal. Let us metrize the product $X \times X$ by ${\mathrm{d}}\big( (x,y), (x',y') \big) \coloneq \max\big\{ {\mathrm{d}}(x,y), {\mathrm{d}}(x',y') \big\}$.
\[l.square\] The algebra of $\theta$-Hölder functions on $X \times X$ is normal.
Let $K_0$, $K_1 \subset X \times X$ be two disjoint nonempty compact sets. Let ${\varepsilon}>0$ be a lower bound for the distance between a point in $K_0$ and a point in $K_1$. Let $\{B_i\}$ be a finite cover of $X$ by open sets of diameter less than ${\varepsilon}$. Let $\{\rho_i\}$ be a partition of unity subordinated to this cover and formed by $\theta$-Hölder functions. Define a function $f \colon X \times X \to {\mathbb{R}}$ by: $$f(x,y) \coloneq \sum_{\substack{(i,j) \text{ such that} \\ (B_i \times B_j)\cap K_1 \neq {\varnothing}}} \rho_i(x) \rho_j(y) \, .$$ Then $f$ is $\theta$-Hölder, takes values in the interval $[0,1]$, equals $0$ on $K_0$, and equals $1$ on $K_1$. This proves normality.
[^10] Consider the finite cover of $X \times X$ formed by the following open sets: $$V_{k,\ell} \coloneqq
\begin{cases}
U_k \times U_k &\text{if $k=\ell$;} \\
U_k \times U_\ell {\smallsetminus}\Delta &\text{if $k\neq\ell$,}
\end{cases}$$ where $\Delta \subseteq X \times X$ is the diagonal. Consider a partition of unity subordinate to this cover, composed of $\theta$-Hölder functions $\rho_{k,\ell}$; its existence is a consequence of \[l.square\]. Given any pair of points $x$, $y \in X$, define a linear map from ${\mathbb{E}}_x$ to ${\mathbb{E}}_y$ by: $$I_{y \gets x} \coloneqq \sum_{(k, \ell)} \rho_{k,\ell}(x,y) \, h_\ell(y) \circ [h_k(x)]^{-1} \, ,$$ where the sum is taken over the indices $(k, \ell)$ such that $V_{k,\ell} \ni (x,y)$. If $(x,y) \in U_i \times U_j$ then the matrix: $$[h_j(y)]^{-1} \circ I_{y \gets x} \circ h_i(x) =
\sum_{(k, \ell)} \rho_{k,\ell}(x,y) \, g_{j \gets \ell}(y) \circ g_{k \gets i}(x)$$ is $\theta$-Hölder continuous as a function of $(x,y)$, and equals the identity when $x = y$.
For the following proofs, it is convenient to fix another open cover $\{V_i\}$ of $X$ such that $\overline{V_i} \subset U_i$ for each $k$. Note that for any Finsler norm $\| \mathord{\cdot} \|$ on ${\mathbb{E}}$, we have: $$\label{e.h_i_bounded}
\max_i \sup_{x \in V_i} \max \big\{ \|h_i(x)\| , \|[h_i(x)]^{-1}\| \big\} < \infty \, ,$$ where these operators norms are relative to the norm $\| \mathord{\cdot} \|_x$ on ${\mathbb{E}}_x$ and the Euclidean norm $\| \mathord{\cdot} \|_\mathrm{eucl}$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^d$.
In order to prove the assertion, it is sufficient to consider triples of points $x$, $y$, $z$ that are close enough so that they belong to a common coordinate neighborhood $V_i$. Consider the matrix $$\label{e.tilde_I}
\tilde I_{y \gets x} \coloneqq [h_i(y)]^{-1} \circ I_{y \gets x} \circ h_i(x) \, ,$$ which by \[p.transport\] is $O({\mathrm{d}}(x,y)^\theta)$-close to the identity matrix. Using a similar notation for the other points, we have: $$\| \tilde I_{z \gets x} - \mathrm{Id} \|_\mathrm{eucl} = O({\mathrm{d}}(x,z)^\theta) \quad \text{and} \quad
\| \tilde I_{y \gets z} - \mathrm{Id} \|_\mathrm{eucl} = O({\mathrm{d}}(y,z)^\theta) \, .$$ Therefore: $$\| \tilde I_{y \gets z} \circ \tilde I_{z \gets x} - \tilde I_{y \gets x} \|_\mathrm{eucl} = O \big( \max\{ {\mathrm{d}}(x,z)^\theta, {\mathrm{d}}(y,z)^\theta \} \big) \, .$$ Since $I_{y \gets z} \circ I_{z \gets x} - I_{y \gets x} = h_i(y) \circ \big( \tilde I_{y \gets z} \circ \tilde I_{z \gets x} - \tilde I_{y \gets x} \big) \circ [h_i(x)]^{-1}$, using the boundedness property we obtain $$\| I_{y \gets z} \circ I_{z \gets x} - I_{y \gets x} \|_\mathrm{eucl} = O \big( \max\{ {\mathrm{d}}(x,z)^\theta, {\mathrm{d}}(y,z)^\theta \} \big) \, ,$$ as we wanted to show.
Let $\|\mathord{\cdot}\|$ be a $\theta$-Hölder Finsler norm. In order to prove the desired estimate, it is sufficient to consider pairs of points $x$, $y$ that are close enough so that they belong to a same set $V_i$. By definition, for every $u \in {\mathbb{R}}^d$, the map $x \in V_i \mapsto \|h_i(x) u \|$ is $\theta$-Hölder, and so there is a constant $C > 0$ such that, for all $x$, $y \in V_i$, $$\label{i.intermediate_Holder}
\big| \| h_i(y) u \| - \| h_i(x) u \| \big| \le C \|u\|_\mathrm{eucl} \, {\mathrm{d}}(x,y)^\theta \, .$$ Using the boundedness property and compactness of the unit sphere, we can find a uniform $C$ so that the estimate above holds for every $u \in {\mathbb{R}}^d$.
Recall that that the matrix defined in satisfies $\| \tilde I_{y \gets x} -\mathrm{Id}\|_\mathrm{eucl} = O({\mathrm{d}}(x,y)^\theta)$. Now, given $v \in {\mathbb{E}}_x$, consider $u \coloneqq [h_i(x)]^{-1} v$. Then: $$\begin{aligned}
\big| \| I_{y \gets x} v\| - \| v \| \big|
&=
\big| \| h_i(y) \tilde I_{y \gets x} u \| - \| h_i(x) u \| \big| \\
&\le
\big| \| h_i(y) \tilde I_{y \gets x} u \| - \| h_i(y) u \| \big| +
\big| \| h_i(y) u\| - \| h_i(x) u \| \big| \end{aligned}$$ Using and , we conclude that $\big| \| I_{y \gets x} v\| - \| v \| \big| = O(\|v\| {\mathrm{d}}(x,y)^\theta)$, that is, $\big| \| I_{y \gets x} \| - 1 \big| = O({\mathrm{d}}(x,y)^\theta)$, as claimed.
The proof of the converse is entirely analogous.
Suppose $\Phi$ is $\theta$-Hölder. In order to prove the desired estimate, it is sufficient to consider pairs of points $x$, $y$ that are close enough so that they belong to a same set $V_i \cap T^{-1}(V_j)$. Let $\tilde \Phi_x \coloneqq [h_j(Tx)]^{-1} \circ \Phi_x \circ h_i(x)$ and similarly define $\tilde \Phi_y$. Let $\tilde I_{y \gets x}$ be defined by , and similarly define $\tilde I_{Tx \gets Ty}$; by \[p.transport\] these matrix-valued maps are $\theta$-Hölder as functions of $(x,y)$. So the map $(x,y) \mapsto \tilde I_{Ty \gets Tx} \circ \tilde\Phi_x - \tilde \Phi_y \circ \tilde I_{y \gets x}$ is also $\theta$-Hölder, and since it vanishes on $(x,x)$ we conclude that: $$\label{e.tildes}
\big\| \tilde I_{Ty \gets Tx} \circ \tilde \Phi_x - \tilde \Phi_y \circ \tilde I_{y \gets x} \big\| = O({\mathrm{d}}(x,y)^\theta ) \, .$$ Using the boundedness property we obtain: $$\big\| I_{Ty \gets Tx} \circ \Phi_x - \Phi_y \circ I_{y \gets x} \big\| = O({\mathrm{d}}(x,y)^\theta) \, ,$$ as desired.
Conversely, assume that such an estimate holds; then follows from . By \[p.transport\], the matrices $\tilde I_{y \gets x}$ and $\tilde I_{Ty \gets Tx}$ are $O({\mathrm{d}}(x,y)^\theta)$-close to the identity. It follows that the matrices $\tilde \Phi_x$ and $\tilde \Phi_y$ are $O({\mathrm{d}}(x,y)^\theta)$-close. This means that $\Phi$ is $\theta$-Hölder.
Existence of holonomies {#ss.holonomies}
-----------------------
We begin with a straightforward estimate:
\[l.bol\] Let $\Phi \in {\mathrm{Aut}}^\theta_K({\mathbb{E}},T)$. For every $x$, $y \in X$ and $n \ge 0$ we have: $$\| (\Phi^n_y)^{-1} \| \, \| \Phi^n_x \| \le \prod_{j=0}^{n-1} e^{K_1 {\mathrm{d}}(T^j x, T^j y)^\theta} \operatorname{bol}(\Phi_{T^j y}) \, ,$$ where $K_1$ depends only on $K$.
By submultiplicativity of norms and the definition of bolicity, we have: $$\| (\Phi^n_y)^{-1} \| \, \| \Phi^n_x \|
\le \prod_{j=0}^{n-1} \| (\Phi_{T^j y})^{-1} \| \, \| \Phi_{T^j x} \|
= \prod_{j=0}^{n-1} \| \Phi_{T^j y} \|^{-1} \, \| \Phi_{T^j x} \| \, \operatorname{bol}(\Phi_{T^j y}) \, ,$$ and so the claimed inequality holds with $K_1$ being the $\theta$-Hölder constant of $\log \|\Phi\|$. This constant can be estimated in terms of $K$, using .
By symmetry, it is sufficient to consider $\star = {\mathrm{s}}$. The stable holonomy is defined as: $$\label{e.def_holonomy}
H^{\mathrm{s}}_{y \gets x} \coloneqq \lim_{n \to + \infty} \underbrace{(\Phi_y^n)^{-1} \circ I_{T^n y \gets T^n x} \circ \Phi_x^n}_{H_n} \, ,$$ where $x$ and $y$ are in a same stable set. Let us establish convergence. Assume first that $y \in W^{\mathrm{s}}_{{\varepsilon}_0}(x)$. We have: $$H_{n+1} - H_n = (\Phi_y^{n+1})^{-1} \circ \underbrace{\big( I_{T^{n+1} y \gets T^{n+1} x} \circ \Phi_{T^n x} - \Phi_{T^n y} \circ I_{T^n y \gets T^n x} \big)}_{\Delta_n} \circ \Phi_x^n \, ,$$ and so, using the definition of the set ${\mathrm{Aut}}^\theta_K({\mathbb{E}},T)$ and \[l.bol\], $$\begin{aligned}
\|H_{n+1} - H_n\|
&\le K \|\Delta_n\| \, \| (\Phi_y^n)^{-1}\| \, \|\Phi_x^n\| \\
&\le K^2 \, {\mathrm{d}}(T^n x, T^n y)^\theta \, \prod_{j=0}^{n-1} e^{K_1 {\mathrm{d}}(T^j x, T^j y)^\theta} \operatorname{bol}(\Phi_{T^j y}) \, .\end{aligned}$$ By property in the definition of hyperbolicity, for every $j \ge 0$ we have $${\mathrm{d}}(T^j x, T^j y) \le e^{-\lambda_{\mathrm{s}}^{(j)}(y)} {\mathrm{d}}(x,y) \, , \quad \text{where} \quad
\lambda_{\mathrm{s}}^{(j)}(y) \coloneqq \sum_{i=0}^{j-1}\lambda_{\mathrm{s}}(T^i y) \, .$$ Since $\lambda_{\mathrm{s}}$ is strictly positive, the series $\sum_{j=0}^\infty {\mathrm{d}}(T^j x, T^j y)^\theta$ is convergent. Therefore $$\|H_{n+1} - H_n\|
\le K_2 \, e^{-\theta \lambda_{\mathrm{s}}^{(n)}(y)} \left( \prod_{j=0}^{n-1} \operatorname{bol}(\Phi_{T^j y}) \right) {\mathrm{d}}(x,y)^\theta \, ,$$ where $K_2>0$ is another constant. Take a small constant $\eta>0$ such that the fiber-bunching condition still holds if the right hand side is multiplied by $1-\eta$. In particular, $\operatorname{bol}(\Phi_{T^j y}) < e^{(1-\eta)\theta\lambda_{\mathrm{s}}(T^j y)}$ and so $$\label{e.exp_convergence}
\|H_{n+1} - H_n\|
\le K_2 \, e^{-\eta \theta \lambda_{\mathrm{s}}^{(n)}(y)} {\mathrm{d}}(x,y)^\theta \, ,$$ This establishes uniform exponential convergence in formula when $y \in W^{\mathrm{s}}_{{\varepsilon}_0}(x)$. Using we see that convergence holds whenever $y \in W^{\mathrm{s}}(x)$. The groupoid properties (\[i.groupoid\_1\]) and (\[i.groupoid\_2\]) are the equivariance property (\[i.equivariance\]) are automatic from the definition. The Hölderness property (\[i.holonomy\_Holder\]) follows by summing for $n=0$ to $\infty$, and noting that $H_0 = I_{y\gets x}$. The joint continuity property (\[i.holonomy\_cont\]) also follows from the uniformity of our estimates. Finally, if we consider a small $C^0$ perturbation of $\Phi$ in the set ${\mathrm{Aut}}^\theta_K({\mathbb{E}},T)$, then we can use the same constants $K_2$ and $\eta$ in , and so the remaining assertions of the follow.
Regularity estimates {#ss.regularity}
--------------------
In this , we prove \[p.regularity\_base,p.regularity\_above\]. Before going into the proofs, let us state our estimates for Hölder exponents.
Since $T$ is Lipschitz, we can find ${\varepsilon}_1 \in (0,{\varepsilon}_0)$ and a continuous strictly positive function $\Lambda_{\mathrm{u}}$ such that for all $x$, $x'$, $x''\in X$, $$\label{e.Lambda_u}
x',x''\in W^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}_1}(x) \quad \Rightarrow \quad
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
Tx', Tx'' \in W^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}_0}(Tx) \, , \\
{\mathrm{d}}(Tx', Tx'') \le e^{\Lambda_{\mathrm{u}}(x)} {\mathrm{d}}(x', x'') \, .
\end{array}
\right.$$ We will show that the conclusion of \[p.regularity\_base\] holds for any $\kappa_{\mathrm{s}}$ in the range: $$\label{e.regularity_estimate_base}
0 < \kappa_{{\mathrm{s}}} < \inf_{X} \frac{\lambda_{\mathrm{s}}+\lambda_{\mathrm{u}}}{\lambda_{\mathrm{s}}+\Lambda_{\mathrm{u}}} \, .$$
Let $$\label{e.def_phi}
{\varphi}(x) \coloneqq \log \operatorname{bol}(\Phi_x);$$ We will show that the conclusion of \[p.regularity\_above\] holds for any $\kappa_{\mathrm{s}}$ in the range: $$\label{e.regularity_estimate_above}
\theta_{{\mathrm{s}}} < \inf_{X} \frac{\theta \lambda_{\mathrm{s}}- {\varphi}}{\lambda_{\mathrm{s}}+\Lambda_{\mathrm{u}}} \, .$$ (Note that the numerator is positive by fiber-bunching.)
The idea of the proof of \[p.regularity\_base\] is roughly as follows. Without loss of generality, we can assume that the “quadrilateral” in \[f.rectangle\] has a “base” ${\mathrm{d}}(x,x')$ much smaller than the two “legs” ${\mathrm{d}}(x,x')$, ${\mathrm{d}}(x,y)$. We take $N \ge 0$ as big as possible for which we can guarantee that the $T^N$-image of that quadrilateral has a base smaller than the legs. We estimate the “summit” ${\mathrm{d}}(T^N y, T^N y')$ using the triangle inequality, and finally we iterate backwards to obtain the desired estimate for ${\mathrm{d}}(y, y')$. The proof of \[p.regularity\_above\] uses the same “there and back again” idea. Formal proofs follow.
Let us denote the Birkhoff sums of a function $f \colon X \to {\mathbb{R}}$ as: $$f^{(n)} \coloneqq f + f \circ T + \cdots + f \circ T^{n-1} \, ,
\qquad f^{(0)} \coloneqq 0.$$
\[l.loss\] For any strictly positive continuous function $f$ on $X$ and any $a \in (0,1)$, there exists $b(f,a)>0$ such that for any $z \in X$ and any $n \ge 0$, $$z' \in W^{\mathrm{s}}_{{\varepsilon}_0}(z) \cup T^{-n}(W^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}_0}(T^n z)) \quad \Rightarrow \quad
f^{(n)}(z') \ge a f^{(n)}(z) - b(f,a) \, .$$
It is sufficient to consider the case $z' \in W^{\mathrm{s}}_{{\varepsilon}_0}(z)$, since the case $z' \in T^{-n}(W^{\mathrm{u}}_{{\varepsilon}_0}(T^n z))$ follows by reversing the time. By uniform continuity of $f$ and uniform contraction on local stable sets, we can find an integer $k = k(f,a) \ge 0$ such that if $z' \in W^{\mathrm{s}}_{{\varepsilon}_0}(z)$ then $f(T^j z') \ge a f(T^j z)$ for every $j \ge k$. Letting $b(f,a) \coloneqq ak \sup_X f$, we obtain the desired conclusion.
We start the proofs of \[p.regularity\_base,p.regularity\_above\] with some estimates that are common to them. Fix $\kappa_{\mathrm{s}}$ and $\theta_{\mathrm{s}}$ satisfying and , respectively. Fix a number $a\in(0,1)$ sufficiently close to $1$ such that: $$\begin{aligned}
\kappa_{{\mathrm{s}}} &< \inf_{X} \frac{a (\lambda_{\mathrm{s}}+ \lambda_{\mathrm{u}})}{a \lambda_{\mathrm{s}}+ \Lambda_{\mathrm{u}}} \, ,
\label{e.folga_base}
\\
\theta_{{\mathrm{s}}} &< \inf_{X} \frac{a (\theta \lambda_{\mathrm{s}}- {\varphi})}{a \lambda_{\mathrm{s}}+ \Lambda_{\mathrm{u}}} \, .
\label{e.folga_above}\end{aligned}$$
Fix four points $x$, $x'$, $y$, $y'$ satisfying . Let $\delta \coloneqq {\mathrm{d}}(x,x')$. Note that to prove \[p.regularity\_base,p.regularity\_above\], it is sufficient to consider $\delta$ smaller than a fixed positive constant, say ${\varepsilon}_1$ from . Let $N$ be the largest nonnegative integer such that: $$\label{e.optimal}
a \lambda_{\mathrm{s}}^{(N)}(x) + \Lambda_{\mathrm{u}}^{(N)}(x) < \log({\varepsilon}_1/\delta) \, ;$$ Then: $$\label{e.optimal_other_side}
a \lambda_{\mathrm{s}}^{(N)}(x) + \Lambda_{\mathrm{u}}^{(N)}(x) \ge \log({\varepsilon}_1/\delta) - c \, ,$$ for some constant $c$, namely $c \coloneqq \sup_X (a \lambda_{\mathrm{s}}+ \Lambda_{\mathrm{u}})$. In particular, assuming that $\delta$ is small enough, $N$ will be large and so the following inequality will hold: $$\label{e.WLOG}
e^{a \lambda_{\mathrm{s}}^{(N)}(x)} > 2 + e^{b(\lambda_{\mathrm{s}},a)}$$ (where $b$ comes from \[l.loss\]).
Using and , one checks by induction that the following chain of inequalities hold for each $n \in \ldbrack 0, N \rdbrack$: $$\label{e.base}
{\mathrm{d}}(T^n x, T^n x')
\le \delta e^{\Lambda_{\mathrm{u}}^{(n)}(x)}
\le {\varepsilon}_1 e^{- a \lambda_{\mathrm{s}}^{(n)}(x)}
\le {\varepsilon}_1 \, .$$ This gives estimates for the base of the “quadrilateral” obtained as the $T^n$-image of that of \[f.rectangle\]. Let us estimate the other sides; the “legs” are: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{d}}(T^n x , T^n y) &\le {\varepsilon}_0 e^{- \lambda_{\mathrm{s}}^{(n)}(x)} \, , \label{e.leg1} \\
{\mathrm{d}}(T^n x', T^n y') &\le {\varepsilon}_0 e^{- \lambda_{\mathrm{s}}^{(n)}(x')}
\le {\varepsilon}_0 e^{- a\lambda_{\mathrm{s}}^{(n)}(x) + b(\lambda_{\mathrm{s}},a)} \, , \label{e.leg2}\end{aligned}$$ where in the last inequality we used \[l.loss\]. Therefore the “summit” is: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{d}}(T^n y, T^n y')
&\le {\mathrm{d}}(T^n x, T^n y) + {\mathrm{d}}(T^n x, T^n x') + {\mathrm{d}}(T^n x', T^n y') \\
&\le (2 + e^{b(\lambda_{\mathrm{s}},a)}) {\varepsilon}_0 e^{-a\lambda_{\mathrm{s}}^{(n)}(x)} \label{e.summit1} \\
&\le {\varepsilon}_0 \, , \label{e.summit2}\end{aligned}$$ where in the last step we used assumption .
We estimate the base of the original quadrilateral by iterating backwards: $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
{\mathrm{d}}(y,y')
&\le e^{-\lambda_{\mathrm{u}}^{(N)}(y)} {\mathrm{d}}(T^N y, T^N y')
&\qquad&\text{(by \eqref{e.summit2})} \\
&= O \big( e^{-a \lambda_{\mathrm{u}}^{(N)}(x)} {\mathrm{d}}(T^N y, T^N y') \big)
&\qquad&\text{(by \cref{l.loss})} \\
&= O \big( e^{-a [\lambda_{\mathrm{s}}^{(N)}(x) + \lambda_{\mathrm{u}}^{(N)}(x)]} \big)
&\qquad&\text{(by \eqref{e.summit1})} \\
&= O \big( e^{- \kappa_{\mathrm{s}}[a \lambda_{\mathrm{s}}^{(N)}(x) + \Lambda_{\mathrm{u}}^{(N)}(x)]} \big)
&\qquad&\text{(by \eqref{e.folga_base})} \\
&= O \big( \delta^{\kappa_{\mathrm{s}}} \big)
&\quad&\text{(by \eqref{e.optimal_other_side})} \, . $$ This proves \[p.regularity\_base\].
We proceed to the proof of \[p.regularity\_above\]. In what follows, the constants implicit in $O$ can be taken uniform on a a $C^0$-neighborhood of $\Phi$ in ${\mathrm{Aut}}^\theta_K({\mathbb{E}},T)$. For $n \ge 0$, define $$\Gamma_n \coloneqq H^{\mathrm{u}}_{T^n y' \gets T^n y} \circ H^{\mathrm{s}}_{T^n y \gets T^n x} - H^{\mathrm{s}}_{T^n y' \gets T^n x'} \circ H^{\mathrm{u}}_{T^n x' \gets T^n x} \, .$$ Let us estimate the norm of these linear maps. First, $$\| \Gamma_0 \| \le \left\| H^{\mathrm{u}}_{y' \gets y} \circ H^{\mathrm{s}}_{y \gets x} - I_{y' \gets x} \right\|
+ \left\| H^{\mathrm{s}}_{y' \gets x'} \circ H^{\mathrm{u}}_{x'\gets x} - I_{y' \gets x} \right\|
\eqcolon {\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{
\node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=1pt] (char) {\footnotesize{1}};}} + {\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{
\node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=1pt] (char) {\footnotesize{2}};}} \, .$$ We estimate the first term: $${\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{
\node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=1pt] (char) {\footnotesize{1}};}} \le
\left\| H^{\mathrm{u}}_{y' \gets y} \circ (H^{\mathrm{s}}_{y\gets x} - I_{y \gets x}) \right\| +
\left\| (H^{\mathrm{u}}_{y' \gets y} - I_{y' \gets y}) \circ I_{y \gets x} \right\| +
\left\| I_{y' \gets y} \circ I_{y \gets x} - I_{y' \gets x} \right\| \, .$$ Using and \[p.transport\_groupoid\], we conclude that $${\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{
\node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=1pt] (char) {\footnotesize{1}};}} = O \big( \max \big\{ {\mathrm{d}}(x,y)^\theta, {\mathrm{d}}(y,y')^\theta \big\} \big) \, .$$ An analogous reasoning yields: $${\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{
\node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=1pt] (char) {\footnotesize{2}};}} = O \big( \max \big\{ {\mathrm{d}}(x,x')^\theta, {\mathrm{d}}(x',y')^\theta \big\} \big) \, .$$ So we obtain: $$\|\Gamma_0 \| = O \big( \max \big\{ {\mathrm{d}}(x,x')^\theta, {\mathrm{d}}(y,y')^\theta, {\mathrm{d}}(x,y)^\theta, {\mathrm{d}}(x',y')^\theta \big\} \big) \, .$$ Any of these four distances, say ${\mathrm{d}}(y,y')$, is less than the sum of the other three; so: $$\|\Gamma_0 \| = O \big( \max \big\{ {\mathrm{d}}(x,x')^\theta, {\mathrm{d}}(x,y)^\theta, {\mathrm{d}}(x',y')^\theta \big\} \big) \, .$$ Now if $n \in \ldbrack 0, N \rdbrack$, the corresponding quadrilateral has sides are bounded by ${\varepsilon}_0$ (estimates –), and the exact same argument yields: $$\|\Gamma_n \| = O \big( \max \big\{ {\mathrm{d}}(T^n x,T^n x')^\theta, {\mathrm{d}}(T^n x,T^n y)^\theta, {\mathrm{d}}(T^n x',T^n y')^\theta \big\} \big) \, .$$ Then, using estimates , , and we obtain: $$\label{e.Delta}
\|\Gamma_n \| = O \big( e^{-\theta a \lambda_{\mathrm{s}}^{(n)}(x)} \big) \, .$$
As a consequence of estimates and , if $j \in \ldbrack 0, N \rdbrack$ then ${\mathrm{d}}(T^j y' , T^j x) = O \big( e^{-a\lambda_{\mathrm{s}}^{(j)}(x)} \big)$. So it follows from \[l.bol\] that $$\label{e.new_bol}
\| (\Phi^n_{y'})^{-1} \| \, \| \Phi^n_x \| = O\big(e^{{\varphi}^{(n)}(y')}\big) , \quad \text{for } n \in \ldbrack 0, N \rdbrack \, .$$
Now we want to iterate backwards to obtain a finer estimate for $\| \Gamma_0 \|$. By the groupoid properties of holonomies, $\Gamma_0 = (\Phi^n_{y'})^{-1} \circ \Gamma_n \circ \Phi^n_x$. Therefore: $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\|\Gamma_0\|
&= O \big( e^{{\varphi}^{(N)}(y')} \, \| \Gamma_N \| \big)
&\qquad&\text{(by \eqref{e.new_bol})} \\
&= O \big( e^{-\theta a \lambda_{\mathrm{s}}^{(N)}(x) + a {\varphi}^{(N)}(x)} \big)
&\qquad&\text{(by \eqref{e.Delta} and \cref{l.loss})} \\
&= O \big( e^{-\theta_{\mathrm{s}}[a \lambda_{\mathrm{s}}^{(N)}(x) + \Lambda_{\mathrm{u}}^{(N)}(x)]} \big)
&\qquad&\text{(by \eqref{e.folga_above})} \\
&= O \big( \delta^{\theta_{\mathrm{s}}} \big)
&\qquad&\text{(by \eqref{e.optimal_other_side})} \, .\end{aligned}$$ \[p.regularity\_above\] is proved.
Fix any positive $$\label{e.needed_strength}
\eta_0 \le \inf_X \frac{\theta \lambda_{\mathrm{s}}}{\lambda_{\mathrm{s}}+ \lambda_{\mathrm{u}}+ \Lambda_{\mathrm{u}}} \, .$$ Suppose $\Phi$ is a $(\eta_0,\theta)$-bunched automorphism. This means that the function ${\varphi}$ defined by is less than $ \eta_0 \lambda_{\mathrm{u}}$. Therefore we have pointwise inequalities: $$\frac{\theta \lambda_{\mathrm{s}}- {\varphi}}{\lambda_{\mathrm{s}}+\Lambda_{\mathrm{u}}} > \frac{\theta \lambda_{\mathrm{s}}- \eta_0 \lambda_{\mathrm{u}}}{\lambda_{\mathrm{s}}+\Lambda_{\mathrm{u}}} \ge \eta_0.$$ So there exists $\theta_{\mathrm{s}}\ge \eta_0$ that satisfies .
The metric on the Grassmannian {#ss.Grass}
------------------------------
Let $E$ be an inner product space of dimension $d$. If $V_1$, $V_2 \subseteq E$ are subspaces of the same dimension $p>0$, we define: $$\label{e.def_metric}
{\mathrm{d}}(V_1,V_2) \coloneqq \inf_{F_1, F_2} \| F_1 - F_2 \| \, ,$$ where each $F_i$ runs over all linear isomorphisms $F_i \colon {\mathbb{R}}^p \to V_i$ such that $\|F_i^{-1}\| \le 1$. (We consider ${\mathbb{R}}^p$ endowed with the canonical inner product, and $\| \mathord{\cdot} \|$ always denotes the operator norm.)
\[p.metric\] ${\mathrm{d}}$ is a metric on the Grassmannian ${\mathcal{G}}_p(E)$.
Symmetry and the triangular inequality are trivially satisfied, so let us check non-degeneracy. Suppose $V_1 \neq V_2 \in {\mathcal{G}}_p(E)$. Take a unit vector $v_1$ in $V_1$ but not in $V_2$. Then there exists $\delta>0$ such that $\|v_1-v_2\| \ge \delta$ for every $v_2 \in V_2$. For each $i \in \{1,2\}$, let $F_i \colon {\mathbb{R}}^p \to V_i$ be a linear isomorphism such that $\|F_i^{-1}\| \le 1$. Then: $$\|F_1 - F_2\| \ge \frac{\|v_1 - F_2(F_1^{-1}(v_1))\|}{\|F_1^{-1}(v_1))\|} \ge \|v_1 - F_2(F_1^{-1}(v_1))\| \ge \delta \, .$$ This shows that ${\mathrm{d}}(V_1,V_2) \ge \delta > 0$.
Consider a linear isomorphism $L \colon E \to F$ between $d$-dimensional inner product spaces. For each $i \in \{1,2\}$, let $V_i \in {\mathcal{G}}_p(E)$, and let $W_i \coloneqq L(V_i)$. Let $F_i \colon {\mathbb{R}}^p \to V_i$ be a linear isomorphism such that $\|F_i^{-1}\| \le 1$. Define $G_i \colon {\mathbb{R}}^p \to W_i$ by $G_i \coloneqq \|L^{-1}\| \, L \circ F_i$. Then $G_i$ is a linear isomorphism and $\|G_i^{-1}\| \le 1$. So $${\mathrm{d}}(W_1,W_2) \le \| G_1 - G_2 \| = \|L^{-1}\| \, \|L \circ F_1 - L \circ F_2 \| \le \operatorname{bol}(L) \| F_1 - F_2 \| \, .$$ Taking infimum over the $F_i$’s, we obtain ${\mathrm{d}}(W_1,W_2) \le \operatorname{bol}(L) {\mathrm{d}}(V_1,V_2)$. This proves that the map induced by $L$ has Lipschitz constant $\operatorname{bol}(L)$.
Suppose $L \colon E \to {\mathbb{E}}$ satisfies $\|L - {\mathrm{id}}\|\le \delta \le \tfrac{1}{2}$. Note that $\|L^{-1}\| \le (1-\delta)^{-1}$. Fix an arbitrary $V \in {\mathcal{G}}_p(E)$. Let $F_1 \colon {\mathbb{R}}^p \to V$ be an isometry, and let $F_2 \coloneqq (1-\delta)^{-1} L \circ F_1$. Then $\|F_1^{-1}\|=1$, $\|F_2^{-1}\| \le 1$, and so $${\mathrm{d}}(V, LV) \le \|F_1 - F_2\| = \| {\mathrm{id}}- (1-\delta)^{-1} L\| \le \| {\mathrm{id}}- L\| + \frac{\delta}{1-\delta} \|L\| \le \frac{2\delta}{1-\delta} \le 4 \delta.
\qedhere$$
This is an easy consequence of the definition , and details are left to the reader.
It can be shown that our metric coincides with the metric used in [@BPS § A.1].
Typical fiber-bunched automorphisms are irreducible {#ss.irred_typical}
---------------------------------------------------
Recall from \[ss.auto\] that ${\mathrm{End}}^\theta({\mathbb{E}},T)$ denotes the vector space of $\theta$-Hölder endomorphisms, which becomes a Banach space with the $\theta$-Hölder norm . The set ${\mathrm{Aut}}^\theta({\mathbb{E}},T)$ of $\theta$-Hölder automorphisms and the subset ${\mathcal{B}}\subset {\mathrm{Aut}}^\theta({\mathbb{E}},T)$ of fiber-bunched automorphisms are both open subsets of ${\mathrm{End}}^\theta({\mathbb{E}},T)$ (actually they are $C^0$-open).
A subset of a Banach space is said to be of *infinite codimension* if it is locally contained in the union of finitely many closed submanifolds of arbitrarily large codimension.
\[p.irred\_typical\] Suppose $X$ is infinite, $T \colon X \to X$ is a transitive hyperbolic homeomorphism, and ${\mathbb{E}}$ is a $\theta$-Hölder vector bundle over $X$. Then there exists an open and dense subset ${\mathcal{I}}$ of the set ${\mathcal{B}}\subset {\mathrm{Aut}}^\theta({\mathbb{E}},T)$ of fiber-bunched automorphisms such that every $\Phi \in {\mathcal{I}}$ is irreducible. Furthermore, the set ${\mathcal{B}}{\smallsetminus}{\mathcal{I}}$ has infinite codimension.
The proof is an obvious adaptation of arguments from [@BGV; @Viana], so we will make it concise.
As a consequence of shadowing and expansivity, the hyperbolic homeomorphism $T$ has infinitely many periodic points (see e.g. [@Akin p. 228]). Select one of these, say a point $p$ of period $k$, and a homoclinic point $q$ associated to $p$. If $\Phi$ is reducible then it admits a non-trivial $\theta$-Hölder $\Phi$-invariant subbundle ${\mathbb{F}}$ which by \[c.irred\] is both $H^{\mathrm{u}}$- and $H^{\mathrm{s}}$-invariant. Then the subspace ${\mathbb{F}}_p \subseteq {\mathbb{E}}_p$ is invariant under two different linear maps, namely $\Phi^k_p$ and $H^{\mathrm{u}}_{p \gets q} \circ H^{\mathrm{u}}_{q \gets p}$. On the other hand, we claim that the property that these two maps admit a common nontrivial invariant subspace is *atypical* in the space ${\mathrm{Aut}}^\theta({\mathbb{E}},T)$; more precisely, it has positive codimension and, a fortiori, empty interior.
First note that the property that an element of ${\mathit{GL}}(d,{\mathbb{R}})$ admits infinitely many invariant subspaces is atypical (because it implies the existence of a complex eigenvalue of geometric multiplicity bigger than $1$). So for typical $\Phi \in {\mathrm{Aut}}^\theta({\mathbb{E}},T)$, the collection of $\Phi^k_p$-invariant subspaces is finite.
On the other hand, choose a closed neighborhood $U$ of $q$ that is disjoint from the future and past iterates of $q$. If we perturb the automorphism in this neighborhood (or rather in $\pi^{-1}(U)$) then the maps $\Phi^k_p$ and $H^{\mathrm{u}}_{q \gets p}$ are unaffected, but $H^{\mathrm{s}}_{p \gets q}$ changes, and actually any small perturbation of $H^{\mathrm{s}}_{p \gets q}$ can be realized with a perturbation of $\Phi$ supported in $U$. In particular, with a well-chosen perturbation, the composition of holonomies sends each of the (finitely many) $\Phi^k_p$-invariant nontrivial subspaces of ${\mathbb{E}}_p$ into something transverse to it. Such an automorphism $\Phi$ cannot be reducible. This shows that irreducibility has dense interior in ${\mathrm{Aut}}^\theta({\mathbb{E}},T)$.
The argument actually shows that if $\Phi$ is reducible then it must satisfy infinitely many independent conditions of positive codimension, at least one for each homoclinic orbit. Therefore reducibility has infinite codimension. See [@Viana [§]{}4] for full details.
Bressaud–Quas Closing Lemma {#ss.BQ}
---------------------------
Here we will prove \[t.BQ\]. Though our formulation is different, the key ideas come from [@BQuas].
Let $f \colon Y \to Y$ be *any* homeomorphism of a compact metric space $(Y,{\mathrm{d}})$. For ${\varepsilon}>0$, an *$({\varepsilon}, {\mathrm{d}}, f)$-pseudoorbit* is a string of points $(x_0,x_1, \dots, x_{n-1})$ such that ${\mathrm{d}}(f(x_i), x_{i+1})< {\varepsilon}$ for every $i \in \ldbrack 0, n-2\rdbrack$. If additionally ${\mathrm{d}}(f (x_{n-1}), x_0)< {\varepsilon}$ then we say that the pseudo-orbit is *periodic*, with *period* $n$; in that case indices can be taken as integers mod $n$ instead. Let $R({\varepsilon}, {\mathrm{d}}, f)$ denote the minimal period of a periodic $({\varepsilon}, {\mathrm{d}}, f)$-pseudoorbit. Note that: $$\label{e.R_power}
R({\varepsilon}, {\mathrm{d}}, f) \le n R({\varepsilon}, {\mathrm{d}}, f^n) \quad \text{for every $n \ge 1$.}$$
A set $E \subseteq Y$ is called *$({\varepsilon}, {\mathrm{d}})$-separated* if ${\mathrm{d}}(x,y)\ge {\varepsilon}$ for every pair of distinct points $x$, $y\in E$. Let $S({\varepsilon},{\mathrm{d}})$ be the maximal cardinality of a $({\varepsilon}, {\mathrm{d}})$-separated set.
Define a sequence of metrics by: $${\mathrm{d}}_{n,f}(x,y) \coloneqq \max_{i \in \ldbrack 0, n-1\rdbrack} {\mathrm{d}}(f^i(x), f^i(y)) \, .$$
\[l.BQ\_estimate\] Let ${\varepsilon}>0$. Suppose that $R({\varepsilon},{\mathrm{d}},f) > m > 0$. Then: $$\log m \le \log S(\tfrac{{\varepsilon}}{2}, {\mathrm{d}}) - \tfrac{1}{m} \log S({\varepsilon}, {\mathrm{d}}_{m,f}) + 1 \, .$$
Let $E$ be a $({\mathrm{d}}, \tfrac{{\varepsilon}}{2})$-separated set of maximal cardinality. Note that the ${\mathrm{d}}$-balls of radius $\tfrac{{\varepsilon}}{2}$ and centers at the points of $E$ cover $Y$, because otherwise we could enlarge $E$ by adding any point not covered. Let $F$ be a $({\mathrm{d}}_{m,f}, {\varepsilon})$-separated set of maximal cardinality. For each $y \in F$, choose a $m$-tuple $(x_0, \dots, x_{m-1})$ of points in $E$ such that ${\mathrm{d}}(x_j, f^j(y)) < \tfrac{{\varepsilon}}{2}$ for each $j \in \ldbrack 0, m-1 \rdbrack$. First, we claim that these $x_j$’s are all distinct. Indeed, if $x_j = x_k$ with $j < k$, then ${\mathrm{d}}(f^j(y), f^k(y)) < {\varepsilon}$, so $\big( f^i(y) \big)_{i \in \ldbrack j, k-1 \rdbrack}$ is a periodic $({\varepsilon},{\mathrm{d}})$-pseudoorbit of period $k-j \le m-1 < R({\varepsilon},{\mathrm{d}})$, contradiction.
Second, we claim that if $y \neq y' \in F$ then the corresponding $m$-tuples $(x_0, \dots, x_{m-1})$ and $(x'_0, \dots, x'_{m-1})$ are distinct. Indeed, if the two $m$-tuples coincide then for each $j \in \ldbrack 0, m-1\rdbrack$ we have ${\mathrm{d}}(f^j(y), f^j(y')) < {\varepsilon}$. This means that ${\mathrm{d}}_{m,f}(y,y') < {\varepsilon}$. Since the set $F$ is $({\mathrm{d}}_{m,f}, {\varepsilon})$-separated, we conclude that $y=y'$.
Third, we claim that if $y \neq y' \in F$ then the sets $\{x_0, \dots, x_{m-1}\}$ and $\{x'_0, \dots, x'_{m-1}\}$ are distinct. Indeed, if the two sets coincide then $x'_i = x_{\sigma(i)}$ for some permutation $\sigma$ of $\ldbrack 0, m-1\rdbrack$. By the previous claim, this permutation is not the identity; therefore there exists $\ell \in \ldbrack 0, m-2\rdbrack$ such that $k \coloneqq \sigma(\ell) > \sigma(\ell+1) \eqcolon j$. Then ${\mathrm{d}}(f^{\ell}(y'), f^{k}(y)) < {\varepsilon}$ and ${\mathrm{d}}(f^{\ell+1}(y'), f^{j}(y)) < {\varepsilon}$. Therefore $\big(f^{j}(y), f^{j+1}(y), \dots, f^{k-1}(y), f^{\ell}(y') \big)$ is a periodic $({\varepsilon},{\mathrm{d}})$-pseudoorbit of period $k-j+1 \le m < R({\varepsilon},{\mathrm{d}})$, contradiction.
We conclude that the number of elements of the set $F$ cannot exceed the number of subsets of the set $E$ with exactly $m$ elements, that is, $$|F| \le \binom{|E|}{m} \le \frac{|E|^m}{m!} \le \left( \frac{e |E|}{m} \right)^m \, .$$ Taking $\log$’s, recalling that $|E| = S({\mathrm{d}}, \tfrac{{\varepsilon}}{2})$ and $|F| = S({\mathrm{d}}_{m,f}, \tfrac{{\varepsilon}}{2})$, and rearranging, we obtain the inequality stated in the .
Recall that a homeomorphism $f \colon Y \to Y$ is called *expansive* if there is a uniform separation between every pair of distinct orbits. In that case, the topological entropy $h_\mathrm{top}(f)$ is finite; furthermore, for every sufficiently small ${\varepsilon}>0$, the limit $$\label{e.htop}
\lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{\log S({\varepsilon},{\mathrm{d}}_{n,f})}{n} \quad \text{exists and equals } h_\mathrm{top}(f); \nopagebreak$$ see [@Walters p. 174, 177].
\[p.subexp\] If $f$ is expansive then for every sufficiently small ${\varepsilon}>0$ we have: $$\lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{\log R({\varepsilon},{\mathrm{d}}_{n,f},f)}{n} = 0 \, .$$
Fix a small ${\varepsilon}>0$ and a large integer $n$. Write $R_n \coloneqq R({\varepsilon},{\mathrm{d}}_{n,f},f)$ and $m_n \coloneqq \lfloor (R_n-1)/n \rfloor$. Assume that $m_n>0$, otherwise $(\log R_n)/n$ is already small. Using , we have $R({\varepsilon},{\mathrm{d}}_{n,f},f^n) > m_n$. Applying \[l.BQ\_estimate\], we obtain that $$\frac{\log m_n}{n} \le \frac{\log S({\varepsilon}/2, {\mathrm{d}}_{n,f})}{n} - \frac{\log S({\varepsilon}, {\mathrm{d}}_{nm_n,f})}{nm_n} + \frac{1}{n} \, .$$ By , the right-hand side is small: the first two terms essentially cancel each other. It follows that $(\log R_n)/n$ is small.
Given the hyperbolic homeomorphism $T$ and the compact $T$-invariant set $Y \neq {\varnothing}$, let $f$ be the restriction of $T$ to $Y$. Hyperbolic homeomorphisms are expansive (recall \[r.hyperb\]), so $f$ is expansive as well.
Fix ${\varepsilon}>0$ small enough so that \[p.subexp\] applies. Note that if $(x_i)_{i \in {\mathbb{Z}}/k{\mathbb{Z}}}$ is a periodic $({\varepsilon}, {\mathrm{d}}_n,f)$-pseudoorbit then, letting $y_i \coloneqq f^{\lceil n/2 \rceil}(x_i)$, we have, for all $i \in {\mathbb{Z}}/k{\mathbb{Z}}$, $$\max_{j \in \left\ldbrack -\lceil n/2 \rceil, \lceil n/2 \rceil -1 \right\rdbrack}
{\mathrm{d}}( f^{j+1}(y_i), f^j(y_{i+1}) ) < {\varepsilon}\, .$$ Hyperbolicity implies that ${\mathrm{d}}( f(y_i), y_{i+1}) ) < C e^{-\lambda n} {\varepsilon}\eqcolon {\varepsilon}_n$, where $C$ and $\lambda$ are positive constants. That is, $(y_i)_{i \in {\mathbb{Z}}/k{\mathbb{Z}}}$ is a periodic $({\varepsilon}_n, {\mathrm{d}}, f)$-pseudoorbit. So $R({\varepsilon}, {\mathrm{d}}_{f,n}, f) \ge R({\varepsilon}_n, {\mathrm{d}}, f) \eqcolon N_n$. In particular, $$\frac{\log N_n}{n} \quad\text{and}\quad
\frac{\log N_n}{\log {\varepsilon}_n^{-1}}
\quad\text{also tend to $0$ as $n \to \infty$.}$$ Therefore, for any given $\tau>0$, if $n$ is large enough then ${\varepsilon}_n < N_n^{-\tau}$. By definition, there exists a periodic $({\varepsilon}_n, {\mathrm{d}}, T)$-pseudoorbit of period $N_n$ in the set $Y$. By the Lipschitz shadowing lemma [@Sakai Thrm. 2], there exist a periodic orbit for $T$ of period $N_n$ within distance $O({\varepsilon}_n) = O(N_n^{-\tau})$. This proves the .
Appendix: Examples {#s.examples}
==================
Here we present examples that show some of the limits of our results.
Examples of sets of calibrated vectors with exceptional behavior {#ss.examples_calibrated}
----------------------------------------------------------------
The following two examples show that the set ${\mathbb{K}}$ of calibrated vectors defined by can have exceptional fibers, justifying \[r.exceptional\_fibers\].
\[ex.non\_space\] Let $T \colon X \to X$ be a hyperbolic homeomorphism having a fixed point $x_0$. Let $f$ be a non-negative Hölder function vanishing only at $x_0$. Consider the cocycle $$A(x) \coloneqq \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & e^{-f(x)} \end{pmatrix} \, .$$ Then the corresponding automorphism $\Phi$ on the trivial bundle ${\mathbb{E}}\coloneqq X \times {\mathbb{R}}^2$ has $\beta(\Phi) = 0$, and its Mather sets are $M_1(\Phi) = X$ and $M_2(\Phi) = \{x_0\}$. The max norm ${\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {(u_1,u_2)}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}} \coloneqq \max \{|u_1|,|u_2|\}$ is extremal. Consider the corresponding set ${\mathbb{K}}$ of calibrated vectors, defined by . If $x \in W^{\mathrm{u}}(x_0) {\smallsetminus}\{x_0\}$ then the fiber $${\mathbb{K}}_x = \big\{ (u_1,u_2) \in {\mathbb{R}}^2 {\;\mathord{;}\;}|u_2| \le e^{\sum_{n=1}^\infty f(T^{-n} x)} |u_1| \big\}$$ is not a subspace.
\[ex.bad\_dim\] Suppose $T \colon X \to X$ is a homeomorphism admitting two nonempty compact invariant sets $X_1$, $X_2$ such that:
- each $X_i$ equals the support of some $T$-invariant probability measure $\mu_i$;
- $X_1 \cup X_2 = X$;
- $X_1 \cap X_2 = \{x_0\} \cup \{T^n y_0 {\;\mathord{;}\;}n \in {\mathbb{Z}}\}$ where $x_0$ is a fixed point and $y_0 \neq x_0$ is an homoclinic point.
Let $f$ be a non-negative continuous function vanishing only at $X_1 \cap X_2$. Consider the cocycle $$A(x) \coloneqq \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & e^{-f(x)} \end{pmatrix} \quad \text{if $x \in X_1$,} \qquad
A(x) \coloneqq \begin{pmatrix} e^{-f(x)} & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix} \quad \text{if $x \in X_2$.}$$ Then the corresponding automorphism $\Phi$ on the trivial bundle ${\mathbb{E}}\coloneqq X \times {\mathbb{R}}^2$ has $\beta(\Phi) = 0$, and its Mather sets are $M_1(\Phi) = X$ and $M_2(\Phi) = \{x_0\}$. The Euclidean norm is extremal. Consider the corresponding set ${\mathbb{K}}$ of calibrated vectors, defined by . Then ${\mathbb{K}}_{y_0} = {\mathbb{R}}^2$ despite the fact that $y_0 \in M_1(\Phi) {\smallsetminus}M_2(\Phi)$.
One may contend that “correctly” defined Mather sets should not lie in the base $X$, but instead in the bundle ${\mathbb{E}}$, or in its projectivization $\hat {\mathbb{E}}$. Fix a norm $\| \mathord{\cdot} \|$ on ${\mathbb{E}}$ and define a function $f \colon \hat{\mathbb{E}}\to {\mathbb{R}}$ by $f([u]) \coloneqq \log(\|\Phi u\| / \|u\|)$. Let $\hat {\mathbb{M}}$ be the union of the supports of all probability measures on $\hat {\mathbb{E}}$ that are invariant under the automorphism $\hat{\Phi}$ and that maximize the integral of the function $f$. Let ${\mathbb{M}}\coloneqq \{u \in {\mathbb{E}}{\;\mathord{;}\;}u=0 \text{ or } [u] \in \hat{{\mathbb{M}}} \}$. This is a closed subset of ${\mathbb{E}}$ that projects down on the Mather set $M(\Phi) \subseteq X$. Given an extremal norm, it is clear that the fibers of ${\mathbb{M}}$ are calibrated, i.e. ${\mathbb{M}}_x \subseteq {\mathbb{K}}_x$ for every $x \in M(\Phi)$. A stronger property actually holds: $\mathrm{span}({\mathbb{M}}_x) \subseteq {\mathbb{K}}_x$ for every $x \in M(\Phi)$; we omit the proof. However, ${\mathbb{M}}_x$ may fail to be a subspace. Indeed, in \[ex.bad\_dim\] the set ${\mathbb{M}}_{y_0}$ is a union of two lines.
On Riemannian extremal norms {#ss.Riemann}
----------------------------
After having established the existence of extremal *Finsler* norms (under appropriate hypotheses), one naturally wonders about the existence of extremal *Riemannian* norms. Let us begin with a weak positive result:
\[p.Riem\_weak\] In the situation of \[t.dom\], there exists a Riemannian norm $\| \mathord{\cdot} \|'$ such that for all $x \in Y$, the spaces ${\mathbb{F}}_x$ and ${\mathbb{G}}_x$ are orthogonal, and $$\| \Phi(v) \|' = e^{\beta(\Phi)} > \|\Phi(w)\|'
\quad \text{for all unit vectors $v \in {\mathbb{F}}_x$, $w \in {\mathbb{G}}_x$.}$$
As usual, assume $\beta(\Phi) = 0$. For each $x \in Y$, consider the restriction of the extremal norm to the space ${\mathbb{F}}_x$, and let ${\mathcal{B}}_x \subseteq {\mathbb{F}}_x$ be the unit ball. Let ${\mathcal{E}}_x$ be the John ellipsoid of ${\mathcal{B}}_x$, namely the unique ellipsoid of maximal volume contained in ${\mathcal{B}}_x$ (see e.g. [@Ball]). This field of ellipsoids is continuous, since finding the John ellipsoid is a continuous operation (as a consequence of its uniqueness). Consider the Riemannian norm on the bundle ${\mathbb{F}}$ whose unit balls are the ${\mathcal{E}}_x$’s. Since $\Phi_x ({\mathcal{B}}_x) = {\mathcal{B}}_{Tx}$ and the John ellipsoid is equivariant with respect to linear isomorphisms, we obtain $\Phi_x ({\mathcal{E}}_x) = {\mathcal{E}}_{Tx}$. This means that the Riemannian norm just constructed on the bundle ${\mathbb{F}}$ is preserved by $\Phi$.[^11]
In the bundle ${\mathbb{G}}$, we use the standard construction of Lyapunov norms (see e.g. [@KH p. 667]). Fix a small positive ${\varepsilon}$, and for each $x \in M_p$ and $w \in {\mathbb{G}}_x$, let: $$\| w \|'_x \coloneqq \left( \sum_{n=0}^\infty e^{2 {\varepsilon}n} \|\Phi_x^n (v) \|^2 \right)^{1/2} \, .$$ As a consequence of domination, the series converges exponentially, so the formula yields a well-defined continuous Riemannian norm on the bundle ${\mathbb{G}}$. It is immediate that $\|\Phi_x(w)\|' \le e^{-{\varepsilon}} \|w\|'$, so the norm along ${\mathbb{G}}$ is uniformly contracted. Finally, we extend the Riemannian norm to the fibers ${\mathbb{E}}_x$ for $x \in Y$ by declaring ${\mathbb{F}}_x$ and ${\mathbb{G}}_x$ to be orthogonal. This completes the construction.
The Riemannian norm $\| \mathord{\cdot} \|'$ provided by \[p.Riem\_weak\] is extremal over the restricted subbundle ${\mathbb{E}}_Y = \pi^{-1}(Y)$. Can one extend this Riemannian norm to the whole bundle, keeping it extremal? The answer is no, as we will see next.
We will present an example of an irreducible fiber-bunched automorphism in dimension $2$ that admits no *Riemannian* extremal norm.
Consider the following two matrices: $$\label{e.two_matrices}
A_0 \coloneqq \begin{pmatrix} 0 & -1 \\ 1 & 0 \end{pmatrix} , \qquad
A_1 \coloneqq \begin{pmatrix} 0.8 & -0.1 \\ 0.8 & 0.1 \end{pmatrix} .$$ Let $(T,F)$ be the corresponding one-step cocycle (see \[ex.one-step\]), and let $\Phi$ be the corresponding automorphism of the trivial vector bundle ${\mathbb{E}}= X \times {\mathbb{R}}^2$. Consider a Hölder exponent $\theta = 1$, and take the parameter $\lambda$ in the metric large enough so that $\Phi$ becomes fiber-bunched. Consider the fixed point $p=(p_n)$ where each $p_n \coloneqq 0$. Since $F(p) = A_0$ has non-real eigenvalues, the automorphism $\Phi$ is irreducible: there can be no nontrivial $\Phi$-invariant subbundle. Then \[t.extremal\] yields the existence of an extremal norm. Actually, the max norm in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$, defined by ${\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {(u_1,u_2)}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}} \coloneqq \max\{|u_1|,|u_2|\}$, is an extremal norm. Indeed, the operator norms of our two matrices are: $${\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {A_0}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}} = 1 \, , \quad {\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {A_1}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}} = 0.9 \, .$$ Since the spectral radius of $A_0$ is $1$, it follows that $\beta(\Phi) = 0$, and so ${\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {\mathord{\cdot}}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}}$ is a (constant) extremal norm, as claimed. Also note that $\delta_p$ is the unique Lyapunov-maximizing measure.
\[p.no\_Riemann\] The automorphism $\Phi$ admits no Riemannian extremal norm.
Assume for a contradiction that $\Phi$ admits a Riemannian extremal norm $\{\| \mathrm{\cdot} \|_x\}_{x \in X}$. Since $e^{\beta(\Phi)} = 1$ is the spectral radius of $F(p) = A_0$, we must have: $$\| A_0 \|_{p \gets p} \le 1 \, ,$$ in the operator norm notation . This means that if $D\subset {\mathbb{R}}^2$ denotes the unit ball in the norm $\| \mathord{\cdot} \|_p$, we have $A_0(D) \subseteq D$. Since the norm is assumed to be Riemannian, $D$ is a (filled) ellipse, and since $A_0$ is a rotation, this ellipse must be a disk. Rescaling the norm if necessary, we can assume that $D$ is the unit disk. Equivalently, $\| \mathord{\cdot} \|_{p \gets p}$ is the usual Euclidean operator norm, which for emphasis we will write $\| \mathord{\cdot} \|_{\mathrm{eucl}}$.
Consider the homoclinic point $q \coloneq (\dots 0,0,{\underaccent{\dot}{1}},0,0\dots)$, i.e., the sequence that has a unique symbol $1$ at position $0$. Note that for any $k > 0$ we have the identity: $$\label{e.loop_identity}
H^{\mathrm{s}}_{p \gets q} \circ H^{\mathrm{u}}_{q \gets p} = \Phi_p^{-k} \circ H^{\mathrm{s}}_{p \gets T^k q} \circ \Phi^{2k}_{T^{-k} q} \circ H^{\mathrm{u}}_{T^{-k} q \gets p} \circ \Phi_p^{-k} \, .$$ In particular, taking $k=1$, by triviality of local holonomies we obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
H^{\mathrm{s}}_{p \gets q} \circ H^{\mathrm{u}}_{q \gets p} &= A_0^{-1} \circ {\mathrm{id}}\circ A_1A_0 \circ {\mathrm{id}}\circ A_0^{-1} \\ &= A_0^{-1} A_1 \, .\end{aligned}$$ Using that $A_0$ preserves Euclidean norm, applying the extremal Riemannian norm to : $$\|A_1 \|_{\mathrm{eucl}} = \|A_0^{-1} A_1\|_{\mathrm{eucl}} = \|H^{\mathrm{s}}_{p \gets q} \circ H^{\mathrm{u}}_{q \gets p}\|
\le
\underbrace{\|\Phi_p^{-k}\|}_{=1} \ \underbrace{\|H^{\mathrm{s}}_{p \gets T^k q}\|}_{\to 1} \ \underbrace{\|\Phi^{2k}_{T^{-k} q}\|}_{\le 1} \ \underbrace{\| H^{\mathrm{u}}_{T^{-k} q \gets p}\|}_{\to 1} \ \underbrace{\|\Phi_p^{-k}\|}_{=1} \, .$$ Taking $k \to \infty$ we obtain that $\|A_1 \|_{\mathrm{eucl}} \le 1$. This is a contradiction: actually $\|A_1 \|_{\mathrm{eucl}} = 0.8 \sqrt{2} > 1$ (see \[f.MO\]).
(1,1)–(-1,1)–(-1,-1)–(1,-1)–cycle; (.7,.9)–(-.9,-.7)–(-.7,-.9)–(.9,.7)–cycle; (0,0) circle (1) ; (0,0) ellipse (1.1314 and 0.1414);
Let us comment on other properties of our example. We claim that there are perturbations $\tilde \Phi$ of $\Phi$ for which the measure $\delta_p$ ceases to be Lyapunov-maximizing; so the “locking property” (*verrouillage*) is not satisfied. Indeed, let $k \gg 1$ be an integer, let $m \coloneqq 4k+2$, and let $\tilde A_0$ be rotation matrix of angle $\frac{\pi}{2} - \frac{\pi}{4m}$. Then: $$\tilde{A}_0^{m} A_1 = \begin{pmatrix} -0.8 \sqrt{2} & 0 \\ 0 & -0.1 \sqrt{2}\end{pmatrix} \, .$$ Consider the associated one-step cocycle $\tilde F$, and the associated automorphism $\tilde \Phi$. Then the probability measure $\tilde \mu$ supported on the orbit of the periodic point $$\tilde p \coloneqq
(\dots, {\underaccent{\dot}{1}}, \underbrace{0, \dots, 0}_m , 1, \underbrace{0, \dots, 0}_m , \dots) , \quad \text{i.e., $\tilde p_n = 1$ iff $m+1$ divides $n$,}$$ has Lyapunov exponent $$\chi_1(\tilde\Phi, \tilde \mu) = \frac{\log(0.8 \sqrt{2})}{m+1} > 0 = \chi_1(\tilde\Phi, \delta_p) \, ,$$ showing that $\delta_p$ was “unlocked”. Therefore the argument of the proof of \[p.no\_Riemann\] does not apply to the perturbation $\tilde\Phi$, and it is possible that these perturbations $\tilde \Phi$ admit Riemannian extremal norms (though there is no obvious candidate). So the main property of our example $\Phi$, namely not to possess Riemannian extremal norms, may be fragile. Going beyond this specific example, we ask:
Let $T \colon X \to X$ be a hyperbolic automorphism. Let ${\mathbb{E}}$ be a $2$-dimensional $\theta$-Hölder vector bundle over $X$. Let ${\mathcal{B}}\subset {\mathrm{Aut}}^\theta({\mathbb{E}},T)$ be the set of fiber-bunched irreducible automorphisms, endowed with the $\theta$-Hölder topology. Let ${\mathcal{R}}\subset {\mathcal{B}}$ be the subset of automorphisms that admit a Riemannian extremal norm. Is ${\mathcal{R}}$ dense in ${\mathcal{B}}$? Is the interior of ${\mathcal{R}}$ dense in ${\mathcal{B}}$?
We are very much indebted to Rafael Potrie for numerous illuminating and influential conversations. We also thank Clark Butler and Kiho Park for interesting discussions, and the referee for corrections and suggestions.
[00]{}
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Akin, E.</span> – *The general topology of dynamical systems.* Graduate Studies in Mathematics, 1. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1993.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Alekseev, V.M.; Yakobson, M.V.</span> – Symbolic dynamics and hyperbolic dynamic systems. *Phys. Rep. *75 (1981), no. 5, 287–325.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Anosov, D.V.</span> – Roughness of geodesic flows on compact Riemannian manifolds of negative curvature. (Russian) *Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR* 145 (1962), 707–709.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Aoki, N.; Hiraide, K.</span> – *Topological theory of dynamical systems. Recent advances.* North-Holland Mathematical Library, 52. North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1994.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Arnold, L.</span> – *Random dynamical systems.* Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1998.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Avila, A.; Bochi, J.</span> – A uniform dichotomy for generic $\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{R})$ cocycles over a minimal base. *Bull. Soc. Math. France* 135 (2007), no. 3, 407–417.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Avila, A.; Viana, M.</span> – Simplicity of Lyapunov spectra: a sufficient criterion. *Port. Math. *64 (2007), no. 3, 311–376.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Avila, A.; Viana, M.</span> – Extremal Lyapunov exponents: an invariance principle and applications. *Invent. Math. *181 (2010), no. 1, 115–189.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Ball, K.</span> – An elementary introduction to modern convex geometry. *Flavors of geometry*, 1–58, Math. Sci. Res. Inst. Publ., 31, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1997.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Barabanov, N.E.</span> – On the Lyapunov exponent of discrete inclusions. I. *Automat. Remote Control* 49 (1988), no. 2, part 1, 152–157.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Berger, M.A.; Wang, Y.</span> – Bounded semigroups of matrices. *Linear Algebra Appl. *166 (1992), 21–27.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Blondel, V.D.; Tsitsiklis, J.N.</span> – The boundedness of all products of a pair of matrices is undecidable. *Systems Control Lett. *41 (2000), no. 2, 135–140.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Bochi, J.</span> – *The multiplicative ergodic theorem of Oseledets.* Note available at [www.mat.uc.cl/$\sim$jairo.bochi/docs/oseledets.pdf](http://www.mat.uc.cl/~jairo.bochi/docs/oseledets.pdf) (2008).
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Bochi, J.</span> – Ergodic optimization of Birkhoff averages and Lyapunov exponents. *Proc. Int. Cong. of Math. – 2018 Rio de Janeiro*, Vol. 2, 1821–1842. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Bochi, J.; Gourmelon, N.</span> – Some characterizations of domination. *Math. Z. *263 (2009), no. 1, 221–231.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Bochi, J.; Morris, I.D.</span> – Continuity properties of the lower spectral radius. *Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. *110 (2015), no. 2, 477–509.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Bochi, J.; Potrie, R.; Sambarino, A.</span> – Anosov representations and dominated splittings. *J. Eur. Math. Soc. *21 (2019), no. 11, 3343–3414. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Bochi, J.; Rams, M.</span> – The entropy of Lyapunov-optimizing measures of some matrix cocycles. *J. Mod. Dyn. *10 (2016), 255–286.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Bonatti, C.; Díaz, L.J.; Viana, M.</span> – *Dynamics beyond uniform hyperbolicity. A global geometric and probabilistic perspective.* Encyclopaedia of Mathematical Sciences, 102. Mathematical Physics, III. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2005.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Bonatti, C.; Gómez-Mont, X.; Viana, M.</span> – Généricité d’exposants de Lyapunov non-nuls pour des produits déterministes de matrices. *Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Anal. Non Linéaire* 20 (2003), no. 4, 579–624.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Bonatti, C.; Viana, M.</span> – Lyapunov exponents with multiplicity $1$ for deterministic products of matrices. *Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems* 24 (2004), no. 5, 1295–1330.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Bousch, T.</span> – La condition de Walters. *Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. *34 (2001), no. 2, 287–311.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Bousch, T.</span> – Le lemme de Mañé-Conze-Guivarc’h pour les systèmes amphidynamiques rectifiables. *Ann. Fac. Sci. Toulouse Math. *20 (2011), no. 1, 114.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Bousch, T.; Jenkinson, O.</span> – Cohomology classes of dynamically non-negative $C^k$ functions. *Invent. Math. *148 (2002), no. 1, 207–217.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Bousch, T.; Mairesse, J.</span> – Asymptotic height optimization for topical IFS, Tetris heaps, and the finiteness conjecture. *J. Amer. Math. Soc. *15 (2002), no. 1, 77–111.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Bowen, R.</span> – Periodic points and measures for Axiom A diffeomorphisms. *Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. *154 (1971), 377–397.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Bressaud, X.; Quas, A.</span> – Rate of approximation of minimizing measures. *Nonlinearity* 20 (2007), no. 4, 845–853.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Breuillard, E.; Fujiwara, K.</span> – On the joint spectral radius for isometries of non-positively curved spaces and uniform growth. [Preprint [arXiv:[1804.00748]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1804.00748)]{}
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Brin, M.I.; Pesin, Ja.B.</span> – Partially hyperbolic dynamical systems. (Russian) *Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat. *38 (1974), 170–212.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Cicone, A.; Guglielmi, N.; Protasov, V. Yu.</span> – Linear switched dynamical systems on graphs. *Nonlinear Anal. Hybrid Syst. *29 (2018), 165–186.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Colonius, F.; Kliemann, W.</span> – *The dynamics of control.* Systems & Control: Foundations & Applications. Birkhäuser Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, 2000.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Contreras, G.</span> – Ground states are generically a periodic orbit. *Invent. Math. *205 (2016), no. 2, 383–412.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Contreras, G.; Lopes, A.O.; Thieullen, P.</span> – Lyapunov minimizing measures for expanding maps of the circle. *Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems* 21 (2001), no. 5, 1379–1409.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Conze, J.P.; Guivarc’h, Y.</span> – Croissance des sommes ergodiques et principe variationnel. Unpublished manuscript, circa 1993.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Coronel, D.; Navas, A.; Ponce, M.</span> – On bounded cocycles of isometries over minimal dynamics. *J. Mod. Dyn. *7 (2013), no. 1, 45–74.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Crovisier, S.; Potrie, R.</span> – Introduction to partially hyperbolic dynamics. Notes ICTP, 2015.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Garibaldi, E.</span> – *Ergodic optimization in the expanding case: concepts, tools ad applications.* SpringerBriefs in Mathematics. Springer, Cham, 2017.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Garibaldi, E.; Gomes, J.T.A.</span> – Aubry set for asymptotically sub-additive potentials. *Stoch. Dyn. *16 (2016), no. 2, 1660009, 13 pp.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Gourmelon, N.</span> – Adapted metrics for dominated splittings. *Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems* 27 (2007), no. 6, 1839–1849.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Herman, M.-R.</span> – Une méthode pour minorer les exposants de Lyapounov et quelques exemples montrant le caractère local d’un théorème d’Arnol’d et de Moser sur le tore de dimension $2$. *Comment. Math. Helv. *58 (1983), no. 3, 453–502.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hirsch, M.W.; Pugh, C.C.; Shub, M.</span> – *Invariant manifolds.* Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 583. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1977.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Jenkinson, O.</span> – Ergodic optimization. *Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. *15 (2006), no. 1, 197–224.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Jenkinson, O.</span> – Ergodic optimization in dynamical systems. *Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems* 39 (2019), no. 10, 2593–2618. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Jungers, R.M.</span> – *The joint spectral radius: theory and applications.* Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences, 385. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2009.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Kalinin, B.</span> – Livšic theorem for matrix cocycles. *Ann. of Math. *173 (2011), no. 2, 1025–1042.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Kalinin, B.; Sadovskaya, V.</span> – Cocycles with one exponent over partially hyperbolic systems. *Geom. Dedicata* 167 (2013), 167–188.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Katok, A.; Hasselblatt, B.</span> – *Introduction to the modern theory of dynamical systems.* Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, 54. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Katznelson, Y.</span> – *An introduction to harmonic analysis.* 2nd corrected edition. Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1976.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Kozyakin, V.</span> – An explicit Lipschitz constant for the joint spectral radius. *Linear Algebra Appl. *433 (2010), no. 1, 12–18.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Krengel, U.</span> – *Ergodic theorems.* de Gruyter Studies in Mathematics, 6. Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, 1985.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Lopes, A.O.; Thieullen, P.</span> – Sub-actions for Anosov diffeomorphisms. Geometric methods in dynamics. II. *Astérisque* No. 287 (2003), xix, 135–146.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Mather, J.N.</span> – Action minimizing invariant measures for positive definite Lagrangian systems. *Math. Z. *207 (1991), no. 2, 169–207.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Morris, I.D.</span> – A sufficient condition for the subordination principle in ergodic optimization. *Bull. Lond. Math. Soc. *39 (2007), no. 2, 214–220.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Morris, I.D.</span> – A rapidly-converging lower bound for the joint spectral radius via multiplicative ergodic theory. *Adv. Math. *225 (2010), no. 6, 3425–3445.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Morris, I.D.</span> – Mather sets for sequences of matrices and applications to the study of joint spectral radii. *Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. *(3) 107 (2013), no. 1, 121–150.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Oregón-Reyes, E.</span> – A new inequality about matrix products and a Berger-Wang formula. [Preprint [arXiv:[1710.00639]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1710.00639)]{}
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Pesin, Ya.</span> – *Lectures on partial hyperbolicity and stable ergodicity.* Zurich Lectures in Advanced Mathematics. European Mathematical Society (EMS), Zürich, 2004.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Philippe, M.; Essick, R.; Dullerud, G.E.; Jungers, R.M.</span> – Stability of discrete-time switching systems with constrained switching sequences. *Automatica* 72 (2016), 242–250.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Pinto, A.A.; Rand, D.A.</span> – Smoothness of holonomies for codimension $1$ hyperbolic dynamics. *Bull. London Math. Soc. *34 (2002), no. 3, 341–352.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Pugh, C.</span> – On arbitrary sequences of isomorphisms in $R^m \to R^m$. *Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. *184 (1973), 387–400.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Pugh, C.; Shub, M.; Wilkinson, A.</span> – Hölder foliations. *Duke Math. J. *86 (1997), no. 3, 517–546. Correction: ibid. 105 (2000), no. 1, 105–106.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Pugh, C.; Shub, M.; Wilkinson, A.</span> – Hölder foliations, revisited. *J. Mod. Dyn. *6 (2012), no. 1, 79–120.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Qiu, L.; Zhang, Y.; Li, C.-K.</span> – Unitarily invariant metrics on the Grassmann space. *SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl. *27 (2005), no. 2, 507–531.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Rota, G.-C.; Strang, G.</span> – A note on the joint spectral radius. *Indag. Math. *22 (1960), 379–381.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Ruelle, D.</span> – *Thermodynamic formalism.* Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, 5. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Reading, Mass., 1978.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Sakai, K.</span> – Shadowing properties of [$\mathcal{L}$]{}-hyperbolic homeomorphisms. *Topology Appl. *112 (2001), no. 3, 229–243.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Savchenko, S.V.</span> – Homological inequalities for finite topological Markov chains. *Funct. Anal. Appl. *33 (1999), no. 3, 236–238.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Schmeling, J.; Siegmund-Schultze, R.</span> – Hölder continuity of the holonomy maps for hyperbolic basic sets I. *Ergodic theory and related topics, III (Güstrow, 1990)*, 174–191, Lecture Notes in Math., 1514, Springer, Berlin, 1992.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Sigmund, K.</span> – On minimal centers of attraction and generic points. *J. Reine Angew. Math. *295 (1977), 72–79.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Smale, S.</span> – Differentiable dynamical systems. *Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. *73 (1967), 747–817.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Stewart, G.W.</span> – *Matrix algorithms. Vol. I: Basic decompositions.* SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, 1998.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Viana, M.</span> – Almost all cocycles over any hyperbolic system have nonvanishing Lyapunov exponents. *Ann. of Math. *167 (2008), no. 2, 643–680.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Walters, P.</span> – *An introduction to ergodic theory.* Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 79. Springer-Verlag, New York-Berlin, 1982.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Wirth, F.</span> – The generalized spectral radius and extremal norms. *Linear Algebra Appl. *342 (2002), 17–40.
Jairo Bochi
Facultad de Matemáticas, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile
[www.mat.uc.cl/$\sim$jairo.bochi](http://www.mat.uc.cl/~jairo.bochi)
<[email protected]>
Eduardo Garibaldi
IMECC, Unicamp
[www.ime.unicamp.br/$\sim$garibaldi](http://www.ime.unicamp.br/~garibaldi/)
<[email protected]>
[^1]: Beware that other definitions of Finsler norms appear in the literature; here the main point is that the norm is not necessarily induced by inner products (i.e. “Riemannian”).
[^2]: On the other hand, one can always construct “almost-extremal” norms, i.e., norms for which the inequality is an approximate equality, and such norms can be taken Riemannian. Furthermore, it is possible to find a Riemannian norm with respect to which all the singular values of the linear maps $\Phi_x$ (and not only the first) are suitably controlled: see [@Bochi_ICM Prop. 4.1].
[^3]: More generally, one could consider (possibly infinite) bounded sets of (possibly non-invertible) square matrices.
[^4]: The pair of matrices is one such example.
[^5]: This is similar to the definition of *$\theta$-bounded vertical shear* in [@PSW2].
[^6]: The term and the notation come from [@Pugh; @PSW1]. In numerical analysis, the bolicity is called *condition number*.
[^7]: See \[ss.Mather\_dom\] for the definition and properties of dominated splittings
[^8]: The naive attempt of defining an extremal norm by ${\mathopen{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}
\mathclose{| {\kern -1.5pt} | {\kern -1.5pt} |}} \coloneqq \sup_{n\ge 0} e^{-\beta(\Phi) n}\|\Phi^n(u)\|$ does not necessarily work because continuity may fail.
[^9]: A similar loss of exponent also appears in the first version of Mañé Lemma for Anosov diffeomorphisms, obtained by Lopes and Thieullen [@LopesT]. Later, Bousch [@Bousch_amphi] obtained a stronger Mañé Lemma without loss of exponent. However, it is unclear whether Bousch’s strategy can be applied in our setting.
[^10]: A different construction that provides the additional property $(I_{y \gets x})^{-1} = I_{x \gets y}$ (for sufficiently close $x$, $y$) can be found in [@KalSad p. 169]; however, we will not need that property.
[^11]: Incidentally, note that if the John ellipsoid were monotonic with respect to set inclusion, then we could use it to “Riemannize” any given Finsler extremal norm. However, monotonicity fails: consider for instance a pair of rectangles as in \[f.MO\].
|
---
abstract: 'We study a class of topological black hole solutions in RSII braneworld scenario in the presence of a localized Maxwell field on the brane. Such a black hole can carry two types of charge, one arising from the extra dimension, the tidal charge, and the other one from a localized gauge field confined to the brane. We find that the localized charge on the brane modifies the bulk geometry and in particular the bulk Weyl tensor. The bulk geometry does not depend on different topologies of the horizons. We present the temperature and entropy expressions associated with the event horizon of the braneworld black hole and by using the first law of black hole thermodynamics we calculate the mass of the black hole.'
address: |
$^1$Department of Physics, Shahid Bahonar University, P.O. Box 76175, Kerman, Iran\
$^2$Research Institute for Astronomy and Astrophysics of Maragha (RIAAM), Maragha, Iran\
$^3$ Department of Physics, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, China
author:
- 'Ahmad Sheykhi $^{1,2}$[^1] and Bin Wang $^{3}$[^2]'
title: On topological charged braneworld black holes
---
In the past years there has been a lot of interest in the braneworld scenario, based on the assumption that all gauge fields in standard model of particle physics are confined on a $3$-brane, playing the role of our $4$-dimensional universe, embedded in a higher dimensional spacetime, while the gravitational field, in contrast, is usually considered to live in the whole spacetime. The first picture appeared in braneworld scenarios was the second Randall-Sundrum model (RSII) in which, our universe observed as a positive tension $3$-brane embedded in a $5$-dimensional anti de-Sitter bulk [@RS]. In this model the localization of gravity happens on the brane due to the negative bulk cosmological constant and the cross over between $4$-dimensional and $5$-dimensional gravity is set by the anti de-Sitter radius. Within the context of the RSII scenario, it is important that the induced metric on the brane is, in the low energy regime, the solution predicted by standard general relativity in four dimensions. Otherwise the usual astrophysical properties of black holes and stars would not be recovered. Therefore it is natural to assume the formation of black hole in the braneworld due to gravitational collapse of matter trapped on the brane. In fact, the construction and study of black hole solutions on the brane has been one of the most important and intriguing challenge in braneworld physics. There are several reasons why this problem is so challenging. First, the effective gravitational field equation on the brane is not the usual Einstein one but contains higher correction terms due to the nonlocal bulk effects on the brane and therefore is more complicated compared with the usual gravitational field equations. Second, even one finds the solution of the effective gravitational field equations on the brane, one can not regard it as a braneworld black hole solution. One can just consider this solution as an initial data for the evolution of the brane into the bulk. The first attack on this problem was done by Chamblin, Hawking and Reall who investigated the gravitational collapse of uncharged, non-rotating matter in RSII braneworld model [@Cham1]. They showed that a static uncharged black hole on the brane is described by a “black cigar" solution in five dimensions. If this cigar extends all the way down to the anti-de Sitter horizon, then we recover the metric for a black string in anti-de Sitter spacetime. However, such a black string is unstable near the anti-de Sitter horizon [@Gre1; @Gre2]. An exact braneworld black hole solution satisfies a closed system of effective gravitational field equations on the brane, describing an uncharged black hole in the RSII scenario was obtained in [@Dad]. By using the braneworld gravitational field equations derived in [@Shi], it was shown that a Reissner-Nordstrom geometry could arise on the brane provided that the bulk Weyl tensor takes a particular form. The solution in [@Dad] carries a “tidal charge", arising from the projection of the bulk free gravitational field effects onto the brane. However, it was argued in [@Cham2] that although the solution in [@Dad] was claimed to describe an uncharged black hole, one can not regard it as a braneworld black hole solution. One can just consider this solution as an initial data for the evolution of the brane into the bulk. Until this evolution is performed and boundary conditions in the bulk are imposed, it is not clear what this solution represents. For example, it might give rise to some pathology such as a naked curvature singularity. Therefore the main problem remains in the braneworld black hole physics is to study the effect of the braneworld black hole on the bulk geometry, and in particular the nature of the off-brane horizon structure. Indeed, the analytical solution for the bulk spacetime has not been found until now. The numerical calculations on the bulk geometry in the case of charged and uncharged braneworld black holes have been investigated in [@Cham2] and [@Shibata], respectively. Other attempts on the study of braneworld black holes and their physical properties have been carried out in [@Cas1; @Cas2; @Bro; @Gre3; @Ali; @kof; @Bwang; @Bwang2; @Yosh; @Yosh2].
The purpose of the present Letter is to tackle the first problem mentioned above in the braneworld black hole physics. We will consider the Maxwell gauge fields confined onto the brane. Employing a simple strategy, we solve gravitational field equations on the brane and obtain the charged topological braneworld black hole solutions. Our solution is the generalization of [@Cham2] to different horizon topologies. We also present the temperature and entropy expressions associated with the event horizon of the braneworld black hole and calculate the mass of the black hole by using the first law of black hole thermodynamics. Since the flux lines of gauge fields can pierce the horizon only when they intersect the brane, our bulk theory is the same as that of the uncharged case and one might expect that the “black cigar" solution still describes the bulk containing the charged braneworld black hole. Here we will not repeat the discussion on the bulk metric, since we see that the bulk geometry does not depend on different topologies of the horizons, thus our bulk metric is the same as that discussed in [@Cham2] for the spherically symmetric braneworld black hole.
We start with the effective field equations on a 3-brane embedded in the 5-dimensional anti de-Sitter spacetime with $\mathbb{Z}_2$ symmetry expressed as [@Shi] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn}
G_{\mu\nu}=-\Lambda g_{\mu\nu} +8\pi G
T_{\mu\nu}+\kappa_5^4\pi_{\mu\nu}-E_{\mu\nu},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
G&=&\frac{\kappa^4_5}{48\pi} \lambda, \hspace{0.7cm}
\Lambda=\frac{\kappa_5^2}{2}\Bigl(
\Lambda_5+\frac{\kappa_5^2}{6}\lambda^2
\Bigr).\\\end{aligned}$$ Here $\kappa_5$ and $\Lambda_5$ are, respectively, the five-dimensional gravity coupling constant and cosmological constant. The factor $\Lambda$ is the effective cosmological constant on the brane, $\lambda$ is the brane tension, and $T_{\mu\nu}$ is the stress energy tensor confined onto the brane, so $T_{AB}\,n^B=0$, where $n^A$ is the unit normal to the brane. The first correction term relative to Einstein’s gravity is the inclusion of a quadratic term $\pi_{\mu\nu}$ in the stress-energy tensor, arising from the extrinsic curvature term in the projected Einstein tensor, and is given by $$\pi_{\mu\nu}=\frac{1}{12}T T_{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{4}
T_{\mu\alpha}T_{\nu}^{\ \alpha}{}+
\frac{1}{8}\,g_{\mu\nu}\left(T_{\alpha\beta}T^{\alpha\beta}-\frac{1}{3}T^2
\right) \,.
\label{inducedEFE}$$ The second correction term, ${E}_{\mu\nu}$, is the projection of the five-dimensional bulk Weyl tensor onto the brane, which is defined as $ E_{\mu\nu} = {}^{(5)}C_{\mu\alpha\nu\beta} n^\alpha
n^\beta $ and encompasses the nonlocal bulk effect. The only general known property of this nonlocal term is that it is traceless, namely ${ E}^{\mu}{}_{\mu}=0$. Using the traceless property of the projected Weyl tensor, Eq. (\[eqn\]) can be simplified into $$\label{R}
R=4\Lambda-8\pi G \,T-
\frac{\kappa_5^4}{4}\left(T_{\alpha\beta}T^{\alpha\beta}-\frac{1}{3}
T^2 \right) \,.$$ We would like to find the topological black hole solutions of the field equations (\[eqn\]). We assume the induced metric on the brane in the form $$\label{metric}
ds^2=-f(r)dt^2 +{dr^2\over f(r)}+ r^2d\Omega_{k}^2 ,$$ where $d\Omega_{k}^2$ is the line element of a two-dimensional hypersurface $\Sigma$ with constant curvature, $$\label{met}
d\Omega_k^2=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
$$d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta d\phi^2$$,\quad \quad\!\!{\rm for}\quad $$k=1$$, & \\
$$d\theta^2+\theta^2 d\phi^2$$,\quad\quad\quad {\rm for}\quad $$k=0$$,& \\
$$d\theta^2+\sinh^2\theta d\phi^2$$, \quad {\rm for}\quad $$k=-1$$.&
\end{array}
\right.$$ For $k = 1$, the topology of the event horizon is the two-sphere $S^2$, and the spacetime has the topology $R^2 \times S^2$. For $k
= 0$, the topology of the event horizon is a torus and the spacetime has the topology $R^2 \times T^2$. For $k = -1$, the surface $\Sigma$ is a two-dimensional hypersurface $H^2$ with constant negative curvature. In this case the topology of spacetime is $R^2 \times H^2$. It is not necessary to take the exact metric describing a topological braneworld black hole in the form (6). In general one may expect that $g_{rr}\neq -
{g_{tt}}^{-1}$. But, it is well known that the induced metric describing a charged black hole should be close to Reissner-Nordstrom metric, so our ansatz for the braneworld black hole metric is a good guess [@Cham2].
Assuming the localized gauge field on the brane is the Maxwell field with action $$S = -\frac{1}{16 \pi G} \int d^4 x \sqrt{-g} F_{\mu\nu}
F^{\mu\nu}.$$ The corresponding localized energy-momentum tensor on the brane can be written as $$\label{Tem}
T_{\mu\nu} = \frac{1}{4\pi G} \left(F_{\mu \rho} F_{\nu}\,^{\rho}
- \frac{1}{4} g_{\mu\nu} F_{\rho\sigma} F^{\rho\sigma} \right).$$ which is traceless, satisfying $T=T_{\mu}^{\ \mu}=0$. We also assume that there is a localized static point charge on the brane which produces an electric field $$\label{Ftr}
F_{tr}=\frac{q}{r^2},$$ where $q$ is the charge parameter. Using metric (\[metric\]), the electric field (\[Ftr\]) and Eq. (\[Tem\]) for the total energy-momentum tensor localized on the brane, one can show that Eq. (\[R\]) has a solution of the form $$\label{f}
f(r)=k-{\frac {2m}{r}}-\frac{\Lambda}{3}{r}^2+{\frac
{\beta+q^2}{{r}^{2}}}+{\frac {1}{240}}\,{\frac
{{\kappa_5}^{4}{q}^{4}}{{r}^{6}}},$$ where $m$ and $\beta$ are arbitrary integration constants and we have assumed $4\pi G =1$, for simplicity. Although in [@Dad], $\beta>0$ has been interpreted as a tidal charge associated with the bulk Weyl tensor, in the presence of localized charge on the brane, it is quite possible to take $\beta<0$ as pointed out in [@Cham2]. Indeed, the projected Weyl tensor, transmits the tidal charge stresses from the bulk to the brane. One may also interpret $\beta$ as a five-dimensional mass parameter [@Cham2]. The horizons can be found by solving Eq. $f(r)=0$. This equation cannot be solved analytically except for $q=0$. The event horizon of the charged braneworld black hole locates at $r_{+}$ where $r=r_{+}$ is the largest root of equation $f(r)=0$. Inserting solution (\[f\]) into field equations (\[eqn\]), we obtain the components of the five-dimensional bulk Weyl tensor. The result is $$\label{weyl}
E^{t}_{\ t}=E^{r}_{\ r}=-E^{i}_{\
i}=\frac{\beta}{r^4}+\frac{1}{24}\frac{\kappa_5^4 q^4}{r^8},$$ where $i=1,2$. Clearly the traceless nature of the Weyl tensor is obeyed. Eqs. (\[eqn\]) with solutions (\[f\]) and (\[weyl\]) form a closed system of equations on the brane.
Some discussions on our solution are needed. In the special case $k=1$ and $\Lambda=0$, $q=0$, our solution (11) reduces to the uncharged braneworld black hole solution found in [@Dad]. In the case $k=1$ and $\Lambda=0$, our solution (11) reduces to the charged black hole solution presented in [@Cham2]. With the presence of the charge on the brane, the bulk geometry has to change, since now $T_{\mu\nu}\neq0$. In other words, the localized charge on the brane will induce changes in the bulk geometry and therefore modifies the bulk Weyl tensor. This property keeps for different topologies of the horizon. Further from Eq. (\[weyl\]) we see that the horizon topology of the braneworld black hole does not affect the bulk geometry and therefore the bulk Weyl tensor is independent of the constant curvature $k$.
In the following we are going to calculate the conserved and thermodynamic quantities of the braneworld black hole. We will adopt a simple strategy based on the profound connection between gravity and thermodynamics which has recently been revealed in various gravity theories [@Jac]-[@Sheywang], showing the deep correspondence between the gravitational equation describing the gravity in the bulk and the first law of thermodynamics on the apparent horizon. This connection sheds the light on holography since the gravitation equations persist the information in the bulk while the first law of thermodynamics on the apparent horizon contains the information on the boundary. Besides, this connection was shown as a useful tool to extract the entropy of the braneworld. In the general case, gravity on the brane does not obey the Einstein theory and the usual area formula for the black hole entropy does not hold on the brane. The relation between the braneworld black hole horizon entropy and its geometry is not known. It was argued in [@Shey1; @Shey2] that the entropy associated with the apparent horizon on the brane can be extracted from the obtained gravity and thermodynamics correspondence. The entropy and temperature associated with the apparent horizon of the FRW universe on the brane, in the RSII braneworld model, are found in [@Cai4; @Shey1] with form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{S}
S&=&\frac{2 \pi \ell
}{G_{5}}{\displaystyle\int^{\tilde r_A}_0\frac{\tilde{r}_A^{2}
}{\sqrt{\tilde{r}_A^2+\ell^2}}d\tilde{r}_A}
=\frac{2\pi{\tilde{r}_A}^{3}}{3G_{5}}
\times
{}_2F_1\left(\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{5}{2},
-\frac{{\tilde{r}_A}^2}{\ell^2}\right),\\
T&=&\frac{1}{2\pi {\tilde{r}_A}},\label{T}\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{r}_A$ is the apparent horizon radius and $\ell$ is the AdS radius of the bulk spacetime which is related to the bulk cosmological constant. Here ${}_2F_1(a,b,c,z)$ is a hypergeometric function and $G_{5}=\kappa_{5}^2/8\pi$ is the gravitational constant in five dimensions. Recently, we have shown that the extracted apparent horizon entropy, given in Eq. (\[S\]), satisfies the generalized second law of thermodynamics [@Sheywang]. The satisfaction of the generalized second law of thermodynamics further supports that the entropy (13) is a reasonable thermodynamical entropy describing the brane.
Now we suppose that the temperature and entropy formula (\[S\]) and (\[T\]) also hold on the event horizon of the black hole on the brane. Replacing the apparent horizon radius $\tilde r_A$ by the black hole horizon radius $r_{+}$, we have the temperature and entropy on the event horizon of the braneworld black hole $$\begin{aligned}
\label{S2}
S&=&\frac{2 \pi \ell
}{G_{5}}{\displaystyle\int^{r_{+}}_0\frac{r_{+}^{2}
}{\sqrt{r_{+}^2+\ell^2}}dr_{+}}=\frac{2\pi{r_{+}}^{3}}{3G_{5}}
\times
{}_2F_1\left(\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{5}{2},
-\frac{r_{+}^2}{\ell^2}\right),\\
T&=&\frac{1}{2\pi r_{+}}.\label{T2}\end{aligned}$$ Eq. (16) is exactly the Hawking temperature on the event horizon. The validity of (15) to describe the event horizon entropy of the braneworld black hole can be justified by considering its limiting case with $\tilde{r}_{+} \ll\ell$. Physically this limit means that the size of extra dimension is very large if compared with the black hole event horizon radius. In this limit Eq. (15) reduces to the five-dimensional area formula for the black hole entropy $S =2\Omega_{3}{\tilde{r}_+}^{3}/4G_{5}$, where $\Omega_{3}=4\pi/3$ is the volume of a unit sphere. The factor $2$ comes from the $\mathbb{Z}_2$ symmetry in the bulk. This is an expected result since in this regime the anti de-Sitter bulk reduces to the Minkowski spacetime. And due to the absence of the negative cosmological constant in the Minkowski bulk, no localization of gravity happens on the brane. Thus the gravity on the brane is still five-dimensional and the entropy formula on the black hole event horizon obeys the five-dimensional area formula [@Shey1].
Adopting the first law of black hole thermodynamics on the event horizon $r_{+}$ and considering that the electric charge of black hole does not affect its mass, we just need to discuss the uncharged case with the first law $$\label{frst}
dM=TdS.$$ Integrating (\[frst\]) and inserting (\[S2\]) and (\[T2\]), we obtain the mass of the braneworld black hole $$\label{mass2}
M=\frac{\ell}{G_{5}}\int^{r_{+}}_0 \frac{ r_{+}d
r_{+}}{\sqrt{r_{+}^2+\ell^2}}=\frac{\ell}{G_{5}}\left(\sqrt{r_{+}^2+\ell^2}-\ell
\right).$$ It is interesting to see that in the limiting case $\tilde{r}_{+}
\ll\ell$, the mass formula (\[mass2\]) reduces to $$\label{mass3}
M=\frac{r_{+}^2}{2 G_{5}},$$ which is exactly the mass of the five-dimensional black hole in Einstein gravity.
In conclusion, we have obtained a class of topological black hole solutions in RSII braneworld scenario in the presence of a localized Maxwell field on the brane. We have shown that the localized charge on the brane modifies the bulk geometry and in particular the bulk Weyl tensor. The horizon topology of the braneworld black holes does not affect the geometry of extra dimension. We presented the temperature and entropy expressions associated with the event horizon of the braneworld black hole. We also obtained the mass of the braneworld black holes through the use of the first law of black hole thermodynamics.
We would like to mention here that in this Letter we have not studied fully the effect of the braneworld black hole on the bulk geometry, and in particular the nature of the off-brane horizon structure. This has been done for solutions which reduce to the Schwarzschild black hole on the brane [@Cham1]. We have adopted a different approach: instead of starting from an induced metric on the brane, we have solved the closed system of the effective field equations for the induced metric on the brane in RSII model, and found a class of topological braneworld black holes. Therefore the main problem remains to find the exact bulk metric that describes a topological braneworld black hole. This was solved for uncharged black holes in three dimensions [@Emp]. Unfortunately, the higher dimensional generalization of this metric is still not known. In general the bulk spacetime may be given, by solving the full five-dimensional equations, and the geometry of the embedded brane is then deduced. Due to the complexity of the five-dimensional equations, one may follow the strategy outlined in this Letter, by considering the intrinsic geometry on the brane, which encompasses the imprint from the bulk, and consequently evolve the metric off the brane. However, in this Letter we did not study the effects of the braneworld black hole on the bulk geometry, and in particular the nature of the topological horizon structure in the bulk. Indeed, determining the bulk geometry is an extremely difficult task which needs numerical calculations, so it was not explored here.
[99]{} L. Randall, R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 4690 (1999). A. Chamblin, S.W. Hawking and H.S. Reall, Phys. Rev. D [**61**]{}, 065007 (2000).
R. Gregory and R. Laflamme, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 2837 (1993). R. Gregory, Class. Quantum Grav. [**17**]{}, L125 (2000).
N. Dadhich, R. Maartens, P. Papadopoulos and V. Rezania, Phys. Lett. B [**487**]{}, 1 (2000).
T. Shiromizu, K. Maeda and M. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 024012 (2000).
A. Chamblin, H. S. Reall, H. Shinkai and T. Shiromizu, Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 064015 (2001).
T. Shiromizu and M. Shibata, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 127502 (2000).
R. Casadio, A. Fabbri and L. Mazzacurati, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 084040 (2002). R. Casadio and L. Mazzacurati, Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**18**]{}, 651 (2003). K. A. Bronnikov, H. Dehnen, V. N. Melnikov, Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{}, 024025 (2003). R. Gregory, R. Whisker, K. Beckwith and C. Done, JCAP [**0410**]{}, 013 (2003). A. N. Aliev, A. E. Gumrukcuoglu, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 104027 (2005). G. Kofinas, E. Papantonopoulos and V. Zamarias, Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{}, 104028 (2002).
L.H. Liu, B. Wang, G. H. Yang, Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{}, 064014 (2007). J. Shen, B. Wang, R. K. Su, Phys. Rev. D [**74**]{}, 044036 (2006).
H. Kudoh, T. Tanaka and T. Nakamura, Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{}, 024035 (2003). H. Yoshino, JHEP [**0901**]{}, 068 (2009).
T. Jacobson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 1260 (1995).
C. Eling, R. Guedens, and T. Jacobson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 121301 (2006). M. Akbar and R. G. Cai, Phys. Lett. B [**635**]{}, 7 (2006) . M. Akbar and R. G. Cai, Phys. Lett. B [**648**]{}, 243 (2007).
T. Padmanabhan, Class. Quant. Grav. [**19**]{}, 5387 (2002). T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rept. [**406**]{}, 49 (2005). A. Paranjape, S. Sarkar and T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rev. D [**74**]{}, 104015 (2006). T. Padmanabhan and A. Paranjape, Phys. Rev. D [**75**]{} (2007) 064004. S. F. Wu, B. Wang, and G. H Yang, Nucl. Phys. B [**799**]{} (2008) 330.
M. Akbar and R. G. Cai, Phys. Rev. D [**75**]{}, 084003 (2007). R. G. Cai and L. M. Cao, Phys.Rev. D [**75**]{}, 064008 (2007).
R. G. Cai and S. P. Kim, JHEP [**0502**]{}, 050 (2005). R. G. Cai, L.M. Cao, Y.P. Hu, arXiv: 0809.1554.
A. V. Frolov and L. Kofman, JCAP [**0305**]{}, 009 (2003). U. K. Danielsson, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 023516(2005) . R. Bousso, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 064024 (2005). G. Calcagni, JHEP [**0509**]{}, 060 (2005). B. Wang, E. Abdalla and R. K. Su, Phys.Lett. B [**503**]{}, 394 (2001). B. Wang, E. Abdalla and R. K. Su, Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**17**]{}, 23 (2002). R. G. Cai and Y. S. Myung, Phys. Rev. D [**67**]{}, 124021 (2003). R. G. Cai and L. M. Cao, Nucl. Phys. B [**785**]{} (2007) 135.
A. Sheykhi, B. Wang and R. G. Cai, Nucl. Phys. B [**779**]{} (2007)1. A. Sheykhi, B. Wang and R. G. Cai, Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{} (2007) 023515.
A. Sheykhi, B. Wang, arXiv:0811.4477. A. Sheykhi, B. Wang, arXiv:0811.4478.
R. Emparan, G. T. Horowitz, and R. C. Myers, JHEP [**0001**]{}, 007 (2000).
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: [email protected]
|
**Persistence of Chaos in Coupled Lorenz Systems**
**Mehmet Onur Fen**\
***Basic Sciences Unit, TED University, 06420 Ankara, Turkey***\
***E-mail: [email protected], Tel: +90 312 585 0217***\
**Abstract**
The dynamics of unidirectionally coupled chaotic Lorenz systems is investigated. It is revealed that chaos is present in the response system regardless of generalized synchronization. The presence of sensitivity is theoretically proved, and the auxiliary system approach and conditional Lyapunov exponents are utilized to demonstrate the absence of synchronization. Periodic motions embedded in the chaotic attractor of the response system is demonstrated by taking advantage of a period-doubling cascade of the drive. The obtained results may shed light on the global unpredictability of the weather dynamics and can be useful for investigations concerning coupled Lorenz lasers.
**Keywords:** Lorenz system; Persistence of chaos; Sensitivity; Period-doubling cascade; Generalized synchronization
Introduction {#lorenz_intro}
============
Chaos theory, whose foundations were laid by Poincaré [@Poincare57], has attracted a great deal of attention beginning with the studies of Lorenz [@Lorenz60; @Lorenz63]. A mathematical model consisting of a system of three ordinary differential equations were introduced by Lorenz [@Lorenz63] in order to investigate the dynamics of the atmosphere. This model is a simplification of the one derived by Saltzman [@Saltzman62] which originate from the Rayleigh-Bénard convection. The demonstration of sensitivity in the Lorenz system can be considered as a milestone in the theory of dynamical systems. Nowadays, this property is considered as the main ingredient of chaos [@Wiggins88].
A remarkable behavior of coupled chaotic systems is the synchronization [@Fujisaka83]-[@Rulkov95]. This concept was studied for identical systems in [@Pecora90] and was generalized to non-identical systems by Rulkov et al. [@Rulkov95]. Generalized synchronization (GS) is characterized by the existence of a transformation from the trajectories of the drive to the trajectories of the response. A necessary and sufficient condition concerning the asymptotic stability of the response system for the presence of GS was mentioned in [@Kocarev96], and some numerical techniques were developed in the papers [@Rulkov95; @Abarbanel96] for its detection.
Even though coupled chaotic systems exhibiting GS have been widely investigated in the literature, the presence of chaos in the dynamics of the response system is still questionable in the absence of GS. The main goal of the present study is the verification of the persistence of chaos in unidirectionally coupled Lorenz systems even if they are not synchronized in the generalized sense. We rigorously prove that sensitivity is a permanent feature of the response system, and we numerically demonstrate the existence of unstable periodic orbits embedded in the chaotic attractor of the response benefiting from a period-doubling cascade [@Franceschini80] of the drive. Conditional Lyapunov exponents [@Pecora90] and auxiliary system approach [@Abarbanel96] are utilized to show the absence of GS. Our results reveal that the chaos of the drive system does not annihilate the chaos of the response, i.e., the response remains to be unpredictable under the applied perturbation.
The usage of exogenous perturbations to generate chaos in coupled systems was proposed in the studies [@Akh1]-[@Akh6]. In particular, the paper [@Akhmet2015] was concerned with the extension of sensitivity and periodic motions in unidirectionally coupled Lorenz systems in which the response system is initially non-chaotic, i.e., it either admits an asymptotically stable equilibrium or an orbitally stable periodic orbit in the absence of the driving. However, in the present study, we investigate the dynamics of coupled Lorenz systems in which the response system is chaotic in the absence of the driving.
Another issue that was considered in [@Akhmet2015] is the global unpredictable behavior of the weather dynamics. We made an effort in [@Akhmet2015] to answer the question *why the weather is unpredictable at each point of the Earth* on the basis of Lorenz systems. This subject was discussed by assuming that the whole atmosphere of the Earth is partitioned in a finite number of subregions such that in each of them the dynamics of the weather is governed by the Lorenz system with certain coefficients. It was further assumed that there are subregions for which the corresponding Lorenz systems admit chaos with the main ingredient as sensitivity, which means unpredictability of weather in the meteorological sense, and there are subregions in which the Lorenz systems are non-chaotic. It was demonstrated in [@Akhmet2015] that if a subregion with a chaotic dynamics influences another one with a non-chaotic dynamics, then the latter also becomes unpredictable. The present study takes the results obtained in [@Akhmet2015] a step further such that the interaction of two subregions whose dynamics are both governed by chaotic Lorenz systems lead to the persistence of unpredictability.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section \[LorenzSec2\], the model of coupled Lorenz systems is introduced. Section \[theory\] is devoted to the theoretical discussion of the sensitivity feature in the response system. Section \[simulations\], on the other hand, is concerned with the numerical analyses of coupled Lorenz systems for the persistence of chaos as well as the absence of GS. The existence of unstable periodic motions embedded in the chaotic attractor of the response is demonstrated in Section \[Lorenzzpdc\]. Some concluding remarks are given in Section \[Lorenz\_Conc\], and finally, the proof of the main theorem concerning sensitivity is provided in the Appendix.
The model {#LorenzSec2}
=========
Consider the following Lorenz system [@Lorenz63] $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{l} \label{lorenz_system}
\dot{x}_1 = -\sigma x_1 + \sigma x_2 \\
\dot{x}_2 = - x_1x_3 +rx_1 -x_2\\
\dot{x}_3 = x_1x_2-bx_3,
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma$, $r$, and $b$ are constants.
System (\[lorenz\_system\]) has a rich dynamics such that for different values of the parameters $\sigma,$ $r$ and $b,$ the system can exhibit stable periodic orbits, homoclinic explosions, period-doubling bifurcations, and chaotic attractors [@Sparrow82]. In the remaining parts of the paper, we suppose that the dynamics of (\[lorenz\_system\]) is chaotic, i.e., the system admits sensitivity and infinitely many unstable periodic motions embedded in the chaotic attractor. In this case, (\[lorenz\_system\]) possesses a compact invariant set $\Lambda \subset \mathbb R^3.$
Next, we take into account another Lorenz system, $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{l} \label{nonperturbed_lorenz_system}
\dot{u}_1 = - \overline{\sigma} u_1 + \overline{\sigma} u_2 \\
\dot{u}_2 = - u_1u_3 +\overline{r} u_1 -u_2 \\
\dot{u}_3 = u_1u_2-\overline{b}u_3,
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ where the parameters $\overline{\sigma},$ $\overline{r}$ and $\overline{b}$ are such that system (\[nonperturbed\_lorenz\_system\]) is also chaotic. Systems (\[lorenz\_system\]) and (\[nonperturbed\_lorenz\_system\]) are, in general, non-identical, since the coefficients $\sigma,$ $r,$ $b$ and $\overline{\sigma},$ $\overline{r},$ $\overline{b}$ can be different.
We perturb (\[nonperturbed\_lorenz\_system\]) with the solutions of (\[lorenz\_system\]) to set up the system $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{l} \label{perturbed_lorenz_system}
\dot{y}_1 = - \overline{\sigma} y_1 + \overline{\sigma} y_2 + g_1(x(t)) \\
\dot{y}_2 = -y_1y_3 +\overline{r} y_1 -y_2 + g_2(x(t)) \\
\dot{y}_3 = y_1y_2-\overline{b}y_3 + g_3(x(t)),
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ where $x(t)=(x_1(t),x_2(t),x_3(t))$ is a solution of (\[lorenz\_system\]) and $g(x)=(g_1(x),g_2(x),g_3(x))$ is a continuous function such that there exists a positive number $L_g$ satisfying $\left\|g(x) - g(\overline{x})\right\| \ge L_g \left\|x-\overline{x}\right\|$ for all $x,$ $\overline{x} \in \Lambda.$ Here, $\left\|.\right\|$ denotes the usual Euclidean norm in $\mathbb R^3.$ It is worth noting that the coupled system $(\ref{lorenz_system})+(\ref{perturbed_lorenz_system})$ has a skew product structure. We refer to (\[lorenz\_system\]) and (\[perturbed\_lorenz\_system\]) as the drive and response systems, respectively.
In the next section, we will demonstrate the existence of sensitivity in the dynamics of the response system.
Sensitivity in the response system {#theory}
==================================
Fix a point $x_0$ from the chaotic attractor of (\[lorenz\_system\]) and take a solution $x(t)$ with $x(0)=x_0.$ Since we use the solution $x(t)$ as a perturbation in (\[perturbed\_lorenz\_system\]), we call it a *chaotic function*. Chaotic functions may be irregular as well as regular (periodic and unstable) [@Lorenz63; @Sparrow82]. We suppose that the response system (\[perturbed\_lorenz\_system\]) possesses a compact invariant set $\mathscr{U} \subset \mathbb R^3$ for each chaotic solution $x(t)$ of (\[lorenz\_system\]). The existence of such an invariant set can be shown, for example, using Lyapunov functions [@Akhmet2015; @Yoshizawa75].
One of main ingredients of chaos is sensitivity [@Lorenz63; @Wiggins88]. Let us describe this feature for both the drive and response systems.
System (\[lorenz\_system\]) is called sensitive if there exist positive numbers $\epsilon_0$ and $\Delta$ such that for an arbitrary positive number $\delta_0$ and for each chaotic solution $x(t)$ of (\[lorenz\_system\]), there exist a chaotic solution $\overline{x}(t)$ of the same system and an interval $J \subset [0,\infty),$ with a length no less than $\Delta,$ such that $\left\|x(0)-\overline{x}(0)\right\|<\delta_0$ and $\left\|x(t)-\overline{x}(t)\right\| > \epsilon_0$ for all $t \in J.$
For a given solution $x(t)$ of (\[lorenz\_system\]), let us denote by $\phi_{x(t)}(t,y_0)$ the unique solution of (\[perturbed\_lorenz\_system\]) satisfying the condition $\phi_{x(t)}(0,y_0)=y_0.$ We say that system (\[perturbed\_lorenz\_system\]) is sensitive if there exist positive numbers $\epsilon_1$ and $\overline{\Delta}$ such that for an arbitrary positive number $\delta_1,$ each $y_0\in \mathscr{U}$, and a chaotic solution $x(t)$ of (\[lorenz\_system\]), there exist $y_1\in \mathscr{U},$ a chaotic solution $\overline{x}(t)$ of (\[lorenz\_system\]), and an interval $J^1 \subset [0,\infty),$ with a length no less than $\overline{\Delta},$ such that $\left\|y_0-y_1\right\|<\delta_1$ and $\left\|\phi_{x(t)}(t,y_0)-\phi_{\overline{x}(t)}(t,y_1)\right\| > \epsilon_1$ for all $t \in J^1.$
Next theorem confirms that the sensitivity feature remains persistent for (\[nonperturbed\_lorenz\_system\]) when it is perturbed with the solutions of the drive system (\[lorenz\_system\]). This feature is true even if the systems (\[lorenz\_system\]) and (\[perturbed\_lorenz\_system\]) are not synchronized in the generalized sense.
\[theorem\_sensitivity\] The response system (\[perturbed\_lorenz\_system\]) is sensitive.
The proof of Theorem \[theorem\_sensitivity\] is provided in the Appendix. In the next section, we will demonstrate that the response system possesses chaotic motions regardless of the presence of GS.
Chaotic dynamics in the absence of generalized synchronization {#simulations}
==============================================================
Let us take into account the drive system (\[lorenz\_system\]) with the parameter values $\sigma=10,$ $r=28,$ $b=8/3$ such that the system possesses a chaotic attractor [@Lorenz63; @Sparrow82]. Moreover, we set $\overline{\sigma}=10,$ $\overline{r}=60,$ $\overline{b}=8/3$ and $g_1(x_1, x_2, x_3) = 2.95 x_1-0.25\sin x_1,$ $g_2(x_1, x_2, x_3) = 3.06\arctan x_2,$ $g_3(x_1, x_2, x_3) = 3.12 x_3+1.75 e^{-x_3}$ in the response system (\[perturbed\_lorenz\_system\]). The unperturbed Lorenz system (\[nonperturbed\_lorenz\_system\]) is also chaotic with the aforementioned values of $\overline{\sigma},$ $\overline{r},$ and $\overline{b}$ [@Gon04; @Sparrow82].
In order to demonstrate the presence of sensitivity in the response system (\[perturbed\_lorenz\_system\]) numerically, we depict in Figure \[fig1\] the projections of two initially nearby trajectories of the coupled system $(\ref{lorenz_system})+(\ref{perturbed_lorenz_system})$ on the $y_1-y_2-y_3$ space. In Figure \[fig1\], the projection of the trajectory corresponding to the initial data $x_1(0)=-8.631,$ $x_2(0)=-2.382,$ $x_3(0)=33.096,$ $y_1(0)=10.871,$ $y_2(0)=-4.558,$ $y_3(0)=70.541$ is shown in blue, and the one corresponding to the initial data $x_1(0)=-8.615,$ $x_2(0)=-2.464,$ $x_3(0)=33.067,$ $y_1(0)=10.869,$ $y_2(0)=-4.561,$ $y_3(0)=70.537$ is shown in red. The time interval $[0,2.96]$ is used in the simulation. One can observe in Figure \[fig1\] that even if the trajectories in blue and red are initially nearby, later they diverge, and this behavior supports the result of Theorem \[theorem\_sensitivity\] such that sensitivity is present in the dynamics of (\[perturbed\_lorenz\_system\]). In other words, the figure confirms that sensitivity is a permanent feature of (\[nonperturbed\_lorenz\_system\]) even if it is perturbed with the solutions of (\[lorenz\_system\]).
![Sensitivity in the response system (\[perturbed\_lorenz\_system\]). The simulation supports the result of Theorem \[theorem\_sensitivity\] such that sensitivity is permanent in system (\[nonperturbed\_lorenz\_system\]) although it is driven by the solutions of (\[lorenz\_system\]).[]{data-label="fig1"}](fig1.eps){width="9.0cm"}
On the other hand, in Figure \[fig2\], we represent the trajectory of (\[perturbed\_lorenz\_system\]) corresponding to $x_1(0)=4.43,$ $x_2(0)=-2.27,$ $x_3(0)=30.81,$ $y_1(0)=3.09,$ $y_2(0)=4.98,$ $y_3(0)=46.21.$ It is seen in Figure \[fig2\] that the trajectory is chaotic, and this reveals the persistence of chaos in the dynamics of (\[perturbed\_lorenz\_system\]).
![Chaotic trajectory of system (\[perturbed\_lorenz\_system\]). The figure manifests the persistence of chaos.[]{data-label="fig2"}](fig2.eps){width="9.0cm"}
GS [@Rulkov95] is said to occur in the coupled system $(\ref{lorenz_system})+(\ref{perturbed_lorenz_system})$ if there exist sets $\mathscr{X},$ $\mathscr{Y} \subset \mathbb R^3$ of initial conditions and a transformation $\psi$ defined on the chaotic attractor of (\[lorenz\_system\]) such that for all $x_0 \in \mathscr{X},$ $y_0 \in \mathscr{Y}$ the relation $\displaystyle \lim_{t\to\infty} \left\|y(t)-\psi(x(t))\right\|=0$ holds, where $x(t)$ and $y(t)$ are respectively the solutions of (\[lorenz\_system\]) and (\[perturbed\_lorenz\_system\]) satisfying $x(0)=x_0$ and $y(0)=y_0.$ If GS occurs, a motion that starts on $\mathscr{X} \times \mathscr{Y}$ collapses onto a manifold $M\subset \mathscr{X}\times \mathscr{Y}$ of synchronized motions. The transformation $\psi$ is not required to exist for the transient trajectories. When $\psi$ is the identity transformation, the identical synchronization takes place [@Pecora90].
It was formulated by Kocarev and Parlitz [@Kocarev96] that the systems (\[lorenz\_system\]) and (\[perturbed\_lorenz\_system\]) are synchronized in the generalized sense if and only if for all $x_0\in \mathscr{X},$ $y_{0},$ $\overline{y}_{0}\in \mathscr{Y},$ the asymptotic stability criterion $$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle \lim_{t\to\infty} \left\| y(t,x_0,y_{0}) - y(t,x_0,\overline{y}_{0}) \right\|=0,\end{aligned}$$ holds, where $y(t,x_0,y_{0}),$ $y(t,x_0,\overline{y}_{0})$ denote the solutions of (\[perturbed\_lorenz\_system\]) with the initial data $y(0,x_0,y_{0})=y_{0},$ $y(0,x_0,\overline{y}_{0})=\overline{y}_{0}$ and the same solution $x(t),$ $x(0)=x_0,$ of (\[lorenz\_system\]).
A numerical technique that can be used to analyze coupled systems for the presence or absence of GS is the auxiliary system approach [@Abarbanel96]. We will make use of this technique for the coupled system (\[lorenz\_system\])+(\[perturbed\_lorenz\_system\]). For that purpose, we consider the auxiliary system $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{l} \label{aux_lorenz_system}
\dot{z}_1 = - 10 z_1 + 10 z_2 + 2.95 x_1(t)-0.25\sin (x_1(t)) \\
\dot{z}_2 = -z_1 z_3 +60 z_1 -z_2 + 3.06\arctan (x_2(t)) \\
\dot{z}_3 = z_1 z_2- \displaystyle \frac{8}{3} z_3 + 3.12 x_3(t)+1.75 e^{-x_3(t)},
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ which is an identical copy of (\[perturbed\_lorenz\_system\]).
Using the initial data $x_1(0)=4.43,$ $x_2(0)=-2.27,$ $x_3(0)=30.81,$ $y_1(0)=3.09,$ $y_2(0)=4.98,$ $y_3(0)=46.21,$ $z_1(0)=7.69,$ $z_2(0)=6.25,$ $z_3(0)=52.65,$ we depict in Figure \[fig3\] the projection of the stroboscopic plot of the $9-$dimensional system $(\ref{lorenz_system})+(\ref{perturbed_lorenz_system})+(\ref{aux_lorenz_system})$ on the $y_2-z_2$ plane. In the simulation, the first $200$ iterations are omitted. Since the stroboscopic plot does not take place on the line $z_2=y_2,$ the systems (\[lorenz\_system\]) and (\[perturbed\_lorenz\_system\]) are unsynchronized. Hence, the response system (\[perturbed\_lorenz\_system\]) exhibits chaotic behavior even if GS does not occur in the systems (\[lorenz\_system\]) and (\[perturbed\_lorenz\_system\]).
![The result of the auxiliary system approach applied to the coupled Lorenz systems (\[lorenz\_system\])+(\[perturbed\_lorenz\_system\]). The figure confirms the absence of GS.[]{data-label="fig3"}](fig3.eps){width="8.0cm"}
In order to demonstrate the absence of GS one more time by evaluating the conditional Lyapunov exponents [@Gon04; @Pecora90; @Kocarev96], we consider the following variational system for (\[perturbed\_lorenz\_system\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{l} \label{cond_lyp_exp1}
\dot{\xi}_1 = -10 \xi_1 + 10 \xi_2 \\
\dot{\xi}_2 = (-y_3(t) +60) \xi_1 -\xi_2 -y_1(t) \xi_3\\
\dot{\xi}_3 = y_2(t)\xi_1 +y_1(t)\xi_2 -(8/3)\xi_3.
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ Making use of the solution $y(t)=(y_1(t),y_2(t),y_3(t))$ of (\[perturbed\_lorenz\_system\]) corresponding to the initial conditions $x_1(0) =9.47,$ $x_2(0) =3.29,$ $x_3(0)=34.49,$ $y_1(0) =10.67,$ $y_2(0) =-8.06,$ $y_3(0)=71.89,$ the largest Lyapunov exponent of (\[cond\_lyp\_exp1\]) is evaluated as $0.7693.$ In other words, the response (\[perturbed\_lorenz\_system\]) possesses a positive conditional Lyapunov exponent, and this corroborates the absence of GS for the coupled systems $(\ref{lorenz_system})+(\ref{perturbed_lorenz_system}).$
The next section is devoted to the presence of periodic motions embedded in the chaotic attractor of the response system.
Periodic solutions of the response system {#Lorenzzpdc}
=========================================
To demonstrate the existence of periodic motions embedded in the chaotic attractor of (\[perturbed\_lorenz\_system\]), we will take into account (\[lorenz\_system\]) with the parameter values in such a way that the system exhibits a period-doubling cascade [@Feigenbaum80; @Sander12].
Consider the drive system (\[lorenz\_system\]) in which $\sigma=10,$ $b=8/3$ and $r$ is a parameter [@Franceschini80; @Sparrow82]. For the values of $r$ between $99.98$ and $100.795$ the system possesses two symmetric stable periodic orbits such that one of them spirals round twice in $x_1>0$ and once in $x_1<0,$ whereas another spirals round twice in $x_1<0$ and once in $x_1>0.$ The book [@Sparrow82] calls such periodic orbits as $x^2y$ and $y^2x,$ respectively. More precisely, $``x"$ is written every time when the orbit spirals round in $x_1>0,$ while $``y"$ is written every time when it spirals round in $x_1<0.$ As the value of the parameter $r$ decreases towards $99.98$ a period-doubling bifurcation occurs in (\[lorenz\_system\]) such that two new symmetric stable periodic orbits ($x^2yx^2y$ and $y^2xy^2x$) appear, and the previous periodic orbits lose their stability [@Franceschini80; @Sparrow82]. According to Franceschini [@Franceschini80], system (\[lorenz\_system\]) undergoes infinitely many period-doubling bifurcations at the parameter values $99.547,$ $99.529,$ $99.5255$ and so on. The sequence of bifurcation parameter values accumulates at $r_{\infty} = 99.524.$ For values of $r$ smaller than $r_{\infty}$, infinitely many unstable periodic orbits take place in the dynamics of (\[lorenz\_system\]) [@Franceschini80; @Sparrow82].
We say that the response (\[perturbed\_lorenz\_system\]) replicates the period-doubling cascade of (\[lorenz\_system\]) if for each periodic $x(t)$, system (\[perturbed\_lorenz\_system\]) possesses a periodic solution with the same period. To illustrate the replication of period-doubling cascade, let us use $\overline{\sigma}=10,$ $\overline{r}=28,$ $\overline{b}=8/3$ in (\[perturbed\_lorenz\_system\]) such that the corresponding non-perturbed Lorenz system (\[nonperturbed\_lorenz\_system\]) is chaotic [@Lorenz63; @Sparrow82]. Moreover, we set $g_1(x_1,x_2,x_3)= 6.5 x_1,$ $g_2(x_1,x_2,x_3)=5.2x_2,$ $g_3(x_1,x_2,x_3)=7.1 x_3.$ One can numerically verify that the solutions of (\[perturbed\_lorenz\_system\]) are ultimately bounded by a bound common for each $x(t)$. Therefore, according to Theorem $15.8$ [@Yoshizawa75], the response (\[perturbed\_lorenz\_system\]) replicates the period-doubling cascade of the drive (\[lorenz\_system\]). It is worth noting that the coupled system (\[lorenz\_system\])+(\[perturbed\_lorenz\_system\]) possesses a period-doubling cascade as well. For the value of the parameter $r<r_{\infty},$ the instability of the infinite number of periodic solutions is ensured by Theorem \[theorem\_sensitivity\].
Figure \[fig4\] shows the stable periodic orbits of system (\[perturbed\_lorenz\_system\]). The period-$1$ and period-$2$ orbits of (\[perturbed\_lorenz\_system\]) corresponding to the $y^2x$ and $y^2xy^2x$ periodic orbits of the drive system (\[lorenz\_system\]) are depicted in Figure \[fig4\] (a) and (b), respectively. The value $r=100.36$ is used in Figure \[fig4\] (a), whereas $r=99.75$ is used in Figure \[fig4\] (b). The figure reveals the presence of periodic motions in the dynamics of (\[perturbed\_lorenz\_system\]). Figure \[fig5\], on the other hand, represents the projection of the chaotic trajectory of the coupled system $(\ref{lorenz_system})+(\ref{perturbed_lorenz_system})$ with $r=99.51$ on the $y_1-y_3$ plane. The initial data $x_1(0)=-1.15,$ $x_2(0)=3.52,$ $x_3(0)=77.01,$ $y_1(0)=0.27,$ $y_2(0)=2.17,$ $y_3(0)=254.09$ are used in the simulation. Figures \[fig5\] manifests that (\[perturbed\_lorenz\_system\]) replicates the period-doubling cascade of (\[lorenz\_system\]).
![Stable periodic orbits of the response system (\[perturbed\_lorenz\_system\]). (a) Period-1 orbit corresponding to $r=100.36;$ (b) Period-2 orbit corresponding to $r=99.75.$ The pictures in (a) and (b) demonstrate the presence of periodic motions in the dynamics of (\[perturbed\_lorenz\_system\]).[]{data-label="fig4"}](fig4.eps){width="14.3cm"}
![The trajectory of the response system (\[perturbed\_lorenz\_system\]) with $r=99.51.$ Chaotic behavior is observable in the figure.[]{data-label="fig5"}](fig5.eps){width="7.2cm"}
Conclusions {#Lorenz_Conc}
===========
In the present study, we demonstrate the persistence of chaos in unidirectionally coupled Lorenz systems by checking for the existence of sensitivity and infinitely many unstable periodic motions. This is the first time in the literature that the presence of sensitivity in the dynamics of the response is theoretically proved regardless of GS. The obtained results certify that the applied perturbation does not suppress the chaos of the response. We make use of conditional Lyapunov exponents [@Pecora90] and the auxiliary system approach [@Abarbanel96] to show the absence of GS in the investigated systems. It is worth noting that the results are valid for both identical and non-identical systems, i.e., the coefficients of the coupled Lorenz systems can be same or different.
One of the concepts related to our results is the global unpredictable behavior of the weather dynamics. This subject was considered in [@Akhmet2015] on the basis of Lorenz systems assuming that the whole atmosphere of the Earth is partitioned in a finite number of subregions such that in each of them the dynamics of the weather is governed by the Lorenz system with certain coefficients. The present paper plays a complementary role to the discussions of [@Akhmet2015] in such a way that the unpredictable behavior of the weather dynamics is permanent under the interaction of two subregions whose dynamics are both governed by chaotic Lorenz systems. Another concept in which Lorenz systems are encountered is the laser dynamics. It was shown by Haken [@Haken75] that the Lorenz model is identical with that of the single mode laser. Therefore, our results may also be used as an engineering tool to design unsynchronized chaotic Lorenz lasers [@Lawandy87].
Appendix: Proof of Theorem \[theorem\_sensitivity\] {#appendix-proof-of-theorem-theorem_sensitivity .unnumbered}
===================================================
The proof of Theorem \[theorem\_sensitivity\] is as follows.
**Proof.** Fix an arbitrary positive number $\delta_1,$ a point $y_0\in \mathscr{U},$ and a chaotic solution $x(t)$ of (\[lorenz\_system\]). One can find $\epsilon_0>0$ and $\Delta>0$ such that for arbitrary $\delta_0>0$ both of the inequalities $\left\|x(0)-\overline{x}(0)\right\|<\delta_0$ and $\left\|x(t)-\overline{x}(t)\right\| > \epsilon_0,$ $t \in J,$ hold for some chaotic solution $\overline{x}(t)$ of (\[lorenz\_system\]) and for some interval $J \subset [0,\infty),$ whose length is not less than $\Delta.$
Take an arbitrary $y_1\in \mathscr{U}$ such that $\left\|y_0-y_1\right\|<\delta_1.$ For the sake of brevity, let us denote $y(t)=\phi_{x(t)}(t,y_0)$ and $\overline{y}(t)=\phi_{\overline{x}(t)}(t,y_1).$ It is worth noting that there exist positive numbers $K_0$ and $H_0$ such that $\left\|y(t)\right\|, \left\|\overline y(t)\right\| \le K_0$ for all $t\ge 0$, and $\displaystyle \sup_{t \ge 0} \left\|x(t)\right\| \leq H_0$ for each chaotic solution $x(t)$ of (\[lorenz\_system\]).
Our aim is to determine positive numbers $\epsilon_1,$ $\overline{\Delta}$ and an interval $J^1\subset [0,\infty)$ with length $\overline{\Delta}$ such that the inequality $\left\|y(t)-\overline{y}(t)\right\| > \epsilon_1$ holds for all $t \in J^1.$
It is clear that the collection of chaotic solutions of system (\[lorenz\_system\]) is an equicontinuous family on $[0,\infty).$ Making use of the uniform continuity of the function $\overline{g}: \mathbb R^3 \times \mathbb R^3 \to \mathbb R^3,$ defined as $\overline{g}(\nu_1,\nu_2)=g(\nu_1)-g(\nu_2),$ on the compact region $
\mathscr{R}=\left\{(\nu_1,\nu_2) \in \mathbb R^3 \times \mathbb R^3 : \left\|\nu_1\right\| \leq H_0, \left\|\nu_2\right\| \leq H_0 \right\}
$ together with the equicontinuity of the collection of chaotic solutions of (\[lorenz\_system\]), one can verify that the collection $\mathscr{F}$ consisting of the functions of the form $g_j(x_1(t))-g_j(x_2(t)),$ $j=1,2,3,$ where $x_1(t)$ and $x_2(t)$ are chaotic solutions of system (\[lorenz\_system\]), is an equicontinuous family on $[0,\infty).$
According to the equicontinuity of the family $\mathscr{F},$ one can find a positive number $\tau<\Delta,$ which is independent of $x(t)$ and $\overline{x}(t),$ such that for any $t_1,t_2\in [0,\infty)$ with $\left|t_1-t_2\right|<\tau,$ the inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sensitivity_proof_1}
\begin{array}{l}
\left| \left(g_j\left(x(t_1)\right) - g_j\left(\overline{x}(t_1)\right) \right) - \left(g_j\left(x(t_2)\right) - g_j\left(\overline{x}(t_2)\right) \right) \right| <\displaystyle \frac{L_g\epsilon_0}{6}
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ holds for all $j=1,2,3.$
On the other hand, for each $t\in J,$ there exists an integer $j_0,$ $1 \leq j_0 \leq 3,$ which possibly depends on $t,$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{l}
\left|g_{j_0}(x(t))-g_{j_0}(\overline{x}(t))\right| \geq \displaystyle \frac{L_g}{3} \left\|x(t)-\overline{x}(t)\right\| \nonumber.
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ Otherwise, if there exists $s\in J$ such that the inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{l}
\left|g_{j} \left(x\left(s\right) \right)-g_{j}(\overline{x}(s)) \right|< \displaystyle \frac{L_g}{3} \left\|x(s)-\overline{x}(s)\right\| \nonumber
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ holds for each $j=1,2,3,$ then one encounters with a contradiction since $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|g(x(s))-g(\overline{x}(s)) \right\| \leq \sum_{j=1}^{3}\left| g_{j}(x(s))-g_{j}(\overline{x}(s)) \right| < L_g \left\|x(s)-\overline{x}(s)\right\|. \end{aligned}$$
Denote by $s_0$ the midpoint of the interval $J,$ and let $\displaystyle \theta=s_0-\tau/2.$ There exists an integer $j_0,$ $1 \leq j_0 \leq 3,$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{l} \label{sensitivity_proof_2}
\left|g_{j_0}(x(s_0))-g_{j_0}(\overline{x}(s_0))\right| \geq \displaystyle\frac{L_g}{3} \left\|x(s_0)-\overline{x}(s_0)\right\| > \displaystyle\frac{L_g\epsilon_0}{3}.
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ Using the inequality (\[sensitivity\_proof\_1\]) it can be verified for all $t \in \left[\theta, \theta+\tau\right]$ that $$\begin{aligned}
&& \left|g_{j_0}\left(x(s_0)\right) - g_{j_0}\left(\overline{x}(s_0)\right) \right| - \left|g_{j_0}\left(x(t)\right) - g_{j_0}\left(\overline{x}(t)\right) \right| \\
&& \leq \left| \left(g_{j_0}\left(x(t)\right) - g_{j_0}\left(\overline{x}(t)\right) \right) - \left(g_{j_0}\left(x(s_0)\right) - g_{j_0}\left(\overline{x}(s_0)\right) \right) \right| \\
&&<\frac{L_g\epsilon_0}{6}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, by means of (\[sensitivity\_proof\_2\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sensitivity_proof_3}
\begin{array}{l}
\left|g_{j_0}\left(x(t)\right) - g_{j_0}\left(\overline{x}(t)\right) \right| > \left|g_{j_0}\left(x(s_0)\right) - g_{j_0}\left(\overline{x}(s_0)\right) \right| - \displaystyle \frac{L_g\epsilon_0}{6} > \displaystyle \frac{L_g\epsilon_0}{6}
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ for $t\in \left[\theta, \theta+\tau\right].$
One can find numbers $s_1, s_2, s_3 \in [\theta,\theta+\tau]$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle\int^{\theta + \tau}_{\theta} \left[g(x(s))-g(\overline{x}(s))\right] ds = \Big(
\tau \left[g_1(x(s_1))-g_1(\overline{x}(s_1))\right],
\tau \left[g_2(x(s_2))-g_2(\overline{x}(s_2))\right], \\
\tau \left[g_3(x(s_3))-g_3(\overline{x}(s_3))\right]
\Big).\end{aligned}$$ Inequality (\[sensitivity\_proof\_3\]) yields $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\|\displaystyle\int^{\theta + \tau}_{\theta} \left[g(x(s))-g(\overline{x}(s))\right] ds \Big\| \geq \tau \left|g_{j_0}(x(s_{j_0}))-g_{j_0}(\overline{x}(s_{j_0}))\right| > \displaystyle \frac{\tau L_g \epsilon_0}{6}.\end{aligned}$$
Let us define the function $f:\mathbb R^3 \to \mathbb R^3$ as $
f(v) = ( - \overline{\sigma} v_1 + \overline{\sigma} v_2, -v_1v_3 +\overline{r} v_1 -v_2, v_1v_2-\overline{b}v_3),
$ where $v=(v_1,v_2,v_3).$ One can confirm the presence of a positive number $L_f$ such that $\left\|f(v)-f(\overline{v})\right\| \le L_f \left\|v-\overline{v}\right\|$ for all $v,$ $\overline{v} \in \mathscr{U}.$ The relation $$\begin{aligned}
y(t)-\overline{y}(t) = (y(\theta)-\overline{y}(\theta)) + \displaystyle\int^{t}_{\theta} \left[ f(y(s))-f(\overline{y}(s)) \right] ds + \displaystyle\int^{t}_{\theta} [g(x(s))-g(\overline{x}(s))] ds, ~t\in [\theta,\theta+\tau]\end{aligned}$$ implies that $$\begin{aligned}
& \left\| y(\theta+\tau)-\overline{y}(\theta+\tau) \right\| & \geq \Big\|\displaystyle\int^{\theta+\tau}_{\theta} [g(x(s))-g(\overline{x}(s))] ds \Big\| - \left\| y(\theta)-\overline{y}(\theta) \right\|\\
&& - \displaystyle\int^{\theta+\tau}_{\theta} L_f\left\| y(s)-\overline{y}(s) \right\| ds \\
&& > \displaystyle \frac{\tau L_g \epsilon_0}{6} - \left\| y(\theta)-\overline{y}(\theta) \right\| - \displaystyle\int^{\theta+\tau}_{\theta} L_f\left\| y(s)-\overline{y}(s) \right\| ds.\end{aligned}$$ According to the last inequality we have that $$\begin{aligned}
& \displaystyle \max_{t\in [\theta,\theta+\tau]}\left\| y(t)-\overline{y}(t)\right\| & \geq \left\| y(\theta+\tau)-\overline{y}(\theta+\tau) \right\| \\
&& > \frac{\tau L_g \epsilon_0}{6} - (1+ \tau L_f) \displaystyle \max_{t\in [\theta,\theta+\tau]}\left\| y(t)-\overline{y}(t) \right\|.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $
\displaystyle \max_{t\in [\theta,\theta+\tau]}\left\| y(t)-\overline{y}(t) \right\| > \frac{\tau L_g \epsilon_0}{6(2+\tau L_f)}.
$
Suppose that $
\displaystyle \max_{t \in [\theta,\theta+\tau]} \left\|y(t)-\overline{y}(t)\right\| = \left\|y(\xi)-\overline{y}(\xi)\right\|
$ for some $\xi \in [\theta, \theta+\tau].$ Define the number $$\overline{\Delta}=\min \displaystyle \left\{ \frac{\tau}{2}, \frac{\tau L_g \epsilon_0}{24(K_0L_f+M_g)(2+\tau L_f)} \right\},$$ where $M_g = \displaystyle \sup_{x \in \Lambda} \left\|g(x)\right\|,$ and let $$\theta^1=\left\{\begin{array}{ll} \xi, & ~\textrm{if}~ \xi \leq \theta + \tau/2 \\
\xi - \overline{\Delta}, & ~\textrm{if}~ \xi > \theta + \tau/2 \\
\end{array} \right. .\nonumber$$
For $t\in [\theta^1, \theta^1+\overline{\Delta}],$ by favour of the equation $$\begin{aligned}
y(t)-\overline{y}(t) = (y(\xi)-\overline{y}(\xi)) + \displaystyle\int^{t}_{\xi} \left[f(y(s))-f(\overline{y}(s))\right] ds + \displaystyle\int^{t}_{\xi} [g(x(s))-g(\overline{x}(s))] ds,\end{aligned}$$ one can obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
& \left\|y(t)-\overline{y}(t)\right\| & \geq \left\|y(\xi)-\overline{y}(\xi)\right\| - \left| \displaystyle\int^{t}_{\xi} L_f \left\| y(s)-\overline{y}(s)\right\| ds \right|\\
&& - \left| \displaystyle\int^{t}_{\xi} \left\| g(x(s))-g(\overline{x}(s)) \right\| ds \right| \\
&& > \displaystyle\frac{ \tau L_g \epsilon_0}{6(2+\tau L_f)} -2\overline{\Delta} \left(K_0L_f+M_g \right) \\
&& \geq \displaystyle\frac{\tau L_g \epsilon_0}{12(2+\tau L_f)}.\end{aligned}$$
The length of the interval $J^1=[\theta^1, \theta^1+\overline{\Delta}]$ does not depend on $x(t),$ $\overline{x}(t),$ and for $t \in J^1$ the inequality $
\left\|y(t)-\overline{y}(t)\right\| > \epsilon_1
$ holds, where $\epsilon_1=\displaystyle \frac{\tau L_g \epsilon_0}{12(2+\tau L_f)}.$ Consequently, the response system (\[perturbed\_lorenz\_system\]) is sensitive. $\square$
[30]{}
H. Poincaré, Les Methodes Nouvelles de la Mecanique Celeste, Vol. I, II, III, Paris, 1899; reprint, Dover, New York, 1957.
E.N. Lorenz, Maximum simplification of the dynamic equations, Tellus 12 (1960) 243–254.
E.N. Lorenz, Deterministic nonperiodic flow, J. Atmos. Sci. 20 (1963) 130–141.
B. Saltzman, Finite amplitude free convection as an initial value problem, J. Atmos. Sci. 19 (1962) 329–341.
S. Wiggins, Global Bifurcations and Chaos, Springer, New York, 1988.
H. Fujisaka, T. Yamada, Stability theory of synchronized motion in coupled-oscillator systems, Prog. Theor. Phys. 69 (1983) 32–47.
V.S. Afraimovich, N.N. Verichev, M.I. Rabinovich, Stochastic synchronization of oscillation in dissipative systems, Radiophys. Quantum Electron. 29 (1986) 795–803.
J.M. Gonzáles-Miranda, Synchronization and Control of Chaos, Imperial College Press, London, 2004.
L.M. Pecora, T.L. Carroll, Synchronization in chaotic systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64 (1990) 821–825.
N.F. Rulkov, M.M. Sushchik, L.S. Tsimring, H.D.I. Abarbanel, Generalized synchronization of chaos in directionally coupled chaotic systems, Phys. Rev. E 51 (1995) 980–994.
L. Kocarev, U. Parlitz, Generalized synchronization, predictability, and equivalence of unidirectionally coupled dynamical systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76 (1996) 1816–1819.
H.D.I. Abarbanel, N.F. Rulkov, M.M. Sushchik, Generalized synchronization of chaos: The auxiliary system approach, Phys. Rev. E 53 (1996) 4528–4535.
V. Franceschini, A Feigenbaum sequence of bifurcations in the Lorenz model, J. Stat. Phys. 22 (1980) 397–406.
M.U. Akhmet, Devaney chaos of a relay system, Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simulat. 14 (2009) 1486–1493.
M.U. Akhmet, M.O. Fen, Replication of chaos, Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simulat. 18 (2013) 2626–2666.
M.U. Akhmet, M.O. Fen, Shunting inhibitory cellular neural networks with chaotic external inputs, Chaos 23 (2013) 023112.
M.U. Akhmet, M.O. Fen, Entrainment by chaos, J. Nonlinear Sci. 24 (2014) 411–439.
M. Akhmet, I. Rafatov, M.O. Fen, Extension of spatiotemporal chaos in glow discharge-semiconductor systems, Chaos 24 (2014) 043127.
M. Akhmet, M.O. Fen, Extension of Lorenz unpredictability, Int. J. Bifurcat. Chaos 25 (2015) 1550126.
M. Akhmet, M.O. Fen, Replication of Chaos in Neural Networks, Economics and Physics, Springer-Verlag/HEP, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2016.
C. Sparrow, The Lorenz Equations: Bifurcations, Chaos and Strange Attractors, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1982.
T. Yoshizawa, Stability Theory and the Existence of Periodic Solutions and Almost Periodic Solutions, Springer-Verlag, New-York, Heidelberg, Berlin, 1975.
M.J. Feigenbaum, Universal behavior in nonlinear systems, Los Alamos Science 1 (1980) 4–27.
E. Sander, J.A. Yorke, Connecting period-doubling cascades to chaos, Int. J. Bifurcat. Chaos 22 (2012) 1250022.
H. Haken, Analogy between higher instabilities in fluids and lasers, Phys. Lett. A 53 (1975) 77–78.
N.M. Lawandy, K. Lee, Stability analysis of two coupled Lorenz lasers and the coupling-induced periodic $\to$ chaotic transition, Opt. Commun. 61 (1987) 137–141.
|
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we prove that Wright’s equation $y''(t) = - \alpha y(t-1) \{1 + y(t)\}$ has a unique slowly oscillating periodic solution for parameter values $\alpha \in (\tfrac{\pi}{2}, 1.9]$, up to time translation. This result proves Jones’ Conjecture formulated in 1962, that there is a unique slowly oscillating periodic orbit for all $ \alpha > \tfrac{\pi}{2}$. Furthermore, there are no isolas of periodic solutions to Wright’s equation; all periodic orbits arise from Hopf bifurcations.'
author:
- 'Jonathan Jaquette [^1] [^2]'
bibliography:
- 'BibWright.bib'
title: 'A proof of Jones’ conjecture'
---
[**Key words.**]{} [ Wright’s Equation $\cdot$ Jones’ Conjecture $\cdot$ Delay Differential Equations\
Computer-Assisted Proofs $\cdot$ Branch and Bound $\cdot$ Krawczyk method]{}
Introduction
============
An often studied class of delay differential equations are negative feedback systems of the form: $$x'(t) = - \alpha f(x(t-1))
\label{eq:MNF}$$ where $ xf(x) > 0 $ for $x \neq 0$ and $ f'(0) >0$. One particularly well studied example of is when $f(x) =e^x -1$, better known as Wright’s equation, which after making the change of variables $ y =e^x -1 $ can be written in the following form: $$y'(t) = - \alpha \,y(t-1) \left[ 1+ y(t) \right].
\label{eq:Wright}$$
In [@jones1962existence], Jones proved that for $\alpha > {\tfrac{\pi}{2}}$ there exists at least one *slowly oscillating periodic solution (SOPS)*. That is, a periodic solution $y:{\mathbb{R}}\to {\mathbb{R}}$ which is positive for at least one unit of time (the delay time in Wright’s equation), negative for at least one unit of time, and then repeats. In this paper we prove there is a unique SOPS to for $ \alpha \in ( {\tfrac{\pi}{2}},1.9]$, thus completing a proof of Jones’ conjecture:
\[prop:Jones\] For every $ \alpha > {\tfrac{\pi}{2}}$ there exists a unique slowly oscillating periodic solution to .
[l]{}[0.5]{}
This work contributes a capstone to many decades of mathematical work studying Wright’s equation. To briefly review, a *principal branch* of slowly oscillating periodic orbits is born at $ \alpha = {\tfrac{\pi}{2}}$ and continues on for all $ \alpha > {\tfrac{\pi}{2}}$ [@nussbaum1975global]. Moreover, Wright’s equation has supercritical Hopf bifurcations at $ \alpha = {\tfrac{\pi}{2}}+ 2 n\pi$ for integers $ n \geq 0$, with slowly oscillating periodic orbits arising when $n=0$, and rapidly oscillating periodic orbits arising when $n\geq1$ (see Figure \[fig:BifurcationDiagram\]) [@chow1977integral]. Together with the parameter $\alpha$, the collection of periodic orbits forms a 2-dimensional manifold [@regala1989periodic].
A two-part geometric version of Jones’ conjecture was proposed in [@lessard2010recent]: (i) the principal branch of SOPS does not fold back on itself, and (ii) there are no other connected components (*isolas*) of SOPS. By [@BergJaquette; @lessard2010recent; @jlm2016Floquet; @xie1991thesis] the principal branch does not have any folds $ \alpha > {\tfrac{\pi}{2}}$.
In [@jlm2016Floquet; @xie1991thesis] it is shown that there is a unique SOPS for $ \alpha \geq 1.9$. These proofs use that fact that if every SOPS is asymptotically stable for some $ \alpha > {\tfrac{\pi}{2}}$, then there is a unique SOPS [@xie1993uniqueness]. Using estimates describing SOPS for when $\alpha$ is large [@nussbaum1982asymptotic], Xie showed that there is a unique SOPS for all $ \alpha \geq 5.67$ [@xie1991thesis]. By using computer-assisted proofs to characterize SOPS to Wright’s equation [@jlm2016Floquet], this method was extended to show there is a unique SOPS for $ \alpha \in [1.9,6.0]$.
However, for $ \alpha$ close to the bifurcation value $ {\tfrac{\pi}{2}}$ the dynamics becomes center-like, and proving uniqueness through these stability arguments becomes infeasible. To overcome this obstacle, we equate the problem of finding periodic orbits to with a zero–finding problem in a space of Fourier coefficients. We then employ rigorous numerics to derive a computer-assisted proof that there is a unique SOPS to Wright’s equation for $\alpha \in ( {\tfrac{\pi}{2}}, 1.9]$, thus proving the Jones conjecture.
Furthermore, Theorem \[prop:Jones\] allows us to deduce that there are no isolas of rapidly oscillating periodic solutions. Since the nonlinearity in depends only on $x(t-1)$, in fact any periodic orbit is either a SOPS or rescaling thereof. This rescaling between slowly and rapidly oscillating periodic solutions is given in terms of a solution’s lap number [@mallet1988morse] and its period, as detailed in the following theorem:
\[prop:Rescaling\] Let $ x_0$ be a periodic solution to at parameter $\alpha_0$ with period $L_0$ and lap number $ N $. Then there exists a SOPS $x_1(t) = x_0(r t) $ to at parameter $\alpha_1= r\alpha_0$ where $r := 1- \tfrac{N-1}{2} L_0 $.
Thus, every periodic orbit is on a branch originating from one of the Hopf bifurcations at $ \alpha = {\tfrac{\pi}{2}}+ 2 n \pi$. That is to say, there are no isolas of rapidly oscillating periodic solutions. However, this is not sufficient to show there are no folds in the branches of rapidly oscillating periodic solutions. The proofs for Theorem \[prop:Jones\] and Theorem \[prop:Rescaling\] are presented at the end of Section \[sec:GlobalAlgorithm\], and we discuss future directions in Section \[sec:FutureWork\].
Outline of Proof
================
In this paper we show that there is a unique slowly oscillating periodic orbit to for all $ \alpha \in ( {\tfrac{\pi}{2}}, 1.9]$. Like in [@BergJaquette; @lessard2010recent], we recast the problem of studying the periodic orbits of as the problem of finding the zeros of a functional $F$ defined in a space of Fourier coefficients (see Section \[sec:FunctionDomain\]). Since periodic solutions to must have a high degree of smoothness, in particular real analyticity [@wright1955non; @nussbaum-analytic], their Fourier coefficients will decay very rapidly. That is to say, the functional we are interested in can be well approximated by a Galerkin projection onto a finite number of Fourier modes.
In finite dimensions, there are efficacious techniques for rigorously locating and enumerating the solutions to a system of nonlinear equations by way of interval arithmetic [@neumaier1990interval; @hansen2003global; @moore2009introduction]. We apply these techniques in infinite dimensions, specifically the *branch and bound* method, also referred to as a *branch and prune* method. That is, we first construct a bounded set $X$ of Fourier coefficients which contains all the zeros of $F$ (see Section \[sec:SolutionSpace\]). Then we partition $X$ into a finite number of pieces $\{X_n \}$ which we refer to as *cubes* (see Definition \[def:cube\]). For each cube $X_n$ we are interested to know whether:
1. there exists a unique point $\hat{x} \in X_n$ for which $ F(\hat{x})=0$, or
2. there does not exist any points $\hat{x} \in X_n$ for which $F(\hat{x})=0$.
If we can show that $(a)$ holds for one cube, and $(b)$ holds for all the other cubes, then we will have shown that $ F=0$ has a unique solution.
This approach requires some additional preparation. Since periodic orbits to form a 2-manifold in phase space [@regala1989periodic], the functional $F$ we construct in Section \[sec:FunctionDomain\] will not have isolated zeros. The numerical techniques we employ are suited to finding isolated zeros, so it is necessary to reduce the dimension of the kernel by two. Along the principal branch $\alpha$ can be taken as one of the coordinate dimensions. We reduce this dimension by treating $\alpha$ as a parameter and performing our estimates uniformly in $\alpha$. The other dimension can be attributed to time translation; if $y(t)$ is a periodic orbit, then so is $ y(t+\tau)$ for any $\tau \in {\mathbb{R}}$. We reduce this dimension by imposing a phase condition; we may assume without loss of generality that the first Fourier coefficient is a positive real number (see Proposition \[prop:TimeTranslation\]).
The central technique we use to determine whether $(a)$ or $(b)$ holds for a given cube is the Krawczyk method [@neumaier1990interval; @moore2009introduction; @hansen2003global; @moore1977test]. For a function $f\in C^1({\mathbb{R}}^n,{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ the Krawczyk operator takes as input a rectangular set $X\subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^n$ and produces as output a rectangular set $K(X) \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^n$. This set $K(X)$ has the properties that, $(i)$ if $K(X) \subseteq X$, then there exists a unique point $ \hat{x} \in X$ for which $f(\hat{x})=0$, and $(ii)$ if $\hat{x} \in X$ and $f(\hat{x}) =0$, then $ \hat{x} \in K(X)$. Clearly $(i) $ implies $(a)$, and if $ X \cap K(X) = \emptyset$ then $(b)$ follows. Additionally, even if we can prove neither $(a)$ nor $(b)$ our situation could still improve; we can replace $X \mapsto X \cap K(X)$ without losing any solutions.
Adjustments are needed to generalize the Krawczyk operator to infinite dimensional systems. In [@galias2007infinite] a Krawczyk operator is defined in Hilbert space to study fixed points and period-2 orbits in an infinite dimensional map. In Section \[sec:KrawczykBanach\] we present a generalization of the Krawczyk operator to Banach spaces.
[r]{}[0.6]{}
To determine whether $(a)$ or $(b)$ holds the Krawczyk operator by itself is not always sufficient, and we combine several additional tests to create a single *pruning operator* (see Section \[sec:Prune\]). One problem is that $y \equiv 0$ is always a trivial periodic solution to . To avoid this pitfall, we use Lemma \[prop:zeroneighborhood2\] which rules out small periodic solutions [@BergJaquette]. A further difficulty is that at the Hopf bifurcation, the principal branch of periodic solutions is pinched to a point as their amplitudes approach zero. To handle this case, we use Lemma \[prop:BifNbd\] which explicitly gives a neighborhood about the Hopf bifurcation within which the only solutions that could exist are on the principal branch [@BergJaquette]. Lastly, and most simply, if we can directly show that $\|F\|$ is bounded away from zero on a cube $X_n$, then $(b)$ holds.
Algorithm \[alg:BranchAndPrune\] follows the standard format of a global branch and bound method. In short, for a collection of cubes we successively prune each of its cubes. If $(a)$ holds for a given cube, then it is set aside and added to a list of solutions. If $(b)$ holds for a given cube, then that cube is discarded. If the pruning operator significantly reduces the size of a cube, then the pruning operator is applied again. If none of these are the case, then the cube is split in half, and both pieces are added back to the collection of cubes to inspect. This process repeats until all of the cubes have been removed or reduced to a sufficiently small size.
The output of Algorithm \[alg:BranchAndPrune\] is three collections of cubes: ${\mathcal{A}}$, ${\mathcal{B}}$, and ${\mathcal{R}}$ (see Figure \[fig:Verified\]). In Theorem \[prop:BnB\] we show that these sets have the properties that, $(i)$ each cube in ${\mathcal{A}}$ has a unique solution with respect to $\alpha$, $(ii)$ the cubes in ${\mathcal{B}}$ are near the Hopf bifurcation, with any solutions contained therein residing on the principal branch, and $(iii)$ all solutions to $F=0$ are contained in $\bigcup {\mathcal{A}}\cup {\mathcal{B}}\cup {\mathcal{R}}$.
Ideally ${\mathcal{R}}= \emptyset$, and this will often be the case if the zeros of $F$ are simple and the algorithm is allowed to run a sufficiently long time. However we are trying to verify not just simple, isolated solutions, but a 1-parameter family of solutions. As such, sometimes when a cube is split in two this division will bisect the curve of solutions (see Figure \[fig:BranchANDBound\]). When this occurs the algorithm will be forced to subdivide many cubes near where the solution curve was bisected, resulting in the variably sized cubes noticeable in Figure \[fig:Verified\]. To address this we recombine the cubes in ${\mathcal{R}}$ which have the same $\alpha$ values, then subsequently use the Krawczyk operator to show that $(a)$ holds on the recombined cubes (see Algorithm \[alg:Recombine\]). In this fashion, we prove Theorem \[prop:Jones\].
Krawczyk Operator {#sec:KrawczykBanach}
-----------------
In numerical analysis there are many variations on the theme of Newton’s method: $
x_{n+1} \mapsto x_n - Df(x_n)^{-1} f(x_n).
$ As inverting a matrix is computationally expensive, one alternative method is to replace $ DF(x_n)^{-1}$ with a fixed matrix $A^\dagger \approx Df(x_0)^{-1}$. If $f(x_0) \approx 0$, then the Newton-Kantorovich theorem gives conditions for when the map $ T(x) = x - A^\dagger f(x)$ defines a contraction map in a neighborhood about $x_0$. The Krawczyk operator may be thought of as a way of bounding the image of $T$, itself being defined on rectangular sets $ X \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^n$ and having the property that $T(X) \subseteq K(X,x_0)$. Rectangular, in the sense that $X$ can be given as the product of intervals in the coordinate directions of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$. Here we generalize the Krawczyk operator to non-rectangular subsets of Banach spaces.
\[def:Krawczyk\] Let $Y,Z$ denote Banach spaces and let $ A^\dagger:Z \to Y$ be an injective, bounded linear operator. Fix a convex, closed and bounded set $X \subseteq Y$, a neighborhood $ U \supseteq X$, and a Frechet differentiable function $f:U \to Z $. Let $$( I - A^\dagger Df(X))(X-\bar{x}) = \overline{conv} \left( \bigcup_{x_1,x_2 \in X} ( I - A^\dagger Df(x_1)) (x_2-\bar{x}) \right),$$ where $\overline{conv}$ denotes the closure of the convex hull. For a point $ \bar{x} \in X$ we define the Krawczyk operator $K(X,\bar{x})$ as: $$\label{eq:KrawczykDef}
K(X,\bar{x}) := \bar{x} - A^\dagger f( \bar{x}) + ( I - A^\dagger Df(X))(X-\bar{x}) \subseteq Y.$$
Typically $ \bar{x}$ is taken to be the center of $ X$, and $A^\dagger$ is taken to be an approximate inverse of $ DF(\bar{x})$. If $ K(X,\bar{x}) \subseteq X$ for a rectangular set $X \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^n$, then there exists a unique $\hat{x}$ such that $ f(\hat{x})=0$. In Theorem \[prop:Krawczyk\] we prove an analogous result. The existence of a fixed point is achieved by the Schauder fixed point theorem. However to prove uniqueness, dropping the rectangular condition causes problems even in finite dimensions; in Theorem \[prop:Krawczyk\] $(iv)$ we prescribe a hypothesis sufficient for proving uniquessness in our level of generality.
\[prop:Krawczyk\] Suppose $K$ is a Krawczyk operator as given in Definition \[def:Krawczyk\] and $ T:= x - A^\dagger f(x)$.
(i) If $x \in X$, then $ T(x) \in K(X,\bar{x})$.
(ii) If $ \hat{x} \in X$ and $ f(\hat{x} )=0$, then $ \hat{x} \in K(X,\bar{x})$.
(iii) If $K(X,\bar{x}) \subseteq X$ and $X$ is compact, then there exists a point $ \hat{x} \in X$ such that $ f(\hat{x})=0$.
(iv) If $K(X,\bar{x}) \subseteq X$ and there exists $0 \leq \lambda < 1$ such that $( I - A^\dagger Df(X))(X-\bar{x}) \subseteq \lambda \cdot ( X - \bar{x})$, then there exists a unique point $ \hat{x} \in X$ such that $ f(\hat{x})=0$.
$\,$
(i) Fix a point $x \in X$ and write $ h = x - \bar{x}$. By the mean-value theorem for Frechet differentiable functions [@ambrosetti1995primer], we have: $$\begin{aligned}
T(x)
&= \bar{x} - A^\dagger f(\bar{x}) + \int_{0}^{1} DT( \bar{x} + t h) \cdot h \, dt \nonumber \\
&= \bar{x} - A^\dagger f(\bar{x}) + \lim_{N \to \infty} \sum_{i=1}^N \tfrac{1}{N} \left( I - A^\dagger Df(\bar{x} + \tfrac{i}{N}h) \right) \cdot h \nonumber \\
&\in \bar{x} - A^\dagger f(\bar{x}) + \overline{conv} \left( \left( I - A^\dagger Df(X) \right) \cdot (x - \bar{x}) \right) \\
&\subseteq K(X,\bar{x}). \label{eq:TsubK}
\end{aligned}$$
(ii) If there is some $ \hat{x} \in X$ such that $ f(\hat{x} )=0$, then $\hat{x} = T(\hat{x}) \in K(X,\bar{x})$.
(iii) Since $ T(X) \subseteq K(X,\bar{x})$ by *(i)* and $K(X,\bar{x}) \subseteq X$ by assumption, therefore $ T(X) \subseteq X$. As $T$ is continuous and $X$ is convex and compact, then by the Schauder fixed point theorem there exists some $ \hat{x} \in X$ such that $\hat{x} =T(\hat{x})$. Since $A$ is injective, the zeros of $f$ are in bijective correspondence with the fixed points of $ T$, thereby $ f(\hat{x})=0$.
(iv) Inductively define: $X_0=X$, $x_0 = \bar{x}$, and $X_{n+1} = T(X_n)$, $x_{n+1} = T(x_n) $. Note that as $T(X) \subseteq X$ then $X_{n+1} \subseteq X_n$ for all $n$. We show that $ X_n \subseteq x_n + \lambda^n (X_0 - x_0)$. This is clearly true for $ n=0$. For $ n \geq 1$ then: $$\begin{aligned}
X_{n+1} &\subseteq K(X_n,x_n) \\
&= x_n - A^\dagger f(x_n) + (I -A^\dagger Df(X_n)) \cdot (X_n -x_n) \\
&\subseteq x_{n+1} + (I -A^\dagger D f(X_0)) \cdot \lambda^n (X_0 -x_0) \\
&\subseteq x_{n+1} + \lambda^{n+1} (X_0 - x_0).
\end{aligned}$$ Since $ \lambda^{n} \| X_0-x_0 \|$ can be made arbitrarily small and $ \{ x_n\}_{n=N }^\infty\subseteq X_N$, it follows that $ \{x_n\}$ is a Cauchy sequence. As $X$ is complete, then $ \lim x_n = \hat{x} $ and additionally $ \bigcap_{n=0}^\infty X_n = \hat{x}$. Thereby $\hat{x}$ is the unique fixed point of $T$ in $X_0=X$ and the unique zero of $ f$ in $X$.
Functions and Domains {#sec:FunctionDomain}
---------------------
As in [@BergJaquette; @lessard2010recent], we convert Wright’s equation into a functional equation on the space of Fourier coefficients. For a continuous periodic function $y:{\mathbb{R}}\to {\mathbb{R}}$ with frequency $\omega >0$, we may write it as: $$y(t) = \sum_{k \in {\mathbb{Z}}} c_{k} e^{ i \omega k t }
\label{eq:FourierEquation}$$ where $ c_k \in {\mathbb{C}}$ and $\sum_{k\in {\mathbb{Z}}} |c_k|^2 < \infty$. By [@BergJaquette] it suffices to work with sequences $ \{ c_k \}_{k=1}^{\infty}$ to study periodic solutions to . This is because real-valued functions have Fourier coefficients satisfying $ c_{-k} =c^*_k$, and periodic solutions to necessarily satisfy $c_0 =0$. Hence we define the following Banach spaces: $$\begin{aligned}
\ell^1 :=& \left\{ \{ c_k \}_{k=1}^\infty : c_k \in {\mathbb{C}}\mbox{ and } \sum_{k=1}^\infty | c_k| < \infty \right\} & \| c \|_{\ell^1} =& 2 \sum_{k = 1}^\infty | c_k| \\
\Omega^s :=& \left\{ \{ c_k \}_{k=1}^\infty : c_k \in {\mathbb{C}}\mbox{ and } \sup_{k \in{\mathbb{N}}} k^s |c_k| < \infty \right\} & \| c \|_{s} =& \sup_{k \in{\mathbb{N}}} k^s | c_k|.\end{aligned}$$ The smoother a function is the faster its Fourier coefficients will decay; if a function is $s$–times continuously differentiable, then its Fourier coefficients will be in $ {\Omega}^s$. Since periodic solutions to are real analytic [@wright1955non; @nussbaum-analytic], it follows that their Fourier coefficients will be in $ {\Omega}^s$ for all $ s \geq 0$.
If $y$ is a solution to Wright’s equation, then by substituting into we obtain: $$\sum_{k \in {\mathbb{Z}}} i \omega k c_k e^{ i \omega k t} = - \alpha \left(\sum_{k \in {\mathbb{Z}}} c_k e^{-i \omega k} e^{ i \omega k t}\right) \left( 1 + \sum_{k \in {\mathbb{Z}}} c_k e^{ i \omega k t}\right).$$ By matching the $ e^{ i \omega k t}$ terms, subtracting the RHS, and dividing through by $\alpha$, we obtain the following sequence of equations for $k \in {\mathbb{Z}}$ below: $$\begin{aligned}
[F(\alpha,\omega,c)]_k=&\,
\left( i \tfrac{\omega}{\alpha} k + e^{ - i \omega k} \right) c_k + \sum_{\substack{k_1,k_2\in{\mathbb{Z}}\\ k_1 + k_2 = k}} e^{- i \omega k_1} c_{k_1} c_{k_2}
\label{eq:FourierSequenceEquation} \\
=&\,
\left( i \tfrac{\omega}{\alpha} k + e^{ - i \omega k }\right) c_k + \sum_{j=1}^{k-1} e^{-i \omega j } c_j c_{k-j} + \sum_{j=1}^{\infty} \left(e^{-i \omega (j+k) } +e^{i \omega j } \right) c_j^* c_{j+k}.
\label{eq:FourierSequenceEquation_2} \end{aligned}$$ Dividing through by $\alpha$ ensures that the parameter dependence in $F$ is solely concentrated in the linear part. In this manner $y$ is a periodic solution with frequency $ \omega$ to Wright’s equation at parameter $ \alpha$ if and only if $ [F(\alpha,\omega, c)]_k=0$ for all $ k \in {\mathbb{Z}}$ [@BergJaquette; @jlm2016Floquet].
To more succinctly express the functional $F$ we introduce additional notation. For a sequence $ c=\{ c_k\}_{k=1}^\infty$ we denote the projection onto the $k$-coefficient by $ [c]_k := c_k$. We define unnormalized basis elements $ e_j \in \ell^1,{\Omega}^s$ for $ j\in {\mathbb{N}}$ by: $$\begin{aligned}
[e_j]_k =
\begin{cases}
1 & \mbox{ if } k = j, \\
0 & \mbox{ if } k \neq j.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ We define the discrete convolution $a*b$ for $ a,b \in \ell^1$ component-wise by: $$\begin{aligned}
\left[ a * b \right]_k &:= \sum_{|k_1| + |k_2| = k} a_{k_1} b_{k_2} &
& = \sum_{j=1}^{k-1} a_j b_{k-j} + \sum_{j=1}^\infty a_j^* b_{k+j} + a_{k+j} b_j^*,\end{aligned}$$ where $ a_{-k} = a_k^*$ and $ b_{-k}=b_k^*$, and the sum is taken over $ k_1 , k_2 \in {\mathbb{Z}}$. The space $\ell^1$ is a Banach algebra, which is to say that $\| a * b \|_{\ell^1} \leq \|a \|_{\ell^1} \| b\|_{\ell^1} $ for all $ a , b \in \ell^1$. While $ {\Omega}^s$ is not a Banach algebra *per se*, if $ s \geq 2$ then there exists a constant $B \geq 0$ such that $ \| a * b \|_s \leq B \| a \|_s \| b \|_s$ for all $a ,b \in \Omega^s$ (see [@lessard2010recent; @berg2008chaotic]). Lastly, we define a linear operator ${\mathcal{K}}: \Omega^{s} \to \Omega^{s+1}$ and a continuous family of linear operators $U_\omega : \Omega^{s }\to \Omega^{s-1}$ as below: $$\begin{aligned}
[{\mathcal{K}}c ]_k &:= c_k /k ,&&&
[ U_\omega c ]_k &:= e^{-i k \omega} c_k .\end{aligned}$$ The loss of regularity in the range of $U_\omega$ is necessary for its continuity, as $\frac{\partial}{\partial \omega} U_{\omega} = - i {\mathcal{K}}^{-1} U_{\omega}$. We may extend $ U_\omega$ to act on bi-infinite sequences $\{c_k\}_{k \in {\mathbb{Z}}}$ using the same component-wise definition. Additionally, this extension is compatible with our definition of the discrete convolution, as $[U_\omega c]_k^* = [U_\omega c]_{-k}$ whenever $c_{k}^* = c_{-k}$. In Definition \[def:Functional\] we rewrite in operator notation and list several propositions, the proofs of which are left to the reader.
\[def:Functional\] Define the function $F:{\mathbb{R}}^2 \times \Omega^{s} \to \Omega^{s-1}$ as: $$F(\alpha,\omega,c) := ( i \tfrac{\omega}{\alpha} {\mathcal{K}}^{-1} + U_{\omega}) c + (U_{\omega} c) * c.$$
\[prop:Equivalence\] Let $\alpha, \omega>0$. If $ c \in \ell^1$ solves $F(\alpha,\omega,c) =0$, then $y(t)$, given by with $ c_0=0$ and $ c_{-k} = c^*_k$, is a periodic solution of with period $2\pi/\omega$. Vice versa, if $y(t)$ is a periodic solution of with period $2\pi/\omega$, then its Fourier coefficients satisfy $c_0 = 0 $, $c_{-k} =c_{k}^*$, $\{c_k\}_{k=1}^\infty \in \ell^1 $ and solve $F(\alpha,\omega,\{c_k\}_{k=1}^\infty) =0$.
\[prop:Frechet\] For each $\alpha > 0$ and $ s \geq 2 $ the function $F:{\mathbb{R}}^2 \times \Omega^{s} \to \Omega^{s-1}$ is Frechet differentiable, with partial derivatives given as: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial}{\partial \omega}
F(\alpha,\omega,c) &= i {\mathcal{K}}^{-1} (\alpha^{-1} I - U_{\omega}) c - i ({\mathcal{K}}^{-1} U_{\omega} c) * c \label{eq:dFdW} \\
\frac{\partial }{\partial c} F(\alpha,\omega,c) \cdot h &= ( i \tfrac{\omega}{\alpha} {\mathcal{K}}^{-1} + U_\omega) h + (U_\omega c) * h + (U_\omega h )*c, \label{eq:dFdC}
\end{aligned}$$ where $ h \in \Omega^{s}$.
\[prop:DerivativeComponent\] Define $\gamma_1(k,n) := e^{-i \omega(n+k)} + e^{i \omega n} $ and $ \gamma_2(k,n) := e^{-i \omega n} + e^{i \omega (n-k) } $. Writing $ c_k = a_k + i b_k$, the component-wise derivatives of $ F$ are given as: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial}{\partial \omega }
[F(\alpha, \omega,c)]_k
=& \;
i k ( \alpha^{-1} - e^{ - i \omega k }) c_k
-i \sum_{j=1}^{k-1} j e^{-i \omega j } c_j c_{k-j} \nonumber \\ &
\;- i \sum_{j=1}^{\infty} \left( (j+k)e^{-i \omega (j+k) } -j e^{i \omega j } \right) c_j^* c_{j+k} . \\
\frac{\partial}{\partial a_n} [F(\alpha,\omega,c)]_k
=& \;
( i \tfrac{\omega}{\alpha} k + e^{ - i \omega k })+
\begin{cases}
\gamma_1 c_{n+k} + \gamma_2 c_{k-n} & \mbox{if } 1\leq n < k \\
\gamma_1 c_{n+k} + \gamma_2 c_{n-k}^*
& \mbox{if } k \leq n .
\end{cases} \\
\frac{1}{i} \frac{\partial}{\partial b_n} [F(\alpha,\omega,c)]_k
=& \;
( i \tfrac{\omega}{\alpha} k + e^{ - i \omega k })+
\begin{cases}
-\gamma_1 c_{n+k} + \gamma_2 c_{k-n} & \mbox{if } 1 \leq n < k \\
-\gamma_1 c_{n+k} + \gamma_2 c_{n-k}^*
& \mbox{if } k \leq n.
\end{cases}
\end{aligned}$$
Decomposition of Phase Space
----------------------------
By working in a space of rapidly decaying Fourier coefficients, we are able to closely approximate the value of $F$ using a Galerkin projection. Since $F: {\mathbb{R}}^2 \times {\Omega}^{s} \to {\Omega}^{s-1}$ has distinct domain and range, we need to define two sets of projection maps. We define projection maps $ \pi_\alpha ,\pi_{\omega} : {\mathbb{R}}^2 \times {\Omega}^s \to {\mathbb{R}}$ and $ \pi_c : {\mathbb{R}}^2 \times {\Omega}^s \to {\Omega}^s$ on points $ x= ( \tilde{\alpha},\tilde{\omega},\tilde{ c}) \in {\mathbb{R}}^2 \times {\Omega}^s$ as: $$\begin{aligned}
\pi_{\alpha} (x) &:= \tilde{\alpha}
&
\pi_{\omega} (x) &:= \tilde{\omega}
&
\pi_{c} (x) &:= \tilde{c} .\end{aligned}$$ For a fixed integer $M \in {\mathbb{N}}$, define the projection maps $\pi_{M}, \pi_{\infty} : {\Omega}^s \to {\Omega}^s$ by: $$\begin{aligned}
\pi_{M}(c) &:= \sum_{k=1}^M [c]_k e_k &&&
\pi_{\infty}(c) &:= c - \pi_{M} (c).
\label{eq:Galerkin1}\end{aligned}$$ Define the projection maps $\pi_{M}' ,\pi_\infty': {\mathbb{R}}^2 \times {\Omega}^s \to {\mathbb{R}}^2 \times {\Omega}^s$ by: $$\begin{aligned}
\pi_{M}'(c) &:= (\pi_\alpha(x), \pi_\omega(x), \pi_{M} \circ \pi_c (x)) &&&
\pi_{\infty}'(c) &:= (0,0, \pi_{\infty} \circ \pi_c (x)).
\label{eq:Galerkin2}\end{aligned}$$ For any bounded set $X \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^2 \times {\Omega}^s$, define: $$|X|_k := \sup_{x \in X} \left| [\pi_{c} (x)]_k \right|.$$ We define for $ F$ its Galerkin projection and remainder $ F_M, F_\infty : {\mathbb{R}}^2 \times {\Omega}^{s} \to {\Omega}^{s-1}$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
F_M( x) &:= \pi_M \circ F( \pi_M'(x)), &
F_\infty(x) &:= F(x) - F_M(x).\end{aligned}$$ By construction $ F = F_M + F_\infty$.
To show that there is a unique SOPS to we need to evaluate $F$ not just on single points but on voluminous subsets of its domain. The central subset of ${\mathbb{R}}^2 \times {\Omega}^s$ we consider in this paper are *cubes* which we define as follows:
\[def:cube\] For $M \in {\mathbb{N}}$, $s\geq 0$, $C_0>0$ define a cube $ X := X_M \times X_\infty \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^2 \times \Omega^s$ to be of the following form: $$\begin{aligned}
X_{M} &:= [\underline{\alpha},\overline{\alpha}] \times [\underline{\omega},\overline{\omega}] \times \prod_{k=1}^M [\underline{A}_k , \overline{A}_k] \times [\underline{B}_k , \overline{B}_k] \label{eq:XMdef} \\
X_\infty &:= \left\{ c_k \in {\mathbb{C}}: |c_k| \leq C_0 /k^s \right\}_{k=M+1}^\infty \label{eq:XIdef}.
\end{aligned}$$
To denote the union of a collection of cubes ${\mathcal{S}}: = \{ X_i \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^2 \times {\Omega}^s \}$ we define $ \bigcup {\mathcal{S}}:= \bigcup_{X \in {\mathcal{S}}} X \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^2 \times \tilde{{\Omega}}^s$.
There are primarily two reasons we have chosen to consider cubical subsets of $ {\mathbb{R}}^2 \times {\Omega}^s$. Firstly, cubes are particularly easy to refine into smaller pieces. This is useful because to begin using a branch and bound method, we need to obtain global bounds on the solution space, and then partition these bounds into smaller pieces. In practice, we reduce the size of a cube by either subdividing it along a lower dimension into two cubes, or replacing the cube by its intersection with the Krawczyk operator: $X \mapsto X \cap K(X,\bar{x})$. In both these cases the resulting object is again a cube. In this manner, we can use cubes to cover the solutions to $ F=0$, and then refine the cover using successively smaller cubes.
Secondly, cubes facilitate explicit computations of $F_M$ and analytical estimates of $F_\infty$. While formally $F_M$ is an infinite dimensional map, computationally, we may consider $F_M$ to be a map $ {\mathbb{R}}^2 \times {\mathbb{C}}^M \to {\mathbb{C}}^M$. To calculate $F_M$, we simply truncate the second sum in at $ j = M-k$. As the $\pi'_M$ projection of a cube is given as a finite product of intervals, it is well suited for using interval arithmetic [@moore2009introduction] to bound the image of $F_M(X)$. On the other hand, bounding $F_\infty$ requires significantly more analysis. Below is a simple, yet ever recurring estimate in our calculations: $$\label{eq:SumIntegral}
\sum_{k=M+1}^\infty \frac{1}{k^s} \leq \int_M^\infty \frac{1}{x^s} dx = \frac{1}{(s-1)M^{s-1}},$$ where we take $ s >1$. For example, if a cube $ X \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^2 \times {\Omega}^s$ satisfies $ s >1$, then $ \| \pi_c x \|_{\ell^1} \leq 2 \sum_{k=1}^M |X|_k + \frac{2 C_0 }{(s-1)M^{s-1}} $ for all $ x \in X$. This specific bound on the $\ell^1$ norm is later used in Algorithm \[alg:Prune\] to check whether Lemmas \[prop:zeroneighborhood2\] or \[prop:BifNbd\] apply.
\[prop:zeroneighborhood2\] Let $\omega \geq 1.1$, $\alpha \in (0,2]$, and define $$g(\alpha,\omega) := \sqrt{ \left(1- \tfrac{\omega}{\alpha} \right)^2 + 2 \, \tfrac{\omega}{\alpha} \left( 1- \sin \omega \right)} .
\label{eq:ZeroNbd}$$ If $F(\alpha,\omega,c)=0$, then either $c \equiv 0$ or $ g(\alpha,\omega) \leq \|c \|_{\ell^1} $.
\[prop:BifNbd\] For each $\alpha \in ({\tfrac{\pi}{2}}, {\tfrac{\pi}{2}}+ 0.00553] $ there is a unique (up to time translation) periodic solution to Wright’s equation with Fourier coefficients satisfying $ \|c \|_{\ell^1} \leq 0.18$ and having frequency $ | \omega - {\tfrac{\pi}{2}}| \leq 0.0924$.
We note that while Lemma \[prop:zeroneighborhood2\] is stated only for $ \omega \geq 1.1$ and $ \alpha \in (0,2]$, a more general formula is given in [@BergJaquette]. Also, we present the hypothesis of Lemma \[prop:BifNbd\] in terms of a bound on $ \| c\|_{\ell^1}$ as opposed to a bound on $ \| y'\|_{L^2}$ as in the original paper. This allows us to use the stronger result derived in the proof of [@BergJaquette Theorem 4.10], namely that the solution *exists* and is unique, as opposed to the exact result stated in [@BergJaquette Theorem 4.10], which is that there is most one periodic solution.
The remainder of this section is dedicated to proving Lemma \[prop:CentralLemma\], which estimates $F_\infty$, its derivatives, and convolution products resulting from points inside of a cube. These estimates are used in Definition \[def:KrawczykApprox\] to construct an outer approximation to the Krawczyk operator. The reader is encouraged to skip the proof of Lemma \[prop:CentralLemma\] on a first reading, which is best summarized as bounding various infinite sums by various finite sums and the estimate in . These bounds are presented in Definition \[def:Gfunctions\], all of which are given as a finite number of operations, explicitly computable in terms of $C_0$ and the $\pi'_M$-projection of a given cube. In Lemma \[prop:DiscreteConv\] we define the constant $\gamma_M$ which is needed for the definition of .
\[prop:DiscreteConv\] Let $s \geq 2$ and let $s_*$ be the largest integer such that $ s_* \leq s$ and define: $$\gamma_k := 2 \left[ \frac{k}{k-1}\right]^s + \left[ \frac{4 \ln (k-2)}{k} + \frac{\pi^2 -6}{3} \right] \left[ \frac{2}{k} + \frac{1}{2} \right]^{s_*-2}.$$ For $k \geq 4$, we have that $ \sum_{k_1 =1}^{k-1} \frac{k^s}{k_1^{s} (k-k_1)^s} \leq \gamma_k $. If $ 6 \leq M \leq k$, then $ \gamma_k \leq \gamma_M $.
\[def:Gfunctions\] Fix a cube $ X $ with $ s >2$, define $C_1 := \sup_{x\in X} \| \pi_c x \|_s$, and select a point $ \bar{x} = (\bar{\alpha},\bar{\omega} , \bar{c}) \in X$ such that $ \bar{x} = \pi'_M(\bar{x} )$. Define $ H = X - \bar{x}$, and define $ \Delta_\omega \in {\mathbb{R}}$ such that $\Delta_\omega \geq \sup_{x \in H} |\pi_\omega (x) - \bar{\omega}| $.
Define $h,g_M^{i},g_M^{ii} $ to be functions of the form $ g_M : X \mapsto g_M(X) \in {\mathbb{R}}^M$ and define $g_\infty^i,g_\infty^{ii,a},g_\infty^{ii,b}$ to be functions of the form $ g_\infty: X \mapsto g_\infty(X) \in {\mathbb{R}}$ as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
[h(X)]_k := &\; \frac{2 C_0^2}{(s-1)M^{s-1} (M+k+1)^{s} }+ 2 C_0 \sum_{j = M-k+1}^M \frac{ |X|_j}{(j+k)^s} \label{eq:F_tail} \\
[g_M^{i}(X)]_k := &\;
2 C_0 \Delta_\omega \sum_{j = M-k+1}^M \frac{|X|_j}{(j+k)^{(s-1)}} \nonumber \\
&+ \frac{C_0^2 \Delta_\omega}{(s-2)(M+k+1)^sM^{(s-2)} } +
\frac{C_0^2 \Delta_\omega }{(s-1)(M+k+1)^{(s-1)}M^{(s-1)} } \label{eq:giM} \\
[g_M^{ii}(X)]_k := & \;
\frac{4 C_0^2 }{(s-1)(M+k+1)^s M^{s-1}} +
2 C_0 \sum_{j = M-k+1}^M \frac{|H|_j}{(j+k)^s} \label{eq:giiM} \\
g_\infty^i(X) := &\;
\max_{ M+1 \leq k \leq 2M } k^{s} \sum_{j=k-M}^{M} |\bar{c}_j \bar{c}_{k-j}| \label{eq:giInfty}\\
g_\infty^{ii,a}(X) := &\; \max_{M+1 \leq k \leq 2 M} k^s \sum_{j=k-m}^M |H|_j |X|_{k-j} \nonumber \\
&+ \frac{2 C_0^2 (2^s+1)}{(s-1)M^{s-1}} + C_0 \sum_{j=1}^{M} \left(|X|_j +|H|_j \right) \left( \left( \frac{M+j+1}{M+1} \right)^s +1 \right)
\label{def:giiB} \\
g_\infty^{ii,b}(X) := &\; \frac{C_1^2 \gamma_{M+1}}{2} + C_ 0C_1 \left( \frac{s-1}{(M+2)(s-2)} + \frac{s}{s-1} \right) . \label{def:giiC}
\end{aligned}$$
\[prop:CentralLemma\] Fix a cube $X$ with $ M \geq 5$, $s >2$, a point $ \bar{x} \in X$ such that $ \bar{x} = \pi'_M(\bar{x} )$, and define $H = X - \bar{x}$. Then the following inequalities hold: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:prop_F_tail}
\sup_{x \in X}
\left|F_{\infty}(x) \right|_k &< [h(X)]_k
& 1 \leq k \leq M \\
\label{eq:prop_finite_defect_w}
\sup_{x \in X , h \in H}
\left|\tfrac{\partial}{\partial \omega} F_{\infty}(x)
\cdot \pi_\omega(h) \right|_k
&\leq [g_M^{i}(X) ]_k
& 1 \leq k \leq M \\
\label{eq:prop_finite_defect_c}
\sup_{x \in X , h \in H}
\left|\tfrac{\partial}{\partial c} F_{\infty}(x)
\cdot \pi_c(h) \right|_k
& \leq[ g_M^{ii}(X) ]_k
& 1 \leq k \leq M \\
\label{eq:prop_F_infty_center}
\left| F_\infty( \bar{x}) \right|_k &\leq \frac{1}{ k^s} g_\infty^i(X)
& M + 1 \leq k \\
\label{eq:prop_giiB}
\sup_{x \in X , h \in H}
\left|\pi_c(h)* \pi_c(x) \right|_k &\leq \frac{1}{k^s} g_\infty^{ii,a}(X)
& M + 1 \leq k \\
\label{eq:prop_giiC}
\sup_{x_1 , x_2 \in X}
\left|({\mathcal{K}}^{-1} \pi_c(x_1)) * \pi_c(x_2) \right|_k &\leq \frac{1}{k^{s-1}} g_\infty^{ii,b}(X)
& M + 1 \leq k .
\end{aligned}$$
Throughout, let us write $X_M = \pi'_M (X)$, $H_M = \pi'_M (H)$, and $H_\infty = \pi_\infty' (H)$, noting also that $ H_\infty = \pi_\infty'(X)$.
We show that $\left|F_{\infty}(x) \right|_k < [h(X)]_k$ for $ 1 \leq k \leq M$ and all $x \in X$. Fix $x = (\alpha,\omega,c) \in X$, and write $c_M = \pi_M(c) $ and $c_\infty = \pi_\infty (c)$. We compute: $$\begin{aligned}
\pi_M \circ F_\infty (x) &= \pi_M \circ \left(F(x) - F( \pi'_M x) \right)\\
&= \pi_M \circ
\left(
( U_\omega c ) * c - ( U_\omega c_M) * c_M
\right)
\\
&=
\pi_M \circ
\left( ( U_\omega c_M) * c_\infty + ( U_\omega c_\infty) * c_M + (U_\omega c_\infty) * c_\infty
\right)
\end{aligned}$$ Since $ |U_\omega c |_k = |c|_k$, it follows that for $1 \leq k \leq M$ we compute the estimate below: $$\begin{aligned}
\left| ( U_\omega c_M) * c_\infty \right|_k + \left| (U_\omega c_\infty )* c_M \right|_k
\leq& 2 \sum_{j=1}^\infty
|c_M^*|_j |c_\infty|_{k+j} + |c_M|_{k+j} |c_\infty^*|_{j} \\
=& 2
\sum_{j = M-k+1}^M \left| c_M^* \right|_{j} \left| c_\infty \right|_{j+k} \\
\leq& 2 \sum_{j = M-k+1}^M | X|_j \frac{C_0}{(j+k)^s} .
\end{aligned}$$ The last estimate uses the property that $ |c_j| \leq C_0/j^s$ for $ j \geq M+1$.
We calculate $( U_\omega c_\infty) * c_\infty$ as below, again using $ |c_j| \leq C_0/j^s$ for $ j \geq M+1$. $$\begin{aligned}
\left| ( U_\omega c_\infty) * c_\infty \right|_k
&\leq \sum_{j=M+1}^\infty |c^*_\infty|_j |c_\infty |_{k+j} + | c_\infty |_{j+k} |c_\infty^*|_j \\
&\leq \sum_{j=M+1}^\infty \frac{2 C_0^2}{j^s (j+k)^s}
\leq \frac{2 C_0^2}{(s-1)M^{s-1} (M+k+1)^{s} }.
\end{aligned}$$ Hence for $ 1 \leq k \leq M$, it follows that: $$\begin{aligned}
\left|F_{\infty}(x) \right|_k &\leq \; \frac{2 C_0^2}{(s-1)M^{s-1} (M+k+1)^{s} }+ 2 C_0 \sum_{j = M-k+1}^M \frac{ |X|_j}{(j+k)^s} \\
&= [h(X)]_k .
\end{aligned}$$
We show that $\left|\tfrac{\partial}{\partial \omega} F_{\infty}(x) \cdot \pi_\omega(h) \right|_k
\leq [g_M^{i}(X) ]_k $ for $
1 \leq k \leq M $ and all $ x \in X$ and $h \in H$. Select some $x = (\alpha , \omega , c) \in X$ and write $c_M = \pi_M(c) $ and $c_\infty = \pi_\infty (c)$. From we can calculate $\frac{\partial}{\partial \omega}
F_\infty(x) $ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\tfrac{\partial}{\partial \omega} F_\infty (x)
&= - i ({\mathcal{K}}^{-1} U_{\omega} c) * c + i \pi_M ({\mathcal{K}}^{-1} U_{\omega} c_M) * c_M
\nonumber \\
&= -i \pi_{\infty}\left( {\mathcal{K}}^{-1} U_\omega c_M \right) *c_M
- i \left( {\mathcal{K}}^{-1} U_\omega c_M \right) * c_\infty
- i \left( {\mathcal{K}}^{-1} U_{\omega} c_\infty \right) ( c_M + c_\infty) .
\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ Hence, for $ 1 \leq k \leq M$ we may calculate the following: $$\begin{aligned}
\left| \tfrac{\partial}{\partial \omega} F_\infty(x) \right|_k&
\leq \sup_{c_M \in X_M; \,c_\infty,c_\infty' \in H_\infty}
\left| ( {\mathcal{K}}^{-1} c_M) * c_\infty
+ ( {\mathcal{K}}^{-1} c_\infty) * c_M + ( {\mathcal{K}}^{-1} c_\infty) * c_\infty' \right|_k. \label{eq:dF_infty_dW}
\end{aligned}$$
For $1 \leq k \leq M$ and any $c_M \in X_M,c_\infty \in H_\infty$ we can simplify the first two summands in as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
({\mathcal{K}}^{-1} c_M) *_k c_\infty
&=
\sum_{j =1}^\infty [{\mathcal{K}}^{-1} c_M^*]_j [c_\infty]_{k+j} + [{\mathcal{K}}^{-1} c_M]_{k+j} [c_\infty^*]_{j} &
&=
\sum_{j =M+1-k}^\infty j [c_M^*]_j [c_\infty]_{k+j} \\
({\mathcal{K}}^{-1} c_\infty) *_k c_M
&=
\sum_{j =1}^\infty [{\mathcal{K}}^{-1} c_\infty^*]_j [c_M]_{k+j} + [{\mathcal{K}}^{-1} c_\infty]_{k+j} [c_M^*]_{j} &
&=
\sum_{j =M+1-k}^\infty (k+j) [c_\infty]_{k+j} [c_M^*]_j .
\end{aligned}$$ Hence, we have the following estimate: $$\begin{aligned}
({\mathcal{K}}^{-1} c_M) *_k c_\infty + ({\mathcal{K}}^{-1} c_\infty) *_k c_M
&=
\sum_{j = M-k+1}^M (2j+k)[c_\infty]_{j+k} [c_M^*]_j
\nonumber
\\
\left| ({\mathcal{K}}^{-1} c_M) * c_\infty\right|_k + \left|({\mathcal{K}}^{-1} c_\infty) * c_M \right|_k &\leq \sum_{j = M-k+1}^M \frac{(2j+k)C_0}{(j+k)^s} |X|_j
\nonumber
\\
&\leq 2 C_0 \sum_{j = M-k+1}^M \frac{|X|_j}{(j+k)^{s-1}} .
\label{eq:dF_infty_dW_A}
\end{aligned}$$ Again, we used the estimate $ |c_j| \leq C_0/j^s$ for $ j \geq M+1$. We estimate the third summand in for $c_\infty ,c_\infty' \in H_\infty$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
({\mathcal{K}}^{-1} c_\infty) *_k c_\infty' &= \sum_{j=M+1}^\infty j [c_\infty^*]_j [c_\infty']_{k+j} + (j+k) [c_\infty]_{j+k} [c_\infty'{}^*]_j
\nonumber \\
\left| ({\mathcal{K}}^{-1} c_\infty) * c_\infty' \right|_k &\leq \sum_{j=M+1}^\infty \frac{C_0^2}{j^{(s-1)} (j+k)^s} + \frac{C_0^2}{j^{s} (j+k)^{(s-1)}}
\nonumber \\
&\leq \frac{C_0^2 }{(s-2)(M+k+1)^sM^{(s-2)} } +
\frac{C_0^2 }{(s-1)(M+k+1)^{(s-1)}M^{(s-1)} } .
\label{eq:dF_infty_dW_B}
\end{aligned}$$ By combining the estimates from and into , and recalling our choice of $\Delta_\omega$ in Definition \[def:Gfunctions\], then for $ 1 \leq k \leq M $ we obtain the following: $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{x \in X, h \in H} \left|\tfrac{\partial}{\partial \omega} F_{\infty}(x) \cdot \pi_\omega(h) \right|_k
\leq &\;
2 C_0 \Delta_\omega \sum_{j = M-k+1}^M \frac{|X|_j}{(j+k)^{(s-1)}} + \frac{C_0^2 \Delta_\omega }{(s-2)(M+k+1)^sM^{(s-2)} } \nonumber \\
& +
\frac{C_0^2 \Delta_\omega }{(s-1)(M+k+1)^{(s-1)}M^{(s-1)} } \\
=&\;[g_M^{i}(X) ]_k .
\end{aligned}$$
We show that $ \left|\tfrac{\partial}{\partial c} F_{\infty}(x) \cdot \pi_c(h) \right|_k
\leq[ g_M^{ii}(X) ]_k $ for $
1 \leq k \leq M $ and all $ x \in X$ and $h \in H$. Let $(\alpha , \omega , c) \in X$ and $ h \in \pi_c(H)$. From we calculate $ \tfrac{\partial}{\partial c} (F(X)-F_M(X)) \cdot h $ below: $$\begin{aligned}
\tfrac{\partial}{\partial c} (F(x)-F(\pi_M'x)) \cdot h =& \left( (U_\omega h) * c + (U_\omega c)*h \right) - \left( (U_\omega h) * c_M + (U_\omega c_M)*h \right) \\
=& (U_\omega h) * (c-c_M) + (U_\omega (c-c_M) )*h .
\end{aligned}$$ Since $ c-c_M \in H_\infty$, it follows that: $$| \tfrac{\partial}{\partial c} [F(x)-F(\pi'_Mx)] \cdot h |_k
\leq \sup_{h \in H , h' \in H_{\infty}} 2 \cdot |h * h'_{\infty} |_k.$$ For $h \in H$ and $ h' \in H_\infty$ and for $ 1 \leq k \leq M$, we calculate $h*_k h'$ below, using the property that $[h']_j=0$ for $j \leq M$. $$\begin{aligned}
h*_k h' &=
\sum_{j=1}^\infty \, [h^*]_j [h']_{k+j} + [h]_{k+j} [h'{}^{*}]_j \\
&= \sum_{j=M-k+1}^{M} [h^*]_{j} [h']_{ k+j} +
\sum_{j=M+1}^{\infty } [h^*]_{j} [h']_{k+j} + [h]_{k+j} [h'{}^{*}]_j .
\end{aligned}$$ By applying the estimates $|h_j| \leq |H|_j$ for $j \leq M$, and $ |h|_j,|h'|_j \leq C_0 / j^s$ for $ j \geq M+1$, we obtain the following: $$\begin{aligned}
\left| \tfrac{\partial}{\partial c } F_\infty(x) \cdot h \right|_k
&\leq 2
\left(
\sum_{j=M-k+1}^{M} |H|_j \frac{C_0}{(j+k)^s} +
\sum_{j=M+1}^{\infty } \frac{2 C_0^2 }{j^s (j+k)^s} \right)\\
&\leq
2C_0 \sum_{j=M-k+1}^{M} \frac{|H|_{j}}{(j+k)^s} \; +\; \frac{4 C_0^2 }{(s-1)(M+k+1)^s M^{s-1}} \\
&= [g_M^{ii}(X)]_k.
\end{aligned}$$
We show that $\left| F_\infty( \bar{\alpha}, \bar{\omega} , \bar{c}) \right|_k \leq \frac{1}{ k^s} g_\infty^i(X) $ for $
M + 1 \leq k $. Since $ \pi'_M (\bar{x}) = \bar{x}$ and $ [ \bar{c}]_k =0$ for $ k \geq M+1$, it follows that: $$[ F_\infty ( \bar{\alpha}, \bar{\omega} , \bar{c})]_k =
\begin{cases}
0 & \mbox{ if } k \leq M \\
\sum_{j=1}^{k-1} e^{-i \omega j } \bar{c}_j \bar{c}_{k-j} & \mbox{ otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\label{eq:F_infty_center}$$ As $ \bar{c}_j\bar{c}_{k-j}=0$ when either $ j > M$ or $ k - j >M$, then it follows that: $$\begin{aligned}
|F_\infty ( \bar{\alpha}, \bar{\omega} , \bar{c}) |_k \leq \sum_{j=k-M}^{M} |\bar{c}_j \bar{c}_{k-j}| .
\end{aligned}$$ Noting that $ |F_\infty ( \bar{\alpha}, \bar{\omega} , \bar{c}) |_k=0 $ for $ k > 2 M$, we calculate: $$\begin{aligned}
|F_\infty ( \bar{\alpha}, \bar{\omega} , \bar{c}) |_k &\leq k^{-s}
\max_{ M+1 \leq k_0 \leq 2M } k_0^{s} \sum_{j=k_0-M}^{M} |\bar{c}_j \bar{c}_{k_0-j}| \\
&= k^{-s} g_\infty^i(X) .
\end{aligned}$$
We show that $\left|h* c \right|_k \leq \frac{1}{k^s} g_\infty^{ii,a}(X) $ for $ M + 1 \leq k $ and all $ c \in \pi_c (X)$ and $h \in \pi_c (H)$. Fix $x=(\alpha , \omega , c) \in X$ and $ h \in \pi_c(H)$, and write $c_M = \pi_M(c), c_\infty= \pi _\infty(c), h_M = \pi_M(h)$, and $h_\infty = \pi_\infty(h)$. We may expand $ h*c$ as follows: $$h*c = h_M * c_M + h_M * c_\infty + c_M * h_\infty + h_\infty*c_\infty.
\label{eq:H*X}$$ The composition $ h_M * c_M $ only has non-zero components for $ M+1 \leq k \leq 2M $, thereby it is bounded by the computable value below: $$\begin{aligned}
h_M *_k c_M &\leq \tfrac{1}{k^s} \max \{ k_0^s \cdot h_M *_{k_0} c_M : M+1 \leq k_0 \leq 2 M \} \nonumber \\
&\leq \frac{1}{k^s} \max_{M+1 \leq k_0 \leq 2 M} k_0^s \sum_{j=k_0-m}^M |H|_j |X|_{k_0-j} .
\label{eq:HM*XM}
\end{aligned}$$ We calculate $c_M * h_\infty$ for $ k \geq M+1$, noting that $ [h_\infty]_{k-j}=0$ if $ k-j \leq M$, as below: $$\begin{aligned}
c_M *_k h_\infty =& \;
\sum_{j=1}^{k-1} [c_M ]_{j} [h_\infty]_{k-j}
+ \sum_{j=1}^{\infty} [c_M^* ]_{j} [h_\infty]_{k+j}
+ [c_M]_{k+j} [h_\infty^*]_{j}
\\
=& \sum_{j=k-M-1}^{M} [c_M]_{j} [h_\infty]_{k-j}
+ \sum_{j=1}^{M} [c_M^*]_{j} [h_\infty]_{k+j}
\end{aligned}$$ Using the estimates $ |c_j| \leq |X|_j$ for $j \leq M$ and $ |h_j| \leq C_0 / j^s$ for $ j \geq M+1$, we calculate the following: $$\begin{aligned}
|c_M * h_\infty |_k \leq&
\sum_{j=k-M-1}^M | X|_j \frac{C_0}{(k-j)^s}
+ \sum_{j=1}^{M} | X|_j \frac{C_0}{(k+j)^s}
\nonumber
\\
\leq& \frac{C_0}{k^s} \left(
\sum_{j=k-M-1}^{M} | X|_j \left( \frac{k}{k-j} \right)^s
+ \sum_{j=1}^M | X|_j \right) .
\label{eq:SumWeird}
\end{aligned}$$ Note that $\tfrac{k}{k-j}$ is decreasing with $k$. To maximize the coefficient of $ | X|_j $ in the first sum of , we choose the smallest $k$ such that $ j \leq k - M -1$. Hence, for each coefficient, we choose $k=M+j+1$ as an upper bound. We obtain the following: $$\label{eq:XM*Hinfty}
|c_M * h_\infty|_k \leq \frac{C_0}{k^s} \sum_{j=1}^M |X|_j \left( \left( \frac{M+j+1}{M+1} \right)^s +1 \right) .$$ An analogous calculation produces a bound for $ | h_M * c_\infty|$ as given below: $$\label{eq:HM*Cinfty}
|h_M * c_\infty|_k \leq \frac{C_0}{k^s} \sum_{j=1}^M |H|_j \left( \left( \frac{M+j+1}{M+1} \right)^s +1 \right) .$$ Lastly we estimate $|h_\infty * c_\infty|_k$. For $h_\infty,c_\infty \in H_\infty$ and $ k \geq M+1$ we calculate: $$\begin{aligned}
h_\infty * c_\infty
&= \sum_{j=1}^{k-1} [h_\infty]_j [c_\infty ]_{k-j}
+ \sum_{j=1}^\infty [h_\infty^*]_j [c_\infty ]_{k+j}
+ [h_\infty]_{k+j} [c_\infty^{*}]_j \\
&= \sum_{j=M+1}^{k-M-1} [h_\infty]_j [c_\infty ]_{k-j} +
\sum_{j=M+1}^\infty[h_\infty^*]_j [c_\infty ]_{k+j}
+ [h_\infty]_{k+j} [c_\infty^{*}]_j .
\end{aligned}$$ Taking norms and using the estimate $ |h_j| \leq C_0/j^s$ for $M+1 \leq j$ we obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
|h_\infty * c_\infty|_k
&\leq \sum_{j=M+1}^{k-M-1} \frac{C_0^2}{j^s(k-j)^s} + 2 \sum_{j=M+1}^{\infty} \frac{C_0^2}{j^s(k+j)^s} \\
&\leq C_0^2 \left( \sum_{j=M+1}^{k-M-1} \frac{1}{j^s(k-j)^s} \right) + \frac{2}{k^s} \frac{C_0^2}{(s-1)M^{s-1}} .
\end{aligned}$$ The remaining sum is only nonzero for $ k \geq 2 (M+1)$, and we bound it as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j=M+1}^{k-M-1} \frac{1}{j^s(k-j)^s}
&= \frac{1}{k^s} \sum_{j=M+1}^{k-M-1} \left( \frac{1}{j} + \frac{1}{k-j} \right)^s \\
&\leq \frac{2}{k^s} \sum_{j=M+1}^{k/2} \left( \frac{2}{j} \right)^s \\
&\leq \frac{2^{s+1}}{k^s(s-1)} \left(\frac{1}{M^{s-1}} - \frac{1}{(k/2)^{s-1}} \right).
\end{aligned}$$ This estimate is maximized in the $ \| \cdot \|_s$ norm by taking $k \to \infty$. Thereby, we obtain the following estimate: $$\label{eq:Hinfty*Hinfty}
\left| h_\infty * c_\infty \right|_k \leq \frac{1}{k^s} \frac{2 C_0^2 (2^s+1)}{(s-1)M^{s-1}}.$$ By combining the results from (\[eq:HM\*XM\] - \[eq:Hinfty\*Hinfty\]) into , it follows that if $ M + 1 \leq k $, then $\left|h* c \right|_k \leq \frac{1}{k^s} g_\infty^{ii,a}(X) $.
We show that $ \left|({\mathcal{K}}^{-1} \pi_c(x_1)) * \pi_c(x_2) \right|_k \leq \frac{1}{k^{s-1}} g_\infty^{ii,b}(X) $ for $
M + 1 \leq k $ and all $ x_1,x_2 \in X$. For $ i=1,2$ let us fix $c_i \in \pi_c(X)$ and recall that $ C_1 \geq \| c_i \|_s$ by Definition \[def:Gfunctions\]. We can write $ ({\mathcal{K}}^{-1} c_1 )*_k c_2 $ as below: $$\begin{aligned}
({\mathcal{K}}^{-1} c_1 )*_k c_2
&=
\sum_{j = 1 }^{k-1} j [c_1]_{j} [c_2]_{k-j} +
\sum_{j = k+1 }^{\infty} j [c_1^*]_{j} [c_2]_{k+j} + (k+j) [c_1]_{k+j} [c_2^*]_j .
\end{aligned}$$ Using $ |c|_j \leq C_1 / j^s$ and $ |c|_{k+j} \leq C_0 / (k+j)^s$ for $ k \geq M+1$, we obtain a bound on $ | ({\mathcal{K}}^{-1} c_1 )* c_2|_k$ as below: $$\begin{aligned}
| ({\mathcal{K}}^{-1} c_1 )* c_2|_k
&\leq
\sum_{j = 1 }^{k-1} \frac{j C_1 C_1}{j^{s}(k-j)^s} +
\sum_{j = 1}^{\infty} \frac{ C_1 C_0}{j^{s-1}(k+j)^s} + \sum_{j = 1}^{\infty} \frac{C_0 C_1}{(k+j)^{s-1}j^{s}} \\
&\leq
C_1^2 \left(\sum_{j = 1 }^{k-1} \frac{1 }{j^{s-1}(k-j)^s} \right)
+
\frac{C_1 C_0}{(k+1)^s}\left( 1 + \frac{1}{s-2}\right)
+
\frac{C_1 C_0}{(k+1)^{s-1}}\left( 1 + \frac{1}{s-1}\right).
\end{aligned}$$ Since $ 5 \leq M$, thereby $6 \leq M+1 \leq k$ and by Lemma \[prop:DiscreteConv\] we can simplify the remaining sum as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j =1}^{k-1} \frac{1}{j^{s-1} (k-j)^s} = \frac{k}{2}
\sum_{j =1}^{k-1} \frac{1}{j^{s} (k-j)^s} \leq \frac{k}{2} \frac{\gamma_k}{k^s} \leq \frac{\gamma_{M+1}}{2 k^{s-1}}.
\end{aligned}$$ Taking $ k \geq M+1$, it follows that: $$\begin{aligned}
|({\mathcal{K}}^{-1} \pi_c(x_1)) * \pi_c(x_2)|_k
&\leq
\frac{1}{k^{s-1}} \left(
\frac{C_1^2 \gamma_{M+1}}{2}
+ C_1C_0 \left( \frac{s-1}{(M+2)(s-2)} + \frac{s}{s-1} \right) \right) \\
&= \frac{1}{k^{s-1}} g_\infty^{ii,b}(X) .
\end{aligned}$$
Bounding the Krawczyk Operator {#sec:Krawczyk}
==============================
When defining a Krawczyk operator $K(X,\bar{x})$ for a function $f: Y\to Z$ one must choose a linear operator $ A^\dagger : Z \to Y$. The map $A^\dagger$ is typically chosen to approximate $Df(\bar{x})^{-1}$. Even in finite dimensions it may be impossible to exactly calculate the inverse of a matrix using floating point arithmetic. To denote a fixed but numerically approximate definition, we introduce the notation $: \approx$. Since we set up our theorems in an *a posteriori* format, the question of whether our numerical approximation is sufficiently accurate is answered by whether our computer-assisted proof is successful or not.
As with any method relying on a contraction mapping argument, the Krawczyk operator is only truly effective in locating the zeros of a function if they are isolated. Since the non-trivial zeros of $F$ are not isolated, and in fact form a 2-manifold [@regala1989periodic], we do not define a Krawczyk operator corresponding directly to $F:{\mathbb{R}}^ 2 \times {\Omega}^s \to {\Omega}^{s-1}$. We must first reduce the dimensionality of its domain by two.
We reduce one of the dimensions by imposing a phase condition; we may assume without loss of generality that the first Fourier coefficient is a positive real number (see Proposition \[prop:TimeTranslation\]). To that end, we define a codimension$-1$ subspace $ \tilde{{\Omega}}^s \subseteq {\Omega}^s$ as follows: $$\tilde{{\Omega}}^s := \{ c \in {\Omega}^s : c_1=c_1^*\}.$$ To reduce the other dimension, we consider $\alpha$ as a parameter and perform our estimates uniformly in $\alpha$.
For a cube $ X \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^ 2 \times \tilde{{\Omega}}^s$ we define a Krawczyk operator to find the zeros of functions $ F_\alpha : {\mathbb{R}}^1 \times \tilde{ {\Omega}}^{s} \to {\Omega}^{s-1}$ for all $\alpha \in \pi_{\alpha}(X). $ To that end, we would like to define a map $ A^\dagger $ to be an approximate inverse of the derivative $ DF_{\bar{\alpha}}(\bar{\omega},\bar{c}) \in {\mathcal{L}}( {\mathbb{R}}^1 \times \tilde{{\Omega}}^s,{\Omega}^{s-1})$ for some $ ( \bar{\alpha} , \bar{\omega} , \bar{c}) \in X$. We construct this approximate inverse by combining $A^\dagger_M$, a $2M \times 2M$ real matrix on the lower Fourier modes, with the operator $ - ( i\tfrac{\bar{\alpha}}{\bar{\omega}}) {\mathcal{K}}\pi_\infty'$ on the higher Fourier modes.
As is ever the case, we may only explicitly perform a finite number of operations on fundamentally finite dimensional objects, and because of this we defined Galerkin projections in and . To ensure the sum $F = F_M + F_\infty$ makes sense, the maps $ \pi_M, \pi_M'$ are defined to be but finite rank maps onto a subspace of an infinite dimensional Banach space. To emphasize this finite dimensional subspace as a space in its own right, as well as the new domain ${\mathbb{R}}^1 \times \tilde{{\Omega}}^s $, we define the following projection and inclusion maps: $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\pi}_M &: {\Omega}^s \twoheadrightarrow {\mathbb{R}}^ {2M} ,&
\tilde{\pi}_M' &:{\mathbb{R}}^1 \times \tilde{{\Omega}}^s \twoheadrightarrow {\mathbb{R}}^ {2M} ,&
\tilde{i}_M &: {\mathbb{R}}^ {2M} \hookrightarrow {\Omega}^s ,&
\tilde{i}_M' &: {\mathbb{R}}^ {2M} \hookrightarrow {\mathbb{R}}^1 \times \tilde{ {\Omega}}^s.\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\pi}_M \circ \tilde{i}_M &= id_{{\mathbb{R}}^{2M}}, &
\tilde{\pi}_M' \circ \tilde{i}_M' &= id_{{\mathbb{R}}^{2M}} ,&
\tilde{i}_M \circ \tilde{\pi}_M &= id_{{\Omega}^s} ,&
\tilde{i}_M' \circ \tilde{\pi}_M' &= id_{{\mathbb{R}}^1 \times \tilde{{\Omega}^s}}.\end{aligned}$$ We define the linear operator $A^\dagger$ below in Definition \[def:Adagger\] as follows: We note that $A^\dagger$ will be injective if the $2M\times 2M$ matrix $A^{\dagger}_M$ has rank $2M$.
\[def:Adagger\] Fix a cube $X \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^2 \times \tilde{{\Omega}}^{s}$. For a point $(\bar{\alpha},\bar{\omega},\bar{c}) = \bar{x} \in X$ such that $ \bar{x} = \pi'_M(\bar{x} )$, define the following linear operators: $$\begin{aligned}
A_M
&:\approx \, \tilde{\pi}_M \circ D F_{\bar{\alpha}} (\bar{\omega},\bar{c}) \circ \tilde{i}_M'
&A_M &\in \mathcal{L}({\mathbb{R}}^{2M},{\mathbb{R}}^{2M})
\\
A_M^\dagger
& :\approx A_M^{-1}
&A_M^\dagger &\in \mathcal{L}({\mathbb{R}}^{2M},{\mathbb{R}}^{2M})
\\
A(\bar{x},M)
&:= \tilde{i}_M \circ A_M \circ \tilde{\pi}'_M + i \tfrac{\bar{\omega}}{\bar{\alpha}} {\mathcal{K}}^{-1} \pi'_{\infty}
&A(\bar{x},M) & \in \mathcal{L}({\mathbb{R}}^1 \times \tilde{{\Omega}}^{s} , {\Omega}^{s-1} )
\\
A^{\dagger}(\bar{x},M)
&:= \tilde{i}'_M \circ A^{\dagger}_M \circ \tilde{\pi}_M - i \tfrac{\bar{\alpha}}{\bar{\omega}} {\mathcal{K}}\pi_{\infty}
&A^{\dagger}(\bar{x},M) & \in \mathcal{L}( {\Omega}^{s-1}, {\mathbb{R}}^1 \times \tilde{{\Omega}}^{s} ) .
\end{aligned}$$
While a Krawczyk operator $K(X,\bar{x})$ given as in Definition \[def:Krawczyk\] is sufficient from a mathematical perspective, from a computational perspective it leaves something to be desired. We address this deficiency in Definition \[def:KrawczykApprox\] by defining an explicitly computable operator $ K'(X,\bar{x})$ as an outer approximation to $K(X,\bar{x})$, which is to say that $K(X,\bar{x}) \subseteq K'(X,\bar{x})$. In Theorem \[prop:K\_Inclusion\] we prove this, and in Theorem \[prop:KrawczykOuterApprox\] we give an analogue of Theorem \[prop:Krawczyk\].
In practice, use *interval arithmetic* [@moore2009introduction] to compute an outer approximations for the arithmetic combination of sets (e.g. $A + B = \bigcup_{a\in A, b\in B} a + b$). This allows us to bound the image of functions over rectangular domains, which is to say domains given as the product of intervals. By employing outward rounding, interval arithmetic can be rigorously implemented on a computer [@rump1999intlab]. In every step an outer approximation is constructed as a rectangular domain, and the end result will too be an outer approximation. While obtaining a tight approximation is desirable, it is not required; as long as we have an outer approximation, that is sufficient.
\[def:KrawczykApprox\]
Fix a cube $X\subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^2 \times \tilde{{\Omega}}^s$ as in Definition \[def:cube\] with $M \geq 5$, $s >2$ and $C_0 >0$. Fix some $ \bar{x} = ( \bar{\alpha} , \bar{\omega},\bar{c}) \in X$ such that $\bar{x} = \pi'_M(\bar{x})$ and $ \Delta_{\omega} \geq \sup_{x \in X} | \pi_\omega(x)-\bar{\omega}| $. Fix $ A := A(\bar{x},M)$ and $ A^{\dagger } := A^\dagger(\bar{x},M)$ as in Definition \[def:Adagger\]. Define the following functions: $$\begin{aligned}
g_\infty^{ii}(X) := & \frac{2 \bar{\alpha}}{\bar{\omega} (M+1)} g_\infty^{ii,a}(X) +
\sup_{\alpha \in \pi_\alpha(X)}
\Delta_\omega
\tfrac{ \bar{\alpha }}{\bar{\omega}} \left( ( \alpha^{-1} +1) C_0 + g_\infty^{ii,b}(X) \right) \nonumber \\
&\;+ \sup_{\alpha \in \pi_\alpha(X),\omega \in \pi_\omega(X)}
\left( |1- \tfrac{\bar{\alpha}}{\alpha} \tfrac{\omega}{\bar{\omega}} | + \frac{\bar{\alpha}}{\bar{\omega} ( M+1)} \right) C_0
\label{eq:giiInfty} \\
g_M(X) := & g_M^{i}(X) + g_M^{ii}(X) \\
g_\infty(X) := & \tfrac{\bar{\alpha}/\bar{\omega}}{M+1} g_\infty^{i}(X) + g_\infty^{ii}(X) .
\end{aligned}$$ Define $ K'(X,\bar{x}) := K'_M(X,\bar{x}) \times K'_\infty(X,\bar{x})$ by: $$\begin{aligned}
K'_M(X,\bar{x}) :=& \, \bar{x} - A_M^{\dagger} F_M( \bar{x}) +
(I_M - A_M^{\dagger}A_M) \cdot \pi_M' (X-\bar{x}) \nonumber
\\
& + A_M^{\dagger}( A_M- DF_M(X))(X-\bar{x})
\pm A_M^\dagger g_M(X)
\label{eq:K'M}
\\
K'_\infty(X,\bar{x}) :=& \left\{ c_k \in {\mathbb{C}}: |c_k| < g_\infty(X) /k^s \right\}_{k=M+1}^\infty,
\end{aligned}$$ where $F_M(\bar{x}) \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^{2M}$ is calculated to include the image of $F_M(\bar{x})$ for all $ \alpha \in \pi_\alpha (X)$, where $DF_M(X) \subseteq {\mathcal{L}}({\mathbb{R}}^{2M},{\mathbb{R}}^{2M}) $ is calculated to include the image of ${\tilde{\pi}}_M \circ DF_\alpha(\omega,c) \circ \tilde{i}_M'$ for all $(\alpha,\omega,c) \in X$, and where $ \pm A^\dagger_M g_M(X) \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^{2M}$ is calculated to be a set satisfying: $$\bigcup_{|v|_k \leq |g_M(X)|_k} A_M^\dagger \cdot v \subseteq \pm A^\dagger_M g_M(X).$$
\[prop:K\_Inclusion\] Fix a cube $X$ as in Definition \[def:cube\] with $M \geq 5$, $s >2$ and $C_0>0$. Fix a point $ \bar{x} \in X$ such that $\bar{x} = \pi'_M(\bar{x} )$, and fix $ A := A(\bar{x},M)$, $ A^{\dagger } := A^\dagger(\bar{x},M)$ as in Definition \[def:Adagger\]. Fix some $ \alpha \in \pi_\alpha(X)$, and for $ f \equiv F_\alpha :{\mathbb{R}}^1 \times \tilde{{\Omega}}^s \to {\Omega}^{s-1}$ let $K$ be given as in Definition \[def:Krawczyk\]. Then $ K(X,\bar{x} ) \subseteq K'(X,\bar{x}).$
Let $H := X - \bar{x}$. We begin by proving that $\pi_M' (K(X,\bar{x})) \subseteq \pi_M' ( K'(X,\bar{x}))$, first showing that: $$\begin{aligned}
\pi_{M}' \circ (I- A^\dagger DF (X)) \cdot H
\subseteq &
K'_M(X,\bar{x}) -\left(\bar{x} - A_M^{\dagger} F_M( \bar{x}) \right).
\label{eq:prop:K_M_inclusion}
\end{aligned}$$ Fix some $ x \in X$ and $h = (h_\omega,h_c) \in H$. We start by adding and subtracting $ A^\dagger A$, rewriting the LHS of as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\pi_{M}' (I- A^\dagger DF (x)) \cdot h
=&
(I_M-A^\dagger_M A_M)\cdot \pi_{M}' (h)
+ \pi_{M}' A^\dagger (A- DF (x)) \cdot h \\
=&
(I_M-A^\dagger_M A_M)\cdot \pi_{M}' (h) \\
&+ A_M^{\dagger}( A_M- DF_M(x)) \cdot \pi_{M}' (h) + A^\dagger_M \pi_M DF_\infty (x) \cdot \pi_{M}' (h).
\end{aligned}$$ By and it follows that $ | \pi_M D F_\infty (x) \cdot h |_k \leq [g_M^i (X) + g_M^{ii}(X)]_k $. Thereby, it follows that: $ A_M^\dagger \pi_M D F_\infty (x) \cdot h \subseteq \pm |A_M^\dagger | \cdot g_M(X)$ for all $x \in X$ and $h\in H$. Hence from the definition of $ K'(X,\bar{x}) $ given in , then follows. From we have that $ \pi_M F_\infty(\bar{x}) =0$, hence $ \pi_M' ( \bar{x } - A^\dagger F(\bar{x})) = \bar{x} -A_M^\dagger F_M(\bar{x})$. It then follows that $ \pi_M \circ K(X,\bar{x}) \subseteq K'_M(X,\bar{x})$.
We now prove that $\pi_\infty'(K(X,\bar{x})) \subseteq \pi_\infty'(K'(X,\bar{x}))$, first showing that: $$\begin{aligned}
\left\| \pi_{\infty}' \circ (I- A^\dagger DF (X)) \cdot (X - \bar{x}) \right\|_s \leq& g_\infty^{ii}(X).
\label{eq:prop:F_infty_tail}
\end{aligned}$$ Fix some $ x = (\alpha ,\omega,c) \in X$ and $h = (h_\omega,h_c) \in H$. We start by adding and subtracting $ A^\dagger A$, rewriting the LHS of as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\pi'_{\infty} (I- A^\dagger DF (x)) \cdot h
=& \; \pi'_{\infty} (I- A^\dagger A )\cdot h + \pi'_{\infty} A^\dagger (A- DF (x)) \cdot h \\
=&\; \pi'_\infty \circ A^\dagger ( A - DF(x)) \cdot h \\
=& \;
\pi'_\infty \circ A^\dagger \left(A- \tfrac{\partial}{\partial c} DF (x) \right) \cdot h_c -
\pi'_\infty \circ A^\dagger \tfrac{\partial}{\partial \omega} DF (x) \cdot h_\omega .
\end{aligned}$$ We calculate $- \pi_\infty A^\dagger \frac{\partial}{\partial \omega} F(x) \cdot h_\omega$ writing $\frac{\partial}{\partial \omega} F(x)$ as in below: $$\begin{aligned}
- \pi_\infty \circ A^\dagger \tfrac{\partial}{\partial \omega} F (X)) \cdot h_\omega
=&
-i \pi_{\infty}\frac{ \bar{\alpha} }{\bar{\omega}} {\mathcal{K}}\left( i {\mathcal{K}}^{-1} ( \alpha^{-1} I - U_{\omega}) c - i ( {\mathcal{K}}^{-1} U_{\omega} c) * c \right) \cdot h_\omega \\
=& h_\omega
\frac{ \bar{\alpha }}{\bar{\omega}} \pi_{\infty} \left( ( \alpha^{-1} I - U_{\omega}) c - {\mathcal{K}}({\mathcal{K}}^{-1} U_{\omega} c) * c \right) .\end{aligned}$$ Using $|c|_j \leq C_0 /j^s$ and we obtain for $k \geq M+1$ that: $$\begin{aligned}
\left| \pi_\infty \circ A^\dagger \tfrac{\partial}{\partial \omega} F(x)) \cdot \Delta_\omega \right|_k
\leq&
\Delta_\omega
\frac{ \bar{\alpha }}{\bar{\omega}} \left( ( \alpha^{-1} +1) \frac{C_0}{k^s} + \frac{1}{k} \frac{g_\infty^{ii,b}(X)}{k^{s-1}} \right)
\nonumber
\\
\left\| \pi_\infty \circ A^\dagger \tfrac{\partial}{\partial \omega} F(x)) \cdot \Delta_\omega \right\|_{s}
\leq&
\Delta_\omega
\frac{ \bar{\alpha }}{\bar{\omega}} \left( ( \alpha^{-1} +1) C_0 + g_\infty^{ii,b}(X) \right).
\label{eq:dKdW}\end{aligned}$$ For $(\alpha , \omega, c ) \in X$ we calculate $ \pi_\infty A^\dagger( A- \frac{\partial}{\partial c} F) \cdot h_c$ below: $$\begin{aligned}
\pi_\infty \circ A^\dagger (A- \tfrac{\partial}{\partial c} F (x)) \cdot h_c
&= -i \frac{\bar{\alpha} }{\bar{\omega}} {\mathcal{K}}\left(
\left( i\tfrac{ \bar{\omega}}{\bar{\alpha} }{\mathcal{K}}^{-1} -
(i \tfrac{\omega}{\alpha} {\mathcal{K}}^{-1} + U_\omega)
\right) h_c - (U_\omega h_c) * c - (U_\omega c) * h_c \right) \nonumber \\
&= \pi_\infty \left( (1- \tfrac{\bar{\alpha}}{\alpha} \tfrac{\omega}{\bar{\omega}} ) I + i \tfrac{\bar{\alpha}}{\bar{\omega}} {\mathcal{K}}U_\omega \right) h_c - \pi_\infty i \tfrac{\bar{\alpha}}{\bar{\omega}} {\mathcal{K}}\left( (U_\omega c) *h_c + (U_\omega h_c ) *c \right).\end{aligned}$$ Taking norms and using we obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
\left\| \pi_\infty \circ A^\dagger (A- \tfrac{\partial}{\partial c} F (x)) \cdot h_c \right\|_s \leq& \left( |1- \tfrac{\bar{\alpha}}{\alpha} \tfrac{\omega}{\bar{\omega}} | + \frac{\bar{\alpha}}{\bar{\omega} ( M+1)} \right) C_0 + \frac{2 \bar{\alpha}}{\bar{\omega} (M+1)} g_\infty^{ii,a}(X). \label{eq:dKdC}
\end{aligned}$$ By combining and and taking a supremum over $\alpha$ and $\omega$, we obtain the definition of $g^{ii}_\infty$ in , whereby follows.
To show that $\pi_\infty K(X,\bar{x}) \subseteq K_\infty'(X,\bar{x})$ note that from it follows that: $$\begin{aligned}
\|\pi_\infty(\bar{x} - A^\dagger F(\bar{x} ) ) \|_s
= \| - i \tfrac{\bar{\alpha}}{\bar{\omega}} {\mathcal{K}}\pi_\infty F(\bar{x}) \|_s
\leq \frac{\bar{\alpha}/\bar{\omega}}{M+1}g_\infty^i( X).
\end{aligned}$$ Expanding out $ \pi_\infty K(X,\bar{x})$, it follows that: $$\begin{aligned}
\| \pi_\infty K(X,\bar{x}) \|_s
\leq & \|\pi_\infty(\bar{x} - A^\dagger F(\bar{x} ) ) \|_s +
\left\| \pi_{\infty} (I- A DF (X)) \cdot (X - \bar{x}) \right\|_s \\
\leq & \frac{\bar{\alpha}/\bar{\omega}}{M+1}g_\infty^i( X) + g_\infty^{ii}(X) = g_\infty(X).\end{aligned}$$ Thus $ \pi_\infty K(X,\bar{x}) \subseteq K_\infty'(X,\bar{x})$. Thus, we have proved both that $\pi_M'(K'(X,\bar{x})) \subseteq \pi_M'(K(X,\bar{x}))$ and $\pi_\infty'(K'(X,\bar{x})) \subseteq \pi_\infty'(K(X,\bar{x}))$. Hence it follows that $ K(X,\bar{x}) \subseteq K'(X,\bar{x})$.
\[prop:KrawczykOuterApprox\] Fix a cube $X$ as in Definition \[def:cube\] with $M \geq 5$, $s >2$ and $C_0>0$. Fix a point $ \bar{x} \in X$ such that $ \bar{x} = \pi'_M(\bar{x} )$. Let $K(X,\bar{x})$ and $K'(X,\bar{x})$ be given as in Definition \[def:Krawczyk\] and \[def:KrawczykApprox\] respectively. If $ K'(X,\bar{x}) \subseteq X$, and moreover $g_\infty(X) < C_0$ and: $$\tilde{\pi}_M' \left( K'_M(X,\bar{x}) + A^\dagger_M F_M(\bar{x})\right)
\subseteq int(\tilde{\pi}_M'(X)) ,$$ then for all $\alpha \in \pi_\alpha(X)$ there exists a unique point $ \hat{x}_\alpha = ( \alpha, \hat{\omega}_\alpha , \hat{c}_\alpha) \in X$ such that $ F(\hat{x}_\alpha ) =0$.
Fix $\alpha \in \pi_\alpha(X)$. By Theorem \[prop:Krawczyk\], in order to show that there exists a unique solution to $F_\alpha = 0$, it suffices to show that there is some $ 0 \leq \lambda < 1$ for which: $$(I-A^\dagger DF(X)) (X-\bar{x}) \subseteq \lambda(X-\bar{x}) .$$
We find a $\lambda_M$ which works for the $\pi_M'$-projection and a $\lambda_\infty$ which works for the $ \pi_\infty'$-projection. Since $K(X,\bar{x}) \subseteq K'(X,\bar{x})$ by Theorem \[prop:K\_Inclusion\] and $\tilde{\pi}_M' \left( K'_M(X,\bar{x}) + A^\dagger_M F_M(\bar{x})\right) \subseteq int(\tilde{\pi}_M'(X))$, it follows from the definition of $K(X,\bar{x})$ in that: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\tilde{\pi}_M '\left( K(X,\bar{x}) + A^\dagger F(\bar{x}) \right)
&\subseteq int(\tilde{\pi}_M'(X))
\\
\tilde{\pi}_M'\left((I-A^\dagger DF(X)) (X-\bar{x}) \right)
&\subseteq int \left(\tilde{\pi}_M'(X - \bar{x}) \right)
\label{eq:CompactContainment}\end{aligned}$$ Since $\tilde{\pi}_M'\left((I-A^\dagger DF(X)) (X-\bar{x}) \right)$ is compactly contained inside of $ \tilde{\pi}_M'(X - \bar{x}) \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^ {2 M} $, there is some positive distance separating the LHS of away from the boundary of $\tilde{\pi}_M'(X - \bar{x})$. It follows that there must exist some $0 \leq \lambda_M < 1$ such that $\tilde{\pi}_M' \left((I-A^\dagger DF(X)) (X-\bar{x}) \right) \subseteq \lambda_M\cdot \tilde{\pi}_M'(X - \bar{x}) $.
Since $ K'_\infty(X,\bar{x}) \subseteq \pi_\infty' X$ it follows that $g_\infty(X) \leq C_0$, and by our additional assumption this is in fact a strict inequality. If we define $\lambda_\infty := g^{ii}_\infty(X)/C_0<1$, then by it follows that: $$\pi_{\infty} (I- A^\dagger DF (X)) \cdot (X - \bar{x}) \leq \lambda_\infty \pi_\infty(X- \bar{x}).$$ If we define $ \lambda := \max \{ \lambda_M,\lambda_\infty\} < 1$ then it follows that: $$(I- A^\dagger DF (X)) \cdot (X - \bar{x}) \leq \lambda (X- \bar{x}).$$ By Theorem \[prop:Krawczyk\] there exists a unique point $ \hat{x}_\alpha = ( \alpha, \hat{\omega}_\alpha , \hat{c}_\alpha) \in X$ such that $ F_\alpha(\hat{\omega}_\alpha ,\hat{c}_\alpha ) =0$. Moreover, this is true for all $\alpha \in \pi_\alpha (X)$.
Pruning Operator {#sec:Prune}
================
For a given cube, we want to know if it contains any solutions to $ F=0$. We try to determine this by combining several different tests into one *pruning* operator described in Algorithm \[alg:Prune\]. It is called a pruning operator because even if we cannot determine whether a cube contains a solution, we may still be able to reduce the size of the cube without losing any solutions.
We describe the tests performed in Algorithm \[alg:Prune\]. Most simply, if we can prove that $ | F(X)|_k>0$ for some $ 1 \leq k \leq M$, then $F$ has no zeros in $X$. From Lemma \[prop:zeroneighborhood2\], we know that if a cube has a small $ \| \cdot \|_{\ell^1}$ norm then it cannot contain any nontrivial zeros. Furthermore, if a cube is contained in the neighborhood of the Hopf bifurcation explicitly given by Lemma \[prop:BifNbd\], then the only solutions that can exist therein are on the principal branch. If none of those situations apply, then we calculate the outer approximation of the Krawczyk operator given in Definition \[def:KrawczykApprox\]. If the hypothesis of Theorem \[prop:KrawczykOuterApprox\] is satisfied, then there exists a unique solution. Alternatively, if $ X \cap K(X,\bar{x}) = \emptyset$, then there do not exist any solutions in $X$. If none of these other situations apply, then we replace $ X $ by $ X \cap K(X, \bar{x})$. Algorithm \[alg:Prune\] arranges these steps in order of ease of computation.
\[alg:Prune\] Take as input a cube $X$ with $ M\geq 5$ and $s >2$. The output is a pair $\{flag,X'\} $ where $ flag \in {\mathbb{Z}}$ and $X'\subseteq X$ is a cube.
1. Compute $\delta :=2 \sum_{k=1}^M |X|_k+ \frac{2 C_0 }{(s-1) M^{s-1}} $.
2. If for all $ (\alpha,\omega,\cdot) \in X$ we have $ \alpha \in (0,2]$, $\omega \geq 1.1$, and $\delta < g(\alpha , \omega)$ for $g$ defined in , then return $ \{1,\emptyset\}$.
3. If for all $ (\alpha,\omega,\cdot) \in X$ we have $| \alpha -{\tfrac{\pi}{2}}| \leq 0.00553$, $ | \omega - {\tfrac{\pi}{2}}| \leq 0.0924$ and $\delta < 0.18$, then return $ \{2,X\}$.
4. If $ \inf_{x \in X} |F_M(x)|_k > h_k(X)$ for $h_k$ defined in and some $ 1 \leq k \leq M$, then return $ \{1,\emptyset\}$.
5. Fix some $ \bar{x} \in X$ such that $\bar{x} = \pi_{M}'(\bar{x})$ and $ \pi_{M}'(\bar{x})$ is approximately the center of $ \pi_{M}'(X)$. Construct $K'(X,\bar{x}) $ as in Definition \[def:KrawczykApprox\].
6. If $ K'(X,\bar{x}) \subseteq X $, $g_\infty(X)<C_0$, and $\tilde{\pi}_M \left( K'_M(X,\bar{x}) + A^\dagger_M F_M(\bar{x})\right) \subseteq int(\tilde{\pi}_M(X))$, then return $\{3,X\}$.
7. If $ X \cap K'(X,\bar{x}) = \emptyset$, then return $\{1,\emptyset\}$.
8. Else return $ \{0,X \cap K'(X,\bar{x})\}$.
\[prop:Prune\] Let $ \{flag,X'\}$ denote the output of Algorithm \[alg:Prune\] with input a cube $X$.
(i) If $flag=1$, then $ F(x) \neq 0$ for all nontrivial $ x \in X$.
(ii) If $flag =2$, then the only solutions to $F=0$ in $X$ are on the principal branch.
(iii) If $flag =3$, then for all $\alpha \in \pi_\alpha(X) $ there is a unique $\hat{\omega}_\alpha \in \pi_{\omega}(X)$ and $ \hat{c}_\alpha \in \pi_c(X)$ such that $F(\alpha,\hat{\omega}_\alpha,\hat{c}_\alpha)=0$.
(iv) If there are any points $ \hat{x} \in X$ for which $ F(\hat{x})=0$, then $ \hat{x} \in X'$.
To prove $(i)$ we must check the output from Steps 2, 4, and 7. To prove $(ii)$ we must check Step 3. To prove $(iii)$ we must check Step 6. The proof of $(iv)$ follows from $(i)$, $(ii)$, $(iii)$, and Step 8. We organize the proof into the steps of the algorithm.
1. It follows from that $ \|c\|_{\ell^1} < \delta $ for all $ c \in \pi_c(X)$.
2. Since $\alpha \in (0,2]$ and $\omega \geq 1.1$, Lemma \[prop:zeroneighborhood2\] applies. If $ \|c\|_{\ell^1} < \delta < g(\alpha , \omega)$, then by Lemma \[prop:zeroneighborhood2\] the only solutions to $F(\alpha,\omega,c)=0$ are trivial, which is to say $ c =0$.
3. If Step 3 returns $flag=2$, then by Lemma \[prop:BifNbd\] there is at most one SOPS $ c \in X$ with frequency $ \omega$, and it lies on the branch of SOPS originating from the Hopf bifurcation at $\alpha = {\tfrac{\pi}{2}}$.
4. Suppose that $ \inf_{x \in X} |F_M(x)|_k > h_k(X)$ for some $ 1 \leq k \leq M$. Since $ \sup_{x \in X} |F_\infty(x)|_k < h_k(X)$ by , it follows from the triangle inequality that for all $ x \in X$ we have: $$|F(x)|_k \geq \inf_{x \in X} |F_M(x)|_k - \sup_{x \in X} |F_\infty(x)|_k >0.$$ Hence $|F(x)|_k >0$, and so $X$ cannot contain any zeros of $F$.
5. Note that $ K(X,\bar{x}) \subseteq K'(X,\bar{x})$ by Theorem \[prop:KrawczykOuterApprox\].
6. If Step 6 returns $flag=3$, then the hypothesis of Theorem \[prop:KrawczykOuterApprox\] is satisfied. Hence for all $ \alpha \in \pi_\alpha(X) $ there is a unique $\hat{\omega}_\alpha \in \pi_{\omega}(X)$ and $ \hat{c}_\alpha \in \pi_c(X)$ such that $F(\alpha,\hat{\omega}_\alpha,\hat{c}_\alpha)=0$.
7. By Theorem \[prop:Krawczyk\] all solutions in $X$ are contained in $K(X,\bar{x})$. Hence, all of the zeros of $F$ in $X$ are contained in $ X \cap K(X,\bar{x}) \subseteq X \cap K'(X,\bar{x})$.
If $ X \cap K'(X,\bar{x}) = \emptyset$ then $ X \cap K(X,\bar{x}) = \emptyset$, whereby there cannot be any solutions in $X$.
8. As proved in Step 7, all solutions in $X$ are contained in $X \cap K'(X,\bar{x})$.
Global Bounds on the Fourier Coefficients {#sec:SolutionSpace}
=========================================
The goal of this section is to construct a bounded region in ${\mathbb{R}}^2 \times {\Omega}^s$ which contains all of the nontrivial zeros of $F$. This is ultimately achieved in Algorithm \[alg:Comprehensive\], which is discussed in Section \[sec:FourierProjWright\], along with other estimates pertaining specifically to Wright’s equation.
In Section \[sec:FourierProj\], we discuss generic algorithms used to construct bounds in Fourier space. Algorithm \[alg:FourierProjection\] converts pointwise bounds on a periodic function and its derivatives into a cube containing its Fourier coefficients. Algorithm \[alg:TimeTranslate\] modifies a cube so that after a time translation, any periodic function contained therein will satisfy the phase condition $ c_1 = c_1^*$.
Converting Pointwise Bounds into Fourier Bounds {#sec:FourierProj}
-----------------------------------------------
To translate pointwise bounds on a periodic function into bounds on its Fourier coefficients we use the unnormalized $L^2$ inner product, which we define for $g,h \in L^2([0,2 \pi / \omega],{\mathbb{C}})$ as: $$\left< g ,h \right> := \int_0^{2 \pi / \omega } g(t) h(t)^* \,dt.
\label{eq:L2InnerProduct}$$ For a function $y$ given as in , its Fourier coefficients may be calculated as $c_k = \tfrac{1}{2 \pi / \omega} \left< y(t), e^{i \omega k t} \right> $. By applying to *a priori* estimates on $y$ we are able to derive bounds on its Fourier coefficients. For example, in [@wright1955non] it is shown that $ -1 < y(t) < e^\alpha -1$ for any global solution to . Hence, when $e^\alpha \geq 2$ the Fourier coefficients of any periodic solution to must satisfy $|c_k| \leq \tfrac{1 }{2 \pi /\omega } ( e^\alpha -1)$ for all $ k \in {\mathbb{Z}}$.
With more detailed estimates on $y$ we can produce tighter bounds on its Fourier coefficients. In [@jlm2016Floquet; @neumaier2014global] such estimates are numerically derived in a rigorous fashion. One of the results from this analysis is a pair of bounding functions which provide upper and lower bounds on SOPS to at a given parameter value. Formally, a *bounding function* is defined to be an interval valued function $\chi(t) = [ \ell(t), u(t)]$ where $ \ell,u:{\mathbb{R}}\to {\mathbb{R}}$.
These functions $\ell,u$ are constructed in [@neumaier2014global; @jlm2016Floquet] using rigorous numerics, and in particular interval arithmetic. As a matter of computational convenience, these functions are defined as piecewise constant functions which change value only finitely many times (see Figure \[fig:FourierDerivativeProjections\]). For functions of this form, calculating a supremum over a bounded domain is reduced to finding the maximum of a finite set, and calculating an integral is reduced into a finite sum. For elementary functions such as $\sin$ or $\cos$, interval arithmetic packages have been developed which allow us to rigorously bound their image over arbitrary domains[@rump1999intlab].
$$\begin{array}{c|c|c}
k & A_{k,0} & B_{k,0} \\
\hline
1& [ -0.103, \;\;\;0.181] &[ -0.544, -0.317] \\
2& [ -0.238, \;\;\;0.110] &[ -0.142, \;\;\; 0.187] \\
3& [ -0.207, \;\;\;0.228] &[ -0.205, \;\;\; 0.211]
\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{c|c|c}
k & A_{k,1} & B_{k,1} \\
\hline
1& [ -0.154, \;\;\;0.205] & [ -0.673, -0.192] \\
2& [ -0.215, \;\;\;0.031] & [ -0.100, \;\;\;0.179] \\
3& [ -0.094, \;\;\;0.109] & [ -0.090, \;\;\;0.125]
\end{array}$$
\
$$\begin{array}{c|c|c}
k & A_{k,2} & B_{k,2} \\
\hline
1& [ -0.384, \;\;\; 0.525] &[ -0.848, -0.103] \\
2& [ -0.205, \;\;\; 0.037] &[ -0.094, \;\;\;0.155] \\
3& [ -0.051, \;\;\; 0.077] &[ -0.054, \;\;\;0.071]
\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{c|c|c}
k & A_{k,3} & B_{k,3} \\
\hline
1& [ -0.995, \;\;\; 1.160] &[ -1.713, \;\;\;0.715] \\
2& [ -0.279, \;\;\; 0.053] &[ -0.120, \;\;\;0.194] \\
3& [ -0.039, \;\;\; 0.068] &[ -0.045, \;\;\;0.063]
\end{array}$$
\[fig:FourierDerivativeProjections\]
Algorithm \[alg:FourierProjection\] describes a method for obtaining rigorous bounds on the Fourier coefficients of a periodic function $y$. This algorithm applies the inner product $\left< \cdot , \cdot \right>$ to bounds not just on the function $y$ but on its derivatives as well. Examples of these bounds are given in Figure \[fig:FourierDerivativeProjections\], where we note that by the third Fourier coefficient, the tightest estimate is given by the third derivative. We will use $ y^{(s)}$ denotes the $s$^th^ derivative of a function $y$, whereas we will use $Y^s$ to denote a bounding function of index $s$, which bounds the derivative $y^{(s)}$.
We have stated Algorithm \[alg:FourierProjection\] so that it does not estimate the zeroth Fourier coefficient, as periodic solutions to necessarily have a trivial zeroth Fourier coefficient. The algorithm could be modified in the obvious way to bound the zeroth Fourier coefficient of a function as well.
\[alg:FourierProjection\] Take as input projection dimension $M \in {\mathbb{N}}$, period bounds $ [\underline{L},\overline{L}]$, and a collection of interval-valued functions: $$\left\{
Y^{s}(t) = [ \ell^{s}(t),u^{s}(t)] : \ell^{s},u^{s}:{\mathbb{R}}\to {\mathbb{R}}\right\}_{s=0}^S .$$ The output is an ($\alpha$-parameterless) cube $ X \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^1 \times {\Omega}^S$.
1. Define $I_{\omega} := [2 \pi / \overline{L} , 2 \pi/ \underline{L}]$.
2. For $ 1 \leq k \leq M$ and $ 0 \leq s \leq S$ define $ \delta_c,\delta_s \in {\mathbb{R}}_+$ so that: $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_{c} &\geq \sup_{ \omega \in I_\omega, y^{s} \in Y^{s}}
\int_{\underline{L}}^{\overline{L}}
\left| \cos( \omega k t ) y^{s}(t) \right| dt, &
\delta_{s} &\geq
\sup_{ \omega \in I_\omega, y^{s} \in Y^{s}}
\int_{\underline{L}}^{\overline{L}}
\left| \sin( \omega k t ) y^{s}(t) \right| dt,
\end{aligned}$$ and define $ a^+_{k,s},a^-_{k,s},b^+_{k,s},b^-_{k,s} \in {\mathbb{R}}_+$ so that: $$\begin{aligned}
a^+_{k,s} &\geq \;\;\; \delta_c +
\sup_{ \omega \in I_\omega, y^{s} \in Y^{s}}
\int_{0}^{\underline{L}} \cos( \omega k t ) y^{s}(t) dt
\\
a^-_{k,s} &\leq - \delta_c +
\inf_{ \omega \in I_\omega, y^{s} \in Y^{s}}
\int_{0}^{\underline{L}} \cos( \omega k t ) y^{s}(t) dt
\\
b^+_{k,s} &\geq \;\;\; \delta_s +
\sup_{ \omega \in I_\omega, y^{s} \in Y^{s}}
\int_{0}^{\underline{L}} \sin( \omega k t ) y^{s}(t) dt
\\
b^-_{k,s} &\leq -\delta_s +
\inf_{ \omega \in I_\omega, y^{s} \in Y^{s}}
\int_{0}^{\underline{L}} \sin( \omega k t ) y^{s}(t) dt.
\end{aligned}$$
3. For $ 1 \leq k \leq M$ and $ 0 \leq s \leq S$ define: $$\begin{aligned}
A'_{k,s} &:=
\frac{1}{2 \pi k^s}
\left[
\inf_{ \omega \in I_\omega} \frac{a^-_{k,s}}{\omega^{s-1}},
\sup_{ \omega \in I_\omega} \frac{a^+_{k,s}}{\omega^{s-1}}
\right], &
B'_{k,s} &:=
\frac{1}{2 \pi k^s}
\left[
\inf_{ \omega \in I_\omega} \frac{b^-_{k,s}}{\omega^{s-1}},
\sup_{ \omega \in I_\omega} \frac{b^+_{k,s}}{\omega^{s-1}}
\right].
\label{eq:A'B'}
\end{aligned}$$ Define the intervals $A_{k,s}$ and $B_{k,s}$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
A_{k,s} &:=
\begin{cases}
\;\;\;A'_{k,s} & \mbox{ if } s\equiv 0 \pmod 4 \\
-B'_{k,s} & \mbox{ if } s\equiv 1 \pmod 4 \\
-A'_{k,s} & \mbox{ if } s\equiv 2 \pmod 4 \\
\;\;\;B'_{k,s} & \mbox{ if } s\equiv 3 \pmod 4
\end{cases} ,
&
B_{k,s} &:=
\begin{cases}
-B'_{k,s} & \mbox{ if } s\equiv 0 \pmod 4 \\
-A'_{k,s} & \mbox{ if } s\equiv 1 \pmod 4 \\
\;\;\;B'_{k,s} & \mbox{ if } s\equiv 2 \pmod 4 \\
\;\;\;A'_{k,s} & \mbox{ if } s\equiv 3 \pmod 4
\end{cases}.
\end{aligned}$$
4. For $ 1 \leq k \leq M$ define: $$\begin{aligned}
A_k &:= \bigcap_{0\leq s \leq S} A_{k,s} ,
&
B_k &:= \bigcap_{0\leq s \leq S} B_{k,s}.
\end{aligned}$$
5. For each $1 \leq k \leq M$, define $ \bar{a}_k := mid(A_{k,S})$, $ \bar{b}_k := mid(B_{k,S})$, $ \bar{c}_k = \bar{a}_k + i \bar{b}_k$, and $ \bar{c}_{-k} = \bar{c}_{k}^*$. Define $y_M^{S}(t,\omega) $ as in , and define $C_0>0$ so that holds. $$\begin{aligned}
y_M^{S}(t,\omega) &:= \sum_{k=-M}^{M} \bar{c}_{k} (i \omega k )^S e^{i \omega k t} \label{eq:MidProjection}\\
C_0 &\geq \sup_{\omega \in I_{\omega }, y^{S} \in Y^{S} } \frac{1 }{2 \pi \omega^{S-1}} \int_0^{\overline{L}} \left| y^{S} (t)- y_M^{S}(t,\omega) \right|dt . \label{eq:TailBound}
\end{aligned}$$
6. Define a cube $ X := X_M \times X_\infty \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^1 \times \Omega^S$ by: $$\begin{aligned}
X_{M} &:= I_\omega \times \prod_{k=1}^M A_k \times B_k \\
X_\infty &:= \left\{ c_k \in {\mathbb{C}}: |c_k| \leq C_0 /k^S \right\}_{k=M+1}^\infty .
\end{aligned}$$
\[prop:FourierProjection\] Let the cube $X$ be the output of Algorithm \[alg:FourierProjection\] with input $M \in {\mathbb{N}}$, $ [ \underline{L},\overline{L}] \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}$ and bounding functions $\{Y^{s}\}_{s=0}^{S}$. Fix a function $ \hat{y}$ with period $L$ and continuous derivatives $ \hat{y}^{(s)}$ for $ 0 \leq s \leq S$. If $L \in [\underline{L},\overline{L}]$ and $ \hat{y}^{(s)}(t) \in Y^{s}(t)$ for all $ 0 \leq s \leq S$ and $ t \in [0,\overline{L}]$, then the frequency and Fourier coefficients of $ \hat{y}$ satisfy $(\omega, \{c_k\}_{k=1}^\infty ) \in X$.
We organize the proof into the steps of the algorithm.
1. If the period of $\hat{y}$ is $L \in [ \underline{L} , \overline{L}]$ then it will have frequency $ \hat{\omega} = 2 \pi / L$ and $ \hat{\omega} \in
[2 \pi / \overline{L} , 2 \pi/ \underline{L}]$.
2. Let us define $$\begin{aligned}
a_{k,s} &:= \left< \cos( \hat{\omega} k t) , \hat{y}^{(s)}(t) \right>, &
b_{k,s} &:= \left< \sin ( \hat{\omega} k t) , \hat{y}^{(s)}(t) \right> .
\end{aligned}$$ We show that $ a_{k,s} \in [a^-_{k,s},a^+_{k,s}]$. Since $L \in [ \underline{L} , \overline{L}]$ it follows that: $$\begin{aligned}
\left< \cos( \hat{\omega} k t) , \hat{y}^{(s)} (t) \right>
&= \int_0^{L } \cos( \hat{\omega} k t ) \hat{y}^{(s)}(t) dt \nonumber \\
&= \int_0^{\underline{L}} \cos( \hat{\omega} k t ) \hat{y}^{(s)}(t) dt
+ \int_{\underline{L}}^{L}\cos( \hat{\omega} k t ) \hat{y}^{(s)}(t) dt .
\label{eq:TailPeriod}
\end{aligned}$$ To estimate the rightmost summand in we calculate: $$\begin{aligned}
\left| \int_{\underline{L}}^{L}\cos( \hat{\omega} k t ) \hat{y}^{(s)}(t) dt \right| \leq \int_{\underline{L}}^{\overline{L}} \left| \cos( \hat{\omega} k t ) \hat{y}^{(s)}(t) \right| dt
\leq \sup_{ \omega \in I_\omega, y^{s} \in Y^{s}}
\int_{\underline{L}}^{\overline{L}}
\left| \cos( \omega k t ) y^{s}(t) \right| dt \leq \delta_c.
\end{aligned}$$ We obtain a bound on $a_{k,s}$ by appropriately taking an infimum and a supremum in as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\inf_{ \omega \in I_\omega, y^{s} \in Y^{s}}
\int_{0}^{\underline{L}} \cos( \omega k t ) y^{s}(t) dt
-\delta_c
\leq
a_{k,s}
\leq
\sup_{ \omega \in I_\omega, y^{s} \in Y^{s}}
\int_{0}^{\underline{L}} \cos( \omega k t ) y^{s}(t) dt
+ \delta_c.
\end{aligned}$$ Hence $ a_{k,s} \in [a^-_{k,s},a^+_{k,s}]$, and by analogy $ b_{k,s} \in [b^-_{k,s},b^+_{k,s}]$.
3. Let $ c_k = a_k + i b_k$ denote the Fourier coefficients of $ \hat{y}$. We show that $a_k \in A_{k,s}$ and $b_k \in B_{k,s}$. Firstly, we calculate the derivative $\hat{y}^{(s)}$ as follows: $$\hat{y}^{(s)}(t) = \sum_{k\in {\mathbb{Z}}} c_k (i \hat{\omega} k)^s e^{i \hat{\omega} k t}.$$ We can express the Fourier coefficients of $ \hat{y}$ in terms of the Fourier coefficients of its derivatives $ \hat{y}^{(s)}$; below, we calculate $c_k$ in terms of $ a_{k,s}$ and $ b_{k,s}$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^{2 \pi / \hat{\omega} } c_k (i \hat{\omega} k)^s e^{i \hat{\omega} k t} \cdot e^{- i \hat{\omega} k t}dt
&=
\left< \hat{y}^{(s)}(t) ,e^{ i \hat{\omega} k t} \right>
\label{eq:FourierDerivativeInnerProduct}
\\
\frac{2 \pi }{\hat{\omega} } c_k ( i \hat{\omega} k )^s
&= \left< \hat{y}^{(s)}(t) ,\cos( \hat{\omega} k t) \right>
-i \left< \hat{y}^{(s)}(t),\sin ( \hat{\omega} k t) \right>
\nonumber \\
i^{s}a_{k} +i^{s+1}b_{k}
&=
\frac{a_{k,s} - i \, b_{k,s} }{2 \pi \hat{\omega} ^{s-1} k^{s}} \nonumber
.
\end{aligned}$$ From the definition of $ A'_{k,s}$ and $ B_{k,s}'$ in it follows that: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{a_{k,s} }{2 \pi \hat{\omega}^{s-1} k^{s}} & \in A_{k,s}' ,&
\frac{ \, b_{k,s} }{2 \pi \hat{\omega}^{s-1} k^{s}} & \in B_{k,s}'.
\end{aligned}$$ By matching the real and imaginary parts, which only depend on $ s \pmod 4$, we obtain that $a_k \in A_{k,s}$ and $b_k \in B_{k,s}$.
4. Since $a_k \in A_{k,s}$ and $b_k \in B_{k,s}$ for all $ k$ and $0 \leq s \leq S$, it follows that: $$\begin{aligned}
a_k &\in \bigcap_{0 \leq s \leq S} A_{k,s}, &
b_k &\in \bigcap_{0 \leq s \leq S} B_{k,s} .
\end{aligned}$$
5. We calculate $c_k$ for $ k \geq M+1$ starting from and using the fact that the functions $e^{i \hat{\omega} k t}$ are $L^2$–orthogonal: $$\begin{aligned}
c_k ( i \hat{\omega }k )^S
&= \frac{1}{2 \pi / \hat{\omega}}
\left< e^{i \hat{\omega } k t} , \hat{y}^{(S)}(t) \right> \\
&= \frac{1}{2 \pi / \hat{\omega}}
\left< e^{i \hat{\omega } k t} , \hat{y}^{(S)}(t)
- \sum_{j=-M}^{M} \bar{c}_{j} (i \hat{\omega } j )^S e^{i \hat{\omega } j t} \right> \\
&= \frac{1}{2 \pi / \hat{\omega}}
\left< e^{i \hat{\omega } k t} , \hat{y}^{(S)}(t) - y_M^S(t,\hat{\omega }) \right> .
\end{aligned}$$ By taking absolute values, and the suprema over $ \omega \in I_\omega$ and $ y ^S \in Y^S$ we obtain the following. $$\begin{aligned}
\left| c_k ( i \hat{\omega } k )^S \right|
&\leq
\frac{1 }{2 \pi / \hat{\omega }}
\int_0^{L}
\left|e^{-i \hat{\omega } k t}\right| \left| \hat{y}^{(S)} (t)- y_M^{S}(t,\hat{\omega }) \right|dt \\
|c_k| k^S
&\leq \sup_{\omega \in I_{\omega } , y^{S} \in Y^{S}} \frac{1 }{2 \pi \omega^{S-1}} \int_0^{\overline{L}} \left| y^{S} (t)- y_M^{S}(t,\omega) \right|dt \\
&\leq C_0.
\end{aligned}$$ Hence $ |c_k| \leq C_0 / k^S$ for all $ k \geq M+1$.
6. In Step 1 we showed that $ \hat{\omega} \in I_\omega$. In Steps 2-4 we showed that $ c_k \in [X]_k$ for $ 1 \leq k \leq M$, and in Step $5$ we showed that $ |c_k| \leq C_0 / k^S$ for $ k \geq M+1$.
\[alg:TimeTranslate\] Take as input an ($\alpha$-parameterless) cube $X \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^1 \times {\Omega}^s$. The output is an ($\alpha$-parameterless) cube $ X' \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^1 \times \tilde{{\Omega}}^s$.
1. For $ [X]_1 = A_1 \times B_1$, with $ A_1= [ \underline{A}_1 , \overline{A}_1 ]$ and $B_1 = [ \underline{B}_1 ,
\overline{B}_1 ]$, define an interval $\Theta \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}$ so that: $$\begin{aligned}
\Theta & \supseteq
\begin{cases}
\bigcup_{a_1 \in A_1,b_1 \in B_1}
\;\;\;\tan^{-1} ( b_1/a_1)
& \mbox{ if } \underline{A}_1 > 0
\\
\bigcup_{a_1 \in A_1,b_1 \in B_1}
\;\;\;\tan^{-1} ( b_1/a_1)
+ \pi
& \mbox{ if } \overline{A}_1 < 0
\\
\bigcup_{a_1 \in A_1,b_1 \in B_1}
-\tan^{-1} ( a_1/b_1)
+{\tfrac{\pi}{2}}& \mbox{ if } \underline{B}_1 > 0
\\
\bigcup_{a_1 \in A_1,b_1 \in B_1}
-\tan^{-1} ( a_1/b_1)
-{\tfrac{\pi}{2}}& \mbox{ if } \overline{B}_1 < 0
\\
[-\pi,\pi] & \mbox{ otherwise.}
\end{cases}
$$
2. Rotate every Fourier coefficient’s phase by $ - \Theta k$. That is, define: $$\begin{aligned}
A_1' &:= \left[ \inf_{a_1 \in A_1 , b_1 \in B_1} \sqrt{a_1^2 + b_1^2}, \sup_{a_1 \in A_1 , b_1 \in B_1} \sqrt{a_1^2 + b_1^2}\right], & B_1' := [0,0],
\end{aligned}$$ and for $2 \leq k \leq M$ define intervals $ A_k', B_k' \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}$ such that: $$\begin{aligned}
A_k' &\supseteq
\bigcup_{\theta \in \Theta, a_k \in A_k, b_k \in B_k} \;\;\; \cos ( \theta k) a_k + \sin( \theta k) b_k
\\
B_k' &\supseteq
\bigcup_{\theta \in \Theta, a_k \in A_k, b_k \in B_k} -\sin (\theta k) a_k + \cos( \theta k) b_k.
\end{aligned}$$
3. Define a cube $ X' := X_M' \times X_\infty' \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^1 \times \Omega^S$ by $$\begin{aligned}
X_{M}' &:= I_\omega \times \prod_{k=1}^M A_k' \times B_k' \\
X_\infty' &:= \left\{ c_k \in {\mathbb{C}}: |c_k| \leq C_0 /k^S \right\}_{k=M+1}^\infty .
\end{aligned}$$
\[prop:TimeTranslation\] For an input cube $X $, let $ X'$ denote the output of Algorithm \[alg:TimeTranslate\]. Suppose that $y:{\mathbb{R}}\to {\mathbb{R}}$ is a periodic function given as in with frequency and Fourier coefficients satisfying $(\omega, \{c_k\}_{k=1}^\infty) \in X$. Then there exists some $ \tau \in {\mathbb{R}}$ such that the Fourier coefficients $c'$ of $ y(t+\tau)$ satisfy $(\omega,\{c'_k\}_{k=1}^\infty) \in X'$. Furthermore $c_1'$ is a real non-negative number.
We organize the proof into the steps of the algorithm.
1. Write the first Fourier coefficient of $y$ as $ c_1 = a_1 + i b_1 $. We may write $c_1 = r e^{i \theta}$ where $r = \sqrt{a_1^2 + b_1^2}$ and if $c_1 \neq 0$, then $\theta$ is unique up to an integer multiple of $ 2 \pi$. By the rules for $\arctan$ we can calculate: $$\theta =
\begin{cases}
\;\;\;\tan^{-1} (b_1 / a_1) & \mbox{ if } a_1 > 0 \\
\;\;\;\tan^{-1} (b_1 / a_1) + \pi & \mbox{ if } a_1 < 0 \\
-\tan^{-1} (a_1 / b_1) +{\tfrac{\pi}{2}}& \mbox{ if } b_1 > 0 \\
-\tan^{-1} (a_1 /b_1) -{\tfrac{\pi}{2}}& \mbox{ if } b_1 < 0.
\end{cases}$$ Since $a_1 \in A_1 $ and $b_1 \in B_1 $, it follows that $ \theta \in \Theta$.
2. For any $ \tau$ we can calculate the Fourier series of $ y(t + \tau)$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
y(t+\tau) = \sum_{k \in {\mathbb{Z}}} c_{k} e^{ i \omega k (t + \tau)}
= \sum_{k \in {\mathbb{Z}}} c_{k}e^{ i \omega k \tau} e^{ i \omega k t}.
\end{aligned}$$ If we choose $ \tau = - \theta / \omega$, then $ c_1' = c_1 e^{i \omega \tau} = \sqrt{a_1^2+b_1^2}$ is a real, non-negative number and moreover $ c_1' \in [X']_1$.
3. The Fourier coefficients of $ y(t + \tau)$ are given by $ c'_k = e^{-ik\theta} c_k$, hence $(\omega, \{c'_k\}_{k=1}^\infty) \in X'$.
Bounds for Wright’s Equation {#sec:FourierProjWright}
----------------------------
The culmination of this subsection is Algorithm 5.7 which, for a given range of parameters, constructs a collection of cubes covering the solution space to $ F_\alpha = 0$. This algorithm begins with pointwise bounds on SOPS to . To obtain these pointwise bounds, we use the results from [@jlm2016Floquet]. One of the results [@jlm2016Floquet] achieves is, for a given range of parameters $I_\alpha$, it produces a collection of bounding functions ${\mathcal{X}}$, such that if there is a SOPS to the exponential version of Wright’s equation at parameter $ \alpha \in I_\alpha$, then it will be bounded by one of the bounding functions in ${\mathcal{X}}$. Recall that solutions to the exponential version of Wright’s equation solve where $f(x) = e^x -1$, and can be transformed into the quadratic version of Wright’s equation using the change of variable $y = e^x -1$.
As this is a computational result, it requires the selection of several computational parameters which, while immaterial to the proof, are necessary for implementation. We describe them here with a brief description of [@jlm2016Floquet Algorithm 5.1]. To begin, this algorithm starts off with *a priori* estimates, some of which are iteratively constructed, and require a selection of parameters $ i_0, j_0 \in {\mathbb{N}}$. These are used to construct numerical bounding functions having time resolution $ n_{Time} \in {\mathbb{N}}$. A pruning operator is defined on these bounding functions, and the spacing between the zeros of a SOPS, and the parameter $N_{Period} \in {\mathbb{N}}$ defines how many times this pruning operator is applied in this initial construction of the bounding functions. Then a branch and prune algorithm is executed, with a stopping criterion defined by the parameters $
\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2 \in {\mathbb{R}}$. We formally state the results of this algorithm below:
\[prop:APbounds\] Fix some $ I_\alpha = [ \alpha_{min }, \alpha_{max}]$ such that $ \alpha_{min} \geq {\tfrac{\pi}{2}}$. Suppose that $x:{\mathbb{R}}\to {\mathbb{R}}$ is periodic with period $L$, and is a SOPS to at parameter $ \alpha \in I_\alpha$ with $ f(x) = e^x -1$. Furthermore, assume without loss of generality that $ x(0) = 0 $ and $ x'(0) > 0$.
If ${\mathcal{L}}$ and ${\mathcal{X}}$ denote the output of [@jlm2016Floquet Algorithm 5.1] ran with input $I_\alpha$, then there exists some $[\underline{L}_i, \overline{L}_i]\in {\mathcal{L}}$ and $\chi_i \in {\mathcal{X}}$ for which $L \in [\underline{L}_i, \overline{L}_i] $ and $ x(t) \in \chi_i(t)$ for all $t$.
In [@jlm2016Floquet] the authors applied this algorithm to prove there is a unique SOPS for $ \alpha \in [1.9,6.0]$. However, one of the shortcomings of this algorithm is that it has difficulty discarding low amplitude solutions near the Hopf bifurcation at $ \alpha = {\tfrac{\pi}{2}}$. To remedy this, we modify the pruning operator in [@jlm2016Floquet] with the addition of the following Proposition \[prop:PruningMod\]. This allows for a new way to potentially conclude that a given bounding function cannot contain any SOPS.
\[prop:PruningMod\] If $y$ is a nontrivial periodic solution to at parameter $ \alpha \in ( 0 , 2]$ and frequency $\omega \geq 1.1$, then: $$\sup |y(t)| > -\tfrac{1}{2} + \tfrac{1}{2}\sqrt{1 + \tfrac{4 \sqrt{3} \omega}{\pi \alpha } g(\alpha, \omega) } .$$
Define $ M := \sup |y(t)|$. From [@BergJaquette Lemma 4.1] we know that if $F(\alpha,\omega,c)=0$, then: $$\begin{aligned}
\| c \|_{\ell^1}
\leq \frac{\pi}{\omega \sqrt{3}} \| y'\|_{\infty}
\leq \frac{\pi}{\omega \sqrt{3}} \alpha M (1 + M).
\end{aligned}$$ From Lemma \[prop:zeroneighborhood2\], the only solutions satisfying $ \| c\|_{\ell^1} < g(\alpha , \omega)$ are trivial. Hence $(\alpha, \omega,c)$ would only be a trivial solution at best if the following inequality is satisfied: $$\| c\|_{\ell^1} \leq \frac{\pi}{\omega \sqrt{3}} \alpha M(1+M) < g(\alpha ,\omega).$$ Solving the quadratic equation $M^2 +M - \frac{\omega \sqrt{3}}{\pi \alpha } g(\alpha ,\omega) <0$ produces the desired inequality.
The higher derivatives of a function can be very useful in constructing bounds on its Fourier coefficients and their rate of decay. While the bounding functions constructed in [@jlm2016Floquet] are not even continuous, we can use them to construct bounding functions for the derivative of SOPS to Wright’s equation via a bootstrapping argument. Namely, by taking a derivative on both sides of we obtain an equation for the second derivative of solutions to . In a similar manner, can obtain an expression for the third derivative of solutions to , both of which are presented below: $$\begin{aligned}
y''(t) &= -\alpha
\left[ y'(t-1) \left[1 + y(t) \right] +
y(t-1) y'(t)\right] \\
y'''(t) &= - \alpha \left[ y''(t-1) [1+y(t) ] + 2 y'(t-1)y'(t) + y(t-1) y''(t) \right] .\end{aligned}$$ Note that we can always express the derivative $ y^{(s)}(t)$ in terms of $ y^{(r)}(t) $ and $ y^{(r)}(t-1) $ where $ 0 \leq r \leq s-1$. That is, we can inductively define functions $ f^s : {\mathbb{R}}^{2s} \to {\mathbb{R}}$ such that for all $t$ we have: $$\begin{aligned}
y^{(s)}(t) = f^s\left( y(t),y(t-1), y'(t),y'(t-1),\dots, y^{(s-1)}(t),y^{(s-1)}(t-1) \right).
\label{eq:Bootstrap}\end{aligned}$$ If we start with a bounding function for $y$, then by appropriately adding and multiplying the bounding functions for $y^{(r)}$, taking wider bounds whenever necessary, we can obtain bounding functions for any derivative of $y$ (see for example Figure \[fig:FourierDerivativeProjections\]).
Algorithm \[alg:Comprehensive\] proceeds by first constructing bounding functions for $y$ and its derivatives, and then applying Algorithm \[alg:FourierProjection\] to obtain a cube containing its Fourier coefficients. Then it applies Algorithm \[alg:TimeTranslate\] to impose the phase condition that $ c_1 = c_1^*$.
In this manner we obtain a collection of cubes which contains all of the Fourier coefficients to SOPS to . We then apply Algorithm \[alg:Prune\] to each cube, discarding it if possible. This allows us to discard between 5% and 60% of cubes (see $N_{grid}'$ in Table \[table:RunTimes\]).
One problem however, is that the Fourier projection of two distinct bounding functions often overlap considerably. To address this we combine overlapping cubes together. While we could combine all of our cubes into one big cube, this would not be efficient. Instead, we divide our cover along a grid in the $ \omega\times a_1$ plane (see Figure \[fig:InitialPrep\]).
\[alg:Comprehensive\] Fix an interval of $ I_{\alpha} \subseteq [\alpha_{min},\alpha_{max}]$, integers $M,S \in {\mathbb{N}}$ and a subdivision number $ N \in {\mathbb{N}}$, and the computational parameters for [@jlm2016Floquet Algorithm 5.1]. The output is a (finite) collection of cubes ${\mathcal{S}}= \{ X_i \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^2 \times \tilde{{\Omega}}^s \}$.
1. Let $ {\mathcal{X}},{\mathcal{L}}$ be the output of [@jlm2016Floquet Algorithm 5.1] with input $I_\alpha$ and appropriate computational parameters.
2. Use the change of variables $ y = e^x -1$ to define a collection of functions: $${\mathcal{Y}}^{0} := \left\{ Y_i(t) = [ e^{\ell_i(t) } -1, e^{u_i(t) } -1]: \chi_i = [ \ell_i(t) , u_i(t)] \in {\mathcal{X}}\right\} .$$
3. Inductively define $ {\mathcal{Y}}^s$ for $ 1 \leq s \leq S$ so that corresponding to each $ Y_i^0 \in {\mathcal{Y}}^0$ there exists a $Y_i^s = [\underline{Y_i^s},\overline{Y_i^s}] \in {\mathcal{Y}}^s$ such that for $f^s$ defined in we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\underline{Y_i^s}(t) \leq& \inf_{\{y^{r}\}_{r=0}^{s-1} \in \{Y_i^r\}_{r=0}^{s-1}}
f^s\left( y^0(t),y^0(t-1), \dots, y^{s-1}(t),y^{s-1}(t-1) \right) \\
\overline{Y_i^s}(t) \geq& \sup_{\{y^{r}\}_{r=0}^{s-1} \in \{Y_i^r\}_{r=0}^{s-1}}
f^s\left( y^0(t),y^0(t-1), \dots, y^{s-1}(t),y^{s-1}(t-1) \right).
\end{aligned}$$
4. Define ${\mathcal{S}}' := \{ X_i' \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^1 \times {\Omega}^s \}$ to be the collective output of Algorithm \[alg:FourierProjection\] run with $M \in {\mathbb{N}}$, and each of the sets $ L_i \in {\mathcal{L}}$ and $\{Y_i^{s}\}_{s=0}^S \in \{{\mathcal{Y}}^{s} \}_{s=0}^S $ as input.
5. Define ${\mathcal{S}}'' := \{ X_i'' \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^1 \times \tilde{{\Omega}}^s\}$ to be the collective output of Algorithm \[alg:TimeTranslate\] run with each of the sets $ X_i' \in {\mathcal{S}}'$ as input.
6. Define ${\mathcal{S}}'''$ by taking the product of $ I_\alpha$ with the cubes in $ {\mathcal{S}}''$. That is, define $ {\mathcal{S}}''':= \{ I_\alpha \times X_i'' \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^2 \times \tilde{{\Omega}}^s : X_i'' \in {\mathcal{S}}''\}$.
7. For each $ X \in {\mathcal{S}}'''$, let $ \{flag,X'\}$ denote the output of Algorithm \[alg:Prune\] with input $X$. If $flag=1$, then remove $X$ from $ {\mathcal{S}}'''$. Otherwise replace $X$ by $X'$.
8. Subdivide the $ \omega \times a_1$ space covered by $ {\mathcal{S}}'''$ into an $N \times N$ grid. That is, define an index set $ B := \{ 1 ,2 , \dots, N\} \times \{1, 2, \dots, N\}$ and define intervals $ I^\omega , I^{a_1} \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}$ so that: $$\begin{aligned}
I^\omega
&\supseteq \bigcup_{X \in {\mathcal{S}}'''} \pi_\omega(X),&
I^{a_1}
&\supseteq \bigcup_{X \in {\mathcal{S}}'''} \pi_{a_1}(X).
\end{aligned}$$ Subdivide $I^\omega$ and $I^{a_1}$ into $N$ subintervals of equal width, $\{I^{\omega}_i\}_{i=1}^N$ and $\{I^{a_1}_i\}_{i=1}^N$, so that $I^\omega = \bigcup_{i=1}^N I^\omega_{i} $ and $I^{a_1} = \bigcup_{i=1}^N I^{a_1}_{i} $.
9. For each $ \beta =(\beta_1 , \beta_2) \in B$, take the union of cubes in $ {\mathcal{S}}'''$ whose $ (\omega ,a_1)$–projection intersects $ I^\omega_{\beta_1} \times I^{a_1}_{\beta_2}$. That is, define: $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{X}_\beta &:= \{ (\alpha , \omega , c) \in {\mathbb{R}}^2 \times \tilde{{\Omega}}^s : \omega \in I^\omega_{\beta_1}, [c]_1 \in I^{a_1}_{\beta_2} \} ,
\end{aligned}$$ and define $ X_\beta$ to be a cube such that: $$\begin{aligned}
X_\beta &\supseteq \bigcup_{X \in {\mathcal{S}}'''} X \cap \tilde{X}_\beta.
\end{aligned}$$
10. Define $ {\mathcal{S}}:= \{ X_{\beta} : \beta \in B\}$.
\[prop:Comprehensive\] Fix an interval $ I_{\alpha} = [\alpha_{min},\alpha_{max}]$ such that $ \alpha_{min} \geq {\tfrac{\pi}{2}}$, and let ${\mathcal{S}}$ denote the output of Algorithm \[alg:Comprehensive\]. If a function $ y$ as given in is a SOPS to Wright’s equation at $ \alpha \in I_\alpha$, then there exists a time translation so that its Fourier coefficients are in $\bigcup {\mathcal{S}}$.
Every SOPS $y$ to the quadratic version of Wright’s equation given in corresponds to a SOPS $x$ to the exponential version of Wright’s equation given in with $ f(x) = e^x -1$. Fix a SOPS $x : {\mathbb{R}}\to {\mathbb{R}}$ to the exponential version of Wright’s equation with period $L$. We organize the proof into the steps of the algorithm.
1. By Theorem \[prop:APbounds\] there exists an interval $ L_i \in {\mathcal{L}}$ and a bounding function $\chi_i \in {\mathcal{X}}$ and such that $L \in L_i$ and $ x(t) \in \chi_i(t)$ for all $ t \in {\mathbb{R}}$.
2. The change of variables between the exponential and quadratic versions of Wright’s equation is given by $y = e^x -1$. Hence for the interval $ L_i \in {\mathcal{L}}$ and the bounding function $Y_i \in {\mathcal{Y}}^{0}$, it follows that $L \in L_i$ and $ y(t) \in Y_i(t)$ for all $ t \in {\mathbb{R}}$.
3. Since $y \in Y_i^0$ it follows that its derivatives satisfy $ y^{(s)} \in Y_i^{s}$ for all $ 0 \leq s \leq S$.
4. Let $\omega$ and $ c$ denote the frequency and Fourier coefficients of $y$ respectively. If $X_i'$ is the output of Algorithm \[alg:FourierProjection\] with input $M \in {\mathbb{N}}$, $L_i$ and $ \{ Y_i^{s} \}_{s=0}^{S}$, then by Proposition \[prop:FourierProjection\] it follows that $(\omega, \{c_k\}_{k=1}^\infty ) \in X_i'$.
5. Let $ X_i''$ denote the output of Algorithm \[alg:TimeTranslate\] with input $X_i'$. By Theorem \[prop:TimeTranslation\], there exists a $ \tau \in {\mathbb{R}}$ such that the Fourier coefficients $ c'$ of $ y(t+\tau)$ satisfy $(\omega, \{c'_k\}_{k=1}^\infty ) \in X_i''$.
6. We have shown that if $y$ is a SOPS to at parameter $ \alpha$ having frequency $ \omega$, then up to a time translation $( \alpha , \omega , c) \in \bigcup {\mathcal{S}}'''$. By Proposition \[prop:Equivalence\] the SOPS to at parameter $\alpha \in I_\alpha$ correspond to the non-trivial zeros of $F$ in $\bigcup {\mathcal{S}}'''$. Hence, if there is a solution $ F(\hat{x}) =0$ for some $ x \in {\mathbb{R}}^2 \times \tilde{{\Omega}}^s$ with $ \pi_\alpha (\hat{x})\in I_\alpha$, then $ \hat{x} \in \bigcup {\mathcal{S}}'''$.
7. Let $ \{flag,X_i^{(4)}\}$ denote the output of Algorithm \[alg:Prune\] with input $X_i''' \in {\mathcal{S}}'''$. By Theorem \[prop:Prune\] we can replace each $X''' \in {\mathcal{S}}'''$ with $X_i^{(4)}$, and it will still be the case that $\bigcup {\mathcal{S}}'''$ contains all of the solutions to $ F=0$. In particular, if $ flag=1$ then $X_i^{(4)} = \emptyset$ and we may remove $X_i'''$ in this case.
8. If $(\alpha,\omega,c) \in \bigcup {\mathcal{S}}'''$ and $ a_1 = [c]_1$, then by construction $ \omega \in I^\omega$ and $ a_1 \in I^{a_1}$. As $I^\omega \times I^{a_1} = \bigcup_{(\beta_1,\beta_2) \in B} I^\omega_{\beta_1} \times I^{a_1}_{\beta_2} $, then there is some $ (\beta_1, \beta_2) \in B$ such that $ (\omega,a_1) \in I^\omega_{\beta_1} \times I^{a_1}_{\beta_2}$.
9. As $ \bigcup_{X \in {\mathcal{S}}'''} X \subseteq \bigcup_{\beta \in B} \tilde{X}_\beta$, then it follows that $\bigcup_{X \in {\mathcal{S}}'''} X \subseteq \bigcup_{\beta \in B} X_\beta $. That is to say $\bigcup {\mathcal{S}}''' \subseteq \bigcup {\mathcal{S}}$.
10. Hence, $\bigcup {\mathcal{S}}$ contains the Fourier coefficients of any possible SOPS.
Global Algorithm {#sec:GlobalAlgorithm}
================
After Algorithm \[alg:Comprehensive\] has constructed a collection of cubes ${\mathcal{S}}$ covering the solution space to $F=0$, we run a branch and prune algorithm. This algorithm iteratively inspects the elements in $X \in {\mathcal{S}}$ and then constructs three new lists of cubes: ${\mathcal{A}}$, ${\mathcal{B}}$ and ${\mathcal{R}}$. To summarize, first we compute the output $Prune(X) = \{flag,X'\}$ from Algorithm \[alg:Prune\]. If $flag =1$, then there are no solutions in $X$, and we can remove $X$ from ${\mathcal{S}}$. If $flag =2$, then the cube is in the neighborhood of the Hopf bifurcation, and we add $X'$ to $ {\mathcal{B}}$. If $flag =3$, then for all $\alpha \in \pi_\alpha (X)$ there exists a unique solution to $F_\alpha = 0 $ in $X'$, and we add $X'$ to $ {\mathcal{A}}$. If $X'$ is too small, then we add it to $ {\mathcal{R}}$. If the Krawczyk operator appears to be effective at reducing the size of the cube, then the pruning operation is performed again. Otherwise $X'$ is subdivided along some lower dimension and the resulting pieces are added back to ${\mathcal{S}}$.
The most obvious difference between our algorithm and the classical algorithm is that we are working in infinite dimensions. While we store $2M+1$ real valued coordinates in a given cube, as in [@galias2007infinite; @day2013rigorous] the subdivision is only performed along a subset of these dimensions. Choosing which dimension to subdivide along can greatly affect the efficiency of a branch and bound algorithm, and there are heuristic methods for optimizing this choice [@csendes1997subdivision]. However since we are finding all the zeros along a 1-parameter family of solutions, these branching methods are not entirely applicable. To determine which dimension to subdivide we select the dimension with the largest weighted diameter. That is, for a collection of weights $ \{ \lambda_i \}_{i=0}^{d}$ we define: $$w(X,i) :=
\begin{cases}
\lambda_i \cdot \mbox{diam}\left( \pi_\alpha (X )\right) & \mbox{ if } i=0, \\
\lambda_i \cdot \mbox{diam}\left(\left[\tilde{\pi}_M'(X )\right]_i\right) & \mbox{ otherwise.} \\
\end{cases}$$
\[alg:BranchAndPrune\] Take as input a collection of cubes ${\mathcal{S}}= \{ X_i \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^2 \times \tilde{{\Omega}}^s\}$ with $ M\geq 5$ and $s >2$, and as computational parameters: a halting criteria $\epsilon>0 $, a continue-pruning criteria $ \delta \geq0$, a maximum subdivision dimension $0 \leq d \leq 2M$ and a set of weights $\{\lambda_i\}_{i=0}^{d}$. The output is three lists of cubes: $ {\mathcal{A}}, {\mathcal{B}}$ and ${\mathcal{R}}$.
1. If ${\mathcal{S}}$ is empty, terminate the algorithm.
2. Select an element $X \in {\mathcal{S}}$ and remove $X$ from ${\mathcal{S}}$.
3. Define $\{flag,X'\} = Prune(X)$ to be the output of Algorithm \[alg:Prune\] with input $X$.
4. If $flag=1$, then reject $X$ and GOTO Step 1.
5. If $flag=2$, then add $X'$ to ${\mathcal{B}}$ and GOTO Step 1.
6. If $flag=3$, then add $ X'$ to ${\mathcal{A}}$ and GOTO Step 1.
7. If $\max_{0\leq i\leq d} w(X',i) < \epsilon$, then add $X'$ to ${\mathcal{R}}$ and GOTO Step 1.
8. Define $m=\lfloor d/2 \rfloor$. If $(1+\delta ) < \frac{vol( \tilde{\pi}_m'(X))}{vol( \tilde{\pi}_m'(X') )}$, then define $ X:= X'$ and GOTO Step 3.
9. Subdivide $X'$ into two pieces, $X_1'$ and $X_2'$, along a dimension which maximizes $w(X',i)$, and so that $ X' = X_1' \cup X_2'$. Add the two new cubes to ${\mathcal{S}}$ and GOTO Step 1.
\[prop:BnB\] Let $ {\mathcal{S}}= \{ X_i \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^2 \times \tilde{{\Omega}}^s\}$ with $ M \geq 5$ and $ s>2$. Let ${\mathcal{A}}, {\mathcal{B}}$ and ${\mathcal{R}}$ be the output of Algorithm \[alg:BranchAndPrune\] run with input ${\mathcal{S}}$ and various computational parameters.
(i) If $F(\hat{x}) =0$ for some $ \hat{x} \in \bigcup {\mathcal{S}}$, then $ \hat{x} \in \bigcup {\mathcal{A}}\cup {\mathcal{B}}\cup {\mathcal{R}}$.
(ii) For each $ X \in {\mathcal{A}}$ and $ \alpha \in \pi_\alpha(X)$, there is a unique $ \hat{x} = ( \alpha , \hat{\omega}_\alpha, \hat{c}_\alpha)\in X$ such that $ F(\hat{x}) =0$.
(iii) For each $ X \in {\mathcal{B}}$, if there is a solution $ \hat{x} \in X$ to $F=0$, then $\hat{x}$ is on the principal branch.
We prove the claims of the theorem.
(i) Suppose there is some solution $ \hat{x} \in X$ for some $X \in {\mathcal{S}}$. We show that $\hat{x} \in \bigcup {\mathcal{S}}\cup {\mathcal{A}}\cup {\mathcal{B}}\cup {\mathcal{R}}$ at every step of the algorithm. If we replace $X$ by $X'$ as in Step 3, then $\hat{x} \in X'$ by Theorem \[prop:Prune\]. In Step 4, if $ flag =1$ then in fact $ X' = \emptyset$, so $X$ could not have contained any solutions in the first place. In Steps 5, 6 and 7, the cube $ X' $ is added to one of $ {\mathcal{A}}$, ${\mathcal{B}}$ or ${\mathcal{R}}$. Hence, as $\hat{x} \in X'$ then $ \hat{x} \in \bigcup {\mathcal{S}}\cup {\mathcal{A}}\cup {\mathcal{B}}\cup {\mathcal{R}}$. If in Step 8 we decide to prune the cube $X'$ again, then we may repeat the argument made for Steps 3-7. In Step 9 we divide $X'$ into two new cubes $X_1'$ and $X_2'$ for which $ X' = X_1' \cup X_2'$. Hence $\hat{x} $ will be contained in at least one of $ X_1'$ or $X_2'$, and both cubes are added to $ {\mathcal{S}}$, so we cannot lose the solution in Step 9.
Thus we have shown that $\hat{x} \in \bigcup {\mathcal{S}}\cup {\mathcal{A}}\cup {\mathcal{B}}\cup {\mathcal{R}}$ at every step. Since the algorithm can only stop when ${\mathcal{S}}= \emptyset$, it follows that every solution $\hat{x}$ initially contained in $ \bigcup {\mathcal{S}}$ will eventually be contained in $ \bigcup {\mathcal{A}}\cup {\mathcal{B}}\cup {\mathcal{R}}$.
(ii) The only way a cube $X'$ can be added to ${\mathcal{A}}$ is in Step 6. That is, for some cube $ X \in {\mathcal{S}}$ the output of Algorithm \[alg:Prune\] returned $ \{3,X'\}$. Thus, it follows from Theorem \[prop:Prune\] that for all $ \alpha \in \pi_\alpha(X)$ there is a unique $ \hat{x} = ( \alpha , \hat{\omega}_\alpha, \hat{c}_\alpha)\in X$ such that $ F(\hat{x}) =0$.
(iii) The only way a cube $X'$ can be added to ${\mathcal{B}}$ is in Step 5. That is, for some cube $ X \in {\mathcal{S}}$ the output of Algorithm \[alg:Prune\] returned $ \{2,X'\}$. Thus, it follows from Lemma \[prop:BifNbd\] that the only solutions to $F=0$ in $X'$ are those on the principal branch.
If a cube has no zeros inside of it yet there is a solution close to its boundary, then proving that the cube does not contain any solutions can be very difficult, resulting in an excessive number of subdivisions. This phenomenon is common to branch and bound algorithms and is referred to as the cluster effect [@schichl2004exclusion]. As we wish to enumerate not just isolated solutions but a 1-parameter family of solutions, the difficulty of the cluster effect is multiplied. Furthermore, we cannot expect that the boundary of a cube will almost never contain a solution. In particular, when we subdivide a cube we may also bisect the curve of solutions, and further subdivisions will not remedy this problem (see Figure \[fig:BranchANDBound\]). As such, we should not expect that $ {\mathcal{R}}\neq \emptyset$.
To address this issue we apply Algorithm \[alg:Recombine\] to the output of Algorithm \[alg:BranchAndPrune\]. In Step 1 we recombine cubes in ${\mathcal{R}}$ which overlap in the $\alpha$ dimension. In Step 2 we split the cubes in ${\mathcal{R}}$ along the $\alpha$-dimension to make them easier to prune, which we do in Step 3. Ideally by Step 4 all of the cubes have been removed from $ {\mathcal{R}}$, having been added to either $ {\mathcal{A}}$ or ${\mathcal{B}}$.
Even if ${\mathcal{R}}= \emptyset$ at this point, it is not immediately clear that the only solutions are on the principal branch. For two distinct cubes $ X_1,X_2 \in {\mathcal{A}}$, if there is some $ \alpha_0$ such that $ \alpha_0 \in \pi_\alpha(X_1)$ and $ \alpha_0 \in \pi_\alpha(X_2)$, then there could very well be two distinct solutions at the parameter $ \alpha_0$. In fact, since we subdivide along the $ \alpha$–dimension it is to be expected that a cube will share an $\alpha$–value with one or two other cubes. In Steps 6-9 of Algorithm \[alg:Recombine\] we check to make sure that when two cubes have $ \alpha$–values in common, then there is a unique solution associated to each $\alpha_0 \in \pi_\alpha(X_1) \cap \pi_\alpha(X_2)$.
\[alg:Recombine\] Take as input sets $ {\mathcal{A}}, {\mathcal{B}}, {\mathcal{R}}$ produced by Algorithm \[alg:BranchAndPrune\] and a computational parameter $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$. The output is a pair of intervals $ I_\alpha^{\mathcal{A}}$, $I_\alpha^{\mathcal{B}}$ and either success or failure.
1. Combine the elements in ${\mathcal{R}}$ whose $\alpha$-components overlap in more than just a point. That is, for all $ X,Y \in {\mathcal{R}}$, if $diam( \pi_\alpha(X) \cap \pi_\alpha(Y)) >0$, then replace $ X$ and $Y$ in the set $ {\mathcal{R}}$ with a new cube $Z $ containing $ X \cup Y$.
2. Subdivide each $ X \in {\mathcal{R}}$ along the $ \alpha$-dimension.
3. For all $ X \in {\mathcal{R}}$ calculate $ \{flag, X'\} = Prune^{(n)}(X)$, the output of Algorithm \[alg:Prune\] iterated at most $n$ times with initial input $X$. If $flag =1$, then remove $ X$ from $ {\mathcal{R}}$. If $flag =2$, then remove $ X$ from $ {\mathcal{R}}$ and add $ X' $ to ${\mathcal{B}}$. If $flag =3$, then remove $ X$ from $ {\mathcal{R}}$ and add $ X' $ to ${\mathcal{A}}$.
4. If $ {\mathcal{R}}\neq \emptyset$ then return FAILURE.
5. Define $I_\alpha^{\mathcal{A}}= \bigcup_{X \in {\mathcal{A}}} \pi_\alpha(X)$ and $I_\alpha^{\mathcal{B}}= \bigcup_{X \in {\mathcal{B}}} \pi_\alpha(X)$.
6. Construct a cover $ {\mathcal{I}}_{{\mathcal{B}}}'$ of the parts of cubes in ${\mathcal{A}}$ which intersect with $ \bigcup {\mathcal{B}}$. That is, define $ {\mathcal{I}}_{{\mathcal{B}}} = \{ X \in {\mathcal{A}}: \pi_\alpha (X) \cap I_\alpha^{\mathcal{B}}\}$. Then define $ {\mathcal{I}}_{{\mathcal{B}}}'$ by, for each $ X \in {\mathcal{I}}_{{\mathcal{B}}}$, taking the $\alpha$-component of $X$ and setting it equal to $ \pi_\alpha(X) \cap I_{\alpha}^{\mathcal{B}}$ and adding the modified cube to ${\mathcal{I}}_{{\mathcal{B}}}'$.
7. For all $ X \in {\mathcal{I}}_{\mathcal{B}}'$ calculate $\{flag,X'\} = Prune^{(n)}(X)$, the output of Algorithm \[alg:Prune\] iterated $n$–times with initial input $X$. If $flag \neq 2 $ then return FAILURE.
8. Construct a cover $ {\mathcal{I}}_{{\mathcal{A}}}'$ of the parts of cubes in ${\mathcal{A}}$ which intersect with another cube in ${\mathcal{A}}$. That is, define $ {\mathcal{I}}_{{\mathcal{A}}} = \{ (X,Y) \in {\mathcal{A}}\times {\mathcal{A}}: X \neq Y, \pi_\alpha (X) \cap \pi_\alpha (Y) \neq \emptyset \}$. Then define $ {\mathcal{I}}_{{\mathcal{A}}}'$ by, for each $ (X,Y) \in {\mathcal{I}}_{{\mathcal{A}}}$, defining a new cube $ Z$ which contains $ X \cup Y$, replacing the $\alpha$-component of $Z$ by $ \pi_\alpha(X) \cap \pi_\alpha(Y)$, and adding $Z$ to ${\mathcal{I}}_{{\mathcal{A}}}'$.
9. For all $ Z \in {\mathcal{I}}_{\mathcal{A}}'$ calculate $\{flag,Z'\} = Prune^{(n)}(Z)$, the output of Algorithm \[alg:Prune\] iterated $n$–times with initial input $Z$. If $flag \neq 3 $ then return FAILURE.
10. If the algorithm reaches this point, return SUCCESS.
Let $ {\mathcal{A}},{\mathcal{B}},{\mathcal{R}}$ denote the output of Algorithm \[alg:BranchAndPrune\] run with input $ {\mathcal{S}}= \{ X_i \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^2 \times \tilde{{\Omega}}^s \}$ where $M \geq 5$ and $ s>2$. Suppose having received input $ {\mathcal{A}},{\mathcal{B}},{\mathcal{R}}$ and $ n \in {\mathbb{N}}$, Algorithm \[alg:Recombine\] returns SUCCESS and intervals $I_{\alpha}^{\mathcal{A}}$ and $I_{\alpha}^{\mathcal{B}}$.
(i) If $ \alpha \in I_\alpha^{\mathcal{A}}\backslash I_\alpha^{\mathcal{B}}$, then there is a unique solution $\hat{x}_\alpha = (\alpha , \hat{\omega}_\alpha,\hat{c}_\alpha) \in \bigcup {\mathcal{S}}$ such that $ F_\alpha (\hat{\omega}_\alpha,\hat{c}_\alpha)=0$.
(ii) If $ \alpha \in I_\alpha^{\mathcal{B}}$, then the only solutions to $F_\alpha = 0$ in $\bigcup {\mathcal{S}}$ are on the principal branch.
\[prop:Rescale\]
We describe the first 4 steps of the algorithm and then prove the theorem.
1. Let ${\mathcal{R}}$ denote the initial input to the algorithm and $ {\mathcal{R}}'$ denote the resulting set produced by Step 1. By its construction, it follows that $ \bigcup {\mathcal{R}}\subseteq \bigcup {\mathcal{R}}'$.
2. If we subdivide the cubes in ${\mathcal{R}}'$, then it is still true that $ \bigcup {\mathcal{R}}\subseteq \bigcup {\mathcal{R}}'$.
3. As described in the proof of Theorem \[prop:BnB\], if $flag = 1,2,3$ then it is appropriate to respectively, discard $X$, add $X'$ to ${\mathcal{B}}$ and add $X'$ to ${\mathcal{A}}$. Appropriate, that is, in the sense that the conclusion of Theorem \[alg:BranchAndPrune\] will hold for these modified sets $ {\mathcal{A}}$, ${\mathcal{B}}$ and $ {\mathcal{R}}$.
4. If we cannot show that every region of phase-space lies in either ${\mathcal{A}}$ or ${\mathcal{B}}$ then we are unable to prove the theorem. Otherwise, every solution to $ F=0$ in $\bigcup {\mathcal{S}}$ is contained in $\bigcup {\mathcal{A}}\cup {\mathcal{B}}$.
We prove claim $(i)$. If $ \alpha \in I_\alpha^{\mathcal{A}}\backslash I_\alpha^{\mathcal{B}}$ there is a solution $\hat{x}_\alpha$ to $ F_\alpha =0$ in $ \bigcup {\mathcal{A}}$. Suppose there exists a second distinct solution $ \hat{x}_\alpha'$ to $F_\alpha =0$. Since each cube $X \in {\mathcal{A}}$ contains a unique solution for all $\alpha \in \pi_\alpha (X)$, there would exist distinct cubes $X,Y \in {\mathcal{A}}$ such that $ \hat{x}_\alpha \in X$ and $ \hat{x}_\alpha' \in Y$. It follows then that there exists some $Z \in {\mathcal{I}}_\alpha'$ such that $ \hat{x}_\alpha,\hat{x}_\alpha'\in Z$. Since it is determined by Step 9 that $ flag=3$ in the output of $Prune^{(n)}(Z)$, therefore by Theorem \[prop:Prune\] there exists a unique solution to $F=0$ in $Z$. Thereby $\hat{x}_\alpha = \hat{x}_\alpha'$, and if $ \alpha \in I_\alpha^{\mathcal{A}}\backslash I_\alpha^{\mathcal{B}}$, then there is a unique solution $\hat{x}_\alpha = (\alpha , \hat{\omega}_\alpha,\hat{c}_\alpha) \in \bigcup {\mathcal{S}}$ such that $ F_\alpha (\hat{\omega}_\alpha,\hat{c}_\alpha)=0$.
We prove claim $(ii)$. Suppose there exists some $\hat{x}_\alpha$ such that $ \alpha \in I_\alpha^{\mathcal{B}}$ and $ F_\alpha (\hat{\omega},\hat{c})=0$. Since the algorithm passed through Step 4, it follows that $\hat{x}_\alpha \in \bigcup {\mathcal{A}}\cup {\mathcal{B}}$. If $ \hat{x}_\alpha \in \bigcup {\mathcal{B}}$, then $\hat{x}_\alpha$ is on the principal branch by Theorem \[prop:BnB\]. If $ \hat{x}_\alpha \in \bigcup {\mathcal{A}}$, then there exists a cube $X \in {\mathcal{I}}_{\mathcal{B}}'$ such that $ \hat{x}_\alpha \in X$. If the Algorithm \[alg:Recombine\] is successful, then when Algorithm \[alg:Prune\] is run $n$–times with initial input $X$ it will produce $flag =2$. Hence by Theorem \[prop:Prune\] this solution $\hat{x}_\alpha \in \bigcup {\mathcal{A}}$ must be on the principal branch.
We implemented the algorithms discussed in this paper using MATLAB version R2017b (see [@JonesCode] for the code). The calculations were performed on Intel Xeon E5-2670 and Intel Xeon E5-2680 processors, and used INTLAB for the interval arithmetic [@rump1999intlab]. A summary of the algorithms’ runtime is given in Table \[table:RunTimes\].
For the intervals $I_\alpha$ taking the values (containing at least) $ [{\tfrac{\pi}{2}},1.6]$, $ [1.6,1.7]$, $ [1.7,1.8]$, and $ [1.8,1.9]$, we ran [@jlm2016Floquet Algorithm 5.1] using computational parameters $i_0=2$, $j_0=20$, $n_{Time} = 32$, $N_{Period} =10$, $N_{Prune} =4$, $\epsilon_1 = 0.05$ and $\epsilon_2 = 0.05$. We then ran Algorithm \[alg:Comprehensive\] using computational parameters $M=10$ and $S=3$, and $N=15$ producing outputs ${\mathcal{S}}_{I_\alpha}$ (see Figure \[fig:InitialPrep\]). By Theorem \[prop:Comprehensive\], if $y$ is a SOPS at parameter $ \alpha \in I_\alpha$ given as in , then $ (\alpha,\omega,c) \in \bigcup {\mathcal{S}}_{I_\alpha}$. By Proposition \[prop:Equivalence\] the SOPS to at parameters $ \alpha \in I_\alpha$ are in bijective correspondence with the nontrivial zeros of $F$ inside $ \bigcup {\mathcal{S}}_{I_\alpha}$.
On each of the collections of cubes ${\mathcal{S}}_{I_\alpha}$ we ran Algorithm \[alg:BranchAndPrune\], using the following computational parameters: For the stopping criterion we used $ \epsilon = 0.0001$ for $\alpha \in [{\tfrac{\pi}{2}},1.6]$ and $ \epsilon = 0.01$ otherwise. For the continue-pruning criterion, in every case we used $\delta = 0.5$. For the maximal subdivision dimension, in each case we used $d =6$, corresponding to the variables $ \alpha,\omega,a_1 \in {\mathbb{R}}$ and $ c_2 , c_3 \in {\mathbb{C}}$. For the set of weights, in each case we used $ \lambda_{0} = 8$ (corresponding to $\alpha$) and $ \lambda_i = 1$ otherwise.
The output of Algorithm \[alg:BranchAndPrune\] are sets ${\mathcal{A}}_{I_\alpha},{\mathcal{B}}_{I_\alpha},{\mathcal{R}}_{I_\alpha}$. On each of these resulting outputs we ran Algorithm \[alg:Recombine\] using $n=5$, and in each case it was successful, producing sets $ I_\alpha^{\mathcal{A}}$ and $I_\alpha^{\mathcal{B}}$. When $I_\alpha = [{\tfrac{\pi}{2}},1.6]$ then $I_\alpha^{\mathcal{B}}=[{\tfrac{\pi}{2}},{\tfrac{\pi}{2}}+ 0.00550]$ and $I_\alpha^{\mathcal{A}}= [{\tfrac{\pi}{2}}+ 0.00550,1.6]$, and otherwise $I_\alpha^{\mathcal{A}}= I_\alpha$. By Theorem \[prop:BnB\], this shows that for all $ \alpha \in [{\tfrac{\pi}{2}}+ 0.00550,1.9]$ there exists a unique solution to $ F_\alpha =0$ in $ \bigcup {\mathcal{S}}$, and if $ \alpha \in [{\tfrac{\pi}{2}}, {\tfrac{\pi}{2}}+ 0.00550]$ then the only solutions that exist are on the principal branch. Note that by [@BergJaquette] there are no solutions at $ \alpha = {\tfrac{\pi}{2}}$ on or off the principal branch, and there are no folds in the principal branch for $ \alpha \in ( {\tfrac{\pi}{2}}, {\tfrac{\pi}{2}}+0.00553]$. Hence for all $ \alpha \in ( {\tfrac{\pi}{2}}, 1.9]$ there exists a unique solution to . By [@jlm2016Floquet] and [@xie1991thesis] there exists a unique SOPS to for $ \alpha \in [1.9,6.0]$ and $ \alpha \geq 5.67$ respectively. Hence there exists a unique SOPS to for all $ \alpha > {\tfrac{\pi}{2}}$.
$I_\alpha$ $N_{bf}$ $N_{grid}'$ $N_{grid}$ $T_{bf}$ $T_{grid}$ $T_{bb}^*$ $T_{verify}$
-------------------------- ---------- ------------- ------------ ---------- ------------ ------------ --------------
$[{\tfrac{\pi}{2}},1.6]$ 1604 614 181 602.5 5.2 $2.7^{*}$ 1.4
$[1.6,1.7]$ 985 861 165 461.6 5.6 $4.6^*$ 1.2
$[1.7,1.8]$ 604 566 143 335.1 3.6 $10.1^*$ 0.4
$[1.8,1.9]$ 292 277 97 135.6 1.9 $67.0^*$ 0.6
\[table:RunTimes\]
By [@mallet1988morse] every global solution to has a positive, integer valued lap number $V(x,t)$. For non-zero $x$ the lap number will be an odd integer, defined by fixing the smallest possible $ \sigma \geq t$ such that $ x(\sigma)=0$ and defining: $$V(x,t) =
\begin{cases}
\mbox{the \# of zeros (counting multiplicity) of $x(s)$ in $(\sigma-1,\sigma]$; or } \\
\mbox{$1$ if no $\sigma $ exists}.
\end{cases}$$
Let us fix $x_0$ as a periodic solution to with period $L_0$. For any $t\in {\mathbb{R}}$ the lap number $ V(x_0,t)$ remains constant, and we can define $ N:= V(x_0,t)$. If $ N=1$ then $x_0$ must be a SOPS. If $ N \geq 3$ then define the integer $n:= \tfrac{N-1}{2}$ and $r := 1 - n L_0 $. By [@mallet1988morse], it follows that $2/N < L_0 < 2/(N-1)$, hence $ 0<r<N^{-1}$. Defining $x_1(t):= x_0(r t)$ and $ \alpha_1 = r \alpha_0 $ we calculate the derivative of $ x_1(t)$ as: $ x_1'(t)= - \alpha_1 f( x_0(rt -1))$. We may further compute: $$\begin{aligned}
x_0(rt-1) = x_0(rt -1 + n L_0) = x_0(r(t-1)) = x_1(t-1).
\end{aligned}$$ Hence it follows that $ x_1'(t) = - \alpha_1 f( x_1(t-1))$. Thus we have shown that if $V(x_0) \geq 3$ then $x_0$ is a rescaling of a periodic solution $x_1$ with period length $L_1 = L_0/r >2$. Hence $x_0$ is a rescaling of a SOPS.
Future Work {#sec:FutureWork}
===========
One pertinent question that remains concerns the period length of SOPS to Wright’s equation.
\[prop:LengthConj\] The period length of SOPS to increases monotonically in $\alpha$.
The rigorous numerics in [@lessard2010recent; @jlm2016Floquet] strongly suggests this to be true when $ \alpha \leq 6$, and when $ \alpha \geq 3.8$ the period length $L$ satisfies $|L - \alpha^{-1} e^\alpha| < 7.66 \alpha^{-1}$ by [@nussbaum1982asymptotic]. It is known that the period length increases monotonically when $ \alpha \in ( {\tfrac{\pi}{2}}, {\tfrac{\pi}{2}}+6.830 \times 10^{-3}]$ by [@BergJaquette]. However Conjecture \[prop:LengthConj\] is unresolved for $ \alpha > {\tfrac{\pi}{2}}+ 6.830 \times 10^{-3}$.
Another question, proposed in [@neumaier2014global], is the generalized Wright’s conjecture.
\[prop:GenWright\] For every $ \alpha >0$ the set $\overline{U(\alpha)}$, the closure of the forward extension by the semiflow of a local unstable manifold at zero, is the global attractor for .
This is known to be true for $\alpha \leq {\tfrac{\pi}{2}}$ by [@wright1955non; @neumaier2014global; @BergJaquette] and is unresolved for $ \alpha > {\tfrac{\pi}{2}}$. Conjecture \[prop:GenWright\] can be reduced to a question about the number of rapidly oscillating periodic solutions, and moreover Conjecture \[prop:LengthConj\] implies Conjecture \[prop:GenWright\]. To wit, by the Poincaré-Bendixson theorem for monotone feedback systems [@mallet1996poincare], the $\omega$-limit set of any initial data to is either $ 0$ or a periodic orbit. The lap number organizes the attractor into Morse sets $S_N$ by [@mallet1988morse], and by [@fiedler1989connections] there is always a connecting orbit from the unstable manifold of the origin to the Morse set $ S_N$. Hence, to prove Conjecture \[prop:GenWright\], it would suffice to show that each Morse set consists of exactly one periodic orbit.
By Theorem \[prop:Rescaling\] there are no isolas of periodic orbits, so multiple rapidly oscillating periodic solutions can only arise if there is a fold in one of the branches of rapidly oscillating periodic solutions. If Conjecture \[prop:LengthConj\] holds, then such a fold can be ruled out using rescaling equation in Theorem \[prop:Rescaling\]. In particular, if there are two SOPS at parameters $ \alpha_1 < \alpha_2$ with period lengths $L_1, L_2$ and the equality $ \alpha_0 = \alpha_1 ( 1 + n L_1) = \alpha_2 (1 + n L_2)$ holds, then there will be two distinct rapidly oscillating periodic solutions at parameter $\alpha_0$. This equality cannot hold if $L_1 < L_2$ whenever $ \alpha_1 <\alpha_2$. Thereby Conjecture \[prop:LengthConj\] implies Conjecture \[prop:GenWright\].
There are still further questions about Wright’s equation. In [@mccord1996global] the authors show a semi-conjugacy of Wright’s equation, and negative feedback systems more generally, onto a family of finite dimensional ODEs. Outside the dynamics described by this semi-conjugacy, are there any other interesting dynamics in ? Furthermore, do the stable and unstable manifolds of the periodic orbits in intersect transversely?
There are many future directions for the rigorous numerics of infinite dimensional dynamical systems. Perhaps one of the most striking features of Figure \[fig:Verified\] and Figure \[fig:BranchANDBound\] is the non-uniform size of cubes. This seems to be a result of applying the branch and bound method to a 1-parameter family of solutions instead of a collection of isolated solutions. One approach would be to first validate a neighborhood around the branch of solutions (*á la* [@lessard2010recent]) and then use a branch and bound method to ensure that there are no solutions outside of this neighborhood. In this paper, we used a collection of weights $\{ \lambda\}_{i=0}^d$ to mitigate this problem. When using all equal weights ($\lambda_i=1$ for all $i$), the vast majority of cubes output by Algorithm \[alg:BranchAndPrune\] ended up in ${\mathcal{R}}$. Having a better heuristic for deciding along which dimension to branch would be very useful, particularly so if it does away with the *a priori* need to select a maximal subdivision dimension $d$ as a computational parameter.
Integral to the success of our algorithm (allowing it to finish in finite time) are the estimates derived in [@jlm2016Floquet] which bound *all* of the slowly oscillating periodic solutions to Wright’s equation. Since most initial conditions are attracted to the single SOPS in Wright’s equation, it was sufficient for the methods in [@jlm2016Floquet] to be relatively simple. Future work could be done toward bounding all periodic orbits when there are multiple (unstable) solutions, or when the dimension is higher, as well as bounding all periodic solutions to ODEs and PDEs.
Another question, explored in [@lessard2017computer], is “what the best Banach space to work in?” In this paper we consider the space $ {\Omega}^s$ of Fourier coefficients with algebraic decay. In Algorithm \[alg:Comprehensive\], the estimates for obtaining *a priori* estimates on the Fourier coefficients of SOPS always improve in absolute terms by using larger value of $S$. However, the value of $C_0$ will increase when using a larger $S$. It would likely be beneficial to initially run Algorithm \[alg:Comprehensive\] with a large $S$, and then convert these bounds into a smaller $S$ so that $ C_0$ will shrink as well. However, for other applications and other infinite dimensional problems, the question of what is the optimal Banach space remains.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The author thanks Konstantin Mischaikow for many insightful discussions, as well as John Mallet-Paret and Roger Nussbaum for discussions on future work.
The author acknowledges the Office of Advanced Research Computing (OARC) at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey for providing access to the Amarel cluster and associated research computing resources that have contributed to the results reported here.
[^1]: Partially supported by NSF DMS 0915019, NSF DMS 1248071
[^2]: Department of Mathematics, Hill Center-Busch Campus, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 08854-8019. [[email protected]]{}
|
---
abstract: 'A Lehmer number modulo a prime $p$ is an integer $a$ with $1 \leq a \leq p-1$ whose inverse $\bar{a}$ within the same range has opposite parity. Lehmer numbers that are also primitive roots have been discussed by Wang and Wang [@WW] in an endeavour to count the number of ways $1$ can be expressed as the sum of two primitive roots that are also Lehmer numbers (an extension of a question of S. Golomb). In this paper we give an explicit estimate for the number of Lehmer primitive roots modulo $p$ and prove that, for all primes $p \neq 2,3,7$, Lehmer primitive roots exist. We also make explicit the known expression for the number of Lehmer numbers modulo $p$ and improve the Wang–Wang estimate for the number of solutions to the Golomb–Lehmer primitive root problem.'
author:
- |
Stephen D. Cohen [^1]\
[University of Glasgow, Scotland]{}\
[[email protected]]{}
- |
Tim Trudgian[^2]\
[School of Physical, Environmental and Mathematical Sciences]{}\
[The University of New South Wales Canberra, Australia ]{}\
[[email protected] ]{}
title: Lehmer numbers and primitive roots modulo a prime
---
Introduction
============
Let $p$ be an odd prime and $a$ an integer with $1 \leq a \leq p-1$. Define $\bar{a} $ to be integer with $1 \leq \bar{a} \leq p-1$ such that $\bar{a}$ is the inverse of $a$ modulo $p$. Following the interest in such integers by D. H. Lehmer (see, e.g. [@Guy §F12]) we define $a$ to be a [*Lehmer number*]{} if $a$ and $\bar{a}$ have opposite parity, i.e., $a+\bar{a}$ is odd. Thus $a$ is a Lehmer number if and only if $\bar{a}$ is a Lehmer number. It is easily checked that there are no Lehmer numbers modulo $p$ when $p=3$ or $7$.
W. Zhang [@zhang94] has shown that $M_p$, the number of Lehmer numbers modulo $p$, satisfies $$\label{zhang}
M_p =\frac{p-1}{2} + O(p^{\frac{1}{2}} \log^2 p).$$ We make this explicit in Theorem \[straw\] below. A Lehmer number which is also a primitive root modulo $p$ will be called a [*Lehmer primitive root*]{} or an [*LPR*]{}. The inverse $\bar{a}$ of an LPR is also an LPR. Since there is no Lehmer number modulo $3$, we can suppose $p>3$. Wang and Wang [@WW] consider LPRs in an analogue of the question of Golomb relating to pairs $(a,b)$ of primitive roots modulo $p$ for which $a+b \equiv 1 \pmod p$. Specifically, Wang and Wang derive an asymptotic estimate for $G_p$, the number of pairs $(a,b)$ of LPRs for which $a+b \equiv 1 \pmod p$ (thus $a+b=p+1$), namely, $$\label{wangwang}
G_p = \theta_{p-1}^2\left(\frac{p-1}{4} +O(W_{p-1}^2 p^{\frac{3}{4}}\log^2 p)\right),$$ where, for a positive integer $m$, $\theta_m = \frac{\phi(m)}{m}$ ($\phi$ being Euler’s function) and $W_m = 2^{\omega(m)}$ is the number of square-free divisors of $m$. It follows from (\[wangwang\]) that there is always a pair $(a,b)$ of LPRs modulo $p$ for which $a+b=p+1$ for sufficiently large $p$. Since the result is inexplicit it is an open problem to specify which primes $p$ (if any) fail to possess such a pair $(a,b)$.
As a preliminary it is clearly desirable to possess an asymptotic expression analogous to (\[zhang\]) and (\[wangwang\]) for $N_p$ defined simply as the number of LPRs modulo a prime $p \ (>3)$ and also to exhibit explicitly the finite list of primes $p$ for which there exists no LPR modulo $p$. This is the main purpose of the present article.
For odd integers $m\geq3$ define the positive number $T_m$ by $$\label{Tm}
T_m=\frac{2\sum_{j=1}^{(m-1)/2}\tan\left(\frac{\pi j}{m}\right)}{m\log m}.$$ The asymptotic result to be proved is the following.
\[Np\] Let $p>3$ be a prime. Then $$\label{Npeq}
\left|N_{p}- \frac{\phi(p-1)}{2}\right| < T_p^2\theta_{p-1} W_{p-1}p^{\frac{1}{2}}\log^2 p .$$ In particular, if $p >3$, then $$\label{Npeq1}
\left|N_{p}- \frac{\phi(p-1)}{2}\right| <\frac{1}{2}\theta_{p-1}W_{p-1}p^{\frac{1}{2}} \log^2 p.$$
A criterion for the existence of an LPR follows immediately from Theorem \[Np\].
\[exist\] Let $p>3$ be a prime. Suppose that $$p^{\frac{1}{2}}>2T_p^2W_{p-1} \log^2 p + p^{-\frac{1}{2}}.$$ Then there exists an LPR modulo $p$. In particular, provided $p > 7$, it suffices that $$\label{dundee}
p^{\frac{1}{2}}> W_{p-1}\log^2 p + p^{-\frac{1}{2}}.$$
In fact, a complete existence result will be proved as follows.
\[lpr\] Suppose $p (\neq3, 7)$ is an odd prime. Then there exists an [*LPR*]{} modulo $p$.
Finally we obtain an improvement to (\[wangwang\]), namely, $$\label{indigo}
\left|G_p- \frac{\theta_{p-1}^2}{4}(p-2)\right| <\frac{\theta_{p-1}^2}{8}[W_{p-1}^2(9\log^2 p+1) -1]p^{\frac{1}{2}}, \quad p> 3.$$ Of course, (\[indigo\]) implies that. for sufficiently large primes $p$, there exists a pair $(a,b)$ of LPR modulo $p$ such that $a+b\equiv 1 \pmod p$. We defer a full discussion of the existence question, however, to a future investigation.
The outline of this paper is as follows. In §\[Twain\] we give bounds for the function $T_{m}$ introduced in (\[Tm\]). In §\[Thackeray\] we prove Theorem \[straw\], which is an explicit version of (\[zhang\]). In §\[Forster\] we prove Theorem \[Np\] and introduce a sieve. This enables us to prove Theorem \[lpr\] in §\[Conrad\]. Finally, in §\[Macauley\] we prove (\[indigo\]) in Theorem \[cream\] thereby improving on the main result from Wang and Wang [@WW].
The authors are grateful to Maike Massierer who provided much useful advice relating to the computations in §\[Conrad\].
Bounds for $T_m$ {#Twain}
================
The sum $T_m$ is relevant to previous work on Lehmer numbers (such as [@zhang94] and [@WW]). For explicit results it is helpful to have better bounds than those used in these papers. Here, Lemma \[red\] below (while not best possible) is sufficient for our purposes. Indeed, only the upper bound is needed in what follows. We remark that $1+\log(\frac{2}{\pi})=0.54841\ldots$.
\[red\] For any odd integer $m \geq 3$ we have $$\label{tartan}
\frac{2}{\pi}\left(1+ \frac{0.548}{\log {m}}\right) <T_m< \frac{2}{\pi}\left(1+ \frac{1.549}{\log {m}}\right).$$ In particular, if $m\geq 1637$, then $T_m^2< \frac{1}{2}$.
We begin with the upper bound for $T_m$ in (\[tartan\]). Since $\tan x$ is an increasing function for $0 \leq x < \pi/2$, then $$S_m=\sum_{j=0}^{(m-3)/2} \tan \left(\frac{\pi j}{m}\right)= \sum_{j=1}^{(m-3)/2} \tan\left(\frac{\pi j}{m}\right)$$ is a left-Riemmann sum (with unit intervals) for the integral $\int_{0}^{(m-1)/2} \tan\left(\frac{\pi x}{2}\right) dx$, so that $$S_m < \frac{m}{\pi}\log \sec\left(\frac{\pi(m-1)}{2m}\right)= \frac{m}{\pi}\log \csc\left(\frac{\pi }{2m}\right)$$ Hence $$T_m m \log m<\frac{2m}{\pi}\log \csc\left(\frac{\pi }{2m}\right)+ 2\tan\left(\frac{\pi (m-1)}{2m}\right)<\frac{2m}{\pi}\log \csc\left(\frac{\pi }{2m}\right)+2 \csc\left(\frac{\pi}{2m}\right)$$ Now $\sin x > x-x^3/6$, whence, with $\beta= \pi^2/(24m^2)$, $$\csc \left(\frac{\pi}{2m}\right)<\frac{2m}{\pi}(1-\beta)^{-1}< \frac{2m}{\pi}(1+2 \beta),$$ since, certainly, $\beta< 1/2$. It follows that $$T_m m\log m < \frac{2m}{\pi}(\log m + \log(2/\pi)+ 2\beta+ 2+ 4 \beta)<\frac{2m}{\pi}(\log m + 1.549)$$ provided $m >101$. The first claimed inequality follows for $m\geq 101$. In fact, by calculation it is also true for all smaller values of $m$.
From this, if $m>1200001$, we have $T_m< 0.7071$ and hence $T_m^2< 1/2$. By direct calculation, this inequality also holds for $1637 \leq m <1200001$.
For the left hand inequality of (\[tartan\]), we exploit the fact that $S_m+\tan\left(\frac{\pi (m-1)}{2m}\right)$ is the trapezoidal rule approximation to the integral $\int_{0}^{(m-1)/2} 2 \tan\left(\frac{\pi x}{2}\right) dx$. Indeed, since the integrand is concave up, the error term (involving the second derivative) is negative, i.e., the sum exceeds the integral. Hence $$T_m m \log m> \frac{2m}{\pi}\log \csc\left(\frac{\pi }{2m}\right)+ \tan\left(\frac{\pi (m-1)}{2m}\right)> \frac{2m}{\pi}\log\frac{2m}{\pi}+\cot\frac{\pi}{2m}.$$ For $0<x<1, \cos x >1-x^2/2$ and $\sin x <x$ so that $\cot\frac{\pi}{2m}>\frac{2m}{\pi}\left(1-\frac{\pi^2}{8m^2}\right)>\frac{2m}{\pi}(1-0.0001)$ whenever $m\geq111$. Moreover, $ \csc\left(\frac{\pi }{2m}\right) >\frac{2m}{\pi}$, whence, whenever $m \geq 111$, $$T_m>\frac{2}{\pi}\left(1+\frac{\frac{2}{\pi}+1-0.0001}{\log m}\right)$$ The result follows for $m\geq 111$. It also holds when $3\leq m<111$ by direct calculation.
The number of Lehmer numbers modulo $p$ {#Thackeray}
=======================================
We turn to making (\[zhang\]) explicit. For this we acknowledge the ideas of [@zhang94] and [@WW].
\[straw\] Suppose $p>3$ is a prime. Then $$\label{zhang2}
\left|M_p -\frac{p-1}{2}\right| <T_p^2 p^{\frac{1}{2}} \log^2 p.$$ Moreover, for all $p$ we have $$\label{chips}
\left|M_p -\frac{p-1}{2}\right| <\frac{1}{2}p^{\frac{1}{2}} \log^2 p.$$
Evidently, $$\label{lime}
M_p = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{a=1}^{p-1}(1-(-1)^{a+\bar{a}})=\frac{p-1}{2} -\sum_{a=1}^{p-1}(-1)^{a+\bar{a}}=\frac{p-1}{2} -\frac{1}{2}E_p,$$ say. Let $\psi$ be the additive character on the integers modulo $p$ defined by $\psi(a)=\exp(2\pi i a/p)$. Express the function $(-1)^a$ in terms of additive characters modulo $p$ using the transformation $$(-1)^a =\frac{1}{p}\sum_{r=1}^{p-1}\sum_{j=0}^{p-1}(-1)^r\psi(j(a-r))=\frac{1}{p}\sum_{r=1}^{p-1}(-1)^r\sum_{j=0}^{p-1}\psi(j(a-r)).$$ Similarly, $$(-1)^{\bar{a}} =\frac{1}{p}\sum_{s=1}^{p-1}(-1)^s\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\psi(k(\bar{a}-s)).$$ Hence, $$E_p= \frac{1}{p^2}\sum_{j,k=0}^{p-1}\sum_{a=1}^{p-1}\psi(ja+k\bar{a})
\sum_{r=1}^{p-1}(-1)^r\psi(-jr)\sum_{s=1}^{p-1}(-1)^s \psi(-ks).$$ Notice that, if $j=0$, then $\sum_{r=1}^{p-1}(-1)^r\psi(-jr) =\sum_{r=1}^{p-1}(-1)^r=0$, since $p$ is odd. Hence, we can suppose the range of $j$ and, similarly, of $k$ in $E_p$ runs from $1$ to $p-1$. Thus $$\label{pink}
|E_p|=\frac{1}{p^2}\sum_{j,k=1}^{p-1}\big{|}\sum_{a=1}^{p-1}\psi(ja+k\bar{a})\big{|} \left|\sum_{r=1}^{p-1}(-1)^r\psi(-jr)\right|
\left|\sum_{s=1}^{p-1}(-1)^s \psi(-ks)\right|.$$ Now $\sum_{a=1}^{p-1}\psi(ja+k\bar{a})$ is a Kloosterman sum and so is bounded by $2p^{\frac{1}{2}}$, whatever the values of $j,k$.
Next, in (\[pink\]),
$$\sum_{r=1}^{p-1}(-1)^r\psi(-jr)=\frac{1-\exp(2\pi ij/p)}{1+\exp(2\pi ij/p)}=\frac {i \sin (\pi j/p)}{\cos (\pi j/p)}.$$ Moreover, $$\sum_{j=1}^{(p-1)}\left|\frac { \sin (\pi j/p)}{\cos (\pi j/p)}\right|=2\sum_{j=1}^{(p-1)/2} \tan \left(\frac{\pi j}{p}\right)=T_p\ p \log p,$$ by the definition (\[Tm\]). It follows that $$\left|\sum_{r=1}^{p-1}(-1)^r\psi(-jr)\right| < T_p \ p \log p,$$ and, similarly, for the sum in (\[pink\]) over $k$.
Applying these bounds to (\[pink\]), from (\[lime\]) we deduce (\[zhang2\]). Using Lemma 1 and a small computation we deduce (\[chips\]).
A slight extension of Theorem \[Np\] and its proof {#Forster}
==================================================
Throughout let $p >3$ be a prime. All references given will be modulo $p$ (unless otherwise mentioned). We begin by extending the concept of a primitive root (as used in a number of papers such as [@COT]). For any [*even*]{} divisor $e$ of $p-1$ an integer $a$ (indivisible by $p$) will be said to be $e$-free if $a \equiv b^d \pmod p$ for an integer $b$ and divisor $d$ of $e$ implies $d=1$. Thus $a$ is a primitive root if it is $p-1$-free, Indeed, $a$ is a primitive root if and only if $a$ is $l$-free for all prime divisors $l$ of $p-1$. More generally, $a$ is $e$-free if and only if it is $l$-free for all prime divisors $l$ of $e$. It follows that the proportion of integers in $[1,p-1]$ which are $e$-free is $\theta_e$ and therefore that their total number is $\theta_e (p-1)$.
Now, the function $$\label{efree}
\theta_e\sum_{d|e}\frac{\mu(d)}{\phi(d)} \sum_{\chi_d}\chi_d$$ acting on integers $a$ (indivisible by $p$) takes the value $1$ if $a$ is $e$-free and is zero, otherwise. Here the sum over $\chi_d$ is over all $\phi(d)$ multiplicative characters $\chi_d$ modulo $p$ of order $d$.
The criterion for an integer $a$ with $1 \leq a \leq p-1$ to be a Lehmer number is that $\frac{1}{2}(1- (-1)^{a+\bar{a}})=1$ (and not 0). For any divisor $e$ of $p-1$, write $N_p(e)=N(e)$ for the number of Lehmer numbers $a$ such that $a$ is also $e$-free. In particular, $N(p-1)=N_p$ is the number of LPRs modulo $p$. By the above, $$\label{Neexpr}
N(e) = \frac{1}{2} \theta_e \sum_{d|e} \frac{\mu(d)}{\phi(d)} \sum_{\chi_d}\sum_{1 \leq a \leq p-1}(1-(-1)^{a+\bar{a}})\chi_d(a).$$ In fact the sum $\theta_e \sum_{d|e} \frac{\mu(d)}{\phi(d)} \sum_{\chi_d}\sum_{1 \leq a \leq p-1}\chi_d(a)$ simply yields the number of $e$-free integers modulo $p$, namely $\theta_e (p-1)$. Hence $$\label{white}
N(e)=\frac{\theta_e}{2} (p-1)-\frac{1}{2}E(e),$$ where $$\label{grey}
E(e) = \theta_e \sum_{d|e} \frac{\mu(d)}{\phi(d)} \sum_{\chi_d}\sum_{a=1}^{p-1}(-1)^{a+\bar{a}}\chi_d(a).$$
As for (\[pink\]) we obtain $$\label{black}
|E(e)|=\frac{\theta_e}{p^2}\sum_{d|e}\frac{|\mu(d)|}{\phi(d)}\sum_{\chi_d}\sum_{j,k=1}^{p-1}\big{|}\sum_{a=1}^{p-1}\chi_d(a)\psi(ja+k\bar{a})\big{|} \left|\sum_{r=1}^{p-1}(-1)^r\psi(-jr)\right|
\left|\sum_{s=1}^{p-1}(-1)^s \psi(-ks)\right|.$$
Now, regarding $(ja+k\bar{a})$ in (\[black\]) as the rational function $(ja^2+k)/a$, we have, by a theorem of Castro and Moreno (see (1.4) of [@CP]), that, for each pair $(j,k)$ with $1 \leq j,k \leq p-1$, $$\label{blue}
\big{|}\sum_{a=1}^{p-1}\chi_d(a)\psi(ja+k\bar{a})\big{|} \leq 2p^{\frac{1}{2}},$$ a bound which is independent of $j$ and $k$.
As we have already seen $$\label{Tp}
\left|\sum_{r=1}^{p-1}(-1)^r\psi(-jr)\right | < T_p \ p \log p,$$ and, similarly, for the sum in (\[black\]) over $k$.
Since there are $\phi(d)$ characters $\chi_d$ of degree $d$ and $\sum_{d|e}|\mu(d)|=W_e$, we deduce from (\[black\]) by means of the bounds (\[blue\]) and (\[Tp\]) that $$\label{green}
|E(e)| <2\theta_eW_eT_p^2 \ p^{\frac{1}{2}}\log^2 p.$$
Hence (\[Npeq\]) is immediate from (\[green\]) with $e=p-1$ and (\[Npeq1\]) follows by Lemma \[red\]. More generally, by means of Lemma \[red\], we have established the following extension of Theorem \[Np\].
\[Ne\] Let $p>3$ be a prime and $e$ an even divisor of $p-1$. Then $$\label{Neeq}
\left|N_p(e)- \frac{\theta_e}{2}(p-1)\right| < T_p^2\theta_e W_ep^{\frac{1}{2}}\log^2 p.$$
The estimate (\[Npeq\]) of Theorem \[Np\] follows from Theorem \[Ne\] by selecting $e=p-1$. We deduce (\[Npeq1\]) by Lemma \[red\] for $p \geq 1637$ and then for smaller prime values by simple direct calculation.
Proof of the existence theorem {#Conrad}
==============================
We shall use Theorem \[Np\] to obtain an existence result for (explicitly) large primes $p$. In order to extend the range of the method, however, we first describe a “sieving" approach based on Theorem \[Ne\] similar to that used in [@COT] and many other papers associated with the authors.
Set $\omega=\omega(p-1)$. Let $f$ be an even divisor of $p-1$ which is the product of the $r(\geq 1)$ smallest distinct prime factors of $p-1$ ($f$ is the [*core*]{}). Further let the remaining distinct prime factors of $p-1$ be $p_1, \ldots, p_s$ (the sieving primes). Define $\delta= 1 - \sum_{i=1}^s\frac{1}{p_i}$. As in previous work on related problems ([@COT15] and [@COT]) we have the following.
\[sieve\] With the above notation, $$N_p \geq \sum_{i=1}^sN(p_if)- (s-1)N(f).$$ Hence $$\label{old}
N_p \geq \sum_{i=1}^s[N(p_if)- \theta_{p_i}N(f)]+\delta N(f).$$
\[brown\] Let $f$ be the core of $p-1$ and let $p_i$ be any prime dividing $p-1$ but not $f$ (as before). Then
$$|N(p_if)- \theta_{p_i}N(f)|<2\left(1-\frac{1}{p_i}\right)W_fT_p^2 \ p^{\frac{1}{2}}\log^2 p.$$
We have $D=N(p_if)- \theta_{p_i}N(f)=\frac{1}{2}(E(p_i f)-\theta_{p_i}E(f))$, where $E(e)$ is defined in (\[grey\]). Since $\theta_{p_i f}=\theta_{p_i} \theta_f=\left(1-\frac{1}{p_i}\right)\theta_f$ then, as in (\[black\]), $$\label{mauve}
|D|=\frac{\theta(p_if)}{p^2}\sum_{d|f}\frac{|\mu(p_id)|}{\phi(p_id)}\sum_{\chi_{p_id}}\sum_{j,k=1}^{p-1}\big{|}\sum_{a=1}^{p-1}\chi_d(a)\psi(ja+k\bar{a})\big{|} \left|\sum_{r=1}^{p-1}(-1)^r\psi(-jr)\right|
\left|\sum_{s=1}^{p-1}(-1)^s \psi(-ks)\right|.$$ The result follows from (\[mauve\]) as the deduction of (\[green\]) from (\[blue\]) and (\[Tp\]).
\[silver\] Let $p (>3)$ be an odd prime such that $p-1$ has (even) core $f$ and sieving primes $p_1,\ldots, p_s$, Assume that $\delta>0$. Then
$$N_p>\frac{\theta(f)}{2}\left\{(p-1)-2T_p^2W(f)\left(\frac{s-1}{\delta}+2\right)p^{\frac{1}{2}}\log ^2 p\right\}.$$ Hence there exists an LPR modulo $p$ whenever $$\label{gold}
p^{\frac{1}{2}}>2T_p^2W(f)\left(\frac{s-1}{\delta}+2\right)\log^2p + p^{-\frac{1}{2}}.$$ For example, if $p \geq 1637$, then it suffices that $$\label{purple}
p^{\frac{1}{2}}> W(f)\left(\frac{s-1}{\delta}+2\right)\log^2p + p^{-\frac{1}{2}}.$$
Inequality (\[gold\]) follows from (\[old\]) using Lemma \[brown\] and (\[Neeq\]). For (\[purple\]), recall Lemma \[red\].
Theorem \[silver\] extends Theorem \[Np\] and allows us to proceed to a complete existence result. We begin with the Corollary \[exist\]. We use a result of Robin [@Robin Thm 1], namely that $\omega(n) \leq 1.4 \log n/ (\log\log n)$ for all $n\geq 3$. Sharper versions of this inequality are known, but this is sufficient to show that (\[dundee\]) holds, and thus there is an LPR mod $p$, for all $\omega(p-1) \geq 13$.
Next, we use (\[purple\]) in Theorem \[silver\] to eliminate $\omega(p-1) = 12$ by choosing $s=3$. We have $\delta \geq 1 - 1/29 - 1/31- 1/37$ so that (\[purple\]) is true for all $p> 3.2\cdot 10^{12}$. But, since $\omega(p-1) = 12$ we have $p-1\geq p_{1} \cdots p_{12} > 7\cdot 10^{12}$, whence we are done. Similarly, we choose $s=5,6$ for $\omega(p-1) = 11,10$.
When $\omega(p-1) = 9$ we choose $s=7$, which means that (\[purple\]) is true for all $p\geq 1.3\cdot 10^{9}$. However, since we only know that $p-1 \geq p_{1} \cdots p_{9} > 2.2\cdot 10^{8}$ we still have some cases to check. We proceed according to the ‘divide and conquer’ scheme of [@MTT].
We have that $3|p-1$ since otherwise $p-1 \geq 2\cdot 5 \cdots p_{10} > 2.1\cdot 10^{9}$. Moreover, we have that $5$ divides $p-1$, since, if not, then our value of $\delta$ increases by $1/5 - 1/\prime{10}$, which is enough to show that (\[purple\]) holds. A similar conclusion holds with the case $7|(p-1)$. While we cannot deduce that $11|(p-1)$ using this method, this is more than sufficient for our needs. We have that $p-1 = 2\cdot 3 \cdot 5 \cdot 7 k = 210k$ where, since $p< 1.3\cdot 10^{9}$ we have $k\leq 6.2\cdot 10^{6}$.
We now enumerate all values of $n=210k+1$ for $1\leq k \leq 6.2\cdot 10^{6}$, and test whether these $n$ are prime and whether $\omega(n-1) =9$. We are left with a list of 81 values, which we can test[^3] this directly to see whether they have an LPR: all do.
For $\omega(p-1) = 8, 7$ we choose $s=6,5$ which shows that we need only check those $p\leq 6.3\cdot 10^{8}$ and $p\leq 3.1\cdot 10^{8}$ respectively. For $\omega(p-1)\leq 6$ we use the unsieved (\[dundee\]) to show that we need only check $p\leq 7.1\cdot 10^{8}$. While we could refine each of these searches, we shall simply verify that each of the 36,743,905 primes not exceeding $7.1\cdot 10^{8}$ have an LPR.
We simply search for the first positive primitive root mod $p$, and test whether the sum of it and its inverse is odd. Once we have verified this for one value of $p$ we move on to the next one. It took less than an hour on a standard desktop (3.4 GHz Intel^^ Corei7-6700).
The Golomb pairs problem {#Macauley}
========================
The following application of the theorem of Castro and Moreno (see [@CP]), is an instant improvement of Lemma 2.3 of [@WW].
\[orange\] Let $p>3$ be prime and $\psi$ be the additive character on the integers modulo $p$. Further let $\chi^{(1)}, \chi^{(2)}$ be multiplicative characters modulo $p$. Then for integers $j,k$ with $1 \leq j,k\leq p-1$, $$\left|\sum_{a=1}^{p-1} \chi^{(1)}(a)\chi^{(2)}(1-a) \psi(ja+k\bar{a})\right|\leq 3p^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
From now on abbreviate $\theta_{p-1}$ to $\theta$ and $W_{p-1}$ to $W$. We allow the consideration of arbitrary integers modulo $p$ but continue to restrict $\bar{a}$ for $a$ indivisible by $p$ to mean its inverse in the range $1 \leq \bar{a} \leq p-1$. In particular, if $a \equiv a' \pmod p$, then $\chi(a)= \chi(a')$ and $\bar{a}=\bar{a'}$.
Drawing on [@WW §3] we have
$$G_p=\frac{1}{4}\theta^2 \sum_{d_1,d_2|p-1} \frac{\mu(d_1)\mu(d_2)}{\phi(d_1)\phi(d_2)} \sum_{\chi_{d_1},\chi_{d_2}}\sum_{a=1}^{p-1}\chi_{d_1}(a)\chi_{d_2}(1-a)(1-(-1)^{a + \bar{a}}) (1-(-1)^{p+1-a+\overline{p+1-a}}).$$ Here, the sum over $a$ can omit $a=1$ because of the factor $\chi_{d_2}(1-a)$. Thus, $G_p=A_1-A_2-A_3+A_4$, where, for $i=1,\ldots,4$, $$\label{theAs}
A_i=\frac{1}{4}\theta^2 \sum_{d_1,d_2|p-1} \frac{\mu(d_1)\mu(d_2)}{\phi(d_1)\phi(d_2)}\sum_{a=2}^{p-1} \sum_{\chi_{d_1},\chi_{d_2}}\chi_{d_1}(a)\chi_{d_2}(1-a)\alpha_i,$$ with $\alpha_1=1, \alpha_2=(-1)^{a+\bar{a}}, \alpha_3=(-1)^{a+\overline{p+1-a}}, \alpha_4=(-1)^{\bar{a}+ \overline{p+1-a}}$. In fact, as noted in the proof in [@WW §3], $\overline{p+1-a}=p-\overline{a-1}$, so that $\alpha_4=-(-1)^{\bar{a}-\overline{a-1}}=-(-1)^{\bar{a}+\overline{a-1}}.$ Now $4A_1$ is just the total number of pairs $(a,b)$ of primitive roots (not necessarily Lehmer numbers for which $a+b \equiv 1 \pmod p$). Hence (see, for example [@COT15 Lem. 2]), $$\label{taupe}
\left|A_1-\frac{\theta_{p-1}^2 (p-2)}{4}\right|\leq \frac{\theta_{p-1}^2}{4}(W^2-1)p^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
Next, as at (\[black\]), $$| A_2| =\frac{\theta^2}{4p^2}\sum_{d_1,d_2|p-1}\frac{|\mu(d_1)\mu(d_2)|}{\phi_{d_1}\phi_{d_2}}\sum_{\chi_{d_1}, \chi_{d_2}} \sum_{j,k=1}^{p-1}\big{|}\sum_{a=2}^{p-1}\chi_{d_1}(a)\chi_{d_2}(1-a)\psi(ja+k\bar{a})\big{|} |U_j||U_k|,$$ where $U_j=\left|\sum_{r=1}^{p-1}(-1)^r\psi(-jr)\right|$. It makes no difference if, here, the sum over $a$ starts at $1$. Hence, using Lemma \[orange\] (with the $+$ sign) instead of (\[blue\]), the following bound holds when $i=2$, namely $$\label{lilac}
|A_i| \leq \frac{3\theta^2}{4} W_{p-1}^2 p^{\frac{1}{2}}\log^2 p.$$
We demonstrate that (\[lilac\]) also holds when $i=3,4$. First, consider $A_3$. Observe $\alpha_3=-(-1)^{1-a+\overline{1-a}}$. Replace $a$ (which runs between $2$ and $p-1$) by $p+1-a$ (which also runs between $2$ and $p-1$ and $\alpha_3 =-(-1)^{p+a+\overline{p+a}}=(-1)^{a+\bar{a}}$. Moreover, in (\[theAs\]), with $j=3$, $\chi_{d_1}(a)\chi_{d_2}(1-a)$ is transformed into $\chi_{d_2}(a)\chi_{d_1}(1-a)$. Then, as for $A_2$, $$| A_3| =\frac{\theta^2}{4p^2}\sum_{d_1,d_2|p-1}\frac{|\mu(d_1)\mu(d_2)|}{\phi_{d_1}\phi_{d_2}}\sum_{\chi_{d_1}, \chi_{d_2}}
\sum_{j,k=1}^{p-1}\big{|}\sum_{a=2}^{p-1}\chi_{d_2}(a)\chi_{d_1}(1-a)\psi(ja+k\bar{a})\big{|} |U_j||U_k|,$$ and (\[lilac\]) also holds when $i=3$.
Finally, consider $A_4$. First, set $b=a+1$ so that $b$ runs between $1$ and $p-2$ and $\alpha_4=(-1)^{b+1+\bar{b}}$. Then set $c=\bar{b}$ (whence $b=\bar{c}$) so that $c$ also runs from $1$ to $p-2$ (because evidently $\overline{p-1} =p-1)$. Moreover, $$\alpha_4=-(-1)^{c+\overline{\bar{c}+1}}=-(-1)^{c+p+1-\overline{c+1}}=(-1)^{c+1+\overline{c+1}}.$$ Finally, set $c=a-1$ so that this last variable $a$ again runs between $2$ and $p-1$ and $\alpha_4=(-1)^{a+\bar{a}}$. We have effectively replaced the original variable $a$ by $\frac{1}{a-1}+1= \frac{a}{a-1}$. Hence, in the expression (\[theAs\]) for $A_4$ we have replaced $\chi_{d_1}(a)\chi_{d_2}(1-a)$ by $\chi_{d_1}(a/(a-1))\chi_{d_2}(-1/(a-1))=\chi_{d_1}(-1)\chi_{d_1}(a)(\chi_{d_1}\chi_{d_2})^{-1}(1-a)$. This yields $$| A_4| =\frac{\theta^2}{4p^2}\sum_{d_1,d_2|p-1}\frac{|\mu(d_1)\mu(d_2)|}{\phi_{d_1}\phi_{d_2}}\sum_{\chi_{d_1}, \chi_{d_2}}
\sum_{j,k=1}^{p-1}\big{|}\sum_{a=2}^{p-1}\chi_{d_1}(a)(\chi_{d_1}\chi_{d_2})^{-1}(1-a)\psi(ja+k\bar{a})\big{|} |U_j||U_k|.$$ We conclude that (\[lilac\]) holds also when $i=4$.
By combining (\[taupe\]) and (\[lilac\]) with Lemma \[red\] we obtain a final theorem that justifies (\[indigo\]). The inequality (\[kipling\]) follows from (\[rushdie\]) after a simple calculation.
\[cream\] Let $p>3$ be a prime. Then $$\label{rushdie}
\left|G_p- \frac{\theta_{p-1}^2}{4}(p-2)\right|<\frac{\theta_{p-1}^2}{4}T_p^2[W_{p-1}^2(9\log^2 p+1) -1]p^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$ In particular, if $p >3$, then $$\label{kipling}
\left|G_p- \frac{\theta_{p-1}^2}{4}(p-2)\right| <\frac{\theta_{p-1}^2}{8}[W_{p-1}^2(9\log^2 p+1) -1]p^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
[99]{} T. Cochrane and C. Pinner Using Stepanov’s method for exponential sums involving rational functions. , 116, 270–292, 2006.
R. K. Guy. Third edition. Problem Books in Mathematics. *Springer-Verlag, New York*, 2004.
S. D. Cohen, T. Oliveira e Silva, and T. S. Trudgian. A proof of the conjecture of Cohen and Mullen on sums of primitive roots. 84, 2979–2986, 2015.
S. D. Cohen, T. Oliveira e Silva, and T. S. Trudgian. On Grosswald’s conjecture on primitive roots. 172(3), 263–270, 2016
K. McGown, E. Treviño, and T. S. Trudgian. Resolving Grosswald’s conjecture on GRH. , 55(2), 215–225, 2016.
G. Robin, Estimation de la fonction de [T]{}chebychef $\theta$ sur le $k$-ième nombre premier et grandes valeurs de la fonction $\omega(n)$ nombre de diviseurs premiers de $n$. , 42(4), 367–389, 1983.
Wang Tingting and Wang Xiaonen. On the Golomb’s conjecture and Lehmer’s numbers. 15, 1003–1009, 2017.
Zhang Wenpeng A problem of D. H. Lehmer and its generalization. 91, 47–51, 1994.
[^1]: Postal address: 6 Bracken Road, Portlethen, Aberdeen AB12 4TA, Scotland.
[^2]: Supported by Australian Research Council Future Fellowship FT160100094.
[^3]: We could proceed, as in [@COT15] and [@COT], to compute the *exact* value of $\delta$ for these values. For example, the largest element in our list is 1,295,163,870: when $s=7$ this gives $\delta = 0.39\ldots$, which is an improvement on the worst-case scenario of $\delta = 0.33\ldots$. We find that all but 39 values in our list satisfy (\[purple\]).
|
---
abstract: 'Let $X$ be a del Pezzo surface of degree $d$, and assume that $X$ is general if $d=1$. We prove that the spaces ${\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( X, \beta \bigr)$ are either empty or irreducible, if $(d, \beta ) \neq (1, -K_X)$. When $(d, \beta ) = (1, -K_X)$ it is well known that ${\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( X, \beta \bigr)$ consists of twelve reduced points.'
author:
- Damiano Testa
title: |
The irreducibility of the spaces of\
rational curves on del Pezzo surfaces
---
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
------------
Let $X$ be a del Pezzo surface. If the degree of $X$ is one, assume that $X$ is general. Let $\beta \in {\rm H}_2 \bigl( X, {\mathbb Z}\bigr)$ be the class of a curve on $X$. Denote by $R(\beta )$ the subscheme of the linear system $|\beta |$ consisting of the integral nodal curves of geometric genus zero. The Kontsevich mapping space $\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( X, \beta \bigr)$ is a natural compactification of the space $R(\beta )$. Some care is required, since the mapping spaces in general have more irreducible components than the corresponding spaces $R(\beta )$, arising from degenerate configurations of curves on the surface. In fact it may happen that $R(\beta ) = \emptyset $, while $\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( X, \beta \bigr) \neq \emptyset $.
The mapping spaces parametrize the set of all (stable) maps to the surface $X$ from possibly reducible curves. The domain curves of the maps in $\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( X, \beta \bigr)$ are connected and nodal, have all components isomorphic to ${\mathbb P}^1$ and the components are attached in such a way that the resulting topological space is simply connected. We refer to such a domain curve as a “rational tree.” Taking the image of a map yields a morphism $FC$ from (the semi-normalization of) $\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( X, \beta \bigr)$ to the closure in $|\beta |$ of $R(\beta )$ (see [@Ko] Section I.6).
Let ${\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X, \beta \bigr) }$ be the closure of the subspace of ${\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{0,0} \bigl( X, \beta \bigr)}$ consisting of morphisms $f : C \rightarrow X$, with $C \simeq {\mathbb P}^1$ and $f$ birational onto its image. In many interesting cases it is true and easy to check that the map $FC$ defined above is in fact birational, when restricted to ${\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X, \beta \bigr) }$.
The main result of this paper is that the space ${\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X, \beta \bigr) }$ is irreducible or empty, except in the case where $X$ has degree one and $\beta = - K_X$.
The idea of the proof is straightforward. First, prove that in the boundary of all the irreducible components of ${\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X, \beta \bigr) }$ there are special morphisms of a given type (called in what follows “morphisms in standard form”). Second, show that the locus of morphisms in standard form is connected and contained in the smooth locus of ${\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X, \beta \bigr) }$.
From these two facts we conclude immediately that the smooth locus of ${\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X, \beta \bigr) }$ is connected. Since the smooth locus is dense, we deduce that ${\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X, \beta \bigr) }$ is irreducible.
The methods used in the proof are of two different kinds. First, there are general techniques, mainly Mori’s Bend and Break Theorem, to break curves into components with low anticanonical degree. In the case where $X$ is the projective plane, this shows that we may specialize a morphism in ${\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X, \beta \bigr) }$ so that its image is a union of lines. Second, we need explicit geometric arguments to deal with the low degree cases. Again, in the case of the projective plane, this step is used to bring the domain to a standard form (a chain of rational curves, rather than a general rational tree), while preserving the property that the image of the morphism consists of a union of lines.
To analyze the curves of low anticanonical degree on a del Pezzo surface, we need a detailed description of their divisor classes in ${\rm Pic} (X)$. In particular, we use the group of symmetries of the Picard lattice to reduce the number of cases to treat. Section \[sporco\] is devoted to this analysis.
Two technical deformation-theoretic tools prove useful. The first is a description of the obstruction space of a stable map to a smooth surface in terms of combinatorial invariants of the map. This is proved in Section \[conormale\]. The second is a lifting result that allows us, given a deformation of a component of a curve, to get a deformation of the whole curve. The statement is proved in Lemma \[ovvio\] and the construction following it is the way in which we are typically going to use it. This is specific to the surface case. The lifting result allows us to deform a map with reducible domain by deforming only a few components at a time. This is done systematically in Section \[rompisezione\]. We are therefore able to reduce the general problem to relatively few special cases, cf. Theorem \[passo\]. The explicit computation of the obstruction spaces allows us to prove that in the deformations performed we never move to a different irreducible component of the moduli space.
The connectedness of the locus of morphisms in standard form is a consequence of some explicit computations, some of which are reformulations of classical geometric statements, such as the fact that the ramification locus of the projection from a general point on a smooth cubic surface in ${\mathbb P}^3$ is a smooth plane quartic curve. This is the content of Section \[pochipochi\], but see also Section \[conichette\].
Cohomology Groups and Obstruction Spaces
========================================
Rational Trees
--------------
The purpose of this section is to prove some general results which are useful to compute the cohomology groups of coherent sheaves on rational trees.
A [rational tree]{} $C$ is a connected, projective, nodal curve of arithmetic genus zero. If $C$ is a rational tree, we call a component $E$ of $C$ an [end]{} if $E$ contains at most one node of $C$.
Given a connected projective nodal curve $C$, define the dual graph of $C$ to be the graph $\Gamma _C$ whose vertices are indexed by the components $C_i$ of $C$ and whose edges between the distinct vertices $[C_i]$ and $[C_j]$ are indexed by $\{ p\in C_i \cap C_j \}$.
[*Remark*]{}. A connected projective nodal curve $C$ is a rational tree if and only if all its components are smooth rational curves and its dual graph $\Gamma _C$ is a tree (for a proof see [@De]).
\[basspl\] Let $C$ be a rational tree, and let $\nu : \tilde C \rightarrow C$ be the normalization of $C$ at the points $\{p_1, \ldots , p_r \} \subset Sing(C)$; denote by $\iota : \{p _1,
\ldots , p_r \} \hookrightarrow C$ the inclusion morphism. For any locally free sheaf ${\mathcal F}$ of finite rank on $C$ we have the following short exact sequence of sheaves on $C$: $$0 \longrightarrow {\mathcal F}\longrightarrow \nu _* \nu ^* {\mathcal F}\longrightarrow \iota _* {\mathcal F}|_{\{ p_1, \ldots , p_r \}} \longrightarrow 0$$
[*Remark*]{}. From now on, we may sometimes denote the sheaf $\iota _* {\mathcal F}|_{\{ p_1, \ldots , p_r \}}$ simply by $\oplus {\mathcal F}_{p_i}$, and similarly for the pushforwards of sheaves on irreducible components of a curve.
[*Proof.*]{} Consider the sequence defining the sheaf ${\mathcal Q}$: $$\label{defqu}
0 \longrightarrow {\mathcal O}_C \longrightarrow \nu _* {\mathcal O}_{\tilde C} \longrightarrow {\mathcal Q}\longrightarrow 0$$
Since $\nu $ is an isomorphism away from the inverse image of the $p_i$’s, it follows that ${\mathcal Q}$ is supported at the union of the $p_i$’s. We now want to prove that ${\mathcal Q}_{p_i}$ is a skyscraper sheaf, i.e. that it has length one. Since this is a local property, it is enough to check it when $C$ has a unique node. In this case, $C$ is the nodal union of two smooth ${\mathbb P}^1$’s, and $\tilde C$ is their disjoint union. Since the normalization map is finite, it is affine, and therefore ${\rm H}^j (\nu _* {\mathcal O}_{\tilde C}, C) \simeq {\rm H}^j
({\mathcal O}_{\tilde C}, \tilde C)$. Therefore the long exact sequence defining ${\mathcal Q}$ is given by $$0 \longrightarrow k \longrightarrow k + k \longrightarrow {\mathcal Q}\longrightarrow 0$$ and we deduce that the length of ${\mathcal Q}$ is 1. Thus it follows in general that ${\mathcal Q}=
\oplus {\mathcal O}_{p_i}$, the direct sum of the skyscraper sheaves of the nodes $p_1, \ldots ,
p_r$.
Let us now go back to the sequence (\[defqu\]). Since the sheaf ${\mathcal F}$ is locally free, we may tensor the sequence by ${\mathcal F}$, preserving exactness. To identify the tensor product in the middle we use the projection formula: $$\nu _* {\mathcal O}_{\tilde C} \otimes {\mathcal F}\cong \nu _* ({\mathcal O}_{\tilde C} \otimes \nu ^* {\mathcal F})
\cong \nu _* ( \nu ^* {\mathcal F})$$ and we may therefore write the tensored sequence as $$0 \longrightarrow {\mathcal F}\longrightarrow \nu _* \nu ^* {\mathcal F}\longrightarrow
\mathop {\oplus } \limits _i {\mathcal F}_{p_i} \longrightarrow 0$$ thus proving the lemma. [ $\Box $ ]{}
Given a rational tree $C$ and a node $p \in C$, construct a new curve $C'$ as follows: consider the normalization of $\nu : \tilde C \rightarrow C$ of $C$ at the point $p$, and let $\{p_1, p_2 \} = \nu ^{-1} (p)$. Attach to $\tilde C$ a smooth rational curve $E$ so that $\tilde C \cap E = \{p_1, p_2 \}$ and $C' := \tilde C \cup E$ is a nodal curve. Clearly we have a morphism $\pi : C' \rightarrow C$, which is an isomorphism away from $E$ and contracts $E$ to the node $p$. We call the morphism $\pi$ the contraction of $E$. The curve $C'$ so obtained is called the “total transform” of $C$ at the node $p$ and $E$ the “exceptional component.”
\[blodo\] Let $C$ be a rational tree, and let ${\mathcal F}$ be a locally free coherent sheaf on $C$. Let $\pi : C' \rightarrow C$ denote the total transform of $C$ at a node $p \in C$; then ${\rm H}^1 (C, {\mathcal F}) \cong {\rm H}^1 (C', \pi ^* {\mathcal F})$.
[*Proof.*]{} The result follows immediately from the Leray’s spectral sequence associated to the map $\pi $ and the fact that $R ^i \pi _* ({\mathcal O}_{C'}) = 0$, for $i > 0$. [ $\Box $ ]{}
\[pieces\] Let $C$ be a rational tree and let ${\mathcal F}$ be a locally free sheaf on $C$. Suppose that $C = C_1 \cup C_2$, where $C_1$ and $C_2$ are unions of components having no components in common. Let $\{ p_1, \ldots , p_r \} = C_1 \cap C_2$ be the nodes of $C$ lying on $C_1$ and $C_2$. If $h^1 (C_1, {\mathcal F}| _{C_1} (-p_1 - \ldots -p_r)) = 0$, then ${\rm H}^1 (C, {\mathcal F}) \cong {\rm H}^1 (C_2, {\mathcal F}| _{C_2})$.
[*Proof.*]{} Simply consider the long exact sequence associated to the “component sequence” $$0 \longrightarrow {\mathcal F}| _{C_1} (-p_1 - \ldots -p_r) \longrightarrow {\mathcal F}\longrightarrow {\mathcal F}| _{C_2} \longrightarrow 0$$ where the first map is extension by zero and the second map is restriction. [ $\Box $ ]{}
\[easyredu\] Let $C$ be a rational tree and let $R \subset C$ be a connected union of irreducible components of $C$. Let ${\mathcal F}$ be a locally free sheaf on $C$ such that the restriction of ${\mathcal F}$ to each irreducible component of $C$ which is not in $R$ is generated by global sections. Then $h^1 (C, {\mathcal F}) = h^1 (R, {\mathcal F}|_R )$.
[*Proof.*]{} Proceed by induction on the number $\ell $ of irreducible components of $C$ not in $R$. If $\ell = 0$, there is nothing to prove. Suppose $\ell \geq 1$. Let $C_1$ be an end of $C$ which is not an end of $R$, and let $p\in C_1$ be the node. The existence of such a component is easy to prove: since $R$ is a proper subcurve of $C$, there must be a node of $C$ where $R$ meets a component not in $R$. Removing this node disconnects $C$ into a connected component containing $R$ and a connected component $K$ disjoint from $R$. Clearly an end $C_1$ of the component $K$ (different from the one meeting $R$ if there is more than one end) is then also an end of $C$ not contained in $R$. Since $C_1$ is a smooth rational curve, ${\mathcal F}| _{C_1} \simeq \bigoplus {\mathcal O}(a_j)$, with $a_j \geq 0$, thanks to the fact that ${\mathcal F}| _{C_1}$ is globally generated. In particular $h^1 (C_1, {\mathcal F}(-p)) = 1$, and it is clear that we can now apply Lemma \[pieces\] to remove the component $C_1$ without changing $h^1$ and conclude using induction. [ $\Box $ ]{}
The last lemma of this section is an explicit computation of the cohomology of a locally free sheaf on a curve which will be extremely useful in the later sections.
\[tretre\] Let $C$ be a rational tree and $f: C \rightarrow S$ a morphism to a smooth surface. Let $p
\in C$ be a node, denote by $C_a$ and $C_b$ the two irreducible components of $C$ meeting at $p$. Let $\nu : \tilde C \rightarrow C$ be the normalization of $C$ at $p$ and let $\tilde f = f \circ \nu $. Suppose that:
1. the valences of the vertices $C_a$ and $C_b$ in the dual graph of $C$ are at most 3, and
2. the map $f_* : {\mathcal T}_{C_a, p} + {\mathcal T}_{C_b, p} \longrightarrow {\mathcal T}_{S, f(p)} $ is surjective.
Then $${\rm H}^1 (C, f^* {\mathcal T}_S ) \cong {\rm H}^1 (\tilde C, \tilde f ^* {\mathcal T}_S )$$
[*Proof.*]{} Consider the sequence on $C$ $$0 \longrightarrow f^* {\mathcal T}_S \longrightarrow \tilde f ^* {\mathcal T}_S \stackrel {\varepsilon}
{\longrightarrow } {\mathcal T}_{S, f(p)} \longrightarrow 0$$
Because ${\mathcal T}_{S, f(p)}$ is supported in dimension 0, ${\rm H}^1 (C, {\mathcal T}_{S, f(p)}) = 0$, and it is enough to prove that the sequence is exact on global sections. Let $\{ p, q_a, r_a \}$ contain all the nodes of $C$ on $C_a$ and let $\{p, q_b, r_b \}$ contain the nodes on $C_b$. Consider now the following diagram: $$\xymatrix {0 \ar[d] & 0 \ar[d] \\
{\mathcal T}_{C_a} (-p -q_a -r_a) \oplus {\mathcal T}_{C_b} (-p -q_b -r_b) \ar[d] & f^* {\mathcal T}_S \ar[d] \\
{\mathcal T}_{C_a} (-q_a -r_a) \oplus {\mathcal T}_{C_b} (-q_b -r_b) \ar[d] ^{\alpha } \ar[r] &
\tilde f ^* {\mathcal T}_S \ar[d] ^{\varepsilon } \\
{\mathcal T}_{C_a, p} \oplus {\mathcal T}_{C_b, p} \ar[d] \ar[r] ^{f_*} & {\mathcal T}_{S, f(p)} \ar[d] \\
0 & 0}$$ where the unlabeled horizontal map is extension by zero. Since $C_a$ and $C_b$ are rational curves, their tangent bundles have degree 2 and $\alpha $ is surjective on global sections; $f_*$ is surjective by assumption. It follows that $\varepsilon $ is also surjective on global sections. [ $\Box $ ]{}
[*Remark*]{}. The second condition in the lemma is certainly satisfied if $f|_{C_a}$ and $f|_{C_b}$ are birational and the intersection of $f(C_a)$ and $f(C_b)$ is transverse at $f(p)$.
The Conormal Sheaf {#conormale}
------------------
Let $f:C \rightarrow X$ be a morphism from a connected, projective, at worst nodal curve $C$ to a smooth projective variety $X$.
The morphism $f : C \rightarrow X$ is called a stable map if $C$ is a connected, projective, at worst nodal curve and every contracted component of geometric genus zero contains at least three singular points of $C$ and every contracted component of geometric genus one contains at least one.
We are interested in computing the obstruction space to deforming the stable map $f : C \rightarrow X$. Let $f^* \Omega ^1 _X \rightarrow
\Omega ^1 _C$ be the natural complex of sheaves associated with the differential of $f$ and where the sheaf $f^* \Omega ^1 _X$ is in degree -1 and the sheaf $\Omega ^1 _C$ is in degree 0. We know that the stability condition is equivalent to the vanishing of the group ${\rm Hom} \bigl( f^* \Omega ^1 _X \rightarrow
\Omega ^1 _C , {\mathcal O}_C \bigr)$. The tangent space to $\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( X, \beta \bigr)$ at $f$ is given by the hypercohomology group ${\rm {\mathbb E}xt } ^1 \bigl( f^* \Omega ^1 _X \rightarrow
\Omega ^1 _C , {\mathcal O}_C \bigr)$. The obstruction space is a quotient of the hypercohomology group ${\rm {\mathbb E}xt } ^2 \bigl( f^* \Omega ^1 _X \rightarrow \Omega ^1 _C ,
{\mathcal O}_C \bigr)$. Denote by $L _f ^\bullet $ the complex $f^* \Omega ^1 _X \rightarrow \Omega ^1 _C$, where the first sheaf is in degree -1 and the second one is in degree 0. Our strategy to compute these groups is to use the short exact sequence of complexes of sheaves: $$\xymatrix@R=17pt { \left( 0 \rightarrow 0 \right) \ar[d] \\
\left( 0 \rightarrow \Omega ^1 _C \right) \ar[d] \\
\left( f^* \Omega ^1 _X \rightarrow \Omega ^1 _C \right) \ar[d] \\
\left( f^* \Omega ^1 _X \rightarrow 0 \ar[d] \right) \\
\left( 0 \rightarrow 0 \right) }$$
Applying the functor ${\rm Hom } ( - , {\mathcal O}_C)$ and using the long exact hypercohomology sequence we obtain: $$\xymatrix @R=3pt {& 0 \ar[r] &
{\rm Hom } \bigl( L _f ^\bullet , {\mathcal O}_C \bigr) \ar[r] &
{\rm Hom } (0 \rightarrow \Omega ^1 _C , {\mathcal O}_C) \\ \ar[r] &
{\rm {\mathbb E}xt } ^1 (f^* \Omega ^1 _X \rightarrow 0 , {\mathcal O}_C) \ar[r] &
{\rm {\mathbb E}xt } ^1 \bigl( L _f ^\bullet , {\mathcal O}_C \bigr) \ar[r] &
{\rm {\mathbb E}xt } ^1 (0 \rightarrow \Omega ^1 _C , {\mathcal O}_C) \\ \ar[r] &
{\rm {\mathbb E}xt } ^2 (f^* \Omega ^1 _X \rightarrow 0 , {\mathcal O}_C) \ar[r] &
{\rm {\mathbb E}xt } ^2 \bigl( L _f ^\bullet , {\mathcal O}_C \bigr) \ar[r] &
{\rm {\mathbb E}xt } ^2 (0 \rightarrow \Omega ^1 _C , {\mathcal O}_C)}$$
We can now rewrite many of these terms. First of all, the stability condition is equivalent to ${\rm Hom } \bigl( L _f ^\bullet , {\mathcal O}_C \bigr) = 0$. Also, remembering the fact that all the complexes are concentrated in degrees $-1$ and 0, and using the fact that $f^* \Omega _X ^1$ is locally free, that its dual is $f^* {\mathcal T}_X$ and the isomorphisms ${\rm Ext} ^i (f^* \Omega _X ^1 , {\mathcal O}_C) \simeq
{\rm H} ^i (C, {\mathcal T}_X)$ we obtain the sequence $$\label{preserra}
\xymatrix@C=20pt @R=3pt {0 \ar[r] & {\rm Hom } (\Omega ^1 _C , {\mathcal O}_C) \ar[r] &
{\rm H}^0 (C, f^* {\mathcal T}_X) \ar[r] &
{\rm {\mathbb E}xt } ^1 \bigl( L _f ^\bullet , {\mathcal O}_C \bigr) \ar[r] &\\
\ar[r] & {\rm Ext } ^1 (\Omega ^1 _C , {\mathcal O}_C) \ar[r] &
{\rm H}^1 (C, f^* {\mathcal T}_X) \ar[r] &
{\rm {\mathbb E}xt } ^2 \bigl( L _f ^\bullet , {\mathcal O}_C \bigr) \ar[r] & 0}$$
In particular we see that if ${\rm H}^1 (C, f^* {\mathcal T}_X)=0$, then the obstruction group ${\rm {\mathbb E}xt } ^2 \bigl( L _f ^\bullet , {\mathcal O}_C \bigr)$ vanishes as well, i.e. the map is unobstructed, the space of stable maps has the expected dimension at $f$ and the point represented by $f$ is smooth (for the stack).
If we consider the dual sequence of (\[preserra\]) and use Serre duality we obtain the sequence $$\xymatrix @R=3pt {0 \ar[r] & \bigl( {\rm {\mathbb E}xt } ^2 \bigr) ^{\vee } \ar[r] &
{\rm H}^0 (C, f^* \Omega ^1 _X \otimes \omega _C ) \ar[r] ^\alpha &
{\rm H} ^0 (C , \Omega ^1 _C \otimes \omega _C ) \ar[r] & \\
\ar[r] & \bigl( {\rm {\mathbb E}xt } ^1 \bigr) ^{\vee } \ar[r] &
{\rm H} ^1 (C, f^* \Omega ^1 _X \otimes \omega _C ) \ar[r] &
{\rm H} ^1 (C, \Omega ^1 _C \otimes \omega _C) \ar[r] & 0}$$
It is easy to convince oneself that the morphism $\alpha $ is the morphism induced by the differential map $df : f^* \Omega ^1 _X \longrightarrow \Omega _C$, by tensoring with the dualizing sheaf and taking global sections. Associated to $f$ we may define the sheaves ${\mathcal C}_f$ and ${\mathcal Q}_f$ on $C$, by requiring the following sequence to be exact: $$\label{conor}
\xymatrix{ 0 \ar[r] & {\mathcal C}_f \ar[r] & f^* \Omega ^1 _X \ar[r]^{df} &
\Omega ^1 _C \ar[r] & {\mathcal Q}_f \ar[r] & 0 }$$ Since the dualizing sheaf $\omega _C$ is locally free, tensoring by $\omega _C$ is exact and taking global sections is left exact. From these remarks we deduce that $${\rm H}^0 \bigl( C, {\mathcal C}_f \otimes \omega _C \bigr) \simeq
{\rm {\mathbb E}xt } ^2 \bigl( L _f ^\bullet , {\mathcal O}_C \bigr) ^\vee$$ and we conclude that in order to compute the obstruction space of $f$, it is enough to compute the global sections of the sheaf ${\mathcal C}_f \otimes \omega _C$.
The sheaf ${\mathcal C}_f$ defined in (\[conor\]) is the [conormal sheaf of $f$]{}.
We drop the subscript $f$, when the morphism is clear from the context.
A sheaf ${\mathcal F}$ on a scheme of pure dimension one is [pure]{} if the support of every non-zero section has pure dimension one.
It is clear that a locally free sheaf is pure. In fact, any subsheaf of a locally free sheaf is pure, and more generally any subsheaf of a pure sheaf is pure. In particular, the sheaves ${\mathcal C}_f$ defined in (\[conor\]) are pure.
A point $p \in C$ is called a [break for the morphism $f$]{} (or simply a [break]{}), if the sheaf ${\mathcal C}_f$ is not locally free at $p$. We say that the morphism $f$ has no breaks if the sheaf ${\mathcal C}_f$ is locally free.
It is clear from the definition that a smooth point of $C$ is never a break.
Suppose the morphism $f$ is finite. A point $p \in C$ is called a [ramification point]{}, if it belongs to the support of the sheaf ${\mathcal Q}_f$. We call [ ramification divisor of $f$]{} the (Weil) divisor whose multiplicity at $p\in C$ is the length of ${\mathcal Q}$ at $p$.
Let $f_1 : C_1 \rightarrow X$ and $f_2 : C_2 \rightarrow X$ be non-constant morphisms from two smooth curves to a smooth surface. Suppose $p_1 \in C_1$ and $p_2 \in C_2$ are points such that $f_1 (p_1) = f_2 (p_2) = q$, let $u$ and $v$ be local coordinates on $X$ near $q$ and let $x_1$ and $x_2$ be local parameters for $C_1$ and $C_2$ near $p_1$ and $p_2$ respectively. Since $f_1$ and $f_2$ are not constant, there exist integers $k_1$ and $k_2$ such that $$ f\_1 \^\* : {
----- ------------------------
$u$ $x_1 ^{k_1} U_1 (x_1)$
$v$ $x_1 ^{k_1} V_1 (x_1)$
----- ------------------------
. f\_2 \^\* : {
----- ------------------------
$u$ $x_2 ^{k_2} U_2 (x_2)$
$v$ $x_2 ^{k_2} V_2 (x_2)$
----- ------------------------
. $$ and $\bigl( U_1 (0), V_1 (0) \bigr) , \bigl( U_2 (0), V_2 (0) \bigr) \neq (0,0)$. We call a [*tangent vector to $C_i$ at $p_i$*]{} any non-zero vector in ${\mathcal T}_q X$ proportional to $\bigl( U_i (0), V_i (0) \bigr)$, and [*tangent direction to $C_i$ at $p_i$*]{} the point in ${\mathbb P}\left( {\mathcal T}_q X \right)$ determined by a tangent vector to $C_i$ at $p_i$. Geometrically, we may easily associate to each smooth point of $f_i (C_i)$ a tangent vector in the same way we did above, and then the tangent direction at any point is simply the limiting position of the tangent directions at the smooth points.
We say that [*$C_1$ and $C_2$ are transverse at the point $q = f_i (p_i) \in X$*]{} if their respective tangent directions at $p_1$ and $p_2$ are distinct and we will say that [*$C_1$ and $C_2$ are not transverse at the point $q \in X$*]{} if the tangent directions coincide.
Finally, we say that the morphism $f_i$ is ramified at $p_i$ on $C_i$ if $k_i > 1$ and we say it is unramified at $C_i$ if $k_i = 1$.
Let $f_i : C_i \rightarrow X$, $i \in \{ 1, 2 \}$ be two non-constant morphisms from two smooth curves to a smooth surface $X$ and let $p_1 \in C_1$ and $p_2 \in C_2$ be points such that $f_1 (p_1) = f_2 (p_2) = q$. Denote by $\tilde f _1$ and $\tilde f _2$ the morphisms induced by $f_1$ and $f_2$ from each curve to the blow-up of $X$ at $q$, and assume $\tilde f _1 (p_1) = \tilde f _2 (p_2) = \tilde q$. Then the following conditions are equivalent:
1. $\tilde f _1$ and $\tilde f _2$ are unramified at $\tilde q$ and $C_1$ and $C_2$ are transverse at $\tilde q$;
2. after possibly renumbering the curves $C_1$ and $C_2$, there are coordinates $u,v$ on $X$ near $q$ and $x_i$ on $C_i$ near $p_i$ such that $$\label{bln2}
\begin{array} {ll}
f_1 ^* :
\left\{ \begin{tabular}{c@{ $\longmapsto$ }c}
$u$ & $x_1 U_1 (x_1)$ \\[5pt]
$v$ & $x_1 ^3 V_1 (x_1)$ \\[5pt]
\end{tabular} \right. & U_1 (0) \neq 0 \vspace{10pt} \\
f_2 ^* : \left\{
\begin{tabular}{c@{ $\longmapsto $ }c}
$u$&$x_2 ^{m} U_2 (x_2)$ \vphantom{$\frac{\frac{1}{1}}{\frac{1}{1}}$} \\
$v$&$x_2 ^{m+1} V_2 (x_2)$ \vphantom{$\frac{\frac{1}{1}}{\frac{1}{1}}$}
\end{tabular} \right. &
\begin{tabular} {l} $U_2 (0)$, $V_2 (0) \neq 0 $ \\ $m \geq 1$ \end{tabular}
\end{array}$$
[*Proof.*]{} Suppose we are given coordinates so that the $f_i$’s are given by (\[bln2\]). Let $b : \tilde X \rightarrow X$ be the blow-up morphism. Let $\tilde u := b^* u$, and note that near the point $\tilde q$ the function $\tilde u$ is a local equation for $E := b^{-1} (q)$, since the tangent vector to the curve locally defined by the vanishing of $u$ is $(0,1)$, while a tangent vector to the curve $C_1$ at $q$ is $(1,0)$. It follows that we may write $b^* v = \tilde u \cdot \tilde v$, and $\tilde u , \tilde v$ is a local system of parameters on $\tilde X$ at $\tilde q$ such that $b$ and its rational inverse $b ^{-1}$ are given by: $$\label{bloco}
b ^* : \left\{ \begin{tabular}{c@{ $\longmapsto $ }c}
$u$& $\tilde u$ \\$v$& $\tilde u \tilde v$ \end{tabular} \right. \hspace{20pt}
(b ^*) ^{-1} : \left\{ \begin{tabular}{c@{ $\longmapsto $ }c}
$\tilde u$& $u$ \\$\tilde v$& $v / u$ \end{tabular} \right.$$
Thus the morphisms $\tilde f _i : C_i \rightarrow \tilde X$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde f_1 ^* : & \left\{ \begin{tabular}{c@{ $\longmapsto $ }c}
$\tilde u$&$x_1 U_1 (x_1)$ \vphantom{$\frac{\frac{1}{1}}{\frac{1}{1}}$} \\
$\tilde v$&$x_1 ^2 \frac {V_1 (x_1)} {U_1 (x_1)}$
\end{tabular} \right. & U_1 (0) \neq 0 \\[5pt]
\tilde f_2 ^* : & \left\{ \begin{tabular}{c@{ $\longmapsto $ }c}
$\tilde u$&$x_2 ^{m} U_2 (x_2)$ \vphantom{$\frac{\frac{1}{1}}{\frac{1}{1}}$} \\
$\tilde v$&$x_2 \frac {V_2 (x_2)} {U_2 (x_2)}$
\end{tabular} \right. & U_2 (0), V_2 (0) \neq 0\end{aligned}$$
Clearly these maps are unramified at $x_i = 0$ and since $(1,0)$ and $(\star ,1)$ are tangent vectors at $\tilde q$ to $C_1$ and $C_2$ respectively, the maps are also transverse at $\tilde q$. This simple computation proves the first half of the lemma.
Suppose conversely that in the blow-up $\tilde X$ of $X$ at $q$, the curves $C_1$ and $C_2$ meet transversely at the point $\tilde q = \tilde f_i (p_i) \in \tilde X$. Fix coordinates $x_1$ on $C_1$ at $p_1$ and $x_2$ on $C_2$ at $p_2$, and choose coordinates $u,v$ near $q$ and $\tilde u , \tilde v$ near $\tilde q$ such that (\[bloco\]) are the equations of the blow-up morphism. We have $$ f\_1 \^\* : {
------------- -------------------------
$\tilde u $ $x_1 ^{k_1} U _1 (x_1)$
$\tilde v $ $x_1 ^{k_1} V _1 (x_1)$
------------- -------------------------
. f\_2 \^\* : {
------------- -------------------------
$\tilde u $ $x_2 ^{k_2} U _2 (x_2)$
$\tilde v $ $x_2 ^{k_2} V _2 (x_2)$
------------- -------------------------
. $$ with $\bigl( U _1 (0), V _1 (0) \bigr) , \bigl( U _2 (0), V _2 (0) \bigr)$ linearly independent. By changing $v$ to $v - \frac{V_1 (0)} {U_1 (0)} u$ and $\tilde v$ to $\tilde v - \frac{V_1 (0)} {U_1 (0)} \tilde u$, we may assume that $V_1 (0) = 0 $, while preserving the equations of $b$. With these assumptions, $(1,0)$ and $(\star , 1)$ are tangent vectors at $\tilde q$ to $C_1$ and $C_2$ respectively. Moreover, since $\tilde f _i$ is not ramified at $p_i$, necessarily $k_i = 1$. We have therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde f_1 ^* : \left\{ \begin{tabular}{c@{ $\longmapsto $ }c}
$\tilde u $&$x_1 U _1 (x_1)$ \vphantom{$\frac{\frac{1}{1}}{\frac{1}{1}}$} \\
$\tilde v $&$x_1 ^2 \overline V _1 (x_1)$
\end{tabular} \right. & &
f_1 ^* = \tilde f_1 ^* \circ b ^*: \left\{ \begin{tabular}{c@{ $\longmapsto $ }c}
$u $&$x_1 U _1 (x_1)$ \vphantom{$\frac{\frac{1}{1}}{\frac{1}{1}}$} \\
$v $&$x_1 ^3 U _1 (x_1) \overline V _1 (x_1)$
\end{tabular} \right. \\ & \Longrightarrow & \\
\tilde f_2 ^* : \left\{ \begin{tabular}{c@{ $\longmapsto $ }c}
$\tilde u $&$x_2 U _2 (x_2)$ \vphantom{$\frac{\frac{1}{1}}{\frac{1}{1}}$} \\
$\tilde v $&$x_2 V _2 (x_2)$
\end{tabular} \right. & &
f_2 ^* = \tilde f_2 ^* \circ b ^* : \left\{ \begin{tabular}{c@{ $\longmapsto $ }c}
$u $&$x_2 U _2 (x_2)$ \vphantom{$\frac{\frac{1}{1}}{\frac{1}{1}}$} \\
$v $&$x_2 ^2 U _2 (x_2) V _2 (x_2)$
\end{tabular} \right.\end{aligned}$$ where $U_1 (0), V_2 (0) \neq 0$.
In order to conclude we still need to show that $U_2 (x_2)$ is not identically zero, but this is clear, since otherwise the morphism $f _2$ would be constant (i.e. the morphism $\tilde
f_2$ would map $C_2$ to the exceptional divisor $E$). [ $\Box $ ]{}
\[semtang\] In the situation described by the previous lemma, the two curves $C_1$ and $C_2$ are [simply tangent at $q$]{}.
We will see later (Lemma \[conota\]) that being simply tangent is closely related to the local structure of the conormal sheaf.
\[conotra\] Suppose that $X$ is a smooth surface and let $f: C \rightarrow X$ be a morphism from a curve $C$ consisting of two irreducible components $C_1$ and $C_2$, meeting in a node $p$. Denote by $f_i$ the restriction of $f$ to $C_i$ and by $p_i \in C_i$ the point $p \in C$, and suppose that $f$ does not contract any component of $C$ and that $C_1$ and $C_2$ meet transversely at $f(p)$. Then there are the following cases:
1. \[tuu\] Both maps $f_1$ and $f_2$ are unramified at $p$.
Then ${\mathcal C}_f$ is locally free and the following sequence is exact $$\xymatrix{ 0 \ar[r] & {\mathcal C}_f \ar[r] & {\mathcal C}_{f_1} (-p) \oplus {\mathcal C}_{f_2} (-p) \ar[r] &
{\mathcal C}_{f,p} \ar[r] & 0 }$$
2. \[tur\] $f_i$ is unramified at $p$ on $C_i$ and $f_{3-i}$ is ramified at $p$ on $C_{3-i}$ ($i \in \{ 1, 2 \}$)
Then ${\mathcal C}_f$ is not locally free (i.e. $p$ is a break point) and $${\mathcal C}_f \cong {\mathcal C}_{f_i} (-p) \oplus {\mathcal C}_{f_{3-i}} (-2p)$$
3. \[trr\] Both maps $f_1$ and $f_2$ are ramified at $p$.
Then ${\mathcal C}_f$ is not locally free and $${\mathcal C}_f \cong {\mathcal C}_{f_1} (-p) \oplus {\mathcal C}_{f_2} (-p)$$
[*Proof.*]{} We can write $$ f \^\* : {
----- -------------------------------------
$u$ $x^{k_1} U_1 (x) + y^{k_2} U_2 (y)$
$v$ $x^{l_1} V_1 (x) + y^{l_2} V_2 (y)$
----- -------------------------------------
. $$ where $l_1 > k_1$, $k_2 > l_2$ and $U_1(0), V_2(0) \neq 0$. We thus have $$\xymatrix @R=3pt @C=-30.5pt {
{\mathcal O}_{C,p} \cdot du + {\mathcal O}_{C,p} \cdot dv \ar[r]^{df \hspace{30pt}} &
\raisebox {3pt} {$\Bigl( {\mathcal O}_{C,p} \cdot dx + {\mathcal O}_{C,p} \cdot dy \Bigr) $} / \raisebox
{-3pt} {$\bigl( ydx + xdy \bigr)$} \\
du \ar[r] & x^{k_1-1} \Bigl( k_1 U_1(x) + x U_1 '(x) \Bigr) dx + y^{k_2-1}
\Bigl( k_2 U_2(y) + y U_2 '(y) \Bigr) dy \\
dv \ar[r] & x^{l_1-1} \Bigl( l_1 V_1(x) + x V_1 '(x) \Bigr) dx + y^{l_2-1}
\Bigl( l_2 V_2(y) + y V_2 '(y) \Bigr) dy }$$
In order to simplify this expression, let us define $\alpha _1 $ to be the invertible function $k_1 U_1(x) + x U_1 '(x)$ and $\alpha _2$ to be the invertible function $l_2 V_2(y) + y V_2 '(y)$. Choosing $\frac {du } {\alpha _1}$ and $\frac {dv} {\alpha _2}$ as a basis for the ${\mathcal O}_{C,p} -$module $f^* \Omega ^1 _{X,p}$ we may write $$\xymatrix{
\frac{du} {\alpha _1} \ar[r] & x^{k_1-1} dx + y^{k_2-1} \varphi (y) dy \\
\frac{dv} {\alpha _2} \ar[r] & x^{l_1-1} \psi (x) dx + y^{l_2-1} dy }$$
Note that $$\begin{aligned}
y^{k_2-1} \varphi (y) & = & \frac {y^{k_2-1}} {k_1 U_1(0)}
\Bigl( k_2 U_2(y) + y U_2 ' (y) \Bigr) \\
x^{l_1-1} \psi (x) & = & \frac {x^{l_1-1}} {l_2 V_2(0)}
\Bigl( l_1 V_1(x) + x V_1 ' (x) \Bigr)\end{aligned}$$
The elements of the kernel of $df$ are determined by the condition $$f_1 (x,y) \frac{du} {\alpha _1} + f_2 (x,y) \frac{dv} {\alpha _2} \longmapsto
r(x,y) \bigl( ydx + xdy \bigr)$$ which translates to $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
x^{k_1-1} \Bigl(f_1 (x,y) + x^{l_1-k_1} f_2 (x,y) \psi (x) \Bigr) & = & y r(x,y) =
y r(0,y) \\ \label{equara} \\ \nonumber
y^{l_2-1} \Bigl(y^{k_2-l_2} f_1 (x,y) \varphi (y) + f_2 (x,y) \Bigr) & = & x r(x,y) =
x r(x,0)\end{aligned}$$
We are now going to split the three cases.
[**Case \[tuu\]**]{}. In this case $k_1 = l_2 = 1$, and equation (\[equara\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
f_1 (x,y) + x^{l_1-1} f_2 (x,y) \psi (x) & = & y r(x,y) = y r(0,y)
\\ \\
y^{k_2-1} f_1 (x,y) \varphi (y) + f_2 (x,y) & = & x r(x,y) = x r(x,0)\end{aligned}$$
This clearly implies that neither $f_1$ nor $f_2$ have constant term and hence we may write $f_1(x,y) = x g_1(x) + y h_1 (y)$ and $f_2(x,y) = x g_2 (x) + y h_2(y)$ and we have $$\begin{aligned}
y h_1(y) + x \Bigl( g_1 (x) + x^{l_1-1} g_2 (x) \psi (x) \Bigr) & = & y r(x,y) \\[7pt]
x g_2(x) + y \Bigl( y^{k_2-1} h_1 (y) \varphi (y) + h_2 (y) \Bigr) & = & x r(x,y)\end{aligned}$$
Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
x g_1 (x) & = & - x^{l_1} g_2 (x) \psi (x) \\
y h_2(y) & = & - y^{k_2} h_1 (y) \varphi (y) \\
y h_1(y) & = & y r(x,y) \\
x g_2(x) & = & x r(x,y)\end{aligned}$$ and near $p$ all elements of the kernel of $df$ are multiples of $$\kappa := \Bigl( - x^{l_1} \psi (x) + y \Bigr) \frac {du} {\alpha _1} +
\Bigl( x - y^{k_2} \varphi (y) \Bigr) \frac {dv} {\alpha _2}$$
It is very easy to check that $\kappa $ is also in the kernel of $df$. This in particular implies that ${\mathcal C}_f$ is locally free near $p$. The restriction of $\kappa $ to $C_1$ (which is defined near $p$ by $y=0$) is $$\frac { - x^{l_1} \psi (x)} {\alpha _1} du + \frac {x} {l_2 V_2 (0)} dv = \frac {x}
{l_2 V_2 (0)} \left( \frac { - x^{l_1-1} \Bigl( l_1 V_1 (x) + x V_1 ' (x) \Bigr)}
{U_1 (x) + x U_1 ' (x)} du + dv \right)$$
On the other hand, the restriction of $f$ to $C_1$ is given by $$ f\_1 \^\* : {
----- -------------------
$u$ $x U_1 (x)$
$v$ $x^{l_1} V_1 (x)$
----- -------------------
. $$ and the kernel of $df_1$ is clearly generated by $$\frac { - x^{l_1-1} \Bigl( l_1 V_1 (x) + x V_1 ' (x) \Bigr)}
{U_1 (x) + x U_1 ' (x)} du + dv$$
Thus ${\mathcal C}_{f_1} (-p)$ is generated near $p$ by the same generator of ${\mathcal C}_f |_{C_1}$. Similarly, ${\mathcal C}_{f_2} (-p)$ and ${\mathcal C}_f |_{C_2}$ have the same generator near $p$. Hence \[tuu\] follows.
[**Case \[tur\]**]{}. Let us go back to equation (\[equara\]) and substitute $k_1=1$ and $l_2 \geq 2$: $$\begin{aligned}
\vphantom{\frac{1}{1}} f_1 (x,y) + x^{l_1-1} f_2 (x,y) \psi (x) & = & y r(x,y) = y r(0,y) \\[7pt]
y^{l_2-1} \Bigl( y^{k_2-l_2} f_1 (x,y) \varphi (y) + f_2 (x,y) \Bigr) & = & x r(x,y) = x r(x,0)\end{aligned}$$
This implies that $r(x,0) = 0$, i.e. $r(x,y) = yr(y)$. Thus we have $f_1 (x,y) = x g_1(x) + y^2 r (y)$, and finally $f_2 (x,y) = x g_2(x) - y^{k_2- l_2 +2} \varphi (y) r (y)$. Substituting back, we find $$x g_1 (x) + x^{l_1} g_2 (x) \psi (x) = 0$$
Therefore $x g_1 (x) = - x^{l_1} g_2 (x) \psi (x) $ and near $p$ the kernel of $df$ is generated by $$\begin{aligned}
x \left( - x^{l_1-1} \psi (x) \frac{du} {\alpha _1} + \frac{dv} {\alpha _2} \right)
& \hspace{20pt} {\rm and} \hspace{20pt}
& y^2 \left( \frac{du} {\alpha _1} - y^{k_2- l_2} \varphi (y) \frac{dv} {\alpha _2} \right)\end{aligned}$$ (as before, it is very easy to check that these elements lie indeed in the kernel of $df$).
We thus see that ${\mathcal C}_f$ is not locally free near $p$; since clearly the terms in brackets in the previous expression are local generators for ${\mathcal C}_{f_1}$ and ${\mathcal C}_{f_2}$ respectively near $p$, we deduce that ${\mathcal C}_f \cong {\mathcal C}_{f_1} (-p) \oplus {\mathcal C}_{f_2} (-2p)$. Thus \[tur\] follows.
[**Case \[trr\]**]{}. Once more we refer to (\[equara\]), now with $k_1, l_2 \geq 2$. In this case, the equations imply that $r(x,y) = 0$, and thus $f_1 (x,y) = - x^{l_1-k_1}
f_2 (x,y) \psi (x) + y h_1 (y)$. Substituting back in (\[equara\]), we find $$y^{l_2-1} \Bigl( y^{k_2-l_2 +1} h_1 (y) \varphi (y) + f_2 (x,y) \Bigr) = 0$$ i.e. $f_2 (x,y) = x g_2 (x) - y^{k_2-l_2 +1} h_1 (y) \varphi (y)$ and therefore $$f_1 (x,y) = - x^{l_1-k_1 +1} g_2 (x) \psi (x) + y h_1 (y)$$
By inspection we see that choosing $\bigl( g_2(x), h_1 (y) \bigr) = (1, 0)$ or $(0, 1)$ yields elements of the kernel of $df$. Thus near $p$ the kernel of $df$ is generated by $$\begin{aligned}
x \left( - x^{l_1-k_1} \psi (x) \frac{du} {\alpha _1} + \frac{dv} {\alpha _2} \right)
& \hspace{20pt} {\rm and} \hspace{20pt}
& y \Bigl( \frac{du} {\alpha _1} + y^{k_2-l_2} \varphi (y)\frac{dv} {\alpha _2} \Bigr)\end{aligned}$$
We thus see again that ${\mathcal C}_f$ is not locally free near $p$. Since clearly the terms in brackets in the previous expression are local generators for ${\mathcal C}_{f_1}$ and ${\mathcal C}_{f_2}$ respectively near $p$, it follows that ${\mathcal C}_f \cong {\mathcal C}_{f_1} (-p) \oplus {\mathcal C}_{f_1} (-p)$. Thus \[trr\] is established, and with it the lemma. [ $\Box $ ]{}
Now that we have treated the transverse case, we need an analogous lemma for the non-transverse case.
\[conota\] Suppose that $X$ is a smooth surface and let $f: C \rightarrow X$ be a morphism from a curve $C$ consisting of two irreducible components $C_1$ and $C_2$, meeting in a node $p$. Denote by $f_i$ the restriction of $f$ to $C_i$ and let $p_i \in C_i$ be the point $p \in C$. Suppose that $f$ does not contract any component of $C$ and that $C_1$ and $C_2$ do not meet transversely at $f(p)$. Then there are the following cases:
1. \[n2\] $C_1$ and $C_2$ are simply tangent at $f(p)$.
Then ${\mathcal C}_f$ is not locally free and $${\mathcal C}_f \cong {\mathcal C}_{f_1} (-p) \oplus {\mathcal C}_{f_2} (-p)$$
2. \[nl\] $C_1$ and $C_2$ are not simply tangent at $f(p)$.
Then ${\mathcal C}_f$ is locally free and the following sequence is exact $$\label{sesnf}
\xymatrix{ 0 \ar[r] & {\mathcal C}_f \ar[r] & {\mathcal C}_{f_1} \oplus {\mathcal C}_{f_2} \ar[r] & {\mathcal C}_{f,p} \ar[r] & 0 }$$
[*Proof.*]{} We proceed as before, and we can write $$ f \^\* : {
----- -------------------------------------
$u$ $x^{k_1} U_1 (x) + y^{k_2} U_2 (y)$
$v$ $x^{l_1} V_1 (x) + y^{l_2} V_2 (y)$
----- -------------------------------------
. $$ where $l_1 > k_1$, $l_2 > k_2$ and $U_1 (0), U_2 (0) \neq 0$. By exchanging if necessary the roles of $C_1$ and $C_2$, we may further assume that $k_1 \leq k_2$. Then we have $$\xymatrix @C=-30.5pt @R=3pt {
{\mathcal O}_{C,p} \cdot du + {\mathcal O}_{C,p} \cdot dv \ar[r]^{df \hspace{30pt}} &
\raisebox {3pt} {$\Bigl( {\mathcal O}_{C,p} \cdot dx + {\mathcal O}_{C,p} \cdot dy \Bigr) $} / \raisebox
{-3pt} {$(ydx + xdy)$} \\
du \ar[r] & x^{k_1-1} \Bigl( k_1 U_1(x) + x U_1 '(x) \Bigr) dx +
y^{k_2-1} \Bigl( k_2 U_2(y) + y U_2 '(y) \Bigr) dy \\
dv \ar[r] & x^{l_1-1} \Bigl( l_1 V_1(x) + x V_1 '(x) \Bigr) dx +
y^{l_2-1} \Bigl( l_2 V_2(y) + y V_2 '(y) \Bigr) dy }$$
Let $\alpha _1 := k_1 U_1(x) + x U_1 '(x)$ and $\alpha _2 := l_2 V_2(y) + y V_2 '(y)$. We may write $$\xymatrix{
du \ar[r] & \alpha _1 x^{k_1-1} dx + \alpha _2 y^{k_2-1} dy \\
dv \ar[r] & x^{l_1-1} \psi (x) dx + y^{l_2-1} \varphi (y) dy }$$ Note that $\alpha _1 (0)$, $\alpha _2 (0) \neq 0$. The kernel of this morphism is determined by the condition $$f_1 (x,y) du + f_2 (x,y) dv \longmapsto r(x,y) \bigl( ydx + xdy \bigr)$$ which translates to $$\label{equata}
f ^* : \left\{ \begin{tabular}{c@{ $=$ }c}
$x^{k_1-1} \left( \alpha _1 f_1 (x,y) + x^{l_1-k_1} \psi (x) f_2 (x,y)
\vphantom{\frac {\frac{1}{1}} {\frac{1}{1}}} \right) $&$y r(x,y) = y r(0,y) $ \vspace{10pt} \\
$y^{k_2-1} \left( \alpha _2 f_1 (x,y) + y^{l_2-k_2} \varphi (y) f_2 (x,y)
\vphantom{\frac{\frac{1}{1}}{\frac{1}{1}}} \right) $&$x r(x,y) = x r(x,0) $
\end{tabular} \right.$$
Let us now consider separately some cases.
[**Case \[n2\]**]{}. $k_1 = 1$ and $l_2 = k_2 + 1$. (i.e. $f$ is not ramified on $C_1$ and $f(C_1)$ and $f(C_2)$ are simply tangent). We know we may also assume $l_1 \geq 3$. Equations (\[equata\]) imply (multiplying the second one by $y$ if $k_2=1$) $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha _1 f_1 (x,y) + x^{l_1-1} \psi (x) f_2 (x,y) & = & y r(x,y) \\[7pt]
y \Bigl( \alpha _2 f_1 (x,y) + y \varphi (y) f_2 (x,y) \vphantom{y^{l_2-k_2}} \Bigr) & = & 0\end{aligned}$$
From the second equation we deduce that $f_1 (x,y) = x g(x) - \frac {y \varphi (y)}
{\alpha _2} f_2 (x,y)$, and substituting in the first equation we find $$x g(x) = - \frac {x^{l_1-1} \psi (x)} {\alpha _1} f_2 (x,y) + \frac {y \varphi (y)}
{\alpha _2} f_2 (x,y) + \frac {y r(x,y)} {\alpha _1}$$
This gives us the equations $$\begin{aligned}
x g(x) & = & - \frac {x^{l_1-1} \psi (x)} {\alpha _1} f_2 (x,y) \\[7pt]
\frac {y \varphi (y)} {\alpha _2} f_2 (x,y) & = & - \frac {y r(x,y)} {\alpha _1}\end{aligned}$$
It follows that $f_2 (x,y) = x h(x) - \frac{\alpha _2} {\alpha _1 \varphi (y)} r(x,y)$. Observe now that choosing $h(x)=0$ and $r (x,y) = 1$ gives the element $\left( \frac
{x^{l_1-1} \alpha _2 \psi (x)} {\alpha _1 ^2 \varphi (y)} + \frac {y} {\alpha _1} \right)
du - \frac{\alpha _2} {\alpha _1 \varphi (y)} dv $ whose image under $df$ is $y dx$ (remember we are assuming $l_1 \geq 3$), which is not zero. Therefore, $r(x,y)$ (and hence $f_2$) cannot have a constant term, which implies that all elements of the kernel are combinations of $$\begin{aligned}
x \Bigl( - \frac {x^{l_1-1} \psi (x)} {\alpha _1} du + dv \Bigr)
& \hspace{20pt} {\rm and} \hspace{20pt} &
y \Bigl( - \frac {y \varphi (y)} {\alpha _2} du + dv \Bigr)\end{aligned}$$
Clearly these elements are also in the kernel of $df$ and the terms in the brackets are local generators for ${\mathcal C}_{f_1}$ and ${\mathcal C}_{f_2}$. Thus ${\mathcal C}_f \cong {\mathcal C}_{f_1} (-p) \oplus
{\mathcal C}_{f_2} (-p)$.
[**Case \[nl\]a**]{}. $k_1 = 1$, $l_2 \geq k_2 + 2$. Equations (\[equata\]) imply $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha _1 f_1 (x,y) + x^{l_1-1} \psi (x) f_2 (x,y) & = & y r(x,y) \\[7pt]
y \Bigl( \alpha _2 f_1 (x,y) + y^{l_2-k_2} \varphi (y) f_2 (x,y) \Bigr) & = & 0\end{aligned}$$
From the second equation we deduce that $$f_1 (x,y) = x g(x) - \frac {y^{l_2-k_2} \varphi (y)} {\alpha _2} f_2 (x,y)$$ and substituting in the first equation we find $$x g(x) = - \frac {x^{l_1-1} \psi (x)} {\alpha _1} f_2 (x,y) + \frac {y^{l_2-k_2}
\varphi (y)} {\alpha _2} f_2 (x,y) + \frac {y r(x,y)} {\alpha _1}$$
This gives us the equations $$\begin{aligned}
x g(x) & = & - \frac {x^{l_1-1} \psi (x)} {\alpha _1} f_2 (x,y) \\[7pt]
\frac {y^{l_2-k_2} \varphi (y)} {\alpha _2} f_2 (x,y) & = & - \frac {y r(x,y)} {\alpha _1}\end{aligned}$$
Therefore all elements of the kernel are multiples of $$- \left( \frac {x^{l_1-1} \psi (x)} {\alpha _1} + \frac {y^{l_2-k_2} \varphi (y)}
{\alpha _2} \right) du + dv$$
By inspection these elements are also in the kernel of $df$ and the restrictions $-\frac
{x^{l_1-1} \psi (x)} {\alpha _1} du + dv $ and $-\frac {y^{l_2-k_2} \varphi (y)} {\alpha _2}
du + dv $ are generators for ${\mathcal C}_{f_1}$ and ${\mathcal C}_{f_2}$. In particular there is a short exact sequence as in (\[sesnf\]).
[**Case \[nl\]b**]{}. $k_1, k_2 \geq 2$. Then (\[equata\]) implies $r(x,y) = 0$ and from the first equation we may write $f_1 (x,y) = -\frac {x^{l_1-k_1} \psi (x)}
{\alpha _1} f_2 (x,y) + yh (y)$ and substituting in the second equation we obtain $$y^{k_2-1} \Bigl( y \alpha _2 h (y) + y^{l_2-k_2} \varphi (y) f_2 (x,y) \Bigr) = 0
\hspace{4pt} \Longrightarrow \hspace{4pt} y h (y) = - \frac {y^{l_2-k_2} \varphi (y)}
{\alpha _2 } f_2 (x,y)$$
Therefore near $p$ any element of the kernel of $df$ is a multiple of $$- \left( \frac {x^{l_1-k_1} \psi (x)} {\alpha _1} + \frac {y^{l_2-k_2} \varphi (y)}
{\alpha _2 } \right) du + dv$$ and it is easy to check that this element lies indeed in the kernel of $df$. Thus ${\mathcal C}_f$ is locally free and since $- \frac {x^{l_1-k_1} \psi (x)} {\alpha _1} du + dv $ and $- \frac {y ^{l_2-k_2} \varphi (y)} {\alpha _2 } du + dv $ are the local generators for ${\mathcal C}_{f_1}$ and ${\mathcal C}_{f_2}$, we deduce that we have a short exact sequence as in (\[sesnf\]). This completes the proof of the lemma. [ $\Box $ ]{}
Let $f: C \rightarrow X$ be a morphism from a connected, projective, nodal curve of arithmetic genus zero to a smooth surface $X$. In view of the two previous lemmas, we partition the set of nodes of $C$ in five disjoint sets:
[$\tau _{uu} $]{} is the set of nodes $p$ such that the two components of $C$ meeting at $p$ are transverse at $f(p)$ and both are unramified;
[$\tau _{ur} $]{} is the set of nodes $p$ such that the two components of $C$ meeting at $p$ are transverse at $f(p)$ and one is unramified and the other one is ramified;
[$\tau _{rr} $]{} is the set of nodes $p$ such that the two components of $C$ meeting at $p$ are transverse at $f(p)$ and both are ramified;
[$\nu _2 $]{} is the set of nodes $p$ such that the two components of $C$ meeting at $p$ are simply tangent at $f(p)$;
[$\nu _l $]{} is the set of nodes $p$ such that the two components of $C$ meeting at $p$ are not transverse and not simply tangent at $f(p)$.
Thus it follows from the lemmas that the sheaf ${\mathcal C}_f$ is locally free at the nodes $\tau _{uu}$ and $\nu _l$, while it is not free at the others. Let $C_1, \ldots , C_\ell $ be the components of $C$. Then we let $\tau _{uu} ^i $ denote the divisor on $C_i$ of nodes lying in $\tau _{uu}$, and similarly for the other types of nodes. Note that only one of the definitions above is not symmetric, namely $\tau _{ur}$ (and $\tau _{ur} ^i$). To take care of this, let us introduce one more divisor on each component of $C$: let $\tau _{ru} ^i$ be the divisor on $C_i$ consisting of all nodes $p$ of $C$ on $C_i$, such that the two components of $C$ through $p$ are transverse at $f(p)$, and the restriction of $f$ to these two components is ramified only on $C_i$.
Often we will denote by the same symbol a divisor on a curve and its degree. For instance we write equations like $$\begin{aligned}
\sum _i \left( \tau _{uu} ^i + \tau _{ur} ^i + \tau _{rr} ^i + \nu _2 ^i + \nu _l ^i \right)
& = & 2 \# \{ \text{nodes of } C \} \\
\sum _i \left( \tau _{uu} ^i + \tau _{ur} ^i + \tau _{ru} ^i + \tau _{rr} ^i + \nu _2 ^i + \nu _l ^i \right)
& = & 2 \# \{ \text{nodes of } C \} + \tau _{ur}\end{aligned}$$
Given a coherent sheaf ${\mathcal F}$ on a curve $C$, let $\tau ({\mathcal F})$ denote the subsheaf generated by the sections whose support has dimension at most 0 and let ${\mathcal F}^{free}$ be the sheaf ${\mathcal F}/ \tau ({\mathcal F})$. By definition the sheaf ${\mathcal F}^{free}$ is pure.
\[grafico\] Let $f: C \rightarrow X$ be a stable map of genus zero with no contracted components to a smooth surface $X$, with canonical divisor $K_X$. Let $C_1, \ldots , C_\ell $ be the irreducible components of $C$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{graco}
\deg \left( \left. \left( {\mathcal C}_f \otimes \omega _C \right) \vphantom{^{2}} \right| ^{free} _{C_i}
\right) & = &
f_* [C_i] \cdot K_X - \deg \tau _{ru} ^i + \deg \nu _l ^i + \deg {\mathcal Q}_i \\[5pt]
\nonumber
\chi \left( {\mathcal C}_f \otimes \omega _C \right) & = &
f_* [C] \cdot K_X + \deg \tau _{rr} + \deg \nu _2 + \\\nonumber
& & + 2 \deg \nu _l + \sum \deg {\mathcal Q}_i + 1\end{aligned}$$
Moreover, let $\nu : \tilde C \rightarrow C$ be the normalization of $C$ at the nodes in $\tau _{ur} \cup \tau _{rr} \cup \nu _2$. Then, the sheaf ${\mathcal C}_f$ is the pushforward of a locally free sheaf on $\tilde C$.
[*Proof.*]{} This is simply a matter of collecting the information we already proved in the previous lemmas. Thanks to Lemma \[conotra\] and Lemma \[conota\] we have the following short exact sequence of sheaves on $C$ $$\xymatrix@C=15pt {
0 \ar[r]& {\mathcal C}_f \ar[r]& \oplus _i {\mathcal C}_{f_i} \left( -\tau _{uu} ^i - \tau _{ur} ^i
- 2 \tau _{ru} ^i - \tau _{rr} ^i - \nu _2 ^i \right) \ar[r]&
{\mathcal C}_f|_{\tau _{uu}} \oplus {\mathcal C}_f|_{\nu _l} \ar[r]& 0 }$$
Note that the sheaf in the middle on the component $C_i$ is twisted down by all nodes of $C$ on $C_i$, with the exception of the nodes in $\nu _l ^i$, which do not appear, and the nodes in $\tau _{ru} ^i$, which “appear twice.” Hence we can write the divisor by which we are twisting ${\mathcal C}_{f_i}$ as $- val [C_i] - \tau _{ru} ^i + \nu _l ^i$ (we denote by $val [C_i]$ the valence of the vertex $[C_i]$ in the dual graph of $C$).
To compute the degree of the sheaf ${\mathcal C}_{f_i}$, remember that there is an exact sequence $$\xymatrix{ 0 \ar[r]& {\mathcal C}_{f_i} \ar[r]& f_i ^* \Omega ^1 _X \ar[r]& \Omega ^1 _{C_i} \ar[r]&
{\mathcal Q}_i \ar[r]& 0 }$$
Therefore we have $\deg {\mathcal C}_{f_i} = f_*[C_i] \cdot K_X + 2 + \deg {\mathcal Q}_i$. Thus, we may rewrite the previous sequence as follows $$\begin{aligned}
& \hspace{-2pt} \xymatrix@C=15pt { 0 \ar[r]& {\mathcal C}_f \ar[r]& \oplus _i
{\mathcal O}_{C_i} \Bigl( f_*[C_i] \cdot K_X +2-val [C_i]
- \tau _{ru} ^i + \nu _l ^i + \deg {\mathcal Q}_i \Bigr)
\ar[r]& } \\[7pt]
& \hspace{-2pt} \xymatrix@C=15pt {\ar[r] &
{\mathcal C}_f|_{\tau _{uu}} \oplus {\mathcal C}_f|_{\nu _l} \ar[r]& 0 }\end{aligned}$$
The dualizing sheaf $\omega _C$ is invertible and on the component $C_i$ has degree equal to $-2+val [C_i]$. Thus twisting the previous sequence by $\omega _C$ we obtain (using the isomorphisms ${\mathcal C}_f|_{\tau _{uu}} \otimes \omega _C \simeq {\mathcal C}_f|_{\tau _{uu}}$ and ${\mathcal C}_f|_{\nu _l} \otimes \omega _C \simeq {\mathcal C}_f|_{\nu _l}$) $$\begin{aligned}
& \xymatrix@C=15pt { 0 \ar[r] & {\mathcal C}_f \otimes \omega _C \ar[r] & \oplus _i
{\mathcal O}_{C_i} \Bigl( f_*[C_i] \cdot K_X - \tau _{ru} ^i + \nu _l ^i + \deg {\mathcal Q}_i \Bigr)
\ar[r] & } \nonumber \\[7pt] \label{gallo}
& \xymatrix@C=15pt { \ar[r] & {\mathcal C}_f|_{\tau _{uu}} \oplus {\mathcal C}_f|_{\nu _l} \ar[r] & 0 }\end{aligned}$$
The first identity in (\[graco\]) follows. For the second one, note that $\sum \tau _{ru}^i = \tau _{ur}$ and $\sum \nu _l ^i = 2 \nu _l$ and compute Euler characteristics of (\[gallo\]): $$\begin{aligned}
\chi \left( {\mathcal C}_f \otimes \omega _C \right) & \hspace{-8pt} = & \hspace{-8pt}
\sum _i \left( f_*[C_i] \cdot K_X - \tau _{ru} ^i + \nu _l ^i + \deg {\mathcal Q}_i +1 \right) \!-\!
\deg \tau _{uu} \!-\! \deg \nu _l \!= \\
& \hspace{-8pt} = & \hspace{-8pt} f_*[C] \cdot K_X - \tau _{ur} + 2 \nu _l + \sum _i \deg {\mathcal Q}_i + \\
& & \hspace{-8pt} + \# \bigl\{ \text{components of $C$} \bigr\} - \tau _{uu} - \nu _l\end{aligned}$$
Remember that the dual graph of $f$ is a tree and hence $\# \bigl\{ \text{components}\bigr \} = \# \bigl\{ \text{nodes of $C$} \bigr\} + 1 =
\tau _{uu} + \tau _{ur} + \tau _{rr} + \nu _2 + \nu _l + 1$. Using this, we conclude $$\chi \left( {\mathcal C}_f \otimes \omega _C \right) =
f_*[C] \cdot K_X + \tau _{rr} + \nu _2 + 2 \nu _l + 1 + \sum _i \deg {\mathcal Q}_i$$ and the proposition is proved. [ $\Box $ ]{}
The next proposition has a similar proof, but deals with morphisms with contracted components. As for the previous case, it is useful to introduce two more subsets of the nodes on contracted components, depending on the behaviour of $f : \bar C \rightarrow X$ near the node. We let
[$\rho _{u} $]{} be the set of nodes $p$ such that $f$ is constant on one of the two components, and it is unramified on the other;
[$\rho _{r} $]{} be the set of nodes $p$ such that $f$ is constant on one of the two components, and it is ramified on the other.
\[graficone\] Let $f: \bar C \rightarrow X$ be a stable map of genus zero to a smooth surface $X$, with canonical divisor $K_X$. Let $\bar C = C \cup R$, where $C=C_1 \cup \ldots \cup C_\ell$ is the union of all components of $\bar C$ which are not contracted by $f$, and $R$ is the union of all components of $\bar C$ contracted by $f$. Let $r$ be the number of connected components of the curve $R$ (equivalently, $r = \chi ({\mathcal O}_R)$). Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{gracone}
\deg \left( \left. \left( {\mathcal C}_f \otimes \omega _{\bar C} \right) \vphantom{^{2}}
\right| _{C_i} ^{free} \right) & = &
f_* [C_i] \cdot K_X + {\mathcal Q}_i - \tau _{ru} ^i + \nu _l ^i + \rho _u ^i + \rho _r ^i \\[5pt]
\nonumber
\chi \left( {\mathcal C}_f \otimes \omega _{\bar C} \right) & = &
f_* [C] \cdot K_X + \sum {\mathcal Q}_i + 1 + \tau _{rr} + \nu _2 + 2 \nu _l + \\ \nonumber
& & + \rho _u + 2 \rho _r - 3r\end{aligned}$$
[*Proof.*]{} For the first formula in (\[gracone\]), we only need to check the local behaviour of ${\mathcal C}_f$ near a node between $C_i$ and a contracted component $R_j$. As before, let $x$ be a local coordinate on $C_i$ near the node $p$ between $C_i$ and $R_j$ and let $y$ be a local coordinate on $R_j$ near $p$. Let $u,v$ be local coordinates on $X$ near $f(p)$ and suppose that the tangent direction to the vanishing set of $u$ near $f(p)$ is the tangent direction to $C_i$ at $f(p)$. We have $$f ^* : \left\{ \begin{array} {rcl}
u & \longmapsto & x^{k} U(x) \\
v & \longmapsto & x^{k+1} V(x)
\end{array} \right. ~~~ U(0) \neq 0$$ for some $k \geq 1$. The sheaf ${\mathcal C}_f$ near $p$ is the kernel of the map $$\xymatrix @C=30pt { df :
{\mathcal O}_{\bar C, p} \cdot du + {\mathcal O}_{\bar C, p} \cdot dv \ar[r] &
\raisebox {3pt} {$\Bigl( {\mathcal O}_{\bar C, p} \cdot dx +
{\mathcal O}_{\bar C, p} \cdot dy \Bigr) $} / \raisebox
{-3pt} {$\bigl( ydx + xdy \bigr)$} \\
du \ar[r] & x^{k-1} \Bigl( k U(x) + x U '(x) \Bigr) dx \\
dv \ar[r] & x^{k} \Bigl( (k+1) V(x) + x V '(x) \Bigr) dx }$$ It is readily seen that $$x \Bigl( (k+1) V(x) + x V '(x) \Bigr) du -
\Bigl( k U(x) + x U '(x) \Bigr) dv$$ is a local generator for the kernel of $df$. Note that this means that we may pretend that the component $R_j$ is not there for the purpose of computing the contribution of the node $p$, regardless of whether $f|_{C_i}$ ramifies or not at $p$. This is enough to prove the first formula in (\[gracone\]).
To prove the second one, we carry the previous analysis slightly further, and note that the image of $df$ contains the torsion section $y dx$ if and only if $f$ does not ramify at $p$. Remember that we have the diagram $$\xymatrix { & & & 0 \ar[d] \\
& & 0 \ar[d] & \tau \ar[d] \\
0 \ar[r] & {\mathcal C}_f \ar[r] & f^* \Omega ^1_X \ar[r] \ar[d] &
\Omega ^1 _{\bar C} \ar[r] \ar[d] & {\mathcal Q}_{\bar C} \ar[r] & 0 \\
& & \mathop {\bigoplus } \limits _{C' \subset \bar C}
\left( f|_{C'} \right) ^* \Omega ^1 _X \ar[d] &
\mathop {\bigoplus } \limits _{C' \subset \bar C} \Omega ^1 _{C'} \ar[d] \\
& & \mathop {\bigoplus } \limits _{\nu \in Sing(\bar C)}
\hspace{-10pt} \Omega ^1 _{X , \nu } \ar[d] & 0 \\
& & 0 }$$ where $C'$ ranges over the irreducible components of $\bar C$ and $\tau $ denotes the torsion subsheaf of $\Omega ^1 _{\bar C}$. We deduce that $$\chi \left( {\mathcal C}_f \otimes \omega _{\bar C} \right)
= \chi \left( f^* \Omega ^1_X \otimes \omega _{\bar C} \right)
- \chi \left( \Omega ^1 _{\bar C} \otimes \omega _{\bar C} \right)
+ \chi \left( {\mathcal Q}_{\bar C} \otimes \omega _{\bar C} \right)$$ and we know that $$\begin{aligned}
\chi \left( f^* \Omega ^1_X \otimes \omega _{\bar C} \right) & \hspace{-5pt}= & \hspace{-5pt}
f_*[\bar C] \cdot K_X - 4 \# \{ {\text {components of }}\bar C \}
+ 2 \sum _{C' \subset \bar C} val (C') + \\
& & \hspace{-5pt} + 2 \# \{ {\text {components of }}\bar C \}
- 2 \# \{ {\text {nodes of }}\bar C \} = \\
& \hspace{-5pt} = & \hspace{-5pt} f_*[\bar C] \cdot K_X - 2\end{aligned}$$ $$\chi \left( \Omega ^1 _{\bar C} \otimes \omega _{\bar C} \right) =
\# \{ {\text {nodes of }}\bar C \} - 3 \# \{ {\text {components of }}\bar C \} +
\sum _{C' \subset \bar C} val (C') = -3$$ $$\chi \left( {\mathcal Q}_{\bar C} \otimes \omega _{\bar C} \right) =
\chi \left( {\mathcal Q}_C \otimes \omega _{\bar C} \right) +
\chi \left( \Omega ^1_R \otimes \omega _{\bar C} \right) + \rho _r$$ where ${\mathcal Q}_C$ is the cokernel of the differential of the restriction of $f$ to the union $C$ of the non-contracted components. By what we saw above, the sheaf ${\mathcal Q}_C$ behaves like when there are no contracted components. The Euler characteristic of $\Omega ^1_R \otimes \omega _{\bar C}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\chi \left( \Omega ^1_R \otimes \omega _{\bar C} \right) & = &
\# \{ {\text {nodes of }}\bar R \}
- 3 \# \{ {\text {irreducible components of }}\bar R \} + \\[5pt]
& & + \sum _{R' \subset R} val (R') =
- 3 \# \{ {\text {connected components of }}\bar R \} = \\[7pt]
& = & -3r\end{aligned}$$
We collect all these numbers as we did before and conclude. [ $\Box $ ]{}
Deformations of Stable Maps
---------------------------
Dimension Estimates
-------------------
In what follows we refer to the integer $- C \cdot K_X$ as the anticanonical degree (or simply as the degree) of a curve $C$ in $X$, where $K_X$ is the canonical divisor of $X$.
We consistently use the following notational convention: if $f: \bar C \rightarrow X$ is a morphism and $\bar C_1$ denotes a component of $\bar C$, we denote the image of $\bar C_1$ by $C_1$, and in general, a symbol with a bar over it denotes an object on the source curve $\bar C$, while the same symbol without the bar over it denotes the image of the object in $X$.
([@Ko] II.3.6). Let $f,g \in {\rm Hom } (\bar C , X)$; we say $g$ is a deformation of $f$, if there is an irreducible subscheme of ${\rm Hom } (\bar C , X)$ containing $f$ and $g$. We say that a general deformation of $f$ has some property if there is an open subset $U \subset {\rm Hom } (\bar C , X)$ containing $f$ and a dense open subset $V \subset U$ such that all $f' \in V$ have that property.
When we choose a general deformation $g$ of a morphism $f$, we assume that $g$ is a deformation of $f$, i.e. that $f$ and $g$ lie in the same irreducible component of ${\rm Hom } (\bar C , X)$.
\[immersione\] Let $f: {\mathbb P}^1 \rightarrow X$ be a free morphism; then $-f({\mathbb P}^1) \cdot K_X \geq 2$. If moreover $f$ is birational onto its image, then a general deformation of $f$ is free and it is an immersion.
[*Proof.*]{} Since $f$ is free, $f^*{\mathcal T}_X$ is globally generated, and hence the normal sheaf ${\mathcal N}_f$ is also. Thus we have $$0 \leq \deg {\mathcal N}_f = \deg f^*{\mathcal T}_X - 2 = - f({\mathbb P}^1) \cdot K_X - 2$$
For the second assertion, by [@Ko] Complement II.3.14.4, a general deformation of $f$ is of the form $f_t : {\mathbb P}^1 \stackrel{g_t} {\rightarrow }
{\mathbb P}^1 \stackrel {h_t} {\rightarrow } X$, where $h_t$ is an immersion. Since it is also true that a general deformation of a birational map is still birational, we see that for a general deformation $f_t$ of $f$, $g_t$ is an isomorphism, and $f_t$ is an immersion. Clearly being free is also an open property. [ $\Box $ ]{}
Fix a free rational curve $\beta \subset X$ and let $d = - \beta \cdot K_X$.
Denote by ${\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X, \beta \bigr) }$ the closure in ${\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{0,0} \bigl( X, \beta \bigr)}$ of the set of free morphisms $f: {\mathbb P}^1 \rightarrow X$ such that $f$ is birational onto its image.
We want to prove that given $r \leq d-1$ general points $p_1, \ldots , p_r \in X$, in all irreducible components of ${\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X, \beta \bigr) }$ there is an $f$ whose image contains all the $p_i$’s.
\[rpunti\] Let $f: {\mathbb P}^1 \rightarrow X$ be an immersion, and let $d$ be the degree of the image of $f$. Let $c_1, \ldots , c_r $ be distinct points where $f$ is an embedding. The natural morphism $$\xymatrix @R=10pt { F^{(r)} : ({\mathbb P}^1)^r \times {\rm Hom} ({\mathbb P}^1,X) \ar[r] & X^r \\
\bigl( d_1, \ldots , d_r ; [g] \bigr) \ar@{|->} [r] &
\bigl( g(d_1) , \ldots , g(d_r) \bigr) }$$ is smooth at the point $\bigl( c_1, \ldots , c_r ; [f] \bigr)$ if and only if $r\leq d-1$.
[*Proof.*]{} Recall the sequence defining ${\mathcal N}_f$: $$\label{dinuovo}
\xymatrix{ 0 \ar[r] & {\mathcal T}{\mathbb P}^1 \ar[r] ^{df^t} & f^* {\mathcal T}X \ar[r]&
{\mathcal N}_f \ar[r] & 0 }$$
Let us prove first of all that ${\rm Hom} ({\mathbb P}^1,X)$ is smooth at $[f]$. From (\[dinuovo\]), it follows that $\deg {\mathcal N}_f = -f_* ({\mathbb P}^1)
\cdot K_X -2 = d-2 \geq -1$, and since $f$ is an immersion, ${\mathcal N}_f$ is locally free. Thus from the long exact sequence associated to (\[dinuovo\]) we deduce that ${\rm H}^1 ({\mathbb P}^1 , f^* {\mathcal T}X ) = 0$, and by [@Ko] Theorem II.1.2 it follows that ${\rm Hom} ({\mathbb P}^1,X)$ is smooth at $[f]$.
Consider now the following commutative diagram with exact rows $$\xymatrix @C=15.3pt { 0 \ar[r] & \oplus {\mathcal T}_{c_i} {\mathbb P}^1 \ar[r] \ar [d]^{\sim} &
{\mathcal T}_{(\underline {c}; [f])} ({\mathbb P}^1)^r \times {\rm Hom} ({\mathbb P}^1,X) \ar[r] \ar[d]^{dF^{(r)}} &
{\mathcal T}_{[f]} {\rm Hom} ({\mathbb P}^1,X) \ar[r] \ar[d]^{\delta} & 0 \\
0 \ar[r] & \oplus {\mathcal T}_{f(c_i)} f({\mathbb P}^1) \ar[r] & \oplus {\mathcal T}_{f(c_i)} X
\ar[r] & \oplus {\mathcal N}_{f,c_i} \ar[r] & 0}$$ The top row is clear, since we have the isomorphism $${\mathcal T}_{(\underline {c}; [f])} ({\mathbb P}^1)^r \times
{\rm Hom} ({\mathbb P}^1,X) \simeq \oplus {\mathcal T}_{c_i} {\mathbb P}^1 \oplus {\mathcal T}_{[f]} {\rm Hom} ({\mathbb P}^1,X)$$ For the second row, restrict the sequence (\[dinuovo\]) to $\{ c_1 , \ldots , c_r \}$ and note that $f$ induces an isomorphism ${\mathcal T}_{c_i} {\mathbb P}^1
\simeq {\mathcal T}_{f(c_i)} f({\mathbb P}^1)$, since $f$ is an embedding at the $c_i$. The first vertical arrow is induced by $f$, while $\delta $ is the quotient map, followed by the evaluation map ([@Ko] Proposition II.3.5): $$\xymatrix{ {\mathcal T}_{[f]} {\rm Hom} ({\mathbb P}^1,X) \simeq {\rm H}^0 ({\mathbb P}^1, f^* {\mathcal T}_X)
\ar[r] ^{\hspace{45pt}q} \ar[dr] _\delta & {\rm H}^0 ({\mathbb P}^1, {\mathcal N}_f) \ar[d] ^{ev} \\
& \oplus {\mathcal N}_{f,c_i} }$$
The morphism $q$ is induced by the long exact sequence associated to (\[dinuovo\]), and the next term in the sequence is ${\rm H}^1 ({\mathbb P}^1, {\mathcal T}_{{\mathbb P}^1}) = 0$. Therefore $q$ is surjective. Observe that $dF^{(r)}$ is surjective if and only if $\delta $ is surjective, and finally, $\delta $ is surjective if and only if the evaluation map $ev$ is surjective. Consider the exact sequence of sheaves $$\label{sse}
\xymatrix{ 0 \ar[r] & {\mathcal N}_f (-c_1 - \ldots - c_r) \ar[r] & {\mathcal N}_f \ar[r] &
\oplus {\mathcal N}_{f,c_i} \ar[r] & 0 }$$
Remember that $\deg {\mathcal N}_f = d-2$, and since $f$ is an immersion, ${\mathcal N}_f \simeq {\mathcal O}_{{\mathbb P}^1} (d-2)$. Thus ${\rm H}^1 ( {\mathbb P}^1 , {\mathcal N}_f) = 0$, and the sequence on global sections induced by (\[sse\]) is exact if and only if ${\rm H}^1 ( {\mathbb P}^1 , {\mathcal N}_f (-c_1 - \ldots - c_r)) = 0$, i.e. if and only if $\deg {\mathcal N}_f (-c_1 - \ldots - c_r) = d-2-r \geq -1$. Therefore ${\rm H}^0 ({\mathbb P}^1, {\mathcal N}_f) \rightarrow \oplus {\mathcal N}_{f,c_i}$ is surjective if and only if $r \leq d-1$, and hence $dF^{(r)}$ is surjective if and only if $r \leq d-1$. [ $\Box $ ]{}
Let $f: {\mathbb P}^1 \rightarrow X$ be an immersion representing an element of ${\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X, \beta \bigr) }$, and denote by $_f {\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X, \beta \bigr) }$ the irreducible component of ${\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X, \beta \bigr) }$ containing $f$. Denote by ${\mathcal H}^f \subset {\rm Hom} ({\mathbb P}^1 , X)$ the irreducible component of ${\rm Hom} ({\mathbb P}^1 , X)$ containing $[f]$ (remember that ${\rm Hom} ({\mathbb P}^1 , X)$ is smooth at $[f]$).
There is an action $$\xymatrix @R=0pt {
{\rm Aut} \bigl( {\mathbb P}^1 \bigr) \times \left( {\mathbb P}^1 \right) ^r \times
{\rm Hom} \bigl( {\mathbb P}^1 , X \bigr) \ar[r]
& \left( {\mathbb P}^1 \right) ^r \times {\rm Hom} \bigl( {\mathbb P}^1 , X \bigr) \\
\bigl( \varphi , (c_1, \ldots , c_r \,;\, [g]) \bigr) \ar@{|->} [r] &
\bigl( \varphi (c_1), \ldots , \varphi (c_r) \,;\, [g \circ \varphi ^{-1}] \bigr) }$$ which clearly preserves the irreducible components of ${\rm Hom} \bigl( {\mathbb P}^1 , X \bigr)$. Since $f$ is not constant, the action of ${\rm Aut} \bigl( {\mathbb P}^1 \bigr)$ has finite stabilizers.
Consider the diagram $$\xymatrix{ & \left( {\mathbb P}^1 \right) ^r \times {\mathcal H}^f
\ar[dr] _{M \vphantom{^{F^{(r)}}}} \ar[dl] ^{F^{(r)}} \\
X^r & & _f {\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X, \beta \bigr) }}$$ where $M$ is the projection onto the factor ${\mathcal H}^f $ followed by the natural map that quotients out the action of ${\rm Aut} ({\mathbb P}^1)$.
Let us compute the dimensions of some of these spaces. The morphism $M$ is obviously dominant, while Proposition \[rpunti\] (together with Lemma \[immersione\]) implies that $F^{(r)}$ is dominant if $r\leq d-1$. Thus we may compute $$\dim \left( _f {\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X, \beta \bigr) }\right) = \dim \Bigl( \left( {\mathbb P}^1 \right) ^r \times {\mathcal H}\Bigr)
- r - 3 = -f({\mathbb P}^1) \cdot K_X - 1 = d - 1$$
Let $c_1, \ldots , c_r \in {\mathbb P}^1$ be $r\leq d-1$ distinct points where $f$ is an isomorphism onto its image and let $p_i = f(c_i)$.
Let $p:= (c_1, \ldots , c_r; [f]) \in \left( {\mathbb P}^1 \right) ^r \times {\rm Hom}
({\mathbb P}^1 , X)$; it follows from Proposition \[rpunti\] that $$\dim \bigl( F^{(r)} \bigr) ^{-1} (p_1, \ldots , p_r) = r + \dim {\mathcal H}^f - 2r =
-f({\mathbb P}^1) \cdot K_X + 2 - r = d-r+2$$
Denote by ${\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X, \beta \bigr) }(p_1, \ldots , p_r)$ the (closure of the) image under $M$ of $\bigl( F^{(r)} \bigr) ^{-1} (p_1, \ldots , p_r)$, alternatively $${\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X, \beta \bigr) }(p_1, \ldots , p_r) := \left\{ [f] \in {\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X, \beta \bigr) }~ \Bigl|
~ Image(f) \supset \{p_1, \ldots , p_r\} \right\}$$
Since ${\rm Aut} ({\mathbb P}^1)$ acts with finite stabilizers on $\bigl( F^{(r)} \bigr) ^{-1} (p_1, \ldots , p_r)$, we may compute $$\label{dimdibarbi}
\dim {\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X, \beta \bigr) }(p_1, \ldots , p_r) = d-r-1$$
Independent Points
------------------
The next lemma analyzes the case of curves through $d-1$ general points.
\[dimme\] For a general $(d-1)-$tuple $(p_1, \ldots , p_{d-1})$ of points of $X^{d-1}$, all the morphisms in ${\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X, \beta \bigr) }(p_1, \ldots , p_{d-1})$ are immersions.
[*Proof.*]{} Let ${\mathcal I}\subset \left( {\mathbb P}^1 \right) ^{d-1} \times {\mathcal H}^f$ be the set of all $d-$tuples $(c_1, \ldots , c_{d-1}; [g])$ such that $g$ is not an immersion; Lemma \[immersione\] implies that ${\mathcal I}$ is a proper closed subset of $\left( {\mathbb P}^1 \right) ^{d-1} \times {\mathcal H}^f$. Note that ${\mathcal I}$ is ${\rm Aut }({\mathbb P}^1)-$invariant. Consider the morphism $F^{(d-1)}$. By Proposition \[rpunti\] and Lemma \[immersione\] this morphism is dominant, hence the general fiber of this morphism has dimension $d-1-f({\mathbb P}^1) \cdot K_X + 2 - 2(d-1) = d+2-d+1 = 3$, thus the fibers of this morphism are ${\rm Aut }({\mathbb P}^1)-$orbits, since they are stable under the action of ${\rm Aut }({\mathbb P}^1)$. If the general fiber of $F^{(d-1)}$ met ${\mathcal I}$, then we would have $$\dim {\mathcal I}\geq 2(d-1) + 3 = 2d +1 = (d-1)+(d+2) =
\dim \left( \left( {\mathbb P}^1 \right) ^{d-1} \times {\mathcal H}^f \right)$$ and ${\mathcal I}$ would equal $\left( {\mathbb P}^1 \right) ^{d-1} \times {\mathcal H}^f $, which contradicts Lemma \[immersione\]. Thus there is an open dense subset ${\mathcal U}$ in $X^{d-1}$ not meeting the image of ${\mathcal I}$. For any $(d-1)-$tuple $(p_1, \ldots , p_{d-1}) \in {\mathcal U}$ we have that $${\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X, \beta \bigr) }(p_1, \ldots , p_{d-1}) :=
M \left( \bigl( F^{(d-1)} \bigr) ^{-1} (p_1, \ldots , p_{d-1}) \right)
\subset {\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X, \beta \bigr) }$$ consists only of (finitely many) immersions. [ $\Box $ ]{}
We now want to prove that for a general choice of $d-2$ points on $X$, all the resulting morphisms in ${\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X, \beta \bigr) }$ through them have reduced image. To achieve this, let us first introduce the following notion.
\[indip\] We say that $r$ points $p_1, \ldots , p_r$ in $X$ are [independent]{} if the following conditions hold:
1. no $k$ of them are contained in a rational curve of degree $k$; \[finoak\]
2. the normalization of a rational curve of degree $k$ in $X$ through $k-1$ of them is an immersion. \[nok\]
Proposition \[rpunti\], Lemma \[dimme\] and the dimension estimates (\[dimdibarbi\]) easily imply that for any $r \geq 1$ there are $r-$tuples of independent points if there are free rational curves of anticanonical degree $d \geq r+1$, and that there are rational curves of anticanonical degree $d$ through $r$ independent points if $d \geq r+1$.
We are ready to prove the following result.
\[nonnonred\] Let $C \subset X$ be a divisor of anticanonical degree $d \geq 3$ such that each reduced irreducible component is rational. Let $p_1, \ldots , p_{d-2} \in C$ be a $(d-2)-$tuple of independent points. The divisor $C$ has at most two irreducible components and it is reduced.
[*Proof.*]{} Denote by $C_1, \ldots , C_\ell$ the reduced irreducible components of $C$. For each curve $C_i$ let $d_i$ be the degree of $C_i$, $m_i$ be the multiplicity of $C_i$ in $C$ and $\delta _i$ be the number of points $p_1, \ldots , p_{d-2}$ lying on $C_i$. Then we have $ \sum m_i d_i = d$ and $\delta _i \leq d_i-1$. Therefore $$d-2 = \sum \delta _i \leq \sum d_i - \ell \leq \sum m_i d_i - \ell = d-\ell$$
Thus $\ell \leq 2$, and if $\ell = 2$, then all inequalities are equalities and hence $m_1 = m_2 = 1$. If $\ell = 1$, then $C_1$ is a rational curve of degree $d_1$ on $X$ containing $d-2$ independent points. It follows that $d_1 \geq d-1$ and $m_1 d_1 = d$ and hence $d \geq m_1 (d-1)$, or $(m_1-1) d \leq m_1$. Since $d \geq 3$ this implies $d_1 = d$ and $m_1=1$. [ $\Box $ ]{}
\[niette\] Let $p_1, \ldots , p_r \in X$ be $r \geq 2$ independent points, and let $\alpha \subset X$ be an integral curve of degree $r+2$ of geometric genus zero containing $p_1 , \ldots , p_r$. Let $B$ be a smooth connected projective curve and let $F: B \rightarrow \overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} ^\alpha (p_1, \ldots , p_r)$ be a non-constant morphism. The reducible curves in the family parametrized by $B$ cannot always contain a component mapped isomorphically to a curve of anticanonical degree strictly smaller than two.
[*Proof.*]{} Consider the following fiber product diagram $$\xymatrix{ S \ar[rr] \ar[d] & & \overline {\mathcal M}_{0,1} (X, \alpha ) \ar[d] \\
B \ar[r] & \overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} ^\alpha (p_1, \ldots , p_r) \ar@{^(->} [r] &
\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0} (X, \alpha) }$$ thus $S \rightarrow B$ is the pull-back of the universal family.
It follows that $S \rightarrow B$ is a surface whose general fiber over $B$ is a smooth rational curve and with a finite number of fibers consisting of exactly two smooth rational curves (Lemma \[nonnonred\]) meeting transversely at a point, corresponding to the reducible curves in the family $B$. By hypothesis $S \rightarrow B$ admits $r$ contractible sections. Suppose that in all reducible fibers of $S$ one component is mapped to a curve of anticanonical degree strictly smaller than two. Denote the components in $S$ mapped to such curves by $L_1, \ldots , L_t$, and the other components in the respective fiber by $Q_1, \ldots , Q_t$ (thus $L_i + Q_i$ represents the numerical class of a fiber, for all $i$’s). By definition of independent points, the sections of $S \rightarrow B$ cannot meet the components $L_i$. Since $L_i \subset S$ is a smooth rational curve of self-intersection $L_i^2 = L_i \cdot (Q_i + L_i) - L_i \cdot Q_i = -1$, we may contract all the $L_i$ to obtain a smooth surface $S' \rightarrow B$, which is a ${\mathbb P}^1-$bundle over the curve $B$. Since the contracted curves did not meet the $r$ sections, there still are $r \geq 2$ negative sections of $S' \rightarrow B$, but there can be at most one negative section in a ${\mathbb P}^1-$bundle. Thus there must be reducible fibers in the family $B$ all of whose components are mapped to curves of anticanonical degree at least two. [ $\Box $ ]{}
\[sovrappo\] Let $f: {\mathbb P}^1 \longrightarrow X$ be a non-constant morphism to a smooth surface $X$ and suppose that $f^* {\mathcal T}_X$ is globally generated. Denote by ${\mathcal M}_f$ the irreducible component of $\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0} (X, f_*[{\mathbb P}^1])$ containing $[f]$ and by $C \subset X$ the integral curve $f({\mathbb P}^1)$. Let ${\mathcal M}_{f,C}$ be the locus of stable maps $${\mathcal M}_{f,C} := \biggl\{ [g] \in {\mathcal M}_f ~ \bigl| ~
\text{image}(g) = C \biggr\}$$
Then we have $${\rm codim} \bigl( {\mathcal M}_{f,C} , {\mathcal M}_f \bigr) \leq 1$$ Equality holds if and only if $f_*[{\mathbb P}^1] = \delta C$ for some positive integer $\delta $ and $K_X \cdot C = -2$.
[*Proof.*]{} Using [@Ko] Proposition II.3.7, we may deform $f$ so that the image of the resulting morphism avoids a point on $C$. It follows that ${\mathcal M}_{f,C} \subsetneq {\mathcal M}_f$, and hence, ${\mathcal M}_{f,C}$ being closed, that it has codimension at least one.
To prove the second assertion, note that any morphism $\phi : R \rightarrow X$ from a rational tree with image contained in $C$ is such that $\phi ^* {\mathcal T}_X$ is globally generated. This is obvious on each irreducible component of $R$: the morphism factors through the normalization of $C$ and a multiple cover, and under the normalization the pull-back of ${\mathcal T}_X$ is globally generated. Thus $\phi ^* {\mathcal T}_X$ is globally generated on each component of $R$, and hence it is globally generated on $R$.
Let $\Gamma $ be the dual graph of some morphism in ${\mathcal M}_f$. Let ${\mathcal M}_f ^\Gamma $ be the subscheme of ${\mathcal M}_f$ consisting of morphisms with dual graph $\Gamma $; then $$\label{disestu}
{\rm codim} \bigl( {\mathcal M}_{f,C} \cap {\mathcal M}_f ^\Gamma , {\mathcal M}_f ^\Gamma \bigr) \geq 1$$
Indeed, let $n$ be the number of vertices of $\Gamma $ and consider the scheme $\widetilde {\mathcal M}_f ^\Gamma $: $$ { [M]{}\_[0,n]{} ( X, f\_\*\[[P]{}\^1\] ) |
--------------------------------------------------- --
$[g] \in {\mathcal M}_f ^\Gamma $ and the points
$p_1$, …, $p_n$ lie in different
components of $K$
--------------------------------------------------- --
. } $$
Clearly there is a surjective morphism $\widetilde {\mathcal M}_f ^\Gamma \longrightarrow {\mathcal M}_f ^\Gamma $, and let $$\widetilde {\mathcal M}_{f,C} ^\Gamma := \left( {\mathcal M}_{f,C} \cap {\mathcal M}_f ^\Gamma \right)
\times _{{\mathcal M}_f ^\Gamma }\widetilde {\mathcal M}_f ^\Gamma$$ Let $g : K \rightarrow X$ represent a morphism in $\widetilde {\mathcal M}_{f,C} ^\Gamma $; again by [@Ko] Proposition II.3.7 we may deform $g$ to miss a point of $C$, while still lying in $\widetilde {\mathcal M}_f ^\Gamma $ and thus (\[disestu\]) follows.
Suppose that ${\rm codim} ({\mathcal M}_{f,C} , {\mathcal M}_f) = 1$. It is clear that $f_* [{\mathbb P}^1] = \delta C$ for some positive integer $\delta $.
Using (\[disestu\]) it follows that the general morphism in every component of maximal dimension of ${\mathcal M}_{f,C}$ has irreducible domain, and hence these components of ${\mathcal M}_{f,C}$ are dominated by ${\mathcal M}_{0,0} ({\mathbb P}^1 , \delta )$, where the morphisms are induced by composition with the normalization map $\nu : {\mathbb P}^1 \longrightarrow C$. We have $\dim {\mathcal M}_{f,C} \leq \dim {\mathcal M}_{0,0} ({\mathbb P}^1 , \delta ) = 2 \delta - 2$, and also $\dim {\mathcal M}_f = \left( - K_X \cdot C \right) \delta - 1$. We already know (Lemma \[immersione\]) that $- K_X \cdot C \geq 2$, and hence we must have $- K_X \cdot C = 2$ and $\dim {\mathcal M}_{f,C} = 2 \delta - 2$. [ $\Box $ ]{}
Sliding moves {#slittino}
-------------
The next lemma and its corollary allow us to construct irreducible subschemes in the boundary of the spaces ${\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{0,0} \bigl( X, \beta \bigr)}$. First, let us introduce some notation that will be used in the lemma.
Let $f : \bar C \rightarrow X$ be a stable map of genus zero to the smooth surface $X$. Let $\bar C_0$ be a connected subcurve, let $\bar C_1 , \ldots , \bar C_\ell $ be the connected components of the closure of $\bar C \setminus \bar C_0$. Let $\bar C_{0i}$ be the irreducible component of $\bar C_0$ meeting $\bar C_i$, and let $\bar C_{i,1}$ be the irreducible component of $\bar C_i$ meeting $\bar C_0$ and let the intersection point of $\bar C_{0i}$ and $\bar C_{i,1}$ be $\bar p_i$. Denote by $f_i$ the restriction of $f$ to $\bar C_i$, for $i \in \{ 0, \ldots , \ell \}$.
Let $V \subset \overline {\mathcal M}_{0,\ell} \bigl( X , f_* [{\mathbb P}^1]\bigr) \times
\left( \bar C_1 \times \cdots \times \bar C_\ell \right) $ be the subscheme consisting of all points $\bigl( [g \,;\, \bar c_1 , \ldots , \bar c_\ell ] \,;\,
\bar c_1 ' , \ldots , \bar c_\ell '\bigr) $, such that $g(\bar c_i) = f (c_i ')$ and $[g \,;\, \bar c_1 , \ldots , \bar c_\ell ]$ is in the same irreducible component of $\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,\ell} \bigl( X , f_* [{\mathbb P}^1]\bigr) $ as $[f \,;\, \bar p_1 , \ldots , \bar p_\ell ]$.
\[ovvio\] With notation as above, assume also that a general deformation of $f_0$ is generated by global sections, $\bar C_{0i}$ is not contracted by $f$ and $f \bigl( \bar C_{0i}\bigr) \not \supset f \bigl( \bar C_{i,1}\bigr) $, for all $i$’s. It follows that every irreducible component of $V$ containing $\bigl( [f _0 \,;\, \bar p_1 , \ldots , \bar p_\ell ] \,;\,
\bar p_1 , \ldots , \bar p_\ell \bigr) $ surjects onto the irreducible component of $\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( X , f_* [{\mathbb P}^1]\bigr) $ containing $[f]$.
[*Proof.*]{} Let $\Phi $ be an irreducible component of $\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( X , f_* [{\mathbb P}^1]\bigr) $ containing (the stable reduction of) $[f]$. Define ${\mathcal C}$ by the Cartesian square on the left and $\underline {ev}$ as the composite of the maps in the diagram $$\xymatrix { {\mathcal C}\ar[rr] \ar[d]
\ar@/^2pc/ ^{\underline {ev} := (ev _1 , \ldots , ev _\ell )} [rrrr] &&
{\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,\ell} \bigl( X , f_* [{\mathbb P}^1]\bigr) } \ar[d] \ar[rr] && X ^\ell \\
\Phi \ar@{^{(}->} [rr] && {\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( X , f_* [{\mathbb P}^1]\bigr) }}$$
Clearly, $V$ is then defined by the diagram $$\xymatrix { V \ar[rr] \ar[d] ^\iota \ar@/_2pc/ ^{\pi } [dd] &&
{\left( \bar C_1 \times \cdots \times \bar C_\ell \right) }
\ar[d] ^{(f_1, \ldots , f_\ell )} \\
{\mathcal C}\ar[rr] ^{\underline {ev} } \ar[d] && X ^\ell \\
\Phi }$$ and we have $$\xymatrix { {}\save[]+<-78pt,0pt>*{ V \subset W :=
{\mathcal C}\times \left( \bar C_1 \times \cdots \times \bar C_\ell \right) } \restore
\ar[rr] ^{P} && {\mathcal C}}$$
Obviously $P$ is flat and since ${\mathcal C}\longrightarrow \Phi$ is flat, it follows that $W \longrightarrow \Phi $ is flat. The fiber of $\pi $ at the point $[g]$ is given by $$\pi ^{-1} \bigl( [g] \bigr) = \biggl\{
\bigl( [\tilde g \,;\, \bar c_1 , \ldots , \bar c_\ell ] \,;\,
\bar c_1 ' , \ldots , \bar c_\ell ' \bigr)
~\Bigl|~ \tilde g (\bar c_i) = f_i (\bar c_i ') \biggr\}$$ where the stable reduction of $\tilde g$ is $g$. If $g$ has irreducible domain, and if the image of $g$ does not contain any singular point of (the reduced scheme) $f \bigl( \bar C_1 \cup \ldots \cup \bar C_\ell \bigr) $, nor does it contain any component of $f\bigl( \bar C_i\bigr) $, then the scheme $\pi ^{-1} \bigl( [g] \bigr) $ is finite. Thanks to [@Ko] Theorem II.7.6 and Proposition II.3.7, a general deformation $g$ of $f _0 $ satisfies the previous conditions; thus the general fiber of $\pi $ in a neighbourhood of $[f]$ is finite and hence, letting $v_0 := \bigl( [f _0 \,;\, \bar p_1 , \ldots , \bar p_\ell ] \,;\,
\bar p_1 , \ldots , \bar p_\ell \bigr) $, we conclude that $\dim _{v_0} V = \dim \Phi = \dim {\mathcal C}- \ell $.
Let $\kappa _i \in {\mathcal O}_{X, f_(\bar p_i)}$ be a local equation of $f_i \bigl( {\mathbb P}^1\bigr) $; clearly the $\ell $ equations $P^* ev_1 ^* (\kappa _1 ) $, …, $P^* ev_\ell ^* (\kappa _\ell )$ define $V$ near $v_0$. Since $\dim V = \dim {\mathcal C}- \ell $, it follows that ${\mathcal O}_{V, v_0}$ is a Cohen-Macaulay ${\mathcal O}_{W , v_0}-$module. Using [@EGA4] Proposition 6.1.5, we deduce that ${\mathcal O}_{V, v_0}$ is a flat ${\mathcal O}_{\Phi , [f _0 ]}-$module, and the result follows. [ $\Box $ ]{}
[**Construction.**]{} Suppose $f: \bar C \rightarrow X$ is a stable map, and suppose $\bar C = \bar C _0 \cup \ldots \cup \bar C_\ell $, where $\bar C_i$ is a connected union of components for all $i$’s, such that ${\rm H}^1 \bigl( \bar C_0 , f^* {\mathcal T}_X|_{\bar C_0} \bigr) = 0$ and all the irreducible components of $\bar C_0$ meeting $\bar C_i$ are not contracted by $f$ and the image of the component of $\bar C_0$ meeting $\bar C_i$ does not contain the image of the corresponding component of $\bar C_i$ for all $i$’s (this is the same condition required in Lemma \[ovvio\]).
We construct an irreducible subscheme ${\rm Sl} _f (\bar C_0)$ of $\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( X , f_* [\bar C] \bigr) $, consisting of morphisms $g : \bar C' \rightarrow X$ with the following properties:
- there is a decomposition $\bar C' = \bar C_0' \cup \ldots \cup \bar C_\ell '$, where $\bar C_i'$ is a connected subcurve;
- there are isomorphisms $g|_{\bar C_i'} \simeq f|_{\bar C_i}$;
- there is a morphism $res : {\rm Sl} _f (\bar C_0) \rightarrow
\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( X , f_* [\bar C_0] \bigr)$, which is surjective on the irreducible component containing $f|_{\bar C_0}$;
- there are morphisms $a_i : {\rm Sl} _f (\bar C_0) \rightarrow \bar C_i$, for $i \in \{ 1 , \ldots , \ell \}$.
Let $\bar p_i \in \bar C_0$ be the node between $\bar C_0$ and $\bar C_i$ and $f_i := f|_{\bar C_i}$; by Lemma \[ovvio\] we may find an irreducible subscheme $V \subset
\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,\ell} \bigl( X , f _* [\bar C_0] \bigr) \times _{X ^\ell }
\bigl( \bar C_1 \times \ldots \times \bar C_\ell \bigr)$ and a morphism $V \rightarrow \overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( X , f _* [\bar C_0] \bigr)$ which is surjective onto the irreducible component containing $f_0$.
Identify $\bar C_i$ with $\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,1} \bigl( \bar C_i , [\bar C_i] \bigr)$; thus we may write $$V \subset
\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,\ell} \bigl( X , f _* [\bar C_0] \bigr) \times _{X ^\ell }
\Bigl( \overline {\mathcal M}_{0,1} \bigl( \bar C_1 , [\bar C_1] \bigr) \times \ldots
\times \overline {\mathcal M}_{0,1} \bigl( \bar C_\ell , [\bar C_\ell] \bigr) \Bigr)$$ Let $M_i \subset \bar C_0 \times P$ be the closed subscheme with closed points of the form $\bigl( \bar c_{0i} \,;\, [g \,;\, \bar c_{01} , \ldots , \bar c_{0\ell} ]
\,;\, \bar c_1 , \ldots , \bar c_\ell \bigr)$. Let $N_i \subset \bar C_i \times P'$ be the closed subscheme with closed points of the form $\bigl( \bar c_i \,;\, [g \,;\, \bar c_{01} , \ldots , \bar c_{0\ell} ]
\,;\, \bar c_1 , \ldots , \bar c_\ell \bigr)$. It is clear that projection onto the $P'$ factor induces isomorphisms $M_i \simeq P'$ and $N_i \simeq P'$, and that $M_i \cap M_j = \emptyset $ for all $i \neq j$.
Construct the scheme $\bar {\mathcal C}$: glue to $\bar C_0 \times P'$ the schemes $\bar C_i \times P'$ along the subschemes $M_i \simeq N_i$, where the isomorphisms are the ones induced by projection onto the factor $P'$. By construction, there is a morphism $\bar {\mathcal C}\longrightarrow P'$, whose fiber over the point $\bar c = \bigl( [g \,;\, \bar c_{01} , \ldots , \bar c_{0\ell} ] \,;\,
\bar c_1 , \ldots , \bar c_\ell \bigr)$ is the curve $\bar {\mathcal C}_{\bar c}$ obtained by the nodal union of $\bar C_0$ and $\bar C_i$, for all $i$’s, where the nodes of $\bar {\mathcal C}_{\bar c}$ are at the points $\bar c_{0i} \in \bar C_0$ and $\bar c_i \in \bar C_{i,1} \subset \bar C_i$.
The morphism $\bar {\mathcal C}\rightarrow P'$ is flat on all irreducible components of $P'$ (remember that $P'$ is smooth) thanks to Theorem III.9.9 of [@Ha], since all fibers $\bar {\mathcal C}_{\bar c}$ have geometric genus zero. Thus $\bar {\mathcal C}\rightarrow P'$ is a family of connected nodal projective curves of arithmetic genus zero.
A typical application of this construction can be found in the proof of Theorem \[maschera\] as well as in many of the later proofs.
Divisors of Small Degree: the Picard Lattice
============================================
The Nef Cone
------------
We collect here some results on the nef cone of a del Pezzo surface. We prove a “numerical” decomposition of any nef divisor on a del Pezzo surface in Corollary \[maquale\]. In the later sections we will show how to realize geometrically this decomposition.
Let $X _\delta $ be a del Pezzo surface of degree $9-\delta$. Suppose that $X_\delta \neq {\mathbb P}^1 \times {\mathbb P}^1$. We call an integral basis $\{ \ell , e_1 , \ldots , e_\delta \}$ of ${\rm Pic} (X_\delta )$ a [standard basis]{} if there is a presentation $b: X_\delta \rightarrow {\mathbb P}^2$ of $X_\delta $ as the blow up of ${\mathbb P}^2$ at $\delta $ points such that $\ell $ is the pull-back of the class of a line and the $e_i$’s are the exceptional divisors of $b$.
\[dispari\] Let $C \subset X$ be an integral curve of canonical degree -1 on the smooth surface $X$. Then $C^2$ is odd and it is at least -1.
[*Proof.*]{} This is immediate from the adjunction formula: $$\begin{array} {c}
C^2 + K_X \cdot C = 2 p_a(C) - 2 \hspace{20pt} \Longrightarrow
\hspace{20pt} C^2 = 2 p_a(C) - 1 \geq -1
\end{array}$$ The lemma is proved. [ $\Box $ ]{}
\[meno\] Let $C \subset X$ be a curve of canonical degree -1 on a del Pezzo surface of degree $d$. Either $C$ is a $(-1)-$curve, or $d=1$ and the divisor class of $C$ is $-K_X$.
[*Proof.*]{} Note that since $-K_X$ is ample, a curve of canonical degree $-1$ must be integral. If $X \simeq {\mathbb P}^1 \times {\mathbb P}^1$, all divisor classes on $X$ have even canonical degree, thus we may exclude this case. Let $\rho := C^2$ and $\delta = 9-d$; by the previous lemma we know that $\rho \geq -1$ and it is odd. Moreover, if $\rho = -1$ then $C$ is a $(-1)-$curve; suppose therefore that $\rho \geq 1$. By [@Ma] Proposition IV.25.1 we may find a standard basis $\{ \ell , e_1 , \ldots , e_\delta \}$ of the Picard group of $X$. If we write $C = a\ell - b_1 e_1 - \ldots - b_\delta e_\delta $, we have $$\left\{ \begin{array} {r@{ ~=~ }l} \displaystyle
3a - \sum _{i=1} ^\delta b_i & 1 \\[15pt] \displaystyle
a^2 - \sum _{i=1} ^\delta b_i ^2 & \rho
\end{array} \right.$$ and these equations are easily seen to be equivalent to the following: $$\left\{ \begin{array} {rcl} \displaystyle
3a - \sum _{i=1} ^8 b_i & = & 1 \\[7pt] \displaystyle
\sum _{i=1} ^8 \bigl( a - 2b_i - 1 \bigr) ^2 & = &
4 \bigl( 1 - \rho \bigr) \\[7pt]
\displaystyle b_i & = & 0 \hspace{20pt} i \geq \delta +1
\end{array} \right.$$
We deduce that $\rho \leq 1$, and hence $\rho = 1$. We conclude that $a - 2b_i - 1 = 0$ for all $i$’s and hence $\bigl( a \,;\, b_1 , \ldots , b_8 \bigr) =
\bigl( 2b+1 \,;\, b , \ldots , b \bigr)$ and $3a - \sum b_i = 1$. Therefore $b=1$, $\delta = 8$ and the divisor class of $C$ is $\bigl( 3 \ell - e_1 - \ldots - e_8 \bigr) = -K_X$. [ $\Box $ ]{}
We need a criterion to determine which classes are nef on any del Pezzo surface $X$. This is immediate in the cases of del Pezzo surfaces of degree 9 and 8. If the degree is 9, then $X$ is isomorphic to ${\mathbb P}^2$. The non-negative multiples of the class of a line are the only nef divisors, and the only ample divisors are the positive such multiples. If the degree of the del Pezzo surface is 8, then there are two cases: either $X$ is isomorphic to ${\mathbb P}^1 \times {\mathbb P}^1$ or $X$ is isomorphic to the blow-up of ${\mathbb P}^2$ at one point.
If $X \simeq {\mathbb P}^1 \times {\mathbb P}^1$, then any divisor class $C$ on $X$ is of the form $a_1 F_1 + a_2 F_2$, where $F_1$ and $F_2$ are the two divisor classes of $\{p\} \times {\mathbb P}^1$ and ${\mathbb P}^1 \times \{p\}$ and $a_1$ and $a_2$ are integers. Then $C$ is nef if and only if $a_1 , a_2 \geq 0$, while $C$ is ample if and only if $a_1 , a_2 > 0$.
If $X \simeq Bl _p ({\mathbb P}^2)$, then any divisor class $C$ on $X$ is of the form $a \ell - b e$, where $\ell $ is the pull-back of the divisor class of a line in ${\mathbb P}^2$, while $e$ is the exceptional divisor. The divisor class $C$ is nef if and only if $a\geq b \geq 0$, while $C$ is ample if and only if $a > b > 0$.
The remaining cases are dealt with in the next Proposition.
\[clane\] Let $X$ be a del Pezzo surface of degree $d \leq 7$. A divisor class $C \in {\rm Pic} (X)$ is nef (respectively ample) if and only if $C \cdot L \geq 0$ (respectively $C \cdot L > 0$) for all $(-1)-$curves $L \subset X$.
[*Proof.*]{} The necessity of the conditions is obvious. To establish the sufficiency, we only need to prove the result for nef classes, since the ample classes are precisely the ones in the interior of the nef cone. Proceed by induction on $r := 9 - d$.
If $r=2$ write $C = a \ell - b_1 e_1 - b_2 e_2$, in some standard basis $\{\ell , e_1 , e_2 \}$. By assumption we know that $b_i \geq 0$ and $a \geq b_1 + b_2$. Thus we can write $$C = \bigl( a - b_1 - b_2 \bigr) \ell +
b_1 \bigl( \ell - e_1 \bigr) + b_2 \bigl( \ell - e_2 \bigr)$$ which shows that $C$ is a non-negative combination of nef classes.
Suppose $r>2$. Let $n := \min \bigl\{ C \cdot L ~;~
L \subset X \text{ is a $(-1)-$curve} \bigr\}$; by assumption we know that $n \geq 0$. Let $\tilde C := C + nK_X$; for any $(-1)-$curve $L \subset X$ we have $\tilde C \cdot L = C \cdot L -n \geq 0$, and there is a $(-1)-$curve $L'$ such that $\tilde C \cdot L' = 0$, by the definition of $n$.
Let $b : X \rightarrow X'$ be the contraction of the curve $L'$ and note that $X'$ is a del Pezzo surface of degree $9-(r-1)$. We have $\tilde C = b^* b_* \tilde C - r L'$ and $$0 = \tilde C \cdot L' = b^* b_* \tilde C \cdot L' - r L' \cdot L'
= b_* \tilde C \cdot b_* L' + r = r$$ and therefore $\tilde C = b^*b_*\tilde C$ is the pull-back of the divisor class $C' := b_* \tilde C$ on $X'$. Since all $(-1)-$curves on $X'$ are images of $(-1)-$curves on $X$, by induction we know that $C'$ is nef, and thus $\tilde C$ is nef. Hence $C = \tilde C + n (-K_X)$ is a non-negative linear combination of nef divisors, and thus $C$ is nef. [ $\Box $ ]{}
From this Proposition we deduce immediately the following Corollary.
\[maquale\] Let $X_\delta $ be a del Pezzo surface of degree $9 - \delta \leq 8$. Let $D \in {\rm Pic} (X_\delta )$ be a nef divisor. Then we can find
- non-negative integers $n_2 , \ldots , n_\delta $;
- a sequence of contraction of $(-1)-$curves $$\xymatrix { X_\delta \ar[r] & X_{\delta -1} \ar[r] & {\cdots} \ar[r] &
X_2 \ar[r] & X_1 } ;$$
- a nef divisor $D' \in {\rm Pic} (X_1)$;
such that $$D = n_\delta (-K_{X_\delta }) + n_{\delta -1} (-K_{X_{\delta -1}}) +
\ldots + n_2 (-K_{X_2}) + D'$$
[*Proof.*]{} We proceed by induction on $\delta $. If $\delta \leq 1$, there is nothing to prove.
Suppose that $\delta \geq 2$ and let $n := \min \bigl\{ L \cdot D ~|~
L \subset X {\text{ a $(-1)-$curve} } \} $. By assumption we have $n \geq 0$. Let $\bar D := D + n K_{X_\delta}$; for every $(-1)-$curve $L \subset X_\delta $ we have $$\bar D \cdot L = D \cdot L + n K_{X_\delta} \cdot L \geq n - n = 0$$
Thus thanks to the previous Proposition, $\bar D$ is nef. By construction there is a $(-1)-$curve $L_0 \subset X$ such that $\bar D \cdot L_0 = 0$. Thus $\bar D$ is the pull-back of a nef divisor on the del Pezzo surface $X_{\delta -1}$ obtained by contracting $L_0$. By induction, we have a sequence of contractions $$\xymatrix { X_{\delta -1} \ar[r] & {\cdots} \ar[r] & X_2 \ar[r] & X_1 } ,$$ non-negative integers $n_2$,…, $n_{\delta - 1}$ and a nef divisor $D'$ on $X_1$ such that we may write $\bar D = n_{\delta - 1} (-K_{X_{\delta -1}}) + \ldots
+ n_2 (-K_{X_2}) + D'$. Let $n_\delta := n$; with this notation we have $$D = n_\delta (-K_{X_\delta }) + \bar D' = n_\delta (-K_{X_\delta }) + \ldots
+ n_2 (-K_{X_2}) + D'$$ and a sequence of contractions as in the statement of the corollary. This concludes the proof. [ $\Box $ ]{}
First Cases of the Main Theorem
-------------------------------
\[pumba\] Let $X_\delta$ be a del Pezzo surface of degree $9-\delta$; then the linear system $|-K_{X_\delta}|$ has dimension $9-\delta$. If $\delta = 8$, then $|-K_{X_8}|$ has a unique base-point; if $\delta \leq 7$, then $|-K_{X_\delta}|$ is base-point free and if $\delta \leq 6$ it is very ample.
[*Proof.*]{} This result is well-known (cf. [@Ma]). [ $\Box $ ]{}
\[cane\] Let $X_\delta $ be a del Pezzo surface of degree $9-\delta \geq 3$. The scheme $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X_\delta , -K_{X_\delta} \bigr)$ is birational to a ${\mathbb P}^ {6-\delta }-$bundle over $X_\delta $; in particular, it is rational and irreducible.
[*Proof.*]{} The surface $X_\delta $ is embedded in ${\mathbb P}^{9-\delta}$ by the linear system $|-K_{X_\delta}|$. A general point $[f : {\mathbb P}^1 \rightarrow X_\delta]$ of $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X_\delta , -K_{X_\delta} \bigr)$ corresponds to a morphism whose image has a unique singular point $p \in X_\delta $ and is uniquely determined by the hyperplane containing $f({\mathbb P}^1)$. Such a hyperplane is tangent to $X_\delta $ at $p$. The hyperplanes in ${\mathbb P}^{9-\delta}$ intersecting $X_\delta $ in a curve with a singular point at $p$ are precisely the hyperplanes containing the tangent plane to $X_\delta $ at $p$.
We thus have a rational morphism $$\xymatrix {\pi : \overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X_\delta , -K_{X_\delta} \bigr) \ar@{-->} [r] & X_\delta }$$ assigning to $[f : {\mathbb P}^1 \rightarrow X_\delta]$ the unique singular point of $f({\mathbb P}^1)$. The general point of the fiber of $\pi $ over a general point $p \in X_\delta $ corresponds to a hyperplane containing the tangent plane to $X_\delta$ at $p$. The space of such hyperplanes is isomorphic to ${\mathbb P}^{6-\delta}$. Since $X_\delta $ is irreducible and the general fiber of $\pi$ is also, it follows that $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X_\delta , -K_{X_\delta} \bigr)$ is irreducible. [ $\Box $ ]{}
[*Remark*]{}. The schemes $\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( X_\delta , -K_X \bigr)$ are not irreducible if $X_\delta$ is the blow-up of ${\mathbb P}^2$ at $\delta = 1$ or 2 points. Indeed, let $X_1$ be the blow-up of ${\mathbb P}^2$ at one point $p$; there are two morphisms $$\xymatrix { & X_1 \ar[dl] _{\pi _1} \ar[dr] ^{\pi_2}
{}\save[]+<33pt,2pt>*{\subset {\mathbb P}^2 \times {\mathbb P}^1} \restore \\
{\mathbb P}^2 && {\mathbb P}^1 }$$ and the divisor class of a fiber of $\pi _2$ is $\ell - e$, where $\ell $ is the pull-back of the class of a line in ${\mathbb P}^2$ under $\pi_1$ and $e$ is the exceptional fiber of $\pi_1$. It is clear that the space of morphisms from a curve with dual graph $$\xygraph {[] !~:{@{=}}
!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [rr] {\bullet}
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_2$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_1$} \restore} }$$ where $\bar C_1$ is a (rational) triple cover of a fiber of $\pi_2$ and $\bar C_2$ is a double cover of the exceptional fiber of $\pi_1$ has dimension at least 7: there are 4 parameters for the triple cover of $\ell - e$, 1 for the choice of fiber of $\pi_2$ and 2 for the double cover of $e$.
Similarly, let $X_2$ be the blow-up of ${\mathbb P}^2$ at two distinct points $p,q$ and let $\{ \ell , e_1 , e_2 \}$ be a standard basis. It is clear that the space of morphisms from a curve with dual graph $$\xygraph {[] !~:{@{=}}
!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [rr] {\bullet}
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_2$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar D$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_1$} \restore} }$$ where $\bar C_i$ is a double cover of the $(-1)-$curve with divisor class $e_i$ and $\bar D$ is a triple cover of the $(-1)-$curve with divisor class $\ell - e_1 - e_2$ has dimension at least 8.
In both these cases it is easy to check (Proposition \[grafico\]) that in fact the dimension of the components described is precisely the indicated lower bound.
It is also possible to show that these are the only irreducible components of $\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( X , -K_X \bigr)$ besides the closure of ${\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( X , -K_X \bigr)$, when $X$ is a del Pezzo surface.
\[cadute\] Let $X$ be a del Pezzo surface of degree two and let $K_X$ be the canonical divisor of $X$. The scheme $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X , -K_X \bigr)$ is isomorphic to a smooth plane quartic.
[*Proof.*]{} We know (Lemma \[pumba\]) that there is a morphism $\kappa : X \rightarrow {\mathbb P}^2$ associated to the anticanonical sheaf and since $(-K_X)^2 = 2$ (and $-K_X$ is ample), this morphism is finite of degree two. Let $R \subset {\mathbb P}^2$ be the branch curve, and let $2r$ be its degree; denote by $\bar R \subset X$ the ramification divisor. Let ${\mathcal O}_X (1) = \kappa ^* {\mathcal O}_{{\mathbb P}^2} (1) \simeq
{\mathcal O}_X (-K_X)$; then using the identity $K_X = \kappa ^* K_{{\mathbb P}^2} + \bar R$, we have ${\mathcal O}_X (-1) \simeq {\mathcal O}_X (-3+r)$ and we deduce that $r=2$. Thus $R$ is a plane quartic. It is smooth since the morphism $\kappa $ has degree two and $X$ is smooth.
The general point of every irreducible component of $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X , -K_X \bigr)$ corresponds to a singular divisor in $|-K_X|$. These in turn are parameterized by the tangent lines to the ramification curve $R$ of $\kappa $. Let $p \in R$ be a point and let $L_p$ be the tangent line to $R$ at $p$. It is easy to convince oneself that by associating to each point $p$ in $R$ the morphism which is the normalization of $\kappa ^{-1} (L_p)$ at $\kappa ^{-1} (p)$, gives an isomorphism $R \simeq \overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X , -K_X \bigr)$. [ $\Box $ ]{}
We now deal with the three spaces $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X,-nK \bigr)$ for $n \in \{ 1,2,3 \}$, where $X$ is a del Pezzo surface of degree one.
Let $X$ be a del Pezzo surface of degree one and let $K_X$ be the canonical divisor of $X$. The scheme $\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( X , -K_X \bigr)$ has dimension zero and length twelve. [ $\Box $ ]{}
The next two results prove that $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X,-2K \bigr)$ and $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X,-3K \bigr)$ are irreducible assuming that the del Pezzo surface $X$ is general.
\[cabala\] Let $X$ be a general del Pezzo surface of degree one and let $C$ be the closure of the set of points of $|-2K_X|$ corresponding to reduced curves whose normalization is irreducible and of genus zero. Then $C$ is a smooth irreducible curve.
[*Proof.*]{} The linear system associated to the line bundle ${\mathcal O}_X(-2K_X)$ on the del Pezzo surface of degree one is base-point free and determines a finite morphism $\kappa $ of degree two to ${\mathbb P}^3$, whose image is a quadric cone $Q$. The image $R$ of the ramification divisor of $\kappa $ is a smooth canonically embedded curve of genus four which does not contain the vertex of the cone. Clearly, the vertex $v$ of $Q$ is an isolated ramification point, since $X$ is smooth.
Let $C \subset |-2K_X| \simeq {\mathbb P}^3$ be the closure of the set of all points corresponding to integral curves whose normalization is irreducible and of genus zero. In order to prove that $C$ is smooth and irreducible, we will first prove it is connected, and then that it is smooth.
Since the arithmetic genus of a divisor $D$ in $|-2K_X|$ is two, in order for $D$ to be integral and have geometric genus zero, $D$ must be tangent to the ramification divisor $\bar R$ at two points. If we translate this in terms of the image of the morphism $\kappa $, this implies that the plane $P$ corresponding to the divisor $D$ intersects $R$ along a divisor of the form $2(p) + 2(q) + (r) + (s)$, for some points $p,q,r,s \in R$. The condition that $D$ should be integral translates to the requirement that the plane $P$ should not contain a line of $Q$. If this happens, then we have $P \cap R = 2 \bigl( (p)+ (q) + (r) \bigr)$ and $2 \bigl( (p) + (q) + (r) \bigr)$ is the (scheme-theoretic) fiber of the projection $p|_R$ away from the vertex $v$ (alternatively, $(p) + (q) + (r)$ is the scheme-theoretic intersection of a line on $Q$ with $R$).
Consider the smooth surface $R \times R$ and the two projection morphisms $$\xymatrix { & R \times R \ar[dl] _{\pi _1} \ar[dr] ^{\pi _2} \\
R && R }$$ where $\pi _1$ is the projection onto the first factor and $\pi _2$ onto the second. Denote by $\Delta \subset R\times R$ the diagonal. Let ${\mathcal F}:= {\mathcal O}_{R \times R} \bigl( \pi _2 ^* K_R - 2 \Delta \bigr)$ be a sheaf on $R \times R$ and let ${\mathcal E}:= (\pi _1) _* {\mathcal F}$ be a sheaf on $R$.
Clearly ${\mathcal F}$ is invertible. The sheaf ${\mathcal E}$ is locally free of rank two. To prove this, we compute for any $p \in R$ $$h^0 \bigl( p , {\mathcal F}\bigr) :=
\dim {\rm H}^0 \Bigl( (\pi _1) ^{-1} (p) , {\mathcal F}|_{(\pi _1) ^{-1} (p)} \Bigr)
= \dim {\rm H}^0 \Bigl( R , {\mathcal O}_R \bigl( K_R - 2(p) \bigr) \Bigr)$$ We know that the last dimension is at least two, since there is a pencil of planes in ${\mathbb P}^3$ containing the tangent line to $R$ at $p$. By Riemann-Roch it follows that the sheaf ${\mathcal O}_R \bigl( K_R - 2(p) \bigr)$ has non-vanishing first cohomology group. By Clifford’s Theorem ([@Ha] Theorem IV.5.4) the dimension of ${\rm H}^0 \Bigl( R , {\mathcal O}_R \bigl( K_R - 2(p) \bigr) \Bigr)$ is at most 3 and since $R$ is not hyperelliptic (because it is a canonical curve) and obviously $K_R - 2(p)$ is not 0 nor $K_R$, it follows that $h^0 \bigl( p , {\mathcal F}\bigr) = 2$ for all $p \in R$.
We may now apply the first part of Grauert’s Theorem ([@Ha] Corollary III.12.9) to conclude that ${\mathcal E}= (\pi _1) _* {\mathcal F}$ is locally free and the second part of the same theorem to conclude that the natural morphism of sheaves on $R \times R$ $$\xymatrix { \pi _1 ^* {\mathcal E}= \pi _1 ^* \bigl( (\pi _1 )_* {\mathcal F}\bigr)
\ar[r] & {\mathcal F}}$$ is surjective. In turn, this implies ([@Ha] Proposition II.7.12) that there is a commutative diagram $$\xymatrix { R \times R \ar[r] ^{\varphi } \ar[d] _{\pi _1} &
{\mathbb P}\bigl( {\mathcal E}\bigr) \ar[d] ^{\pi } \\
R \ar[r] ^{id} & R }$$
The morphism $\varphi $ is finite of degree four. Let $\bar C \subset R \times R$ be the ramification divisor of $\varphi $ and let $F \subset R \times R$ be the closure of the set of points $\bigl\{ (p,q) ~ \bigl| ~ p_v (p) = p_v (q) ~,~ p \neq q \bigr\}$ (remember that $p_v$ is the projection away from the cone vertex $v$ of $Q$). Note that $\bar C$ does not contain any fiber of $\pi $, since all the induced morphisms $\varphi _p : R_p := (\pi _1)^{-1} (p) \rightarrow {\mathbb P}^1 _p := \pi ^{-1} (p)$ are ramified covers of degree 4. Moreover we have $R_p \cdot \bar C = 14$, since for all $p$ such intersection represents the ramification divisor of the morphism $\varphi _p$ which has degree four, and we may therefore compute the intersection using the Hurwitz formula.
By definition, $\bar C$ is the set of pairs $(p,q)$ such that if we denote by $P _p ^q$ the plane containing $q$ and the tangent line to $R$ at $p$ (or the osculating plane to $R$ at $p$, if $p=q$), then we have $P_p ^q \cap R \geq 2\bigl( (p) + (q) \bigr)$.
We clearly have $F \subset \bar C$, since if $(p,q) \in F$ then $P_p ^q $ is in fact the tangent plane to $Q$ at $p$ and thus $P_p ^q \cap R = 2 \bigl( (p) + (q) + (r) \bigr) \geq 2 \bigl( (p) + (q) \bigr)$.
By definition we have $C \subset \bar C$ and no component of $C$ is also a component of $F$, since the plane corresponding to a point in $F$ intersects $Q$ in a non-reduced curve. It is also immediate to check that in fact $C$ is the residual curve to $F$ in $\bar C$, that is we have $\bar C = C \cup F$.
We now prove that the residual curve $C$ to $F$ in $\bar C$ is connected and (for general $X$) smooth.
The connectedness of $C$ is a consequence of a theorem of Kouvidakis: the divisor class of $C$ in $R\times R$ is $4 (F_1 + F_2) - \Delta $, where $\Delta $ is the diagonal and the $F_i$’s are the fibers of the two projections to $R$. Thanks to [@La] Example 1.5.13, we know that $C$ is an ample divisor. In particular, $C$ is connected.
To prove the smoothness of $C$, we will show that for any point $(p,q) \in C$ the two numbers $mult _{(p,q)} \Bigl( \bigl( \pi _1 \bigl|_C \bigr) ^{-1} \bigl( p \bigr) \Bigr)$ and $mult _{(p,q)} \Bigl( \bigl( \pi _2 \bigl|_C \bigr) ^{-1} \bigl( q \bigr) \Bigr)$ cannot both be at least two. Since this would be the case if $(p,q)$ were a singular point, the theorem follows.
Let $p \in R$ and let $(p')+(p'')$ be the divisor obtained by intersecting the curve $R$ with the line on $Q$ through $p$; we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Bigl( \pi _1 \bigl|_{\bar C} \Bigr) ^{-1} \bigl( p \bigr) & \hspace{-5pt} = & \hspace{-7pt}
\sum _{q \in R_p} \Bigl( mult _q \bigl( P_p ^q \cap R \bigr) - 1 \Bigr)
\bigl( p , q \bigr) - 2 \bigl( p , p \bigr) \\
\Bigl( \pi _1 \bigl|_F \Bigr) ^{-1} \bigl( p \bigr) & \hspace{-5pt} = & \hspace{-7pt}
\bigl( p , p' \bigr) + \bigl( p , p'' \bigr) \\
\Bigl( \pi _1 \bigl|_C \Bigr) ^{-1} \bigl( p \bigr) & \hspace{-5pt} = & \hspace{-7pt}
\sum _{q \in R_p} \Bigl( mult _q \bigl( P_p ^q \cap R \bigr) - 1 \Bigr) \bigl( p , q \bigr)
- \bigl( p , p' \bigr) - \bigl( p , p'' \bigr) - 2 \bigl( p , p \bigr) \end{aligned}$$ and thus we deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
Ram \Bigl( \pi _1 \bigl|_C \Bigr) & = &
Ram \Bigl( \pi _1 \bigl|_{\bar C} \Bigr)
- Ram \Bigl( \pi _1 \bigl|_F \Bigr) = \\[7pt]
& = & \sum _{p \in R} \left( \sum _{q \in R_p \cap \bar C}
\Bigl( mult _q \bigl( P_p ^q \cap R \bigr) - 2 \Bigr) \bigl( p,q \bigr) \right) - \\[7pt]
& & ~~~-
\Bigl( \bigl( p_1 , p_1' \bigr) + \ldots + \bigl( p_{12} , p_{12}' \bigr) \Bigr) \end{aligned}$$ where $R_{p_i} \cap F = 2 \bigl( p_i , p_i' \bigr) + \bigl( p_i , p_i \bigr)$ (equivalently, the line $L_i$ on $Q$ containing $p_i$ is tangent to the image of the ramification divisor of $\kappa $ at $p_i' \neq p_i$).
We conclude that $\bigl( p , q \bigr) \in C$ is a ramification point for $\pi _1 \bigl| _C$ if and only if $P_p^q \cap R = 2 (p) + 3(q) + (r)$, for some $r \in R$. In view of this asymmetry between $p$ and $q$, we deduce that $\bigl( p , q \bigr)$ can be a ramification for both projections $\pi _1 \bigl| _C$ and $\pi _2 \bigl| _C$ if and only if $P_p^q \cap R = 3 (p) + 3(q)$. If $p$ and $q$ are on the same line on $Q$, then the inverse image under $\kappa $ of that line would be a cuspidal divisor in $|-K_X|$, which we are excluding. We will now prove that the dimension of the space of smooth canonically embedded curves $R$ of arithmetic genus four lying on a singular quadric and having a plane $P$ transverse to the quadric cone and intersecting $R$ along a divisor of the form $3 \bigl( (p) + (q) \bigr)$ is at most seven, and thus for the general del Pezzo surface of degree one, this configuration does not happen. This will conclude the proof.
This is simply a dimension count: using automorphisms of ${\mathbb P}^3$ we may assume that the plane $P$ has equation $X_3 = 0$ and that the quadric cone has equations $X_0 X_1 = X_2 ^2$. We may also assume that $p$ and $q$ have coordinates $[1,0,0,0]$ and $[0,1,0,0]$ respectively. Note that we still have a two-dimensional group of automorphisms (with one generator corresponding to rescaling the coordinate $X_3$, and the other corresponding to multiplying the coordinate $X_0$ by a non-zero scalar and the coordinate $X_1$ by its inverse). With these choices, the quadric cone is completely determined, as well as the plane $P$. We still need to compute how many parameters are accounted for by the cubic intersecting the cone in $R$.
For this last computation, we consider the short exact sequences of sheaves $$\xymatrix @R=10pt {
0 \ar[r] & {\mathcal O}_{{\mathbb P}^3} \ar[r] & {\mathcal O}_{{\mathbb P}^3} (2) \ar[r] & {\mathcal O}_Q (2) \ar[r] & 0 \\
0 \ar[r] & {\mathcal O}_Q (2) \ar[r] & {\mathcal O}_Q (3) \ar[r] & {\mathcal O}_R (3) \ar[r] & 0 }$$
The first sequence implies that the cohomology groups ${\rm H} ^i \bigl( Q , {\mathcal O}_Q (2) \bigr)$ are zero for $i \geq 1$; therefore, from the second sequence we deduce that the dimension of the space of cubics vanishing on $R$ is nine. Subtracting the two-dimensional automorphism group leaves us with a family of dimension seven. Since there is a family of dimension eight of del Pezzo surfaces of degree one, we conclude. [ $\Box $ ]{}
In order to prove a similar result for the divisor class $-3K_X$, we first establish a lemma.
\[pizzica\] Let $X$ be a smooth projective surface and let $K_1$, $K_2$ and $K_3$ be three distinct nodal rational divisors of anticanonical degree one meeting at a point $p \in X$. Suppose that two of the components meet transversely at $p$. Let $f : \bar C := \bar K_1 \cup \bar K_2 \cup \bar K_3 \cup \bar E
\longrightarrow X$ be the stable map of genus zero, such that
- the morphism $f_i := f|_{\bar K_i}$ is the normalization of $K_i$ followed by the inclusion in $X$;
- the component $\bar E$ is contracted to the point $p \in K_1 \cap K_2 \cap K_3$;
- the dual graph of the morphism $f$ is $$\xygraph {[] !~:{@{=}}
!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [ur] {\bullet} [dd] {\bullet}
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<8pt,0pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar K_3$} \restore}
- [ul]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<-1pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar E$} \restore}
- [ur]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<8pt,0pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar K_2$} \restore}
[dl] - [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar K_1$} \restore} }$$
Then the point represented by the morphism $f$ in $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{0,0} \bigl( X , -3K_X \bigr)$ lies in a unique irreducible component.
[*Proof.*]{} The expected dimension of $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{0,0} \bigl( X , -3K_X \bigr)$ is $-K_X \cdot (K_1 + K_2 + K_3) - 1 = 2$. The first step of the proof consists of proving that the embedding dimension of $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{0,0} \bigl( X , K_1 + K_2 + K_3 \bigr)$ at $[f]$ is at most three. To prove this, it suffices to prove that ${\rm H}^1 \bigl( \bar C , f^* {\mathcal T}_X \bigr)$ is one-dimensional. This in turn will follow from the fact that ${\rm H}^0 \bigl( \bar C , f^* {\mathcal T}_X \bigr)$ has dimension six. On each irreducible component $\bar K_i$ we have $f_i ^* {\mathcal T}_X \simeq {\mathcal O}_{\bar K_i} (2) \oplus {\mathcal O}_{\bar K_i} (-1)$, where the ${\mathcal O}_{\bar K_i} (2)$ summand is the tangent sheaf of $\bar K_i$. Denote by $f_E$ the restriction of $f$ to the component $\bar E$; we have $f_E ^* {\mathcal T}_X \simeq {\mathcal O}_{\bar E} \oplus {\mathcal O}_{\bar E}$. Consider the sequence $$\label{paganini}
\xymatrix @C=15pt { 0 \ar[r] & f^* {\mathcal T}_X \ar[r] &
f_1^* {\mathcal T}_X \oplus f_2^* {\mathcal T}_X \oplus f_3^* {\mathcal T}_X \oplus f_E^* {\mathcal T}_X \ar[r] &
{\mathcal T}_{X,p} \oplus {\mathcal T}_{X,p} \oplus {\mathcal T}_{X,p} \ar[r] & 0 }$$
Since two if the $K_i$’s meet transversely at $p$, it follows that in order for the global sections on the irreducible components of $\bar C$ to glue together, it is necessary that the sections on the $\bar K_i$’s vanish at the node with $\bar E$. Moreover, if such a condition is satisfied, clearly the sections on the components $\bar K_i$ together with the zero section on $\bar E$ glue to give a global section of $f^* {\mathcal T}_X$. We deduce that ${\rm H}^0 \bigl( \bar C , f^* {\mathcal T}_X \bigr)$ has dimension six, and it is isomorphic to ${\rm H} ^0 \bigl( \bar K_1 , {\mathcal T}_{\bar K_1} (-\bar p_1) \bigr) \oplus
{\rm H} ^0 \bigl( \bar K_2 , {\mathcal T}_{\bar K_2} (-\bar p_2) \bigr) \oplus
{\rm H} ^0 \bigl( \bar K_3 , {\mathcal T}_{\bar K_3} (-\bar p_3) \bigr) \bigr)$, where $\bar p_i \in \bar K_i$ is the node with $\bar E$. From the exact sequence (\[paganini\]) and the fact that ${\rm H} ^1 \bigl( \bar C , f_1^* {\mathcal T}_X \oplus f_2^* {\mathcal T}_X \oplus f_3^* {\mathcal T}_X \oplus
f_E^* {\mathcal T}_X \bigr) = 0$, we deduce that $$h^1 \bigl( \bar C , f^* {\mathcal T}_X \bigr) = 6 - \chi \bigl( \bar C , f^* {\mathcal T}_X \bigr) =
6 - (3+3+3+2) + 6 = 1$$
Thus the embedding dimension of $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{0,0} \bigl( X , K_1 + K_2 + K_3 \bigr)$ at $[f]$ is at most three, as stated above. It follows that we may write $$\hat {{\mathcal O}} _{[f]} \overline { {\mathcal M}} _{0,0} \bigl( X , K_1 + K_2 + K_3 \bigr)
\simeq k [\![ t_1 , t_2 , t_3 ]\!] / (g)$$
We thus deduce that all the components through $[f]$ have dimension equal to two, since there is a component of dimension two through $[f]$ and if there were also a component of dimension three or more containing $[f]$, then the embedding dimension would be more than three. Moreover, if there are two components containing $[f]$, then the singular points of $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{0,0} \bigl( X , K_1 + K_2 + K_3 \bigr)$ near $[f]$ must have dimension equal to one. We prove that $[f]$ is an isolated singular point, and thus we conclude that there is a unique component containing $[f]$.
Let $U \subset \overline { {\mathcal M}} _{0,0} \bigl( X , K_1 + K_2 + K_3 \bigr)$ be the open subset of morphisms $g : \bar D \rightarrow X$ which are immersions and birational to their image.
The subset $U$ is contained in the smooth locus of $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{0,0} \bigl( X , K_1 + K_2 + K_3 \bigr)$ thanks to Proposition \[grafico\]. Moreover $U \cup \bigl\{ [f] \bigr\}$ is a neighbourhood of $[f]$: all the morphisms in a neighbourhood of $[f]$ must have image consisting of at most two components, since the morphisms $f_i$ have no infinitesimal deformations. It follows that there are neighbourhoods of $[f]$ such that $[f]$ is the only morphism with a contracted component. Since the image of $f$ has no cusps and any two components meet transversely, the same statement holds for all the morphisms in a neighbourhood of $[f]$. It follows that $U \cup \bigl\{ [f] \bigr\}$ is a neighbourhood of $[f]$. Thus $[f]$ is an isolated singular point (possibly a smooth point) and since the embedding dimension of $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{0,0} \bigl( X , K_1 + K_2 + K_3 \bigr)$ at $[f]$ is at most three it follows that $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{0,0} \bigl( X , K_1 + K_2 + K_3 \bigr)$ is locally irreducible near $[f]$, thus concluding the proof of the lemma. [ $\Box $ ]{}
\[maschera\] Let $X$ be a del Pezzo surface of degree one such that the space $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X , -2K_X \bigr)$ is irreducible and all the rational divisors in $|-K_X|$ are nodal. Let $S$ be the closure of the set of points of $|-3K_X|$ corresponding to reduced curves whose normalization is irreducible and of genus zero. Then $S$ is an irreducible surface.
[*Proof.*]{} Let $f : {\mathbb P}^1 \rightarrow X$ be a morphism in $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X , -3K_X \bigr)$. Thanks to Proposition \[rpunti\] and Lemma \[immersione\], we may assume that $f$ is an immersion and that its image contains a general point $p$ of $X$. In particular it follows that $[f]$ represents a smooth point of $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X , -3K_X \bigr)$. We choose the point $p$ to be an independent point (Definition \[indip\]).
Consider the space of morphisms of $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X , -3K_X \bigr)$ in the same irreducible component as $[f]$ which contain the point $p$ in their image, denote this space by $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} (p)$. It follows immediately from the dimension estimates (\[dimdibarbi\]) that $\dim _{[f]} \overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} (p) = 1$ and that $[f]$ is a smooth point of $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} (p)$. We may therefore find a smooth irreducible projective curve $B$, a normal surface $\pi : S \rightarrow B$ and a morphism $F : S \rightarrow X$ such that the induced morphism $B \rightarrow \overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} (p)$ is surjective onto the component containing $[f]$. From [@Ko] Corollary II.3.5.4, it follows immediately that the morphism $F$ is dominant. We want to show that there are fibers of $\pi$ that are reducible. This is clear, since the morphism $F^* : {\rm Pic} (X) \rightarrow {\rm Num} (S)$ is injective, and ${\rm Pic} (X)$ has rank nine, while if every fiber of $\pi$ were a smooth rational curve, it would follow that $\pi : S \rightarrow B$ is a ruled surface ([@Ha] V.2) and thus that the rank of ${\rm Num} (S)$ is two.
This implies that there must be a morphism $f_0 : \bar C \rightarrow X$ with reducible domain in the family of stable maps parametrized by $B$, and since all such morphisms contain the general point $p$ in their image, the same is true of the morphism $f_0$. In particular, since the point $p$ does not lie on any rational curve of anticanonical degree 1, it follows that $\bar C$ consists of exactly two components $\bar C_1$ and $\bar C_2$, where each $\bar C_i$ is irreducible and we may assume that $f_0 (\bar C_1)$ has anticanonical degree one and $f_0 (\bar C_2)$ has anticanonical degree two. Denote by $C_i$ the image of $\bar C_i$. It also follows from the definition of an independent point and Proposition \[grafico\] that $f_0$ represents a smooth point of $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X , -3K_X \bigr)$.
There are two possibilities for the divisor $C_1$: it is either a $(-1)-$curve (there are 240 such divisors on $X$), or it is rational curve in the anticanonical divisor class (there are 12 such divisors on $X$). We will prove that we may assume that $C_1$ is a rational divisor in the anticanonical linear system.
Suppose that $C_1$ is a $(-1)-$curve and let $C_1' \subset X$ be the $(-1)-$curve such that $C_1 + C_1' = -2K_X$. The curve $C_2$ is thus an integral curve in the linear system $-3K_X - C_1 = -K_X - C_1'$. It follows that $C_2$ is in the anticanonical linear system on the del Pezzo surface of degree two obtained by contracting $C_1'$.
The morphism $\varphi : X \rightarrow {\mathbb P}^2$ associated to the divisor $C_2$ is the contraction of the $(-1)-$curve $C_1'$ followed by the degree two morphism to ${\mathbb P}^2$ induced by the anticanonical divisor on the resulting surface $X'$. In the plane ${\mathbb P}^2$ we therefore have
- the image of the ramification curve $R$, which is a smooth plane quartic;
- the image of $C_1'$, which is a point $q$;
- the image of $C_1$, which is a plane quartic with a triple point at $q$ and is everywhere tangent to $\varphi (R)$;
- the image of $C_2$, which is a tangent line to $\varphi (R)$.
To be precise, the ramification divisor of $\varphi$ consists of two disjoint components, one is the $(-1)-$curve $C_1'$, whose image is the point $q$, and the other is a curve whose image is a smooth plane quartic.
Consider the morphism $$\xymatrix { {\rm Sl}_{f_0} (\bar C_2) \ar[r] ^{\hspace{10pt}a} & \bar C_1 }$$ and let $\bar p \in \bar C_1$ be one of the (three) points mapping to the intersection $C_1 \cap C_1'$ (and in particular, $\varphi \bigl( f_0 (\bar p) \bigr) = q$). Let $f_1$ be a morphism in the fiber of $a$ above the point $\bar p$. The image of $f_1$ consists of the divisor $\varphi (C_1)$ together with one of the tangent lines $L$ to $\varphi (R)$ containing the point $q$.
The domain curve of $f_1$ consists of possibly a contracted component and three more non-contracted components $\bar C_1$ mapped to $C_1$, $\bar L$ mapped to the closure of $\varphi ^{-1} \bigl( L \bigr) \setminus C_1'$ and finally $\bar C_1'$ mapped to the $(-1)-$curve $C_1'$. The possible dual graphs of $f_1$ are $$\xygraph {[] !~:{@{=}}
!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [rr] {\bullet}
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_1$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_1'$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar L$} \restore} }
\hspace{20pt}
\xygraph {[] !~:{@{=}}
!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [ur] {\bullet} [dd] {\bullet}
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<8pt,0pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_1'$} \restore}
- [ul] -[ur]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_1$} \restore}
[dl]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar E$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar L$} \restore} }$$
Note that in the first case $f_1$ represents a smooth point of the space $\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( X,-3K_X \bigr)$; in the second case, we may apply Lemma \[pizzica\] to conclude that even if $[f_1]$ is not a smooth point, deforming it produces morphisms in the same irreducible component as $f_1$. Smoothing out the components $\bar C_1 \cup \bar C_1'$ (or $\bar C_1 \cup \bar E \cup \bar C_1'$ if there is a contracted component) we obtain a morphism which has one component (the one obtained by smoothing) mapped birationally to a rational curve in $|-2K_X|$ and another component (the component $\bar L$, with notation as above) mapped birationally to a rational divisor in $|-K_X|$.
Thus we may deform the original morphism $f$ to a morphism $f_0 : \bar C_1 \cup \bar C_2 \rightarrow X$ such that $\bar C_1$ is mapped birationally to a rational curve in the anticanonical linear system and $\bar C_2$ is mapped birationally to a rational curve in $|-2K_X|$.
Choose three nodal rational curves $K_1$, $K_2$ and $K_3$ in the linear system $-K_X$. We prove now that we may deform $f_0$ without changing the irreducible component of $\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( X,-3K_X \bigr)$ to the morphism $g : \bar K_1 \cup \bar K_2 \cup \bar K_3 \cup \bar E \longrightarrow X$ such that $\bar K_i$ is the normalization of $K_i$, $\bar E$ is contracted to the point in the intersection $K_1 \cap K_2 \cap K_3$ and the dual graph of $g$ is $$\xygraph {[] !~:{@{=}}
!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [ur] {\bullet} [dd] {\bullet}
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<8pt,0pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar K_3$} \restore}
- [ul]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<-1pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar E$} \restore}
- [ur]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<8pt,0pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar K_2$} \restore}
[dl] - [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar K_1$} \restore} }$$ It follows from this and Lemma \[pizzica\] that $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X,-3K_X \bigr)$ is irreducible.
To achieve the required deformation, we consider the morphism $$\xymatrix @C=40pt { {\rm Sl}_{f_0} (\bar C_2) \ar[r] ^{\pi \hspace{25pt}} &
\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X,-2K_X \bigr) }$$ and note that $\pi $ is surjective since $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X,-2K_X \bigr)$ is irreducible by assumption.
Relabeling $K_1$, $K_2$ and $K_3$, we may suppose that $C_1 \neq K_2, K_3$. Thus we may specialize $f_0$ to a morphism $f_1 : \bar C_1 \cup \bar K_2 \cup \bar K_3 \cup \bar E \longrightarrow X$ such that $f_1 (\bar K_i) = K_i$, $\bar E$ is contracted by $f_1$ and the dual graph of $f_1$ is $$\xygraph {[] !~:{@{=}}
!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [ur] {\bullet} [dd] {\bullet}
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<8pt,0pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar K_3$} \restore}
- [ul]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<-1pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar E$} \restore}
- [ur]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<8pt,0pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar K_2$} \restore}
[dl] - [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_1$} \restore} }$$ Thanks to Lemma \[pizzica\] any deformation of such morphism is in the same irreducible component of $\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( X,-3K_X \bigr)$ as $f_0$ and hence in the same irreducible component as the morphism $f$.
We may now smooth the components $\bar C_1 \cup \bar K_2 \cup \bar E$ to a single irreducible component mapped birationally to the divisor class $-2K_X$ and then we may use irreducibility of $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X,-2K_X \bigr)$ again to prove that we may specialize the component thus obtained to break as $\bar K_1 \cup \bar K_2$. The morphism $g$ thus obtained is the one we were looking for, and the theorem is proved. [ $\Box $ ]{}
[*Remark.*]{} Thanks to Theorem \[cabala\], the space $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X,-2K_X \bigr)$ is irreducible for the general del Pezzo surface of degree one. Thus it follows from Theorem \[maschera\] that also the space $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X,-3K_X \bigr)$ is irreducible for the general del Pezzo surface of degree one.
The Picard Group and the Orbits of the Weyl Group {#sporco}
-------------------------------------------------
In this section we prove some results on the divisor classes of the blow-up of ${\mathbb P}^2$ at eight or fewer general points. In particular we analyze several questions regarding the divisor classes of the conics and their orbits under the Weyl group.
Let $X_\delta $ be the blow-up of ${\mathbb P}^2$ at $\delta \leq 8$ points such that no three are on a line, no six of them are on a conic and there is no cubic through seven of them with a node at the eighth.
A divisor $C$ on $X_\delta $ is called a [conic]{} if $-K_{X_\delta } \cdot C = 2$ and $C^2 = 0$.
Suppose that $\{ \ell , e_1 , \ldots , e_\delta \}$ is a standard basis of ${\rm Pic} (X_\delta )$. If $C = a\ell - b_1 e_1 - \ldots - b_\delta e_\delta $ is a divisor class on $X_\delta$, then to simplify the notation we simply write it as $(a \,;\, b_1 , \ldots , b_\delta )$.
The conics on $X_8$ are given, up to permutation of the $e_i$’s, by the following table: $$\label{soluco}
\begin{array} {@{ \vline~~ }c@{ ~~\vline~~ }c@{ ~~\vline~~ }c@{ ~~\vline~~ }c@{ ~~\vline~~ }
c@{ ~~\vline~~ }c@{ ~~\vline~~ }c@{ ~~\vline~~ }c@{ ~~\vline~~ }c@{ ~~\vline~~ }c@{ ~~\vline }}
\hline Type & \ell & e_1 & e_2 & e_3 & e_4 & e_5 & e_6 & e_7 & e_8 \vphantom{\Bigl|} \\[-1pt]
\hline \vphantom{\Bigl|}
A & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\[-3pt]
B & 2 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\[-3pt]
C & 3 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\[-3pt]
D & 4 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 \\[-3pt]
E & 5 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 0 \\[-3pt]
D'& 4 & 3 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\[-3pt]
F & 5 & 3 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\[-3pt]
G & 6 & 3 & 3 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 1 \\[-3pt]
H & 7 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 1 \\[-3pt]
H'& 7 & 4 & 3 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 \\[-3pt]
I & 8 & 4 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 2 & 2 & 2 \\[-3pt]
I'& 8 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 1 \\[-3pt]
J & 9 & 4 & 4 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 2 \\[-3pt]
K & 10& 4 & 4 & 4 & 4 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 \\[-3pt]
L & 11& 4 & 4 & 4 & 4 & 4 & 4 & 4 & 3 \\ \hline
\end{array}$$ Their numbers are given by the table: $$\begin{array} {|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline \delta & 8 & 7 & 6 & 5 & 4 & 3 & 2 \\ \hline
conics & 2160 & 126 & 27 & 10 & 5 & 3 & 2 \\ \hline
\end{array}$$
[*Proof.*]{} We proceed just like in [@Ma] IV, §25. The condition of being a conic translates to the equations $$\left\{ \begin{array} {rcl} \displaystyle
a^2 - \sum _{i=1} ^8 b_i ^2 & = & 0 \\[15pt] \displaystyle
3a - \sum _{i=1} ^8 b_i & = & 2
\end{array} \right.$$ and we may equivalently rewrite these as $$\left\{ \begin{array} {rcl} \displaystyle
\sum _{i=1} ^8 \bigl( a - 2 b_i - 2 \bigr) ^2 & = & 16 \\[15pt] \displaystyle
3a - \sum _{i=1} ^8 b_i & = & 2
\end{array} \right.$$ It is now easy (but somewhat long) to check that (\[soluco\]) is the complete list of solutions up to permutations. [ $\Box $ ]{}
[*Remark*]{}. The classes of conics on $X_\delta $ for $\delta \leq 7$ are obtained from the ones in list (\[soluco\]) by erasing $8-\delta$ zeros and permuting the remaining coordinates. Thus (up to permutations) the first five rows and seven columns describe conics on $X_7$, the first three rows and six columns are the conics on $X_6$ and so on.
We introduce the following notation (which luckily won’t be extremely useful, but allows us to name conics!) for the classes of the conics on $X_\delta $, $\delta \leq 8$ (we set also $\bar E := e_1 + \ldots + e_8$): $$\label{nomico}
\hspace{-11.3pt}
\left\{ \begin{array} {l@{ \,=\, }l}
A_i & \ell - e_i \\ \vphantom{\vdots}
B_{ijkl} & 2 \ell - e_i - e_j - e_k - e_l \\ \vphantom{\vdots}
C_i ^{jk} & 3 \ell -\bar E - e_i + e_j + e_k \\ \vphantom{\vdots}
D_{ijk} ^l & 4 \ell - \bar E - e_i - e_j - e_k + e_l \\ \vphantom{\vdots}
E_i ^j & 5 \ell - 2\bar E + e_i + 2e_j \\ \vphantom{\vdots}
D' _i & 4 \ell - \bar E - 2e_i \\ \vphantom{\vdots}
F_i ^{jkl} & 5 \ell - \bar E -2e_i - e_j - e_k - e_l \\ \vphantom{\vdots}
G_{ij} ^{kl} & 6 \ell - 2 \bar E - e_i - e_j + e_k + e_l
\end{array} \right. \hspace{-5pt}
\left\{ \begin{array} {l@{ \,=\, }l}
H_{ijk} ^l & 7 \ell - 3 \bar E + e_i + e_j + e_k + 2e_l \\ \vphantom{\vdots}
(H')_i ^l & 7 \ell - 2 \bar E - 2e_i - e_j \\ \vphantom{\vdots}
I_i ^{ijk} & 8 \ell - 3 \bar E - e_i + e_j + e_k + e_l \\ \vphantom{\vdots}
I' _i & 8 \ell - 3 \bar E + 2e_i \\ \vphantom{\vdots}
J_{ij} ^k & 9 \ell - 3 \bar E - e_i - e_j + e_k \\ \vphantom{\vdots}
K_{ijkl} & 10 \ell - 3 \bar E - e_i - e_j - e_k - e_l \\ \vphantom{\vdots}
L_i & 11 \ell - 4 \bar E + e_i
\end{array} \right.$$
Denote by $\, \cdot \, $ the intersection form on the lattice ${\rm Pic} (X_\delta )$. From now on by an automorphism of ${\rm Pic} (X_\delta )$ we will always mean a group automorphism of the lattice which preserves the intersection form and the canonical class; we let $W_\delta := {\rm Aut } \bigl( {\rm Pic } (X_\delta ) ,
K_{X_\delta } \, , \, \, \cdot \, \bigr)$, and we refer to $W_\delta$ as the Weyl group. It will be useful later to know what are the orbits of pairs of conics under the automorphism group $W_\delta $ of ${\rm Pic} (X_\delta )$.
\[trave\] The group $W_\delta $, $2 \leq \delta \leq 8$, acts transitively on the conics.
[*Proof.*]{} We only prove this in the case $\delta = 8$ and it will be clear from the proof that the same argument applies to the other cases.
Choose a standard basis $\{ \ell , e_1 , \ldots , e_8 \}$ of ${\rm Pic} (X)$; it is enough to prove that the elements in the list (\[soluco\]) are in the same orbit, since any permutation of the indices is an element of $W_8$.
Introduce the following automorphism of ${\rm Pic} (X_8)$: $$T_{123} : \left\{ \begin{array} {l}
\begin{array} {rcl@{\hspace{30pt}}rcl}
\ell & \longmapsto & 2 \ell - e_1 - e_2 - e_3 \\
e _1 & \longmapsto & \ell - e _2 - e _3 \\
e _2 & \longmapsto & \ell - e _1 - e _3 \\
e _3 & \longmapsto & \ell - e _1 - e _2 \\
e _\alpha & \longmapsto & e_\alpha \end{array} \\
\text{ ~~\small $4 \leq \alpha \leq 8$}
\end{array} \right.$$ and note that applying $T_{123}$ to an element $\bigl( a \,;\, b_1 , \ldots , b_8 \bigr)$ transforms it to $$\bigl( a \,;\, b_1 , \ldots , b_8 \bigr) \stackrel {T_{123}}
{\longrightarrow} \bigl( 2a-b_1-b_2-b_3 \,;\,
a-b_2-b_3 , a-b_1-b_3, a-b_1-b_2 , b_4 , \ldots , b_8 \bigr)$$ By inspection, the quantity $2a - b_1 - b_2 - b_3$ for elements in list (\[soluco\]) is always strictly smaller than the initial value of $a$ unless $a=1$. Permuting the indices so that $b_1,b_2,b_3$ are the three largest coefficients among the $b_i$’s and iterating this strategy finishes the argument. Note that we are always “climbing up” list (\[soluco\]) and the conics on $X_7$ are the ones above line 5, and are hence preserved by the automorphism $T_{123}$ and the permutations needed. Similar remarks are valid for $X_\delta $, with $3 \leq \delta \leq 6$, and the result is obvious for $X_2$, where the automorphism $T_{123}$ is not defined. [ $\Box $ ]{}
[*Remark*]{}. It is known ([@Ma] Theorem IV.23.9) that the group $W_\delta $ is generated by the permutations of the indices of the $e_i$’s together with the transformation $T_{123}$.
Suppose now we consider the action of the Weyl group on ordered pairs of conics $\bigl( Q_1 , Q_2 \bigr)$. Clearly the number $Q_1 \cdot Q_2$ is an invariant of this action, and by looking at the list (\[soluco\]) it is easy to convince oneself that $$\begin{array} {@{ \vline~~ }c@{ ~~\vline~~ }c@{ ~~\vline~~ }c@{ ~~\vline~~ }c
@{ ~~\vline~~ }c@{ ~~\vline~~ }c@{ ~~\vline~~ }c@{ ~~\vline~~ }c@{ ~~\vline }} \hline
\delta = & 8 & 7 & 6 & 5 & 4 & 3 & 2 \\ \hline
Q_1 \cdot Q_2 \leq & 8 & 4 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\ \hline
\end{array}$$ and that all the possible values between 0 and the number given above are attained.
Thus, for example, we know that the action of $W_8$ on pairs of conics has at least 9 orbits.
If $\delta = 8$, there is one more “invariant” under $W_8$ of pairs of conics: define a pair $\bigl( Q_1 , Q_2 \bigr)$ to be [*ample*]{} if $Q_1 + Q_2$ is an ample divisor on $X_8$. Since the property of being ample is a numerical property, it follows that it is a property of the $W_8 -$orbit of the pair.
The next proposition proves that the lower bounds on the number of orbits obtained by considering the intersection product and ampleness (in case $\delta = 8$) of the pair are in fact the correct number of orbits. Indeed, unless $\delta = 8$ it is enough to consider the intersection product, while if $\delta = 8$, there are two orbits with $Q_1 \cdot Q_2 = 4$, and only one of the two consists of ample pairs.
\[codico\] Let $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ be two conics in $X_\delta $, $2 \leq \delta \leq 8$. The intersection product $Q_1 \cdot Q_2$ determines uniquely the orbit of the (ordered) pair $\bigl( Q_1 , Q_2 \bigl)$ under $W_\delta $ with the only exception of $\delta = 8$ and $Q_1 \cdot Q_2 = 4$ which has exactly two orbits.
[*Proof.*]{} As for the previous lemma, we will only prove this proposition in the case $\delta = 8$; for the remaining cases simply ignore the inexistent indices.
Thanks to the previous lemma, we already know that we may assume $Q_1 = \ell - e_1$ which is the conic labeled $A_1$ in (\[nomico\]).
The strategy is very simple: we again climb up the list (\[soluco\]) using the automorphism $T_{123}$ followed by a permutation of the indices $\{ 2 , \ldots , 8 \}$ so that the resulting $b_2$ and $b_3$ are the two largest $b_i$’s, with $i \geq 2$. Note that the elements of $W _\delta $ described above do indeed fix $Q_1$.
The case $Q_2 = 11 \ell - 4 \bar E + e_1$ is easily seen to be fixed by all permutations of $\{2, \ldots , 8 \}$ and by the automorphism $T_{123}$.
In the following diagrams we write all possible conics with the given intersection product with $A_1$, sorting the entries $b_2, \ldots , b_8$ in non-increasing order. An arrow going up means: apply $T_{123}$ and permute the indices different from 1 so that the entries under $e_2 , \ldots , e_8$ are in non-increasing order.
Next is the case in which there is the exception. Note that if $\delta = 7$, the possible intersection numbers $A_1 \cdot Q_2$ are at most 4, and $A_1 \cdot Q_2 = 4$ only if $Q_2 = 5 \ell - e_1 - 2e_2 - 2e_3 - 2e_4 - 2e_5 - 2e_6 - 2e_7 $; thus the “top orbit” of the next diagram does not appear for $\delta \leq 7$.
Finally, note that $A_1 + D_{234} ^1 = -K_{X_8} + B_{234}$ is ample (being the sum of an ample divisor and a nef divisor), while $\bigl( A_1 + E_1 ^8 \bigr) \cdot e_8 = 0$. Thus the pair $\bigl( A_1 , D_{234} ^1 \bigr)$ is ample, while the pair $\bigl( A_1 , E_1 ^8 \bigr)$ is not ample and therefore they cannot lie in the same orbit under the Weyl group. This concludes the proof. [ $\Box $ ]{}
[*Remark*]{}. The same statement of Proposition \[codico\] is clearly true if we are only interested in unordered pairs of conics. This is obvious because the invariants we needed to detect all the orbits are invariants of unordered pairs, rather than ordered pairs.
The next two lemmas deal with a del Pezzo surface of degree one.
\[orco\] Let $X$ be a del Pezzo surface of degree one and let $L \subset X$ be a $(-1)-$curve. If $L_1, L_2 \subset X$ are $(-1)-$curves such that $L_1 \cdot L = L_2 \cdot L$, then $L_1$ and $L_2$ are in the same orbit of the stabilizer of $L$ in ${\rm Aut} \bigl( {\rm Pic} (X) \bigr)$.
[*Remark*]{}. The possible intersection numbers between any two $(-1)-$curves on a del Pezzo surface of degree one are -1, 0, 1, 2 and 3. Moreover, the group $W_8 := {\rm Aut} \bigl( {\rm Pic} (X) \bigr)$ acts transitively on $(-1)-$curves ([@Ma] Corollary 25.1.1). Thus as a consequence of this fact and the lemma we conclude that the stabilizer in the group $W_8$ of a $(-1)-$curve has exactly five orbits on the set of $(-1)-$curves.
[*Proof.*]{} We may choose a standard basis $\bigl\{ \ell , e_1 , \ldots , e_8 \bigr\}$ of ${\rm Pic} (X)$ such that $L = e_8$. Given any divisor class $D \in {\rm Pic} (X)$, we write $D = a \ell - b_1 e_1 - \ldots - b_8 e_8$. With these conventions, the classes of the $(-1)-$curves up to permutations of the indices $1, \ldots , 8$ are ([@Ma] Table IV.8) $$\label{radic8}
\begin{array} {@{ \vline~~~ }l@{ ~~\vline~~ }c@{ ~~\vline~~ }c@{ ~~\vline~~ }
c@{ ~~\vline~~ }c@{ ~~\vline~~ }c@{ ~~\vline~~ }c@{ ~~\vline~~ }c@{ ~~\vline~~ }c@{ ~~\vline }}
\hline a & b_1 & b_2 & b_3 & b_4 & b_5 & b_6 & b_7 & b_8 \vphantom{\Bigl|} \\
\hline \vphantom{\Bigl|}
0 &-1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\[-2pt]
1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\[-2pt]
2 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\[-2pt]
3 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 \\[-2pt]
4 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\[-2pt]
5 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 1 \\[-2pt]
6 & 3 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 \\ \hline
\end{array}$$ and the stabilizer of $e_8$ contains the group $S$ generated by all permutations of $1, \ldots , 7$ and the automorphism $ T_{123}$ considered above. In fact the stabilizer of $e_8$ is equal to the group $S$ just described, but we do not need this fact.
The proof consists simply in fixing one value for the coordinate $b_8$ and checking that all vectors with that last coordinate are in the same orbit of the group $S$.
[$b_8 = 3$]{}. There is only one vector in the list (\[radic8\]) with an entry 3 in one of the $b_i$ columns and there is nothing to prove in this case.
[$b_8 = 2$]{}. We have $$\begin{aligned}
T_{123} \bigl( 6 \,;\, 3 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 \bigr) & = &
\bigl( 5 \,;\, 2 , 1 , 1 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 \bigr) \\
T_{145} \bigl( 5 \,;\, 2 , 1 , 1 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 \bigr) & = &
\bigl( 4 \,;\, 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 2 , 2 , 2 \bigr) \\
T_{167} \bigl( 4 \,;\, 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 2 , 2 , 2 \bigr) & = &
\bigl( 3 \,;\, 0 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 2 \bigr)\end{aligned}$$ and using permutations of $1, \ldots , 7$ we conclude.
[$b_8 = 1$]{}. We have $$\begin{aligned}
T_{123} \bigl( 5 \,;\, 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 1 , 1 \bigr) & = &
\bigl( 4 \,;\, 1 , 1 , 1 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 1 , 1 \bigr) \\
T_{145} \bigl( 4 \,;\, 1 , 1 , 1 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 1 , 1 \bigr) & = &
\bigl( 3 \,;\, 0 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 2 , 1 , 1 \bigr) \\
T_{456} \bigl( 3 \,;\, 0 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 2 , 1 , 1 \bigr) & = &
\bigl( 2 \,;\, 0 , 1 , 1 , 0 , 0 , 1 , 1 , 1 \bigr) \\
T_{236} \bigl( 2 \,;\, 0 , 1 , 1 , 0 , 0 , 1 , 1 , 1 \bigr) & = &
\bigl( 1 \,;\, 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 1 , 1 \bigr) \end{aligned}$$
[$b_8 = 0$]{}. We have $$\begin{aligned}
T_{123} \bigl( 3 \,;\, 2 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 0 \bigr) & = &
\bigl( 2 \,;\, 1 , 0 , 0 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 0 \bigr) \\
T_{145} \bigl( 2 \,;\, 1 , 0 , 0 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 0 \bigr) & = &
\bigl( 1 \,;\, 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 1 , 1 , 0 \bigr) \\
T_{167} \bigl( 1 \,;\, 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 1 , 1 , 0 \bigr) & = &
\bigl( 0 \,;\,-1 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 \bigr)\end{aligned}$$
[$b_8 =-1$]{}. The only divisor class of a $(-1)-$curve with $b_8 =-1$ is $e_8$.
This completes the cases we needed to check and the proof of the lemma. [ $\Box $ ]{}
The following is the last lemma of the section.
\[tremendi\] Let $L$ be the divisor class of a $(-1)-$curve on a del Pezzo surface $X$ of degree one, and let $$B := \left\{ \bigl\{ \lambda _1 , \lambda _2 , \lambda _3 \bigr\} ~ \Bigr| ~
\lambda _i {\text{ is a $(-1)-$curve, and }}
\lambda _1 + \lambda _2 + \lambda _3 = -2K_X + L \right\}$$ The stabilizer in $W_8$ of $L$ has exactly four orbits on $B$.
[*Proof.*]{} Choose a standard basis of ${\rm Pic} (X)$ such that $L = e_8$. With this choice of basis, we have $$\lambda _1 + \lambda _2 + \lambda _3 = \bigl( 6 \,;\, 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 1 \bigr)$$
Let $\beta _i$ be the coefficient of $-e_8$ in the chosen basis of $\lambda _i$. We deduce from above that $$\begin{aligned}
& \beta _1 + \beta _2 + \beta _3 = 1 \\[5pt]
& -1 \leq \beta _i \leq 3 \end{aligned}$$ and thus, the solutions $\bigl\{ \beta _1 , \beta _2 , \beta _3 \bigr\}$ of the above system are $\bigl\{ 3 , -1 , -1 \bigr\}$, $\bigl\{ 2 , -1 , 0 \bigr\}$, $\bigl\{ 1 , 1 ,-1 \bigr\}$ and $\bigl\{ 1 , 0 , 0 \bigr\}$.
Permuting the $\lambda _i$’s we may assume that $\beta _1 \geq \beta _2 \geq \beta _3$ and using Lemma \[orco\], we may assume that the divisor class of $\lambda _1$ is $$\begin{array} {c@{\text{ ~if~ }}l}
\bigl( 6 \,;\, 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 3 \bigr) & \beta _1 = 3, \\[5pt]
\bigl( 6 \,;\, 3 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 \bigr) & \beta _1 = 2, \\[5pt]
\bigl( 5 \,;\, 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 1 , 1 \bigr) & \beta _1 = 1.
\end{array}$$
It follows immediately that we must therefore have $$\begin{array} {c}
\beta _1 = 3 ~:~ \left\{ \begin{array} {rcl}
\lambda _1 & = & \bigl( 6 \,;\, 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 3 \bigr) \\[5pt]
\lambda _2 & = & \bigl( 0 \,;\, 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 ,-1 \bigr) \\[5pt]
\lambda _3 & = & \bigl( 0 \,;\, 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 ,-1 \bigr)
\end{array} \right.
\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array} {c}
\beta _1 = 2 ~:~ \left\{ \begin{array} {rcl}
\lambda _1 & = & \bigl( 6 \,;\, 3 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 \bigr) \\[5pt]
\lambda _2 & = & \bigl( 0 \,;\, 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 ,-1 \bigr) \\[5pt]
\lambda _3 & = & \bigl( 0 \,;\,-1 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 \bigr)
\end{array} \right.
\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array} {c}
\begin{array} {c}
\beta _1 = 1 \\[-2pt]
{\text{ and }} \\[-2pt]
\beta _2 = 1
\end{array} ~:~ \left\{ \begin{array} {rcl}
\lambda _1 & = & \bigl( 5 \,;\, 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 1 , 1 \bigr) \\[5pt]
\lambda _2 & = & \bigl( 1 \,;\, 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 1 , 1 \bigr) \\[5pt]
\lambda _3 & = & \bigl( 0 \,;\, 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 ,-1 \bigr)
\end{array} \right.
\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array} {c}
\begin{array} {c}
\beta _1 = 1 \\[-2pt]
{\text{ and }} \\[-2pt]
\beta _2 = 0
\end{array} ~:~ \left\{ \begin{array} {rcl}
\lambda _1 & = & \bigl( 5 \,;\, 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 1 , 1 \bigr) \\[5pt]
\lambda _2 & = & \bigl( 0 \,;\,-1 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 \bigr) \\[5pt]
\lambda _3 & = & \bigl( 1 \,;\, 1 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 1 , 0 \bigr)
\end{array} \right.
\end{array}$$ thus proving the lemma. [ $\Box $ ]{}
Realizing the Deformation: from Large to Small Degree
=====================================================
Breaking the Curve {#rompisezione}
------------------
In this section we construct deformations of a general point in every irreducible component of the space $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X, \beta \bigr)$ to morphisms with image containing only curves of small anticanonical degree.
\[pezzenti\] Let $f : {\mathbb P}^1 \rightarrow X$ be a free birational morphism to a del Pezzo surface. In the same irreducible component of $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X, f_*[{\mathbb P}^1] \bigr)$ as $f$ there is a morphism $g : \bar C \rightarrow X$ birational to its image such that for every irreducible component $\bar C' \subset \bar C$, $g|_{\bar C'}$ is a free morphism whose image has anticanonical degree two or three.
[*Proof.*]{} We establish the lemma by induction on $d := -K_X \cdot f_*[{\mathbb P}^1]$. There is nothing to prove if $d \leq 3$, since the image of a free morphism has anticanonical degree at least two (Lemma \[immersione\]).
Suppose that $d \geq 4$. Thanks to Proposition \[rpunti\], we may assume that the image of $f$ contains $d-2 \geq 2$ general points $p_1 , \ldots , p_{d-2}$ of $X$. Denote by $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( p_1 , \ldots , p_{d-2} \bigr)$ the locus of morphisms of $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X, f_*[{\mathbb P}^1] \bigr)$ whose image contains the points $p_1 , \ldots , p_{d-2}$. Using the dimension estimate (\[dimdibarbi\]), we deduce that $\dim_{[f]} \overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( p_1 , \ldots , p_{d-2} \bigr) = 1$ and thus there is a one-parameter family of morphisms containing $f$ whose images contain the general points $p_1 , \ldots , p_{d-2}$. Thanks to Lemmas \[nonnonred\] and \[niette\] we deduce that in the same irreducible component of $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X, f_*[{\mathbb P}^1] \bigr)$ as $f$ we can find a morphism $f_0 : \bar C_1 \cup \bar C_2 \rightarrow X$ such that $f_0$ is birational to its image, $\bar C_i \simeq {\mathbb P}^1$ and $f_0 |_{\bar C_i}$ is a free morphism. We also have $d_i := -K_X \cdot f_1(\bar C_i) \geq 2$, and thus by induction on $d$, we know that the irreducible component of $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X, f_0 (\bar C_i) \bigr)$ containing $f_0|_{\bar C_i}$ contains a morphism $g_i : \bar C^i _1 \cup \ldots \cup \bar C^i _{r_i} \longrightarrow X$ with all the required properties. Thus considering the morphism $$\xymatrix @C=30pt { {\rm Sl}_{f_0} (\bar C_2) \ar[r] ^{\pi \hspace{20pt}} &
\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X, f_0 (\bar C_2) \bigr) }$$ we deduce that we may find a morphism $f_1 : \bar C_1 \cup \bar C^2 _1 \cup \ldots \cup \bar C^2 _{r_2} \longrightarrow X$ with dual graph $$\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}}
!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [ur] {\bullet} [dd] {\bullet}
[u] !{\save +<0pt,1pt>*{\txt{ {\begin{tabular} {c}
\tiny dual \\[-7pt]
\tiny graph \\[-7pt]
\tiny of $g_2$
\end{tabular}}} } \restore}
[d]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,-8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C^2_c$} \restore}
: [ul]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<-3pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C^2_a$} \restore}
: [ur]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C^2_b$} \restore}
[dl] - [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_1$} \restore} }$$
Similarly, considering the morphism $$\xymatrix @C=30pt { {\rm Sl}_{f_1} (\bar C_1) \ar[r] ^{\pi \hspace{20pt}} &
\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X, f_0 (\bar C_1) \bigr) }$$ we deduce that we may find a morphism $f_2 : \bar C^1 _1 \cup \ldots \cup \bar C^1 _{r_1} \cup
\bar C^2 _1 \cup \ldots \cup \bar C^2 _{r_2} \longrightarrow X$ with dual graph $$\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}}
!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [d] !{\save +<0pt,1pt>*{\txt{ {\begin{tabular} {c}
\tiny dual \\[-7pt]
\tiny graph \\[-7pt]
\tiny of $g_1$
\end{tabular}}} } \restore} [d]
{\bullet} [ur] {\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [ur] {\bullet} [dd] {\bullet}
[u] !{\save +<0pt,1pt>*{\txt{ {\begin{tabular} {c}
\tiny dual \\[-7pt]
\tiny graph \\[-7pt]
\tiny of $g_2$
\end{tabular}}} } \restore} [d]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,-8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C^2_c$} \restore}
: [ul]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<-3pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C^2_a$} \restore}
: [ur]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C^2_b$} \restore}
[dl] - [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<3pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C^1_a$} \restore}
: [dl]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,-8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C^1_c$} \restore}
[ur] : [ul]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C^1_b$} \restore} }$$
To conclude, we need to show that the images $C^1_a$ and $C^2_a$ of $\bar C^1_a$ and $\bar C^2_a$ respectively can be assumed to be distinct.
Suppose $C^1_a = C^2_a$. If the anticanonical degree of $C^1_a$ is at least three, then we may deform one of them, keeping the image of the node between $\bar C^1_a$ and $C^2_a$ fixed and conclude. Suppose therefore that $-K_X \cdot C^1_a = 2$. Let $\varphi : \bar C^1_a \rightarrow \bar C^2_a$ be the morphism $(f_2)^{-1} \circ (f_2)|_{\bar C^1_a}$ and let $\bar p_i \in \bar C^i_a$ be the point in the intersection $\bar C^1_a \cap \bar C^2_a$. There are two possibilities: either $\varphi (\bar p_1) \neq \bar p_2$, or $\varphi (\bar p_1) = \bar p_2$. In the first case, the deformations of the morphism $f_2|_{\bar C^1_a \cup \bar C^2_a}$ fixing the component $\bar C^1_a$ actually change the image of the other component, allowing us to conclude. In the second case, there is a one-dimensional space of deformations of the stable map obtained by “sliding the point $\bar
p_i$ along $\bar C^i_a$.” Moreover, there must be components in the image of $f_2$ different from $C^i_a$, since otherwise the morphism $f$ could not have been birational to its image. Thus we may assume that $\bar C^2_a$ is adjacent to a curve mapped to a curve different from $C^1_a = C^2_a$, call this curve $\bar D$ (remember that $g_i$ is birational to its image). Let $\bar q \in \bar C^2_a$ be the node between $\bar C^2_a$ and $\bar D$. We may slide the node $\bar p_i$ until it reaches the point $\bar q$ to obtain a morphism $f_3$ with dual graph $$\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}}
!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [d] !{\save +<0pt,1pt>*{\txt{ {\begin{tabular} {c}
\tiny dual \\[-7pt]
\tiny graph \\[-7pt]
\tiny of $g_1$
\end{tabular}}} } \restore} [d]
{\bullet} [ur] {\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [u] {\bullet} [drr]
{\bullet} [ur] {\bullet} [dd] {\bullet}
[u] !{\save +<0pt,1pt>*{\txt{ {\begin{tabular} {c}
\tiny dual \\[-7pt]
\tiny graph \\[-7pt]
\tiny of $g_2$
\end{tabular}}} } \restore} [d]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,-8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C^2_c$} \restore}
: [ul]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<-3pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C^2_a$} \restore}
: [ur]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C^2_b$} \restore}
[dl] - [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,-8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar E$} \restore}
- [u]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar D$} \restore}
: [ur] [dl] : [ul] [ddr] - [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<3pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C^1_a$} \restore}
: [dl]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,-8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C^1_c$} \restore}
[ur] : [ul]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C^1_b$} \restore} }$$ where the component labeled $\bar E$ is contracted to the point $f_2(\bar q)$. Since the sheaf $f_3 ^* {\mathcal T}_X$ is globally generated on each component of the domain of $f_3$ it follows that $f_3$ is a smooth point of $\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( X, f_*[{\mathbb P}^1] \bigr)$.
Clearly the morphism $f_3$ is also a limit of morphisms $f_4$ with dual graphs $$\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}}
!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [d] !{\save +<0pt,1pt>*{\txt{ {\begin{tabular} {c}
\tiny dual \\[-7pt]
\tiny graph \\[-7pt]
\tiny of $g_1$
\end{tabular}}} } \restore} [d]
{\bullet} [ur] {\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [ur]
{\bullet} [dd] {\bullet}
[u] !{\save +<0pt,1pt>*{\txt{ {\begin{tabular} {c}
\tiny dual \\[-7pt]
\tiny graph \\[-7pt]
\tiny of $g_2$
\end{tabular}}} } \restore} [d]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,-8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C^2_c$} \restore}
: [ul]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<-3pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C^2_a$} \restore}
: [ur]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C^2_b$} \restore}
[dl] - [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar D$} \restore}
: [ur] [dl] : [ul] [dr] - [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<3pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar {C^1_a}'$} \restore}
: [dl]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,-8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C^1_c$} \restore}
[ur] : [ul]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C^1_b$} \restore} }$$ where $\bar C^1_a{}'$ is mapped to a general divisor linearly equivalent to $C^1_a$ and transverse to it. This concludes the proof of the lemma. [ $\Box $ ]{}
\[piuma\] Let $f : \bar C := \bar C_1 \cup \ldots \cup \bar C_r \longrightarrow X$ be a stable map of genus zero and suppose that $f_i := f|_{\bar C_i}$ is a free morphism. If $f(\bar C_1) \cdot f(\bar C_2) > 0$, then in the same irreducible component of $\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0}
\bigl( X, f_*[\bar C] \bigr)$ containing $[f]$ there is a morphism $g : \bar D_1 \cup \ldots \cup \bar D_r
\longrightarrow X$ such that $\bar D_1$ and $\bar D_2$ are adjacent, $g|_{\bar D_i}$ is a free morphism and $f_*[\bar C_i] = g_*[\bar D_i]$ for all $i$’s.
[*Proof.*]{} Renumbering the components of the domain of $f$, we may assume that the curve $\bar C_{12} := \bar C_3 \cup \bar C_4 \ldots \cup \bar C_s$ is the connected component of $\bar C_3 \cup \bar C_4 \ldots \cup \bar
C_r$ which has a point in common with both $\bar C_1$ and $\bar C_2$. Moreover, we may also assume that no component of $\bar C_{12}$ is mapped to a curve in the same divisor class as $\bar C_1$ or $\bar
C_2$.
Since all the morphisms $f|_{\bar C_i}$ are free, we may deform $f|_{\bar C_{12}}$ to a free morphism with irreducible domain $\bar C_{12}'$. Consider the morphism $$\xymatrix @C=35pt
{{\rm Sl}_f (\bar C_{12}) \ar[r]^{\pi \hspace{20pt}} &
\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( X, f_*[\bar C_{12}] \bigr) }$$ and note that it is dominant on the component of $\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( X, \bar C_{12} \bigr)$ containing $f|_{\bar C_{12}}$. Thus we can find a morphism $$f_1 : \bar C_1 \cup \bar C_{12}' \cup \bar C_2 \cup \bar C_{s+1} \cup
\ldots \cup \bar C_r \longrightarrow X$$ with dual graph $$\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}}
!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [dd] {\bullet} [ur] {\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [rr] {\bullet}
[ur] {\bullet} [dd] {\bullet} *\cir<2pt>{} : [ul] : [ur] [dl]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<-3pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_2$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_{12}'$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<3pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_1$} \restore}
: [dl] [ur] : [ul] }$$
We want to deform $f_1$ to a morphism $f_2$ with dual graph $$\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}}
!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [dd] {\bullet} [ur] {\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [u] {\bullet}
[drr] {\bullet} [ur] {\bullet} [dd] {\bullet} *\cir<2pt>{}
: [ul] : [ur] [dl]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<-3pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_2$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,-8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar E$} \restore}
- [u]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_{12}'$} \restore}
[d] - [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<3pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_1'$} \restore}
: [dl] [ur] : [ul] }$$ where $\bar E$ is a contracted component. This is immediate considering the morphism $$\xymatrix @C=35pt
{{\rm Sl}_{f_1} (\bar C_1) \ar[r]^{\hspace{10pt} a} &
\bar C_{12}' }$$ and noting that it is dominant.
It is clear that we may similarly deform $f_2$ to a morphism $f_3$ obtained by sliding $\bar C_1'$ along $\bar C_2$ away from the component $\bar C_{12}'$. The dual graph of the morphism $f_3$ is $$\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}}
!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [dd] {\bullet} [ur] {\bullet} [d] {\bullet}
[urr] {\bullet} [ur] {\bullet} [dd] {\bullet} *\cir<2pt>{}
: [ul] : [ur] [dl]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<-3pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_2$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<3pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_1''$} \restore}
- [d]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<10pt,0pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_{12}'$} \restore}
[u] : [dl] [ur] : [ul] }$$
To conclude we consider the morphism $$\xymatrix @C=35pt
{{\rm Sl}_{f_3} (\bar C_{12}') \ar[r]^{\pi \hspace{20pt}} &
\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( X, f_*[\bar C_{12}] \bigr) }$$ to deform $f_3|_{\bar C_{12}'} \simeq f_1|_{\bar C_{12}'}$ back to $f|_{\bar C_{12}}$ and conclude the proof of the lemma. [ $\Box $ ]{}
Easy Cases: ${\mathbb P}^2$, ${\mathbb P}^1 \times {\mathbb P}^1$ and $Bl_p ({\mathbb P}^2)$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This section proves the irreducibility of the spaces $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X , \alpha \bigr)$ where $X$ is a del Pezzo surface of degree eight or nine. Of course, in the case of ${\mathbb P}^2$ this result is obvious: for a given degree $d$ of the image, the space ${\rm Hom }_{d} \bigl( {\mathbb P}^1 , {\mathbb P}^2 \bigr)$ of maps with image of degree $d$ is birational to the set of triples of homogeneous polynomials of degree $d$ up to scaling. Since the space ${\rm Hom }_{d} \bigl( {\mathbb P}^1 , {\mathbb P}^2 \bigr)$ dominates $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{0,0} \bigl( {\mathbb P}^2 , d[line] \bigr)$, we deduce the stated irreducibility. Similar considerations apply to ${\mathbb P}^1 \times {\mathbb P}^1$. The result is less obvious for $Bl _p ({\mathbb P}^2)$. We prove the result for $Bl _p ({\mathbb P}^2)$, but similar techniques would also apply to the other two cases.
Note that the same result for the cases ${\mathbb P}^2$ and ${\mathbb P}^1 \times {\mathbb P}^1$ follows also from [@KP].
\[barbapapa\] The spaces of stable maps $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( {\mathbb P}^2 , \alpha \bigr)$, $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( {\mathbb P}^1 \times {\mathbb P}^1 , \beta \bigr)$ and $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( Bl_p({\mathbb P}^2) , \gamma \bigr)$ are irreducible for all divisor classes $\alpha$, $\beta $ and $\gamma $.
[*Proof.*]{} As remarked above, we only treat the case of $Bl _p ({\mathbb P}^2)$. To simplify the notation, let ${\mathbb P}$ denote $Bl _p ({\mathbb P}^2)$. Let $f: {\mathbb P}^1 \rightarrow Bl _p ({\mathbb P}^2)$ be a general morphism in an irreducible component of $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( {\mathbb P}, \delta \bigr)$.
We first examine the cases $-K_{\mathbb P}\cdot f_*[{\mathbb P}^1] \leq 3$ separately.
If $K_{\mathbb P}\cdot f_*[{\mathbb P}^1] = -1$, then $f_* [{\mathbb P}^1]$ is the unique $(-1)-$curve $E$. In this case we clearly have $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{0,0} \bigl( Bl_p({\mathbb P}^2) , E \bigr) =
\bigl\{ [f] \bigr\}$.
From now on, we may assume that $f({\mathbb P}^1)$ is not a $(-1)-$curve, and thus $f_* [{\mathbb P}^1]$ is a nef divisor, since the only integral curve on ${\mathbb P}$ having negative square is the exceptional divisor.
Suppose that $-K_{\mathbb P}\cdot f_* [{\mathbb P}^1] = 2$. It follows easily that $f_*({\mathbb P}^1)$ is the strict transform of a line in ${\mathbb P}^2$. In this case the result is evidently true, since the mapping space is identified with the linear $|f_*({\mathbb P}^1)|$.
Suppose that $-K_{\mathbb P}\cdot f_* [{\mathbb P}^1] = 3$. Let $E \subset Bl_p ({\mathbb P}^2)$ be the exceptional divisor and let $L \subset Bl_p ({\mathbb P}^2)$ be an irreducible divisor representing the class obtained by pulling-back the divisor class of a line in ${\mathbb P}^2$. The divisor classes of $L$ and $E$ generate the Picard group of $Bl_p ({\mathbb P}^2)$. The canonical divisor class on $Bl_p ({\mathbb P}^2)$ is $K = -3 [L] + [E]$.
We have $f_* [{\mathbb P}^1] = a \cdot [L] - b \cdot [E]$, with $a \geq b \geq 0$, since $f_* [{\mathbb P}^1]$ is a nef divisor. Moreover we know that $3a - b = 3$, and thus we see that we necessarily have $a=1$ and $b=0$. Thus we deduce that $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( {\mathbb P}, f_* [{\mathbb P}^1] \bigr) \simeq
\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{0,0} \bigl( {\mathbb P}^2 , [L] \bigr) \simeq {\mathbb P}^2$, in the case of a divisor of anticanonical degree three.
Suppose that $-K_{\mathbb P}\cdot f_*[{\mathbb P}^1] \geq 4$. We may use Lemma \[pezzenti\] to deform $f$ to a morphism $f' : \bar C \rightarrow {\mathbb P}$ where $\bar C = \bar C_1 \cup \ldots \cup \bar C_\ell $ are the irreducible components, all immersed by $f'$ and each having anticanonical degree two or three.
We have a morphism $f' : \bar C \rightarrow Bl_p ({\mathbb P}^2)$, birational to its image, such that each component of $\bar C$ is mapped to a curve of anticanonical degree two or three. We already saw that this means that each component represents one of the two divisor classes $[L] - [E]$ or $[L]$.
Since $f(\bar C)$ is connected, if all the components of $\bar C$ were mapped to curves whose divisor class is $[L] - [E]$ (there are at least two such components because we are assuming the anticanonical degree of the image is at least four), then they would all have the same image, which is ruled out by the fact that $f'$ is birational to its image. It follows that at least one component of $\bar C$, say $\bar C_1$, is mapped to the divisor class $[L]$.
Using Lemma \[piuma\] we may slide all the components of $\bar C$ mapped to the divisor class $[L] - [E]$ to be adjacent to the component $\bar C_1$. After having done this, let $\bar F_1$, …, $\bar F_l$ denote the components mapped to the divisor class $[L] - [E]$, and let $\bar C_1'$, …, $\bar C_k'$ denote the components mapped to the divisor class $[L]$, where $\bar C_1'$ is the only component adjacent to all the components $\bar F_j$ and no other component $\bar C_r'$ is adjacent to any $\bar F_j$.
Consider the subgraph of the dual graph spanned by the components $\bar C_r'$; this is clearly a tree. Suppose that one of the components adjacent to $\bar C_1'$ is $\bar C_2'$. Using Lemma \[piuma\], we may slide all the components adjacent to $\bar C_1'$ (and mapped to $[L]$) to be adjacent to $\bar C_2'$, making $\bar C_1'$ a leaf of the resulting tree. Similarly, considering the subgraph spanned by the components mapped to the divisor class $[L]$ different from $\bar C_1'$, we may again assume that $\bar C_2'$ is a leaf, and so on. Eventually we end up with a morphism $g : \bar D \rightarrow Bl_p ({\mathbb P}^2)$, where the components of $\bar D$ mapped to $[L] - [E]$ are $\bar F_1$, …, $\bar F_l$ and the components mapped to $[L]$ are $\bar H_1$, …, $\bar H_k$ and the dual graph of $g$ is $$\label{grablo}
\xygraph {[] !~:{@{=}}
!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [ll] {\bullet} [ll] {\bullet} [ll] {\bullet} [ul] {\bullet}
[dd] {\bullet}
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<-8pt,0pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar F_l$} \restore}
[u] {\mathop {\vdots} \limits _{\vphantom {a}}} [u]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<-8pt,0pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar F_1$} \restore}
- [dr]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<3pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar H_1 $} \restore}
- [dl]
*\cir<2pt>{}
[ur]
- [rr]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar H_2 $} \restore}
- [r] *\txt{\dots}
- [r]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar H_{k-1} $} \restore}
- [rr]
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar H_k $} \restore} }$$
Note that there are isomorphisms $$\begin{aligned}
& \overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( Bl_p ({\mathbb P}^2) , [L] \bigr) \simeq
\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( {\mathbb P}^2 , [line] \bigr) \simeq
\bigl( {\mathbb P}^2 \bigr) ^\vee \\ & {\rm and} \\
& \overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( Bl_p ({\mathbb P}^2) , [L] - [E] \bigr) \simeq {\mathbb P}^1\end{aligned}$$
Thus, since $[L] \cdot [L] = 1$ and $[L] \cdot ([L]-[E]) = 1$, we deduce that the space of all morphisms with dual graph (\[grablo\]) is birational to $\bigl( {\mathbb P}^2 \bigr) ^k \times \bigl( {\mathbb P}^1 \bigr) ^l$, and in particular it is irreducible. Since all the components of the morphisms with dual graph (\[grablo\]) are free smooth rational curves, it follows that this locus contains smooth points of $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( Bl_p ({\mathbb P}^2) , f_*[{\mathbb P}^1] \bigr)$, and therefore we deduce that the space $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( Bl_p ({\mathbb P}^2) , f_*[{\mathbb P}^1] \bigr)$ is irreducible. [ $\Box $ ]{}
Realizing the Deformation: from Small to Large Degree
=====================================================
Growing from the Conics {#conichette}
-----------------------
In this section we prove some results that allow us to deform unions of conics to divisors which are the anticanonical divisor on a del Pezzo surface dominated by $X$. These results will be the main building blocks in the proof of Theorem \[passo\].
\[struttura\] Let $X_\delta $ be a del Pezzo surface of degree $9-\delta $ such that the spaces $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X_\delta , \beta \bigr)$ are irreducible or empty if $-K_{X_\delta} \cdot \beta = 2, 3$. In the case $\delta = 8$, or equivalently if the degree of $X_\delta $ is one, suppose also that all the rational divisors in the anticanonical linear system are nodal. Let $f: \bar Q \rightarrow X_\delta $ be a morphism from a connected, projective, nodal curve of arithmetic genus zero. Suppose that $\bar Q_1$ and $\bar Q_2$ are the irreducible components of $\bar Q$ and that $f_*[\bar Q_1]$ and $f_*[\bar Q_2]$ are conics. If $f(\bar Q_1) \cdot f(\bar Q_2) \geq 2$, then in the irreducible component of $\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( X_\delta , f_*[\bar Q] \bigr)$ containing $[f]$ there is a morphism $g: \bar C \rightarrow X_\delta $ such that
- all the irreducible components of $\bar C$ are immersed and represent nef divisor classes;
- there is a component $\bar C_1 \subset \bar C$ and a standard basis $\bigl\{ \ell , e_1 , \ldots , e_\delta \bigr\}$ of ${\rm Pic } (X_\delta )$ with $$g_*[\bar C_1] = 3 \ell - e_1 - \ldots - e_\alpha$$ for some $\alpha \leq \delta $;
- if $g_*[\bar C_1] = -K_{X_8}$, then we may choose which of the twelve rational divisors in $|-K_{X_8}|$ the image of $\bar C_1$ is;
- the point $[g]$ is smooth.
[*Proof.*]{} Observe that $f$ represents a smooth point of $\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( X_\delta , f_*[\bar Q] \bigr)$, since $f^*{\mathcal T}_X$ is globally generated on both components of $\bar Q$. Note also that by considering ${\rm Sl }_f (\bar Q_i)$ we may assume that $Q_i:= f(\bar Q_i)$ misses any preassigned subscheme of $X$ of codimension 2. In particular, we may suppose that $Q_i$ does not contain the intersection points between any two $(-1)-$curves.
We first take care of the case $Q_1 \cdot Q_2 = 2$: we may assume by Proposition \[codico\] that $Q_1 = \ell - e_1$ and $Q_2 = 2 \ell - e_2 - e_3 - e_4 - e_5$. It is therefore enough to smooth $\bar Q_1 \cup \bar Q_2$ to prove the proposition.
This concludes the proof if $\delta \leq 6$ since on a del Pezzo surface of degree at least three there do not exist conics $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ such that $Q_1 \cdot Q_2 \geq 3$.
Suppose that $Q_1 \cdot Q_2 \geq 3$. Our first step is to write $Q_2$ as a sum of two $(-1)-$curves $M_1$ and $M_2$ so that in some standard basis $\{ \ell' , e_1' , \ldots , e_\delta ' \}$ we have $$Q_1 + M_1 = \bigl( 3 \ell' - e_1' - \ldots - e_\alpha' \bigr) + N$$ where $N$ is a nef divisor. We assume $Q_1 = A_1 = \ell - e_1$ (Lemma \[trave\]). Here is the explicit decomposition $Q_2 = M_1 + M_2$ in all the needed cases (Proposition \[codico\]):
$$\begin{array} {c} \\ Q_1 \cdot Q_2 = 3 \\ \fbox{\( \begin{array} {c}
Q_2 = \bigl( 5 \,;\, 2,2,2,2,2,2,1,0 \bigr) \\[3pt]
M_1 = \bigl( 3 \,;\, 1,2,1,1,1,1,1,0 \bigr) \\
M_2 = \bigl( 2 \,;\, 1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0 \bigr)
\end{array} \)} \end{array}
\hspace{11pt}
\begin{array} {c} Q_1 \cdot Q_2 = 4 \\
(Q_1+Q_2) \cdot e_8 = 0 \\ \fbox{\( \begin{array} {c}
Q_2 = \bigl( 5 \,;\, 1,2,2,2,2,2,2,0 \bigr) \\[3pt]
M_1 = \bigl( 3 \,;\, 1,2,1,1,1,1,1,0 \bigr) \\
M_2 = \bigl( 2 \,;\, 0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0 \bigr)
\end{array} \)} \end{array}$$ $$\begin{array} {c} Q_1 \cdot Q_2 = 4 \\
Q_1+Q_2 \text{ ample (on $X_8$)}\\ \fbox{\( \begin{array} {c}
Q_2 = \bigl( 4 \,;\, 0,2,2,2,1,1,1,1 \bigr) \\[3pt]
M_1 = \bigl( 3 \,;\, 0,2,1,1,1,1,1,1 \bigr) \\
M_2 = \bigl( 1 \,;\, 0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 \bigr)
\end{array} \)} \end{array}
\hspace{11pt}
\begin{array} {c} \\ Q_1 \cdot Q_2 = 5 \\ \fbox{\( \begin{array} {c}
Q_2 = \bigl( 5 \,;\, 0,2,2,2,2,2,2,1 \bigr) \\[3pt]
M_1 = \bigl( 3 \,;\, 0,2,1,1,1,1,1,1 \bigr) \\
M_2 = \bigl( 2 \,;\, 0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0 \bigr)
\end{array} \)} \end{array}$$ $$\begin{array} {c} Q_1 \cdot Q_2 = 6 \\ \fbox{\( \begin{array} {c}
Q_2 = \bigl( 7 \,;\, 1,3,3,3,3,2,2,2 \bigr) \\[3pt]
M_1 = \bigl( 3 \,;\, 0,2,1,1,1,1,1,1 \bigr) \\
M_2 = \bigl( 4 \,;\, 1,1,2,2,2,1,1,1 \bigr)
\end{array} \)} \end{array}
\hspace{11pt}
\begin{array} {c} Q_1 \cdot Q_2 = 7 \\ \fbox{\( \begin{array} {c}
Q_2 = \bigl( 8 \,;\, 1,3,3,3,3,3,3,3 \bigr) \\[3pt]
M_1 = \bigl( 3 \,;\, 0,2,1,1,1,1,1,1 \bigr) \\
M_2 = \bigl( 5 \,;\, 1,1,2,2,2,2,2,2 \bigr)
\end{array} \)} \end{array}$$ $$\hspace{32pt} \begin{array} {c} Q_1 \cdot Q_2 = 8 \\ \fbox{\( \begin{array} {r}
Q_2 = \bigl( 11 \,;\, 3,4,4,4,4,4,4,4 \bigr) \\[3pt]
M_1 = \bigl( 5 \,;\, 1,2,2,2,2,2,2,1 \bigr) \\
M_2 = \bigl( 6 \,;\, 2,2,2,2,2,2,2,3 \bigr)
\end{array} \)} \end{array}$$
Let us check that the previous decomposition has the required property: $$\begin{array} {lr@{\,=\,}l}
Q_1 \cdot Q_2 = 3 &
Q_1 + M_1 & T_{127} \bigl( 3 \ell - e_1 - \ldots - e_6 \bigr) \\[7pt]
Q_1 \cdot Q_2 = 4 & Q_1 + M_1 & \left\{ \hspace{-5pt} \begin{array} {ll}
T_{127} \bigl( 3 \ell - e_1 - \ldots - e_6 \bigr) & \hspace{-7pt} {\text{ if }}(Q_1+Q_2) \cdot e_8 = 0 \\[6pt]
-K_{X_8} + \bigl( \ell - e_2 \bigr) & \hspace{-7pt} {\text{ if }}Q_1+Q_2 \text{ is ample}
\end{array} \right. \\[15pt]
Q_1 \cdot Q_2 = 5 &
Q_1 + M_1 & -K_{X_8} + \bigl( \ell - e_2 \bigr) \\[7pt]
Q_1 \cdot Q_2 = 6 &
Q_1 + M_1 & -K_{X_8} + \bigl( \ell - e_2 \bigr) \\[7pt]
Q_1 \cdot Q_2 = 7 &
Q_1 + M_1 & -K_{X_8} + \bigl( \ell - e_2 \bigr) \\[7pt]
Q_1 \cdot Q_2 = 8 &
Q_1 + M_1 & -K_{X_8} + \bigl( 3 \ell - e_1 - \ldots - e_7 \bigr)
\end{array}$$
Next we show that we can deform $f$ so that the dual graph of the resulting morphism $f_1$ is $$\label{quasi}
\xygraph {[] !~:{@{=}}
!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [rr] {\bullet}
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar M_2$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar M_1$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar Q _1$} \restore} }$$ where of course $\bar M_i$ maps to the $(-1)-$curve with divisor class $M_i$. To achieve this, consider $$\xymatrix { a : {\rm Sl}_f (\bar Q_2) \ar[r] & \bar Q_1 }$$
The morphism $a$ is not constant because $f|_{\bar Q_2}$ is free, and hence it is surjective. We denote with the symbols $M_1$ and $M_2$ both the divisor classes and the $(-1)-$curves on $X$ with the same divisor class. Let $\bar p \in \bar Q_1$ be a point such that $f(\bar p) =: p \in M_1$; such a point exists, since $Q_1 \cdot M_1 \geq 2$ by inspection.
Thanks to the surjectivity of $a$, we may find $f_1 : \bar Q_1 \cup \bar Q_2' \rightarrow X$ such that $a(f_1) = \bar p$, and in particular, the node between $\bar Q_1$ and $\bar Q_2'$ maps to $p \in M_1$. Since $Q_2 \cdot M_1 = 0$ and since $f_1(\bar Q_2') \cap M_1 \ni p$, it follows that $f_1 (\bar Q_2') \supset M_1$. Thus we have that $\bar Q_2' = \bar M_1 \cup \bar M_2$, where $\bar M_2$ maps to the $(-1)-$curve $M_2 \subset X$; the dual graph of $f_1$ is the one in (\[quasi\]): by construction $\bar Q_1$ and $\bar M_1$ are adjacent, and by connectedness of $\bar Q_2$ it follows that $\bar M_1$ and $\bar M_2$ are adjacent; the assumption that $Q_1$ does not contain the intersections of two $(-1)-$curves shows that there cannot be contracted components. Note that the node between $\bar M_1$ and $\bar M_2$ maps to a node, since the intersection number $M_1 \cdot M_2$ equals one.
Let us check that $f_1$ represents a smooth point of its moduli space. Thanks to Proposition \[grafico\], we have that the sheaf ${\mathcal C}_1 := {\mathcal C}_{f_1} \otimes \omega _{\bar Q_1 \cup \bar Q_2'}$, whose global sections represent the obstructions, has degrees given by the following diagram: $$\xygraph{[] !~:{@{.}}
!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [rr] {\bullet}
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar M_2$} \restore}
!{\save +<0pt,-8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle -1$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar M_1$} \restore}
!{\save +<0pt,-8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \leq 0$} \restore}
: [ll]
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar Q_1$} \restore}
!{\save +<0pt,-8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \leq -1$} \restore} }$$ A solid edge means that the sheaf ${\mathcal C}_1$ is locally free at the corresponding node, while a dotted edge means that the sheaf ${\mathcal C}_1$ need not be locally free at that node (we could make sure that the sheaf ${\mathcal C}_1$ is locally free by reducing to the case in which $Q_1$ intersects transversely $M_1$, but this is not needed). It is now clear that ${\mathcal C}_1$ has no global sections, and thus the point $f_1$ is smooth.
We smooth the components $\bar Q_1 \cup \bar M_1$ to a single irreducible component $\bar Q_1'$. We obtain a morphism $g' : \bar Q_1' \cup \bar M_2 \rightarrow X$, such that in some standard basis $\{ \ell' , e_1 , \ldots , e_\delta' \}$ we have $g'_* [\bar Q_1'] = \bigl( 3 \ell' - e_1' - \ldots - e_\alpha' \bigr) + N$ where $\alpha \geq 6$ and $N$ is a nef divisor. By construction the anticanonical degree of $g'_* [\bar Q_1']$ is three.
In the first two cases above, that is if $Q_2$ equals $\bigl( 5\,;\, 2,2,2,2,2,2,1,0 \bigr)$ or $\bigl( 5\,;\, 1,2,2,2,2,2,2,0 \bigr)$, the divisor $N$ above is zero, but in both cases we may write $$Q_1' = \bigl( 3\,;\, 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0 \bigr) + \bigl( 1\,;\, 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 \bigr)$$ We let $C_2$ be the $(-1)-$curve with divisor class $\bigl( 1\,;\, 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 \bigr)$. By inspection we see that $C_2 \cdot M_2 \geq 1$, and therefore we may find a point $\bar c$ of $\bar Q_2$ such that $g' (\bar p) \in C_2$. Considering the morphism $$\xymatrix { a : {\rm Sl}_{g'} (\bar Q_1') \ar[r] & \bar M_2 }$$ we let $g_1 : \bar C_1 \cup \bar C_2 \cup \bar M_2 \longrightarrow X$ be a morphism such that $a(g_1) = \bar c$, where we denote by $\bar C_2$ the component mapped to $C_2$ and by $\bar C_1$ the component mapped to $g'_*[\bar Q_1'] - C_2 = \bigl( 3\,;\, 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0 \bigr)$. By construction, the dual graph of $g_1$ is $$\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} !{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [rr] {\bullet}
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar M_2$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_2$} \restore}
- [ll]
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_1$} \restore} }$$ Smoothing the components $\bar C_2 \cup \bar M_2$ we conclude the proof of the proposition in these cases.
In the remaining cases (the ones for which $Q_1+Q_2$ is ample on a del Pezzo surface of degree one) we write $g'_*[\bar Q_1'] = -K_{X_8} + N$, where $N$ is $\bigl( \ell - e_2 \bigr)$, if $Q_1 \cdot Q_2 \leq 7$ and $N$ is $\bigl( 3 \ell - e_1 - \ldots - e_7 \bigr)$, if $Q_1 \cdot Q_2 = 8$.
By assumption the space $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X_\delta , g'_*[\bar Q_1'] \bigr)$ is irreducible. We may therefore deform the morphism $g'$ to a morphism $g_1 : \bar K \cup \bar N \cup \bar M_2 \longrightarrow X$, such that $\bar K$ is mapped to any preassigned rational divisor in $|-K_{X_8}|$ and $\bar N$ is mapped to a general divisor in $|N|$. The possible dual graphs for $g_1$ are $$\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} !{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [rr] {\bullet}
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar M_2$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar N$} \restore}
- [ll]
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar K$} \restore} }
\hspace{30pt}
\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} !{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [rr] {\bullet}
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar M_2$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar K$} \restore}
- [ll]
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar N$} \restore} }$$
We smooth the two components $\bar M_2$ and the one adjacent to it. In either case, the proposition is proved: this is obvious if $\bar N$ is adjacent to $\bar M_2$; if $\bar K$ is adjacent to $\bar M_2$, note that $-K_{X_8} + M_2$ is the pull-back of the anticanonical divisor on the del Pezzo surface obtained by contracting $M_2$. This concludes the proof of the proposition. [ $\Box $ ]{}
[*Remark.*]{} The proof above only requires the existence of one nodal rational divisor in $|-K_{X_8}|$.
\[infradito\] Let $X_\delta $ be a del Pezzo surface of degree $9-\delta $. Let $f: \bar Q \rightarrow X_\delta $ be a morphism from a connected, projective, nodal curve of arithmetic genus zero. Suppose that $\bar Q_1$, $\bar Q_2$, $\bar Q_3$ are the irreducible components of $\bar Q$ and that $f_*[\bar Q_i]$ is a conic, for all $i$. If $f(\bar Q_i) \cdot f(\bar Q_j) = 1$ for all $i \neq j$, then in the irreducible component of $\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( X_\delta , f_*[\bar Q] \bigr)$ containing $[f]$ there is an immersion $g: \bar C \rightarrow X_\delta $ such that $\bar C$ is irreducible and $g_* [\bar C] = 3 \ell - e_1 - e_2 - e_3$, for some choice of standard basis $\{ \ell , e_1 , \ldots , e_\delta \}$.
[*Proof.*]{} It is enough to show that we may find a standard basis such that $f_*[\bar Q_i] = \ell - e_i$, for $i \in \{ 1,2,3 \}$, since then smoothing out all the components we conclude. Denote by $Q_i$ the image of $\bar Q_i$. Thanks to Proposition \[codico\] we may assume that $Q_1 = \ell - e_1$ and $Q_2 = \ell - e_2$. Looking at the list (\[soluco\]) we easily see that either we may assume that $Q_3 = \ell - e_3$ and we are done, or $Q_3 = 2 \ell - e_1 - e_2 - e_3 - e_4$, up to permutations of the coordinates. In this last case, we apply $T_{124}$ to all three divisor classes. Both $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ are fixed by $T_{124}$, while $T_{124} \bigl( Q_3 \bigr) = \ell - e_3$. [ $\Box $ ]{}
Reduction of the Problem to Finitely Many Cases {#pochipochi}
-----------------------------------------------
This section gathers the information obtained in the previous sections to prove that the irreducibility of $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X , \beta \bigr)$ for all $\beta $ can be checked by examining only finitely many cases.
First we prove two simple results.
Let $X$ be a smooth projective surface and let $D \in {\rm Pic} (X)$ be a base-point free nef divisor such that $D^2 > 0$. If $N$ is a nef divisor such that $D \cdot N = 0$, then $N \equiv 0$.
[*Proof.*]{} Let $\varphi : X \rightarrow {\mathbb P}^n$ be the morphism induced by the linear system $|D|$ and denote by $X'$ the image of $\varphi $. We clearly have that $D' := \varphi _* [D]$ is an ample divisor on $X'$.
The push-forward of a nef divisor $N$ on $X$ is a nef on $X'$: let $C \subset X'$ be an effective curve; we have $\varphi _*N \cdot C = N \cdot \varphi ^* C \geq 0$, since $\varphi ^* C$ is an effective curve.
Let $N$ be a nef divisor on $X$ such that $N \cdot D = 0$. We have $\varphi _*N \cdot D' = N \cdot \varphi ^* D' = N \cdot D = 0$, and therefore by the Hodge Index Theorem we deduce that either $\varphi _*N \equiv 0$ or $(\varphi _*N) ^2 < 0$. Since $\varphi _*N$ is nef, it is a limit of ample divisors and it follows that $(\varphi _*N) ^2 \geq 0$. We deduce that $\varphi _*N \equiv 0$ and thus that $N$ is numerically equivalent to a linear combination of curves contracted by $\varphi $. Since the intersection form on the span of the contracted curves is negative definite and $N$ is nef, we deduce that $N \equiv 0$. [ $\Box $ ]{}
\[benaco\] Let $X$ be a del Pezzo surface and let $D$ be a nef divisor on $X$ which is not a multiple of a conic. If a nef divisor $N$ on $X$ is such that $D \cdot N = 0$, then $N=0$.
[*Proof.*]{} The result is obvious in the case $X = {\mathbb P}^2$. Thanks to the previous lemma and the fact that numerical equivalence is the same as equality of divisor classes on a del Pezzo surface, it is enough to check that a multiple of a nef divisor class $D$ on $X$ is base-point free and has positive square, unless $D$ is the divisor class of a conic.
Write $D = n_\delta (-K_{X_\delta}) + \ldots + n_2 (-K_2) + D'$ as in Corollary \[maquale\]. It is immediate to check that $2D$ is base-point free (in fact, unless $D = -K_X$ and $X$ has degree one, then $D$ itself is base-point free). If one of the $n_\alpha $’s is non-zero, then clearly the square of $D$ is positive (note that all the divisors appearing in the above expression of $D$ are nef and thus effective since $X$ is a del Pezzo surface). If all the $n_\alpha $’s are zero, then $D = D'$ is a nef divisor on a del Pezzo surface of degree eight.
If $X = {\mathbb P}^1 \times {\mathbb P}^1$, let $\ell _1$ and $\ell _2$ be the two divisor classes $\{ p \} \times {\mathbb P}^1$ and ${\mathbb P}^1 \times \{ p \}$ respectively. Any nef divisor class is a non-negative linear combination of $\ell _1$ and $\ell _2$; thus we may write $D = a_1 \ell _1 + a_2 \ell _2$, with $a_1, a_2 \geq 0$. Moreover, if one of the $a_i$’s were zero, then $D$ would be a multiple of a conic: we deduce that $a_i > 0$. Thus we compute $D^2 = 2 a_1 a_2 > 0$.
If $X = Bl_p ({\mathbb P}^2 )$, let $\ell $ and $e$ be the pull-back of the divisor class of a line and the exceptional divisor under the blow down morphism to ${\mathbb P}^2$ respectively. Any nef divisor class is a non-negative linear combination of $\ell $ and $\ell - e$; thus we may write $D = a \ell + b (\ell - e)$, with $a, b \geq 0$. Moreover, if $a = 0$, then $D$ is a multiple of a conic: we deduce that $a > 0$. Thus we compute $D^2 = a (a + 2 b) > 0$ and the proof is complete. [ $\Box $ ]{}
We are now ready to prove the main result of the section. The proof involves several steps and is quite long.
\[passo\] Let $X$ be a del Pezzo surface such that the spaces $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X, \beta \bigr)$ are irreducible (or empty) for all nef divisors $\beta $ such that $2 \leq - K_X \cdot \beta \leq 3$. In the case $\deg X = 1$, suppose that all the rational divisors in the anticanonical system are nodal. Then, for any nef divisor $D \subset X$ such that $-K_X \cdot D \geq 2$, the space $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X, D \bigr)$ is irreducible or empty.
[*Proof.*]{} We establish the theorem by induction on $d := -K_X \cdot D$. By hypothesis, the theorem is true if $d \leq 3$.
Suppose that $d \geq 4$. Let $f : {\mathbb P}^1 \rightarrow X$ be a general morphism in an irreducible component of $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X, D \bigr)$. Since the morphism $f$ is a general point on an irreducible component of $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X, D \bigr)$ and $d \geq 2$, it follows that $f$ is an immersion and that it is a free morphism.
If there is a $(-1)-$curve $L \subset X$ such that $L \cdot D = 0$, then let $b : X \rightarrow X'$ be the contraction of $L$. We have $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X, D \bigr) \simeq
\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X', b_* D \bigr)$, and thus we reduce to the case in which the divisor $D$ intersects strictly positively every $(-1)-$curve. By Theorem \[barbapapa\] we may also assume that the degree of $X$ is at most seven. Thus Proposition \[clane\] implies that $D$ is an ample divisor.
Thanks to Lemma \[pezzenti\] we may deform $f$ to a morphism $g : \bar C \rightarrow X$ such that each component $\bar C_0 \subset
\bar C$ is immersed to a curve of anticanonical degree two or three. We want to show that we may specialize $g$ to a morphism in which one component is mapped to a multiple of the divisor class $-K_X$. We will prove this in a series of steps.
[**Step 1.**]{} There is a standard basis $\{ \ell , e_1 , \ldots , e_\delta \}$ of ${\rm Pic} (X)$ and a component $\bar C_1$ of $\bar C$ mapped birationally either to the divisor class $3 \ell - e_1 - \ldots - e_{\alpha}$, for $\alpha \in \{ 1 , \ldots , 7 \}$, or to $-rK_{X_8}$, for $r \in \{ 1,2,3 \}$. If the image of $\bar C_1$ represents $-K_{X_8}$, then we can choose to which of the twelve rational divisors in $|-K_{X_8}|$ the component $\bar C_1$ maps. The morphism is free on all the components of $\bar C$, except on $\bar C_1$ if it represents $-K_{X_8}$.
The divisors of anticanonical degree two on $X$ are
- the divisor $-2K_X$, if $\deg X = 1$;
- the divisor $-K_X$, if $\deg X = 2$;
- the divisor class of a conic.
The divisors of anticanonical degree three on $X$ are
- the divisor $-3K_X$, if $\deg X = 1$;
- the divisor $-K_X-K_{X'}$, if $\deg X = 1$ and $X'$ is obtained from $X$ by contracting a $(-1)-$curve;
- the divisor $-K_X + C$, if $\deg X = 1$ and $C$ is the class of a conic;
- the divisor $-K_X$, if $\deg X = 3$;
- the divisor $\ell $, for some standard basis $\{ \ell , e_1 , \ldots , e_\delta \}$.
Thanks to the irreducibility assumption on the spaces $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X, \beta \bigr)$, for $2 \leq -K_X \cdot \beta \leq 3$, we reduce to the case in which all components of $\bar C$ are mapped to either the divisor class of a conic or the divisor class $\ell $, for some choice of standard basis.
We reduce further to the following case:
[l@c]{} ($\star$) &
[c]{} There is a standard basis $\{ \ell , e_1 , \ldots , e_\delta \}$ of ${\rm Pic} (X)$ such that all\
curves of degree three in the image of $g$ have divisor class $\ell $.
This is easily accomplished. Suppose that $\bar C_1$ and $\bar C_2$ are components of $\bar C$ such that $g_*[\bar C_1] = \ell _1$ and $g_*[\bar C_2] = \ell _2$, where $\{ \ell _i , e^i_1 , \ldots , e^i_\delta \}$ are two standard basis of ${\rm Pic} (X)$ and $\ell _1 \neq \ell _2$. We may first of all apply Lemma \[piuma\] to reduce to the case in which $\bar C_1$ and $\bar C_2$ are adjacent in the dual graph of $g$. If $\ell _2$ were orthogonal to $e^1_1 , \ldots , e^1_\delta $, then $\ell _2$ would be proportional and hence equal to $\ell_1$. It follows that $\ell _2$ is not orthogonal to all the $e^1_j$’s. By permuting the indices if necessary, we may assume that $\ell _2 \cdot e^1_1 > 0$. Since $g|_{\bar C_2}$ is free, we may assume that $g(\bar C_2)$ and $E := E^1_1$, the $(-1)-$curve whose divisor class is $e^1_1$, meet transversely. Denote by $\bar p \in \bar C_2$ a point such that $g(\bar p) \in E$. Consider the morphism $$\xymatrix @C=35pt
{{\rm Sl}_{g} (\bar C_1) \ar[r]^{\hspace{10pt} a} & \bar C_2 }$$ and note that it is dominant, since $g|_{\bar C_1}$ is free. It follows that we may find a morphism $g_1 : \bar C_1' \cup \bar C_2 \cup \ldots \cup \bar C_r \longrightarrow X$ such that $a(g_1) = \bar p$. We deduce that $g_1(\bar C_1') \ni p$ and $(g_1)_* [\bar C_1'] = \ell _1$. Since $\ell _1 \cdot e^1_1 = 0$, we conclude that $g_1(\bar C_1')$ contains $E$ and another (irreducible) component whose divisor class is $\ell _1 - e^1_1$. Finally, the subgraph of the dual graph of $g_1$ spanned by $\bar C_1'$ and $\bar C_2$ is $$\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} !{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [rr] {\bullet}
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_2$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar E$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_1''$} \restore} }$$ where $(g_1)_* [\bar C_1''] = \ell _1 - e^1_1$ and $(g_1)_*[\bar E] = e^1_1$. We may now smooth $\bar E \cup \bar C_2$ to a single irreducible component $\bar C_2'$ mapped to a curve of anticanonical degree four. With the usual argument of fixing two general points on the image of $\bar C_2'$ we may deform the morphism so that $\bar C_2'$ breaks in two components each mapped to a curve of anticanonical degree two. The result of this deformation was to replace two components mapped to the different divisor classes $\ell _1$ and $\ell _2$ by three components mapped to divisor classes of curves of anticanonical degree two.
Iterating the previous argument we deduce that we may assume that condition ($\star$) holds.
We first treat the case in which there are no components mapped to $\ell$. If all the irreducible components of the domain of $g$ are mapped to conics, and two of them have images with intersection number at least two, then we may use Proposition \[struttura\] to conclude. If all the conics in the image of $g$ have intersection number at most one, then there must be at least three having pairwise intersection products exactly one. Otherwise we would be able to find a standard basis $\{ \ell , e_1 , \ldots , e_\delta \}$ such that the divisor classes of the components of the image of $g$ are in the span of $\ell - e_1$ and $\ell - e_2$. Clearly, no linear combination of these divisors is ample, since $$\bigl( \ell - e_1 - e_2 \bigr) \cdot
\Bigl( a_1 \bigl( \ell - e_1 \bigr) + a_2 \bigl( \ell - e_2 \bigr) \Bigr) = 0$$ Thus there must be at least three components mapped to divisor classes of conics with pairwise intersection products exactly one. Lemma \[piuma\] allows us to assume that three of these components are adjacent and using Proposition \[infradito\] we conclude.
Suppose now that there is a component mapped to a curve with divisor class $\ell$. Since on a del Pezzo surface of degree at most seven no multiple of $\ell $ is ample, it follows that there must be components of the domain of $g$ mapped to divisor classes of conics.
Suppose that $\bar C_1$ is mapped to the divisor class $\ell $ and $\bar C_2$ is mapped to the divisor class of a conic $Q$. Thanks to Lemma \[piuma\] we may assume that $\bar C_1$ and $\bar C_2$ are adjacent. Permuting the indices $1, \ldots , \delta $ if necessary, we may assume that the component $\bar C_2$ mapped to the conic $Q = a \ell - b_1 e_1 - \ldots - b_\delta e_\delta $ has largest possible $b_1$. Looking at the table (\[soluco\]), it is easy to check that
- if $Q$ is of type $H',I,J,K,L$, then $Q+e_1 = -K_{X_8} - K_{X'}$, where $X'$ is obtained by contracting a $(-1)-$curve on $X$;
- if $Q$ is of type $D',F,G,H,I'$, then $Q+e_1 = -K_{X_8} + Q'$, where $Q'$ is a conic;
- if $Q$ is of type $C,D,E$, then $Q+e_1$ is already of the required form (for a different choice of standard basis, when $Q=D$ or $E$);
- if $Q$ is of type $B$, then $Q+\ell $ is of the required form.
If $Q$ is of type $B$, then we smooth $\bar C_1 \cup \bar C_2$ to a single irreducible component to conclude. Otherwise, we deform the morphism so that $\bar C_1$ breaks into a component mapped to $\ell - e_1$ and a component $e_1$ adjacent to $\bar C_2$. To achieve this splitting, consider the morphism $$\xymatrix @C=35pt
{{\rm Sl}_{g} (\bar C_1) \ar[r]^{\hspace{10pt} a} & \bar C_2 }$$ and let $\bar p \in \bar C_2$ be a point mapped to the $(-1)-$curve whose divisor class is $e_1$ (note that $Q \cdot e_1 \geq 1$). Since the restriction of $g$ to each irreducible component of its domain free, we may assume that $g(\bar p)$, as well as the image of the node between $\bar C_1$ and $\bar C_2$ are general points of $X$. Since the morphism $a$ is dominant, we may find a deformation $g'$ of $g$ such that $a(g') = \bar p$. This means that the “limiting component” of $\bar C_1$ breaks in the desired way. Smoothing the union of $\bar C_2$ and the component mapped to $e_1$, we obtain a morphism $\bar g' : \bar C_1' \cup \bar C_2' \rightarrow X$ where $\bar g'_*[\bar C_1'] = \ell - e_1$ and $\bar g'_*[\bar C_2'] = Q+ e_1$. The hypotheses of the theorem imply that $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X, \bar g'_*[\bar C_2'] \bigr)$ is irreducible since $-K_X \cdot \bigl( Q + e_1 \bigr) = 3$. Thanks to the previous analysis of the divisor class $Q+e_1$, we conclude considering the dominant morphism $$\xymatrix @C=35pt
{{\rm Sl}_{\bar g'} (\bar C_2') \ar[r]^{\pi \hspace{20pt}} &
\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X, \bar g'_*[\bar C_2'] \bigr) }$$ that we may assume that there is a component of $g$ mapped to the divisor class $3\ell - e_1 - \ldots - e_\alpha $, for some $\alpha \leq 8$.
The only remaining case is the one in which the conic $Q$ is of type $A$. We may therefore suppose that if a component of the domain of $g$ is mapped to the divisor class of a conic, then the divisor class of the image is $\ell - e_j$ for some $j$. Since the image of $g$ is an ample divisor, it follows that there must be components $\bar Q_1, \ldots , \bar Q_\delta $ mapped to $\ell - e_1, \ldots , \ell - e_\delta $ respectively.
Repeated application of Lemma \[piuma\] allows us to assume that the component mapped to $\ell $ and the two components $\bar Q_1$ $\bar Q_2$ are adjacent. Smoothing the union of these three components to a single irreducible free morphism, concludes the first step of the proof.
[**Step 2.**]{} There is a component $\bar C_1$ of $\bar C$ mapped to the divisor class $-K_{X_\delta}$, if $\delta \leq 7$. If $\delta = 8$ (that is, the degree of $X = X_8$ is one), then $\bar C_1$ mapped to $-rK_{X_8}$, for $r \in \{1,2,3 \}$. If $r = 1$, then we may choose to which rational divisor in $|-K_{X_8}|$ the component $\bar C_1$ maps.
If the component $\bar C_1$ of [**Step 1**]{} is mapped to $-rK_{X_8}$, there is nothing to prove.
Let $\bar C_1$ be the component of $g$ mapped to the divisor class $3 \ell - e_1 - \ldots - e_\alpha $. If $\alpha = \delta $, then again there is nothing to prove. Suppose therefore that $\alpha < \delta $. There is a component of $\bar C$, say $\bar C_2$, such that $g_*[\bar C_2] \cdot e_{\alpha +1} \geq 1$, since the image of $g$ is an ample divisor; let $C_2 := g_*[\bar C_2]$ Moreover, $C_1 :=
g_*[\bar C_1] = 3\ell - e_1 - \ldots - e_\alpha $ intersects positively every non-zero nef divisor, thanks to Corollary \[benaco\]. Thus $C_1 \cdot C_2 > 0$ and thanks to Lemma \[piuma\] we may assume that $\bar C_1$ and $\bar C_2$ are adjacent in the dual graph of $g$. Since the morphism $g|_{\bar C_2}$ is free, we assume also that $C_2$ meets transversely the $(-1)-$curve $E_{\alpha + 1}$ whose divisor class is $e_{\alpha + 1}$. Let $\bar p \in \bar C_2$ be a point such that $p := g(\bar p) \in E_{\alpha + 1}$. Consider the morphism $$\xymatrix @C=35pt
{{\rm Sl}_{g} (\bar C_1) \ar[r]^{\hspace{10pt} a} & \bar C_2 }$$ and note that it is dominant, since $g|_{\bar C_1}$ is free. It follows that we may find a morphism $g_1 : \bar C_1' \cup \bar C_2 \cup \ldots \cup \bar C_r \longrightarrow X$ such that $a(g_1) = \bar p$. We deduce that $g_1(\bar C_1') \ni p$ and $(g_1)_* [\bar C_1'] = 3 \ell - e_1 - \ldots - e_\alpha $. Since $\bigl( 3 \ell - e_1 - \ldots - e_\alpha \bigr) \cdot e_{\alpha + 1} = 0$, we conclude that $g_1(\bar C_1')$ contains $E_{\alpha + 1}$ and another (irreducible) component whose divisor class is $3 \ell - e_1 - \ldots - e_{\alpha + 1}$. Thus the subgraph of the dual graph of $g_1$ spanned by $\bar C_1'$ and $\bar C_2$ is $$\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} !{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [rr] {\bullet}
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_2$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar E_{\alpha + 1}$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_1''$} \restore} }$$ where $(g_1)_* [\bar C_1''] = 3 \ell - e_1 - \ldots - e_{\alpha + 1}$ and $(g_1)_*[\bar E_{\alpha + 1}] = e_{\alpha + 1}$. We may now smooth $\bar E_{\alpha + 1} \cup \bar C_2$ to a single irreducible component $\bar C_2'$ mapped to a curve of anticanonical degree three or four. If this new component has degree four, we break it into two components of anticanonical degree two.
If the degree of $X$ is at least two, iterating this procedure allows us to produce a component of $\bar C$ whose image represents the divisor class $-K_X$. If the degree of $X$ is one, we may apply the same procedure to obtain a component $\bar C_1$ mapped to $-K_{X_8}$, but we still have to prove that we may choose which nodal rational divisor in $|-K_{X_8}|$ is in the image of the morphism.
If the component $\bar C_2$ adjacent to the component $\bar C_1$ has degree two, we smooth these two components to a single irreducible one and using the irreducibility of $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X, \beta \bigr)$, for $-K_{X_8} \cdot \beta=3$ we conclude.
If the component $\bar C_2$ adjacent to the component $\bar C_1$ mapped to $-K_{X_8}$ has degree three, then it represents one of the five divisor classes $-3K_{X_8}$, $\bigl( -K_{X_8} - K_{X_7} \bigr)$, $\bigl( -K_{X_8} + Q \bigr)$, $-K_{X_6}$ or $\ell $, where $Q$ is a conic, $-K_{X_7}$ and $-K_{X_6}$ are del Pezzo surfaces of degree two and three respectively dominated by $X_8$.
In the first three cases, we deform the morphism so that the component $\bar C_2$ breaks into a component mapped to a preassigned nodal divisor in $|-K_{X_8}|$ and into a component where the morphism is free. In these cases, smoothing the component $\bar C_1$ with the component adjacent to it into which $\bar C_2$ broke finishes the proof.
If $\bar C_2$ is mapped to $-K_{X_6}$ or $\ell $, then we may choose a standard basis so that $-K_{X_6} = 3\ell - e_1 - \ldots - e_6$. The morphism $\varphi : X_8 \rightarrow {\mathbb P}^2$ determined by the linear system $|\ell |$ is the contraction of the $(-1)-$curves with divisor classes $e_1$, …, $e_8$ to the points $q_1, \ldots , q_8 \in {\mathbb P}^2$. The image of $\bar C_1$ in ${\mathbb P}^2$ is a nodal plane cubic through the eight points $q_1$, …, $q_8$. The image of $\bar C_2$ is either a rational cubic through $q_1$, …, $q_6$ or a line. We treat only the case in which the image of $\bar C_2$ is a nodal cubic, since the other one is simpler and the arguments are similar.
Deform the nodal cubic through $q_1$, …, $q_6$ until it contains a general point $q \in {\mathbb P}^2$. We may now slide the node between $\bar C_1$ and $\bar C_2$ along $\bar C_1$ until it reaches a point on $\bar C_1$ mapped to the point $q_7 \in {\mathbb P}^2$. As we slide the node, we let the image of $\bar C_2$ always contain the general point $q$. When the deformation is finished, the component $\bar C_2$ breaks as the $(-1)-$curve with divisor class $e_7$ and the divisor class $-K_{X_6} - e_7$. Since the point $q$ is general, we know that there are only finitely many (in fact twelve) possible configurations for these limiting positions and we may assume that they are all transverse to the image of $\bar C_1$. Thus the dual graph of the resulting morphism $g' : \bar C_1 \cup \bar C_2' \cup \bar E_7 \longrightarrow X_8$ is $$\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} !{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [rr] {\bullet}
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_2'$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar E_7$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_1$} \restore} }$$
We may smooth the components $\bar C_1 \cup \bar E_7$ to a unique irreducible component mapped to a curve of anticanonical degree two. The assumptions of the theorem imply that $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X_8, C_1 + e_7 \bigr)$ is irreducible and we may therefore deform the morphism so that its domain breaks as a preassigned rational nodal divisor $C''$ in $|-K_{X_8}|$ and a curve mapped to the divisor class $e_7$. The dual graph of the resulting morphism $g''$ is of one of the following types: $$\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} !{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [rr] {\bullet}
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_2'$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar E_7$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_1''$} \restore} }
\hspace{30pt}
\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} !{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [rr] {\bullet}
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_2'$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_1''$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar E_7$} \restore} }$$
In the first case we smooth $\bar E_7 \cup \bar C_2'$ to a single irreducible component and conclude. In the second case, we slide the node between $\bar C_1''$ and $\bar C_2'$ until it reaches the node between $\bar C_1'$ and $\bar E_7$, in such a way that the limiting position of $\bar C_2'$ does not coincide with the image of $\bar C_1''$ (we can do this thanks to the irreducibility of $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X_8, C_1'' + C_2' \bigr)$). It follows that the dual graph of the morphism $\bar g$ thus obtained is $$\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} !{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [ur] {\bullet} [dd] {\bullet}
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<9pt,0pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_2''$} \restore}
- [ul] - [ur]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<8pt,0pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar E_7$} \restore}
[dl]
!{\save +<-3pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar E$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_1''$} \restore} }$$
It is easy to check that $\bar g$ represents a smooth point of $\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( X_8, C_1'' + C_2'' + e_7 \bigr)$, since the sheaf $\bar g ^* {\mathcal T}_{X_8}$ is globally generated on $\bar C_2''$ and has no first cohomology group on the remaining components, thanks to Lemmas \[blodo\] and \[tretre\]. We may now smooth the components $\bar E_7 \cup \bar E \cup \bar C_2''$ to a single irreducible component on which the morphism is free to conclude.
A similar and simpler argument proves the same result if $\bar C_2$ has divisor class $\ell $. This finishes the proof of this step.
[**Step 3.**]{} We may deform $g : \bar C \rightarrow X$ to a morphism $h : \bar D_1 \cup \bar D_2 \rightarrow X$ where $\bar D_1$ and $\bar D_2$ are irreducible, $h_*[\bar D_1] = -rK_X$ ($r \in \{1,2,3\}$), $h(\bar D_1) \neq h(\bar D_2)$ and $h|_{\bar D_2}$ is free. If the degree of $X$ is at least two, then $r=1$. If the degree of $X$ is one and $r = 1$, we may choose which rational divisor in $|-K_X|$ $h(\bar D_1)$ is. Note that we are not requiring $h|_{\bar D_2}$ to be birational to its image.
Thanks to the previous steps, we may assume that $g_* [\bar C_1] = -rK_X$ (with the required restriction for $r$) and that all the components of $\bar C$ different from $\bar C_1$ are immersed to curves of anticanonical degree two or three. Let $C_2$, …, $C_r$ be the components of the image of $g$ different from $g(\bar C_1)$, and let $\bar C_i$ be the component of $\bar C$ whose image is $C_i$.
The divisor class $C_2 + \ldots + C_r$ is nef and if it is not a multiple of a conic, then it meets all nef curves positively, thanks to Corollary \[benaco\]. Thus, still assuming that $C_2 + \ldots + C_r$ is not a multiple of a conic, we may deform the morphism using Lemma \[piuma\] and assume that the union of all the components of the domain of $g$ different from $\bar C_1$ is connected. Smoothing the resulting union $\bar C_2 \cup \ldots \cup \bar C_r$ concludes the proof of this step in this case.
Suppose that $C_2 + \ldots + C_r$ is a multiple of a conic. Then it follows that $C_2 = \ldots = C_r = C$ is a conic. Since $g$ is birational to its image and two divisors linearly equivalent to the same conic are either disjoint or they coincide, it follows that the dual graph of $g$ must be $$\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} !{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [ul] {\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [d] {\vdots} [d] {\bullet} [ll] {\bullet}
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<-8pt,0pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_r$} \restore}
- [ur] - [dr]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<13pt,0pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_{r-1}$} \restore}
[uu]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<8pt,0pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_3$} \restore}
- [dl] - [ul]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<-8pt,0pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_2$} \restore}
[dr]
!{\save +<0pt,9pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_1$} \restore} }$$ By sliding each $\bar C_i$ along $\bar C_1$, we may assume that the images of all the components mapped to a conic coincide and that the nodes in the source curve all map to the same general point $p \in X$. Thus the dual graph of the resulting morphism $g''$ is $$\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} !{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [ul] {\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [d] {\vdots} [d]
{\bullet} [ll] {\bullet}
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<8pt,0pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_r$} \restore}
- [ur] - [dr]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<13pt,0pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_{r-1}$} \restore}
[uu]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<8pt,0pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_3$} \restore}
- [dl] - [ul]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<8pt,0pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_2$} \restore}
[dr]
!{\save +<0pt,9pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar E$} \restore}
- [ll]
!{\save +<0pt,9pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_1$} \restore} }$$ where $\bar E$ is a contracted component whose image is $p$. The morphism $g''$ is a smooth point of $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X, g_* [\bar C] \bigr)$ since the sheaf $(g'') ^* {\mathcal T}_X$ is globally generated on each irreducible component of the domain curve of $g''$.
We may smooth all the components $\bar E \cup \bar C_2 \cup \ldots \cup \bar C_r$ to a single irreducible component which represents a multiple cover (in fact a degree $r-1$ cover) of its image. The resulting morphism $h : \bar D_1 \cup \bar D_2 \rightarrow X$ is therefore such that the image of $\bar D_1$ is a rational divisor in the linear system $|-rK_X|$ ($r=1$ unless the degree of $X$ is one, in which case $r \leq 3$), which is an arbitrary preassigned one in case $\deg X = 1$ and $r=1$, and the morphism $h|_{\bar D_2}$ is a multiple cover of the divisor class of a conic. This concludes the proof of the third step.
We may write $h_*[\bar D_2] = n_8 (-K_{X_8}) + \ldots + n_2 (-K_2) +
D_2'$ as in Corollary \[maquale\] (to simplify the notation we will assume that $\deg X = 1$; if this is not the case, simply set to zero all the coefficients $n_\alpha $, with $\alpha > 9 - \deg X$). Let $n := [\frac {n_8} {2}]$, if $n_8 \neq 1$ and let $n = 1$, if $n_8 = 1$. Thus we have $n_8 = 2(n-1) + 3$, if $n_8$ is odd and at least three, and $n_8 = 2n$, if $n$ is even.
[**Step 4.**]{} Let $S \subset X$ be a nodal rational divisor in the linear system $|-K_X|$. We may deform $h$ to a morphism $k : \bar K := \bar K_1 \cup \ldots \cup \bar K_\ell \longrightarrow X$ with the following properties:
1. \[aringoli\] the morphism $k$ restricted to each irreducible component of $\bar K$ is free, except possibly on $\bar K_1$;
2. each irreducible component of $\bar K$ represents one of the divisor classes $-3K_{X_8}$, $-2K_{X_8}$, $-K_{X_7}$, …, $-K_{X_2}$, $D_2'$, except $\bar K_1$, whose image may also be $S$;
3. the dual graph of $k$ is $$\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} !{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [rrrr] {\bullet} [rr] {\bullet}
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar K_\ell $} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar K_{\ell -1}$} \restore}
- [ll] {\cdots} -[ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar K_2$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar K_1$} \restore} }$$
4. the component $\bar K_1$ is mapped to $-3K_{X_8}$ if $n_8$ is odd and at least three, to $S$ if $n_8 = 1$ and to $-2K_{X_8}$ if $n_8$ is even and bigger than zero;
5. the components $\bar K_2$, $\bar K_3$, …, $\bar K_n $ are mapped to $-2K_{X_8}$;
6. let $N_\alpha := n+n_7 + \ldots + n_{\alpha + 1}$; the components $\bar K_{N_\alpha + 1}$, …, $\bar K_{N_{\alpha - 1} }$ are mapped to $-K_{X_\alpha }$;
7. if $D_2' \neq 0$, then $\bar K_\ell $ is mapped to $D_2'$;
8. the morphism $k|_{\bar K_1 \cup \ldots \cup \bar K_{\ell -1}}$ is birational to its image. \[testa\]
We call a morphism satisfying all the above properties a [*morphism in standard form*]{}.
By induction on the anticanonical degree of the divisor, we know that the space $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X, h_* [\bar D_2] \bigr)$ is irreducible (or empty if $h_* [\bar D_2]$ is a multiple of a conic and it is clear how to proceed in this case; we will not mention this issue anymore). We may therefore deform the morphism $h|_{\bar D_2}$ to a morphism $l : \bar E := \bar E_1 \cup \ldots \cup \bar E_t \longrightarrow X$ in standard form. Considering the morphism $$\xymatrix @C=40pt
{{\rm Sl}_{h} (\bar D_2) \ar[r]^{\pi \hspace{20pt}} &
\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X, h_*[\bar D_2] \bigr) }$$ we may find a deformation $\widetilde l$ of $h$ such that $\pi (\widetilde l ) = l$. The dual graph of $\widetilde l$ is $$\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} !{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [rrrr] {\bullet} [d] {\bullet} [urrrr] {\bullet} [rr] {\bullet}
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar E_t$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar E_{t-1}$} \restore}
- [ll] {\cdots} -[ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar E_j$} \restore}
- [d]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<8pt,0pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar D_1$} \restore}
[u] - [ll] {\cdots} -[ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar E_2$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar E_1$} \restore} }$$ for some $ 1 \leq j \leq t$. We want to show by induction on $j$ that we may assume that $j = 1$. In the case $j=1$ there is nothing to prove.
Suppose $j \geq 2$ and consider the morphism $$\xymatrix @C=35pt
{{\rm Sl}_{\widetilde l} (\bar E_{j-1}) \ar[r]^{\hspace{15pt} a} & \bar E_j }$$
Unless $j=2$ and $\bar E_1$ represents $|-K_{X_8}|$, the morphism $a$ is dominant and we may find a morphism $l_1$ such that $a(l_1)$ is the node between $\bar D_1$ and $\bar E_j$. The dual graph of the morphism $l_1$ is $$\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} !{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [rrrr] {\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [d] {\bullet} [urr]
{\bullet} [rrrr] {\bullet} [rr] {\bullet}
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar E_t$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar E_{t-1}$} \restore}
- [ll] {\cdots} -[ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar E_j$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar E$} \restore}
- [d]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<8pt,0pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar D_1$} \restore}
[u]
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<6pt,6pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar E_{j-1}'$} \restore}
- [ll] {\cdots} -[ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar E_2$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar E_1$} \restore} }$$ and the component $\bar E$ is contracted. The morphism $l_1$ represents a smooth point of $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X, h_*[\bar C] \bigr)$, since $l_1^* {\mathcal T}_X$ is globally generated on all components different from $\bar D_1$, and ${\rm H}^1 \bigl( \bar D_1 , l_1^* {\mathcal T}_X \bigr) = 0$.
The morphism $l_1$ is also a limit of morphisms with dual graph $$\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} !{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [rrrr] {\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [d] {\bullet} [urr]
{\bullet} [rrrr] {\bullet} [rr] {\bullet}
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar E_t$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar E_{t-1}$} \restore}
- [ll] {\cdots} -[ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar E_j$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<6pt,6pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar E_{j-1}''$} \restore}
- [d]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<8pt,0pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar D_1$} \restore}
[u]
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<6pt,6pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar E_{j-2}$} \restore}
- [ll] {\cdots} -[ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar E_2$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar E_1$} \restore} }$$
We can apply the induction hypothesis to these last morphisms to conclude that we may deform the morphism $f$ to a morphism $m : \bar F := \bar D_1 \cup \bar F_1 \cup \ldots \cup \bar F_t \longrightarrow X$, where $m|_{\bar F_1 \cup \ldots \cup \bar F_t}$ is a morphism in standard form and $m|_{\bar D_1}$ is birational onto its image and the image is a rational divisor in $|-K_X|$, or $|-rK_X|$ if $\deg X = 1$. We may specify which rational curve $m(\bar D_1)$ is if it represents $-K_{X_8}$, and we assume it is $S$ if and only if $\bar F_1$ is not mapped to $S$. If $\bar F_1$ represents a divisor class different from $|-K_{X_8}|$, then we may assume that $\bar D_1$ is adjacent to $\bar F_1$ and conclude; if $\bar F_1$ represents the divisor class $|-K_{X_8}|$, then $\bar D_1$ is adjacent to $\bar F_2$ and $\bar D_1$ represents the divisor class $-rK_{X_8}$ for some $r \in \{ 1,2,3 \}$. The divisor represented by $\bar F_2$ is either $-K_{X_\alpha}$, for some $\alpha \leq 7$ or it is a divisor on a del Pezzo surface of degree eight, i.e. ${\mathbb P}^1 \times {\mathbb P}^1$ or $Bl_p({\mathbb P}^2)$.
We are only going to treat the case $m_*[\bar F_2] = -K_{X_7}$, and $m_*[\bar D_1] = -K_{X_8}$. The remaining cases are simpler and can be treated with similar techniques.
Let $J \subset \overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X, h_*[\bar C] \bigr)$ be the closure of the set of morphisms $m' : \bar D_1' \cup \bar F_1' \cup \ldots \cup \bar F_t' \longrightarrow X_8$ such that $m'|_{\bar F_2' \cup \ldots \cup \bar F_t'} \simeq
m|_{\bar F_2 \cup \ldots \cup \bar F_t}$, $m'|_{\bar D_1'} \simeq m|_{\bar D_1}$ the image of $\bar F_2'$ is a general rational divisor in $|-K_{X_7}|$ and the dual graphs of $m$ and $m'$ coincide.
We clearly have a morphism $J \rightarrow
\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X, -K_{X_7} \bigr)$ obtained by “restricting a morphism in $J$ to its $\bar F_2'$ component.” Since the intersection number $m_*[\bar F_2] \cdot m_*[\bar D_1]$ equals two, it follows that $J$ has at most two irreducible components. Moreover, even if the space $J$ is reducible, its components meet. To see this, we construct a point in common to the two components. Let $\psi : X_8 \longrightarrow {\mathbb P}^2$ be the morphism induced by the linear system $|-K_{X_7}|$. The morphism $\psi $ contracts a $(-1)-$curve and ramifies above a smooth plane quartic $R$. The images of $\bar D_1$ and $\bar F_1$ are two distinct tangent lines in ${\mathbb P}^2$ which contain the image $c$ of the contracted component and are tangent to $R$, but are not bitangent lines to $R$. The images of the curves $\bar F_2'$ are tangent lines to $R$. Since $R$ has degree four, it follows that there is a point $c' \in R$ where the image of $\bar F_1$ meets transversely $R$. Through such a point $c'$, there are ten tangent lines to $R$, different from the tangent line to $R$ at $c'$. Each of these lines corresponds to a point in the intersection of the two components of $J$. Moreover, these points in common to the components are easily seen to be smooth points of the mapping space, using Proposition \[grafico\]. We deduce that $J$ is connected, and thus in the same irreducible component of $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X, h_*[\bar C] \bigr)$ containing $m$ there is a morphism $m_1$ with dual graph $$\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} !{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [d] {\bullet} [urr]
{\bullet} [d] {\bullet} [urr] {\bullet} [rrrr] {\bullet} [rr] {\bullet}
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar F_t$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar F_{t-1}$} \restore}
- [ll] {\cdots} -[ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar F_3$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar F_2'$} \restore}
- [d]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<8pt,0pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar F_2''$} \restore}
[u]
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar E$} \restore}
- [d]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<8pt,0pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar D_1$} \restore}
[u]
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar F_1$} \restore} }$$ which agrees with $m$ on the components with the same label and such that $\bar F_2''$ is mapped to the divisor class contracted by $\psi$ and $\bar F_2'$ is mapped to a rational divisor in $|-K_{X_8}|$ distinct from the images of $\bar D_1$ and $\bar F_1$. It follows from the computations in [**Step 6, Case 4**]{} below that $m_1$ represents a smooth point of the mapping space. We may now smooth $\bar D_1 \cup \bar E \cup \bar F_1$ to a single irreducible component $\bar G_1$ representing a nodal rational divisor in $|-2K_{X_8}|$. Similarly, we may smooth $\bar F_2' \cup \bar F_2''$ to an irreducible component $\bar G_2$ representing a nodal rational divisor in $|-K_{X_7}|$. The resulting morphism $m_2$ has dual graph $$\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} !{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [rrrr] {\bullet} [rr] {\bullet}
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar F_t$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar F_{t-1}$} \restore}
- [ll] {\cdots} -[ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar F_3$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar G_2$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar G_1$} \restore} }$$ This concludes the proof of this step.
We now define a locally closed subset $K_\beta $ of $\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( X, \beta \bigr)$. Let $\bar K_\beta $ be the closure of the set of morphisms in standard form. The subspace $K_\beta \subset \bar K_\beta $ is the open subset of points lying in a unique irreducible component of $\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( X, \beta \bigr)$, or equivalently $K_\beta $ is the complement in $\bar K_\beta $ of the union of all the pairwise intersections of the irreducible components of $\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( X, \beta \bigr)$. In particular, all the points of $\bar K_\beta $ that are smooth points in $\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( X, \beta \bigr)$ lie in $K_\beta $.
[**Step 5.**]{} The morphisms in standard form are contained in $K_\beta $.
It is enough to prove that a morphism in standard form is a smooth point of $\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( X, \beta \bigr)$. Let $k : \bar K \rightarrow X$ be a morphism in standard form and let $\bar K_1$, …, $\bar K_\ell $ be the components of $\bar K$. We will always assume that the numbering of the components is the “standard” one. The morphism $k$ represents a smooth point of $\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( X, \beta \bigr)$ since $k^* {\mathcal T}_X$ is globally generated on all components $\bar K_i$, for $i \geq 2$ and ${\rm H}^1 \bigl( \bar K_1 , k^* {\mathcal T}_X \bigr) = 0$.
[**Step 6.**]{} The space $K_\beta $ is connected.
To prove connectedness of $K_\beta $, let $k : \bar K \rightarrow X$ be a morphism in standard form and suppose that all the nodes of $\bar K$ are mapped to points of $X$ not lying on $(-1)-$curves. There are such morphisms in all the connected components of $K_\beta$ since $k|_{\bar K_i}$ is a free morphism, for $i \geq 2$ and $S$ is not a $(-1)-$curve. Given any $k' : \bar K' \rightarrow X$, we construct a deformation from $k'$ to $k$ entirely contained in $K_\beta $. This is clearly enough to prove the connectedness of $K_\beta$.
We are going to construct the deformation in stages.
We prove that in the same connected component of $K_\beta $ containing $k'$ there is a morphism $k_1 : \bar K_1^1 \cup \ldots \cup \bar K_\ell ^1 \longrightarrow X$ such that $k_1|_{\bar K_1^1} \simeq k|_{\bar K_1}$.
This is true by assumption if $k_*[\bar K_1] = -K_{X_8}$, since in this case $k(\bar K_1) = S = k'(\bar K_1')$ and $k$ and $k'$ are birational. Thus in this case we may choose $k_1 = k'$.
Suppose that $k_*[\bar K_1] \neq -K_{X_8}$. Since $k'|_{\bar K_i}$ is free for all $i$’s, we may assume that $k' (\bar K_i)$ is not contained in the image of $k$, for all $i$’s. Thanks to Theorem \[maschera\], Theorem \[cabala\] and Theorem \[barbapapa\], we conclude that there is an irreducible curve $P \subset K_{k_*[\bar K_1]} \subset
\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( X, k_*[\bar K_1] \bigr)$ containing $k'|_{\bar K_1'}$ and $k|_{\bar K_1}$. Consider the morphism $$\xymatrix @C=35pt {
{\rm Sl}_{k'} \bigl( \bar K_1' \bigr) \ar[r] ^{\pi \hspace{20pt}} &
\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0} \Bigl( X, k_* [\bar K_1] \Bigr) }$$ and let $\bar P \subset \pi ^{-1} (P)$ be an irreducible curve dominating $P$ and containing $k'$. The curve $\bar P$ has finitely many points not lying in $K_\beta $: they are the points $\tilde k$ for which the image of $\pi (\tilde k)$ contains a component of $k'(\bar K_2' \cup \ldots \cup \bar K_\ell ')$. By construction, $\bar P$ contains a morphism $k_1 : \bar K_1^1 \cup \ldots \cup \bar K_\ell ^1 \longrightarrow X$ such that $k_1|_{\bar K_1^1} \simeq k|_{\bar K_1}$ and $k_1|_{\bar K_2^1 \cup \ldots \cup \bar K_\ell ^1} \simeq
k'|_{\bar K_2' \cup \ldots \cup \bar K_\ell '}$. It follows that $\bar P \cap K_{\beta }$ is an irreducible curve contained in $K_{\beta }$ and containing $k'$ and $k_1$. Therefore $k'$ and $k_1$ are in the same connected (in fact irreducible) component of $K_\beta $.
Thus to prove that $K_\beta $ is connected we may assume that $k'|_{\bar K_1'} \simeq k|_{\bar K_1}$. Suppose that we found a morphism $k_{j-1}$ in the same connected component of $K_\beta $ as $k'$ such that $k_{j-1}|_{\bar K_1^{j-1} \cup \ldots \cup \bar K_{j-1}^{j-1}} \simeq
k|_{\bar K_1 \cup \ldots \cup \bar K_{j-1}}$ for some $2 \leq j \leq \ell $. If we can find a connected subset of $K_\beta $ containing $k_{j-1}$ and a morphism $k_j : \bar K_1^j \cup \ldots \cup \bar K_\ell ^j \longrightarrow X$ such that $k_j|_{\bar K_1^j \cup \ldots \cup \bar K_j^j} \simeq
k|_{\bar K_1 \cup \ldots \cup \bar K_j}$, then we may conclude by induction on $j$.
The remaining part of the proof will examine the several cases separately. To simplify the notation we assume that $j=2$, we write $\bar K_1$ also for $\bar K_1^1$ since $k|_{\bar K_1} \simeq k_2|_{\bar K_1^1}$, and we let $k = k|_{\bar K_1 \cup \bar K_2}$ and $k_1 = k_1|_{\bar K_1 \cup \bar K_2^1}$; to get the result for $k$ and $k_1$ simply consider the morphism $$\xymatrix @C=35pt {
{\rm Sl}_{k_1} \bigl( \bar K_2^1 \bigr) \ar[r] ^{\pi \hspace{20pt}} &
\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0} \Bigl( X, k_* [\bar K_2] \Bigr) }$$ and lift the path in $\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0} \Bigl( X, k_* [\bar K_2] \Bigr)$ to a path in $\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0} \Bigl( X, k_* [\bar K] \Bigr)$, and note that the lift lies in the space $K_\beta $.
[**Case 1: $k_*[\bar K_2]$ is a multiple of a conic.**]{} We may assume that the node between $\bar K_1$ and $\bar K_2^1$ is mapped to the same point where the node between $\bar K_1$ and $\bar K_2$ is mapped; denote this point by $p_2$. It follows that the image of $\bar K_2$ is uniquely determined. From the irreducibility of the Hurwitz spaces ([@FuHu]) it follows that we may find an irreducible curve in $K_\beta $ containing $k_1$ and a morphism $k_2$ as above.
[**Case 2: $k_*[\bar K_2] = -K_{X_\alpha}$, for $1 \leq \alpha \leq 6$.**]{} We may assume that the node between $\bar K_1$ and $\bar K_2^1$ is mapped to the same point where the node between $\bar K_1$ and $\bar K_2$ is mapped; denote this point by $p_2$.
Since the point $p_2$ does not lie on any $(-1)-$curve, the space of all rational divisors in $|-K_{X_\alpha}|$ containing the point $p_2$ is isomorphic to the space of all rational divisors in $|-K_{\tilde X_\alpha}|$, where $\tilde X_\alpha $ is the blow up of $X_\alpha $ at $p_2$. It follows from the fact that $\tilde X_\alpha$ is a del Pezzo surface of degree at least two, that the space of rational curves in $|-K_{\tilde X_\alpha}|$ irreducible and thus we conclude also in this case.
[**Case 3: $k_*[\bar K_2] = -K_{X_7}$ and $k_*[\bar K_1] = -K_{X_7}$ or $-K_{X_8}$.**]{} The dual graphs of $k$ and $k_1$ are $$\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}}
!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [rr] {\bullet}
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar K_2$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar K_1$} \restore} }
\hspace{30pt}
\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}}
!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [rr] {\bullet}
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar K_2 ^1$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar K_1$} \restore} }$$ and we have $ k_1 \bigl( \bar K_1 \bigr) \cdot k_1 \bigl( \bar K_2^1 \bigr) = 2 $. Consider the diagram $$\xymatrix @C=40pt @R=35pt { S_{bir} \ar[r] \ar[dd]^F & S_2 \ar[r] \ar[d] &
\bar K_1 \times \bar K_1
\ar[d] ^{( k|_{\bar K_1} , k|_{\bar K_1} )} \\
& \overline {\mathcal M}_{0,2} \bigl( X, -K_{X_7} \bigr)
\ar[r]^{\hspace{20pt} \underline {ev}} \ar[d] & X \times X \\
\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X, -K_{X_7} \bigr) \ar[r] &
\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( X, -K_{X_7} \bigr) }$$ where all squares are fiber products. The morphism $F$ is dominant and its fiber over a stable map $f$ has length two, unless the image of $f$ contains $k(\bar K_1)$. We denote by $S_{bir}' \subset S_{bir}$ the union of the components of $S_{bir}$ dominating $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X, -K_{X_7} \bigr)$. Clearly $k$ and $k_1$ both lie in $S_{bir}'$. Moreover, since the fibers of $F':= F|_{S_{bir}'}$ have length two, it follows that $S_{bir}'$ has at most two components. To prove the connectedness of $S_{bir}'$, we assume it is reducible and check that there is a point in $K_\beta $ common to the two components of $S_{bir}'$. This will conclude the proof in this case.
Consider the morphism $\varphi : X \rightarrow {\mathbb P}^2$ determined by $|-K_{X_7}|$. We can factor $\varphi $ as the contraction of the divisor class $e_8$ followed by the double cover of ${\mathbb P}^2$ branched along a smooth plane quartic curve $R$. The image of $\bar K_2^1$ is a line tangent to $R$. The image of the component $\bar K_1$ is herself a tangent line to the branch curve $R$. Note that in case $k_*[\bar K_1] = -K_{X_7}$ we may assume that this tangent line is not a bitangent line nor a flex line. In case $k_*[\bar K_1] = -K_{X_8}$, it follows from the fact that all the rational divisors in $|-K_{X_8}|$ are nodal that the image of $\bar K_1$ is not a flex line; the fact that it is not a bitangent line follows from the fact that $X$ is a del Pezzo surface.
Let $s \in {\mathbb P}^2$ be one of the two points such that $s \in R \cap \varphi \bigl( k(\bar K_1) \bigr)$, but $s$ is not the point where $R$ and $\varphi \bigl( k(\bar K_1) \bigr)$ are tangent. Through the point $s$ there are ten tangent lines to $R$ (counted with multiplicity, and not counting the tangent line to $R$ at $s$): tangent lines through $s$ correspond to ramification points of the morphism $R \rightarrow {\mathbb P}^1$ obtained by projecting away from the point $s$. Since $R$ has genus three and the morphism has degree three, by the Hurwitz formula we deduce that the degree of the ramification divisor is ten, as asserted above. Let $L \subset {\mathbb P}^2$ be one of the tangent lines to $R$ through $s$ different from $\varphi \bigl( k(\bar K_1) \bigr)$ and let $f : {\mathbb P}^1 \rightarrow X$ be a morphism birational to its image and whose image is $\varphi ^{-1} \bigl( L \bigr)$. The morphism $f$ represents a point of $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X, -K_{X_7} \bigr)$ above which the two components of $S_{bir}'$ must meet. Such a point is smooth thanks to Proposition \[grafico\]. This concludes the proof in this case.
[**Case 4: $k_*[\bar K_2] = -K_{X_7}$ and $k_*[\bar K_2] = -2K_{X_8}$.**]{} The dual graphs of $k$ and $k_1$ are $$\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}}
!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [rr] {\bullet}
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar K_2$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar K_1$} \restore} }
\hspace{30pt}
\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}}
!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [rr] {\bullet}
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar K_2 ^1$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar K_1$} \restore} }$$
We reduce this case to the previous on with the following construction. We deform $k$ and $k_1$ inside $K_\beta $ to morphisms $k'$ and $k_1'$ respectively with dual graphs $$\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}}
!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [rr] {\bullet}
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<1pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar K_2'$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_2$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_1$} \restore} }
\hspace{30pt}
\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}}
!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [rr] {\bullet}
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<3pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle (\bar K_2 ^1)'$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_2$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_1$} \restore} }$$ where $\bar C_1$ and $\bar C_2$ are mapped to two given distinct rational divisors $M_1$ and $M_2$ in $|-K_{X_8}|$.
The strategy is the same for $k$ and for $k_1$, therefore we will only describe the deformation for $k$. We may deform $k|_{\bar K_1}$ to the morphism $k'|_{\bar C_1 \cup \bar C_2}$, thanks to the irreducibility of $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X, -2K_{X_8} \bigr)$. This means we may deform $k$ to a morphism $\bar k$ which is either $k'$ or it has dual graph $$\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}}
!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [rr] {\bullet}
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_2$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_1$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar K_2$} \restore} }$$
Since $\bigl( -K_{X_8} \bigr) \cdot \bigl( -K_{X_7} \bigr) = 2$, there are at most two irreducible components of the space of morphisms with dual graph as above. Thanks to the previous case, we know that this space is connected.
Let $\tilde k' : \bar L \cup \bar C_3 \rightarrow X$ be a stable map birational to its image, where $\bar L$ is mapped to the $(-1)-$curve with divisor class $e_8$, $\bar C_3$ is mapped to a rational divisor in $|-K_{X_8}|$ different from the images of both $\bar C_1$ and $\bar C_2$. By the connectedness established above, the (closure of the) same connected component of $K_\beta$ containing $\bar k$ contains a morphism $\tilde k : \tilde C \rightarrow X$ with dual graph $$\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}}
!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [ur] {\bullet} [dd] {\bullet}
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<8pt,0pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_2$} \restore}
- [ul] - [ur]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<8pt,0pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_1$} \restore}
[dl]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<-2pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar E$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_3$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar L$} \restore} }$$ where $\bar E$ is contracted to the base-point of $|-K_{X_8}|$. To check that $\tilde k$ is in $K_\beta$ it is enough to check that $\tilde k$ represents a smooth point of $\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( X, k_*[\bar K] \bigr)$.
The point represented by $\tilde k : \tilde C \rightarrow X$ in $\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( X, k_*[\bar K] \bigr)$ is smooth if ${\rm H}^0 \bigl( \tilde C , {\mathcal C}_{\tilde k} \bigr) = 0$ (we are using the notation of (\[conor\])). We have a natural inclusion $${\rm H}^0 \bigl( \tilde C , {\mathcal C}_{\tilde k} \bigr) \subset
{\rm H}^0 \bigl( \tilde C , \tilde k ^* \Omega ^1 _X \otimes \omega _{\tilde C} \bigr)$$
We prove first that any global section of ${\mathcal C}_{\tilde k}$ is zero on $\bar L \cup \bar C_3$ and then that any global section of $\tilde k ^* \Omega ^1 _X \otimes \omega _{\tilde C}$ vanishing on $\bar L \cup \bar C_3$ is the zero section.
The first assertion is clear from Proposition \[graficone\]: there are no non-zero global sections of ${\mathcal C}_{\tilde k}$ on $\bar L$, and since the sheaf ${\mathcal C}_{\tilde k}$ is locally free near the node between $\bar L$ and $\bar C_3$, it follows that a global section of ${\mathcal C}_{\tilde k}$ must vanish at the node. Since the degree of the sheaf ${\mathcal C}_{\tilde k}$ on $\bar C_3$ is zero, it follows that a global section of ${\mathcal C}_{\tilde k}$ must vanish on $\bar L \cup \bar C_3$.
The second assertion is a consequence of the fact that $h^0 \bigl( \tilde C ,
\tilde k ^* \Omega ^1 _X \otimes \omega _{\tilde C} \bigr) = 1$, and that a non-zero section of the sheaf $\tilde k ^* \Omega ^1 _X \otimes \omega _{\tilde C}$ is not identically zero on $\bar C_3$.
To compute $h^0 \bigl( \tilde C ,
\tilde k ^* \Omega ^1 _X \otimes \omega _{\tilde C} \bigr)$, we use Serre duality to deduce that $$h^0 \bigl( \tilde C , \tilde k ^* \Omega ^1 _X \otimes \omega _{\tilde C} \bigr)
= h^1 \bigl( \tilde C , \tilde k ^* {\mathcal T}_X \bigr)$$ There is a short exact sequence of sheaves
$ \xymatrix { 0 \ar[r] & \tilde k ^* {\mathcal T}_X \ar[r] & k_{\bar L} ^* {\mathcal T}_X \oplus
k_{\bar E} ^* {\mathcal T}_X \oplus \bigoplus _i k_i ^* {\mathcal T}_X \ar[r] & \!\!\!\!
\mathop {\bigoplus } \limits _{
\raisebox{5pt} {\begin{tabular} {c}
\scriptsize $\nu $ a node \\[-5pt]
\scriptsize of $\tilde C$
\end{tabular} } }
^{\vphantom{{
\raisebox{-5pt} {\begin{tabular} {c}
\scriptsize $\nu $ a node \\[-5pt]
\scriptsize of $\tilde C$
\end{tabular} }}}} \!\!\!\!
{\mathcal T}_{X, \tilde k (\nu)} \ar[r] & 0 } $
Note that the restriction of $\tilde k ^* {\mathcal T}_X$ to every non contracted component is isomorphic to ${\mathcal O}_{{\mathbb P}^1} (2) \oplus {\mathcal O}_{{\mathbb P}^1} (-1)$, where the subsheaf of degree two is canonically the tangent sheaf of the component. The associated long exact sequence to the sequence above is $$0 \longrightarrow k^{h^0} \longrightarrow k^{14}
\longrightarrow k^8 \longrightarrow k^{h^1} \longrightarrow 0$$
Since the images of all the non-contracted components are pairwise transverse (all the intersection numbers are one), and since the only global sections come from the tangent vector fields, it follows that any global section must vanish at all nodes. Thus, there are two global sections coming from the each of the curves $\bar L$, $\bar C_1$ and $\bar C_2$ and only one coming from $\bar C_3$. We deduce that $h^0 = 7$ and finally $h^1 = 1$, as asserted above.
Let us go back to the sheaf $\tilde k ^* \Omega ^1_X \otimes \omega _{\tilde C}$. We just computed that this sheaf has exactly one global section. We have the following decomposition for the degrees of the restrictions of the sheaf $\tilde k ^* \Omega ^1_X \otimes \omega _{\tilde C}$ to each component: $$\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}}
!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [ur] {\bullet} [dd] {\bullet}
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,-8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle (-3,0)$} \restore}
!{\save +<8pt,2pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_2$} \restore}
- [ul] - [ur]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle (-3,0)$} \restore}
!{\save +<8pt,-2pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_1$} \restore}
[dl]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<-4pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle (1,1)$} \restore}
!{\save +<-2pt,-8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar E$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle (-2,1)$} \restore}
!{\save +<0pt,-8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_3$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle (-3,0)$} \restore}
!{\save +<0pt,-8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar L$} \restore} }$$ where the pair of numbers next to a vertex represent the degrees of $\tilde k ^* \Omega ^1_X \otimes \omega _{\tilde C}$ restricted to the component represented by the corresponding vertex. We examine the vertex of valence three in the dual graph. Necessary conditions for a section of $\tilde k ^* \Omega ^1_X \otimes \omega _{\tilde C}$ on $\bar E$ to extend to a global section are that the section “points in the right direction” at the nodes. These are clearly linear conditions and there are three such conditions. Moreover, every section satisfying the stated conditions extends uniquely to a global section: this is obvious on the components $\bar C_1$ and $\bar C_2$. For the remaining components, note that every global section must vanish at the node between $\bar L$ and $\bar C_3$, since the intersection number $\tilde k (\bar L) \cdot \tilde k (\bar C_3)$ equals one, and therefore the intersection is transverse. Thus every global section of $\tilde k ^* \Omega ^1_X \otimes \omega _{\tilde C}$ is uniquely determined by its restriction to $\bar E$. Thus the only way a section can be identically zero on $\bar C_3$ is if the sections on $\bar E$ all vanish at the node $\bar C_3 \cap \bar E$. Note that the three tangent directions of the images of $\bar C_1$, $\bar C_2$ and $\bar C_3$ at their common point $p$ are pairwise independent. Choose homogeneous coordinates $E_1, E_2$ on $\bar E$ such that $[0,1] = \bar E \cap C_1$, $[1,0] = \bar E \cap C_2$. Choose local coordinates $u,v$ on $X$ near $p$ such that the zero set of $u$ is tangent to the image of $\bar C_1$ and the zero set of $v$ is tangent to the image of $\bar C_2$. Rescaling by a non-zero constant $u$ and $v$ we may also assume that the zero set of $u+v$ is tangent to the image of $\bar C_3$. The restrictions of the global sections of $\tilde k ^* \Omega ^1_X \otimes \omega _{\tilde C}$ to $\bar E$ are multiples of the section $$\sigma := E_0 du + E_1 dv$$
In particular, if a section vanishes at one of the nodes between $\bar E$ and $\bar C_i$, then it vanishes identically. This concludes the proof that the sheaf ${\mathcal C}_{\tilde k}$ has no global sections and thus we conclude that $\tilde k$ is a smooth point of $\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( X, k_*[\bar K] \bigr)$.
We now resume our argument. It is clear that $\tilde k$ is also a limit of morphisms $\tilde k'$ with dual graph $$\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}}
!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [rr] {\bullet}
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<1pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \tilde K_2'$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_2$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_1$} \restore} }$$ which is precisely what we wanted to prove. This completes the reduction of this case to [**Case 3**]{}, and thus this case is proved.
[**Case 5: $k_*[\bar K_2] = -K_{X_7}$ and $k_*[\bar K_1] = -3K_{X_8}$.**]{} We also reduce this case to [**Case 3**]{}. As before, thanks to the irreducibility of $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X, -3K_{X_8} \bigr)$ we may deform the morphism $k$ so that $k|_{\bar K_1}$ is replaced by the birational morphism $k' : \bar C_1 \cup \bar C_2 \rightarrow X$, where $\bar C_1$ is immersed and represents $|-2K_{X_8}|$, and $\bar C_2$ is mapped to a given rational divisor in $|-K_{X_8}|$. After possibly sliding the component $\bar K_2$ along $\bar C_1$, we may suppose that the dual graph of $k'$ is the following: $$\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}}
!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [rr] {\bullet}
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<1pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar K_2'$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_2$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_1$} \restore} }$$ Similar remarks apply to $k_2$. This completes the reduction to [**Case 3**]{} and the proof in this case.
[**Case 6: $k_*[\bar K_2] = -2K_{X_8}$ and $k_*[\bar K_1] = -2K_{X_8}$.**]{} Since the intersection product $\bigl( -2K_{X_8} \bigr) ^2$ equals four, and the space $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X, -2K_{X_8} \bigr)$ is irreducible, it follows that there are at most four irreducible components of morphisms in standard form representing the divisor class $-4K_{X_8}$. Let $c : \bar C_1 \cup \bar C_2 \longrightarrow X$ be a stable map birational to its image such that $\bar C_i$ is mapped to a $(-1)-$curve $C_i$ and $C_1 + C_2 = -2K_{X_8}$. Consider the morphism $$\xymatrix @C=40pt { {\rm Sl} _k (\bar K_1) \ar[r]^{\pi \hspace{20pt}} &
\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X, -2K_{X_8} \bigr) }$$
The morphism $\pi $ is dominant. Thus we may find a morphism $k' : \bar C_1 \cup \bar C_2 \cup \bar K_2 \longrightarrow X$ such that $k' |_{\bar C_1 \cup \bar C_2} \simeq c$, lying in the same irreducible component of $K_\beta $ as $k$. We have two possibilities for the dual graph of $k'$: $$\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}}
!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [rr] {\bullet}
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<1pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar K_2$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_2$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_1$} \restore} }
\hspace{30pt}
\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}}
!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [rr] {\bullet}
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<3pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_2$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_1$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar K_2$} \restore} }$$
We want to reduce to the case in which $\bar K_2$ is adjacent to $\bar C_2$. Consider the morphism $$\xymatrix @C=40pt {
{\rm Sl} _{k'} (\bar K_2) \ar[r]^{\hspace{10pt}a} & \bar C_1 }$$ and as usual this morphism is dominant. This means that we may slide the node between $\bar K_2$ and $\bar C_1$ until it reaches the node between $\bar C_1$ and $\bar C_2$. The resulting morphism $\tilde k$ has dual graph $$\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}}
!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [ur] {\bullet} [dd] {\bullet}
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<8pt,0pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_2$} \restore}
- [ul]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<-3pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar E$} \restore}
- [ur]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<8pt,0pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_1$} \restore}
[dl] - [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \tilde K_2$} \restore} }$$ where $\bar E$ is contracted by $\tilde k$. It is easy to check that this morphism represents a smooth point of $\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( X, -4K_{X_8} \bigr)$ and that it is also a limit of morphisms $\tilde k'$ with dual graph $$\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}}
!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [rr] {\bullet}
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<1pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar K_2$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_2$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_1$} \restore} }$$
Thus we may indeed assume that $\bar K_2$ is adjacent to $\bar C_2$. Note that since $-2K_{X_8} \cdot C_1 = 2$, it follows that there are at most two connected components in the space of morphisms in standard form representing the divisor class $-4K_{X_8}$. To conclude, it is enough to show that we may “exchange” the two intersection points $C_2 \cap k'(\bar K_2)$ by a connected path contained in $K_\beta $.
Consider the morphism $\varphi : X \rightarrow {\mathbb P}^3$ induced by the linear system $|-2K_{X_8}|$. We have already seen that the image is a quadric cone $Q$ and that the morphism is ramified along a smooth curve $R$ which is the complete intersection of $Q$ with a cubic surface. The $(-1)-$curves $C_1$ and $C_2$ have as image the intersection of $Q$ with a plane which is everywhere tangent to the curve $R$ (and does not contain the vertex of the cone). Let $p$ be one of the intersection points of $\varphi (C_2)$ with $R$. Projection away from the tangent line $L$ to $R$ at $p$ determines a morphism $\pi _L : R \rightarrow {\mathbb P}^1$ of degree four. Since the genus of $R$ is four, it follows from the Hurwitz formula that the degree of the ramification divisor of $\pi _L$ is 14. It is immediate to check that $\pi _L$ ramifies above the tangent plane to $Q$ at $p$, and that the ramification index is two. It is also immediate that above the plane containing $\varphi (C_2)$ the ramification index is two. We deduce that there are planes in the pencil containing $L$ which are tangent to $R$ and are not the tangent plane to $Q$ at $p$ nor the plane containing $\varphi (C_2)$. Such planes correspond to rational divisors $H$ in $|-2K_{X_8}|$ with the property that $H \cap C_2$ consists of the unique point $\varphi ^{-1} (p)$. Let $\nu : {\mathbb P}^1 \rightarrow X$ be a birational morphism whose image is one of the divisors $H$ constructed above. The morphism $\nu$ represents a morphism in $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X, -2K_{X_8} \bigr)$, and since this space is irreducible, we may deform $\tilde k'$ to a morphism $\bar k : \bar C_1 \cup \bar C_2 \cup \bar H \longrightarrow X$ with dual graph $$\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}}
!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [rr] {\bullet}
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<1pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar H$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_2$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_1$} \restore} }$$ and such that $\bar k|_{\bar H} \simeq \nu$. The morphism $\bar k$ represents a smooth point of the space $\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( X, -4K_{X_8} \bigr)$, thanks to Proposition \[grafico\]. Thus $\bar k \in K_\beta $ and it lies in the same connected component of $K_\beta $ as $k$.
Applying the same construction to the morphism $k_2$, we obtain that also $k_2$ lies in the same connected component of $K_\beta $ as $\bar k$. This concludes the proof of this case.
[**Case 7: $k_*[\bar K_2] = -2K_{X_8}$ and $k_*[\bar K_1] = -3K_{X_8}$.**]{} Let $c : \bar C_1 \cup \bar C_2 \longrightarrow X$ be a morphism birational to its image, such that $c (\bar C_2)$ is a rational divisor in $|-K_{X_8}|$ and $c (\bar C_1)$ is a general rational divisor in $|-2K_{X_8}|$. Consider the morphism $$\xymatrix @C=40pt { {\rm Sl} _k (\bar K_1) \ar[r]^{\pi \hspace{20pt}} &
\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X, -3K_{X_8} \bigr) }$$ and note that as usual it is dominant. Therefore we may deform $k$ to a morphism $k' : \bar C_1 \cup \bar C_2 \cup \bar K_2 \longrightarrow X$ such that $k' |_{\bar C_1 \cup \bar C_2} \simeq c$.
As before, we may slide the component $\bar K_2$ along $\bar C_1$ until it reaches $\bar C_2$, and reduce to the case in which $\bar K_2$ is adjacent to $\bar C_2$. The same considerations of the final step of the previous case allow us to conclude.
This concludes the proof of the connectedness of $K_\beta $.
[**Step 7.**]{} We now simply collect all the information we obtained, to conclude the proof of the theorem. [**Step 4**]{} and [**Step 5**]{} imply (under the hypotheses of the theorem) that every irreducible component of $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X, \beta \bigr)$ is either empty or it contains a point lying in $K _\beta$. [**Step 6**]{} then implies that there is at most one component of $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X, \beta \bigr)$ containing $K_\beta $. Thus if $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X, \beta \bigr)$ is not empty, then it consists of exactly one irreducible component. This concludes the proof of the theorem. [ $\Box $ ]{}
Let $X$ be a del Pezzo surface. If $\beta $ is a nef divisor which is not a multiple of a conic, then the space $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X, \beta \bigr)$ is not empty.
[*Proof.*]{} We may write $$\beta = n_8 (-K_{X_8}) + \ldots + n_2 (-K_{X_2}) + \beta '$$ where $n_8, \ldots , n_2 \geq 0$ and $\beta '$ is a nef divisor on a del Pezzo surface $X_1$ of degree eight dominated by $X$ (if $X \simeq {\mathbb P}^2$ the assertion is obvious).
If $n_8 \geq 2$, then we define $n$ and $r$ by the conditions $n_8 = 2(n-1) + r$, where $r = 2,3$; if $n_8 = 1$, then we define $n = r = 1$; if $n_8 = 0$, then we define $n = r = 0$. Let $$\begin{array} {rcl@{~~{\text{ where }}}l}
{\rm Pic} \bigl( {\mathbb P}^1 \times {\mathbb P}^1 \bigr) & \simeq & {\mathbb Z}\ell _1 \oplus {\mathbb Z}\ell _2
& \ell _1 = \{ p \} \times {\mathbb P}^1 ~,~ \ell _2 = {\mathbb P}^1 \times \{ p \} \\[10pt]
{\rm Pic} \bigl( Bl_p ({\mathbb P}^2) \bigr) & \simeq & {\mathbb Z}\ell \oplus {\mathbb Z}e &
\ell ^2 = 1 ~,~ \ell \cdot e = 0 ~,~ e^2 = -1
\end{array}$$ and write $$\begin{array} {rcl@{~~{\text{ if }}}l}
\beta ' & = & n_1 \bigl( \ell _1 + \ell _2 \bigr) + n_0 \ell _2
& X \simeq {\mathbb P}^1 \times {\mathbb P}^1 \\[7pt]
\beta ' & = & n_1 \ell + n_0 \bigl( \ell - e \bigr) & X \simeq Bl_p ({\mathbb P}^2)
\end{array}$$ where $n_1 \geq 0$, $n_0 \geq 0$ (we may need to exchange $\ell _1$, $\ell _2$). Note that with this notation the divisor $\beta $ is multiple of a conic if and only if $n_8 = n_7 = \ldots = n_1 = 0$. Choose
- $n-1$ distinct rational integral nodal divisors $C_2^8, \ldots , C_n^8$ in $|-2K_{X_8}|$;
- a rational integral nodal divisor $C_1^8$ (different from the previous ones if $r=2$) in $|-rK_{X_8}|$;
- $n_i$ distinct rational integral nodal divisors $C_1^i, \ldots , C_{n_i}^i$ in $|-K_{X_i}|$;
- $n_1$ distinct integral divisors $C_1 , \ldots , C_{n_1}$ lying in $|\ell _1 + \ell _2|$, if $X_1 \simeq {\mathbb P}^1 \times {\mathbb P}^1$ and lying in $|\ell |$, if $X_1 \simeq Bl_p ({\mathbb P}^2)$;
- an integral divisor $C'$ in $|\ell _2|$ or $|\ell - e|$.
Having made these choices, we may now consider the stable map of genus zero $f : \bar C \rightarrow X$, with dual graph $$\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}}
!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [rr]
{\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [rr]
{\bullet} [rr]
{\bullet} [rr] {\bullet}
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C'$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_{n_1}^1$} \restore}
- [l] {\cdots} - [l]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_{n_7}^7$} \restore}
- [l] {\cdots} - [l]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_1^7$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_n^8$} \restore}
- [l] {\cdots} - [l]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_2^8$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_1^8$} \restore} }$$ where of course we ignore a component if the corresponding curve without a bar has not been defined. The morphism $f$ on a component $\bar D$ is the normalization of the curve $D$ followed by inclusion in $X$, if $D \neq C'$, and it is a multiple cover of degree $n_0$, if $D = C'$.
All the restrictions of $f$ to the irreducible components of $\bar C$ different from $\bar C_1^8$ are free morphisms; the cohomology group ${\rm H}^1 \bigl( \bar C_1^8 , f^* {\mathcal T}_X \bigr)$ is immediately seen to be zero. Thus we may deform $f$ to a morphism lying in ${\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( X, \beta \bigr)$. If the general deformation of $f$ were a morphism not birational to its image, then $f_*[\bar C]$ would not be reduced. Since this is not the case, it follows that we may deform $f$ to a morphism with irreducible domain, which is birational to its image. This proves that ${\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X, \beta \bigr) \neq \emptyset $, if $\beta $ is not a multiple of a conic. This concludes the proof of the proposition. [ $\Box $ ]{}
[*Remark 1*]{}. The spaces ${\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( X, m C \bigr)$, where $C$ is the class of a conic, are easily seen to be irreducible, for $m \geq 1$. If $m = 1$, we have $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X, C \bigr) \simeq {\mathbb P}^1$. If $m \geq 1$, then there is a morphism ${\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( X, m C \bigr) \longrightarrow {\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( X, C \bigr)$, obtained by “forgetting the multiple cover.” The fibers of this morphism are birational to Hurwitz schemes, which are irreducible ([@FuHu]). The irreducibility of ${\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( X, m C \bigr)$ follows.
[*Remark 2*]{}. If $L$ is an integral divisor of anticanonical degree one, then either $L$ is a $(-1)-$curve, or it is the anticanonical divisor on a del Pezzo surface of degree one.
If $L$ is a $(-1)-$curve, the space $\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( X, L \bigr)$ has dimension zero and length one; it therefore consists of a single reduced point and is irreducible.
If $L = -K_X$, the three spaces $\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( X, -K_X \bigr)$, ${\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( X, -K_X \bigr)$ and $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X, -K_X \bigr)$ are all equal and have dimension zero and length twelve. They are not irreducible. For a general del Pezzo surface of degree one, the space $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X, -K_X \bigr)$ is reduced and consists of exactly twelve points. This happens precisely when the rational divisors in $|-K_X|$ are all nodal.
Divisors of Small Degree on $X_8$
=================================
The Divisor $-K_{X_8} - K_{X_7}$
--------------------------------
Here we prove the irreducibility of the spaces $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X , \beta ) \bigr)$, where the degree of $X$ is one, $\beta $ is ample and the anticanonical degree of $\beta $ is three. We already saw (Theorem \[maschera\]) that the space $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X , -3K_X \bigr)$ is irreducible. The following proofs are similar to the proof of Theorem \[maschera\].
\[coccode\] Let $X$ be a del Pezzo surface of degree one. Suppose that all the rational divisors in $|-K_X|$ are nodal and that $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X,-2K_X \bigr)$ is irreducible. Let $L \subset X$ be a $(-1)-$curve and let $b : X \rightarrow X'$ be the contraction of $L$. Then the space $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X,-K_X -K_{X'} \bigr)$ is irreducible.
[*Proof.*]{} Let $f : {\mathbb P}^1 \rightarrow X$ be a morphism in $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X,-K_X -K_{X'} \bigr)$ and suppose that the image of $f$ contains the independent point $p$. Consider the space of morphisms of $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X,-K_X -K_{X'} \bigr)$ in the same irreducible component as $[f]$ which contain the point $p$ in their image, denote this space by $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} (p)$. It follows immediately from the dimension estimates (\[dimdibarbi\]) that $\dim _{[f]} \overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} (p) = 1$ and that $[f]$ is a smooth point of $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} (p)$. We may therefore find a smooth irreducible projective curve $B$, a normal surface $\pi : S \rightarrow B$ and a morphism $F : S \rightarrow X$ such that the induced morphism $B \rightarrow \overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} (p)$ is surjective onto the component containing $[f]$. From [@Ko] Corollary II.3.5.4, it follows immediately that the morphism $F$ is dominant. We want to show that there are reducible fibers of $\pi$. The argument is the same that appears at the beginning of the proof of Theorem \[maschera\].
Thus there must be a morphism $f_0 : \bar C \rightarrow X$ with reducible domain in the family of stable maps parametrized by $B$, and since all such morphisms contain the general point $p$ in their image, the same is true of the morphism $f_0$. In particular, since the point $p$ does not lie on any rational curve of anticanonical degree one, it follows that $\bar C$ consists of exactly two components $\bar C_1$ and $\bar C_2$, where each $\bar C_i$ is irreducible and we may assume that $f_0 (\bar C_1)$ has anticanonical degree one and $f_0 (\bar C_2)$ has anticanonical degree two. Denote by $C_i$ the image of $\bar C_i$. It also follows from the definition of an independent point and Proposition \[grafico\] that $f_0$ represents a smooth point of $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X , -K_X -K_{X'} \bigr)$.
There are two possibilities for $C_1$: either it is a $(-1)-$curve or it is a rational divisor in the anticanonical system. We want to prove that we may assume that $C_1$ is not a $(-1)-$curve.
Suppose $C_1$ is a $(-1)-$curve. The morphism $f_0 |_{\bar C_2}$ is a free morphism, because the image contains a general point and has anticanonical degree two. Moreover the image $C_2$, being a curve of anticanonical degree two, is one of the following: a conic, the anticanonical divisor on a del Pezzo surface of degree two dominated by $X$ or a divisor in $|-2K_X|$. In all these cases we know that the space $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X , (f_0)_* [\bar C_2] \bigr)$ is irreducible. Thus we may deform $f_0|_{\bar C_2}$ to a curve with two irreducible components, both mapped to $(-1)-$curves. Considering the space ${\rm Sl}_{f_0} (\bar C_2)$ we conclude that we may deform $f_0$ to a morphism $f_1 : \bar L_1 \cup \bar L_2 \cup \bar L_3 \rightarrow X$ where each component $\bar L_i$ is mapped to a different $(-1)-$curve $L_i$ on $X$.
We deduce that we have $L_1 + L_2 + L_3 = -2K_X + L$ and $L_1$, $L_2$ and $L_3$ are distinct $(-1)-$curves. Thanks to Lemma \[tremendi\] we conclude that there is a standard basis $\{ \ell , e_1 , \ldots , e_8 \}$ of ${\rm Pic} (X)$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{noduno}
\left\{ \begin{array} {rcl}
L_1 & = & -2K_X - e_1 \\[5pt]
L_2 & = & e _8 \\[5pt]
L_3 & = & e_1
\end{array}
\right. &
{\text{ ~,~ }} &
\left\{ \begin{array} {rcl}
L_1 & = & -2K_X - (\ell - e_7 - e_8 ) \\[5pt]
L_2 & = & \ell - e_7 - e _8 \\[5pt]
L_3 & = & e_8
\end{array}
\right. \end{aligned}$$ or $$\begin{aligned}
\label{nodini}
&\left\{ \begin{array} {rcl}
L_1 & = & -2K_X - (\ell - e_7 - e_8) \\[5pt]
L_2 & = & e_1 \\[5pt]
L_3 & = & \ell - e_1 - e_7
\end{array} \right. \end{aligned}$$ after possibly permuting the indices 1, 2 and 3.
The next step in the deformation is to produce a component mapped to the divisor class $-2K_X$.
In the first case of (\[noduno\]), the component $\bar L_1$ is adjacent to both $\bar L_2$ and $\bar L_3$, since $L_2 \cdot L_3 = 0$. We may therefore consider ${\rm Sl}_{f_1} (\bar L_1 \cup \bar L_3)$ to smooth $\bar L_1 \cup \bar L_3$ to a single component $\bar K$ mapped to $-2K_X$.
In the second case of (\[noduno\]), either $\bar L_1$ and $\bar L_2$ are adjacent and it is enough to smooth their union to conclude, or $\bar L_2$ is adjacent to $\bar L_3$ and not to $\bar L_1$. If this happens, then we may smooth the union $\bar L_2 \cup \bar L_3$ to a single irreducible component $\bar Q$, mapped to the conic $\ell - e_7$. Denote the resulting morphism by $f_1'$. We may consider the dominant morphism $$a: {\rm Sl} _{f_1'} (\bar Q) \longrightarrow \bar L_1$$ and let $\bar e \in \bar L_1$ be a point mapped to a point lying on the $(-1)-$curve with divisor class $L_2 = \ell - e_7 - e_8$. Since $a$ is dominant, we may find a morphism $f_1''$ such that $a(f_1'') = \bar e$. By construction, the dual graph of the morphism $f_1''$ is $$\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}}
!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [rr] {\bullet}
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar L_3$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar L_2$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar L_1$} \restore} }$$ and we may now smooth $\bar L_1 \cup \bar L_2$ to conclude.
In the case of (\[nodini\]), we first prove that we may assume that $\bar L_2$ and $\bar L_3$ are adjacent. If $\bar L_2$ and $\bar L_3$ are not adjacent, then $\bar L_1$ is adjacent to both $\bar L_2$ and $\bar L_3$ and we may consider ${\rm Sl}_{f_1} (\bar L_1 \cup \bar L_2)$ to smooth $\bar L_1 \cup \bar L_2$ to a single irreducible component $\bar K$ mapped to a curve with divisor class $K:= \bigl( 5 \,;\, 1 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 1 , 1 \bigr)$. Note that the divisor class of $K$ is the divisor class of the anticanonical divisor on a del Pezzo surface of degree two dominated by $X$. Thus we know that the space $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X,K \bigr)$ is irreducible and it contains a point whose image consists of the union of the two $(-1)-$curves with divisor classes $L_1' := \bigl( 5 \,;\, 1 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 1 , 2 \bigr)$ and $L_2' := \bigl( 0 \,;\, 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 ,-1 \bigr)$. Considering ${\rm Sl}_{f_1} (\bar L_1 \cup \bar L_2)$ we may therefore deform $f_1$ to a morphism $f_2 : \bar L_1' \cup \bar L_2' \cup \bar L_3 \rightarrow X$ such that the image of $\bar L_i'$ is the $(-1)-$curve $L_i'$. Thus we have
$$\left\{ \begin{array} {r@{\,=\,}l}
L_1' & \bigl( 5 \,;\, 1 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 1 , 2 \bigr) \\[5pt]
L_2' & \bigl( 0 \,;\, 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 ,-1 \bigr) \\[5pt]
L_3 & \bigl( 1 \,;\, 1 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 1 , 0 \bigr)
\end{array} \right.
\hspace{3.5pt} \stackrel {T_{127}} {-\!\!\!-\!\!\!-\!\!\!\longrightarrow }
\hspace{4.3pt}
\left\{ \begin{array} {r@{\,=\,}l}
L_1' & \bigl( 6 \,;\, 2 , 3 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 \bigr) \\[5pt]
L_2' & \bigl( 0 \,;\, 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 ,-1 \bigr) \\[5pt]
L_3 & \bigl( 0 \,;\, 0 ,-1 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 \bigr)
\end{array} \right.$$ which is (up to a permutation) the first case of (\[nodini\]).
We still need to examine the case in which $\bar L_2$ and $\bar L_3$ are adjacent and are given by the second set of equalities in (\[nodini\]). Smoothing the union $\bar L_2 \cup \bar L_3$ to a single irreducible component $\bar Q$ we obtain a morphism $f_2$ with dual graph $$\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}}
!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [rr] {\bullet}
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar Q$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar L_1$} \restore} }$$ and $$\left\{ \begin{array} {rcl}
(f_2)_* \bar L_1 & = & \bigl( 5 \,;\, 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 1 , 1 \bigr) \\[5pt]
(f_2)_* \bar Q & = & \bigl( 1 \,;\, 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 1 , 0 \bigr)
\end{array} \right.$$
Let $\bar p \in \bar L_1$ be a point such that $f_2(\bar p) \in M$, where $M \subset X$ is the $(-1)-$curve with divisor class $\ell - e_7 - e_8$. Considering the morphism $$\xymatrix @C=40pt { {\rm Sl} _{f_2} (\bar Q)
\ar[r]^{\hspace{10pt} a} & \bar L_1 }$$ we deduce that we may slide $\bar Q$ along $\bar L_1$ until the node between these two components reaches the point $\bar p$. When this happens, the image of the limiting position of the image of $\bar Q$ contains a point of $M$. Since the intersection product $(f_2)_* [\bar Q] \cdot M$ equals zero, it follows that the image of the limiting position of $\bar Q$ must contain $M$. Thus the limit of the morphism $f_2$ under this deformation is a morphism $f_3$ whose dual graph is one of the graphs $$\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}}
!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [rr] {\bullet}
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar E_8$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar M$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar L_1$} \restore} }
\hspace{30pt}
\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}}
!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [ur] {\bullet} [dd] {\bullet}
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<8pt,0pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar E_8$} \restore}
- [ul]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar E$} \restore}
- [ur]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar M$} \restore}
[dl] - [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar L_1$} \restore} }$$ where $\bar E_8$ is mapped to the divisor class $e_8$, and the component $\bar E$ is contracted by $f_3$. The second case happens if the $(-1)-$curve with divisor class $e_8$ contains the point $f_2(\bar p)$. In both cases the point represented by $f_3$ lies in a unique irreducible component of $\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( X, -K_X -K_{X'} \bigr)$: in the first case thanks to Proposition \[grafico\]; in the second case thanks to Lemma \[pizzica\] and the fact that the intersection number $(f_2)_* [\bar L_1] \cdot E_8$ is one.
We may therefore deform $\bar L_1 \cup \bar E \cup \bar M$ to a unique irreducible component $\bar K$ mapped to the divisor $K$ with class $\bigl( 6 \,;\, 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 \bigr) = -2K_X$.
Thus in all cases we found a morphism in the same irreducible component of $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X, -K_X -K_{X'} \bigr)$ as $f$ whose image contains a nodal integral divisor in $|-2K_X|$. Let $E \subset \overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( X, -K_X -K_{X'} \bigr)$ be the subspace consisting of those morphisms containing a component mapped birationally to an irreducible divisor in $-2K_X$. We are going to prove that the space $E$ is connected and contained in the smooth locus of $\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( X, -K_X -K_{X'} \bigr)$. This concludes the proof of the irreducibility of $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X, -K_X -K_{X'} \bigr)$.
Any morphism $[f: \bar K \cup \bar E_8 \rightarrow X] \in E$ is determined by its image together with one of the points $f(\bar K \cap \bar E_8) \in K \cap E_8$. Since $-2K_X \cdot E_8 = 2$, it follows that $E$ has at most two irreducible components.
Suppose $E$ has two irreducible components. Consider the morphism $\varphi : X \rightarrow {\mathbb P}^3$ induced by the linear system $|-2K_X|$. We have already seen that the image is a quadric cone $Q$ and that the morphism is ramified along a smooth curve $R$ which is the complete intersection of $Q$ with a cubic surface. The $(-1)-$curve $E_8$ has as image the intersection of $Q$ with a plane which is everywhere tangent to the curve $R$ (and does not contain the vertex of the cone). Let $e$ be one of the intersection points of $\varphi (E_8)$ with $R$. Projection away from the tangent line $L$ to $R$ at $e$ determines a morphism $\pi _L : R \rightarrow {\mathbb P}^1$ of degree four. Since the genus of $R$ is four, it follows from the Hurwitz formula that the degree of the ramification divisor of $\pi _L$ is 14. It is immediate to check that $\pi _L$ ramifies above the tangent plane to $Q$ at $e$, and that the ramification index is two. It is also immediate that above the plane containing $\varphi (E_8)$ the ramification index is two. We deduce that there are planes in the pencil containing $L$ which are tangent to $R$ and are not the tangent plane to $Q$ at $e$ nor the plane containing $\varphi (E_8)$. Such planes correspond to rational divisors $H$ in $|-2K_X|$ with the property that $H \cap E_8$ consists of the unique point $\varphi ^{-1} (e)$. Let $\nu : \bar H \rightarrow X$ be a birational morphism whose image is one of the divisors $H$ constructed above. The morphism $\nu$ represents a morphism in $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X, -2K_X \bigr)$, and since this space is irreducible by assumption, we may deform $f$ to a morphism $\bar f : \bar H \cup \bar E_8 \longrightarrow X$, such that $\bar f|_{\bar H} \simeq \nu$. Thus $\bar f \in E$ and it clearly lies in the intersection of the two irreducible components of $E$. The space $E$ is therefore connected.
Applying Proposition \[grafico\] we immediately see that all the points of $E$ are smooth in $\overline {\mathcal M}_{0,0} \bigl( X, -K_X -K_{X'} \bigr)$, and thus we conclude that the space $\overline {\mathcal M}_{bir} \bigl( X, -K_X -K_{X'} \bigr)$ is irreducible. [ $\Box $ ]{}
The Divisor $-K_{X_8} + Q$
--------------------------
We prove now a similar result for the Divisor $-K_{X_8} + Q$.
\[chicchirichi\] Let $X$ be a del Pezzo surface of degree one and suppose that all the rational divisors in $|-K_X|$ are nodal. Let $Q$ be the divisor class of a conic, then the space $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X, -K_X + Q \bigr)$ is irreducible.
[*Proof.*]{} Let $f: {\mathbb P}^1 \rightarrow X$ be a free morphism birational to its image, such that $f_*[{\mathbb P}^1] = -K_X + Q$. As before, we may assume that the image of $f$ contains a general point $p$. Since there is a one parameter family of deformations of $f$ whose image contains the general point $p$, we may deform $f$ to a morphism $f' : \bar C_1 \cup \bar C_2 \longrightarrow X$ such that $- K_X \cdot f'_*[\bar C_i] = i$. Since $p$ is general and contained in the image of $f'$ and there are no rational cuspidal divisors in $|-K_X|$, it follows that the point represented by $f'$ in $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X, -K_X + Q \bigr)$ is smooth.
Our next step is to show that we may assume that $f'_*[\bar C_1] = -K_X$. Suppose that $f'_*[\bar C_1]$ is a $(-1)-$curve $L \subset X$. We may choose a standard basis $\{ \ell , e_1 , \ldots , e_8 \}$ such that $Q = \ell - e_1$ and thus $-K_X + Q = \bigl( 4 \,;\, 2,1,1,1,1,1,1,1 \bigr)$. By examining [@Ma] Table IV.8, we see that the only possible ways of writing $-K_X + Q$ as a sum of a $(-1)-$curve $C_1$ and a nef divisor class $C_2$ are (up to permutation of the coordinates 2, …, 8): $$\label{ancoratre}
-K_X + Q =
\left\{ \begin{array} {rcl}
\bigl( 3 \,;\, 2,1,1,1,1,1,1,0 \bigr) &+& \bigl( 1 \,;\, 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 \bigr) \\[5pt]
\bigl( 2 \,;\, 1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 \bigr) &+& \bigl( 2 \,;\, 1,0,0,0,0,1,1,1 \bigr) \\[10pt]
\bigl( 1 \,;\, 0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1 \bigr) &+& \bigl( 3 \,;\, 2,1,1,1,1,1,0,0 \bigr) \\[5pt]
\bigl( 0 \,;\,-1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 \bigr) &+& \bigl( 4 \,;\, 3,1,1,1,1,1,1,1 \bigr) \\[10pt]
\bigl( 1 \,;\, 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 \bigr) &+& \bigl( 3 \,;\, 1,0,1,1,1,1,1,1 \bigr) \\[5pt]
\bigl( 0 \,;\,0,0,-1,0,0,0,0,0 \bigr) &+& \bigl( 4 \,;\, 2,1,2,1,1,1,1,1 \bigr) \\[10pt]
\end{array} \right.$$
The automorphisms of ${\rm Pic} (X)$ of the form $T_{1jk}$ preserve the conic $Q$, for all $1 < j < k \leq 8$. We use these automorphisms to reduce the number of cases. We have $$\begin{aligned}
T_{167} \Bigl(
\bigl( 3 \,;\, 2,1,1,1,1,1,1,0 \bigr) +
\bigl( 1 \,;\, 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 \bigr) \Bigr) & = \\
= \bigl( 2 \,;\, 1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 \bigr) +
\bigl( 2 \,;\, 1,0,0,0,0,1,1,1 \bigr) \\[10pt]
T_{178} \Bigl(
\bigl( 1 \,;\, 0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1 \bigr) +
\bigl( 3 \,;\, 2,1,1,1,1,1,0,0 \bigr) \Bigr) & = \\
= \bigl( 0 \,;\,-1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 \bigr) +
\bigl( 4 \,;\, 3,1,1,1,1,1,1,1 \bigr) \\[10pt]
T_{123} \Bigl(
\bigl( 1 \,;\, 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 \bigr) +
\bigl( 3 \,;\, 1,0,1,1,1,1,1,1 \bigr) \Bigr) & = \\
= \bigl( 0 \,;\,0,0,-1,0,0,0,0,0 \bigr) +
\bigl( 4 \,;\, 2,1,2,1,1,1,1,1 \bigr) \end{aligned}$$
We therefore only need to consider the first, third and fifth case in list (\[ancoratre\]). We reduce the first and third case to the fifth one.
If $\bar C_1$ is mapped to the divisor class $\bigl( 3 \,;\, 2,1,1,1,1,1,1,0 \bigr)$, then we consider the morphism $$\xymatrix @C=40pt { {\rm Sl} _{f'} (\bar C_2)
\ar[r]^{\hspace{10pt}a} & \bar C_1 }$$ Since $f'|_{\bar C_2}$ is a free morphism, $a$ is dominant. Let $\bar p \in \bar C_1$ be a point such that $p := f'(\bar p)$ lies on the $(-1)-$curve with divisor class $e_1$. Let $g : \bar C_1 \cup \bar E_1 \cup \bar C_2' \longrightarrow X$ be a morphism such that $a(g) = \bar p$. By construction, the dual graph of $g$ is $$\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}}
!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [rr] {\bullet}
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_2'$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar E_1$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_1$} \restore} }$$ where $\bar E_1$ is mapped to the divisor class $e_1$ and $\bar C_2'$ to the divisor class $\ell - e_1 - e_8$. We now smooth the union $\bar C_1 \cup \bar E_1$ to a single irreducible component. Thus, after a permutation of the indices, we reduced to the fifth case in (\[ancoratre\]).
If $\bar C_1$ is mapped to the divisor class $e_1$, then we proceed similarly: break $\bar C_2$ into a component mapping to the divisor class $\bigl( 3 \,;\, 2,1,1,1,1,1,1,0 \bigr)$ adjacent to $\bar C_1$, and a component mapped to the divisor class $\ell - e_1 - e_8$. Smoothing the union of the component $\bar C_1$ with the component mapped to $\bigl( 3 \,;\, 2,1,1,1,1,1,1,0 \bigr)$ reduces us to the fifth case in (\[ancoratre\]).
Suppose therefore that the component $\bar C_1$ is mapped to $\ell - e_1 - e_2$ and the component $\bar C_2$ is mapped to $3 \ell - e_1 - e_3 - \ldots - e_8$. As above, we may deform the morphism $f'$ to a morphism $g$ so that the component $\bar C_2$ breaks into a component $\bar E_2$ adjacent to $\bar C_1$ and mapped to $e_2$, and into a component $\bar C_2'$ mapped to the divisor class $-K_X$. Smoothing the union $\bar E_2 \cup \bar C_2'$ to a single irreducible component, we obtain a morphism $g' : \bar C_1 \cup \bar Q \longrightarrow X$, where $\bar C_1$ is mapped to $-K_X$ and $\bar Q$ is mapped to $Q$. Note that we have at the moment no control over which rational divisor in the linear system $|-K_X|$ the component $\bar C_1$ is mapped to. Remember that with our choice of standard basis we have $Q = \ell - e_1$. We may write $Q = \bigl( \ell - e_1 - e_8 \bigr) + e_8$, and since $-K_X \cdot e_8 = 1$, there is a unique point $\bar c$ of $\bar C_1$ whose image $c \in X$ lies in $E_8$, the $(-1)-$curve on $X$ with divisor class $e_8$. Considering the dominant morphism $$\xymatrix @C=40pt { {\rm Sl} _{g'} (\bar Q)
\ar[r]^{\hspace{10pt}a} & \bar C_1 }$$ we may find a morphism $h : \bar C_1 \cup \bar E_8 \cup \bar Q'
\longrightarrow X$ such that $a(h) = \bar c$. The dual graph of $h$ is $$\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}}
!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:}
{\bullet} [rr] {\bullet} [rr] {\bullet}
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar Q'$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar E_8$} \restore}
- [ll]
*\cir<2pt>{}
!{\save +<0pt,8pt>*\txt{$\scriptstyle \bar C_1$} \restore} }$$
Smoothing the components $\bar C_1 \cup \bar E_8$ to a single irreducible component $\bar K'$ we obtain a morphism $h' : \bar K' \cup \bar Q' \longrightarrow X$ such that $Q' := h'_*[\bar Q'] = \ell - e_1 - e_8$ and $h'_*[\bar K'] = -K_X + e_8 = -K_{X'}$, where $X'$ is the del Pezzo surface obtained from $X$ by contracting the $(-1)-$curve $E_8$.
Let $H \subset \overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X, -K_X + Q \bigr)$ be the space of morphisms whose image contains $E_8$ and an integral rational divisor in $|-K_{X'}|$. We have a dominant morphism $$\pi : H \longrightarrow \overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X, -K_{X'} \bigr)$$ whose fibers have length two, since $-K_{X'} \cdot Q' = 2$. It follows that $H$ has at most two irreducible components. Note that the fibers of $\pi $ over the general point of $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X, -K_{X'} \bigr)$ are smooth points of $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X, -K_X + Q \bigr)$. It follows that the space $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X, -K_X + Q \bigr)$ itself has at most two irreducible components, and is irreducible if $H$ is. We prove that if $H$ is reducible, then we can find a smooth point of $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X, -K_X + Q \bigr)$ lying in the intersection of the two components of $H$. This is enough to imply that $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X, -K_X + Q \bigr)$ is irreducible.
Suppose thus that $H$ as two irreducible components. Let $\varphi : X \rightarrow {\mathbb P}^2$ be the morphism induced by the linear system $-K_{X'}$. The morphism $\varphi $ is the contraction of $E_8$ to $X'$ followed by the anticanonical double cover of ${\mathbb P}^2$ ramified above a smooth plane quartic $R$. The image of $Q'$ in ${\mathbb P}^2$ is a conic $\tilde Q$ containing the image of $E_8$ and everywhere tangent to $R$. The image of $K'$ is a tangent line to $R$. To conclude it is enough to find a line in ${\mathbb P}^2$ which is tangent to both $R$ and $\tilde Q$ at a point not on $R$. The dual curve of $R$ is a plane curve of degree twelve and the dual curve of $\tilde Q$ is a plane conic. Thus they meet along a scheme of length 24 and they are tangent at the points corresponding to the points where $R$ and $\tilde Q$ are tangent. Since there are four such points, it follows that we may find a line which is tangent to $R$ and $\tilde Q$ at distinct points. Such a line corresponds to a point in the intersection of the two components of $H$. Using Proposition \[grafico\] it is easy to check that this point is smooth in $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X, -K_X + Q \bigr)$. This completes the proof of the lemma. [ $\Box $ ]{}
Conclusion
==========
The Irreducibility of $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X_\delta , \beta \bigr)$
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are now ready to prove the main theorems of this article.
\[nonuno\] Let $X_\delta $ be a del Pezzo surface of degree $9-\delta \geq 2$. The spaces $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X_\delta , \beta \bigr)$ are irreducible or empty for every divisor $\beta \in {\rm Pic} (X_\delta )$.
[*Proof.*]{} Suppose $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X_\delta , \beta \bigr)$ is not empty. Then $\beta $ is represented by an effective integral curve on $X_\delta $.
If $\beta $ is not nef, then it follows that $\beta ^2 < 0$. We deduce that $\beta $ is a positive multiple $d$ of a $(-1)-$curve. If $d = 1$, then $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X_\delta , \beta \bigr)$ consists of a single point. If $d > 1$, then the space $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X_\delta , \beta \bigr)$ is empty. In this case, the space $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{0,0} \bigl( X_\delta , \beta \bigr)$ is irreducible, since it is dominated by the space of triples of homogeneous polynomials of degree $d$ in two variables.
Suppose now that $\beta $ is a nef divisor. Thanks to Theorem \[passo\], we simply need to check that on a del Pezzo surface of degree at least two, the spaces $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X_\delta , \beta \bigr)$ are irreducible for all effective integral divisor classes $\beta $ such that $-K_{X_\delta } \cdot \beta $ equals two or three. The divisors of degree two on $X_\delta $ are the conics and, if $\delta = 7$, the divisor $-K_{X_7}$. If $\beta $ is a conic, then $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X_\delta , \beta \bigr)$ is isomorphic to ${\mathbb P}^1$. If $\beta = -K_{X_7}$, then $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X_7 , -K_{X_7} \bigr)$ is isomorphic to a smooth plane quartic curve, Proposition \[cadute\].
The nef divisors of degree three on $X_\delta $ are $-K_{X_6}$ and $\ell $, where $X_6$ is a del Pezzo surface of degree three dominated by $X_\delta $ and $\ell $ is part of a standard basis $\{ \ell , e_1 , \ldots , e_\delta \}$. The first case is treated in Proposition \[cane\], the second case is treated in Theorem \[barbapapa\]. This concludes the proof of the theorem. [ $\Box $ ]{}
\[nonplusuno\] Let $X_8$ be a general del Pezzo surface of degree one. The spaces $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X_8 , \beta \bigr)$ are irreducible or empty for every divisor $\beta \in {\rm Pic} (X_\delta )$, with the unique exception of $\beta = -K_{X_8}$. The space $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X_8 , -K_{X_8} \bigr)$ is a reduced scheme of length twelve.
[*Proof.*]{} Proceeding as before, we only need to prove the irreducibility of $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X_8 , \beta \bigr)$ for the nef divisors of anticanonical degree two or three. The nef divisor classes on $X_8$ which are not ample, are the pull-back of nef divisor classes from del Pezzo surfaces of larger degree. Thus we only need to consider ample divisor classes of anticanonical degree two or three.
The only ample divisor of degree two is $-2K_{X_8}$ and the mapping space $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X_8 , -2K_{X_8} \bigr)$ is irreducible thanks to Theorem \[cabala\].
The ample divisor classes of degree three on $X_8$ are $-3K_{X_8}$, $-K_{X_8} - K_{X_7}$ and $-K_{X_8} + Q$, where $X_7$ is a del Pezzo surface of degree two dominated by $X_8$ and $Q$ is the divisor class of a conic. The space $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X_8 , -3K_{X_8} \bigr)$ is irreducible thanks to Theorem \[maschera\]. The space $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X_8 , -K_{X_8} - K_{X_7} \bigr)$ is irreducible thanks to Lemma \[coccode\]. The space $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X_8 , -K_{X_8} + Q \bigr)$ is irreducible thanks to Lemma \[chicchirichi\]. This concludes the proof of the theorem. [ $\Box $ ]{}
[*Remark*]{}. The genericity assumption on $X_8$ in the statement of the Theorem \[nonuno\] can be made more explicit. Our argument requires the surface $X_8$ to have only nodal rational divisors in $|-K_{X_8}|$ and the space $\overline { {\mathcal M}} _{bir} \bigl( X_8 , -2K_{X_8} \bigr)$ to be irreducible. This last condition in turn is certainly satisfied (cf. Theorem \[cabala\] and its proof) if the ramification curve $R \subset {\mathbb P}^3$ of the morphism $\varphi : X_8 \rightarrow {\mathbb P}^3$ induced by $-2K_{X_8}$ does not admit planes $P \subset {\mathbb P}^3$ transverse to the image of $\varphi$ and intersecting $R$ along a divisor of the form $3 \bigl( (p) + (q) \bigr)$.
As a corollary of the above Theorems, we deduce the irreducibility of the Severi varieties of rational curves on the del Pezzo surfaces. Let $\beta $ be a divisor class in ${\rm Pic} (X_\delta )$ and let $V_{0,\beta } \subset |\beta |$ be the closure of the set of points corresponding to integral rational divisors. We call $V_{0,\beta }$ the Severi variety of rational curves on $X$ with divisor class $\beta $.
Let $X_\delta $ be a del Pezzo surface of degree $9-\delta \geq 2$. The Severi varieties $V_{0,\beta }$ of rational curves on $X_\delta $ are either empty of irreducible for every divisor $\beta \in {\rm Pic} (X_\delta )$. [ $\Box $ ]{}
Let $X_8$ be a general del Pezzo surface of degree one. The Severi varieties $V_{0,\beta }$ of rational curves on $X_8$ are either empty or irreducible for every divisor $\beta \in {\rm Pic} (X_8)$, with the unique exception of $\beta = -K_{X_8}$. [ $\Box $ ]{}
[99]{} F. R. Cossec, I. V. Dolgachev, [*Enriques surfaces I*]{}, Birkhäuser (1989). O. DeBarre, [*Higher-dimensional algebraic geometry*]{}, Universitext, Springer (2001). W. Fulton, [*Hurwitz schemes and irreducibility of moduli of algebraic curves*]{}, Ann. of Math. 90 (1969) 542-575. W. Fulton, [*Intersection Theory*]{}, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York (1984). W. Fulton, R. Pandharipande, [*Notes on stable maps and quantum cohomology*]{}, Algebraic geometry, Santa Cruz 1995, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1997, 45-96. A. Grothendieck, [*Élément de géometrie algébrique IV*]{}, Publ. Math. I.H.E.S. Vol. 20 (1964). J. Harris, [*On the Severi problem*]{}, Invent. math 84, 445-461 (1986). R. Hartshorne, [*Algebraic Geometry*]{}, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York (1977). B. Kim, R. Pandharipande, [*The connectedness of the moduli space of maps to homogeneous spaces*]{}, math.AG/0003168. J. Kollár, [*Rational curves on algebraic varieties*]{}, Springer-Verlag, 1996. R. Lazarsfeld, [*Positivity In Algebraic Geometry I: Classical Setting: Line Bundles And Linear Series*]{}, Springer-Verlag, 2004. Iu. I. Manin, [*Cubic Forms, 2nd ed.*]{}, North-Holland Math. Library, vol. 4, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1986. F. Severi, [*Vorlesungen über Algebraische Geometrie, Anhang F*]{}, Leipzig, Teubner 1921.
|
---
abstract: 'The main result of this paper is to extend from $\Q$ to each of the nine imaginary quadratic fields of class number one a result of Serre (1987) and Mestre-Oesterlé (1989), namely that if $E$ is an elliptic curve of prime conductor then either $E$ or a $2$-, $3$- or $5$-isogenous curve has prime discriminant. For four of the nine fields, the theorem holds with no change, while for the remaining five fields the discriminant of a curve with prime conductor is (up to isogeny) either prime or the square of a prime. The proof is conditional in two ways: first that the curves are modular, so are associated to suitable Bianchi newforms; and second that a certain level-lowering conjecture holds for Bianchi newforms. We also classify all elliptic curves of prime power conductor and non-trivial torsion over each of the nine fields: in the case of $2$-torsion, we find that such curves either have CM or with a small finite number of exceptions arise from a family analogous to the Setzer-Neumann family over $\Q$.'
address:
- 'Warwick Mathematics Institute, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK'
- 'FaMAF-CIEM, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. C.P:5000, Córdoba, Argentina.'
author:
- John Cremona
- John Cremona and Ariel Pacetti
title: On elliptic curves of prime power conductor over imaginary quadratic fields with class number one
---
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
The theory of elliptic curves plays a crucial role in modern number theory. An important advance came with the systematic construction of tables, as done by the first author for elliptic curves defined over $\Q$ ([@CremonaAlgo]). The original purpose of the present article was to prove analogues over imaginary quadratic fields of class number one to well-known bounds relating the conductor and discriminant of an elliptic curve over $\Q$ with prime power conductor. A useful application of such a result is an effective algorithm to construct tables of elliptic curves of prime power conductor, via solving Thue equations. While succeeding in carrying out our original aim, we also found several examples of phenomena for curves over imaginary quadratic fields that do not occur over $\Q$, and were able to classify all elliptic curves with prime power conductor and nontrivial torsion over the fields in question, extending the results of Miyawaki [@Miyawaki] for elliptic curves over $\Q$ and Shumbusho [@Shumbusho] over imaginary quadratic fields.
Over $\Q$, there are only finitely many elliptic curves with complex multiplication (CM curves) of prime power conductor $p^r$. The reason is, first, that there are finitely many imaginary quadratic orders ${{\mathcal{O}}}$ of class number $1$, and second, that if $p$ divides the discriminant of ${{\mathcal{O}}}$, then all curves $E$ with endomorphism ring isomorphic to ${{\mathcal{O}}}$ have additive reduction at $p$, and the field where $E$ attains good reduction is not abelian. In particular, any other rational curve isomorphic to $E$ (that is, a twist of $E$) will also have bad reduction at $p$, so the prime power discriminant condition gives at most one curve per order.
Over an imaginary quadratic field $K$, this finiteness statement no longer holds true. If $E/K$ has CM by ${{\mathcal{O}}}_K$, the ring of integers of $K$, and $p$ ramifies in $K$, the curve attains good reduction over an abelian extension of the completion $K_p$. In particular, some twist of $E$ (quadratic, quartic or sextic, depending on the number of roots of unity in $K$) attains good reduction at $p$. However the required local extension does not come from a global one, so we do not get a curve over $K$ of conductor $1$ (which do not exist), but an infinite family, all twists of each other, of CM curves of prime square conductor; moreover in each case the density of primes of $K$ whose squares arise in this way is in each case $1/\#{{\mathcal{O}}}_K^*$. In Section \[section CM\], we explain this phenomenon, and describe precisely all elliptic curves of prime power conductor and complex multiplication.
Another notable new phenomenon that occurs over imaginary quadratic fields, is the existence of elliptic curves of prime conductor whose residual Galois representations modulo $p$ are irreducible but not absolutely irreducible. When $p$ is odd, this phenomenon does not occur for elliptic curves over $\Q$: the reason is the existence of complex conjugation in the absolute Galois group, whose image under the mod-$p$ representation is similar to $\left(\begin{smallmatrix}1 & 0\\ 0 & -1 \end{smallmatrix}
\right)$. Over an imaginary quadratic field, or any number field which is totally complex (i.e. has no real embedding), the absolute Galois group has no such complex conjugation elements and this argument does not apply.
At the prime $2$ the situation is more exciting! Over $\Q$, if $E$ is a semistable elliptic curve whose discriminant is a square, then its residual image is reducible. There are two different ways to prove such an assertion: one comes from the study of finite flat group schemes over $\operatorname{Spec}(\Z)$. The hypotheses ($E$ being semistable and the discriminant being a square) imply by a theorem of Mazur (see Theorem \[thm:Mazur\] below) that $E[2]$ is a finite flat group scheme of type $(2,2)$. As explained in [@Mestre], there are only $4$ such group schemes, and only two of them satisfy that the determinant of the group scheme is isomorphic to the group scheme $\mu_2$; they both have an invariant subspace. A different approach comes from the study of the mod-$2$ Galois representation itself: if it is irreducible, then by Ribet’s level-lowering result, there would exist a modular form of level $1$ and weight $2$, while if the image were irreducible but not absolutely irreducible (i.e. it is the cyclic subgroup of order $3$ in $\operatorname{GL}_2(\F_2)$), then there would exist a cubic extension of $\Q$ unramified outside $2$; but such an extension does not exist.
Over an imaginary quadratic field $K$ of class number one, in four cases such an extension does not exist either, so the same result holds (for modular elliptic curves, assuming an analogous level-lowering conjecture). However for $K=\Q(\sqrt{-d})$ for $d\in\{11,19,43,67,163\}$ where $2$ is inert in $K$, there is no reason for such Galois representation not to exist. In particular, they supply new examples of irreducible finite flat group schemes of type $(2,2)$ over $\operatorname{Spec}({{\mathcal{O}}}_K)$ (the irreducibility comes from the fact that irreducible $2$-groups are only the additive and the multiplicative ones as proved in [@Oort-Tate Corollary page 21], which give rational $2$-torsion). One simple example of this phenomenon comes from the elliptic curves over $\Q$ of conductor $11$, which have minimal discriminant either $-11$ or $-11^5$; after base-change to $K=\Q(\sqrt{-11})$ the conductor is still prime but the minimal discriminants are all now square. For an example which is not a base-change, the curve [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.11.1/47.1/a/1)]{} (using its LMFDB label, see [@lmfdb]): $$E:\quad y^2+y=x^3+\alpha x^2-x$$ where $\alpha=(1+\sqrt{-11})/2$, has prime conductor $\p=(\pi)$ of norm $47$, with $\pi=7-2\alpha$, and discriminant $\pi^2$, and is alone in its isogeny class. This phenomenon is studied in detail in Section \[section:evenexponents\] below. We suspect that there are infinitely many examples like this over each of these five fields.
Another interesting problem that arose is that of classifying elliptic curves (up to $2$-isogenies and twists) with a rational $2$-torsion point. The prime $2$ is always hard to handle, and we develop tools (including a result characterizing such curves, see Theorem \[thm:classification2torsion\]) that allow us to give a complete description of them. The ideas developed here could be adapted to more general situations, but the fact that $K$ has finitely many units appears to play an important role.
The main results of the article are Theorem \[thm:mainthm\] and Corollary \[coro:Szpiro\], which establish Szpiro’s conjecture for “modular” prime power conductor elliptic curves over $K$, assuming a form of level-lowering result (Conjecture \[conj:loweringlevel\]). The general strategy of the proof is as follows: let $E/K$ be a modular elliptic curve (see Conjecture \[conj:modularity\]) of prime power conductor. If $E$ has potentially good reduction, there is a well-known bound for its minimal discriminant ${{\mathcal{D}}}(E)$, so we can focus on the semistable case. If $\ell$ is a rational prime dividing the valuation of ${{\mathcal{D}}}(E)$, by a theorem of Mazur, $E[\ell]$ is a finite flat group scheme. If the residual Galois representation is absolutely irreducible, then the level-lowering conjecture implies the existence of a Bianchi modular form modulo $\ell$ of level $1$ and weight $2$ whose Galois representation matches that of $E$. Since for $\ell$ odd, there are no such forms over the fields in question, we get a contradiction. We want to emphasise that the level-lowering result might be hard to prove for small primes (which divide the order of elliptic points). For this reason, we include an unconditional proof (not relying on modularity) for $\ell=2$ and $3$ in Theorem \[thm:mainthm\] for the nine fields considered.
Assume otherwise that the residual image is absolutely reducible, i.e. it is either reducible over $\F_{\ell}$, or irreducible but reducible over $\F_{\ell^2}$. For the first possibility, we prove that either such curves do not exist, or otherwise there is an isogenous curve whose discriminant valuation is prime to $\ell$ (the case $\ell=2$ being hardest). When $\ell$ is odd, the second case is eliminated by a detailed study of the residual Galois representation. Lastly, for $\ell=2$ we prove that the discriminant valuation is at most $2$, where (for certain of the fields $K$ only) the exceptional curves with square discriminant arise as described above.
The article is organized as follows. The first section contains a brief description of Bianchi modular forms and modularity of elliptic curves. It also contains the conjectural level-lowering statement in the spirit of Ribet’s result, which we expect to hold in the setting of Bianchi modular forms. An important difference in our statement comes from the fact that we do not expect forms of minimal level to always lift to characteristic zero: this is why the statement of Conjecture \[conj:loweringlevel\] is in terms of group cohomology over $\F_{\ell}$.
The second section contains the main theorem, and its proof when the image is absolutely irreducible. The third section studies elliptic curves over $K$ with complex multiplication. The main results includes a complete classification of all CM curves of odd prime power discriminant. The case of small image at an odd prime is treated in the fourth section, where elliptic curves over $K$ of odd prime power conductor with a rational point of odd order $\ell$ are considered. In Theorem \[thm:3-torsionspecialcase\] we prove that if $\ell=3$ and $K=\Q(\sqrt{-3})$, then any such curve either has discriminant valuation not divisible by $3$, or its $3$-isogenous curve satisfies this property. For all other choices of $\ell$ and $K$, we give a finite list of possible curves: see Table \[table:oddtorsioncurves\].
The fifth section studies curves of odd conductor over $K$ with a rational $2$-torsion point. An important result is Theorem \[thm:classification2torsion\], where a description of all such curves (up to twist) is given. This result is very general, and can be applied to different situations. Using this characterization, we describe all curves of prime power conductor $\id{p}^r$ with a rational $2$-torsion point, according to the following possible cases: either a twist of the curve has good reduction at $\id{p}$, or all twists have additive reduction at $\id{p}$, or the curve has a twist of multiplicative reduction. We prove that in the first case all curves have CM and come in families, described explicitly in Theorem \[thm:goodtwist\], using the results from Section \[section CM\]. For the additive ones, we prove in Theorem \[thm:additivetwist\] that there are only some sporadic cases (also all CM), and for multiplicative ones, we prove that there are potentially (and probably) infinitely many, almost all belonging to a family analogous to the so-called *Setzer-Neumann* family (as in [@Setzer]) for curves defined over $\Q$. As in the classical case, all such curves have rank $0$.
The important consequence of this detailed case by case study for our main result is that if $E$ is an elliptic curve defined over $K$ of odd prime conductor with a rational $2$-torsion point, then either $E$ or a $2$-isogenous curve has odd discriminant valuation.
Finally, in the last section, we study the case of curves whose Galois image modulo $2$ is cyclic of order $3$, giving curves of prime conductor but prime square discriminant, as explained above.
Notation and terminology. {#notation-and-terminology. .unnumbered}
-------------------------
$K$ will denote an imaginary quadratic field $\Q(\sqrt{-d})$ of class number $1$, with ring of integers ${{\mathcal{O}}}_K$. As is well known, there are $9$ such fields, with $d\in\{1,2,3,7,11,19,43,67,163\}$. Many of the results of Section \[section 2 torsion\] also apply to the case $K=\Q$.
We say that an ideal or element of ${{\mathcal{O}}}_K$ is *odd* if it is coprime to $2$. Let $e_2$ be the ramification degree of $2$ in $K/\Q$, so that $e_2=1$ except for $K=\Q(\sqrt{-1})$ and $K=\Q(\sqrt{-2})$. Note also that $2$ splits only in $K=\Q(\sqrt{-7})$. The primes dividing $2$ play a crucial role in Section \[section 2 torsion\], where we will denote by $\q$ a prime dividing $2$, and by $\p$ any prime ideal (which might divide $2$ or not). The valuation at $\p$ is denoted $\vp()$. We denote by $\varepsilon$ a generator of the finite unit group ${{\mathcal{O}}}_K^*$ so that $\varepsilon=-1$ except for $K=\Q(\sqrt{-1})$ and $K=\Q(\sqrt{-3})$ when $\varepsilon=\sqrt{-1}$, or $\varepsilon$ is a $6$th root of unity, respectively.
All curves explicitly mentioned will be labeled with their LMFDB label, see [@lmfdb].
It is well-known that given an elliptic curve $E/K$, if the class number of $K$ equals $1$ then $E$ has a global minimal model. Such model might not be unique, hence there is in general no notion of a *minimal discriminant*. However, over an imaginary quadratic field, all units are annihilated by $12$, and hence the value of the minimal discriminant ${{\mathcal{D}}}(E)$ is well-defined.
**Acknowledgments:** we would like to thank Nicolas Vescovo for participating in some discussions of the present article, to Luis Dieulefait, for explaining to us some technicalities used in the proof of Theorem \[thm:Kraus\], to Angelos Koutsianas for his computations used in the proof of Theorem \[thm:mainthm\], and to Samir Siksek and Haluk [Ş]{}engün for many useful conversations. The second author would like to thank the University of Warwick for its hospitality during his visit as a Leverhulme Visiting Professor. Last but not least, we would like to thank the anonymous referee for many useful comments and corrections.
Bianchi modular forms and modularity of elliptic curves
=======================================================
For background on Bianchi modular forms and modularity of elliptic curves defined over imaginary quadratic fields, we refer to the survey article of [Ş]{}engün [@Sengun] and the work of the first author ([@CremonaTessellations], [@CremonaTwist], [@Cremona-Whitley]). For our purposes we may restrict our attention to the space $S_2(\id{n})$ of Bianchi modular forms which are cuspidal and of weight $2$ for the congruence subgroup $\Gamma_0(\id{n})\leq\operatorname{GL}_2({{\mathcal{O}}}_K)$, where the level $\id{n}\subseteq{{\mathcal{O}}}_K$ is an integral ideal of $K$. This space is a finite-dimensional vector space equipped with a Hecke action. Its newforms subspace is spanned by eigenforms which are simultaneous eigenvectors for the algebra of Hecke operators. Bianchi modular forms can also be seen within the context of cohomological automorphic forms, since we have the isomorphism $S_2(\id{n})\cong H^1(Y_0(\id{n}),\C)$, where $Y_0(\id{n})$ is the quotient of hyperbolic $3$-space $\mathcal{H}_3$ by $\Gamma_0(\id{n})$. A more concrete description of these Bianchi modular forms is as real analytic functions $\mathcal{H}_3\to\C^3$ satisfying certain conditions. In the work of the second author and his students ([@CremonaTessellations], [@Cremona-Whitley]) explicit methods were developed to compute the spaces $S_2(\id{n})$ over $K$ for each of the nine imaginary quadratic fields $K$ of class number $1$. Recall that the orders of the isotropy groups of points of $Y_0(1)$ are only divisible by the primes $2$ and $3$, hence for $\ell \ge 5$ the cohomology $H^1(Y_0(1),\F_\ell)$ matches the group cohomology $H^1(\operatorname{PGL}_2({{\mathcal{O}}}_K),\F_\ell) = H^1(\operatorname{PGL}_2({{\mathcal{O}}}_K),\Z)\otimes \F_\ell$ (see for example [@Ash-Stevens Section 1.4]). Then the previous computations, together with results of [@Haluk-expmath], establish the following result:
For each of the nine imaginary quadratic fields of class number $1$, the space $S_2(1)$ of weight $2$ cuspidal Bianchi modular forms of level $1$ is trivial. Moreover for all primes $\ell\ge 5$ the space $H^1(Y_0({1}),\F_{\ell})$ is also trivial. \[thm:noleveloneforms\]
It is known that these Bianchi modular forms have associated $\ell$-adic Galois representations $\rho_{F,\ell}$. These were first constructed by Taylor *et al.* in [@TaylorI], [@TaylorII] with subsequent results by Berger and Harcos in [@Berger]. Below we only need to refer to the residual mod-$\ell$ representations $\overline{\rho_{F,\ell}}$.
For an elliptic curve $E$ defined over an imaginary quadratic field $K$, we say that $E$ is modular if $L(E,s)=L(F,s)$ for some $F\in S_2(\id{n})$ over $K$, where $\id{n}$ is the conductor of $E$. The following conjecture, a version of which was first made by Mennicke, is part of Conjecture 9.1 of [@Sengun], following [@CremonaTwist]:
Let $E$ be an elliptic curve defined over an imaginary quadratic field $K$ of class number $1$ that does not have complex multiplication by an order in $K$. Then $E$ is modular. \[conj:modularity\]
Some cases of the conjecture have been proved (see [@DGP]), and under some mild hypothesis it can be shown that any such curve is potentially modular (see [@Calegari-Geraghty Theorem 1.1]). Curves with complex multiplication correspond to Hecke characters and belong to non-cuspidal modular forms. These will be considered in Section \[section CM\].
Following the classical result of Ribet ([@Ribetlowering]), we make the following conjecture.
Let $F$ be a weight $2$ Bianchi newform of level $\Gamma_0(\id{n}\id{p})$, with $\id{p}$ a prime number. Suppose that $\ell\ge 5$ is a prime for which the representation $\rho_{F,\ell}$ satisfies:
1. The residual representation is absolutely irreducible.
2. The residual representation is finite at $\id{p}$.
Then there is an automorphic form $G \in H^1(Y_0(\id{n}),\F_{\ell})$ whose Galois representation is isomorphic to $\overline{\rho_{F,\ell}}$. \[conj:loweringlevel\]
Some results in the direction of the conjecture are proven in [@Calegari]. Note that the conjecture refers to an element in the mod $\ell$ cohomology. In contrast to modular forms for $\operatorname{SL}_2(\ZZ)$, for Bianchi modular forms the homology (and the cohomology) of $Y_0(\id{n})$ contains a big torsion part. By results of Scholze ([@Scholze]) the torsion forms do have Galois representations attached, but these are residual representations that in general do not admit a lift of level $\id{n}$ to characteristic zero, so the form in Conjecture \[conj:loweringlevel\] is not expected to be global.
Modular elliptic curves of prime power conductor
================================================
Recall the following result due to Serre and Mestre-Oesterlé (see [@Mestre]).
Let $E/\Q$ be a modular elliptic curve of prime conductor $p$. If $p >37$ then ${{\mathcal{D}}}(E) = \pm p$ up to $2$-isogenies (i.e., either ${{\mathcal{D}}}(E) = \pm p$, or there exists a curve $2$-isogenous to $E$ over $\Q$ with discriminant $\pm p$). \[thm:MO\]
A key ingredient in the proof is the following result of Mazur.
Let $K$ be a number field, let $E/K$ be a semistable elliptic curve with discriminant ${{\mathcal{D}}}(E)$, and let $\ell$ be a prime number. Then $E[\ell]$ is a finite flat group scheme if and only if $\ell \mid v_{\id{q}}({{\mathcal{D}}}(E))$ for all primes $\id{q}$ in ${{\mathcal{O}}}_K$, i.e. if the ideal $({{\mathcal{D}}}(E))$ is an $\ell$-th power. \[thm:Mazur\]
See [@Mazur2 Proposition 9.1].
If $E/K$ is an elliptic curve of prime conductor $\id{p}$, and $\ell$ is a prime dividing the valuation $v_{\id{p}}({{\mathcal{D}}}(E))$ of ${{\mathcal{D}}}(E)$, then $E[\ell]$ is a finite flat group scheme over $\operatorname{Spec}({{\mathcal{O}}}_K)$ by Mazur’s theorem. To apply a level-lowering result such as Conjecture \[conj:loweringlevel\], one also needs a *big image* hypothesis, i.e. that the residual representation at $\ell$ is absolutely irreducible. While working over the rationals, either the residual image is reducible, in which case the curve has a $\Q$-point (which does not happen for $\ell>7$) or it is absolutely irreducible. The reducible case for small primes can be discarded by a result of Fontaine ([@Fontaine Theorem B]).
One of the main results of this article is a generalization of Theorem \[thm:MO\] to $K$.
Let $K$ be an imaginary quadratic field of class number $1$. Let $E/K$ be a modular elliptic curve of prime conductor. Assume Conjecture \[conj:loweringlevel\] holds. Then there exists a curve isogenous to $E$ over $K$ with prime or prime square discriminant. \[thm:mainthm\]
Let $\id{p}$ be the conductor of $E$. For the case $\id{p}\mid 2$, A. Koutsianas used the methods of [@Angelos] to compute for us all elliptic curves with conductor a power of $\id{p}$, and found that over each of the nine fields there are none with conductor $\id{p}$. This is consistent with the tables of automorphic forms of [@CremonaTessellations] and [@Cremona-Whitley].
From now on we may assume that $\id{p} \nmid 2$. Suppose that ${{\mathcal{D}}}(E)$ is not prime, and let $\ell$ be a prime number dividing $v_{\id{p}}({{\mathcal{D}}}(E))$. Recall that by semistability and Mazur’s result, the Galois module $E[\ell]$ is unramified away from $\ell$, and also that its determinant is the $\ell$th cyclotomic character. We claim that the hypotheses of the theorem imply that for every prime number $\ell$ dividing $v_{\id{p}}({{\mathcal{D}}}(E))$, the module *$E[\ell]$ is not absolutely irreducible*.
Assume the claim. For odd $\ell$, Theorem \[thm:Kraus\] below implies that either $E$, or an $\ell$-isogenous curve, has a rational torsion point of order $\ell$. In Section \[smallimage\] all curves of odd prime conductor with an $\ell$-torsion point are computed (see Table \[table:oddtorsioncurves\]) with the exception of curves with a rational $3$-torsion point over $\Q(\sqrt{-3})$. It is easy to verify from Table \[table:oddtorsioncurves\] that all curves of prime conductor listed there have (up to an $\ell$-isogeny) discriminant with valuation prime to $\ell$. Finally, Theorem \[thm:3-torsionspecialcase\] proves that any curve with a rational $3$-torsion point over $\Q(\sqrt{-3})$ either has discriminant valuation prime to $3$, or a $3$-isogenous curve does. Hence, up to isogeny, the claim (for all odd $\ell$) implies that $v_{\id{p}}({{\mathcal{D}}}(E))$ has no odd prime factors.
Suppose that $v_{\id{p}}({{\mathcal{D}}}(E))$ is even. The hypothesis implies that ${{\mathcal{D}}}(E)=\varepsilon\pi^2$ for some $\varepsilon\in{{\mathcal{O}}}_K^*$ and $\pi\in{{\mathcal{O}}}_K$. If $E[2]$ is absolutely irreducible, then ${{\mathcal{D}}}(E)$ is not a square, and the extension $K(\sqrt{\varepsilon})/K$ has degree $2$ and is unramified away from $2$. However, using explicit class field theory (as implemented in [@PARI2]), we may check that none of the nine fields $K$ has an extension $L/K$ with Galois group $\operatorname{GL}_2(\F_2)\cong S_3$ which is unramified away from $2$ and has quadratic subfield $K(\sqrt{\varepsilon})$. Hence $E[2]$ is not absolutely irreducible, establishing the claim for $\ell=2$. Now either $E[2]$ is reducible, in which case Corollary \[coro:2torsion-odddiscriminant\] shows that up to $2$-isogeny $v_{\id{p}}({{\mathcal{D}}}(E))=1$; or $E[2]$ is irreducible (but not absolutely irreducible) in which case Theorem \[thm:absred2\] implies that $v_{\id{p}}({{\mathcal{D}}}(E))=2$.
It remains to prove the claim for odd primes $\ell$ which divide $v_{\id{p}}({{\mathcal{D}}}(E))$. We consider first the case $\ell=3$, where as with $\ell=2$ an elementary argument establishes the claim unconditionally. If $K\ne\Q(\sqrt{-3})$, then every unit in $K$ is a cube, so the hypothesis that $3\mid v_{\id{p}}({{\mathcal{D}}}(E))$ implies that ${{\mathcal{D}}}(E)$ is a cube in $K$. In case $K=\Q(\sqrt{-3})$ we can only say that $\Delta(E)$ is a unit times a cube, and we may have $K(\sqrt[3]{{{\mathcal{D}}}(E)})=\Q(\zeta_9)$. In general, $K(\sqrt[3]{{{\mathcal{D}}}(E)})$ is the subfield of $K(E[3])$ cut out by the Sylow $2$-subgroup, which has index $3$ and order $16$, in $\operatorname{GL}_2(\F_3)$; this subgroup is the normaliser of the non-split Cartan subgroup. Hence the field $K(E[3])$ is obtained by a succession of quadratic extensions of $K(\sqrt[3]{{{\mathcal{D}}}(E)})$ each unramified away from $3$. Neither $\Q(\sqrt{-3})$ nor $\Q(\zeta_9)$ possesses any such quadratic extension, so for $K=\Q(\sqrt{-3})$ the image of the mod-$3$ representation is either trivial (when $\Delta$ is a cube) or of order $3$, in which case it is conjugate to $\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 1 & *\\ 0 & 1\end{smallmatrix} \right)$.
For the other fields, the residual image is contained in the normaliser of the non-split Cartan subgroup, of order $16$. If $E[3]$ were absolutely irreducible then the residual image could not be contained in the non-split Cartan subgroup itself, since that is absolutely reducible; hence there would be a (non-trivial) quadratic character unramified outside $3$ whose kernel has residual image equal to the non-split Cartan subgroup. However, for each of the eight fields $K$ in question, the only quadratic extension ramified only above $3$ is $K(\zeta_3)$, which cuts out a *different* index $2$ subgroup of the non-split Cartan normaliser, since the non-split Cartan contains matrices of determinant $-1$. (Here we are using the fact that the determinant of the representation is the cyclotomic character.) This contradiction shows that $E[3]$ is not absolutely irreducible.
Finally, we prove the claim when $v_{\id{p}}({{\mathcal{D}}}(E))$ is divisible by a prime $\ell\ge5$. By Theorem \[thm:Mazur\], $E[\ell]$ is a finite flat group scheme. If the residual representation of $E$ at the prime $\ell$ is absolutely irreducible, the modularity assumption on $E$ gives the hypothesis of Conjecture \[conj:loweringlevel\], so there must exist a mod $\ell$ Bianchi modular form of level $1$ whose Galois representation matches the residual representation of $E$ modulo $\ell$; this contradicts Theorem \[thm:noleveloneforms\].
As a corollary, we have the following version of Szpiro’s conjecture.
Let $K$ be an imaginary quadratic field of class number $1$. Assume that Conjecture \[conj:loweringlevel\] holds. Let $E/K$ be a modular elliptic curve of prime power conductor. Then $\operatorname{{\mathcal N}}({{\mathcal{D}}}_{\min}(E)) \le \operatorname{{\mathcal N}}(\operatorname{cond}(E))^{6}$, except for the curve [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/11/a/2)]{} over $\Q(\sqrt{-11})$, whose conductor has valuation $1$ while its discriminant has valuation $10$. \[coro:Szpiro\]
If $E$ has potentially good reduction, then the result is well-known, see for example [@Silverman2 p. 365, Table 4.1]. Otherwise, either $E$ is semistable or is a quadratic twist of a semistable curve. Recall that there are no curves of prime conductor dividing $2$, so we can restrict to odd conductor. It is enough to consider the semistable case, since if $E$ has prime conductor $\id{p}$ and satisfies $\operatorname{{\mathcal N}}({{\mathcal{D}}}_{\min}(E)) \le \normid{p}^{6}$, the twisted curve $E'$ satisfies $\operatorname{{\mathcal N}}({{\mathcal{D}}}_{\min}(E'))=\operatorname{{\mathcal N}}({{\mathcal{D}}}_{\min}(E)) \cdot \normid{p}^6$ and $\operatorname{cond}(E')=\id{p}^2$.
By Theorem \[thm:mainthm\] the result holds for some curve in the isogeny class. Furthermore, when the isogeny class of a semistable curve has at most $2$ elements, Theorem \[thm:absred2\] and Corollary \[coro:2torsion-odddiscriminant\] prove that the discriminant valuation is at most $2$.
When there is a $3$-isogeny, the isogenous curve has discriminant valuation $3$ or $6$ (depending on whether or not the conductor is ramified in $K$), and there is a unique semistable case with a $5$-isogeny (see Theorem \[thm:5-torsion\]), which is precisely the curve [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/11/a/2)]{}.
We end this section with a result used in the proof of Theorem \[thm:mainthm\] above.
Let $K$ be an imaginary quadratic field of class number $1$ and $E/K$ be a semistable elliptic curve. Let $\ell \ge 3$ be a prime number such that the residual representation of $E$ at $\ell$ is not absolutely irreducible. Then either $E$, or a curve $\ell$-isogenous to $E$ over $K$, has a point of order $\ell$ defined over $K$. \[thm:Kraus\]
The residual representation associated to $E$ takes values in $\operatorname{GL}(2,\F_\ell)$, and may be either reducible (over $\F_{\ell}$), irreducible but absolutely reducible (i.e., reducible over $\F_{\ell^2}$) or absolutely irreducible. The hypothesis in the theorem excludes only the absolutely irreducible case. Over $\Q$, or any number field with at least one real place, the second case cannot occur, due to the action of complex conjugation: any invariant line over $\F_{\ell^2}$ must be defined over $\F_{\ell}$. In our situation, we need to consider both the reducible and the absolutely reducible cases separately.
$\bullet$ [**Reducible case:**]{} without loss of generality, the residual representation is of the form $$\label{eq:reducibledecomposition}
\overline{\rho_{E,\ell}} \simeq \left(\begin{smallmatrix} \theta_1 & *\\ 0
& \theta_2\end{smallmatrix} \right),$$ for $\theta_i$ characters of $\operatorname{Gal}(\overline{K}/K)$ such that $\theta_1 \theta_2 = {\chi_{\ell}}$ (the cyclotomic character). Since $E$ is semistable, the conductors of the characters $\theta_i$ are supported in $\ell$ (see [@Kraus Lemme 1]). Also since $K$ has class number $1$, the only unramified character is the trivial character. Hence we must show that at least one of the characters is unramified, since $\theta_1$ trivial implies that $E$ has a point of order $\ell$ while if $\theta_2$ is trivial then the isogenous curve has such a point. If $\ell$ is unramified in $K$, then the result follows from the proof of [@Kraus Corollaire 1] (pages 249-250), as we now explain.
If $\ell$ is inert in $K$ then only one of the $\theta_i$ can be ramified at $\ell$ (see [@Kraus Lemme 1]), hence the statement. Then we can restrict to the case when both characters are ramified at a prime dividing $\ell$.
If $\ell = \id{l}_1 \id{l_2}$ splits, we can assume that $\theta_i$ has conductor $\id{l}_i$ since by [@Kraus Lemme 1] they cannot both be ramified at the same prime. Then on one hand the restriction of $\theta_i$ to the inertia group at $\id{l}_i$ is the cyclotomic character, so $\theta_i(-1)=-1$, and on the other hand it is a character of $({{\mathcal{O}}}_K/\id{l}_i)^\times$ which is trivial in ${{\mathcal{O}}}_K^\times$ (as it factors through the Artin map), so $\theta_i(-1)=1$. This is impossible since $\ell\not=2$.
Lastly, suppose that $\ell$ ramifies in $K$, so $\ell \equiv 3 \pmod
4$ and $K=\Q(\sqrt{-\ell})$. In particular, the restriction of the cyclotomic character to $\operatorname{Gal}(\overline{K}/K)$ has (odd) order $(\ell-1)/2$. Let $\id{l}$ denote the prime of $K$ dividing $\ell$ and $I_{\id{l}}$ the associated inertia subgroup. Then the $\theta_i$ are both characters of level $1$ at $\id{l}$ (since characters of level $2$ have irreducible image), $\theta_1 \theta_2
= \chi_{\ell}$ and $E$ has good supersingular reduction at $\ell$. In the notation of [@Serre2], let $a_\ell$ denote the $\ell$-th coefficient in the series for multiplication by $\ell$ in the formal group of $\tilde{E}$, the reduced curve over ${{\mathcal{O}}}_K/\id{l}\cong\F_{\ell}$. By [@Serre2 Proposition 10, page 272], if $v_\ell(a_\ell) > 1$, then $\theta_i|_{I_{\id{l}}}$ for $i=1,2$ would both be squares of fundamental characters of level $2$, whose image is not in $\FF_{\ell}$; hence the valuation is $1$, and the same proposition implies that $\theta_i|_{I_{\id{l}}}$ equals the fundamental character of level $1$ for $i=1,2$, and $*$ is unramified at $\ell$. So $\theta_1/\theta_2$ is unramified, hence trivial, and so $\theta_1 = \theta_2$ and $\theta_1^2=\chi_{\ell}$.
The order of $\theta_1$ equals $\ell -1$ and it factors through a cyclic degree $(\ell-1)$ extension of $K$ unramified outside $\ell$, containing $\zeta_{\ell}$ (the $\ell$-th roots of unity). This implies in particular the existence of a quadratic extension of $K$ unramified outside $\ell$. It can be easily verified (using [@PARI2] for example) that there are no such quadratic extensions, hence this case cannot occur.
$\bullet$ [**Irreducible but absolutely reducible case**]{}. In this case, there is a character of $K$ of order ${\ell^2-1}$ or $\frac{\ell^2-1}{2}$ unramified outside $\ell$ (by the same argument as before). This implies the existence of a quadratic extension of $K$ unramified outside $\ell$ which, as we saw in the previous case, does not exist.
Curves with complex multiplication {#section CM}
==================================
Let $K$ denote one of the nine imaginary quadratic fields with class number one. Let $E/K$ be an elliptic curve with complex multiplication by an order ${{\mathcal{O}}}$ in $K$. Since $K$ has class number one, the $j$-invariant $j(E)$ is rational, in fact in $\Z$, so $E$ is a twist of the base extension of an elliptic curve defined over $\Q$.
For each field $K$, we fix one such curve $E$, choosing it to have bad reduction only at the unique ramified prime $\id{p}$ of $K$, and to have endomorphism ring isomorphic to the maximal order ${{\mathcal{O}}}_K$. Every other elliptic curve with CM by an order in $K$ is then isogenous to a twist of this base curve $E$. For $d=1,2,3,7,11,19,43,67,163$ respectively we take the base curve to be the base-change to $K$ of the elliptic curve over $\Q$ with LMFDB label [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/64/a/4)]{}, [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/256/d/1)]{}, [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/27/a/4)]{}, [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/49/a/4)]{}, [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/121/b/2)]{}, [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/361/a/2)]{}, [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/1849/b/2)]{}, [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/4489/b/2)]{}, [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/26569/a/2)]{}, respectively. Our goal in this section is to determine which twists of these base curves $E$ have odd prime power conductor, recalling that for $d=1$ and $d=3$ respectively, we must consider quartic and sextic twists, not only quadratic twists.
For $d>3$ the base curve listed is uniquely determined (up to isomorphism over $K$) by the condition that it has CM by ${{\mathcal{O}}}_K$ and bad reduction only at the ramified prime $\id{p}=(\sqrt{-d})$. However for $d=1,2,3$ there are several choices. In the results of this section, we consider elliptic curves with prime power conductor as explicit twists of the base curve, so it is important to fix this choice.
The automorphic form attached to $E/K$ consists of the sum of two conjugate Hecke Grossencharacters $\{\chi,\bar{\chi}\}$ of infinity types $(1,0)$ and $(0,1)$, and conductor $\id{n}$ which is a power of $\id{p}$. In particular, $\operatorname{cond}(E) = \id{n}^2$. Note that the Grossencharacters take values in $K^\times$. The character $\chi$ is unramified outside $\id{p}$, so has conductor a power of $\id{p}$, and the local character $\chi_{\id{p}}$ restricted to ${{\mathcal{O}}}_{\id{p}}^\times$ is a finite character taking values in the roots of unity of $K$. In particular, it is quadratic except for $d=-1,
-3$.
$K=\Q(\sqrt{-d})$ with $d \neq 1, 3$
------------------------------------
The character $\chi$ is quadratic, and unramified outside the prime $\id{p}=(\sqrt{-d})$, the unique ramified prime of $K$. If we twist $E$ by a quadratic character whose ramification at $\id{p}$ matches that of $\chi$, we get a curve with good reduction at $\id{p}$. Note that there is no global quadratic Grossencharacter unramified outside $\id{p}$ which locally matches $\chi_{\id{p}}$, as the Archimedean part of all such characters is trivial. In particular, although we can move the ramification by twisting, there is no twist with everywhere good reduction.
Rational $2$-torsion is preserved under twisting, so the quadratic twists of $E$ have rational $2$-torsion if and only if $E$ does. The fields $K$ for which the curves $E$ have a $K$-rational two torsion point are $K=\Q(\sqrt{-d})$ for $d=2, 7$. \[rem:2-torsionCM\]
Let $K=\Q(\sqrt{-d})$, with $d \neq 1,3$, and let $E/K$ be the base elliptic curve with CM by ${{\mathcal{O}}}_K$ defined above. Then all elliptic curves with complex multiplication over $K$ of odd prime power conductor are isogenous to $E$ or to the quadratic twist of $E$ by $\pi\sqrt{-d}$, where $\pi$ is a prime such that $\pi \equiv
u^2\sqrt{-d} \pmod 4$ for $d\not=2$, respectively $\pi \equiv
u^2(1+\sqrt{-d}) \pmod 4$ for $d=2$, with $u$ odd. In particular, for $d=7$, the condition reads $\pi \equiv \sqrt{-7} \pmod 4$, for $d=2$ the condition reads $\pi \equiv \pm1 + \sqrt{-2} \pmod 4$ and for $d\ge11$, the condition reads $\pi \equiv w^{2k}\sqrt{-d}\pmod
4$, for $0\le k\le2$, where $w =\frac{1+\sqrt{-d}}{2}$. \[theorem:CMnorootsofunity\]
Before giving the proof, we need an auxiliary result.
Let $K$ be a $2$-adic field, and $\alpha \in {{\mathcal{O}}}_K$ be a $2$-adic integer which is a unit and is not a square. Then the extension $K(\sqrt{\alpha})$ is unramified if and only if there exist a unit $u \in {{\mathcal{O}}}_K$ such that $u^2 \equiv \alpha \pmod 4$. \[lemma:ramificationat2\]
Let $L=K(\sqrt{\alpha})$ be the quadratic extension. The ring ${{\mathcal{O}}}_K[\sqrt{\alpha}] \subset {{\mathcal{O}}}_L$ has discriminant $4\alpha$ over ${{\mathcal{O}}}_K$. Then the extension ${{\mathcal{O}}}_L$ is unramified if and only if $[{{\mathcal{O}}}_L:{{\mathcal{O}}}_K[\sqrt{\alpha}]]=2$, if and only if $\frac{u+v\sqrt{\alpha}}{2} \in {{\mathcal{O}}}_L$ for some $u,v \in {{\mathcal{O}}}_K^*$. The minimal polynomial of any such element is $x^2 - ux + \frac{u^2-\alpha v^2}{4}$, hence the index is $2$ if and only if there exist units $u,v$ in ${{\mathcal{O}}}_K$ such that $u^2 \equiv \alpha v^2 \pmod
4$. Multiplying by the inverse of $v$ we get the result.
\[of Theorem \[theorem:CMnorootsofunity\]\] Since all curves with complex multiplication over $K$ are isogenous to a quadratic twist of $E$, we are led to determine which quadratic twists have bad reduction at exactly one odd prime. Any global character corresponds to a quadratic extension $K(\sqrt{\alpha})$. If the twist has good reduction at $\id{p}$, then $\id{p} \mid \alpha$ (and the twist attains good reduction at $\id{p}$), and the curve will have bad reduction at all other primes dividing $\alpha$. Thus $(\alpha) = \id{p} \id{q}$, for $\id{q}$ an odd prime. Finally, we need to check whether the character is unramified at $2$, which follows from Lemma \[lemma:ramificationat2\], and a description in each case of the squares modulo $4$.
Explicitly, for odd $d$ we require $\alpha=\pi\sqrt{-d}$, where $\id{q}=(\pi)$, such that $\alpha\equiv u^2\pmod4$. For $d=7$ the only odd square modulo $4$ is $1$. For $d\ge11$, since $2$ is inert in $K$ the odd squares modulo $4$ are the squares of the odd residues modulo $2$, which are $1,w,w^2$. For $d=2$, the twist of the base curve by $(1+\sqrt{-2})\sqrt{-2}$ has odd conductor $(1+\sqrt{-2})^2$, so we must twist by $\pi\sqrt{-2}$ where $\pi\equiv(1+\sqrt{-2})u^2\pmod{4}$; since the odd squares modulo $4$ are $1$ and $-1+2\sqrt{-2}$ we obtain the condition stated.
In each case in Theorem \[theorem:CMnorootsofunity\], the condition on $\pi$ is satisfied by one quarter of the odd residue classes modulo $4$. Since $\id{q}=(\pi)$ has two generators $\pm\pi$, our construction gives curves of conductor $\id{q}^2$ for half the odd primes of $K$.
$K=\Q(\sqrt{-1})$
-----------------
The elliptic curve with complex multiplication by $\Z[\sqrt{-1}]$ is $$E:y^2=x^3+x \qquad \text{ with label {\href{http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/64/a/4}{{\text{\rm64.a4}}}}}.$$ Its conductor over $K$ equals $\id{p}^8$, where $\id{p}=(1+\sqrt{-1})$. In particular, $\chi_{\id{p}}$ has conductor $\id{p}^4$ and order $4$. Note that since the automorphism group of $E$ is cyclic of order $4$ we must consider *quartic twists*. For $\alpha \in K^*$, the quartic twist of $E$ by $\alpha$ equals $$\label{eq:quartictwist}
E_{\alpha}:y^2=x^3+\alpha x.$$ Note that this operation does not coincide with the twist of the L-series by a quartic character (as such L-series do not satisfy a functional equation). Indeed, if $E$ corresponds to the automorphic form $\chi \oplus \bar{\chi}$ (where $\chi$ is a Grossencharacter), then $E_{\alpha}$ corresponds to the automorphic form $\chi \psi \oplus \bar{\chi} \bar{\psi}$, where $\psi = \kro{}{\alpha}_4$ (the quartic Legendre symbol). It is still true that the curve $E_{\alpha}$ is isomorphic to $E$ over the extension $K(\sqrt[4]{\alpha})$.
All the quartic twists of $E$ have a non-trivial $K$-rational $2$-torsion point.
We first need a local result about when a pure quartic extension is unramified above $2$.
Let $K=\Q_2(\sqrt{-1})$, and let $\alpha \in {{\mathcal{O}}}_K$ be a unit. Then the extension $K(\sqrt[4]{\alpha})$ is unramified over $K$ if and only if $\alpha \equiv 1, 1+4\sqrt{-1} \pmod8$. \[lemma:quartictwist\]
The extension $K(\sqrt[4]{\alpha})$ depends on $\alpha$ up to $4$-th powers, i.e. two elements give the same extension if and only if they differ by a $4$-th power. By Hensel’s Lemma, an odd element of $\Q_2(\sqrt{-1})$ is a fourth power if and only if it is congruent to $1$ modulo $(1+\sqrt{-1})^7$, hence the extension is characterized by $\alpha$ modulo $(1+\sqrt{-1})^7$. Also, $K(\sqrt[4]{\alpha})$ is unramified if and only if it is contained in the unique unramified extension of $K$ of degree $4$, which is $K(\zeta_5) = K(\sqrt[4]{1+4\sqrt{-1}})$, as can be easily checked. Thus, for $K(\sqrt[4]{\alpha})$ to be unramified, $\alpha$ must be congruent to a power of $1+4\sqrt{-1}$, i.e. $\alpha \equiv
1, 1+4\sqrt{-1}, 9,\text{ or } 9+4\sqrt{-1} \pmod{(1+\sqrt{-1})^7}$; this simplifies to $\alpha\equiv 1, 1+4\sqrt{-1}\pmod{8}$ as stated.
Let $K=\Q(\sqrt{-1})$ and let $E/K$ be the elliptic curve [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/64/a/4)]{}. Then all elliptic curves with complex multiplication over $K$ of odd prime power conductor are isogenous to the quartic twist of $E$ by $\pi$, where $\pi$ is a prime power such that $\pi \equiv -1 \pm 2\sqrt{-1} \pmod 8$. \[theorem:CMGaussian\]
Let $\pi = -1+2\sqrt{-1}$. One may check that the quartic twist of $E$ by $\pi$ has good reduction at $2$ and bad additive reduction at $(-1+2\sqrt{-1})$. Then any quartic twist of $E$ of odd conductor is a twist of $E_{-1+2\sqrt{-1}}$ by a quartic character of odd conductor, which by Lemma \[lemma:quartictwist\] correspond to elements which are congruent to $1$ or $1+4\sqrt{-1}\pmod8$. Multiplying by $-1+2\sqrt{-1}$ gives the classes $-1\pm2\sqrt{-1}\pmod8$ as stated.
Of all odd primes $\id{q}$ of $K$, one quarter have a generator $\pi$ satisfying the condition in Theorem \[theorem:CMGaussian\]. Hence our construction gives elliptic curves of conductor $\id{q}^2$ for one quarter of all primes $\id{q}$ of $K$.
$K=\Q(\sqrt{-3})$
-----------------
The elliptic curve with complex multiplication by $\Z[\frac{1+\sqrt{-3}}{2}]$ is the curve [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/27/a/4)]{}, with (non-minimal) equation $$E:y^2=x^3+16.$$ Its conductor over $K$ is $\id{p}^4$, where $\id{p}=(\sqrt{-3})$. In particular, $\chi_{\id{p}}$ has conductor $\id{p}^2=(3)$ and order $6$ (note that $({{\mathcal{O}}}_K/3)^\times \simeq
\Z/6\Z$). Since $E$ has automorphism group of order $6$, we must consider sextic twists, where the sextic twist by $\alpha \in K^*$ of the previous model is $$\label{eq:sextictwist}
E_{\alpha}:y^2=x^3+16\alpha.$$ Similar considerations as for the quartic twists apply. In particular, the curve $E_{\alpha}$ is isomorphic to $E$ over the extension $K(\sqrt[6]{\alpha})$; such twists are needed to cancel the CM character $\chi_{\id{p}}$.
As before, we need local results, now at both $2$ and $3$:
Let $K=\Q(\sqrt{-3})$, let $w=(1+\sqrt{-3})/2\in K$ be a $6$th root of unity, and let $\alpha \in {{\mathcal{O}}}_K$ be a $2$-adic and $3$-adic unit. Then the extension $K(\sqrt[6]{\alpha})/K$ is unramified over both $2$ and $3$ if and only if
1. $\alpha \equiv 1, w^2$, or $w^4\pmod 4$ (equivalently, $\alpha$ is congruent to a square modulo $4$); and
2. $\alpha \equiv \pm 1 \pmod {\sqrt{-3}^3}$ (equivalently, $\alpha$ is congruent to a cube modulo $\sqrt{-3}^3$).
\[lemma:sextictwist\]
Since $K(\sqrt[6]{\alpha}) =
K(\sqrt{\alpha},\sqrt[3]{\alpha})$ we require both $K(\sqrt{\alpha})/K$ and $K(\sqrt[3]{\alpha})/K$ to be unramified. The first is certainly unramified over $3$, and over $2$ we may apply Lemma \[lemma:ramificationat2\] to obtain the first condition stated.
Similarly, $K(\sqrt[3]{\alpha})/K$ is always unramified over $2$, so we need the condition for it to be unramified also over $3$. By Hensel’s Lemma, a unit of $\Q_3(\sqrt{-3})$ is a cube if and only if it is congruent to $\pm1$ modulo $9$, hence the extension is characterized by $\alpha$ modulo $9$. We may check that $K(\sqrt[3]{\alpha_1})$ is unramified, for $\alpha_1=2+3w$. Hence $K(\sqrt[3]{\alpha})/K$ is unramified at $3$ if and only if $\alpha\equiv\pm1, \pm\alpha_1, \pm\alpha_1^2\pmod9$, which is if and only if $\alpha\equiv\pm1\pmod{\sqrt{-3}^3}$.
Let $K=\Q(\sqrt{-3})$ let $E/K$ be the elliptic curve [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/27/a/4)]{}. Then all elliptic curves with complex multiplication over $K$ of odd prime power conductor are isogenous to $E$ or to the sextic twist $E_{\alpha}$ of $E$ by $\alpha=\sqrt{-3}^3\, \pi$, where $\pi$ is a prime power such that:
1. $\pi \equiv \sqrt{-3}, \sqrt{-3}w^2$, or $\sqrt{-3}w^4\pmod 4$, and
2. $\pi \equiv \pm 4 \pmod {\sqrt{-3}^3}$,
where $w=(1+\sqrt{-3})/2$ is a 6th root of unity. \[theorem:CMEisenstein\]
$E$ itself has good reduction except at $\sqrt{-3}$; by Lemma \[lemma:sextictwist\], the sextic twist $E_{\alpha}$ will also have good reduction at $2$ provided that $\alpha$ is an odd square modulo $4$, equivalently $\alpha\equiv1,w^2,w^4\pmod4$. Hence the first condition on $\pi$ ensures that $E_{\alpha}$ has good reduction except at $\pi$ and (possibly) at $\sqrt{-3}$.
The twist $E_{\alpha_1}$ with $\alpha_1=\sqrt{-3}^3\cdot 4$ has good reduction at $\sqrt{-3}$. Hence by Lemma \[lemma:sextictwist\], $E_{\alpha}$ has good reduction at $\sqrt{-3}$ if $\alpha/\alpha_1$ is a cube modulo $\sqrt{-3}^3$, or equivalently $\alpha/\alpha_1\equiv\pm1\pmod{\sqrt{-3}^3}$. This is ensured by the second condition, since $\pi/4=\alpha/\alpha_1$.
The curves in the previous family never have a rational $2$-torsion point, since $2\alpha$ is not a cube.
Of all primes of $K$ other than $(2)$ and $(\sqrt{-3})$, half have a generator $\pi$ satisfying the $2$-adic condition in Theorem \[theorem:CMEisenstein\], and one third have a generator satisfying the $3$-adic condition. Hence our construction gives elliptic curves of conductor $\id{p}^2$ for one sixth of all primes $\id{p}$ of $K$.
### Curves with complex multiplication by $K$ over an imaginary quadratic field $L$.
A natural question is what happens if we consider a curve $E$ with complex multiplication by an order in $K$, over a possibly different imaginary quadratic field $L$: are there twists of $E$ with good reduction at primes dividing $\operatorname{cond}(E)$?
The proofs of the previous results are of a local nature, hence if $L$ has the same completion at a prime dividing $\operatorname{cond}(E)$ as $K$ we are in exactly the same situation.
Let $E/\Q$ be an elliptic curve of conductor $p^r$ with complex multiplication by an order in $K$. Let $L=\Q(\sqrt{-t})$ be an imaginary quadratic field different from $K$ and $\id{p}$ a prime ideal of $L$ dividing $p$. If the completion of $L$ at $\id{p}$ is isomorphic to the completion of $K$ at the prime dividing $p$, then there exists $\alpha \in L$ such that:
1. if $K=\Q(\sqrt{-d})$, $d \neq 1,3$, then the quadratic twist of $E/L$ by $\sqrt{-t}\, \alpha$ has good reduction at $\id{p}$.
2. if $K=\Q(\sqrt{-1})$, let $\sqrt{-1}$ denote an element of $L$ whose square is congruent to $-1$ modulo $8$. Then the quartic twist of the curve [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/64/a/4)]{} by $\alpha$ has good reduction at $2$ for $\alpha \equiv -1 \pm 2\sqrt{-1} \pmod 8$.
3. if $K=\Q(\sqrt{-3})$, let $\sqrt{-3}$ denote an element of $L$ whose square is congruent to $-3$ modulo $9$. Then the sextic twist of the curve [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/27/a/4)]{} by $\alpha$ has good reduction at $3$ for $\alpha \equiv \pm 4\sqrt{-3}^3 \pmod {\sqrt{-3}^3}$.
On the other hand, if the completions are not isomorphic, no such twist exists. \[thm:otherfields\]
The proof of the first facts mimics that of Theorems \[theorem:CMnorootsofunity\], \[theorem:CMGaussian\] and \[theorem:CMEisenstein\], as the completions being isomorphic implies that the local reduction types are the same. Suppose that the local completions are not isomorphic. Consider the Weil representation at $p$ attached to our elliptic curve $E/\Q$ (recall that CM elliptic curves have no monodromy, hence we do not need to consider the whole Weil-Deligne representation). Then it is easy to check that the image of inertia at $p$ equals:
1. a cyclic group of order $4$ if $d \neq 1, 3$,
2. the dihedral group of order $8$ if $d = 1$,
3. the dihedral group of order 12 if $d=3$.
Recall that the curve $E/L$ will have good reduction at $\id{p}$ if the restriction of the Weil representation to the inertia subgroup of $L$ at $\id{p}$ is trivial.
In the first case, since the completion of $L$ at $\id{p}$ is not isomorphic to the completion of $K$ at $\id{p}$, the restriction to the inertia subgroup of $L$ at $\id{p}$ still has order $4$. But since $d \neq 1$, we cannot take quartic twists, hence we cannot cancel the ramification, and all such curves $E/L$ will have bad reduction at $\id{p}$. In the other two cases, the image of the inertia subgroup of $\Q$ at $p$ is not abelian, and the unique quadratic extension whose restriction becomes abelian is $K_{\id{p}}$, hence by twisting we cannot kill the ramification for any other quadratic extension of $\Q_p$.
If $E/\Q$ is an elliptic curve with complex multiplication by an order in $K$ and $L$ is an imaginary quadratic field of class number $1$ different from $K$, then $E$ is the unique curve in its family of appropriate twists (quadratic, quartic or sextic) which has prime power conductor. \[coro:differentfields\]
Let $D=\{1,2,3,7,11,19,43,67,163\}$. The field $\Q(\sqrt{-d})$ for each odd $d \in D$ has a different ramification set, hence we cannot get good reduction at $d$ by Theorem \[thm:otherfields\]. For $d$ equal to $1$ or $2$ the completions are also different, hence we cannot get odd conductor from the curve with CM by an order of $\Q(\sqrt{-1})$ over $\Q(\sqrt{-2})$, or vice versa.
Prime power conductor curves with rational odd torsion {#smallimage}
======================================================
Recall the following result of [@Kenku] and [@Kamienny]:
Let $K$ be a quadratic field, and $E/K$ be an elliptic curve. Then $E(K)_{tors}$ is isomorphic to one of the following groups:
1. $\ZZ/N$, with $ 1 \le N \le 18$ but $N \neq 17$.
2. $\ZZ/2N \times \ZZ/2$ with $1 \le N \le 6$.
3. $\ZZ/4 \times \ZZ/4$.
4. $\ZZ/3 \times \ZZ/3N$ with $N=1,2$.
In particular the primes dividing the order of the torsion subgroup are $2, 3, 5, 7, 11$ and $13$. Let $\id{q} \mid 2$ be a prime and $E$ be an elliptic curve of odd conductor. By Hasse’s bound $$\#E(\FF_{\id{q}})=|\normid{q}+1-a_E(\id{q}) | \le \normid{q}+1 + 2 \sqrt{\normid{q}} < 11.$$ In particular a curve of odd prime power conductor over $K$ can only have a torsion point of odd prime order $\ell$ for $\ell \in \{3,5,7\}$.
While studying the possible torsion of an elliptic curve over $K$, the case $\ell =3$ and $K=\Q(\sqrt{-3})$ is quite different from the others. The reason is that since $K$ contains the sixth roots of unity, the determinant of the Galois representation acting on $3$-torsion points is trivial. The main results of the present section are Theorem \[thm:3-torsionspecialcase\], which implies that curves over $\Q(\sqrt{-3})$ of odd prime conductor and with a rational $3$-torsion point, have (up to $3$-isogeny) discriminant valuation not divisible by $3$; and a list of all elliptic curves of prime power conductor and a point of order $\ell \in \{3, 5, 7\}$ is given for all the other fields. The complete list (omitting Galois conjugates) is given in Table \[table:oddtorsioncurves\], whose completeness will be proved in this section, in Theorems \[thm:3-torsion\], \[thm:5-torsion\], and \[thm:7-torsion\].
Besides curves over $\Q(\sqrt{-3})$ with a rational $3$-torsion point, the only curves of prime conductor over imaginary quadratic fields with a rational $\ell$-torsion point are those over $\Q(\sqrt{-1})$ with a $3$-torsion point, and base-changes of elliptic curves defined over $\Q$.
Let $p$ be an odd prime, $K/\Q$ be a quadratic extension and $E/K$ be an elliptic curve with a global minimal model. If $P \in E(K)$ has order $p$, then by [@Silverman VII, Theorem 3.4] $P$ has algebraic integer coordinates in the minimal model, except when $p=3$ and $K/\Q$ is ramified at $3$ where, if $\id{p}_3$ denotes the prime dividing $3$, the case $v_{\id{p}_3}(x(P),y(P))= (-2,-3)$ might occur.
Let $K=\Q(\sqrt{-3})$, and let $E/K$ be a curve with a point $P$ of order $3$ and prime power conductor $\id{p}^r$ and let $\tilde{E}$ be the $3$-isogenous curve obtained by taking the quotient of $E$ by the group generated by $P$. Then the valuations at $\id{p}$ of ${{\mathcal{D}}}(E)$ and ${{\mathcal{D}}}(\tilde{E})$ are not both divisible by $3$, unless $E$ is one of the CM curves [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.3.1/729.1/CMa/1)]{} or [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.3.1/729.1/CMb/1)]{}. \[thm:3-torsionspecialcase\]
Suppose that $({{\mathcal{D}}}(E))=\id{p}^{3r}$. Let $P$ denote the point of order $3$ in $E(K)$. If $P$ has integral coordinates, we use the parametrization of elliptic curves with a rational point of order $3$ given by Kubert in [@Kubert Table 1]: such curves have a minimal model of the form $$E:y^2+a_1 xy+ a_3 y= x^3,
\label{eq3-torsion1}$$ where $a_i$ are algebraic integers, $P=(0,0)$ has order $3$, with discriminant $${{\mathcal{D}}}(E) = a_3^3 (a_1^3 -27 a_3).
\label{eq:discriminant3torsion1}$$ If $P$ does not have integral coordinates, then we take the minimal equation to one of the form (\[eq3-torsion1\]), with $v_{\id{p}}(a_1) \ge 0$ and $v_{\id{p}}(a_3)=-3$.
Note that over a field containing the $3$-rd roots of unity the cyclotomic character modulo $3$ is trivial so the representation of the Galois group acting on $E[3]$ has image in $\operatorname{SL}(2,3)$. Then if it is reducible, with upper triangular matrices, the diagonal entries are both $+1$ or both $-1$. So if the curve $E$ has a rational point of order $3$, so does the isogenous curve $\tilde{E}$. We find that $\tilde{E}$ has equation $y^2+a_1 xy+ a_3
y= x^3-5a_1a_3x-a_1^3a_3-7a_3^2$, and discriminant $$\label{eq:discEt}
{{\mathcal{D}}}(\tilde{E})=a_3(a_1^3-27a_3)^3.$$ Suppose that both ${{\mathcal{D}}}(E)$ and ${{\mathcal{D}}}(\tilde{E})$ generate ideals which are cubes. Then $$\begin{aligned}
a_1^3-27a_3 & = u \alpha^3\\
a_3& = v \beta^3,
\end{aligned}$$ for $u,v$ units and $\alpha, \beta \in
K^\times$; in fact, $\alpha,\sqrt{-3}\beta\in{{\mathcal{O}}}_K$. In particular, $(a_1: -\alpha: -3\beta)$ is a $K$-rational point on the cubic curve $$x^3+uy^3+vz^3=0, \label{eq:fermatcubics}$$ a twist of the Fermat cubic. By Lemma \[lem:fermatcubics\] below, all $K$-rational points $(x:y:z)$ on all curves of the form (\[eq:fermatcubics\]) either satisfy $xyz=0$, or (after scaling so that $x,y,z\in{{\mathcal{O}}}_K$ are coprime) that $x,y,z$ are all units.
Since $\alpha\beta\not=0$ the first case is possible only when $a_1=0$. Then $a_3$ is a unit times a cube, so by minimality is a unit: this leads to the three isomorphism classes of curves with conductor $(9)$ or $(27)$. The first of these is [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.3.1/81.1/CMa/1)]{}, whose discriminant valuation is $6$ but has a $3$-isogenous curve with discriminant valuation $10$; the other two, which are given in the statement of the theorem, are each isomorphic to their $3$-isogenous curves (the isogeny being an endomorphism) and have discriminant valuation $6$.
In case none of the coordinates is zero, we consider separately the finitely many cases where $\beta$ is integral or has valuation $-1$, and find that there are no more solutions.
\[lem:fermatcubics\] Let $K=\Q(\sqrt{-3})$ and $u,v\in{{\mathcal{O}}}_K^*$. The cubic curve (\[eq:fermatcubics\]) has either $3$ or $9$ rational points, which either lie on one of the lines $x=0$, $y=0$ or $z=0$, or have projective coordinates which are all units.
After permuting the coordinates, scaling by units and absorbing cubes, there are only three essentially different equations, those with $(u,v)=(1,1)$, $(1,\zeta)$, and $(\zeta,\zeta^2)$ where $\zeta\in K$ is a $6$th root of unity. When $u=1$, it is well-known that all points have one zero coordinate (see [@Ireland-Rosen Proposition 17.8.1]). There are $9$ such points (all the flexes) when $v=1$, and $3$ when $u=\zeta$. The curve with $(u,v)=(\zeta,\zeta^2)$ is isomorphic to the one with $(u,v)=(1,1)$, since the isomorphism class depends only on $uv$ modulo cubes, and hence also has $9$ points; these are $(\zeta^{2k}:\zeta^{2l+1}:1)$ for $k,l\in\{0,1,2\}$.
Let $K=\Q(\sqrt{-d})$ be an imaginary quadratic field of class number $1$, $K \neq \Q(\sqrt{-3})$ and $E/K$ an elliptic curve of odd prime power conductor with a point of order $3$. Then $E$ is isomorphic to one of the following:
1. the curve [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/19/a/2)]{} or [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/19/a/3)]{} over $\Q(\sqrt{-d})$ for $d=1, 7, 11, 19, 43, 163$;
2. the curve [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/27/a/2)]{} or [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/27/a/3)]{} or [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/27/a/4)]{} over $\Q(\sqrt{-d})$ for $d=1, 7, 19, 43, 67, 163$;
3. the curve [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/37/b/2)]{} or [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/37/b/3)]{} over $\Q(\sqrt{-d})$ for $d=2, 19, 43, 163$;
4. the curve [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/243/a/2)]{} or [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/243/b/2)]{} over $\Q(\sqrt{-d})$ for $d=1, 7, 19, 43, 67, 163$;
5. $K=\Q(\sqrt{-1})$ and $E$ is one of the $3$-isogenous curves $$y^2 + (1+i) xy + i y = x^3 + (-1+i) x^2 + (-14-8i) x + (-10-20i),$$ with label [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.4.1/757.1/a/1)]{}, $$y^2 + (1+i) xy + i y = x^3 + (1+i) x^2 + (1-i) x + 2,$$ with label [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.4.1/757.1/a/2)]{}, or their Galois conjugates with labels [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.4.1/757.2/a/1)]{} and [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.4.1/757.2/a/2)]{}.
6. $K=\Q(\sqrt{-2})$ and $E$ is the curve $$y^2 + \sqrt{-2} xy + y = x^3 + (1-\sqrt{-2}) x^2 -x,$$ , or its Galois conjugate with label [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.8.1/9.3/CMa/1)]{};
7. $K=\Q(\sqrt{-11})$ and $E$ is the curve $$y^2 + y = x^3 + \frac{1-\sqrt{-11}}{2} x^2 +
\frac{-5-\sqrt{-11}}{2} x - 2,$$with label [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.11.1/9.3/CMa/1)]{}, or its Galois conjugate with label [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.11.1/9.1/CMa/1)]{}.
\[thm:3-torsion\]
As in Theorem \[thm:3-torsionspecialcase\], we use the parametrization of elliptic curves with a rational point of order $3$ given by Kubert in [@Kubert Table 1]: such curves have a model of the form $$E:y^2+a_1 xy+ a_3 y= x^3,
\label{eq3-torsion}$$ where $P=(0,0)$ has order $3$, with discriminant $${{\mathcal{D}}}(E) = a_3^3 (a_1^3 -27 a_3).
\label{eq:discriminant3torsion}$$ By scaling, we can choose a model of this form such that for all primes $\id{q}$ either $\id{q}\nmid a_1$ or $\id{q}^3\nmid a_3$. Then the model is minimal at all primes, as we now show. To be non-minimal at a prime $\q$ implies that $\id{q}^6\mid c_6$ and $\id{q}^{12}\mid
{{\mathcal{D}}}(E)$, where $c_6$ is the usual invariant of the model. The ideal generated by $c_6$ and ${{\mathcal{D}}}(E)$ in the ring $\Z[a_1,a_3]$ contains both $a_1^{15}$ and $3^3a_3^5$, so $\id{q}\mid a_1$ and $\id{q}\mid
a_3$: in case $\id{q}\mid3$, we need the fact that $3$ is not ramified in $K$. By minimality, $v_{\id{q}}(a_3)\in\{1,2\}$; this implies $v_{\id{q}}({{\mathcal{D}}}(E))\le11$, contradiction.
Let $\id{p}=(\pi)$ be the unique prime dividing ${{\mathcal{D}}}(E)$. As above, we can assume that either $\id{p}\nmid a_1$ or $\id{p}^3\nmid a_3$. We can also scale by units, replacing $(a_1,a_3)$ by $(ua_1,u^3a_3)$, and we note that for the fields under consideration every unit is a cube. Our strategy is to prove that $(a_1,a_3)$ lies in a small finite set, and then systematically search through all possible values.
1. If $a_3$ is a unit, we may assume by scaling that $a_3=1$. Then we can factor (\[eq:discriminant3torsion\]) as $${{\mathcal{D}}}(E) = a_1^3 -27 = (a_1 -3) (a_1^2 + 3 a_1 +9 ).$$ We consider the following cases:
1. If $\id{p}\nmid3$ then the factors are coprime, so one is a unit. If $u=a_1-3\in{{\mathcal{O}}}_K^*$ we get four solutions $(a_1,a_3)=(4,1)$, $(2,1)$, $(3\pm\sqrt{-1},1)$ which give the curves [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/37/b/3)]{}, [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/19/a/3)]{}, [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.4.1/757.1/a/2)]{} and [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.4.1/757.2/a/2)]{}. If $a_1^2 + 3 a_1
+9 = u \in{{\mathcal{O}}}_K^*$ then $(2a_1+3)^2 = 4u-27 \in
\{-23,-31,-27\pm4\sqrt{-1}\}$ which has no solution in $K$.
2. If $\id{p} \mid 3$ then $\id{p} \mid a_1$. If $v_{\id{p}}(a_1)=1$, we write $a_1=\pi b$. In the inert case, $\pi=3$ and ${{\mathcal{D}}}(E)=27(b^3-1)=27(b-1)(b^2+b+1)$. If either factor is a unit one finds no solutions, otherwise both are divisible by $3$, so write $b=1+3c$; now the second factor is $3(1+3c+3c^2)$ so $1+3c+3c^2$ is a unit. Only $u=1$ gives a solution: $c=-1$, $b=-2$ and $a_1=-6$. The pair $(a_1,a_3)=(-6,1)$ yields the curve [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/27/a/4)]{}. In the split case we get ${{\mathcal{D}}}(E) =
\pi^3(b^3-\overline{\pi}^3) = \pi^3(b-\overline{\pi})
(b^2+b\overline{\pi}+\overline{\pi}^2)$. Elementary computations reveal two solutions: $b=\sqrt{-2}$ giving $(a_1,a_3)=(\sqrt{-2}-2,1)$ and the curve [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.8.1/9.1/CMa/1)]{}; and $b=-2$ giving $(a_1,a_3)=(-1-\sqrt{-11},1)$ and the curve [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.11.1/9.1/CMa/1)]{}; together with their Galois conjugates.
If $a_1=0$ or $v_{\id{p}}(a_1)\ge2$ then $v_{\id{p}}({{\mathcal{D}}}(E))=3$. This gives the equation $a_1^3=27+\pi^3u$ with $u$ a unit. When $3$ is inert we have $\pi=3$ and $(a_1/3)^3=1+u\in\{2,0,1\pm\sqrt{-1}\}$, giving just one solution $(a_1,a_3)=(0,1)$ and the curve [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/27/a/4)]{}. When $3=\pi\overline{\pi}$ we have $(a_1/\pi)^3=\overline{\pi}^3\pm1$ but this is not a cube. (Here, $\pi=1\pm\sqrt{-2}$ or $\pi=(1\pm\sqrt{-11})/2$.)
2. Now suppose that $a_3$ is not a unit. If $a_1=0$, then $3$ is inert in $K$ and $a_3 = 3^j$, with $j \in \{1,2\}$ by the minimality of the model, corresponding to the curves [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/243/b/2)]{} and [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/243/a/2)]{} respectively. Suppose that $a_1 \neq 0$.
1. If $\id{p} \mid a_1$, the minimality of the model implies that $v_{\id{p}}(a_3) < 3$; scaling by units we can assume that $a_3=\pi^j$ with $j\in\{1,2\}$.
If $\id{p}\nmid3$ then $v_{\id{p}}(a_1^3-27a_3)=v_{\id{p}}(a_3)=j$ so $a_1^3=\pi^j(27+v)$ for some unit $v$, but none of these expressions is a cube. Hence $\id{p}\mid3$.
If $v_{\id{p}}(a_1)=1$, we have $v_{\id{p}}(a_1^3-27a_3)=3$ so $a_1^3=27a_3+\pi^3u$ with $u$ a unit. In the inert cases $(a_1/3)^3=a_3+u$, whose only solution is $(a_1,a_3)=(6,9)$ which yields the curve [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/27/a/3)]{}. In the split cases we find no solutions.
If $v_{\id{p}}(a_1)\ge2$, we have $v_{\id{p}}(a_1^3-27a_3)=v_{\id{p}}(27a_3)=3+j$ so $0\not=a_1^3=27a_3+\pi^{3+j}u=\pi^j(27+\pi^3u)$ with $u$ a unit. This has no solutions.
2. If $\id{p} \nmid a_1$, then $a_1^3-27a_3$ is a unit and we can scale so the unit is $1$, so $a_1^3=1+27a_3$.
If $\id{p}\mid3$ then from $27a_3=a_1^3-1\equiv(a_1-1)^3\pmod3$ we have $\id{p}\mid a_1=1$ and either $a_1-1$ or $a_1^2+a_1+1$ has valuation $1$, but no solutions arise.
Hence $\id{p}\nmid3$. Now $27a_3 = a_1^3-1 = (a_1-1)(a_1^2+a_1+1)$, where the gcd of the factors divides $3$. One of the factors is coprime to $\id{p}$, so divides $27$, and both factors are divisible by the prime or primes dividing $3$, so $3\mid(a_1-1)$. Suppose that we are in the case that $a_1-1\mid27$. In case $3$ is inert, write $a_1-1=3^ku$ with $u$ a unit and $k\in\{1,2,3\}$. The only cases where $a_1^3\equiv1\pmod{27}$ are $(a_1,a_3)=(10,37)$ and $(-8,-19)$, giving the curves [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/37/b/2)]{} and [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/19/a/2)]{} respectively. In case $3$ splits as $3=\omega\overline{\omega}$ we have $a_1=1\pm\omega^k\overline{\omega}^l$ with $k,l\in\{1,2,3\}$; the only solutions are those with have $k=l=2$ which have already been seen. Secondly, if $a_1^2+a_1+1=d\mid27$ then the quadratic in $a_1$ has discriminant $4d-3$ which must be a square; enumeration of cases shows no solutions.
In summary we find that the only solutions $(a_1,a_3)$, up to scaling by units and Galois conjugates, are $(a_1,1)$ for $a_1\in\{0, 2, 4,
-6, 3+\sqrt{-1}, -2+\sqrt{-2}, -1-\sqrt{-11}\}$, and $(0,3)$, $(0,9)$, $(6,9),(10,37)$, and $(-8,-19)$.
It is an interesting question to determine whether there are infinitely many curves over $\Q(\sqrt{-3})$ with a point of order $3$ and prime conductor. Based on numerical evidence, it seems quite plausible that this is indeed the case, but we did not focus on this particular problem.
Let $K=\Q(\sqrt{-d})$ be an imaginary quadratic field of class number $1$ and $E/K$ an elliptic curve of odd prime power conductor with a point of order $5$. Then either $E$ is isomorphic to the curve [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/11/a/2)]{} or [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/11/a/3)]{} for $d=1, 3, 11, 67, 163$ or $K=\Q(\sqrt{-1})$ and $E$ is the curve: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:curves5torsion}
y^2 + (i+1) xy+iy = x^3 + ix^2,\qquad&&\text{with label {\href{http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.4.1/25.3/CMa/1}{{\text{\rm2.0.4.1-25.3-CMa1}}}}},
\end{aligned}$$ or its Galois conjugate with label [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.4.1/25.1/CMa/1)]{}. \[thm:5-torsion\]
Note that the curve [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.4.1/25.3/CMa/1)]{} has CM by $\ZZ[i]$; in particular, the conductor valuation is $2$.
Again we use Kubert’s parametrization from [@Kubert Table 1]: such curves have a model of the form $$y^2+(1-d)xy-dy = x^3-dx^2,$$ with $d \in K$. An integral model is then given by $$E_{a,b}:y^2+(b-a)xy-ab^2y = x^3 -abx^2, \qquad \text{ with }\gcd(a,b)=1.$$ This model has discriminant ${{\mathcal{D}}}(E_{a,b}) = a^5b^5(a^2-11ab-b^2)$, and $c_4$-invariant $a^{4} - 12 a^{3} b + 14 a^{2} b^{2} + 12 a b^{3}
+ b^{4}$. In the polynomial ring $\Z[a,b]$ the ideal these generate contains $5a^{15}$ and $5b^{15}$, so they are coprime away from $5$. Hence at all primes except possibly those dividing $5$ the model $E_{a,b}$ is minimal, and has multiplicative reduction.
Let $\id{p}$ be a prime above $5$ and suppose that $\id{p}$ divides both ${{\mathcal{D}}}(E_{a,b})$ and $c_4(E_{a,b})$. Then ${{\mathcal{D}}}(E_{a,b}) \equiv
a^5b^5(a+2b)^2\pmod{\id{p}}$ and $c_4(E_{a,b})\equiv(a+2b)^4\pmod{\id{p}}$, so $\id{p}\mid(a+2b)$. Writing $a=-2b+c$ where $\id{p}\mid c$ and using the fact that $5$ is not ramified in $K$, we find that $c_4\equiv-5b^4\pmod{\id{p}^2}$, so $\id{p}^2\nmid c_4$. Hence $E_{a,b}$ is also minimal at $\id{p}$. Examples show that the reduction at such a prime may be either good or additive.
In the factorization ${{\mathcal{D}}}(E_{a,b}) = a^5b^5(a^2-11ab-b^2)$, the three factors are pairwise coprime. Then for ${{\mathcal{D}}}(E_{a,b})$ to be a prime power, two of $a$, $b$ and $a^2-11ab-b^2$ are units. Since we may scale $a$ and $b$ simultaneously by a unit we may assume that either $a=1$ or $b=1$. When $a=1$, $b=\pm1$ leads to discriminant $-11$ while $a^2-11ab-b^2=\pm1$ leads to discriminant $-11^5$, giving the curves [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/11/a/2)]{} or [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/11/a/3)]{} over any field in which $11$ is not split. Over $\Q(\sqrt{-1})$, additionally, $(a,b)=(1,\pm\sqrt{-1})$ gives the curves with conductor $(2\pm\sqrt{-1})^2$ as stated, while over $\Q(\sqrt{-3})$ none of the additional units gives a solution. Lastly if $a$ is not a unit we may assume that $b=1$ and require $u=a^2-11a-1\in{{\mathcal{O}}}_K^*$ so that $125+4u$ is a square in $K$; the only possibility is $u=-1$ and $a=11$ giving discriminant $-11^5$ again.
Let $K$ be an imaginary quadratic field of class number $1$ and $E/K$ be an elliptic curve of odd prime power conductor with a point of order $7$. Then $K=\Q(\sqrt{-3})$ and $E$ is isomorphic to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:curves7torsion}
y^2 + a y = x^3 + (a-2)x^2+(1-a)x\qquad&&\text{with label {\href{http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.3.1/49.3/CMa/1}{{\text{\rm2.0.3.1-49.3-CMa1}}}}},
\end{aligned}$$ where $a = \frac{1+\sqrt{-3}}{2}$. \[thm:7-torsion\]
In this case, a general elliptic curve with a $7$-torsion point is given by $$E_{a,b}: y^2+(b^2+ab-a^2) xy-(a^3b^3-a^2b^4)y = x^3-(a^3b-a^2b^2) x^2 ,$$ where $a,b \in \mathcal{O}_{K}$ and $\gcd(a,b)=1$ (see [@Kubert]). Its discriminant is given by ${{\mathcal{D}}}(E_{a,b}) = a^7 b^7 (a-b)^7 (a^3-8a^2b+5a b^2+b^3)$. As in the previous theorem, we find that $\gcd({{\mathcal{D}}}(E_{a,b}), c_4(E_{a,b}))$ is not divisible by any prime except possibly those dividing $7$, and that the model $E_{a,b}$ is minimal even at such primes.
Since $(a,b)=1$, two of $a$, $b$ and $c=(a-b)^7 (a^3-8a^2b+5a b^2+b^3)$ are units. If $a$ is a unit but not $b$ then we can scale so $a=1$ and now $1-b$ is a unit. None of the possibilities gives an odd prime power discriminant. Similarly if $b=1$ and $a$ is not a unit. Lastly if $a=1$ and $b$ is a unit, the only possibility which works is when $b$ is a 6th root of unity, giving the curve as stated in the theorem (which is isomorphic to its Galois conjugate, while not being a base-change from $\Q$).
Note that in all the exceptional cases, the discriminant valuation is at most $5$, except for the curve [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/11/a/2)]{} over $\Q(\sqrt{-11})$, where it is $10$ (as $11$ ramifies in the extension).
Prime power conductor curves with rational $2$-torsion {#section 2 torsion}
======================================================
Our goal in this section is to classify all elliptic curves $E$ defined over $K$ with odd prime power conductor which have a $K$-rational point of order $2$. As a result we will see (Corollary \[coro:2torsion-odddiscriminant\] below) that each isogeny class of such curves contains a curve whose discriminant has odd valuation. Our results here extend those of Shumbusho, who in his 2004 thesis [@Shumbusho] considered elliptic curves over the same fields as we do, with prime conductor and rational $2$-torsion.
In this section we will make essential use of the local criterion of Kraus from [@Kraus-c4c6 Théorème 2], which we state here for the reader’s convenience.
Let $K$ be a finite extension of $\Q_2$ with valuation ring ${{\mathcal{O}}}_K$, normalized valuation $v$ and ramification degree $e=v(2)$. Let $c_4$, $c_6$, $\Delta$ in ${{\mathcal{O}}}_K$ satisfy $c_4^3-c_6^2=1728\Delta\not=0$. Then there exists an integral Weierstrass model of an elliptic curve over $K$ with invariants $c_4$ and $c_6$ if and only if one of the following holds:
1. $v(c_4)=0$, and there exists $a_1\in{{\mathcal{O}}}_K$ such that $a_1^2\equiv -c_6\pmod{4}$.
2. $0<v(c_4)<4e$, and there exist $a_1,a_3\in{{\mathcal{O}}}_K$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
d=-a_1^6+3a_1^2c_4+2c_6 &\equiv& 0 \pmod{16};\\
a_3^2 &\equiv& d/16 \pmod{4};\\
4a_1^2d &\equiv& (a_1^4-c_4)^2 \pmod{256}.
\end{aligned}$$
3. $v(c_4)\ge 4e$, and there exists $a_3\in{{\mathcal{O}}}_K$ such that $a_3^2\equiv c_6/8\pmod{4}$.
\[prop:Kraus\]
Preliminaries on curves with odd conductor and rational $2$-torsion
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection and the next we assume that $E$ is an elliptic curve defined over $K$, with odd conductor, and with a rational $2$-torsion point; later we will specialize to the case where the conductor is an odd prime power. Such an elliptic curve $E$ has an equation of the form $$\label{eq:equation}
E_{a,b}:y^2 = x(x^2 + ax+b),$$ where $a,b\in{{\mathcal{O}}}_K$ and the given $2$-torsion point is $(0,0)$. However, while it is easy to see that this model can be taken to be minimal at all odd primes, we need to be more precise concerning the primes dividing $2$ where such a model cannot have good reduction. To this end, we need to consider carefully the transformation from a global minimal model for $E$ (which exists since $K$ has class number $1$) to this form. Let $$\label{eqn:min-model}
y^2+a_1xy+a_3y=x^3+a_2x^2+a_4x+a_6$$ be a global minimal model for $E$; its discriminant ${{\mathcal{D}}}_{\min}(E)$ is odd since $E$ has odd conductor. To transform this model into $E_{a,b}$ we first complete the square, then scale to make the equation integral, and finally translate the $x$-coordinate so that the $2$-torsion point has $x=0$.
After completing the square the right-hand side of the equation is $$\label{eq:2torsionpoly}
x^3 + (a_2+(a_1/2)^2)x^2 + (a_4+(a_1/2)a_3)x + (a_6+(a_3/2)^2)$$ which is still integral, and minimal, at all odd primes. Let $\q=(\tau)$ be a prime of $K$ dividing $2$. Then $a_1$ and $a_3$ are not both divisible by $\q$, as otherwise $\q$ would divide the discriminant, so (\[eq:2torsionpoly\]) is not integral at $\q$. To make the equation integral we scale $x$ by $\tau^{2r}$ for some $r\ge1$ chosen to be minimal. The minimal $r$ depends on whether $E$ is ordinary or supersingular at $\q$, or equivalently whether $\vq(a_1)=0$ or $\vq(a_1)>0$.
\[Proposition:scaling\] Let $E$ be an elliptic curve of odd conductor over $K$ with a $K$-rational point of order $2$ with minimal equation (\[eqn:min-model\]). Let $\q=(\tau)$ be a prime of $K$ dividing $2$.
1. If $E$ has ordinary reduction at $\q$ (that is, if $\vq(a_1)=0$), then the minimal scaling to make (\[eq:2torsionpoly\]) integral is $x\mapsto 2^2x$ (with scaling valuation $r=2e_2$).
2. If $E$ has supersingular reduction at $\q$ (that is, if $\vq(a_1)>0$), then $K$ is ramified at $2$ and $\vq(a_1)=1$. The minimal scaling is $x\mapsto \tau^2x$ (with $r=2$).
In both cases, after scaling, (\[eq:2torsionpoly\]) reduces to $x^2(x+u)$ modulo $\q$ with $u$ odd. In the supersingular case, there is only one $K$-rational point of order $2$, whose $x$-coordinate (after scaling) is odd.
After scaling $x$ by $\tau^{2r}$, the coefficient of $x^{3-j}$ is multiplied by $\tau^{2rj}$.
First suppose that $\vq(a_1)=0$ (the ordinary case). From the coefficient of $x^2$ in (\[eq:2torsionpoly\]) it is immediate that $x\mapsto 4x$ is the minimal scaling which gives integral coefficients. After scaling, the coefficient of $x^2$ is $u=a_1^2+4a_2$, with $\q$-valuation $0$, and the others are divisible by $8$ and $16$ respectively.
Now suppose that $\vq(a_1)>0$ (the supersingular case), which implies $\vq(a_3)=0$. If $\vq(a_1) \ge e_2$, then all coefficients in (\[eq:2torsionpoly\]) are $\q$-integral except the last one, which has $\q$-valuation $-2e_2$. But then all roots have valuation $-2e_2/3$, which is not an integer, contradicting the fact that the polynomial has a root in $K$. It follows that this supersingular case can only occur if $e_2=2$ and $\vq(a_1) =1$. The coefficients in (\[eq:2torsionpoly\]) now have valuations $-2$, $-1$, $-4$, from which it follows that the roots (whether in $K$ or an extension) have valuations $-2$, $-1$, $-1$; since the $x$-coordinates of non-integral $K$-rational points must have even valuation, there can be only one $K$-rational point of order $2$, with $x$-coordinate of valuation $-2$. To achieve integrality we must scale $x$ by $\tau^2$, after which the cubic reduces to $x^2(x+1)$ modulo $\q$ and the $x$-coordinate of the $K$-rational point of order $2$ is odd.
We will refer to the two cases of this proposition as “the ordinary case” and “the supersingular case” respectively.
The model $E_{a,b}$ has invariants $$\label{eqn:Eab-invariants}
\Delta=2^4b^2(a^2-4b), \qquad
c_4 = 2^4(a^2-3b), \qquad
c_6 = 2^5a(9b-2a^2).$$ We set ${{\mathcal{D}}}(E)=b^2(a^2-4b)$, and compare this with ${{\mathcal{D}}}_{\min}(E)$. In the ordinary case, $\Delta=2^{12}{{\mathcal{D}}}_{\min}(E)$ so ${{\mathcal{D}}}(E)=2^8{{\mathcal{D}}}_{\min}(E)$; in the supersingular case, $\Delta=\tau^{12}{{\mathcal{D}}}_{\min}(E)$ and ${{\mathcal{D}}}(E)=\pm2^2{{\mathcal{D}}}_{\min}(E)$, with sign $-1$ for $\Q(\sqrt{-1})$ when $\tau=1+\sqrt{-1}$ and $+1$ for $\Q(\sqrt{-2})$ when $\tau=\sqrt{-2}$.
\[Cor:ab-q-valuations\] Let $(x_0,0)$ be the coordinates of the given $2$-torsion point on the scaled model, so $x_0\in{{\mathcal{O}}}_K$. We obtain a model of the form $E_{a,b}$ by shifting the $x$-coordinate by $x_0$.
1. In the ordinary case, if $\vq(x_0)>0$ then we obtain $(a,b)$ with $(\vq(a), \vq(b)) = (0, 4e_2)$, while if $\vq(x_0)=0$ then $(\vq(a), \vq(b)) = (e_2, 0)$.
2. In the supersingular case we always have $\vq(x_0)=0$, and $(\vq(a),\vq(b))=(k,0)$ with $k\ge3$. (We include the possibility that $a=0$ here.)
After the shift by $x_0$ we have $\q\mid b$ if $x_0$ reduces to the double root modulo $\q$ and $\q\mid a$ otherwise; $\q$ does not divide both since there is no triple root modulo $\q$. In the supersingular case, $\q$ must divide $a$.
Suppose that $\q\mid b$. Then we are in the ordinary case, and $8e_2=\vq({{\mathcal{D}}}(E))=2\vq(b)$ so $\vq(b)=4e_2$.
Alternatively, suppose that $\q\mid a$. Then in the ordinary case, $\vq(a^2-4b)=\vq({{\mathcal{D}}}(E))=8e_2>2e_2=
\vq(4b)$, so $\vq(a^2)=2e_2$ and $\vq(a)=e_2$. In the supersingular case, $\vq(a^2-4b)=4=\vq(4b)$ so $\vq(a)\ge2$; however it is easy to see that $\vq(a)=2$ leads to a contradiction since the residue field at $\q$ has only size $2$.
Note that $a=0$ can only happen in the supersingular case. Such curves have CM by $\Z[\sqrt{-1}]$ and were considered in Section \[section CM\].
In what follows, it would be enough to determine curves up to quadratic twist, since given one elliptic curve it is straightforward (see [@CremonaLingham]) to find all of its twists with good reduction outside a fixed set of primes. The quadratic twists of $E_{a,b}$ have the form $E_{\lambda a,\lambda^2b}$ for $\lambda\in K^*$. Taking $\lambda=\mu^{-1}$ with $\mu\in{{\mathcal{O}}}_K$, where $\mu\mid a$ and $\mu^2\mid b$, we obtain a curve with a smaller discriminant, by a factor $\mu^6$. In our situation of curves with odd conductor, such a factor $\mu$ must be odd, supported on primes of bad reduction, and also square-free (by minimality of the equation at all odd primes). However, if $\p=(\pi)$ is an odd prime factor of the conductor such that $\pi\mid a$ and $\pi^2\mid b$, it can happen[^1] that the twist $E^\pi$ acquires bad reduction at a prime $\q$ dividing $2$: this is the case if $\q$ ramifies in $K(\sqrt{\pi})$.
For a prime $\p=(\pi)$ we say that the pair $(a,b)$ is *minimal* at $\p$ (or $\pi$) if either $\pi\nmid a$ or $\pi^2\nmid b$. When $(a,b)$ are the parameters obtained from a curve of odd conductor, we have already seen that $(a,b)$ is minimal at $\q$ for all $\q\mid2$ since either $a$ or $b$ is not divisible by $\q$, while for the primes $\p$ dividing the conductor, $(a,b)$ may not be $\p$-minimal. However, as already observed, we can always assume that either $\pi^2\nmid a$ or $\pi^4\nmid b$.
Since we cannot assume that a minimal twist of a curve with odd conductor still has odd conductor, we will need to consider curves with non-minimal $(a,b)$. In the prime power conductor case, this means that we will consider curves in sets of four twists, a base curve $E=E_{a,b}$ which is $\p$-minimal, may have bad reduction at primes dividing $2$, and may even have good reduction at $\p$; and the twists $E^s$ of $E$ by $s\in\{\varepsilon, \pi, \varepsilon\pi\}$, where $\p=(\pi)$.
For example, over $K=\Q(\sqrt{-2})$ we have seen in a previous section that the elliptic curve [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/256/d/2)]{}, which has conductor $(\sqrt{-2})^{10}$, has infinitely many quadratic twists of odd prime square conductor.
Classification of curves with odd conductor and $2$-torsion
-----------------------------------------------------------
We continue with the notation of the previous subsection: $E$ is an elliptic curve with odd conductor and a $K$-rational point of order $2$, and $(a,b)$ are parameters for the model $E_{a,b}$ for $E$ constructed above. Write $(2)=\q_a\q_b$ where $\q_a$, with generator $\tau_a$, (respectively $\q_b$, with generator $\tau_b$), is divisible only by primes dividing $a$ (respectively $b$), and $2=\tau_a\tau_b$. For $K\not=\Q(\sqrt{-7})$ we have $(\tau_a,\tau_b)=(1,2)$ or $(2,1)$ according to whether $(\vq(a), \vq(b)) = (0, 4e_2)$ or $(e_2, 0)$ for the unique prime $\q$ dividing $2$ in the ordinary case, and also $(\tau_a,\tau_b)=(2,1)$ in the supersingular case.
The following result completely classifies curves with odd conductor and a point of order $2$ in terms of the solutions to a certain equation (\[eq:twotorsioncases\]).
Let $E$ be an elliptic curve defined over $K$, with a $K$-rational $2$-torsion point and odd conductor. Let $D={{\mathcal{D}}}_{min}(E)$. Set
1. $P=\gcd(D,b,a^2-4b) = As^2$ with $A$ square-free;
2. $B=(a^2-4b)/(\tau_a^2P)$;
3. $C=4b/(\tau_a^2P)$;
4. $\tilde{a}=as/(\tau_aP)$.
Then $$\tilde{a}^2A=B+C
\label{eq:twotorsioncases}$$ and $\tilde{a},A,B,C\in{{\mathcal{O}}}_K$ satisfy the following conditions:
1. $\gcd(B,C)=1$ and $A$ is square-free;
2. $A,B,C$ are only divisible by primes dividing $2D$.
Furthermore,
1. For each prime $\p \mid D$ with $k=\vp(D)$ and $k'=k-6$: $$(\vp(A),\vp(B),\vp(C)) = (0,k,0), (0,k',0),
(0,0,\frac12k), (0,0,\frac12k') \quad\text{or}\quad (1,0,0);$$
2. In the ordinary case, for each prime $\q \mid 2$, $$(\vq(A),\vq(B),\vq(C)) = (0,6e_2,0)
\quad\text{or}\quad (0,0,6e_2).$$
3. In the supersingular case, for $\q \mid 2$, $(\vq(A),\vq(B),\vq(C)) = (0,0,0)$.
Conversely, given integral $A,B,C,\tilde{a}$ satisfying $\tilde{a}^2A=B+C$ and the above conditions, if we set $a=2A\tilde{a}/\gcd(2,C)$ and $b=AC/\gcd(2,C)^2$ then $E_{a,b}$ and its twists $E_{sa,s^2b}$ for all square-free $s\in{{\mathcal{O}}}_K$ dividing $D$, all have good reduction outside $2D$. \[thm:classification2torsion\]
We have $a^2=(a^2-4b)+4b=B_0+C_0$ where $B_0=a^2-4b={{\mathcal{D}}}(E)/b^2$ and $C_0=4b$, and consider $\gcd(B_0,C_0)$ one prime at a time, these primes all being divisors of $2D$.
First consider odd primes $\p=(\pi)$. These contribute to $P$ if $\p\mid B_0$ and $\p\mid C_0$, so that $\p\mid b$ and $\p\mid a$. In general, the contribution to $P$ from $\p$ is $\pi^j$ where $j=\min\{\vp(b),\vp(a^2-4b)\}$, with $0\le j\le3$ as in Table \[table:p-valuations\], where $k=\vp(D)$. The entries above the line correspond to $(a,b)$ being $\p$-minimal while those below are non-minimal. We include $a=0$ as a possibility in each row with ${}\ge{}$ in the first column.
$\vp(a)$ $\vp(b)=\vp(C_0)$ $\vp(a^2-4b)=\vp(B_0)$ $j$ $k$ $\vp(A)$ $\vp(B)$ $\vp(C)$
---------- ------------------- ------------------------ ----- -------------- ---------- ---------- ----------------
$0$ $0$ $\ge0$ $0$ $\ge0$ $0$ $k$ $0$
$\ge1$ $0$ $0$ $0$ $0$ $0$ $0$ $0$
$0$ $\ge1$ $0$ $0$ $\ge2$, even $0$ $0$ $\frac12k$
$\ge1$ $1$ $1$ $1$ $3$ $1$ $0$ $0$
$1$ $2$ $\ge2$ $2$ $\ge6$ $0$ $k-6$ $0$
$\ge2$ $2$ $2$ $2$ $6$ $0$ $0$ $0$
$1$ $\ge3$ $2$ $2$ $\ge8$, even $0$ $0$ $\frac12(k-6)$
$\ge2$ $3$ $3$ $3$ $9$ $1$ $0$ $0$
: Possible parameter valuations at an odd prime[]{data-label="table:p-valuations"}
Let $P$ be the product of $\pi^j$ over all these odd prime ideals. We can write $P=As^2$ with $A$ and $s$ square-free (since $j\le3$ in all cases); $P$ is the odd part of $\gcd(a^2-4b,4b)$, which is $\gcd(D,b,a^2-4b)$.
Now consider the prime (or primes) $\q\mid 2$, which divide $a$ or $b$ but not both by Corollary \[Cor:ab-q-valuations\]. The possible valuations are given in table \[table:q-valuations\]. Since $e_2=2$ in the supersingular case, this prime(s) contributes $\tau_a^2$ to $\gcd(B_0,C_0)$.
Hence $\gcd(B_0,C_0)= \tau_a^2P$; dividing through gives $\tilde{a}^2A=B+C$ with $B,C,\tilde{a}$ as given. In the factorization $P=As^2$, $A$ is the product of those odd $\pi$ for which $j$ is odd while $s$ is the product of those for which $j\ge2$; both are square-free divisors of $D$.
For all primes $\p$ dividing $2D$, the values of $\vp(A)$, $\vp(B)$, $\vp(C)$ in the tables may easily be deduced from the previous columns.
For the converse, it suffices to observe that with $a,b$ as defined we have $b^2(a^2-4b)=4A^3BC^2/\gcd(2,C)^6$, whose support lies in $2D$, and hence determines a base curve $E_{a,b}$, which has good reduction away from $2D$. The same is true of twists by square-free $s$ dividing $D$.
We can scale solutions $(A,B,C)$ to (\[eq:twotorsioncases\]) by units without affecting the conditions, and scaling by squares of units gives isomorphic curves. Since $K$ has finitely many units, for each odd $D\in{{\mathcal{O}}}_K$, we can use Theorem \[thm:classification2torsion\] to compute all curves of discriminant $D$ with a $K$-rational two-torsion point. This will be our strategy in the following subsections, where we restrict to the case where there is only one odd prime factor.
Recall that each curve $E_{a,b}$ has a $2$-isogenous curve $E_{-2a,a^2-4b}$, via the $2$-isogeny with kernel $(0,0)$, which has the same conductor as $E$. At odd primes $\p$ it is immediate that $(a,b)$ is minimal at $\p$ if and only if $(a',b')=(-2a,a^2-4b)$ is minimal. When $E_{a,b}$ has odd conductor with $(a,b)$ given by our construction, at primes $\q$ dividing $2$ we see that in the ordinary case, $(\vq(a),
\vq(b)) = (0, 4e_2)$ implies $(\vq(-2a),
\vq(a^2-4b)) = (e_2, 0)$, while conversely if $(\vq(a),
\vq(b)) = (e_2, 0)$ then $(\vq(a'), \vq(b')) =
(2e_2, 8e_2)$ and the associated minimal pair is $(a'/\tau^{2e_2},
b'/\tau^{4e_2})$ with valuations $(0,4e_2)$. In the supersingular case with valuations $(\ge3,0)$, a minimal pair for the isogenous curve is $(a'/(-2), b'/4) = (a,(a/2)^2-b)$ with the same valuations as $(a,b)$.
Following the notation of Theorem \[thm:classification2torsion\], if $E_{a,b}$ is a curve with odd conductor associated to a triple $(A,B,C)$ satisfying (\[eq:twotorsioncases\]), then the $2$-isogenous curve $E_{-2a,a^2-4b}$ has associated triple $(A,C,B)$.
It is clear that the parameter $A$ is the same for both curves, and then a straightforward computation gives the result, using the remarks about minimality stated above.
Given an odd prime ideal $\p=(\pi)$ of bad reduction, we have two different situations depending on whether $\vp(A) =0$ or $\vp(A)=1$. In the first case, one curve in each isogenous pair has double the discriminant valuation of the other, and one of the two isogenous pairs, which are $\pi$-twists of each other, has good or multiplicative reduction at $\p$ (when the parameter $s$ of Theorem \[thm:classification2torsion\] is not divisible by $\pi$), while the other has additive reduction (when $s$ is divisible by $\pi$). In the second case, all curves have additive reduction at $\p$, one isogenous pair (with $\pi\nmid s$) has discriminant valuation $3$ and the other (with $\pi\mid s$) has valuation $9$.
Each solution to (\[eq:twotorsioncases\]) falls into one of these cases, according to whether $B+C$ has even or odd valuation at $\p$, unless $B+C=0$, corresponding to $a=0$, which we have treated separately. When seeking curves with conductor a power of the odd prime $\p$ in subsequent subsections, we will also treat separately solutions to (\[eq:twotorsioncases\]) where all of $A$, $B$ and $C$ are units at $\p$, since in such cases we cannot recover $\p$ from the solution. Such cases occur when an elliptic curve $E$ has conductor $\p^2$, so has additive reduction at $\p$, but is a quadratic twist of a curve $E_0$ with good reduction at $\p$. Here we must consider twists of $E_0$ by *all* odd primes to see which have good reduction above $2$.
In the next three subsections we will determine all elliptic curves with odd prime power conductor $\p^r$, treating first this “good twist” case where $E$ has a twist with good reduction at $\p$ (this includes the case $a=0$), then the “additive twist” cases where all twists have additive reduction at $\p$ (here $A=\pi$) and lastly the “multiplicative twist” case where $E$ has a twist with multiplicative reduction at $\p$ (here $A=1$).
In each case we determine which $(B,C)$ pairs give an appropriate solution to (\[eq:twotorsioncases\]), thus obtaining a “base curve” $E_{a,b}$, and then determine which of its twists have good reduction at primes dividing $2$.
Curves with odd prime power conductor: the good twist case
----------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection we determine all elliptic curves defined over one of the fields $K$ with $K$-rational $2$-torsion and conductor a power of an odd prime $\p$, such that a quadratic twist of $E$ by a generator $\pi$ of $\p$ has good reduction at $\p$. In fact all such curves have CM by an order in $K$ and have been fully described previously.
\[thm:goodtwist\] Let $K$ be an imaginary quadratic field with class number $1$, and let $\p$ be an odd prime of $K$. Let $E$ be an elliptic curve defined over $K$, with a $K$-rational point of order $2$ of conductor a power of $\p$. If $E$ has a quadratic twist with good reduction at $\p$ then $E$ belongs to one of the following complex multiplication families as studied in Section \[section CM\]:
1. $K=\Q(\sqrt{-7})$ and $E$ is a twist of the base-change to $K$ of one of the curves in the isogeny class [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/49/a)]{} over $\Q$, with conductor $\p^2=(\pi)^2$ where $\pi\equiv 1\pmod4$; or
2. $K=\Q(\sqrt{-1})$ and $E$ is a twist of the base-change to $K$ of one of the curves in the isogeny class [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/64/a)]{} over $\Q$. $E$ has equation $y^2=x(x^2+b)$ and conductor $\p^2=(\pi)^2$, where $b\equiv-1\pm2i\pmod8$ with $b=\pi$ or $b=\pi^3$; or
3. $K=\Q(\sqrt{-2})$ and $E$ is a twist of the base-change to $K$ of one of the curves in the isogeny class [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/256/a)]{} over $\Q$, with conductor $\p^2=(\pi)^2$ where $\pi \equiv \pm 1 +\sqrt{-2}
\pmod 4$, for $(a,b)=(2\pi\sqrt{-2},-\pi^2)$.
In each case, the elliptic curves have CM by an order in the field of definition $K$: their $j$-invariants are either $-15^3$ or $255^3$ in the first case, either $12^3$ or $66^3$ in the second, and in the third they have $j=20^3$ and CM by $\Z[\sqrt{-2}]$.
There are four curves in the isogeny class [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/49/a)]{} over $\Q$, linked by $2$- and $7$-isogenies and in two pairs of $-7$-twists, so that over $\Q(\sqrt{-7})$ they become isomorphic in pairs. The first two are [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/49/a/1)]{}, which has parameters $(a,b)=(21,112)$, and [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/49/a/2)]{}, with $(a,b)=(-42,-7)$; the other two are their $-7$-twists and are $7$-isogenous to these.
By Theorems \[theorem:CMnorootsofunity\] and \[theorem:CMGaussian\] we know that the three families of curves do have good reduction away from $\id{p}$, hence we are led to prove that these are the unique ones.
In the notation of Table \[table:p-valuations\] such curves have discriminant valuation $k=6$ so come from solutions with $\p$-valuations given in the first two lines of the second half of the table. Hence $B$ and $C$ are not divisible by $\pi$, and from Table \[table:q-valuations\] they have valuation $6e_2$ or $0$ at the prime(s) above $2$ in the ordinary case, while in the supersingular case they are units. Up to scaling by units, and interchanging $B$ and $C$ (corresponding to applying a $2$-isogeny), we reduce to considering the following finite number of possibilities for $(B,C)$:
1. over all fields, $(B,C) = (64\eta,1)$ with $\eta\in{{\mathcal{O}}}_K^*$;
2. over $\Q(\sqrt{-7})$ where $2=\tau\overline{\tau}$ with $\tau=\frac{1+\sqrt{-7}}{2}$, $(B,C) =
(\pm\tau^6,\overline{\tau}^6)$;
3. over $\Q(\sqrt{-1})$ and $\Q(\sqrt{-2})$, $(B,C)=(\pm1,1)$ (the supersingular case).
For a solution we require $B+C$ to be either $0$ or a non-zero square times a unit.
Case (1) yields no solutions with $\eta=1$ since $B+C=65=5\cdot13$ is not a square since neither $5$ nor $13$ ramifies in any of the fields. Taking $\eta=-1$ in (1) gives $B+C=-63=3^2\cdot7$, which is valid when $7$ is ramified, and leads to the base curves $E=E_{a,b}$ with $(a,b)=(6\sqrt{-7},1)$ (and its Galois conjugate). Such curves lie in the first family.
A simple check shows that none of the additional units in $\Q(\sqrt{-1})$ or $\Q(\sqrt{-3})$ gives a value of $B+C$ of the required form.
In case (2) we have $B+C = \pm\tau^6\pm\overline{\tau}^6 \in
\{\pm9,\pm5\sqrt{-7}\}$, giving a potential solution with $A=\pm6$ and $b=\overline{\tau}^6$ (or its Galois conjugate). Taking $(a,b)=(6,\tau^6)$ we find a twist of [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/49/a/1)]{} and hence no curves not already encountered.
In case (3) with $B+C=0$ we obtain curves with $a=0$. All such curves have CM by $\Z[\sqrt{-1}]$, hence we get curves in the second family from Theorem \[theorem:CMGaussian\].
In case (3) with $B+C=2$ we obtain a solution when $2$ is ramified, with base curve $E=E_{a,b}$ where $(a,b)=(2(1+i),i)$ or $(2\sqrt{-2},-1)$. Both cases are isomorphic to the curve [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/256/a/1)]{} with CM by $\ZZ[\sqrt{-2}]$. Then we get the third family from Theorem \[theorem:CMEisenstein\] and Corollary \[coro:differentfields\].
Curves with odd prime power conductor: the additive twist case
--------------------------------------------------------------
We continue to consider elliptic curves $E$ whose conductor is a power of the odd prime $\p=(\pi)$, using Theorem \[thm:classification2torsion\] to find all such curves by considering solutions to the parametrizing equation (\[eq:twotorsioncases\]).
In this subsection, we consider the “additive twist” case in which the parameter $A$ is divisible by $\pi$ so that the curves and their twists by $\pi$ and by units all have additive reduction at $\p$. The discriminant valuations are $3$ or $9$. We find that the only such curves are again the base changes of CM elliptic curves over $\Q$ with conductor $49$, but unlike the previous subsection, $K$ must be one of the six fields in which $7$ is inert. This corresponds to looking at elliptic curves with CM by an order in $K$ over a field $L \neq K$, which furthermore have a $2$-torsion point and odd prime power conductor. By the results of Section \[section CM\] (specifically Corollary \[coro:differentfields\]), we have to restrict to odd values of $d$, and the unique curve with a $2$-torsion point corresponds to $d=7$.
Let $K$ be an imaginary quadratic field with class number $1$, and let $\p$ be an odd prime of $K$. Let $E$ be an elliptic curve defined over $K$, with a $K$-rational point of order $2$ and conductor a power of $\p$, such that no quadratic twist of $E$ has good or multiplicative reduction at $\p$. Then
1. $K=\Q(\sqrt{-d})$ for $d=1,2,11,43,67,163$, $E$ has conductor $\p^2$ where $\p=(7)$, and $E$ is a base-change to $K$ of one of the curves in the isogeny class [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/49/a)]{} over $\Q$.
\[thm:additivetwist\]
Inspecting Table \[table:p-valuations\], we are led to the same set of pairs $(B,C)$ as considered in the proof of Theorem \[thm:goodtwist\], except that now we require $B+C$ to be nonzero, with odd valuation at exactly one odd prime $\p$. We use the same numbering of cases as before and recall that these are all possibilities, up to scaling by units and switching $B$ and $C$.
Case (1), where $B+C\in\{\pm63,\pm65\}$ again yields no solutions with $B+C=65=5\cdot13$ since neither $5$ nor $13$ ramifies in any of the fields. However, $B+C=-63=3^2\cdot7$ is valid when $7$ is inert in $K$. This gives the base curve with $(a,b)=(-42,-7)$, which is the elliptic curve defined over $\Q$ with label [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/49/a/2)]{}. Note that this curve also appeared in the good twist case over $\Q(\sqrt{-7})$, but here we require $7$ to be inert. The quadratic twist by $-7$ (with label [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/49/a/4)]{}) also has good reduction away from $7$, so all four curves in the isogeny class [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/49/a)]{} have conductor $(7)^2$ over the fields listed.
A simple check shows that none of the additional units in $\Q(\sqrt{-1})$ or $\Q(\sqrt{-3})$ gives a value of $B+C$ of the required form.
In case (2) we have $B+C = \pm\tau^6\pm\overline{\tau}^6 \in
\{\pm9,\pm5\sqrt{-7}\}$. Since $5$ is inert this gives no solutions.
Case (3), with $B+C\in\{0,\pm2\}$, also provides no solutions.
Curves with odd prime power conductor: the multiplicative twist case
--------------------------------------------------------------------
We now consider curves of odd prime power conductor $\p^r$ which in our parametrization have $A=1$, such that the base curve $E_{a,b}$ (with $\p$-minimal $(a,b)$) has multiplicative reduction at $\p$.
The main result of this subsection is that these elliptic curves are of two types, up to quadratic twist by a generator of $\p$:
1. one of a finite number of “sporadic” curves, with conductor either a prime dividing $17$ (over all fields where $17$ does not split), or a prime of norm $257$ over $\Q(\sqrt{-1})$ only, or a prime of norm $241$ over $\Q(\sqrt{-3})$ only;
2. one of a family analogous to the Setzer-Neumann family over $\Q$.
The sporadic curves are all given by a more general construction which we discuss first. Over any number field $K$ let $u\in
K\setminus\{0,-16\}$ and define $E_u = E_{-(u+32)/4,u+16}$, an elliptic curve with invariants $c_4=u^2+16u+256$, $c_6=(u-16)(u+8)(u+32)$ and discriminant $\Delta_u=u^2(u+16)^2$.
$E_u$ has full $2$-torsion over $K$; the three curves $2$-isogenous to $E$ are isomorphic to $E_{a,b}$ for $(a,b)=(2(u-16),u^2+32u+256)$, $(2(u+32),u^2)$ and $(u+8,16)$, with discriminants $-u(u+16)^4$, $u^4(u+16)$, and $u(u+16)$ respectively.
Elementary: note that $\Delta_u$ is a square.
In fact the family of curves $E_u$ is the universal family of elliptic curves with full $2$-torsion over $K$, as it is easy to check that $E_u$ has Legendre parameter $\lambda=(u+16)/u$. Our reason for writing the family this way is that if we specialize the parameter $u$ to a unit with certain properties, then we obtain elliptic curves with square-free odd conductor.
\[prop:sporadic-family\] Let $K$ be any number field and $u\in{{\mathcal{O}}}_K^*$. The quadratic twist $E_u^{(-u)}$ of $E_u$ by $-u$, together with its three $2$-isogenous curves, is semistable with bad reduction only at primes dividing $u+16$. The same is true of $E_u$ itself if $-u$ is congruent to a square modulo $4$.
From the invariants given above we see that $\Delta_u$ is only divisible by primes dividing $u+16$ which is odd, and that $\Delta_u$ is coprime to $c_4$ so the reduction is multiplicative at all bad primes. Also since $c_4$ and $c_6$ are odd the condition that $c_4$ and $c_6$ are the invariants of an integral model, which then has good reduction at primes dividing $2$, is that $-c_6$ is a square modulo $4$, which is the case when $-u$ is a square modulo $4$ since $c_6\equiv u^3\pmod4$. Twisting by $-u$ gives a curve whose $c_6\equiv-u^6\pmod4$ which satisfies Kraus’s condition unconditionally.
For example, over $\Q$ we take $u=1$ and find that $E_{1}^{(-1)}$ is the elliptic curve [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/17/a/2)]{} of conductor $17$, with $2$-isogenous curves [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/17/a/1)]{}, [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/17/a/3)]{} and [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/17/a/4)]{}. Since $17 \equiv 1 \pmod 4$, its quadratic twists by $17$ also have good reduction at $2$. Taking $u=-1$ gives curves of conductor $15$, which are not relevant for us.
More generally we consider the curves given by this proposition over imaginary quadratic fields, for units $u$ such that $u+16$ is a prime power, so that we obtain curves of prime conductor. When $\pm1$ are the only units, the only case is the one just considered with $u=1$, leading to curves whose conductors are divisible only by the primes above $17$, which are primes except when $17$ splits in $K$. Since $17 \equiv 1 \pmod 4$, the quadratic twists of such curves also have good reduction at $2$.
Over $K=\Q(\sqrt{-1})$ we can also take $u=\pm \sqrt{-1}$ since $16\pm
\sqrt{-1}$ have prime norm $257$. This gives $8$ elliptic curves, $4$ in one isogeny class [[2.0.4.1-257.1-a](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.4.1/257.1/a)]{} with conductor $\p=(16+\sqrt{-1})$, linked by $2$-isogenies, and their Galois conjugates in isogeny class [[2.0.4.1-257.2-a](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.4.1/257.2/a)]{}. The quadratic twists by $1 \pm 16\sqrt{-1}$ have good reduction at $2$ and give curves of conductor $\p^2$ in isogeny classes [[2.0.4.1-66049.1-a](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.4.1/66049.1/a)]{} and [[2.0.4.1-66049.3-a](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.4.1/66049.3/a)]{}.
Over $K=\Q(\sqrt{-3})$ let $\varepsilon$ be a $6$th root of unity generating the unit group. Taking $u=\varepsilon^2$ or its Galois conjugate, we obtain elliptic curves with prime conductors $\p$ of norm $241$. Again there are two Galois conjugate isogeny classes [[2.0.3.1-241.1-a](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.3.1/241.1/a)]{} and [[2.0.3.1-241.3-a](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.3.1/241.3/a)]{}, each containing $4$ elliptic curves linked by $2$-isogenies. The quadratic twists by $16 \pm u$ have good reduction at $2$, conductor $\p^2$, in isogeny classes [[2.0.3.1-58081.1-a](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.3.1/58081.1/a)]{} and [[2.0.3.1-58081.3-a](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.3.1/58081.3/a)]{}.
The next result shows that, apart from these sporadic cases, all elliptic curves with odd prime conductor and rational $2$-torsion come from an analogue of the Setzer-Neumann family over $\Q$.
Let $K$ be an imaginary quadratic field with class number $1$, and $\varepsilon$ a generator of its unit group. Let $E$ be an elliptic curve defined over $K$ with conductor an odd prime power $\p^r$ and a $K$-rational $2$-torsion point. Assume that $E$ has a quadratic twist with multiplicative reduction at $\p$. Then $E$ is either
1. one of the sporadic curves listed above, where $\p$ has norm $17$ (over all fields), or $257$ (over $K=\Q(\sqrt{-1})$ only) or $241$ (over $K=\Q(\sqrt{-3})$ only); or
2. isomorphic or $2$-isogenous to $E_{a,b}$ where $b=16\varepsilon$ and $a$ satisfies an equation of the form $$a^2 = u\pi^r + 64\varepsilon,$$ with $r$ odd, $u$ a unit and $u \pi^r \equiv 1
\pmod{\frac{8}{e_2}}$; or
3. the quadratic twist by $u\pi$ of the previous case, without any congruence condition. \[thm:multiplicativecase\]
We start with the observation that in each case $\varepsilon$ is not congruent to a square modulo $4$, which may be checked easily and which will be used repeatedly.
As before we use Theorem \[thm:classification2torsion\] to first find the curves with minimal parameters, arising from solutions to (\[eq:twotorsioncases\]) with $A=s=1$. Up to $2$-isogeny, we may assume that $a=\tilde{a}$ is odd, that $B$ is odd and $C$ divisible by $64$ with $C/64$ odd, except in the case $K=\Q(\sqrt{-7})$ where $B$ and $C$ are each divisible by the $6$th power of one of the two primes dividing $2$, or the supersingular case over $\Q(\sqrt{-1})$ or $\Q(\sqrt{-2})$. We will leave these last cases to the end.
Scaling by squares of units, we must solve each of the following equations: $$\begin{aligned}
a^2 = P+64 \label{eqn:case1}\\
a^2 = 1+64P \label{eqn:case2}\\
a^2 = P+64\varepsilon \label{eqn:case3}\\
a^2 = \varepsilon +64P \label{eqn:case4}\end{aligned}$$ where $P$ is an odd prime power, i.e. an element of ${{\mathcal{O}}}_K$ with precisely one prime factor. We immediately see that (\[eqn:case4\]) has no solution modulo $4$.
(\[eqn:case1\]) factors as $(a-8)(a+8)=P$. Without loss of generality (changing $a$ for $-a$ if necessary) we have $P\mid(a-8)$; writing $a=8+Pt$ leads to $t(16+Pt)=1$, so $t$ is a unit, and $16-t^{-1}=-Pt$. Setting $u=-t^{-1}$ leads to one of the sporadic cases (we have one of the curves $2$-isogenous to $E_{-t^{-1}}$) and its quadratic twists.
(\[eqn:case2\]) factors as $(a-1)(a+1)=64P$. Now $P$ divides one factor, and also one factor is divisible exactly by $2$, the other by $32$. By symmetry this gives two cases to consider: if $a=1+32Pt$ with $t$ odd then $t(1+16Pt)=1$ so $t$ is a unit and $16Pt=t^{-1}-1$ which is impossible. Otherwise $a=1+2Pt$ with $t$ odd, and $t(1+Pt)=16$ so again $t$ is a unit and we have a sporadic case (a twist of $E_{-t}$).
In (\[eqn:case3\]) we divide according to whether the valuation $r$ of $P$ is even or odd. If even then we must have $P=Q^2$ with $Q$ a prime power, since $P=\varepsilon Q^2$ gives a contradiction modulo $4$. Now $(a-Q)(a+Q)=64\varepsilon$; by symmetry $a=Q+32t$ with $t$ odd, so $t(Q+16t)=\varepsilon$, leading to the third sporadic case (a twist of $E_{-\varepsilon t^2}$).
Otherwise in (\[eqn:case3\]) we have $P=u\pi^r$ with $u$ a unit and $r$ odd, leading to the Setzer-Neumann family. Recall that $c_4$ is odd and $2c_6=a(9b-2a^2)$, hence Proposition \[prop:Kraus\] implies that $a \equiv \square \pmod 4$ so $a^2 \equiv 1 \pmod 8$ if $2$ is unramified in $K$ and $a^2 \equiv 1 \pmod 4$ otherwise. In any case, the same criterion implies that the quadratic twist by $u \pi$ has good reduction at $2$.
Over $K=\Q(\sqrt{-7})$ we must also consider the equation $$a^2 = \pm T +UP$$ (up to Galois conjugation and $2$-isogeny) where $T=\alpha^6$ with $\alpha=(1+\sqrt{-7})/2$ and $U=\overline{T}$ so that $TU=64$; here $P$ again denotes a prime power. The minus sign is impossible modulo $\overline{\alpha}^2$, and with the plus sign we can factor as $(a-\alpha^3)(a+\alpha^3)=UP$. Arguing as in earlier cases one finds that this equation has no solutions.
Lastly we consider curves which are supersingular at $\q \mid 2$, which by Theorem \[thm:classification2torsion\] and Corollary \[Cor:ab-q-valuations\] arise from solutions to the following equations: $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{a}^2=P+1 \label{eqn:sscase1}\\
\tilde{a}^2=P+\epsilon \label{eqn:sscase2}
\end{aligned}$$ with $a=2\tilde{a}$.
(\[eqn:sscase1\]) factors as $(\tilde{a}-1)(\tilde{a}+1)$, and one of the factors is a unit. This gives solutions $P=3$ and $P=-1\pm 2i$ over $\Q(i)$ but the associated curves with $(a,b)=(4,1)$ and $(2\pm2i,1)$ have bad reduction at $1+i$ as do all their quadratic twists.
In (\[eqn:sscase2\]) the base curve has $(a,b)=(2\tilde{a},\varepsilon)$ with $(c_4,c_6)=(2^4(4P+\varepsilon),2^6\tilde{a}(-8P+\varepsilon))$. We scale by $\tau=1+i$ (respectively $\sqrt{-2}$) to get $(c_4,c_6)=(\tau^4(4P+i),\tau^6\tilde{a}(8P-i))$ over $\Q(i)$ or $(c_4,c_6)=(\tau^4(4P-1),\tau^6\tilde{a}(-8P-1))$ over $\Q(\sqrt{-2})$ respectively. We must test whether these, or their twists by $s\in\{1,\varepsilon,\pi,\varepsilon\pi\}$ have good reduction at $\tau$. Note that $\vq(c_4)=4$ and $\vq(c_6) \ge 7$, and that we are in the second case of Proposition \[prop:Kraus\], with $a_1=\tau$ (since we are in the supersingular case).
Over $\Q(i)$ the first congruence in Proposition \[prop:Kraus\] reduces to $1+is^2\equiv0\pmod2$ which is impossible.
Over $\Q(\sqrt{-2})$, in the notation of Proposition \[prop:Kraus\] the first condition on $d$ is always satisfied (since $s$ is odd), while the second is that either $(1-s^2)/2$ or $(1-s^2)/2+2\tau$ is a square modulo $4$, depending on whether $\vq(\tilde{a})\ge2$ or $\vq(\tilde{a})=1$. At least one of these is satisfied provided that $s\equiv\pm1\pmod{\tau^3}$, and in either case $d/16\equiv0\pmod4$. But now the final condition implies $s^2\equiv-1\pmod4$, contradiction.
The above classification implies the following crucial fact, used in the main theorem of the paper, and which was an important motivation for this section.
Every isogeny class of elliptic curves defined over $K$ with prime conductor and a $K$-rational $2$-torsion point contains a curve whose discriminant has odd valuation. \[coro:2torsion-odddiscriminant\]
If $E$ is a curve over $K$ of prime conductor $\id{p}$ and a $K$-rational $2$-torsion point, we are in the multiplicative case. By Theorem \[thm:multiplicativecase\] $E$ is either a sporadic curve of conductor norm $17$, $241$ over $\Q(\sqrt{-1})$ or $257$ over $\Q(\sqrt{-3})$ (all of these have a curve with prime discriminant in their isogeny class) or is isogenous to $E_{a,b}$ with $b=16 \varepsilon$ and $a^2=u \pi^r + 64 \varepsilon$ with $r$ odd. Such curves have discriminant $2^8 u\varepsilon^2 \pi^r$, so odd valuation.
The computations done in this section could be generalized to other number fields of class number one, as the number of units modulo squares is always finite. The case of real quadratic fields is of particular interest, requiring almost no modification except to allow for ${{\mathcal{O}}}_K^*/({{\mathcal{O}}}_K^*)^2$ having order $4$. In this case, Proposition \[prop:sporadic-family\] gives a possibly infinite family of elliptic curves with bad reduction only at the primes dividing $u^k+16$, where $u$ is a fundamental unit. For example, over $\Q(\sqrt{5})$, we get curves of prime conductor with norms $1009, 35569, 1659169, \ldots$, but to our knowledge it is not known whether we can get infinitely many curves of prime conductor in this way.
We end this section with an interesting phenomenon concerning curves of prime conductor and rational $2$-torsion.
Let $K$ be an imaginary quadratic field with class number $1$, and $E/K$ be an elliptic curve of prime power conductor with a $K$-rational $2$-torsion point. Then $E$ has rank $0$.
A simple $2$-descent computation shows that this is the case for curves in the Setzer-Neumann family (this phenomenon also occurs for rational elliptic curves, and the proof is the same). The remaining sporadic cases can be handled by looking at tables [@lmfdb] or computing the rank of the curve [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/27/a/1)]{} over the different fields $K$ directly, for example using SageMath [@sage] (using a Pari/GP implementation due to Denis Simon based on the article [@Simon]).
On some irreducible finite flat group schemes over $\operatorname{Spec}({{\mathcal{O}}}_K)$ {#section:evenexponents}
===========================================================================================
Let $E/K$ be a modular elliptic curve of odd prime conductor, whose discriminant is a square. Then by Theorem \[thm:Mazur\] $E[2]$ is a finite flat group scheme over $\operatorname{Spec}({{\mathcal{O}}}_K)$ of type $(2,2)$. It is either reducible or irreducible. In the reducible case, it contains a factor isomorphic to the multiplicative or the additive group ([@Oort-Tate Corollary page 21]), hence the curve has a point of order $2$ as studied in the previous section. The group $\operatorname{Aut}_{G_K}(E[2])$ cannot be isomorphic to the whole of $\operatorname{GL}_2(\F_2)$ as proved in Theorem \[thm:mainthm\], so the only remaining possibility for it is the cyclic group of order $3$. Note that such a group scheme $E[2]$ does not occur over $\operatorname{Spec}(\ZZ)$ as there are no cubic extensions of $\Q$ unramified outside $2$. The same is true for four of the nine imaginary quadratic fields under consideration here.
There are no elliptic curves $E/K$ of odd prime conductor and even discriminant valuation whose residual $2$-adic Galois representation is cyclic of order $3$ for $K=\Q(\sqrt{-d})$, $d=1, 2, 3$ or $7$. \[lemma:cyclic2image\]
By the aforementioned result of Mazur, the extension $L/K$ obtained by adjoining the $2$-torsion points of $E$ is a cyclic cubic extension unramified outside $2$. It is easy to verify (for example using explicit class field theory as implemented in [@PARI2]) that there is no such extension for these particular fields $K$.
For the remaining fields $K=\Q(\sqrt{-d})$ for $d\in\{11,19,43,67,163\}$, there is a unique cyclic cubic extension $L/K$ unramified outside $2$, namely the ring class field associated to the order $\Z[\sqrt{-d}]$ of index $2$, which has class number $3$ (since $2$ is inert). These are the splitting fields of the following polynomials $p(x)$ of discriminant $-4d$:
(i) $p(x) = x^3-x^2+x+1$ over $\Q(\sqrt{-11})$,
(ii) $p(x) = x^3-2x-2$ over $\Q(\sqrt{-19})$,
(iii) $p(x) = x^3-x^2-x+3$ over $\Q(\sqrt{-43})$,
(iv) $p(x) = x^3-x^2-3x+5$ over $\Q(\sqrt{-67})$,
(v) $p(x) = x^3-8x+10$ over $\Q(\sqrt{-163})$.
In particular the splitting field of $E[2]$ must be one of these fields $L$. Moreover, for each of these five values of $d$ there is an elliptic curve $E$ defined over $\Q$ with prime conductor $d$ and discriminant $-d$, namely [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/11/a/3)]{}, [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/19/a/3)]{}, [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/43/a/1)]{}, [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/67/a/1)]{} and [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/163/a/1)]{}. In each case the base-change to $\Q(\sqrt{-d})$ has prime conductor $(\sqrt{-d})$ and square discriminant $-d=\sqrt{-d}^2$, and the $2$-division field is the splitting field of the corresponding cubic $p(x)$.
We can construct further examples over each field as follows. Rubin and Silverberg showed in [@R-S Theorem 1] how to parametrize all elliptic curves with given level $2$ structure: given one curve $E:y^2=x^3+ax+b$, all curves with residual $2$-adic representation isomorphic to that of $E$ are obtained by specializing the family of curves $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:residual2-rep}
y^2&=x^3+A_4(u,v)x+A_6(u,v)\\
\noalign{\text{with}}
A_4(u,v)&=3(3av^2+9buv-a^2u^2),\nonumber\\
A_6(u,v)&=27bv^3-18a^2uv^2-27abu^2v-(2a^3+27b^2)u^3\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ at a pair of elements $(u,v)$ of $K$. Note that scaling $u,v$ by $c\in K^*$ gives the quadratic twist by $c$; hence, up to isomorphism, we may assume that $u,v\in{{\mathcal{O}}}_K$ with square-free gcd. The discriminant of (\[eq:residual2-rep\]) is $2^43^6\Delta(F)F^2$ where $F(u,v)=v^3+avu^2+bu^3$ with discriminant $\Delta(F)=-(4a^3+27b^2)$.
Let $K$ be an imaginary quadratic field of class number $1$ and $E/K$ be a semistable elliptic curve whose residual $2$-adic representation has image cyclic of order $3$. Then $K=\Q(\sqrt{-d})$ for $d=11, 19, 43, 67, 163$ and the valuation of ${{\mathcal{D}}}(E)$ at each prime of bad reduction is exactly $2$. \[thm:absred2\]
The first condition comes from Lemma \[lemma:cyclic2image\]. Secondly, by the proof of Theorem \[thm:mainthm\] the valuation of ${{\mathcal{D}}}(E)$ is a power of $2$. It remains to show that the discriminant cannot be a fourth power: to see this, we use the parametrized families (\[eq:residual2-rep\]), recalling that $2$ is inert in each case.
From (\[eq:residual2-rep\]) for each field, after a little simplification we get $A_4 = -6 P(u,v)$ and $A_6 = 2 Q(u,v)$, with discriminant $1728(8P(u,v)^3 - Q(u,v)^2)$ where
1. $P=2u^2-17uv-v^2$, $Q=586u^3+102u^2v+12uv^2-17v^3$ for $d=11$,
2. $P=2u^2+9uv+3v^2$, $Q=46u^3+54u^2v+36uv^2+27v^3$ for $d=19$,
3. $P=8u^2-35uv+2v^2$, $Q=-2386u^3+420u^2v-48uv^2+35v^3$ for $d=43$,
4. $P=50u^2-53uv+5v^2$, $Q=-4618u^3+1590u^2v-300uv^2+53v^3$ for $d=67$,
5. $P=32u^2+45uv+12v^2$, $Q=838u^3+1080u^2v+576uv^2+135v^3$ for $d=163$.
If $E$ has good reduction at $2$, since ${{\mathcal{D}}}(E)$ is even, it must be divisible by $2^{12}$, so $4 \mid Q(u,v)$. Since $Q(u,v) \equiv v^3
\pmod 2$, $v$ must be even, and the condition $4 \mid Q(u,v)$ implies that $u$ is even as well. After the substitution $(u,v) \to
(u/2,v/2)$, the new $Q(u,v)$ is odd (from the minimality condition) with invariants $c_4=72P(u,v)$ and $c_6=-216Q(u,v)$. Clearly $v_2(c_4)
\ge 3$, but if it equals 3, we cannot get good reduction at 2 by Kraus’s criterion since the conditions $$\begin{aligned}
d= -a_1^6 +3a_1^2c_4 + 2c_6 &\equiv& 0 \pmod{16}\\
4a_1^2 d &\equiv& (a_1^4-c_4)^2 \pmod{256},\end{aligned}$$ are not compatible. The first one implies that $a_1$ is even, hence the left hand side of the second equation is zero, while the right hand side is not. Then $2 \mid P(u,v)$ and $v_2(c_4) \ge 4$. Kraus’s criterion now implies that there exists $a_1$ such that $a_1^2 \equiv c_6/8 = -27Q(u,v) \equiv Q(u,v)\pmod 4$. The discriminant is now $27(8P^3-Q^2)\equiv 5Q^2 \equiv 5a_1^4\pmod8$, which cannot be a fourth power since $5$ is not a fourth power modulo $8$.
A natural question is whether there are infinitely many curves of prime conductor, whose discriminant is a prime square. They are all obtained by evaluating the previous equations at suitable pairs $(u,v)$. The model described above has discriminant $-2^63^6dF(u,v)^2$, where $F(u,v)$ is an explicit cubic form of discriminant $-4d$. The values of $(u,v)$ to get good reduction at $2$, $3$ and $\sqrt{-d}$ are given by congruence conditions, each one giving a potentially infinite family, where one expects the cubic $F(u,v)$ to attain infinitely many prime values.
To end the paper we give an example of an elliptic curve of this type over each field, in addition to the base-change examples given above.
1. $K=\Q(\sqrt{-11})=\Q(\alpha)$ where $\alpha^2-\alpha+3=0$: $$E:\quad y^2+y=x^3+\alpha x^2-x$$ (with LMFDB label[^2] [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.11.1/47.1/a/1)]{}) has prime conductor $\p=(\pi)$ with $\pi=7-2\alpha$ of norm $47$, and discriminant $\pi^2$.
2. $K=\Q(\sqrt{-19})=\Q(\alpha)$ where $\alpha^2-\alpha+5=0$: $$E:\quad y^2+y=x^3+(-\alpha-1)x^2+(2\alpha)x+(-\alpha-1)$$ has prime conductor $\p=(\pi)$ with $\pi=18\alpha-7$ of norm $1543$, and discriminant $\pi^2$.
3. $K=\Q(\sqrt{-43})=\Q(\alpha)$ where $\alpha^2-\alpha+11=0$: $$E:\quad y^2+y=x^3+(\alpha-1)x^2+(-\alpha-2)x+2$$ has prime conductor $\p=(\pi)$ with $\pi=29-2\alpha$ of norm $827$, and discriminant $\pi^2$.
4. $K=\Q(\sqrt{-67})=\Q(\alpha)$ where $\alpha^2-\alpha+17=0$: $$E:\quad y^2+y=x^3+(\alpha+1)x^2+2\alpha x+(\alpha-1)$$ has prime conductor $\p=(\pi)$ with $\pi=6\alpha-65$ of norm $4447$, and discriminant $\pi^2$.
5. $K=\Q(\sqrt{-163})=\Q(\alpha)$ where $\alpha^2-\alpha+41=0$: $$E:\quad y^2+y=x^3+(\alpha+1)x^2+(\alpha-18)x+(-3\alpha-4)$$ has prime conductor $\p=(\pi)$ with $\pi=47+6\alpha$ of norm $3967$, and discriminant $\pi^2$.
[10]{}
Avner Ash and Glenn Stevens. Cohomology of arithmetic groups and congruences between systems of [H]{}ecke eigenvalues. , 365:192–220, 1986.
Tobias Berger and Gergely Harcos. -adic representations associated to modular forms over imaginary quadratic fields. , 23:Art. ID rnm113, 16, 2007.
Frank Calegari and David Geraghty. Modularity lifting beyond the [T]{}aylor-[W]{}iles method. pages 1–137, 07 2017.
Frank Calegari and Akshay Venkatesh. A torsion [J]{}acquet-[L]{}anglands correspondence. , 2012.
J. E. Cremona. Hyperbolic tessellations, modular symbols, and elliptic curves over complex quadratic fields. , 51(3):275–324, 1984.
J. E. Cremona. Abelian varieties with extra twist, cusp forms, and elliptic curves over imaginary quadratic fields. , 45(3):404–416, 1992.
J. E. Cremona. . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, second edition, 1997.
J. E. Cremona and M. P. Lingham. Finding all elliptic curves with good reduction outside a given set of primes. , 16(3):303–312, 2007.
J. E. Cremona and E. Whitley. Periods of cusp forms and elliptic curves over imaginary quadratic fields. , 62(205):407–429, 1994.
Luis Dieulefait, Lucio Guerberoff, and Ariel Pacetti. Proving modularity for a given elliptic curve over an imaginary quadratic field. , 79(270):1145–1170, 2010.
Jean-Marc Fontaine. Il n’y a pas de variété abélienne sur [${\bf Z}$]{}. , 81(3):515–538, 1985.
Michael Harris, David Soudry, and Richard Taylor. -adic representations associated to modular forms over imaginary quadratic fields. [I]{}. [L]{}ifting to [${\rm GSp}_4({\bf Q})$]{}. , 112(2):377–411, 1993.
K. Ireland and M. Rosen. . Number 84 in Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, 1982.
S. Kamienny. Torsion points on elliptic curves and [$q$]{}-coefficients of modular forms. , 109(2):221–229, 1992.
M. A. Kenku and F. Momose. Torsion points on elliptic curves defined over quadratic fields. , 109:125–149, 1988.
A. Koutsianas. Computing all elliptic curves over an arbitrary number field with prescribed primes of bad reduction. , pages 1–15 (electronic), 2017.
Alain Kraus. Quelques remarques à propos des invariants $c_4$, $c_6$ et [$\Delta$]{} d’une courbe elliptique. , 54:75–80, 1989.
Alain Kraus. Courbes elliptiques semi-stables et corps quadratiques. , 60(2):245–253, 1996.
Daniel Sion Kubert. Universal bounds on the torsion of elliptic curves. , 33(2):193–237, 1976.
The [LMFDB Collaboration]{}. The [L]{}-functions and [M]{}odular [F]{}orms [D]{}atabase. <http://www.lmfdb.org>, 2017. .
Barry Mazur. Rational points of abelian varieties with values in towers of number fields. , 18:183–266, 1972.
J.-F. Mestre and J. Oesterl[é]{}. Courbes de [W]{}eil semi-stables de discriminant une puissance [$m$]{}-ième. , 400:173–184, 1989.
Isao Miyawaki. Elliptic curves of prime power conductor with [${\bf Q}$]{}-rational points of finite order. , 10:309–323, 1973.
The PARI Group, Bordeaux. , 2014. available from <http://pari.math.u-bordeaux.fr/>.
Kenneth A. Ribet. Lowering the levels of modular representations without multiplicity one. , (2):15–19, 1991.
K. Rubin and A. Silverberg. Mod [$2$]{} representations of elliptic curves. , 129(1):53–57, 2001.
Peter Scholze. On torsion in the cohomology of locally symmetric varieties. , 182(3):945–1066, 2015.
René-Michel Shumbusho. Elliptic Curves with Prime Conductor and a Conjecture of Cremona , 2004.
Mehmet Haluk [Şengün]{}. On the integral cohomology of [B]{}ianchi groups. , 20(4):487–505, 2011.
Mehmet Haluk [Şengün]{}. Arithmetic aspects of [B]{}ianchi groups. In [*Computations with modular forms*]{}, volume 6 of [*Contrib. Math. Comput. Sci.*]{}, pages 279–315. Springer, Cham, 2014.
Jean-Pierre Serre. Propriétés galoisiennes des points d’ordre fini des courbes elliptiques. , 15(4):259–331, 1972.
Bennett Setzer. Elliptic curves of prime conductor. , 10:367–378, 1975.
Joseph H. Silverman. , volume 151 of [*Graduate Texts in Mathematics*]{}. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1994.
Joseph H. Silverman. , volume 106 of [*Graduate Texts in Mathematics*]{}. Springer, Dordrecht, second edition, 2009.
W.A. Stein et al. . The Sage Development Team, 2017. .
John Tate and Frans Oort. Group schemes of prime order. , 3:1–21, 1970.
Denis Simon. Computing the Rank of Elliptic Curves over Number Fields , 5:7–17, 2002.
Richard Taylor. -adic representations associated to modular forms over imaginary quadratic fields. [II]{}. , 116(1-3):619–643, 1994.
[^1]: This can be avoided over $\Q$, since for every odd prime ideal $(p)$, either $\pm p\equiv1\pmod{4}$, and $\Q(\sqrt{\pm p})$ is unramified at $2$.
[^2]: The other curves here do not yet have LMFDB labels.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.